OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 23, 2014, 10:31:18 PM *
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 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What's up with some in ROCOR over the OCA?  (Read 8971 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« on: April 28, 2009, 07:46:19 AM »

Origin: Metropolitan Jonah issues statement on recent sermon

-- Nebelpfade
(Acting on behalf of Pravoslavbob and Cleveland)


Quote
Quote
Looks like we have an overlap of territory yet the MP recognizes two Metropolitans of the same territory. 


No, just one.  Met. Jonah.

No?  So you are saying that Pat. Kirill does not recognize Met. Hilarion of Eastern America and New York? 

Quote
Quote
Quote
As to the teeth of the OCA autocephaly, it is hard to see any when even Met. Jonah does not expect other jurisdictions to recognize it.   In fact, he is willing to see a NEW organization formed as a solution to unity in America.   

He said, "It is imperative for us to come together. Not for all the other churches, the Antiochians and the Serbians and the Bulgarians and the Romanians and everyone, to join the OCA, but to come together in a new organization of Orthodoxy in North American that brings us all together as one Church, even just pulling together all our existing organizations so that all the bishops sit on one Synod, so that all the Metropolitans get together on a special Synod or something like that."

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:Gc6xcnh8JdUJ:www.dosoca.org/files/Pan-orthodox-talk-4_7_09.pdf+Metropolitan+jonah+dallas+transcript+%22Leave+it+alone%22&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Why isn't Met. Jonah simply demaning everyone else to recognize OCA autocephaly and come under her omopor as the rightful American Church, if that is what they are?


Economia.

The bigger point here is that Met. Jonah, by his statements, is quite open to forming a NEW organization and not demanding OCA autocephaly be recognized.  That is quite an economy from the primate of the OCA yet you assert that economia is untenable concerning ROCOR's non-recognition of autocephaly?  It appears that some have more fervor over Orthodox recognition of OCA autocephaly then Met. Jonah himself.   

Quote
Irish Hermit said: But one thing you can be certain of is that neither Metropolitan Laurus nor Metropolitan Hilarion told Patriarch Alexey that Moscow was guilty of an uncanonical Act when it gave autonomy to the Orthodox Church in America and that the Russian Church Abroad refuses to accept the Act of Autonomy.
 
Have you asked your bishop if he has been to Moscow, participated in the Russian Synod and said this to the Patriarch and the Holy Synod?   Have ANY ROCA bishops said this to Moscow?

Does your parish priest not commemorate the Patriarch as the supreme authority of the Russian Church Abroad?   He commemorates him as  "our Great Lord and Father" five times in the course of the Liturgy?   

So from where does anyone in the Russian Church Abroad derive the authority to challenge the authority of Patriarch and the Holy Synod: "The OCA Tomos of Autonomy is uncanonical.  Your Holiness has made a grave mistake.  We agree with the Church of Constantinople that you acted uncanonically and we, like the mouse that roared, do not recognise your authority in this matter."


The contention does not have to be framed the way you are framing it.  Fr. Alexander Lebedeff, a key negotiator in the MP/ROCOR act of communion, has explained all of this in great detail.  This subject was a major concern within ROCOR as the arrangements began to be iorned out, especially to those priests who left OCA to come over to ROCOR.

The tell tale sign on this matter is if ROCOR recognized OCA autocephaly we would be commemorating Met. Jonah at all services.   We don't.  One could say, "economia" to this but the statements made by Met. Jonah concerning his willingness to form a new organization comprising all of the various ethnic bishops, instead of insisting on OCA autocephaly in America, might factor into this.

« Last Edit: May 01, 2009, 05:35:17 PM by Nebelpfade » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #1 on: April 28, 2009, 09:19:47 AM »

The tell tale sign on this matter is if ROCOR recognized OCA autocephaly we would be commemorating Met. Jonah at all services.   We don't. 

Not an argument.

Some of our priests are still not commemorating the Russian Patriarch liturgically.  This is being tolerated by both Moscow and New York as a transitional thing.  But I hope you won't argue that this non-commemoration is a telltale sign that we have not yet achived full union with Moscow !! ??   Grin
Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #2 on: April 28, 2009, 01:25:09 PM »

The tell tale sign on this matter is if ROCOR recognized OCA autocephaly we would be commemorating Met. Jonah at all services.   We don't. 

Not an argument.

Some of our priests are still not commemorating the Russian Patriarch liturgically.  This is being tolerated by both Moscow and New York as a transitional thing.  But I hope you won't argue that this non-commemoration is a telltale sign that we have not yet achived full union with Moscow !! ??   Grin

It would be good if people stopped trying to use ROCOR to prove anything. ROCOR's structure was always 'irregular', ROCOR itself always admitted that. Both the Metropolia and ROCOR were attempts to deal with an unprecedented situation--there are no canons defining how missionary dioceses and bishops-in-exile are supposed to operate when the main body of the Church is held captive by an anti-religious government which not only persecutes but attempts to infiltrate the Church, corrupt its communications, etc, etc. One can criticize many aspects of how one or the other (or both as well as the MP) responded to the situation, but everyone--including the other autocephalous churches recognized that the actions were being taken in an extraordinary context.

The Communists had some 8 decades to disrupt the life of the Church. Since their fall, it took almost a decade-and-a-half for not only the situation in Russia to normalize but for both sides to get past the anger, suspicion, fear, regret, resentment in order to start to normalize their relationship. And as Father points out, even now so the ROCOR still lost some members who couldn't see past the history and the situation is still not completely normalized.

The ROCOR and the OCA are going to take a similar amount of time to heal all the wounds committed over the 80 years. And the two couldn't even really start until the ROCOR and MP had normalized their relationship. Thankfully, all our bishops seem to be approaching this in a pastoral manner. Hopefully, eventually, the bishops will all sit down and work out how to normalize the canonical relationship of the ROCOR and OCA. But it is a lack of charity to assume that it has to happen NOW NOW NOW. Let the healing of the split between ROCOR and the MP have a chance to fully set in, and then the OCA-ROCOR issue can be addressed--yes, it's uncanonical, but that's why we have shepherds and not judges as bishops.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Punch
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,083



« Reply #3 on: April 28, 2009, 03:57:09 PM »

The tell tale sign on this matter is if ROCOR recognized OCA autocephaly we would be commemorating Met. Jonah at all services.   We don't. 

Not an argument.

Some of our priests are still not commemorating the Russian Patriarch liturgically.  This is being tolerated by both Moscow and New York as a transitional thing.  But I hope you won't argue that this non-commemoration is a telltale sign that we have not yet achived full union with Moscow !! ??   Grin

It would be good if people stopped trying to use ROCOR to prove anything. ROCOR's structure was always 'irregular', ROCOR itself always admitted that. Both the Metropolia and ROCOR were attempts to deal with an unprecedented situation--there are no canons defining how missionary dioceses and bishops-in-exile are supposed to operate when the main body of the Church is held captive by an anti-religious government which not only persecutes but attempts to infiltrate the Church, corrupt its communications, etc, etc. One can criticize many aspects of how one or the other (or both as well as the MP) responded to the situation, but everyone--including the other autocephalous churches recognized that the actions were being taken in an extraordinary context.

The Communists had some 8 decades to disrupt the life of the Church. Since their fall, it took almost a decade-and-a-half for not only the situation in Russia to normalize but for both sides to get past the anger, suspicion, fear, regret, resentment in order to start to normalize their relationship. And as Father points out, even now so the ROCOR still lost some members who couldn't see past the history and the situation is still not completely normalized.

The ROCOR and the OCA are going to take a similar amount of time to heal all the wounds committed over the 80 years. And the two couldn't even really start until the ROCOR and MP had normalized their relationship. Thankfully, all our bishops seem to be approaching this in a pastoral manner. Hopefully, eventually, the bishops will all sit down and work out how to normalize the canonical relationship of the ROCOR and OCA. But it is a lack of charity to assume that it has to happen NOW NOW NOW. Let the healing of the split between ROCOR and the MP have a chance to fully set in, and then the OCA-ROCOR issue can be addressed--yes, it's uncanonical, but that's why we have shepherds and not judges as bishops.

This is probably the most sane post I have read on this topic. 
Logged

Orthodox only because of God and His Russians.
cholmes
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 146



« Reply #4 on: April 28, 2009, 11:25:28 PM »

The tell tale sign on this matter is if ROCOR recognized OCA autocephaly we would be commemorating Met. Jonah at all services.   We don't. 

Not an argument.

Some of our priests are still not commemorating the Russian Patriarch liturgically.  This is being tolerated by both Moscow and New York as a transitional thing.  But I hope you won't argue that this non-commemoration is a telltale sign that we have not yet achived full union with Moscow !! ??   Grin

It would be good if people stopped trying to use ROCOR to prove anything. ROCOR's structure was always 'irregular', ROCOR itself always admitted that. Both the Metropolia and ROCOR were attempts to deal with an unprecedented situation--there are no canons defining how missionary dioceses and bishops-in-exile are supposed to operate when the main body of the Church is held captive by an anti-religious government which not only persecutes but attempts to infiltrate the Church, corrupt its communications, etc, etc. One can criticize many aspects of how one or the other (or both as well as the MP) responded to the situation, but everyone--including the other autocephalous churches recognized that the actions were being taken in an extraordinary context.

The Communists had some 8 decades to disrupt the life of the Church. Since their fall, it took almost a decade-and-a-half for not only the situation in Russia to normalize but for both sides to get past the anger, suspicion, fear, regret, resentment in order to start to normalize their relationship. And as Father points out, even now so the ROCOR still lost some members who couldn't see past the history and the situation is still not completely normalized.

The ROCOR and the OCA are going to take a similar amount of time to heal all the wounds committed over the 80 years. And the two couldn't even really start until the ROCOR and MP had normalized their relationship. Thankfully, all our bishops seem to be approaching this in a pastoral manner. Hopefully, eventually, the bishops will all sit down and work out how to normalize the canonical relationship of the ROCOR and OCA. But it is a lack of charity to assume that it has to happen NOW NOW NOW. Let the healing of the split between ROCOR and the MP have a chance to fully set in, and then the OCA-ROCOR issue can be addressed--yes, it's uncanonical, but that's why we have shepherds and not judges as bishops.

This is probably the most sane post I have read on this topic. 

Agreed in full.
Logged

shep4569
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 58



WWW
« Reply #5 on: April 28, 2009, 11:54:45 PM »


It would be good if people stopped trying to use ROCOR to prove anything. ROCOR's structure was always 'irregular', ROCOR itself always admitted that. Both the Metropolia and ROCOR were attempts to deal with an unprecedented situation--there are no canons defining how missionary dioceses and bishops-in-exile are supposed to operate when the main body of the Church is held captive by an anti-religious government which not only persecutes but attempts to infiltrate the Church, corrupt its communications, etc, etc. One can criticize many aspects of how one or the other (or both as well as the MP) responded to the situation, but everyone--including the other autocephalous churches recognized that the actions were being taken in an extraordinary context.

The Communists had some 8 decades to disrupt the life of the Church. Since their fall, it took almost a decade-and-a-half for not only the situation in Russia to normalize but for both sides to get past the anger, suspicion, fear, regret, resentment in order to start to normalize their relationship. And as Father points out, even now so the ROCOR still lost some members who couldn't see past the history and the situation is still not completely normalized.

The ROCOR and the OCA are going to take a similar amount of time to heal all the wounds committed over the 80 years. And the two couldn't even really start until the ROCOR and MP had normalized their relationship. Thankfully, all our bishops seem to be approaching this in a pastoral manner. Hopefully, eventually, the bishops will all sit down and work out how to normalize the canonical relationship of the ROCOR and OCA. But it is a lack of charity to assume that it has to happen NOW NOW NOW. Let the healing of the split between ROCOR and the MP have a chance to fully set in, and then the OCA-ROCOR issue can be addressed--yes, it's uncanonical, but that's why we have shepherds and not judges as bishops.

Amen.
Logged

In Christ,
Logan

"The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord." - Job 1:21
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #6 on: April 29, 2009, 08:12:24 AM »

The tell tale sign on this matter is if ROCOR recognized OCA autocephaly we would be commemorating Met. Jonah at all services.   We don't. 

Not an argument.

Some of our priests are still not commemorating the Russian Patriarch liturgically.  This is being tolerated by both Moscow and New York as a transitional thing.  But I hope you won't argue that this non-commemoration is a telltale sign that we have not yet achived full union with Moscow !! ??   Grin

I am glad that you brought this up because it actually supports my point.

There was a ukaz issued which spelled out the new order of commemoration which included the MP Patriarch.  There was a also ukaz issued for a five year transitional period not to commemorate the MP for those parishes who would suffer if the commemoration were to be enforced upon them.   

What ukaz has been issued addressing the order of commemoration including Met. Jonah, or even a dispensation period for his non-commemoration?    Grin
« Last Edit: April 29, 2009, 08:19:30 AM by ROCORthodox » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #7 on: April 29, 2009, 11:32:11 AM »


It would be good if people stopped trying to use ROCOR to prove anything. ROCOR's structure was always 'irregular', ROCOR itself always admitted that.

Ukase 362 isued by the Russian Patriarch and the Holy Synod of Russia formed the canonical basis for the formation of these independent "temporary higher Church administrations" -  the Russian Church Abroad, what is now the OCA, and the Russian Vicariate in Paris.

Yes, it was "irregular" but the situation was not unknown in Orthodox history.  There have been examples of other "Churches in Exile."

In the 9th century when the Church of Crete was horribly oppressed, many of its bishops fled Crete (as the Russian bishops fled Russia in the face of atheistic persecution.)  These Cretans went to the Greek mainland.  The Patriarch of Constantinople consecrated bishops for Crete, ones who had no contact with Crete but lived outside Crete and ministered to their flock in exile.

There is another even more prominent example of a Church in Exile with the 7th century Church of Cyprus.  Because of Islamic persecution its hierarchy fled abroad, along with many Cypriots.   They formed the Church of Cyprus in Exile -the Church of Cyprus Outside Cyprus.    The Archbishop of Cyprus even founded a new city for his Church in Exile, Nea Justiniana on the famous Dardanelles (where I lost two great uncles in the war.)

It would have been kind of intriguing if the Russian bishops and exiles had founded a new city in America - New Moscow !!   Smiley
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #8 on: April 29, 2009, 11:32:12 AM »

The tell tale sign on this matter is if ROCOR recognized OCA autocephaly we would be commemorating Met. Jonah at all services.   We don't. 

Not an argument.

Some of our priests are still not commemorating the Russian Patriarch liturgically.  This is being tolerated by both Moscow and New York as a transitional thing.  But I hope you won't argue that this non-commemoration is a telltale sign that we have not yet achived full union with Moscow !! ??   Grin

I am glad that you brought this up because it actually supports my point.

There was a ukaz issued which spelled out the new order of commemoration which included the MP Patriarch.  There was a also ukaz issued for a five year transitional period not to commemorate the MP for those parishes who would suffer if the commemoration were to be enforced upon them.   

What ukaz has been issued addressing the order of commemoration including Met. Jonah, or even a dispensation period for his non-commemoration?    Grin

The last question contains a non sequitur.  It have NEVER been suggested that there will come a time when ROCA in the United States will have to commemorate the Primate of the OCA.

In Australia and New Zealand we commemorate our Patriarch Kirill as "our Great Lord and Father" followed by Metropolitan Hilarion who holds a dual position here as both our Metropolitan in ROCA AND our diocesan bishop for Australia and New Zealand.

We are under no doubt that the Patriarch together with the Russian Synod is our supreme ecclesiastical authority.  We are under obedience to them and we have no right to challenge their synodal decisions. 
Logged
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #9 on: April 29, 2009, 12:10:05 PM »

The tell tale sign on this matter is if ROCOR recognized OCA autocephaly we would be commemorating Met. Jonah at all services.   We don't. 

Not an argument.

Some of our priests are still not commemorating the Russian Patriarch liturgically.  This is being tolerated by both Moscow and New York as a transitional thing.  But I hope you won't argue that this non-commemoration is a telltale sign that we have not yet achived full union with Moscow !! ??   Grin

I am glad that you brought this up because it actually supports my point.

There was a ukaz issued which spelled out the new order of commemoration which included the MP Patriarch.  There was a also ukaz issued for a five year transitional period not to commemorate the MP for those parishes who would suffer if the commemoration were to be enforced upon them.   

What ukaz has been issued addressing the order of commemoration including Met. Jonah, or even a dispensation period for his non-commemoration?    Grin

The last question contains a non sequitur.  It have NEVER been suggested that there will come a time when ROCA in the United States will have to commemorate the Primate of the OCA.

In Australia and New Zealand we commemorate our Patriarch Kirill as "our Great Lord and Father" followed by Metropolitan Hilarion who holds a dual position here as both our Metropolitan in ROCA AND our diocesan bishop for Australia and New Zealand.

We are under no doubt that the Patriarch together with the Russian Synod is our supreme ecclesiastical authority.  We are under obedience to them and we have no right to challenge their synodal decisions. 

I am sure the order of commemoration you use was demanded by a ukaz. 

There is not much more to say on this except for some reason you are not willing to believe what Fr. John Shaw and Fr. Alexander Lebedeff have said concerning the understanding ROCOR has with the MP on this topic.

Recently, this question of ROCOR's recognition of OCA autocephaly was asked on a ROCOR list and various priests responded.  Note this response from a ROCOR priest, commenting on the statement of another ROCOR priest which is exactly in line with what has been stated before by ROCOR officials:


"Fr. David correctly answered the question no, we don't recognize the OCA as the autocephalous Church of America. I would only add that Bishop Jerome not only said as much at the Eastern American Diocesan Assembly, but that he said this to Metropolitan Johna himself. But this does not exclude the possibility for concelebration as Fr Tryphon pointed out. Thus, do we now or can we now serve together with the OCA, and whether we recognize the OCA as the autocephalous Church of America are two separate questions."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orthodox-rocor/message/10042

Sorry, the reality matches up with these statements and those of the ROCOR officials who are saying the same thing!
I underlined the part about Bishop Jerome to show that he has not changed his position.  His statement above has been confirmed by others who attended the same Diocesan Assembly.  By this I don't think Bishop Jerome or any other priest who confirms that this is ROCOR's position is doing this in disobedience to the MP, but rather by exactly the reasons explained so many times before; because this was problem was worked out in advance with the MP!

I might add that in theory I agree with you and others here on this issue but the theory and reality do not line up.

Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #10 on: April 29, 2009, 01:05:07 PM »

[I am sure the order of commemoration you use was demanded by a ukaz. 

There is not much more to say on this except for some reason you are not willing to believe what Fr. John Shaw and Fr. Alexander Lebedeff have said concerning the understanding ROCOR has with the MP on this topic.

Recently, this question of ROCOR's recognition of OCA autocephaly was asked on a ROCOR list and various priests responded.  Note this response from a ROCOR priest, commenting on the statement of another ROCOR priest which is exactly in line with what has been stated before by ROCOR officials:


"Fr. David correctly answered the question no, we don't recognize the OCA as the autocephalous Church of America. I would only add that Bishop Jerome not only said as much at the Eastern American Diocesan Assembly, but that he said this to Metropolitan Johna himself. But this does not exclude the possibility for concelebration as Fr Tryphon pointed out. Thus, do we now or can we now serve together with the OCA, and whether we recognize the OCA as the autocephalous Church of America are two separate questions."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orthodox-rocor/message/10042

Sorry, the reality matches up with these statements and those of the ROCOR officials who are saying the same thing!
I underlined the part about Bishop Jerome to show that he has not changed his position.  His statement above has been confirmed by others who attended the same Diocesan Assembly.  By this I don't think Bishop Jerome or any other priest who confirms that this is ROCOR's position is doing this in disobedience to the MP, but rather by exactly the reasons explained so many times before; because this was problem was worked out in advance with the MP!

I might add that in theory I agree with you and others here on this issue but the theory and reality do not line up.



I refuse to accept such gross disobedience to the Patriarch for whom I have prayed as my "Great Lord and Father" at every Liturgy and Service since May 2007.  If he and the Holy Synod of Russian bishops have declared the OCA autocephalous then no priest or hierarch under canonical obedience to the Patriarch and the Synod may deny it.  Have you asked Metropolitan Hilarion if he denies it?

Appeals to pre-union talks conducted around the negotiating table mean little.  What counts and what obtains canonically are the provisions in the Act of Canonical Communion signed by both Churches.   This subordinated the Russian Church Abroad to the Patriarch and the Russian Synod.
Logged
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,198


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #11 on: April 29, 2009, 06:14:04 PM »

[I am sure the order of commemoration you use was demanded by a ukaz. 

There is not much more to say on this except for some reason you are not willing to believe what Fr. John Shaw and Fr. Alexander Lebedeff have said concerning the understanding ROCOR has with the MP on this topic.

Recently, this question of ROCOR's recognition of OCA autocephaly was asked on a ROCOR list and various priests responded.  Note this response from a ROCOR priest, commenting on the statement of another ROCOR priest which is exactly in line with what has been stated before by ROCOR officials:


"Fr. David correctly answered the question no, we don't recognize the OCA as the autocephalous Church of America. I would only add that Bishop Jerome not only said as much at the Eastern American Diocesan Assembly, but that he said this to Metropolitan Johna himself. But this does not exclude the possibility for concelebration as Fr Tryphon pointed out. Thus, do we now or can we now serve together with the OCA, and whether we recognize the OCA as the autocephalous Church of America are two separate questions."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orthodox-rocor/message/10042

Sorry, the reality matches up with these statements and those of the ROCOR officials who are saying the same thing!
I underlined the part about Bishop Jerome to show that he has not changed his position.  His statement above has been confirmed by others who attended the same Diocesan Assembly.  By this I don't think Bishop Jerome or any other priest who confirms that this is ROCOR's position is doing this in disobedience to the MP, but rather by exactly the reasons explained so many times before; because this was problem was worked out in advance with the MP!

I might add that in theory I agree with you and others here on this issue but the theory and reality do not line up.



I refuse to accept
Good thing you're not a bishop....or God!   angel
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #12 on: April 29, 2009, 09:29:53 PM »

[I am sure the order of commemoration you use was demanded by a ukaz. 

There is not much more to say on this except for some reason you are not willing to believe what Fr. John Shaw and Fr. Alexander Lebedeff have said concerning the understanding ROCOR has with the MP on this topic.

Recently, this question of ROCOR's recognition of OCA autocephaly was asked on a ROCOR list and various priests responded.  Note this response from a ROCOR priest, commenting on the statement of another ROCOR priest which is exactly in line with what has been stated before by ROCOR officials:


"Fr. David correctly answered the question no, we don't recognize the OCA as the autocephalous Church of America. I would only add that Bishop Jerome not only said as much at the Eastern American Diocesan Assembly, but that he said this to Metropolitan Johna himself. But this does not exclude the possibility for concelebration as Fr Tryphon pointed out. Thus, do we now or can we now serve together with the OCA, and whether we recognize the OCA as the autocephalous Church of America are two separate questions."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orthodox-rocor/message/10042

Sorry, the reality matches up with these statements and those of the ROCOR officials who are saying the same thing!
I underlined the part about Bishop Jerome to show that he has not changed his position.  His statement above has been confirmed by others who attended the same Diocesan Assembly.  By this I don't think Bishop Jerome or any other priest who confirms that this is ROCOR's position is doing this in disobedience to the MP, but rather by exactly the reasons explained so many times before; because this was problem was worked out in advance with the MP!

I might add that in theory I agree with you and others here on this issue but the theory and reality do not line up.



I refuse to accept such gross disobedience to the Patriarch for whom I have prayed as my "Great Lord and Father" at every Liturgy and Service since May 2007.  If he and the Holy Synod of Russian bishops have declared the OCA autocephalous then no priest or hierarch under canonical obedience to the Patriarch and the Synod may deny it.  Have you asked Metropolitan Hilarion if he denies it?

Appeals to pre-union talks conducted around the negotiating table mean little.  What counts and what obtains canonically are the provisions in the Act of Canonical Communion signed by both Churches.   This subordinated the Russian Church Abroad to the Patriarch and the Russian Synod.

Why do you assume this is disobedience to the Patriarch if this arrangement was negotiated with the MP before hand?  It seems you should be upset with the MP for agreeing to such terms.

As for Metropolitan Hilarion, how could he recognize OCA autocephaly?  If he did how could he hold the title of Metropolitan of Eastern America and New York when his Grace Jonah holds the title of Metropolitan of All America?! 

Aside from the ROCOR priest's statements I posted ealier I even posted a statement from Met. Jonah himself saying he is willing to form a new organization as opposed to having all jurisdictions in America come under OCA.   If anyone, Met. Jonah should be insisting that all jurisdicitons recognize the Tomos, but we are not seeing this.

Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #13 on: April 29, 2009, 10:46:08 PM »

As for Metropolitan Hilarion, how could he recognize OCA autocephaly?  If he did how could he hold the title of Metropolitan of Eastern America and New York when his Grace Jonah holds the title of Metropolitan of All America?!

Anything is possible for God and America. Wink
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #14 on: April 29, 2009, 10:50:12 PM »

[I am sure the order of commemoration you use was demanded by a ukaz. 

There is not much more to say on this except for some reason you are not willing to believe what Fr. John Shaw and Fr. Alexander Lebedeff have said concerning the understanding ROCOR has with the MP on this topic.

Recently, this question of ROCOR's recognition of OCA autocephaly was asked on a ROCOR list and various priests responded.  Note this response from a ROCOR priest, commenting on the statement of another ROCOR priest which is exactly in line with what has been stated before by ROCOR officials:


"Fr. David correctly answered the question no, we don't recognize the OCA as the autocephalous Church of America. I would only add that Bishop Jerome not only said as much at the Eastern American Diocesan Assembly, but that he said this to Metropolitan Johna himself. But this does not exclude the possibility for concelebration as Fr Tryphon pointed out. Thus, do we now or can we now serve together with the OCA, and whether we recognize the OCA as the autocephalous Church of America are two separate questions."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orthodox-rocor/message/10042

Sorry, the reality matches up with these statements and those of the ROCOR officials who are saying the same thing!
I underlined the part about Bishop Jerome to show that he has not changed his position.  His statement above has been confirmed by others who attended the same Diocesan Assembly.  By this I don't think Bishop Jerome or any other priest who confirms that this is ROCOR's position is doing this in disobedience to the MP, but rather by exactly the reasons explained so many times before; because this was problem was worked out in advance with the MP!

I might add that in theory I agree with you and others here on this issue but the theory and reality do not line up.



I refuse to accept such gross disobedience to the Patriarch for whom I have prayed as my "Great Lord and Father" at every Liturgy and Service since May 2007.  If he and the Holy Synod of Russian bishops have declared the OCA autocephalous then no priest or hierarch under canonical obedience to the Patriarch and the Synod may deny it.  Have you asked Metropolitan Hilarion if he denies it?

Appeals to pre-union talks conducted around the negotiating table mean little.  What counts and what obtains canonically are the provisions in the Act of Canonical Communion signed by both Churches.   This subordinated the Russian Church Abroad to the Patriarch and the Russian Synod.

Why do you assume this is disobedience to the Patriarch if this arrangement was negotiated with the MP before hand?  It seems you should be upset with the MP for agreeing to such terms.

As for Metropolitan Hilarion, how could he recognize OCA autocephaly?  If he did how could he hold the title of Metropolitan of Eastern America and New York when his Grace Jonah holds the title of Metropolitan of All America?! 

Aside from the ROCOR priest's statements I posted ealier I even posted a statement from Met. Jonah himself saying he is willing to form a new organization as opposed to having all jurisdictions in America come under OCA.   If anyone, Met. Jonah should be insisting that all jurisdicitons recognize the Tomos, but we are not seeing this.

We aren't seeing the PoM and the Holy Synod of Russia revoking the Tomos either.  If Met. Jonah (and Pat. Kyrill and their Holy Synods) wisely decide to practice economia, that is their perrogative, right and duty for the good of the Church.

I don't know what negotiated exemption you are claiming was negotiated for ROCOR, as it's not in the Act of Canonical Communion.  ROCOR is bound by all the Holy Synod's decisions, all of them.  And the onus is on ROCOR concerning the status of the OCA, as the controlling statues plainly state that ROCOR needs confirmation of any of its decisions, not that they are valid unless the Patriarch says otherwise.

It is not to Arb. Hilarion to recognize the OCA, as Arb. Hilarion is not autocephalous.  The issue only comes up in the Russian Church when the Patriarch celebrates DL, or, now according to the Patriarch's directive, DL in the patriarchal parishes in North America, which is also the answer to your question about how Arb. Hilarion can be Met. of Eastern America and New York (but not All America, as Met. Jonah is): read the Tomos.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #15 on: April 29, 2009, 10:53:33 PM »

[I am sure the order of commemoration you use was demanded by a ukaz. 

There is not much more to say on this except for some reason you are not willing to believe what Fr. John Shaw and Fr. Alexander Lebedeff have said concerning the understanding ROCOR has with the MP on this topic.

Recently, this question of ROCOR's recognition of OCA autocephaly was asked on a ROCOR list and various priests responded.  Note this response from a ROCOR priest, commenting on the statement of another ROCOR priest which is exactly in line with what has been stated before by ROCOR officials:


"Fr. David correctly answered the question no, we don't recognize the OCA as the autocephalous Church of America. I would only add that Bishop Jerome not only said as much at the Eastern American Diocesan Assembly, but that he said this to Metropolitan Johna himself. But this does not exclude the possibility for concelebration as Fr Tryphon pointed out. Thus, do we now or can we now serve together with the OCA, and whether we recognize the OCA as the autocephalous Church of America are two separate questions."

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orthodox-rocor/message/10042

Sorry, the reality matches up with these statements and those of the ROCOR officials who are saying the same thing!
I underlined the part about Bishop Jerome to show that he has not changed his position.  His statement above has been confirmed by others who attended the same Diocesan Assembly.  By this I don't think Bishop Jerome or any other priest who confirms that this is ROCOR's position is doing this in disobedience to the MP, but rather by exactly the reasons explained so many times before; because this was problem was worked out in advance with the MP!

I might add that in theory I agree with you and others here on this issue but the theory and reality do not line up.



I refuse to accept
Good thing you're not a bishop....or God!   angel

Is this an invitation for the bishops to accept Met. Jonah's call for a Resident Synod, no matter what their Patriarch's back home say?  If ROCOR can refuse to recognize what its Patriarch has recognized, what binds the bishops here to their Patriarchs' rejection of OCA autocephaly?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #16 on: April 29, 2009, 10:56:00 PM »

In the 9th century when the Church of Crete was horribly oppressed, many of its bishops fled Crete (as the Russian bishops fled Russia in the face of atheistic persecution.)  These Cretans went to the Greek mainland.  The Patriarch of Constantinople consecrated bishops for Crete, ones who had no contact with Crete but lived outside Crete and ministered to their flock in exile.

There is another even more prominent example of a Church in Exile with the 7th century Church of Cyprus.  Because of Islamic persecution its hierarchy fled abroad, along with many Cypriots.   They formed the Church of Cyprus in Exile -the Church of Cyprus Outside Cyprus.    The Archbishop of Cyprus even founded a new city for his Church in Exile, Nea Justiniana on the famous Dardanelles (where I lost two great uncles in the war.)

Yes, I was aware of these examples and they are one reason I specified 'missionary dioceses and bishops-in-exile' (as distinguished from Churches in exile) in calling the activity of the 'temporaryHigher Church Administrations' irregular (emphasis added because that adjective highlights the fact that none of the organizations formed under ukase 362 were intended to be permanent, regular, *normal* structures). In the case of Cyprus, the entire Church administration was moved to a new location. St. Tikhon however remained in Russia and continued to function, despite great difficulties, as Patriarch in Moscow and was not a member of any of the 'exile' organizations. Even after his repose and complications of Sergius' actions first as locum tenens to a locum tenens and then as Patriarch, none of the exile organizations could claim, or tried to claim, to hold the primacy of the whole Russian Church.

Crete was even less a propos as it was not, to my knowledge, an autocephalous Church but a part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Thus the actions taken were that of internal administration being taken on behalf of a portion of the local church in trouble although the overall administration of that Church was working fine--it would be equivalent not to ROCOR or the Metropolia, but to a situation where China invaded Siberia and the MP 'reset' the Siberian bishops in Kazakhstan to care for the refugees.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #17 on: April 29, 2009, 11:18:21 PM »


As for Metropolitan Hilarion, how could he recognize OCA autocephaly? 

Have you asked him if he denies the OCA's autocephaly?  You may be surprised by his answer. 

You see, it is not up to me to prove that a Metropolitan under obedience to the Russian Patriarch denies the legitimacy of a canonical act of the Patriarchate.  It is up to you to prove it.   You have not.
Logged
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #18 on: April 30, 2009, 08:46:00 AM »


As for Metropolitan Hilarion, how could he recognize OCA autocephaly? 

Have you asked him if he denies the OCA's autocephaly?  You may be surprised by his answer. 

You see, it is not up to me to prove that a Metropolitan under obedience to the Russian Patriarch denies the legitimacy of a canonical act of the Patriarchate.  It is up to you to prove it.   You have not.

Again, you assume this arrangement was not, in fact, worked out in advance as has been claimed by the ROCOR administrators I listed earlier.  Have you asked Met. Hilarion why he holds title to the same territory as Met. Jonah?

Without saying it, it appears you must believe that the secretary, Fr. Alexander Lebedeff (who was a key negotiator in the Act between ROCOR and the MP) is delusional when he explains that the issue of ROCOR's nonrecognition of OCA autocephaly was worked out in advance. 

It also appears that you must think Bishop Jerome, who recently confirmed the same position at the Eastern Diocese meeting (where Met. Hilarion was present), is also wrong. 

You think these kind of men, with their positions in ROCOR, are going to be so publically in "gross disobedience"?   On top of that, this "disobedeince" would be the cause of so many ROCOR priests passing along their explanation to the laity on this important topic.   Such disobedience going unpunished or unchecked! The more realistic explanation is that these administrators really do know what they are talking about.

The proof you seek is the reality of the situation itself and the testimony of ROCOR administrators mentioned above who actually live in America. 


 

   


 

Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #19 on: April 30, 2009, 10:35:46 AM »


As for Metropolitan Hilarion, how could he recognize OCA autocephaly? 

Have you asked him if he denies the OCA's autocephaly?  You may be surprised by his answer. 

You see, it is not up to me to prove that a Metropolitan under obedience to the Russian Patriarch denies the legitimacy of a canonical act of the Patriarchate.  It is up to you to prove it.   You have not.

Again, you assume this arrangement was not, in fact, worked out in advance as has been claimed by the ROCOR administrators I listed earlier.  Have you asked Met. Hilarion why he holds title to the same territory as Met. Jonah?

Without saying it, it appears you must believe that the secretary, Fr. Alexander Lebedeff (who was a key negotiator in the Act between ROCOR and the MP) is delusional when he explains that the issue of ROCOR's nonrecognition of OCA autocephaly was worked out in advance. 

It also appears that you must think Bishop Jerome, who recently confirmed the same position at the Eastern Diocese meeting (where Met. Hilarion was present), is also wrong. 

You think these kind of men, with their positions in ROCOR, are going to be so publically in "gross disobedience"?   On top of that, this "disobedeince" would be the cause of so many ROCOR priests passing along their explanation to the laity on this important topic.   Such disobedience going unpunished or unchecked! The more realistic explanation is that these administrators really do know what they are talking about.

The proof you seek is the reality of the situation itself and the testimony of ROCOR administrators mentioned above who actually live in America. 

I followed with minute attention, as I am sure all ROCA priests did, every single statement and report which was issued by the negotiating parties, both those released via ROCA and those released via Moscow.   Usually they were identical.

There was no report of any agreement that ROCA may deny the autocephaly of OCA.

You seem to be saying that secret backroom deals were made which were not made public to the clergy and the Church overall?  If that is the case such deals are meaningless.  And appeals to vague and undocument deals as a means to regulate the life of the Russian Church Abroad in its relationship with the OCA are, frankly, irreconciliable with the standards of truth and honesty which must inform the Church if she wishes to retain some integrity among the faithful.  One small proof of this is the misunderstanding between yourself and myself on this matter.   Sad
  


 


[/quote]
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #20 on: April 30, 2009, 01:58:47 PM »


As for Metropolitan Hilarion, how could he recognize OCA autocephaly?

Have you asked him if he denies the OCA's autocephaly?  You may be surprised by his answer. 

You see, it is not up to me to prove that a Metropolitan under obedience to the Russian Patriarch denies the legitimacy of a canonical act of the Patriarchate.  It is up to you to prove it.   You have not.

Again, you assume this arrangement was not, in fact, worked out in advance as has been claimed by the ROCOR administrators I listed earlier.  Have you asked Met. Hilarion why he holds title to the same territory as Met. Jonah?

Without saying it, it appears you must believe that the secretary, Fr. Alexander Lebedeff (who was a key negotiator in the Act between ROCOR and the MP) is delusional when he explains that the issue of ROCOR's nonrecognition of OCA autocephaly was worked out in advance. 

It also appears that you must think Bishop Jerome, who recently confirmed the same position at the Eastern Diocese meeting (where Met. Hilarion was present), is also wrong. 

You think these kind of men, with their positions in ROCOR, are going to be so publically in "gross disobedience"?   On top of that, this "disobedeince" would be the cause of so many ROCOR priests passing along their explanation to the laity on this important topic.


Why does ROCOR care?

Why is this such a burning issue for ROCOR, according to you?

As I posted on the same thread:
ROCOR long used St. Tikhon's famous ukaze as its founding document.  Its final clause
Quote
10) All measures taken in places in accordances with the present instruction, afterwards, in the event of the restoration of the central ecclesiastical authority, must be subject to the confirmation of the latter.
http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/engdocuments/enuk_ukaz362.html

had been activated.  Central ecclesiastical authority has been restored, and said central ecclesiastical authority is bound by its own decions and Tomoi of the its own Holy Synod NOT to confirm ROCOR's measures as regards the OCA.

http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/engdocuments/enmat_akt.html
Quote
Act of Canonical Communion
We, the humble Alexy II, by God's mercy Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, jointly with the Eminent Members of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, having gathered at a meeting of the Holy Synod (date) in the God-preserved city of Moscow; and the humble Laurus, Metropolitan of Eastern America and New York, First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, jointly with the Eminent Bishops, members of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, having gathered (time, place);

Being guided by the effort towards reestablishing blessed peace, Divinely-decreed love, and brotherly unity in the common work in the harvest-fields of God within the Fullness of the Russian Orthodox Church and her faithful in the Fatherland and abroad, taking into consideration the ecclesiastical life of the Russian diaspora outside the canonical borders of the Moscow Patriarchate, as dictated by history;


This is a problem, as it plainly states that ROCOR is outside Moscow and Russia's jurisdiction.  In other words, the Act you should have been signing should have been with the EP, according to your agreement with his interpretation of things.

Either you, or Fr. Ambrose, are representative of ROCOR.  Fr. Ambrose I understand, but I don't understand why you think the OCA and its autocephaly is such an important issue for you, such that you insist that some secret concordant exempts you from the plain language of the Act of Canonical Communion over the issue.

In the interest of full disclosure, I never "got" what ROCOR's beef was over the OCA.


Quote
Such disobedience going unpunished or unchecked! The more realistic explanation is that these administrators really do know what they are talking about.
Quote
The proof you seek is the reality of the situation itself and the testimony of ROCOR administrators mentioned above who actually live in America. 
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,914


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #21 on: April 30, 2009, 02:55:37 PM »

This forum is the first place that I had heard of ROCOR not recognizing the OCA's autocephaly after the reunion with the MP.  It seems a bit odd to me, since they're not in a position to recognize or not recognize (technically, only those who commemorate the diptychs - Patriarchs and Archbishops of Autocephalous Churches) liturgically.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #22 on: April 30, 2009, 04:22:42 PM »

This forum is the first place that I had heard of ROCOR not recognizing the OCA's autocephaly after the reunion with the MP.  It seems a bit odd to me, since they're not in a position to recognize or not recognize (technically, only those who commemorate the diptychs - Patriarchs and Archbishops of Autocephalous Churches) liturgically.

Its seems for some people old habits die hard, which is why I think the PoM, OCA and ROCOR aren't, nor should, push matters.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,914


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #23 on: April 30, 2009, 05:10:21 PM »

I guess I can see why the MP would tell ROCOR they don't have to recognize the OCA's autocephaly: since they're not in a position to officially recognize anyone's autocephaly (since they don't commemorate the diptychs of the Church), then their statements of non-recognition mean little since they are members of a Church (the Patriarchate of Moscow and all Russia) which does indeed recognize said autocephaly.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,517



« Reply #24 on: April 30, 2009, 07:24:16 PM »

I am somewhat surprised that I am in agreement with Cleveland and ialmisry (and Father Ambrose who was saying basically the same thing in another thread) at the same time. Shocked

Senator Dirksen of Illinois used to say that "A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon, you're talking real money". Well, a little agreement here, a little agreement there, pretty soon, you are talking unity." Smiley
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,147


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #25 on: April 30, 2009, 07:36:45 PM »

Well, a little agreement here, a little agreement there, pretty soon, you are talking unity." Smiley

This statement flies in the face of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. For genuine unity to be achieved, in whatever system (yes, even in Orthodox jurisdictional matters!), a considerable amount of energy and conscious effort must be introduced into the system to reduce its disorder/entropy. Mere platitudes are nowhere near enough.  Wink
Logged
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #26 on: May 01, 2009, 09:45:28 AM »

Quote
Either you, or Fr. Ambrose, are representative of ROCOR.  Fr. Ambrose I understand, but I don't understand why you think the OCA and its autocephaly is such an important issue for you, such that you insist that some secret concordant exempts you from the plain language of the Act of Canonical Communion over the issue.

The ROCOR representatives who already explained all of this in detail are representative of ROCOR's position.  There is no secret.    You seem to be ignoring the bits I am posting which shows the ROCOR secretary for the reunification, Fr. Alexander Lebedeff as well as Fr. John Shaw and other ROCOR priests all affirming the same position.  I spared you the many bits with Fr. Ambrose himself arguing with them while they explained all of this to him.   There is much more I could post from these numerous and involved threads over the last year but I doubt any of that will change your mind.   You have your opinion and it conflicts with the position of the ROCOR officials who were involved in negotiating the very Act itself!

As for the "plain language of the Act", simply put, you are not the one who has the authority to interpret it.   Those who DO have such authority already spoke as to what it means for ROCOR.    Why should we believe you over the authorities?

The Act itself is in opposition to the OCA Tomos in what it secures as ROCOR's status.

Here is a section from an official statement from ROCOR hierarchy addressing her clergy and faithful who brought up the same points both you and Fr. Ambrose make together:

" . . . According to the “Act on Canonical Communion,” the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is “self-governing in pastoral, educational, administrative, management, property and civil matters” (par. 2). No decrees of the Synod of Bishops or Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are subject to the review or confirmation of the Holy Synod or Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, except those of a canonical nature.

Consequently, there can be no discussion of the “subjugation” of one side to another, or of the self-dissolution of the Russian Church Abroad. Quite the opposite, the “Act on Canonical Communion” confirms the future canonical status of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia—by recognizing that she “in the historically-developed complement of the dioceses, parishes, monasteries, brotherhoods and other ecclesiastical establishment, continues to be an inseparable, self-governing part of the Local Russian Orthodox Church” as she always deemed herself to be.

The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, in her fullness, thus preserves her existence and self-governing status. She will continue to have her own First Hierarch, her own Council of Bishops, her own Synod of Bishops, her own Regulations, and will govern herself with complete independence.

Howver, her temporary status departs into the past, a status which had been conditioned, as was explicitly stated in the first paragraph of the Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, on the existence in Russia of the godless regime. That paragraph states: “The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is an indissoluble part of the Russian Orthodox Church, and for the time until the extermination in Russia of the godless regime, is self-governing on conciliar principles…”

With the abolishment of the godless regime in Russia, this paragraph loses its force, and cannot remain as the basis for the canonical status of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

Therefore, it was necessary to establish a new, indisputable canonical status recognized by the full complement of Universal Orthodoxy for the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, while preserving its original condition of being an “indissoluble part of the Local Russian Orthodox Church.”

This in fact was achieved in the “Act on Canonical Communion” approved and confirmed at the latest Synod of Bishops.

+ LAURUS,
Metropolitan of Eastern America and New York,
First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

+ Mark, Archbishop of Berlin and Germany

+ Kyrill, Archbishop of San Francisco and Western America

+ Michael, Bishop of Geneva and Western Europe

+ Gabriel, Bishop of Manhattan

+ Peter, Bishop of Cleveland




Quote
In the interest of full disclosure, I never "got" what ROCOR's beef was over the OCA.

I think the start was this:

"ROCOR historian Fr. Alexey Young, in his history of the ROCOR, writes: "In the early 1920s, the American Church came under the jurisdiction of the Administration Abroad, which took an active administrative role in overseeing its American 'branch'—particularly on disciplinary questions such as divorce and the establishment of a new See in Alaska" (Young, p. 33). Young then writes that Platon was appointed by the Church Abroad as the leader in North America, but unbeknownst to his fellows in the Synod, "was at the same time seeking official appointment directly from Patriarch Tikhon himself. When the Patriarch refused to interfere in the decision of the Church Abroad, saying he 'did not wish to go over their heads,' Platon suddenly produced an ukaz, allegedly from Tikhon, appointing him as sole and independent head of the Church in America" (ibid.). Young continues, writing, that at first the ROCOR synod accepted the decree in good faith, but its authenticity was called severely into question when in 1924 "an actual decree from the Patriarch in Moscow deposed Platon 'for having engaged in public acts of counter-revolution directed against the Soviet government'" (ibid.). An American court also ruled subsequently that the ukaz produced by Platon was a forgery. "To deal with this embarrassment, Platon convoked the Detroit Sobor in April of the same year, with the purpose of declaring the Russian Church in America 'temporarily autonomous'—that is, free of both Moscow and Karlovci" (ibid.). This sobor is listed in the archives of the OCA as the "4th All-American Sobor.""

http://orthodoxwiki.org/ROCOR_and_OCA

Then other issues explained here:

http://tinyurl.com/d5k9ea

http://tinyurl.com/d5g6xv

I think it is important to add that I personally have no problem with ROCOR and OCA working out their differences.  I am only posting what ROCOR is telling her clergy and faithful on these matters.




« Last Edit: May 01, 2009, 10:20:01 AM by ROCORthodox » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #27 on: May 01, 2009, 10:53:47 AM »

[" . . . According to the “Act on Canonical Communion,” the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is “self-governing in pastoral, educational, administrative, management, property and civil matters” (par. 2). No decrees of the Synod of Bishops or Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are subject to the review or confirmation of the Holy Synod or Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, except those of a canonical nature.

It is of the utmost importance to make it clear that that your last sentence above is not part of the Act of Canonical Communion.

The text is here - the official site of the Russian Church Abroad

http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/engdocuments/enmat_akt.html

and here - the official site of the Patriarchate

http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/070517113937.htm
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #28 on: May 01, 2009, 11:54:58 AM »

Quote
Either you, or Fr. Ambrose, are representative of ROCOR.  Fr. Ambrose I understand, but I don't understand why you think the OCA and its autocephaly is such an important issue for you, such that you insist that some secret concordant exempts you from the plain language of the Act of Canonical Communion over the issue.

The ROCOR representatives who already explained all of this in detail are representative of ROCOR's position.  There is no secret.    You seem to be ignoring the bits I am posting which shows the ROCOR secretary for the reunification, Fr. Alexander Lebedeff as well as Fr. John Shaw and other ROCOR priests all affirming the same position.  I spared you the many bits with Fr. Ambrose himself arguing with them while they explained all of this to him.   There is much more I could post from these numerous and involved threads over the last year but I doubt any of that will change your mind.   You have your opinion and it conflicts with the position of the ROCOR officials who were involved in negotiating the very Act itself!

As for the "plain language of the Act", simply put, you are not the one who has the authority to interpret it.   Those who DO have such authority already spoke as to what it means for ROCOR.    Why should we believe you over the authorities?


Said highest authorities are the Patriarch of Moscow and his Holy Synod, the central authority mentioned in Tikhon's ukaze.  They DO have the authority.  They must confirm ROCOR's position on the OCA for it to have validity.  They DID NOT.

Can you distinguish between your position and this one?
Quote
Now, what is so important about Ukaz #362? It is the clear, authoritative directive and blueprint for all Russian Church life since communication with the lawful Highest Church Authority and Patriarch ceased to be possible in the 1920's, and it totally overthrows the claims of the Protocols #48 and #49.

Ukaz #362 defines to which bishop the clergy, parishes, faithful, etc. are to be subject to in the given circumstances and there does not exist any of the reasons given by the Patriarch and Council in which the clergyman, parish, or layman may be under a bishop other than Archbishop Gregory. It is needful to note straightway that in Point #7 of Ukaz #362 widowed dioceses are considered still as established dioceses of the Autocephalous Russian Church in spite of their situation (i.e., being widowed or vacant) continuing for a protracted period of time or even almost permanently (cf. Point #5), because ultimately every action taken by them is subject to the review and approval or rejection by a future All-Russian Church Sobor under a lawful Patriarch (cf. Point # 10). And when in 1920, St. Tikhon and the Highest Church Authority of Russia issued Ukaz #362, one of the dioceses to which he was referring in it was beyond dispute that of North America, he himself having but lately been ruling it as its Archbishop. According to the Ukaz, Metropolitan Valentine had the right to assume the administration of the widowed Archdiocese or dioceses of North America (Point #7), to keep intact or to subdivide the widowed diocese(s) and appoint one or more of his vicar-bishops as ruling bishop(s) of one or more of the newly-created dioceses or the whole district, with the full canonical authority and rights of a diocesan bishop(s) (Point #5), and to administer together with him or them the dioceses of the district in accordance with the Canons (Point #6). This he did at first, and he was operating within the authority permitted by the Autocephalous Russian Church in Ukaz #362. He also submitted to Point #7 in acknowledging as subject to Archbishop Gregory's jurisdiction all those parishes and Christians in relation to whom Archbishop Gregory was the nearest diocesan bishop and/or most accessible as regards convenience or relations in their estimation. (Thus, without doubt and beyond all dispute, by virtue of the Ukaz of the Autocephalous Russian Church, Archbishop Gregory has the authority to forbid the Metropolitan of Suzdal and Vladimir from taking or ordaining his clergy and has this full episcopal authority over all those belonging to the Russian Church, whether in Colorado, Eastern or Western America, or even Bulgaria, in relation to whom he is the nearest or most accessible as regards convience or relations.) In fact, making public note of his own limitations, the Metropolitan did not even so much as give an award to any of these clergy or ordain these faithful without Archbishop Gregory's blessing and consent. Again, all was done canonically and in accordance with the established basis for Church Administration in our situation by the Autocephalous Church of Russia and the Holy Canons. However, more recently he has decided to eschew the decrees of the Autocephalous Russian Church made in Ukaz #362 and the Holy Canons and dictate a new ephemeral and unauthorized foundation for Church administration in the ROAC, which he imagines now gives him unlimited jurisdiction in all dioceses, something found only in Papism in the decrees of the 1st and 2nd Vatican Councils, but in no Orthodox authoritative source. Regardless, it is completely unlawful and invalid for the Metropolitan or the Synod of the ROAC to adopt any system of administration contradicting in any point the one decreed by the Autocephalous Church of Russia in 1920 -- Ukaz #362, which declares that the temporary autonomous Synods or individual bishops must govern "in accordance with the Canons". By defying the binding decree of the Autocephalous Russian Church, the Metropolitan is in fact rebelling against his lawful Church Authority, ursurping its rights, and making a schism.
http://www.roacamerica.org/ann-Schism20040808-Refutations.shtml

Quote
The Act itself is in opposition to the OCA Tomos in what it secures as ROCOR's status.

How is the Act itself in opposition to the OCA Tomos?  Please cite.

Quote
Here is a section from an official statement from ROCOR hierarchy addressing her clergy and faithful who brought up the same points both you and Fr. Ambrose make together:

" . . . According to the “Act on Canonical Communion,” the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is “self-governing in pastoral, educational, administrative, management, property and civil matters” (par. 2). No decrees of the Synod of Bishops or Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are subject to the review or confirmation of the Holy Synod or Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, except those of a canonical nature.

Consequently, there can be no discussion of the “subjugation” of one side to another, or of the self-dissolution of the Russian Church Abroad. Quite the opposite, the “Act on Canonical Communion” confirms the future canonical status of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia—by recognizing that she “in the historically-developed complement of the dioceses, parishes, monasteries, brotherhoods and other ecclesiastical establishment, continues to be an inseparable, self-governing part of the Local Russian Orthodox Church” as she always deemed herself to be.


That's nice.  Now explain how their authority trumps the Patriarch and the Holy Synod. In particular, how did the Act void point 10 of ukaze 362?

Quote
The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, in her fullness, thus preserves her existence and self-governing status. She will continue to have her own First Hierarch, her own Council of Bishops, her own Synod of Bishops, her own Regulations, and will govern herself with complete independence.


Interesting.  Now, explain to me, since you have stated that you agree with the EP's canon 28 interpretation, and the act specifically states that you are outside the canonical boundaries of the Russian Orthodox Church, who is going to preserve your "complete independence" from the EP?

What is your aim, to continue your existence outside Russia (any part still inside Russia?)?  A permanent diaspora Synod?  And that's not a tad uncanonical.....?

Quote
Howver, her temporary status departs into the past, a status which had been conditioned, as was explicitly stated in the first paragraph of the Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, on the existence in Russia of the godless regime. That paragraph states: “The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is an indissoluble part of the Russian Orthodox Church, and for the time until the extermination in Russia of the godless regime, is self-governing on conciliar principles…”

With the abolishment of the godless regime in Russia, this paragraph loses its force, and cannot remain as the basis for the canonical status of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

Therefore, it was necessary to establish a new, indisputable canonical status recognized by the full complement of Universal Orthodoxy for the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, while preserving its original condition of being an “indissoluble part of the Local Russian Orthodox Church.”

This in fact was achieved in the “Act on Canonical Communion” approved and confirmed at the latest Synod of Bishops.

+ LAURUS,
Metropolitan of Eastern America and New York,
First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

+ Mark, Archbishop of Berlin and Germany

+ Kyrill, Archbishop of San Francisco and Western America

+ Michael, Bishop of Geneva and Western Europe

+ Gabriel, Bishop of Manhattan

+ Peter, Bishop of Cleveland


Yes, time to move on....


Quote
In the interest of full disclosure, I never "got" what ROCOR's beef was over the OCA.

Quote
I think the start was this:

"ROCOR historian Fr. Alexey Young, in his history of the ROCOR, writes: "In the early 1920s, the American Church came under the jurisdiction of the Administration Abroad, which took an active administrative role in overseeing its American 'branch'—particularly on disciplinary questions such as divorce and the establishment of a new See in Alaska" (Young, p. 33). Young then writes that Platon was appointed by the Church Abroad as the leader in North America, but unbeknownst to his fellows in the Synod, "was at the same time seeking official appointment directly from Patriarch Tikhon himself. When the Patriarch refused to interfere in the decision of the Church Abroad, saying he 'did not wish to go over their heads,' Platon suddenly produced an ukaz, allegedly from Tikhon, appointing him as sole and independent head of the Church in America" (ibid.). Young continues, writing, that at first the ROCOR synod accepted the decree in good faith, but its authenticity was called severely into question when in 1924 "an actual decree from the Patriarch in Moscow deposed Platon 'for having engaged in public acts of counter-revolution directed against the Soviet government'" (ibid.). An American court also ruled subsequently that the ukaz produced by Platon was a forgery. "To deal with this embarrassment, Platon convoked the Detroit Sobor in April of the same year, with the purpose of declaring the Russian Church in America 'temporarily autonomous'—that is, free of both Moscow and Karlovci" (ibid.). This sobor is listed in the archives of the OCA as the "4th All-American Sobor.""

http://orthodoxwiki.org/ROCOR_and_OCA

What was that court case again that ruled it was a forgery?  Kedrovsky v. Rojdesvensky 214 A.D. 483?  Cause that one (at 487) questioned whether St. Tikhon had any authority, and whether the office of Patriarch of Russia existed.

Quote
Then other issues explained here:

http://tinyurl.com/d5k9ea

http://tinyurl.com/d5g6xv

I think it is important to add that I personally have no problem with ROCOR and OCA working out their differences.  I am only posting what ROCOR is telling her clergy and faithful on these matters.

I would wish that they would put it in writing, but I'd rather let sleeping dogs lie.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2009, 11:56:39 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,507


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #29 on: May 01, 2009, 12:52:29 PM »

Just a note from back here on Earth Smiley

There is a much closer relationship now between  Rocor and OCA Parishoners, at least here where I live. I was Baptised in the OCA but left with about dozen others for Rocor during the recent troubles in the OCA. I expect there will also be folks going the other direction.

When Met. Jonah was enthroned, one of the Priests who helped to vest him was Fr. Victor, an important figure within Rocor and the Arch Priest of the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist here in DC. Met. Jonah seems to love the Rocor Cathedral and visits often.

The people will work this out. The leaders will catch up.   
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #30 on: May 01, 2009, 02:23:16 PM »

Just a note from back here on Earth Smiley

There is a much closer relationship now between  Rocor and OCA Parishoners, at least here where I live. I was Baptised in the OCA but left with about dozen others for Rocor during the recent troubles in the OCA. I expect there will also be folks going the other direction.

When Met. Jonah was enthroned, one of the Priests who helped to vest him was Fr. Victor, an important figure within Rocor and the Arch Priest of the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist here in DC. Met. Jonah seems to love the Rocor Cathedral and visits often.

The people will work this out. The leaders will catch up.   

Yes, the fact that Met. Jonah might be a convert and primate of the OCA, but he didn't embrace Orthodoxy in the OCA but in the Patriarchate of Moscow and was a monk in Russia, i.e. he doesn't have the wrong history, helps.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #31 on: May 01, 2009, 02:50:20 PM »

[" . . . According to the “Act on Canonical Communion,” the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is “self-governing in pastoral, educational, administrative, management, property and civil matters” (par. 2). No decrees of the Synod of Bishops or Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are subject to the review or confirmation of the Holy Synod or Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, except those of a canonical nature.

It is of the utmost importance to make it clear that that your last sentence above is not part of the Act of Canonical Communion.

The text is here - the official site of the Russian Church Abroad

http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/engdocuments/enmat_akt.html

and here - the official site of the Patriarchate

http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/070517113937.htm


The part you discuss above is not MY sentence.  It belongs to these hierarchs in their official statement:

+ LAURUS,
Metropolitan of Eastern America and New York,
First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

+ Mark, Archbishop of Berlin and Germany

+ Kyrill, Archbishop of San Francisco and Western America

+ Michael, Bishop of Geneva and Western Europe

+ Gabriel, Bishop of Manhattan

+ Peter, Bishop of Cleveland

 
Irish Hermit, why don't you believe them?
« Last Edit: May 01, 2009, 02:51:20 PM by ROCORthodox » Logged
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #32 on: May 01, 2009, 03:24:34 PM »

Quote
Either you, or Fr. Ambrose, are representative of ROCOR.  Fr. Ambrose I understand, but I don't understand why you think the OCA and its autocephaly is such an important issue for you, such that you insist that some secret concordant exempts you from the plain language of the Act of Canonical Communion over the issue.

The ROCOR representatives who already explained all of this in detail are representative of ROCOR's position.  There is no secret.    You seem to be ignoring the bits I am posting which shows the ROCOR secretary for the reunification, Fr. Alexander Lebedeff as well as Fr. John Shaw and other ROCOR priests all affirming the same position.  I spared you the many bits with Fr. Ambrose himself arguing with them while they explained all of this to him.   There is much more I could post from these numerous and involved threads over the last year but I doubt any of that will change your mind.   You have your opinion and it conflicts with the position of the ROCOR officials who were involved in negotiating the very Act itself!

As for the "plain language of the Act", simply put, you are not the one who has the authority to interpret it.   Those who DO have such authority already spoke as to what it means for ROCOR.    Why should we believe you over the authorities?


Said highest authorities are the Patriarch of Moscow and his Holy Synod, the central authority mentioned in Tikhon's ukaze.  They DO have the authority.  They must confirm ROCOR's position on the OCA for it to have validity.  They DID NOT.

And it is within the power of the highest authority to assemble a team to negotiate with ROCOR a stipulation that she does not have to accept OCA autocephaly so the union could happen.   

This circular argument is because it is your "opinion" that the MP does not support what the ROCOR officials are explaining was worked out with them on this 'deal breaker' issue.   I gave you the statements and links to them.

Before we go any further please answer why should I believe your opinion over the protopriest who was a key negotiator of the very Act you use to make your assertions?

It really comes down to this point.



« Last Edit: May 01, 2009, 03:25:17 PM by ROCORthodox » Logged
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #33 on: May 01, 2009, 03:32:43 PM »

Just a note from back here on Earth Smiley

There is a much closer relationship now between  Rocor and OCA Parishoners, at least here where I live. I was Baptised in the OCA but left with about dozen others for Rocor during the recent troubles in the OCA. I expect there will also be folks going the other direction.

When Met. Jonah was enthroned, one of the Priests who helped to vest him was Fr. Victor, an important figure within Rocor and the Arch Priest of the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist here in DC. Met. Jonah seems to love the Rocor Cathedral and visits often.

The people will work this out. The leaders will catch up.   

Thus ROCOR not accepting OCA autocephaly has presented no obstacles to the building of these closer relationships.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #34 on: May 01, 2009, 04:20:35 PM »

Quote
Either you, or Fr. Ambrose, are representative of ROCOR.  Fr. Ambrose I understand, but I don't understand why you think the OCA and its autocephaly is such an important issue for you, such that you insist that some secret concordant exempts you from the plain language of the Act of Canonical Communion over the issue.

The ROCOR representatives who already explained all of this in detail are representative of ROCOR's position.  There is no secret.    You seem to be ignoring the bits I am posting which shows the ROCOR secretary for the reunification, Fr. Alexander Lebedeff as well as Fr. John Shaw and other ROCOR priests all affirming the same position.  I spared you the many bits with Fr. Ambrose himself arguing with them while they explained all of this to him.   There is much more I could post from these numerous and involved threads over the last year but I doubt any of that will change your mind.   You have your opinion and it conflicts with the position of the ROCOR officials who were involved in negotiating the very Act itself!

As for the "plain language of the Act", simply put, you are not the one who has the authority to interpret it.   Those who DO have such authority already spoke as to what it means for ROCOR.    Why should we believe you over the authorities?


Said highest authorities are the Patriarch of Moscow and his Holy Synod, the central authority mentioned in Tikhon's ukaze.  They DO have the authority.  They must confirm ROCOR's position on the OCA for it to have validity.  They DID NOT.

And it is within the power of the highest authority to assemble a team to negotiate with ROCOR a stipulation that she does not have to accept OCA autocephaly so the union could happen.   

This circular argument is because it is your "opinion" that the MP does not support what the ROCOR officials are explaining was worked out with them on this 'deal breaker' issue.   I gave you the statements and links to them.

Before we go any further please answer why should I believe your opinion over the protopriest who was a key negotiator of the very Act you use to make your assertions?

It really comes down to this point.

The Protopriest doesn't read the diptychs of the autocephalous primates when he serves.  The Patriarch of Moscow in the Russian Church (including ROCOR) alone does.  And he commemorates Met. Jonah.  And he has instructed his non-ROCOR parishes in North America to commemorate Met. Jonah, including those parishes within the territory of New York and the Eastern United States.

When the Protopriest produces some official document, with bishops' names affixed and signed (in which case, they might be joining Bishop Valentine), stating that they reject the Tomos issued by the Patriarch of Moscow and the Holy Synod of the ROC to the OCA, it remains the protopriest's personal opinion, and hence of as much authority as mine.  Because he seems to be basing his authority in the same manner that you accuse Met. Platon of doing.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2009, 04:23:16 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #35 on: May 01, 2009, 04:50:51 PM »


As for Metropolitan Hilarion, how could he recognize OCA autocephaly? 

Have you asked him if he denies the OCA's autocephaly?  You may be surprised by his answer. 

You see, it is not up to me to prove that a Metropolitan under obedience to the Russian Patriarch denies the legitimacy of a canonical act of the Patriarchate.  It is up to you to prove it.   You have not.

Again, you assume this arrangement was not, in fact, worked out in advance as has been claimed by the ROCOR administrators I listed earlier.  Have you asked Met. Hilarion why he holds title to the same territory as Met. Jonah?

Without saying it, it appears you must believe that the secretary, Fr. Alexander Lebedeff (who was a key negotiator in the Act between ROCOR and the MP) is delusional when he explains that the issue of ROCOR's nonrecognition of OCA autocephaly was worked out in advance. 

It also appears that you must think Bishop Jerome, who recently confirmed the same position at the Eastern Diocese meeting (where Met. Hilarion was present), is also wrong. 

You think these kind of men, with their positions in ROCOR, are going to be so publically in "gross disobedience"?   On top of that, this "disobedeince" would be the cause of so many ROCOR priests passing along their explanation to the laity on this important topic.   Such disobedience going unpunished or unchecked! The more realistic explanation is that these administrators really do know what they are talking about.

The proof you seek is the reality of the situation itself and the testimony of ROCOR administrators mentioned above who actually live in America. 

I followed with minute attention, as I am sure all ROCA priests did, every single statement and report which was issued by the negotiating parties, both those released via ROCA and those released via Moscow.   Usually they were identical.

There was no report of any agreement that ROCA may deny the autocephaly of OCA.

You seem to be saying that secret backroom deals were made which were not made public to the clergy and the Church overall?  If that is the case such deals are meaningless.  And appeals to vague and undocument deals as a means to regulate the life of the Russian Church Abroad in its relationship with the OCA are, frankly, irreconciliable with the standards of truth and honesty which must inform the Church if she wishes to retain some integrity among the faithful.  One small proof of this is the misunderstanding between yourself and myself on this matter.   Sad
  

I am not saying secret back room deals were made at all.  I am simply repeating what is being said publically by Bishop Jerome and many other priests including Fr. Alexander Lebedeff on this very point.  Then again you already know this since the explainations Fr. John Shaw, Fr. Alexander Lebedeff and others offered on this point were mostly answering the same disbelief you voiced to them. 

If you don't want to believe them then simply look to the reality playing out.  That the actions of ROCOR functioning in the USA do not recognize an OCA autocephaly. 


 
Logged
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #36 on: May 01, 2009, 05:11:01 PM »

Quote
Either you, or Fr. Ambrose, are representative of ROCOR.  Fr. Ambrose I understand, but I don't understand why you think the OCA and its autocephaly is such an important issue for you, such that you insist that some secret concordant exempts you from the plain language of the Act of Canonical Communion over the issue.

The ROCOR representatives who already explained all of this in detail are representative of ROCOR's position.  There is no secret.    You seem to be ignoring the bits I am posting which shows the ROCOR secretary for the reunification, Fr. Alexander Lebedeff as well as Fr. John Shaw and other ROCOR priests all affirming the same position.  I spared you the many bits with Fr. Ambrose himself arguing with them while they explained all of this to him.   There is much more I could post from these numerous and involved threads over the last year but I doubt any of that will change your mind.   You have your opinion and it conflicts with the position of the ROCOR officials who were involved in negotiating the very Act itself!

As for the "plain language of the Act", simply put, you are not the one who has the authority to interpret it.   Those who DO have such authority already spoke as to what it means for ROCOR.    Why should we believe you over the authorities?


Said highest authorities are the Patriarch of Moscow and his Holy Synod, the central authority mentioned in Tikhon's ukaze.  They DO have the authority.  They must confirm ROCOR's position on the OCA for it to have validity.  They DID NOT.

And it is within the power of the highest authority to assemble a team to negotiate with ROCOR a stipulation that she does not have to accept OCA autocephaly so the union could happen.   

This circular argument is because it is your "opinion" that the MP does not support what the ROCOR officials are explaining was worked out with them on this 'deal breaker' issue.   I gave you the statements and links to them.

Before we go any further please answer why should I believe your opinion over the protopriest who was a key negotiator of the very Act you use to make your assertions?

It really comes down to this point.

The Protopriest doesn't read the diptychs of the autocephalous primates when he serves.  The Patriarch of Moscow in the Russian Church (including ROCOR) alone does.  And he commemorates Met. Jonah.  And he has instructed his non-ROCOR parishes in North America to commemorate Met. Jonah, including those parishes within the territory of New York and the Eastern United States.

When the Protopriest produces some official document, with bishops' names affixed and signed (in which case, they might be joining Bishop Valentine), stating that they reject the Tomos issued by the Patriarch of Moscow and the Holy Synod of the ROC to the OCA, it remains the protopriest's personal opinion, and hence of as much authority as mine.  Because he seems to be basing his authority in the same manner that you accuse Met. Platon of doing.

Well, if you see fit to claim for yourself as much authority on this matter as the protopriest who actually was a key negotiator of the Act, I think I'll choose to believe my own hierarchs and priests who confirm Fr. Alexander's explaination.

Have you written a letter of protest to the MP Patriarch for not speaking out against ROCOR's consistent actions in the USA which are in direct conflict to the OCA Tomos?  What about those bishops and priests who are saying these things you don't agree with?  Don't you think they should be punished for such long-standing and public  disobedience? The MP's silence speaks volumes.

The more believable scenario is that our officials are telling it like it is (which explains why things are the way they are).
« Last Edit: May 01, 2009, 05:16:11 PM by ROCORthodox » Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #37 on: May 01, 2009, 05:11:15 PM »


If you don't want to believe them then simply look to the reality playing out.  That the actions of ROCOR functioning in the USA do not recognize an OCA autocephaly. 


It might help you and the Father to stop talking past each other if you each defined what you mean by recognize.

Part of why Father Ambrose (and others) keep disagreeing with you is because no matter what Fr. Alexander et. al. personally say, the fact remains that they commemorate a bishop (or are a bishop) who commemorates the Patriarch of Moscow as their First Hierarch--and the Patriarch of Moscow does recognize the autocephaly of the OCA--for evidence one need look no further than the pictures posted here of Metropolitan Jonah's visit to Moscow where he has been received as a visiting primate.

On the other hand, if what you mean by 'don't recognize' is primarily what you refer to above--that the ROCOR bishops do not have to operate in America under the strictures of the Patriarchal parishes (they don't commemorate Met. Jonah, they don't consult have to consult with the local OCA bishop before opening a new parish or taking any other administrative action in their own dioceses, etc), then I think you are obviously correct. To me this goes back to what I said about the reunification being handled in a pastoral manner. Rightly or wrongly, several generations of ROCOR leadership were strongly invested in *not* recognizing the legitimacy of the OCA. Simply having them (and the OCA--this actually applies to both sides) return to concelebration is already a huge step, forcing them to actually go under the authority of the OCA would have been too great a burden.

The real test is going to be the first time an OCA priest gets in trouble with his bishop/the synod and tries to pre-empt his suspension and a canonical court by leaping to ROCOR without a canonical release. For decades there was a slow but steady stream of this behavior going in both directions between the jurisdictions (which is, frankly, the proximate answer to ialmisry's original question). Given that a discipline ROCOR priest is a disciplined MP priest now, I'm fairly certain Metropolitan Jonah wouldn't take him without his bishop's permission; assuming both that I am right and that ROCOR reciprocates that position, the wounds stretching back to the Cleveland sobor might finally start to truly heal.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #38 on: May 01, 2009, 07:24:49 PM »


If you don't want to believe them then simply look to the reality playing out.  That the actions of ROCOR functioning in the USA do not recognize an OCA autocephaly. 


It might help you and the Father to stop talking past each other if you each defined what you mean by recognize.

Part of why Father Ambrose (and others) keep disagreeing with you is because no matter what Fr. Alexander et. al. personally say, the fact remains that they commemorate a bishop (or are a bishop) who commemorates the Patriarch of Moscow as their First Hierarch--and the Patriarch of Moscow does recognize the autocephaly of the OCA--for evidence one need look no further than the pictures posted here of Metropolitan Jonah's visit to Moscow where he has been received as a visiting primate.

That the MP receives Met. Jonah as a visiting primate is not in question.   What is interesting, and I think your statement below touches on this, is why the MP would enter into an agreement with ROCOR (who's Synod is based in USA) which states:

3. The supreme ecclesiastical, legislative, administrative, judicial and controlling authority in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is her Council of Bishops, convened by her Primate (First Hierarch), in accordance with the Regulations [ Polozheniye ] of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

4. The First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is elected by her Council of Bishops. This election is confirmed, in accordance with the norms of Canon Law, by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church.


I added point 4 in case somebody wanted to try to assert that, according to the Act, the First Hierarch for ROCOR is the Patriarch of Moscow.   That said, don't you think point 3 infringes upon OCA autocephaly in context to ROCOR operating in the USA?

Quote
On the other hand, if what you mean by 'don't recognize' is primarily what you refer to above--that the ROCOR bishops do not have to operate in America under the strictures of the Patriarchal parishes (they don't commemorate Met. Jonah, they don't consult have to consult with the local OCA bishop before opening a new parish or taking any other administrative action in their own dioceses, etc), then I think you are obviously correct.

Indeed.  If ROCOR did recognize OCA autocephaly all of those points you mention and more, including the language in point 3 (and others) would be a violation.

Quote
To me this goes back to what I said about the reunification being handled in a pastoral manner. Rightly or wrongly, several generations of ROCOR leadership were strongly invested in *not* recognizing the legitimacy of the OCA. Simply having them (and the OCA--this actually applies to both sides) return to concelebration is already a huge step, forcing them to actually go under the authority of the OCA would have been too great a burden.

One of our bishops said that as much care needs to go into reconciling the longstanding differences between OCA and ROCOR as it did with the MP and ROCOR.

Quote
The real test is going to be the first time an OCA priest gets in trouble with his bishop/the synod and tries to pre-empt his suspension and a canonical court by leaping to ROCOR without a canonical release. For decades there was a slow but steady stream of this behavior going in both directions between the jurisdictions (which is, frankly, the proximate answer to ialmisry's original question). Given that a discipline ROCOR priest is a disciplined MP priest now, I'm fairly certain Metropolitan Jonah wouldn't take him without his bishop's permission; assuming both that I am right and that ROCOR reciprocates that position, the wounds stretching back to the Cleveland sobor might finally start to truly heal.

This is exactly what we are told is the proceedure now.  There will be no more accepting suspended priests from either side.  Not only just with the OCA but all canonical jurisdictions.

As I mentioned earlier, even without recognizing OCA autocephaly it seems there are quite good relations with her.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2009, 07:40:05 PM by ROCORthodox » Logged
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #39 on: May 01, 2009, 07:49:36 PM »

It is not to Arb. Hilarion to recognize the OCA, as Arb. Hilarion is not autocephalous.


Please address the ROCOR First Hierarch with his proper TITLE, not one of your imagination.  That's officially Metropolitan Hilarion to you.   
« Last Edit: May 01, 2009, 07:50:20 PM by ROCORthodox » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #40 on: May 01, 2009, 08:49:22 PM »

[" . . . According to the “Act on Canonical Communion,” the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is “self-governing in pastoral, educational, administrative, management, property and civil matters” (par. 2). No decrees of the Synod of Bishops or Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are subject to the review or confirmation of the Holy Synod or Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, except those of a canonical nature.

It is of the utmost importance to make it clear that that your last sentence above is not part of the Act of Canonical Communion.

The text is here - the official site of the Russian Church Abroad

http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/engdocuments/enmat_akt.html

and here - the official site of the Patriarchate

http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/070517113937.htm


The part you discuss above is not MY sentence.  It belongs to these hierarchs in their official statement:

+ LAURUS,
Metropolitan of Eastern America and New York,
First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

+ Mark, Archbishop of Berlin and Germany

+ Kyrill, Archbishop of San Francisco and Western America

+ Michael, Bishop of Geneva and Western Europe

+ Gabriel, Bishop of Manhattan

+ Peter, Bishop of Cleveland

 
Irish Hermit, why don't you believe them?


You don't give the source of the statement?    This lack of references is hurting your claims.

However I direct your attention to the last phrase:

No decrees of the Synod of Bishops or Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are subject to the review or confirmation of the Holy Synod or Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, except those of a canonical nature.

If the autocephaly which Moscow granted to the OCA is not an action of a canonical nature, then what on earth is it?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #41 on: May 01, 2009, 08:49:23 PM »

[And it is within the power of the highest authority to assemble a team to negotiate with ROCOR a stipulation that she does not have to accept OCA autocephaly so the union could happen.   

This is all devolving into rumour and Chinese whispers.

Where is this "stipulation" to be read?   Was it approved by the Patriarch and Russian Synod?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #42 on: May 01, 2009, 08:49:23 PM »

What is interesting, and I think your statement below touches on this, is why the MP would enter into an agreement with ROCOR (who's Synod is based in USA) which states:

3. The supreme ecclesiastical, legislative, administrative, judicial and controlling authority in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is her Council of Bishops, convened by her Primate (First Hierarch), in accordance with the Regulations [ Polozheniye ] of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

4. The First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is elected by her Council of Bishops. This election is confirmed, in accordance with the norms of Canon Law, by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church.


I added point 4 in case somebody wanted to try to assert that, according to the Act, the First Hierarch for ROCOR is the Patriarch of Moscow.   

I think you are chosing not to reveal the fact the the supreme authority of the Russian Church Abroad is....  Moscow.

Let's look at the following statutes of the Act of Canonical Communion.

9. The supreme instances of ecclesiastical authority for the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are the Local Council and the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church.

10. Decisions of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church extend to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia with consideration of the particularities described by the present Act, by the Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and by the legislation of the nations in which she performs her ministry.


The text is here - the official site of the Russian Church Abroad

http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/engdocuments/enmat_akt.html

and here - the official site of the Patriarchate

http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/070517113937.htm

Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #43 on: May 01, 2009, 11:35:49 PM »

That the MP receives Met. Jonah as a visiting primate is not in question.   What is interesting, and I think your statement below touches on this, is why the MP would enter into an agreement with ROCOR (who's Synod is based in USA) which states: [snip]

Indeed.  If ROCOR did recognize OCA autocephaly all of those points you mention and more, including the language in point 3 (and others) would be a violation.

I think this is where you and I differ. I agree that it would be (in fact is) a violation. I just don't think it matters.

Look, the MP clearly recognizes Metropolitan Jonah as the primate of an autocephalous synod and commemorates him as Metropolitan of North America at every liturgy. Just as clearly, the MP has authorized ROCOR to continue to act in ways that violate the OCA's autocephaly. The OCA's Tomos of Autocephaly and the ROCOR's Act of Canonical Communion are in contradiction and *cannot* reconciled. And yet the MP is clearly standing behind both.

But that's what economia is all about. You ask why the MP would enter into an agreement with ROCOR under conditions which create such a violation? Clearly, because the MP recognized ROCOR as a portion of the Russian Church which had been separated not by any matter of faith nor even, fundamentally, by a spirit of schism, but rather by the tribulations caused by the Communists, and in doing so, the MP wished to reunite the severed portions. Read St. Basil's 1st Canonical Epistle--the one from which we get the terminology 'economia'. There, St. Basil is speaking of receiving schismatics and heretics back into the Church and lists several groups that 'strictly speaking' should be received by baptism; but if the exercise of 'economia' brings them back into the Church through Chrismation then that's fine--because unity within the Church is more important. If St. Basil can say that about Baptism and heretics, then how much more so when we're talking about fully Orthodox communities rejoining over administrative canons.

Or to put it another way, the various descendants of the pre-Revolutionary Russian Church had 4 options
1) The MP normalizes relations with ROCOR and cuts the OCA loose--no violations, but replaces one separation with another
2) The MP maintains relations with OCA and ignores ROCOR--separation remains and dangerous for ROCOR's whose justification for existence in ukase 362 was fading.
3) ROCOR normalizes relationship with the MP by integrating with the OCA--given the history of the last 3 decades (which has clergy defrocked in one jurisdiction serving at the altar in the other), not going to happen
4) The MP maintains its relationship with OCA, normalizes relations with ROCOR, ignores the fact that in doing so it is supporting two contradictory documents. Communion and Concelebration are restored. The activities which have been driving the two North American groups farther apart are stopped. And someday down the road all 3 groups can get together and work out the canonical details.

Obviously, they chose #4.

Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #44 on: May 01, 2009, 11:38:37 PM »

The Protopriest doesn't read the diptychs of the autocephalous primates when he serves.  The Patriarch of Moscow in the Russian Church (including ROCOR) alone does.  And he commemorates Met. Jonah.  And he has instructed his non-ROCOR parishes in North America to commemorate Met. Jonah, including those parishes within the territory of New York and the Eastern United States.

When the Protopriest produces some official document, with bishops' names affixed and signed (in which case, they might be joining Bishop Valentine), stating that they reject the Tomos issued by the Patriarch of Moscow and the Holy Synod of the ROC to the OCA, it remains the protopriest's personal opinion, and hence of as much authority as mine.  Because he seems to be basing his authority in the same manner that you accuse Met. Platon of doing.

Well, if you see fit to claim for yourself as much authority on this matter as the protopriest who actually was a key negotiator of the Act, I think I'll choose to believe my own hierarchs and priests who confirm Fr. Alexander's explaination.

He has more knowledge, but unless priests now rank with bishops, no authority.

Quote
Have you written a letter of protest to the MP Patriarch for not speaking out against ROCOR's consistent actions in the USA which are in direct conflict to the OCA Tomos? 
Since I agree with his exercise of economia in this matter, why would I complain?
Quote
What about those bishops and priests who are saying these things you don't agree with?  Don't you think they should be punished for such long-standing and public  disobedience?
I trust Pat. Kyrill's judgement in the matter, as I trusted Pat. Alexei's of blessed memory.
Quote
The MP's silence speaks volumes.

LOL.  It doesn't take volumes: just the sentence of point 10 of ukaze 362.  

You don't need the MP's silence.

You need his confirmation.

Btw, you have never addressed this issue: if you agree with the EP, why are you not under him, but under Moscow?

Quote
The more believable scenario is that our officials are telling it like it is (which explains why things are the way they are).

So tell me, what are they telling the faithful about their primate commemorating Met. Jonah?  That's the way things are.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #45 on: May 01, 2009, 11:43:24 PM »

That the MP receives Met. Jonah as a visiting primate is not in question.   What is interesting, and I think your statement below touches on this, is why the MP would enter into an agreement with ROCOR (who's Synod is based in USA) which states: [snip]

Indeed.  If ROCOR did recognize OCA autocephaly all of those points you mention and more, including the language in point 3 (and others) would be a violation.

I think this is where you and I differ. I agree that it would be (in fact is) a violation. I just don't think it matters.

Look, the MP clearly recognizes Metropolitan Jonah as the primate of an autocephalous synod and commemorates him as Metropolitan of North America at every liturgy. Just as clearly, the MP has authorized ROCOR to continue to act in ways that violate the OCA's autocephaly. The OCA's Tomos of Autocephaly and the ROCOR's Act of Canonical Communion are in contradiction and *cannot* reconciled. And yet the MP is clearly standing behind both.
Since ROCOR is partially grandfathered, the two are totally in contradiction.  But yes, there are sticking points.
Quote
But that's what economia is all about. You ask why the MP would enter into an agreement with ROCOR under conditions which create such a violation? Clearly, because the MP recognized ROCOR as a portion of the Russian Church which had been separated not by any matter of faith nor even, fundamentally, by a spirit of schism, but rather by the tribulations caused by the Communists, and in doing so, the MP wished to reunite the severed portions. Read St. Basil's 1st Canonical Epistle--the one from which we get the terminology 'economia'. There, St. Basil is speaking of receiving schismatics and heretics back into the Church and lists several groups that 'strictly speaking' should be received by baptism; but if the exercise of 'economia' brings them back into the Church through Chrismation then that's fine--because unity within the Church is more important. If St. Basil can say that about Baptism and heretics, then how much more so when we're talking about fully Orthodox communities rejoining over administrative canons.

Or to put it another way, the various descendants of the pre-Revolutionary Russian Church had 4 options
1) The MP normalizes relations with ROCOR and cuts the OCA loose--no violations, but replaces one separation with another
2) The MP maintains relations with OCA and ignores ROCOR--separation remains and dangerous for ROCOR's whose justification for existence in ukase 362 was fading.
3) ROCOR normalizes relationship with the MP by integrating with the OCA--given the history of the last 3 decades (which has clergy defrocked in one jurisdiction serving at the altar in the other), not going to happen
4) The MP maintains its relationship with OCA, normalizes relations with ROCOR, ignores the fact that in doing so it is supporting two contradictory documents. Communion and Concelebration are restored. The activities which have been driving the two North American groups farther apart are stopped. And someday down the road all 3 groups can get together and work out the canonical details.

Obviously, they chose #4.



They chose wisely.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #46 on: May 02, 2009, 03:51:01 AM »

ISTM, and this is my lowly opinion only, that the Church of Russia has both created an autocephalous church in America AND created (or recognized)  a defacto  autonomous church operating here as well.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #47 on: May 02, 2009, 08:02:21 AM »

Look, the MP clearly recognizes Metropolitan Jonah as the primate of an autocephalous synod and commemorates him as Metropolitan of North America at every liturgy. Just as clearly, the MP has authorized ROCOR to continue to act in ways that violate the OCA's autocephaly. The OCA's Tomos of Autocephaly and the ROCOR's Act of Canonical Communion are in contradiction and *cannot* reconciled. And yet the MP is clearly standing behind both.

Witodlice Witega has chosen his or her screen name gleawlice.

Logged
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #48 on: May 02, 2009, 08:06:49 AM »

[" . . . According to the “Act on Canonical Communion,” the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is “self-governing in pastoral, educational, administrative, management, property and civil matters” (par. 2). No decrees of the Synod of Bishops or Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are subject to the review or confirmation of the Holy Synod or Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, except those of a canonical nature.

It is of the utmost importance to make it clear that that your last sentence above is not part of the Act of Canonical Communion.

The text is here - the official site of the Russian Church Abroad

http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/engdocuments/enmat_akt.html

and here - the official site of the Patriarchate

http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/070517113937.htm


The part you discuss above is not MY sentence.  It belongs to these hierarchs in their official statement:

+ LAURUS,
Metropolitan of Eastern America and New York,
First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

+ Mark, Archbishop of Berlin and Germany

+ Kyrill, Archbishop of San Francisco and Western America

+ Michael, Bishop of Geneva and Western Europe

+ Gabriel, Bishop of Manhattan

+ Peter, Bishop of Cleveland

 
Irish Hermit, why don't you believe them?


You don't give the source of the statement?    This lack of references is hurting your claims.

However I direct your attention to the last phrase:

No decrees of the Synod of Bishops or Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are subject to the review or confirmation of the Holy Synod or Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, except those of a canonical nature.

If the autocephaly which Moscow granted to the OCA is not an action of a canonical nature, then what on earth is it?

Here is the link to the statement.  It is from the official ROCOR website and is in response to the long list of clergy who were complaining, among other things, that the Act put ROCOR in submission to the MP.  

http://www.synod.com/synod/eng2006/9enaktexplanantion.html

I'll answer the last question after I read the rest of the postings on the thread.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #49 on: May 02, 2009, 08:34:15 AM »


Here is the link to the statement.  It is from the official ROCOR website and is in response to the long list of clergy who were complaining, among other things, that the Act put ROCOR in submission to the MP.  

If people read the Act of Canonical Communion and see it as an Act of Canonical Submission they may not be entirely wrong.

Here are some key elements in the Act...


1.  We must commemorate the Patriarch of Russia in first place before our Metropolitan at every Liturgy and Church service.

2.  We cannot elect our Metropolitan without approval from Moscow

3.  We cannot elect any of our bishops without approval from Moscow.

4.  We cannot create new dioceses nor remove old dioceses without approval from Moscow

5.  Our supreme ecclesiastical authority is Moscow

6.  We must observe decisions made in Moscow.

7.  Appeals on decisions made by our NY Synod must be heard in Moscow

8.  We must receive our Holy Myrrh from Moscow.

Source  ::  The Act of Canonical Communion May 2007
http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/engdocuments/enmat_akt.html
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/070517113937.htm




Logged
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #50 on: May 02, 2009, 08:52:23 AM »

What is interesting, and I think your statement below touches on this, is why the MP would enter into an agreement with ROCOR (who's Synod is based in USA) which states:

3. The supreme ecclesiastical, legislative, administrative, judicial and controlling authority in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is her Council of Bishops, convened by her Primate (First Hierarch), in accordance with the Regulations [ Polozheniye ] of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

4. The First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is elected by her Council of Bishops. This election is confirmed, in accordance with the norms of Canon Law, by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church.


I added point 4 in case somebody wanted to try to assert that, according to the Act, the First Hierarch for ROCOR is the Patriarch of Moscow.   

I think you are chosing not to reveal the fact the the supreme authority of the Russian Church Abroad is....  Moscow.

Let's look at the following statutes of the Act of Canonical Communion.

9. The supreme instances of ecclesiastical authority for the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are the Local Council and the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church.

10. Decisions of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church extend to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia with consideration of the particularities described by the present Act, by the Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and by the legislation of the nations in which she performs her ministry.


The text is here - the official site of the Russian Church Abroad

http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/engdocuments/enmat_akt.html

and here - the official site of the Patriarchate

http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/070517113937.htm

If people read the Act of Canonical Communion and see it as an Act of Canonical Submission they may not be entirely wrong.


I am not choosing to omit anything.  The bottom line is the Act grants power to ROCOR which is in direct contradiction to OCA autocephaly.   The First Hierarch of ROCOR is Met. Hilarion.   Now re-read #3 of the Act to see why the hierarchs said what they said in the letter you asked me to source.

This is what Met. Laurus (of Blessed Memory); Mark, Archbishop of Berlin and Germany; Kyrill, Archbishop of San Francisco and Western America; Michael, Bishop of Geneva and Western Europe; Gabriel, Bishop of Manhattan; Peter, Bishop of Cleveland said concerning ROCOR's status with the MP:

"The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, in her fullness, thus preserves her existence and self-governing status. She will continue to have her own First Hierarch, her own Council of Bishops, her own Synod of Bishops, her own Regulations, and will govern herself with complete independence.

However, her temporary status departs into the past, a status which had been conditioned, as was explicitly stated in the first paragraph of the Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, on the existence in Russia of the godless regime."

http://www.synod.com/synod/eng2006/9enaktexplanantion.html


Act of Submission? Here we have a long list of ROCOR hierarchs telling you what the Act says.  Why should I believe your personal interpretation of the Act when we have our own hierarchs telling us what it says???

The obvious question now to Fr. Ambrose is  . . .  why are you refusing to believe them when they say ROCOR "will govern herself with complete independence"?






« Last Edit: May 02, 2009, 09:01:08 AM by ROCORthodox » Logged
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #51 on: May 02, 2009, 09:04:35 AM »

Btw, you have never addressed this issue: if you agree with the EP, why are you not under him, but under Moscow?

Please post my exact statement and I'll discuss it with you.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #52 on: May 02, 2009, 09:50:31 AM »

What is interesting, and I think your statement below touches on this, is why the MP would enter into an agreement with ROCOR (who's Synod is based in USA) which states:

3. The supreme ecclesiastical, legislative, administrative, judicial and controlling authority in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is her Council of Bishops, convened by her Primate (First Hierarch), in accordance with the Regulations [ Polozheniye ] of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

4. The First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is elected by her Council of Bishops. This election is confirmed, in accordance with the norms of Canon Law, by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church.


I added point 4 in case somebody wanted to try to assert that, according to the Act, the First Hierarch for ROCOR is the Patriarch of Moscow.   

I think you are chosing not to reveal the fact the the supreme authority of the Russian Church Abroad is....  Moscow.

Let's look at the following statutes of the Act of Canonical Communion.

9. The supreme instances of ecclesiastical authority for the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are the Local Council and the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church.

10. Decisions of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church extend to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia with consideration of the particularities described by the present Act, by the Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and by the legislation of the nations in which she performs her ministry.


The text is here - the official site of the Russian Church Abroad

http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/engdocuments/enmat_akt.html

and here - the official site of the Patriarchate

http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/070517113937.htm

If people read the Act of Canonical Communion and see it as an Act of Canonical Submission they may not be entirely wrong.


I am not choosing to omit anything.  The bottom line is the Act grants power to ROCOR which is in direct contradiction to OCA autocephaly.   The First Hierarch of ROCOR is Met. Hilarion.   Now re-read #3 of the Act to see why the hierarchs said what they said in the letter you asked me to source.

This is what Met. Laurus (of Blessed Memory); Mark, Archbishop of Berlin and Germany; Kyrill, Archbishop of San Francisco and Western America; Michael, Bishop of Geneva and Western Europe; Gabriel, Bishop of Manhattan; Peter, Bishop of Cleveland said concerning ROCOR's status with the MP:

"The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, in her fullness, thus preserves her existence and self-governing status. She will continue to have her own First Hierarch, her own Council of Bishops, her own Synod of Bishops, her own Regulations, and will govern herself with complete independence.

However, her temporary status departs into the past, a status which had been conditioned, as was explicitly stated in the first paragraph of the Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, on the existence in Russia of the godless regime."

http://www.synod.com/synod/eng2006/9enaktexplanantion.html


Act of Submission? Here we have a long list of ROCOR hierarchs telling you what the Act says.  Why should I believe your personal interpretation of the Act when we have our own hierarchs telling us what it says???

The obvious question now to Fr. Ambrose is  . . .  why are you refusing to believe them when they say ROCOR "will govern herself with complete independence"?

Because that would make ROCOR autocephalous.  Now many may dispute the OCA's autocephaly, but it is odd that ROCOR would be autocephalous when she herself doesn't claim to be, and has submitted to the Primate of another (?) Church.

Btw, you have never addressed this issue: if you agree with the EP, why are you not under him, but under Moscow?

Please post my exact statement and I'll discuss it with you.

Quote
I'll just reiterate, for now, that the PoM, ROCOR and OCA are fine for now.  Unlike a certain patriarchate with delusions of grandeur, who refuses to recognize the OCA.  A much bigger problem.

Actually you have this wrong. ROCOR agrees with the EP on the OCA.

And Mount Athos agrees with ROCOR on the New Calendar. But that doesn't change the official stance of the primate of the local Church they belong to, namely the EP.  Similarly with ROCOR: their Primate is the Patriarch of Moscow, and he is bound by the statute of the Russian Orthodox Church to uphold the OCA's autocephaly.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2009, 10:10:00 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #53 on: May 02, 2009, 11:34:31 AM »


Quote
The obvious question now to Fr. Ambrose is  . . .  why are you refusing to believe them when they say ROCOR "will govern herself with complete independence"?

Because that would make ROCOR autocephalous.  Now many may dispute the OCA's autocephaly, but it is odd that ROCOR would be autocephalous when she herself doesn't claim to be, and has submitted to the Primate of another (?) Church.

Call it whatever you want but I have provided an official statement which is endorsed by a long list of ROCOR hierarchs saying that, by the terms of the Act, ROCOR, "will govern herself with complete independence."  Read point #3 of the Act.  It supports this position. 

Again, this all comes down to either believing your "personal opinion" OR the official statement of the list of hierarchs who actually were party to the formation the Act.   Why in the world would I trust your opinion over their official statement and hands on involvement in the matter?


Quote
Btw, you have never addressed this issue: if you agree with the EP, why are you not under him, but under Moscow?

Please post my exact statement and I'll discuss it with you.


Quote
I'll just reiterate, for now, that the PoM, ROCOR and OCA are fine for now.  Unlike a certain patriarchate with delusions of grandeur, who refuses to recognize the OCA.  A much bigger problem.

ROCORthodox: Actually you have this wrong. ROCOR agrees with the EP on the OCA.

So, what's the problem here?  ROCOR does not recognize OCA autocephaly, just like our priests have been confirming.  Why would I need to join the EP because of this?  Like Fr. Alexander Lebedeff said, "Basically, we can do our own thing. Including not recognizing the OCA as the autocephalous Orthodox Church in America."

Quote
And Mount Athos agrees with ROCOR on the New Calendar. But that doesn't change the official stance of the primate of the local Church they belong to, namely the EP.  Similarly with ROCOR: their Primate is the Patriarch of Moscow, and he is bound by the statute of the Russian Orthodox Church to uphold the OCA's autocephaly.

This is a red herring.  ROCOR never asked the MP not to recognize OCA autocephaly.

What should cause you question is the fact is the same MP has entered into an agreement with ROCOR which infringes upon that very OCA autocephaly. You wave this off by saying, "economia".  Fine by me.  Perhaps that might also have been the answer from the MP if any protest ever came from the OCA concerning the language of the Act.
« Last Edit: May 02, 2009, 11:42:22 AM by ROCORthodox » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #54 on: May 02, 2009, 12:39:46 PM »

The obvious question now to Fr. Ambrose is  . . .  why are you refusing to believe them when they say ROCOR "will govern herself with complete independence"?

Because that would make ROCOR autocephalous.  Now many may dispute the OCA's autocephaly, but it is odd that ROCOR would be autocephalous when she herself doesn't claim to be, and has submitted to the Primate of another (?) Church.

Call it whatever you want but I have provided an official statement which is endorsed by a long list of ROCOR hierarchs saying that, by the terms of the Act, ROCOR, "will govern herself with complete independence." 

Have they also promulgated their ecclesiology of a free agent Church?

Quote
Read point #3 of the Act.  It supports this position.

Only if you ignroe #10 of the Act, and point #10 of ukaze 362, upon which your point #3 depends.

Quote
Again, this all comes down to either believing your "personal opinion"


No, it all comes down to knowing the meaning of the word "autocephalous."

Quote
OR the official statement of the list of hierarchs who actually were party to the formation the Act.


Like the Patriarch of Moscow and his Holy Synod?

Quote
Why in the world would I trust your opinion over their official statement and hands on involvement in the matter?

Quote
11. Appeals on decisions of the supreme ecclesiastical court of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are directed to the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.

12. Amendments to the Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia by her supreme legislative authority are subject to the confirmation of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in such case as these changes bear a canonical character


By this Act, canonical communion within the Local Russian Orthodox Church is hereby restored.

Acts issued previously which preclude the fullness of canonical communion are hereby deemed invalid or obsolete.

I'm just following what the Patriarchs of Moscow and the Holy Synod have said.

Btw, you have never addressed this issue: if you agree with the EP, why are you not under him, but under Moscow?

Please post my exact statement and I'll discuss it with you.

I'll just reiterate, for now, that the PoM, ROCOR and OCA are fine for now.  Unlike a certain patriarchate with delusions of grandeur, who refuses to recognize the OCA.  A much bigger problem.

ROCORthodox: Actually you have this wrong. ROCOR agrees with the EP on the OCA.

So, what's the problem here?  ROCOR does not recognize OCA autocephaly,

Only autocephalous Churches have a right to recognize or not other autocephalous Churches. It comes with autocephaly.  Unless you are claiming autocephaly for ROCOR, its like saying that Texas is free to conduct its own foreign policy independent of Washington D.C.


 
Quote
just like our priests have been confirming.

Interesting ecclesiology that you are working out.  Priests deciding autocephaly.

The central authority of ukaze 362 is named in the Act: the Patriarch of Moscow and the Holy Synod of Russia.  Not the priests.

Quote
And Mount Athos agrees with ROCOR on the New Calendar. But that doesn't change the official stance of the primate of the local Church they belong to, namely the EP.  Similarly with ROCOR: their Primate is the Patriarch of Moscow, and he is bound by the statute of the Russian Orthodox Church to uphold the OCA's autocephaly.

Quote
This is a red herring.  ROCOR never asked the MP not to recognize OCA autocephaly.


Then you will be without foundation to complain when the MP issues a directive like that to the Patriarchal parishes regarding the OCA, now, will you?

Quote
What should cause you question is the fact is the same MP has entered into an agreement with ROCOR which infringes upon that very OCA autocephaly.


Don't have to.  Again, according to ukaze 362, and the Act, you must have confirmation from the Patriarch of Moscow.  He doesn't need your confirmation for anything.  And given his recent confirmation of the Tomos of Autcephaly, that's covered by points #8-12.

Quote
You wave this off by saying, "economia".  Fine by me.  Perhaps that might also have been the answer from the MP if any protest ever came from the OCA concerning the language of the Act.

Perhaps the OCA and the MP have their own, secret deal, like the one you are claiming for ROCOR with the MP.

Quote
Why would I need to join the EP because of this?  Like Fr. Alexander Lebedeff said, "Basically, we can do our own thing. Including not recognizing the OCA as the autocephalous Orthodox Church in America."

Which leads to the existential question: what is the ROCOR claiming to be?   By the plain language of the Act, it defines itself as "the Russian diaspora outside the canonical borders of the Moscow Patriarchate."  Being outside the canonical borders of the Moscow Patriarchate (remember, the Tomos of Autocephaly plainly states:
Quote
7. The Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America shall have exclusive spiritual and canonical jurisdiction over all bishops, clerics and laymen of the Eastern Orthodox confession in continental North America, excluding Mexico, and including the State of Hawaii who are presently part of the Metropolitanate, or who shall later enter the Metropolitanate; and over all parishes which now belong or later shall be accepted into the Metropolitanate, excepting the entire clergy, possessions and parishes enumerated in Paragraph 3, points a,b,c.

8. The Moscow Patriarchate shall not lay claim to either spiritual or canonical jurisdiction over bishops, clergy and laymen of the Eastern Orthodox confession, or over parishes mentioned in Division 1, Paragraph 7, and by the present yields to the Metropolitanate, all jurisdiction to which she has laid claim on the above men¬tioned territory (Paragraph 7); excepting the entire clergy, possessions and parishes enumerated in Para¬graph 3, points a,b,c.

which, except for those patriarchal parishes, which do not include you, the OCA's territory is outside of Russia's canonical boundaries) it is a local Church without a locality.  So, the problem you have is that the arguments of your friend the EP, all based on a claim that North America is outside Russia's canonical boudaries, would also include, and condemn, you.  Or you can you make a coherent argument of how the EP's claims invalidate the OCA, but don't invalidate you?

Which leads to the existential question: what does the ROCOR think it is?

It is not a local Church, as it is outside, by its own self-definition, of its home. It's not autocephalous, as it names the primate of a local Church, i.e. Moscow, as its supreme primate. Yet it claims "complete independence." Is there precedence for such a Church?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #55 on: May 02, 2009, 03:19:36 PM »

Quote
Quote
Read point #3 of the Act.  It supports this position.

Only if you ignroe #10 of the Act, and point #10 of ukaze 362, upon which your point #3 depends.

Wrong.  I have posted for you the official position of ROCOR concerning its status as it relates to the Act our church negotiated with the MP.   Obviously your personal opinion of what you think the Act says is in conflict with that of our Bishops and those who negotiated it. 

Does it escape you that ROCOR was part of negotiating point 10 of the Act after our hierarchs made the official statement explaining it?

Quote
Quote
Again, this all comes down to either believing your "personal opinion"


No, it all comes down to knowing the meaning of the word "autocephalous."
[/quote]

Truly, it just comes down to you not accepting the ROCOR hierarch's official explaination of the Act.  While you are doing this, you also take it upon yourself to speak for how the MP views the Act. 

Quote
Quote
OR the official statement of the list of hierarchs who actually were party to the formation the Act.


Like the Patriarch of Moscow and his Holy Synod?

Given the warm relationship ROCOR shares with the MP don't you think there would have been some controversy over such a wide spread, false understanding of the Act, if your personal opinion of it were correct?   The official statement was issued in Sept '06 directly to explain to some clergy and laity who were protesting because they came to the same conclusion as you and Fr. Ambrose did concerning ROCOR's relationship with the MP via the Act (as well as some other questions).   

You demand official statements. I provide them and here you are basically claiming that what our hierarchs explain ROCOR's relationship via the Act is faulty. 

Quote
Why in the world would I trust your opinion over their official statement and hands on involvement in the matter?

Quote
Quote
11. Appeals on decisions of the supreme ecclesiastical court of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are directed to the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.

12. Amendments to the Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia by her supreme legislative authority are subject to the confirmation of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in such case as these changes bear a canonical character


By this Act, canonical communion within the Local Russian Orthodox Church is hereby restored.

Acts issued previously which preclude the fullness of canonical communion are hereby deemed invalid or obsolete.

I'm just following what the Patriarchs of Moscow and the Holy Synod have said.

No you are not.  You are passing off your own personal opinion of what you think the Act says vs. what our hierarchs officially say it says.   The Act which was created by both ROCOR and the MP.   Sorry, the ROCOR heirarch's official statement trumps your personal opinion.


Quote
Quote
So, what's the problem here?  ROCOR does not recognize OCA autocephaly,

Only autocephalous Churches have a right to recognize or not other autocephalous Churches. It comes with autocephaly.  Unless you are claiming autocephaly for ROCOR, its like saying that Texas is free to conduct its own foreign policy independent of Washington D.C.

Here again I trust what our ROCOR officials say on the matter as opposed to your personal opinion.

Quote
Quote
just like our priests have been confirming.

Interesting ecclesiology that you are working out.  Priests deciding autocephaly.

Strike one. This is not only a cheap shot but a complete molestation of what I just wrote.   I never said that priests decide autocephaly.

Quote
The central authority of ukaze 362 is named in the Act: the Patriarch of Moscow and the Holy Synod of Russia.  Not the priests.

Strike two.  I never once said or even implied that the priests are the central authority.

Quote
Quote
And Mount Athos agrees with ROCOR on the New Calendar. But that doesn't change the official stance of the primate of the local Church they belong to, namely the EP.  Similarly with ROCOR: their Primate is the Patriarch of Moscow, and he is bound by the statute of the Russian Orthodox Church to uphold the OCA's autocephaly.

Quote
This is a red herring.  ROCOR never asked the MP not to recognize OCA autocephaly.


Then you will be without foundation to complain when the MP issues a directive like that to the Patriarchal parishes regarding the OCA, now, will you?

Your problem is you don't accept the official statement of our hierarchs who explain that according to the Act ROCOR " . . . will continue to have her own First Hierarch, her own Council of Bishops, her own Synod of Bishops, her own Regulations, and will govern herself with complete independence."

Quote
Quote
What should cause you question is the fact is the same MP has entered into an agreement with ROCOR which infringes upon that very OCA autocephaly.


Don't have to.  Again, according to ukaze 362, and the Act, you must have confirmation from the Patriarch of Moscow.  He doesn't need your confirmation for anything.  And given his recent confirmation of the Tomos of Autcephaly, that's covered by points #8-12.

According to your personal opinion of what you think the Act says.   Again, the official statement of our ROCOR hierarchs concering the Act trumps your person opinion of what you think the Act says!

Quote
Quote
You wave this off by saying, "economia".  Fine by me.  Perhaps that might also have been the answer from the MP if any protest ever came from the OCA concerning the language of the Act.

Perhaps the OCA and the MP have their own, secret deal, like the one you are claiming for ROCOR with the MP.

Strike three.  I never claimed there was a 'secret deal'.  In fact, quite the opposite.

Perhaps, "if" such a deal between the OCA were to exist with the MP it is that which Met. Jonah presented as a solution in Dallas.  Not requiring anyone to come under OCA but rather that a new organization be created.

Quote
Quote
Why would I need to join the EP because of this?  Like Fr. Alexander Lebedeff said, "Basically, we can do our own thing. Including not recognizing the OCA as the autocephalous Orthodox Church in America."

Which leads to the existential question: what is the ROCOR claiming to be? . . . It is not a local Church, as it is outside, by its own self-definition, of its home. 


Moscow. 15th April 2009. Speaking in Moscow today, Patriarch Kirill reaffirmed the rock solid unity of the Church Abroad with the Moscow Patriarchate. In response to a journalist's question, the Patriarch noted that ROCOR was an indivisible part of the Local Russian Church

http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/617560.html
.


"Consequently, there can be no discussion of the “subjugation” of one side to another, or of the self-dissolution of the Russian Church Abroad. Quite the opposite, the “Act on Canonical Communion” confirms the future canonical status of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia—by recognizing that she “in the historically-developed complement of the dioceses, parishes, monasteries, brotherhoods and other ecclesiastical establishment, continues to be an inseparable, self-governing part of the Local Russian Orthodox Church” as she always deemed herself to be."

From the official statement I already provided a link for



Quote
It's not autocephalous, as it names the primate of a local Church, i.e. Moscow, as its supreme primate. Yet it claims "complete independence." Is there precedence for such a Church?

It does not merely claim "complete independance" our hierarchs officially tell us this status has been negotiated via the Act.  Why is this so offensive to you?

The working reality of how ROCOR governs herself according to the Act proves our hierarchs are right in their statement.  The warm relationship ROCOR and the MP has, with full disclosure of the official statement of our heirarchs concerning the Act, shows the MP supports us.    With such a strong official statement concerning the Act and the many statements made by our clergy and bishops in answering the OCA question and our independance, you would think after almost three years there would be at least a peep of disagreement from the MP if they did not agree.   

So I can either believe your personal opinion of what you think the Act says or I can believe the official statement of Met. Laurus (of Blessed Memory); Mark, Archbishop of Berlin and Germany; Kyrill, Archbishop of San Francisco and Western America; Michael, Bishop of Geneva and Western Europe; Gabriel, Bishop of Manhattan; Peter, Bishop of Cleveland.

The floor is yours! Blast off!!
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #56 on: May 02, 2009, 03:40:38 PM »

The floor is yours! Blast off!!

Just a brief note (I'm taking my sons to the park, the weather is finally nice).

The fact that the MP has issued a directive putting off implemeting point #5 indicates that he and the Holy Synod are being VERY indulgent with ROCOR, which, given the situation, is a right and proper exercise of economia.  But the day is envisioned, and will come, when those in ROCOR will have to get over whatever problems they have, and have to hear the Patriarch of Moscow commemorated by every ROCOR DL.

Of course then, that still doesn't answer the question as to what kind of Church it is, a local Church outside its locality.  Temporary, perhaps, but permanently?  That doesn't offend me, it offends the canons and any sense of Orthodox ecclesiology.  How does a Church function canonically outside its canonical borders?

ROCOR and the PoM are not sister Churches: one is the Mother Church.  Mother might be indulgent with you now, and she should be, but that doesn't change that canonical authority flows from her.  You do not have an independent source (such as the OCA, and everyother autocephalous Church, does).

If you think self rule is "complete independence," look at the "Self ruled Antiochian Archdiocese" and learn.  The Constitution of the Patriarchate of Antioch claims jurisdiction over North America: your own Act places you outside of your Church's canonical boundaries.

In the meantime, what do you envision "complete independence" would look like a century from now?  Developing into a commonwealth, an Ecclesiastical Australia or Canada is out, as you are defined by the Act as being outside your jurisdiction.  Do you expect to be a colony forever? 
« Last Edit: May 02, 2009, 03:45:27 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
rwprof
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA now, Antiochian originally
Posts: 294



« Reply #57 on: May 02, 2009, 04:35:16 PM »

May I inject a word, please?

I'm a statistician and an empiricist. I live by "anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron." I would be a very different person -- and a very different presence here -- if I did not, and mistakenly believed, as most do, that my personal experiences can automatically be generalized to the world at large.

My first Orthodox liturgy was at a Greek church here in the US. I didn't understand a word, and apparently neither did nearly anyone there. I went downstairs after the Liturgy, was asked, "Are you Greek?" and when I said no, was resolutely shunned by everyone there. My first experience with the ROCOR, after I was chrismated, was with a mission populated not mainly but solely by nutjobs whose last name was Smith and Jones, who had never even applied for a passport much less been out of the country, who put on phony accents and dressed up in phony peasant garb, SCA geeks who had found another outlet.

Now, if I were one of the majority, who believed that my personal experiences were in any way generalizable, I would be throwing excrement at the GOA and the ROCOR at every opportunity.

Yet, all it takes is a review of the forum here to see that many people have had many widely different experiences with the GOA and ROCOR than mine. As a matter of fact, my stated experience with the ROCOR was only my first; I have had many experiences, all of them excellent, with the ROCOR since.

What I have seen over and over, and what I still see, is people playing "I'm more Orthodox than you are." Sadly, there are several predictable venues for this unproductive and pointless little game, and one of those is ROCOR v. OCA.

Call me cynical, but I think that's what's going on in one current thread, and what pops up from time to time in other threads. Sorry, but I don't play that game. I am not going to get into a discussion about who is more Orthodox, no matter how it is presented. I would encourage everyone to likewise refuse to play.

Christ is risen!

Logged

Mark (rwprof) passed into eternal life on Jan 7, 2010.  May his memory be eternal!
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #58 on: May 02, 2009, 05:29:37 PM »

Quote
Just a brief note (I'm taking my sons to the park, the weather is finally nice).


Good call. Enjoy your family as I have also done today.

Quote
The fact that the MP has issued a directive putting off implemeting point #5 indicates that he and the Holy Synod are being VERY indulgent with ROCOR, which, given the situation, is a right and proper exercise of economia.  But the day is envisioned, and will come, when those in ROCOR will have to get over whatever problems they have, and have to hear the Patriarch of Moscow commemorated by every ROCOR DL.

Glad you brought this up.  Notice how this point is spelled out?  It was important enough to include in the Act.  A ukaz was then issued within ROCOR which gives a dispensation of five years of noncommemoration.   Now notice that not a peep was mentioned about OCA autocephaly.  Contrary to mentioning it, the Act infringes upon it.

Quote
Of course then, that still doesn't answer the question as to what kind of Church it is, a local Church outside its locality.  Temporary, perhaps, but permanently?  That doesn't offend me, it offends the canons and any sense of Orthodox ecclesiology.  How does a Church function canonically outside its canonical borders?
ROCOR and the PoM are not sister Churches: one is the Mother Church.  Mother might be indulgent with you now, and she should be, but that doesn't change that canonical authority flows from her.  You do not have an independent source (such as the OCA, and everyother autocephalous Church, does).
 

This is a false assumption.  ROCOR does not view the MP as 'the Mother Church'.  Officially the position is ROCOR and the MP are considered "two parts of the Russian Church".   This was another serious point that clergy and laity needed clairity on.   I think a good many of your false assumptions are rooted in this 'mother church' misunderstanding.

Now I know you assert that Fr. Alexander Lebedeff, even though he was a negotiator of the Act, has no authority.  I know that you claim for yourself as much authority to speak on the matter as he does, however, here is an explaination that might help you understand the Official Statement I have been posting from:

"The Church Abroad is not seeking to be granted autonomy by the Moscow
Patriarchate.

Unlike the granting of Autocephaly to the Orthodox Church in America,
there is no granting of a "Tomos" that is being proposed here and no
recognition of the Moscow Patriarchate as our Mother Church.


The document establishing communion between the Church Abroad and the
Moscow Patriarchate will be a **Joint** document, signed by the First
Hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and the
Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)--not as subordinate to
superior, but as the heads of two canonical parts of the one
historical Church of Russia, sorrowfully divided by the consequences
of the anti-Russian Revolution.


Yes, the Church Abroad will recognize the Russian Orthodox Church
(Moscow Patriarchate) as being the legitimate canonical authority of
the Church in Russia.

But the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) will recognize
the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, with the totality of
its ecclesiastical structures as the legitimate, canonical
self-governing ecclesiastical authority over all of its institutions,
dioceses, parishes, monasteries, theological schools, missions, etc.,
with its authority not limited to a particular region (such as the
case with the OCA or the Church of Japan)--but all over the world,
with the exclusion, of course, of the interior canonical territory of
the Church of Russia.


The idea that receiving Holy Chrism from the Patriarch indicates
subservience or subjugation is ludicrous. This would mean that during
the decades that the Church Abroad received its Holy Chrism from the
Serbian Patriarch we were subservient and subjugated to them.

The simple fact is that only an autocephalous Church has the right to
make its own Chrism--and the Church Abroad has never presumed to
arrogate to itself the status of an autocephalous Church. Being a
part of (although a self-governing part) of the historical
autocephalous local Church of Russia, it is elementary that we would
receive our Holy Chrism from it."


http://tinyurl.com/crcde9

Quote
If you think self rule is "complete independence," look at the "Self ruled Antiochian Archdiocese" and learn.  The Constitution of the Patriarchate of Antioch claims jurisdiction over North America: your own Act places you outside of your Church's canonical boundaries.

Given your hard core position in defense of the OCA autocephaly I am curious as to what your personal opinion  is as to what constitutes ROCOR's canonical territory?

Quote
In the meantime, what do you envision "complete independence" would look like a century from now?


I don't pretend to have the gift of predicting the future.

 
Quote
Developing into a commonwealth, an Ecclesiastical Australia or Canada is out, as you are defined by the Act as being outside your jurisdiction.  Do you expect to be a colony forever?

Again, you are only putting forth your personal opinion as it pertains to our territory.  Again, you are in conflict with ROCOR's official position on the matter.   Obviously ROCOR does not believe we are outside of our jurisdiction, nor does the MP.

« Last Edit: May 02, 2009, 05:50:17 PM by ROCORthodox » Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #59 on: May 02, 2009, 06:26:56 PM »


I'm a statistician and an empiricist. I live by "anecdotal evidence is an oxymoron." I would be a very different person -- and a very different presence here -- if I did not, and mistakenly believed, as most do, that my personal experiences can automatically be generalized to the world at large.

My first Orthodox liturgy was at a Greek church here in the US. I didn't understand a word, and apparently neither did nearly anyone there. I went downstairs after the Liturgy, was asked, "Are you Greek?" and when I said no, was resolutely shunned by everyone there. My first experience with the ROCOR, after I was chrismated, was with a mission populated not mainly but solely by nutjobs whose last name was Smith and Jones, who had never even applied for a passport much less been out of the country, who put on phony accents and dressed up in phony peasant garb, SCA geeks who had found another outlet.

Now, if I were one of the majority, who believed that my personal experiences were in any way generalizable, I would be throwing excrement at the GOA and the ROCOR at every opportunity.

And you, professor, may call me cynical as well. As I've now read the above story by you twice on the Internet (that would make it two out of two or 100% which would indeed, despite a small sample, qualify as "every opportunity", I wondered how long it would take you to post this GOA hit here.
As I've stated before on forum, I've in the past experienced shoddy treatment in three Slavic jurisdictions, but I would never name them in open forum.  Wink
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #60 on: May 02, 2009, 07:04:49 PM »

The idea that receiving Holy Chrism from the Patriarch indicates
subservience or subjugation is ludicrous. This would mean that during
the decades that the Church Abroad received its Holy Chrism from the
Serbian Patriarch we were subservient and subjugated to them

When did the Russian Church Abroad receive its Chrism from the Serbian Patriarch?   It had enough pre-revolutionary Chrism to get by and when that was running low there was just one occasion when the bishops of ROCA consecrated a new lot of Chrism.  That action cased a lot of soul-searching in ROCA -did it or did it not have the right to consecrate Chrism.

You may be right and ROCA was receiving its Chrism from Serbia but I have never known that.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #61 on: May 02, 2009, 08:38:21 PM »

My first experience with the ROCOR, after I was chrismated, was with a mission populated not mainly but solely by nutjobs whose last name was Smith and Jones, who had never even applied for a passport much less been out of the country, who put on phony accents and dressed up in phony peasant garb, SCA geeks who had found another outlet.

What's SCA?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #62 on: May 02, 2009, 11:03:17 PM »

Just a brief note (I'm taking my sons to the park, the weather is finally nice).


Good call. Enjoy your family as I have also done today.

I hope it was pleasant. It was the first decent day in Chicago for a while.

The fact that the MP has issued a directive putting off implemeting point #5 indicates that he and the Holy Synod are being VERY indulgent with ROCOR, which, given the situation, is a right and proper exercise of economia.  But the day is envisioned, and will come, when those in ROCOR will have to get over whatever problems they have, and have to hear the Patriarch of Moscow commemorated by every ROCOR DL.

Glad you brought this up.  Notice how this point is spelled out?  It was important enough to include in the Act.  A ukaz was then issued within ROCOR which gives a dispensation of five years of noncommemoration.   Now notice that not a peep was mentioned about OCA autocephaly.  Contrary to mentioning it, the Act infringes upon it.

Actually, no.  It doesn't.

Quote
7. The Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America shall have exclusive spiritual and canonical jurisdiction over all bishops, clerics and laymen of the Eastern Orthodox confession in continental North America, excluding Mexico, and including the State of Hawaii who are presently part of the Metropolitanate, or who shall later enter the Metropolitanate; and over all parishes which now belong or later shall be accepted into the Metropolitanate, excepting the entire clergy, possessions and parishes enumerated in Paragraph 3, points a,b,c.

No, not a peep about the OCA.  But not silence:
Quote
3. In the countries of the diaspora where parallel church structures exist, including the Holy Land, both sides will, with proper pastoral discretion, apply every effort to resolve problems hindering successful cooperation and joint witness
http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/engdocuments/enmat_addendum.html

Since you seem to go with the EP's definition of "diaspora,"  this covers the present modus vivendi between the OCA, PP, and ROCOR here.  The MP is bound by its Tomos to the OCA on this.

As ROCOR was not part of the Metropolitanate, not being part of the Russian Church, it is grandfathered in.

The Tomos has another pertinent part that the Act does not:
Quote
c. maintain direct relations with all other Churches and confessions, Orthodox and non-Orthodox alike;
In other words, ROCOR does not have the authority to deal with other Churches directly, but through the PoM. Who of course, commemorates Met. Jonah.


Of course then, that still doesn't answer the question as to what kind of Church it is, a local Church outside its locality.  Temporary, perhaps, but permanently?  That doesn't offend me, it offends the canons and any sense of Orthodox ecclesiology.  How does a Church function canonically outside its canonical borders?
ROCOR and the PoM are not sister Churches: one is the Mother Church.  Mother might be indulgent with you now, and she should be, but that doesn't change that canonical authority flows from her.  You do not have an independent source (such as the OCA, and everyother autocephalous Church, does).
 

This is a false assumption.  ROCOR does not view the MP as 'the Mother Church'. 

LOL.  Then they are in need of a geography lesson.  All the saints of that shone in the Russian land, by definition, shone within the canonical boundaries of Russia, not outside with you.  That chrism comes from Moscow, the same place where ukaze 362 eminated from.

Quote
Officially the position is ROCOR and the MP are considered "two parts of the Russian Church".   This was another serious point that clergy and laity needed clairity on.   I think a good many of your false assumptions are rooted in this 'mother church' misunderstanding.

Not my misunderstanding.  It was clarified for you, see below.

Quote
Now I know you assert that Fr. Alexander Lebedeff, even though he was a negotiator of the Act, has no authority.  I know that you claim for yourself as much authority to speak on the matter as he does, however, here is an explaination that might help you understand the Official Statement I have been posting from:

"The Church Abroad is not seeking to be granted autonomy by the Moscow
Patriarchate.

Unlike the granting of Autocephaly to the Orthodox Church in America,
there is no granting of a "Tomos" that is being proposed here and no
recognition of the Moscow Patriarchate as our Mother Church.


The document establishing communion between the Church Abroad and the
Moscow Patriarchate will be a **Joint** document, signed by the First
Hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and the
Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate)--not as subordinate to
superior, but as the heads of two canonical parts of the one
historical Church of Russia, sorrowfully divided by the consequences
of the anti-Russian Revolution.


Yes, the Church Abroad will recognize the Russian Orthodox Church
(Moscow Patriarchate) as being the legitimate canonical authority of
the Church in Russia.

But the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) will recognize
the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, with the totality of
its ecclesiastical structures as the legitimate, canonical
self-governing ecclesiastical authority over all of its institutions,
dioceses, parishes, monasteries, theological schools, missions, etc.,
with its authority not limited to a particular region (such as the
case with the OCA or the Church of Japan)--but all over the world,
with the exclusion, of course, of the interior canonical territory of
the Church of Russia.

Is that what this is about?:

Quote
2. Acting in the spirit of ecclesiastical oikonomia , the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia envision a five-year transition period for the full regularization of the status of former parishes of the Russian Church Abroad on the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate, through their entering into the jurisdiction of the local ruling bishops. Before this period elapses, such parishes which are not on the territory of Self-governing Churches have the opportunity to be under the protection of a Vicar to the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, who, with the blessing of the Patriarch, may participate in the work of the Council of Bishops and Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia by invitation of her First Hierarch.
http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/engdocuments/enmat_addendum.html

The OCA, of course, at the very least, even according to the EP, is "Self-governing."

You can spin this any way you like, ukaze 362 clearly states:
Quote
10) All measures taken in places in accordances with the present instruction, afterwards, in the event of the restoration of the central ecclesiastical authority, must be subject to the confirmation of the latter.

And the Act clearly designates the MP as said "central ecclesiastical authority." Your "part" needs confirmation from his "part."  His "part" does not need confirmation from you.  And since you are self defined as outside the canonical territory of the PoM (your emphasis "in Russia"), you are without canonical foundation, if your friend the EP is correct.  Unless you can come up with a canon that gives a Church jurisdiction in territory not hers.

Quote
The idea that receiving Holy Chrism from the Patriarch indicates
subservience or subjugation is ludicrous. This would mean that during
the decades that the Church Abroad received its Holy Chrism from the
Serbian Patriarch we were subservient and subjugated to them.

Your Patriarch and Ruling Holy Synod disagrees:
Quote
d. enjoy all the authority, privileges and rights usually inherent in the term “autocephaly” in the canonical tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church, including the right of preparing and consecrating Holy Chrism.
http://www.oca.org/DOCtomos.asp?SID=12

If Father Ambrose is correct, this seems to have been an issue.  And this was "clarified":
Quote
Regarding some other provisions in the “Act on Canonical Communion,” which, in the opinion of some, “place one Church above another,” in particular, the commemoration of the Primate of the Local Russian Church, the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, the receiving of Holy Chrism from him, and other theses: it is important to remember that these points derive directly from canonical requirements reflected in the decisions of the All-Russian Council of 1917-1918.

In its Decision of December 8, 1917, entitled “On the Rights and Duties of His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia,” paragraph 2(k) states that the Patriarch “has the care for the timely preparation and consecration of Holy Chrism for the use of the Russian Church.”

In paragraph 3 of the same Decision it states: “The name of the Patriarch is commemorated during Divine Services in all churches of the Church of Russia.”

Therefore, the provisions laid out in the “Act on Canonical Communion” are in full agreement with the decisions of the All-Russian Council and with the canonical norms of church administration.
http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/eng2006/9enaktexplanantion.html

Notice all those bishops signatures.  Note too, not a peep about the OCA.

Btw, this has been an issue ever since 1673 (?), when Russia started consecrating her own chrism: Constantinople had arrogated the right to solely herself.  The next to break the monopoly was Romania, and it was denounced by Constantinople.  Next came Antioch, then Serbia, then...  At least in the Russian Tradition (and ROCOR is part of what "historic" Church), chrism is a sign of submission to a primate.

Quote
The simple fact is that only an autocephalous Church has the right to
make its own Chrism--and the Church Abroad has never presumed to
arrogate to itself the status of an autocephalous Church. Being a
part of (although a self-governing part) of the historical
autocephalous local Church of Russia, it is elementary that we would
receive our Holy Chrism from it."[/color]

http://tinyurl.com/crcde9

An elementary fact, eh?  "Historical autocephalous local Church of Russia?"  What about the present day one?  It's not a historical Patriarch (there actually, in the ROCOR view of things it seems, being no such thing, except perhaps Pat.  St. Tikhon) who blesses your chrism.  It's the present one.

All this talk of "historical" Chruch is all too surreal. Reminds me WAY too much of Old Believers having communion that they claimed was saved from the days "before the Antichrist Nikon."

If you think self rule is "complete independence," look at the "Self ruled Antiochian Archdiocese" and learn.  The Constitution of the Patriarchate of Antioch claims jurisdiction over North America: your own Act places you outside of your Church's canonical boundaries.

Given your hard core position in defense of the OCA autocephaly I am curious as to what your personal opinion  is as to what constitutes ROCOR's canonical territory?

LOL.  Strictly speaking, nowhere.

The first problem is that the Act itself defines you outside of Russia's canonical boundaries.  Then there's the problem that Russia has given autocephaly to parts (Poland, Czech and Slovkia, OCA), made others autonomous (Japan) and others self-governing under herself (China, etc.).  What is left that Russia has a legitimate canonical claim to give any territory?


Quote
In the meantime, what do you envision "complete independence" would look like a century from now?


I don't pretend to have the gift of predicting the future.

Developing into a commonwealth, an Ecclesiastical Australia or Canada is out, as you are defined by the Act as being outside your jurisdiction.  Do you expect to be a colony forever?

Again, you are only putting forth your personal opinion as it pertains to our territory.  Again, you are in conflict with ROCOR's official position on the matter.   Obviously ROCOR does not believe we are outside of our jurisdiction, nor does the MP.

The Act clearly states you are outside the MP's canonical boundaries.  If the MP agrees with the EP like you do, that means come June you are on the chopping block.  Not outside your jurisdiction?  What jurisdiction do you have?

Which makes me think of another question: what is your basis for rejecting the autocephaly of the OCA?
« Last Edit: May 02, 2009, 11:18:24 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
rwprof
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA now, Antiochian originally
Posts: 294



« Reply #63 on: May 03, 2009, 06:05:10 AM »

And you, professor, may call me cynical as well. As I've now read the above story by you twice on the Internet (that would make it two out of two or 100% which would indeed, despite a small sample, qualify as "every opportunity", I wondered how long it would take you to post this GOA hit here.
As I've stated before on forum, I've in the past experienced shoddy treatment in three Slavic jurisdictions, but I would never name them in open forum.  Wink

Cynical, no; paranoid, possibly, and certainly innumerate, as I've posted a great many more than two articles (see your "two out of two" statement).


Logged

Mark (rwprof) passed into eternal life on Jan 7, 2010.  May his memory be eternal!
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #64 on: May 03, 2009, 06:33:07 PM »

Dear ialmisry,
I don't have the time to keep going in circles.  I posted for you official statements by ROCOR hierarchs explaining the Act.  I posted for you ROCOR authorities giving you even more explainations to your questions.   This all comes down to you not accepting what is explained. 

As a last word I will say that as you keep bringing up ukaz 362 keep in mind it is the same "central authority" who iorned out the Act, the same "central authority" who has also read the official statements by our hierarchs that you reject, the same "central authority" who just proclaimed the other day that the relationship between ROCOR and the MP is "ROCK SOLID".

I respect that you have the right to voice your personal opinion on what you think the Act says HOWEVER I'll choose to go with the official statements of the ROCOR hierarchs as well as the instructive statements by our ROCOR authorities on the matter (including the explaination of the protopriest who was a part of negotiating the Act!).

p.s. - in your last post you took for yourself one of my answers to a question you asked and made it appear as if I asked the question and you gave my answer!  This is how it should really read:


ialmisry - In the meantime, what do you envision "complete independence" would look like a century from now?

ROCORthodox replied: I don't pretend to have the gift of predicting the future.


« Last Edit: May 03, 2009, 06:46:45 PM by ROCORthodox » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #65 on: May 04, 2009, 06:03:45 AM »

Dear ialmisry,
I don't have the time to keep going in circles.  I posted for you official statements by ROCOR hierarchs explaining the Act. 

Yes, and now so have I.  As I have shown in the previous post, the clarification signed by the ROCOR hierarchs doesn't mention the OCA at all.

Quote
I posted for you ROCOR authorities giving you even more explainations to your questions.   This all comes down to you not accepting what is explained.

It's the no spin zone.

Let's review what brought us down this little jaunt:

From a strait forward reading of the canons (and I personally think the EP supporters - especially GiC - have made a good case on this point) the territory should be the EP's.  The other jurisdictions don't agree so the issue is who's interpretation of the canon.  I am just hoping this upcoming pan-Orthodox Synod does not harm the unity we already have.

Since the Act of Canonical Communion specifically and explicitely says you are outside the canonical territory of Russia, if the EP is right, you are his.  You cannot let the EP take a stab at the OCA without slitting your own throat.

Fr. John Shaw was appointed to head a council to study OCA history as it pertains to ROCOR.  He reminded those debating of this fact last year.  His ordination to Bishop was in that same year.   Just because he attended the OCA enthronment does not mean he has changed his position on OCA autocephaly.  Seeing as he was appointed to head the council to study OCA history as it pertains to ROCOR, it would make sense that Fr. John Shaw provided information to the Synod of Bishops to support the position that he put forward (which I am told is the majority opinion in ROCOR).  Also, Fr. Alexander Lebedeff clearly explained that the OCA autocephaly issue was a point of discussion during the MP negotiations.   He explained that the MP does NOT require ROCOR to recognize OCA autocephaly.   In fact, last year Fr. John Shaw also pointed out that "Many in the Patriarchate would, in fact, like to revoke the 1970 Tomos: but if they did that, the current troubles of the OCA would then become an issue for the Patriarchate. What it all amounts to is that the OCA remains in much the same position as before the 1970 Tomos, but with a claim to autocephaly that is not generally recognized." [ EMPHASIS YOURS]

Considering the statement above, any cleaning up of the OCA might very well be a bigger incentive for the MP to revoke the Tomos.  Less mess to take on.  There are many statements that Fr. John Shaw and Fr. Alexander Lebedeff have made last year which explain exactly what ROCOR's position is towards the OCA.   Judging from these statements the MP knows exactly where ROCOR stands.  Clearly ROCOR has the MP's blessing on the matter.

You can read the rest of the statement here http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orthodox-tradition/message/116605

Actually, not being part of the group, I can't.

But this is why I can't take Fathers Shaw and Lebedeff's spin serious, no matter how many times you post it.  The Act of Canonical Communion doesn't name "Many in the Patriarchate" as the central authority of the Russian Church, it names the Patriarch of Moscow and his Holy Synod.

Fathers Shaw and Lebedeff do not have the Patriarch's blessing in this matter, Met. Jonah does, another thing that brought us down this digression:


Considering the statement above, any cleaning up of the OCA might very well be a bigger incentive for the MP to revoke the Tomos.  Less mess to take on. 

It does not seem likely that the Church of Russia has any intention to revoke the Tomos.  In fact it is only a month ago that the Russian Patriarchal parishes in the US were ordered to commeprate Metropolitan Jonah liturgically at the Great Entrance after Patriarch Kirill.  This has never happened before and is an indication that the Patriarch and the Holy Synod in Moscow are sending the message that they are standing firmly behind Metropolitan Jonah and the OCA.

"31.03.2009

"Regarding the Elevation of the Name of the Administrator of the Patriarchal Parishes During the Divine Services

 
"It should be brought to the attention of the clergy of the Patriarchal Parishes as to the form of the prayer for the remembrance of the hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church during the Divine Services: During the Litany: “For our Great Lord and Father His Holiness Patriarch Kirill, and for our Lord His Grace Bishop Job,” and throughout the text. During the Great Entrance: “Our Great Lord and Father His Holiness Kirill, Patriarch of Moscow and of All Russia, His Beatitude Jonah, Metropolitan of All American and Canada, and our Lord His Grace Job, Bishop of Kashir, may the Lord God remember them in His Kingdom, always, now, and forever, and unto the ages of ages.” "

http://www.russianchurchusa.org/index.php3?mode=984&id=9002&ln=en



And no such directive has come to ROCOR.   Don't you think there is something odd about that seeing as we have Met. Hilarion of Eastern America and NY.   Looks like we have an overlap of territory yet the MP recognizes to Metropolitans of the same territory. 

When, as we all know, that ROCOR is not required at present to commemorate the Patriarch of Moscow.  No directive was given to ROCOR concerning commemorating Met. Jonah because you are not autocephalous, hence your Metropolitan doesn't commemorate even the EP in the diptychs.  But when your Metropolitan commemorates the other self-ruling metropolitans and the Holy Synod, does he commemorate Met. Jonah?  Or do you not see Met. Jonah, since you deny his autocephaly and agree with the EP, as part of the Russian Church (which, having converted in a Patriarchal Parish and taking vows in Russia, he was) like the EP? 

I recall that when SCOBA convened after the signing of the Act, someone noted the return of the Moscow Patriarchate to SCOBA, of which it was a founding member, because of the Act.  But the bishop on SCOBA is not yours, it's the Patriarchal Parish bishop, the one that by terms of the Tomos of Autocephaly cannot have a title of an American see, like "Eastern America and NY."  Is that because, as a comparison of the Act and the Tomos will show, you do not have the right to deal with other Churches directly?

and it is the diptych blessing that counts and is official: remember when the EP was struck out of them in the 90's?  How the "True Orthodox Churches" struck Met. Laurus from theirs?

Quote
As a last word I will say that as you keep bringing up ukaz 362 keep in mind it is the same "central authority" who iorned out the Act, the same "central authority" who has also read the official statements by our hierarchs that you reject, the same "central authority" who just proclaimed the other day that the relationship between ROCOR and the MP is "ROCK SOLID".

And the same hierarchs who have recently affirmed the Tomos of Autocephaly.  Before the signing of the Act of Canonical Communion:

Father Ambrose, I seem to remember you posting something concerning the pull out of the Russians from the Council fo Ravenna, when the issue of the OCA was raised when the EP tried to hide behind the autonomy of the Estonians for why they were at Ravenna.

In the meantime, this will do.  Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev:
Quote
There are a number of autonomous and autocephalous Churches which, for various reasons, are not universally recognized in the Orthodox world. For example, there is the autocephalous Orthodox Church in America and the autonomous Orthodox Church of Japan: they were never invited to such dialogues because the Patriarchate of Constantinople does not recognize their current status. If the so-called Church of Estonia, which is an autonomous structure under the Patriarchate of Constantinople, should be invited, why not invite these other churches? Why, then, not invite the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which has an autonomous status under the Moscow Patiarchate? What about the autonomous Orthodox Church of Latvia? What about the Orthodox Church of Estonia that belongs to the Moscow Patriarchate and also has an autonomous status?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1925822/posts

Evidently during, as there is nothing in it revoking the Tomos of Autocephaly, or excempting it from the general terms of the Act of Canonical Communion making the acts of the Holy Synod of Russia binding on ROCOR. Nor any confirmation of ROCOR's denial of the OCA's Autocephaly while ROCOR gave up any pretence of right to protest the matter.  And at the DL at Christ the Savior, celebrating the signing, was not Met. Herman commemorated in the diptychs of the Moscow Patriarchate for the Autocephalous Churches?

And after the signing of the Act, as shown above in the Directive on commemoration and:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20504.0.html
"Strange things in MP's Parishes."

Quote
I respect that you have the right to voice your personal opinion on what you think the Act says HOWEVER I'll choose to go with the official statements of the ROCOR hierarchs as well as the instructive statements by our ROCOR authorities on the matter (including the explaination of the protopriest who was a part of negotiating the Act!).

And it seems you're going along with their day dreaming about the Tomos of Autocephaly being revoked, and imagining that the PoM blesses their personal opinions on the OCA's autcoephaly, rather than the PoM and the Holy Synods official and liturgical canonical statements and acts on the matter.

Quote
p.s. - in your last post you took for yourself one of my answers to a question you asked and made it appear as if I asked the question and you gave my answer!  This is how it should really read:


ialmisry - In the meantime, what do you envision "complete independence" would look like a century from now?

ROCORthodox replied: I don't pretend to have the gift of predicting the future.

Pesky quote tags, my mistake, sorry.

Since you bring it up: it wasn't a futuristic question.  It was an existential one: what does ROCOR think it is?  What does it mean to be a local Church outside its locality?  Your friend the EP is trying to push a decision on the "diaspora": how do think that doesn't include ROCOR?  Eastern America and NY were never, nor are, part of Russia: what do you plan on doing when Eastern America and NY get a local bishop?  By what reasoning do you ignore the one it has now, namely Met. Jonah?
« Last Edit: May 04, 2009, 06:06:35 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #66 on: May 04, 2009, 11:09:07 AM »

Quote
And it seems you're going along with their day dreaming about the Tomos of Autocephaly being revoked, and imagining that the PoM blesses their personal opinions on the OCA's autcoephaly, rather than the PoM and the Holy Synods official and liturgical canonical statements and acts on the matter.

It only "seems" this way to you because you refuse to believe ROCOR's position.  Also, no place have I ever said or posted anything from ROCOR which claims that she believes OCA autocephaly has been "revoked".   You consistently play dirty pool in these discussions with statements like this but I'll address one other point.

Quote
Quote
Quote from: ROCORthodox on April 24, 2009, 01:26:00 PM
From a strait forward reading of the canons (and I personally think the EP supporters - especially GiC - have made a good case on this point) the territory should be the EP's.  The other jurisdictions don't agree so the issue is who's interpretation of the canon.  I am just hoping this upcoming pan-Orthodox Synod does not harm the unity we already have.


Since the Act of Canonical Communion specifically and explicitly says you are outside the canonical territory of Russia, if the EP is right, you are his.  You cannot let the EP take a stab at the OCA without slitting your own throat.

I'll take the time to respond here.

The problem in trying to discuss this topic with you is you are reading what you want into my statement while selectively ignoring other parts of it which give a different understanding to the statement than the one you are putting forward.   

You don't come back to me and say, "hey, what exactly do you mean when you say "The other jurisdictions don't agree so the issue is who's interpretation of the canon."

You don't engage me in trying to understand the point I am trying to make with my statement, you simply take one part of it, isolate it, then ignore the other parts and then try to smack me with what you claim I am saying.   

Let me walk you through this, even though you probably don't think I have the authority to make a statement on my statement and that you are as much as an authority on my statement as me!

Please don't gloss, just read everything that I am going to explain if you honestly care what my position is.  Below is my "official statement" on my statement as opposed to your interpretation of it. 

Note that I said "From a strait forward reading of the canons (and I personally think the EP supporters - especially GiC - have made a good case on this point) the territory should be the EP's."

That means without interpretation, words on the paper, strait forward.   As the words lay on the page, minus all other factors.

Note that I also said "I personally think".  Now, I know this type of caveat is foreign to your "ex cathedra style" posts but I am commenting that, from what I have read on the poster GiC's and other EP supporters case on the canons, they make a good point.   That's what I personally think.   Does that mean that the other jurisdictions agree with this interpretation?  No.  It means I think GiC and EP supporters make a good case on their reading of the canon.  It also does not mean that other positions might not also be a good case. 

Placing this back into the general topic on this thread I would like to clarity that while ROCOR, along with the EP, does not accept OCA autocephaly she does so for different reasons.

Don't fade on me.  This next part is important.  It is a strong statement from me and it sums up what I "believe" to be the truth of the matter. 

"The other jurisdictions don't agree so the issue is who's interpretation of the canon."

Why do you ignore this part of my statement? 

Who has the authority to interpret the canons and act on them?  Neither you nor I.  The Bishops do.
We can post all day our "personal opinions" on what we "think" but in the end the only thing that matters
are "official statements" of the Bishops and the ACTIONS of the jurisdiction which prove how she governs herself based on those "official statements".

Having said that I have given you "official statements" from ROCOR which state the Act gives us the freedom your "personal opinion" denies.  I have backed up those "official statements" with ACTIONS that show ROCOR operates with this freedom with full support and encouragement from the MP.   I have backed up those "official statements" with explanations from ROCOR officials telling us why by our ACTIONS we do not recognize OCA autocephaly.    If you or others choose not to believe them, that's has no effect on the official statements .

Here is a recent post from an ROCOR Archmandrite in Israel at a group you can access.  This poster has a very soft way of explaining the situation.   You might like it because he basically asserts ROCOR in effect does "recognize OCA autocephaly,  just NOT the common definition of it"  Wink.   He also basically points out by example that the MP also does not recognize the common definition of autocephaly as it pertains to the OCA.

http://tinyurl.com/c3x5ha


« Last Edit: May 04, 2009, 11:19:52 AM by ROCORthodox » Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,507


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #67 on: May 04, 2009, 11:29:03 AM »

The tell tale sign on this matter is if ROCOR recognized OCA autocephaly we would be commemorating Met. Jonah at all services.   We don't. 

Not an argument.

Some of our priests are still not commemorating the Russian Patriarch liturgically.  This is being tolerated by both Moscow and New York as a transitional thing.  But I hope you won't argue that this non-commemoration is a telltale sign that we have not yet achived full union with Moscow !! ??   Grin

It would be good if people stopped trying to use ROCOR to prove anything. ROCOR's structure was always 'irregular', ROCOR itself always admitted that. Both the Metropolia and ROCOR were attempts to deal with an unprecedented situation--there are no canons defining how missionary dioceses and bishops-in-exile are supposed to operate when the main body of the Church is held captive by an anti-religious government which not only persecutes but attempts to infiltrate the Church, corrupt its communications, etc, etc. One can criticize many aspects of how one or the other (or both as well as the MP) responded to the situation, but everyone--including the other autocephalous churches recognized that the actions were being taken in an extraordinary context.

The Communists had some 8 decades to disrupt the life of the Church. Since their fall, it took almost a decade-and-a-half for not only the situation in Russia to normalize but for both sides to get past the anger, suspicion, fear, regret, resentment in order to start to normalize their relationship. And as Father points out, even now so the ROCOR still lost some members who couldn't see past the history and the situation is still not completely normalized.

The ROCOR and the OCA are going to take a similar amount of time to heal all the wounds committed over the 80 years. And the two couldn't even really start until the ROCOR and MP had normalized their relationship. Thankfully, all our bishops seem to be approaching this in a pastoral manner. Hopefully, eventually, the bishops will all sit down and work out how to normalize the canonical relationship of the ROCOR and OCA. But it is a lack of charity to assume that it has to happen NOW NOW NOW. Let the healing of the split between ROCOR and the MP have a chance to fully set in, and then the OCA-ROCOR issue can be addressed--yes, it's uncanonical, but that's why we have shepherds and not judges as bishops.

This is probably the most sane post I have read on this topic. 

Second the motion. Post of the month nomination.

We also should note that Met. Jonah is an extraordinary personality. He is really the right man at the right time. He is also relatively young so we have time to take things one at a time. Who would doubt that Met Laurus was also such a person in his dealings with the MP? The Church is being guided along by a Divine hand. Let's just have faith that this is so and enjoy the ride.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #68 on: May 04, 2009, 12:20:59 PM »

The tell tale sign on this matter is if ROCOR recognized OCA autocephaly we would be commemorating Met. Jonah at all services.   We don't. 

Not an argument.

Some of our priests are still not commemorating the Russian Patriarch liturgically.  This is being tolerated by both Moscow and New York as a transitional thing.  But I hope you won't argue that this non-commemoration is a telltale sign that we have not yet achived full union with Moscow !! ??   Grin

It would be good if people stopped trying to use ROCOR to prove anything. ROCOR's structure was always 'irregular', ROCOR itself always admitted that. Both the Metropolia and ROCOR were attempts to deal with an unprecedented situation--there are no canons defining how missionary dioceses and bishops-in-exile are supposed to operate when the main body of the Church is held captive by an anti-religious government which not only persecutes but attempts to infiltrate the Church, corrupt its communications, etc, etc. One can criticize many aspects of how one or the other (or both as well as the MP) responded to the situation, but everyone--including the other autocephalous churches recognized that the actions were being taken in an extraordinary context.

The Communists had some 8 decades to disrupt the life of the Church. Since their fall, it took almost a decade-and-a-half for not only the situation in Russia to normalize but for both sides to get past the anger, suspicion, fear, regret, resentment in order to start to normalize their relationship. And as Father points out, even now so the ROCOR still lost some members who couldn't see past the history and the situation is still not completely normalized.

The ROCOR and the OCA are going to take a similar amount of time to heal all the wounds committed over the 80 years. And the two couldn't even really start until the ROCOR and MP had normalized their relationship. Thankfully, all our bishops seem to be approaching this in a pastoral manner. Hopefully, eventually, the bishops will all sit down and work out how to normalize the canonical relationship of the ROCOR and OCA. But it is a lack of charity to assume that it has to happen NOW NOW NOW. Let the healing of the split between ROCOR and the MP have a chance to fully set in, and then the OCA-ROCOR issue can be addressed--yes, it's uncanonical, but that's why we have shepherds and not judges as bishops.

This is probably the most sane post I have read on this topic. 

Second the motion. Post of the month nomination.

We also should note that Met. Jonah is an extraordinary personality. He is really the right man at the right time. He is also relatively young so we have time to take things one at a time. Who would doubt that Met Laurus was also such a person in his dealings with the MP? The Church is being guided along by a Divine hand. Let's just have faith that this is so and enjoy the ride.

A very good post indeed.  I think it is important to note that, regardless of the autocephaly issue, there ARE good relations going on between ROCOR and OCA.    I think that between the hierarchs of the administrations there is already an understanding in that the MP does not recongize America as exclusively OCA territory.

This statement from a ROCOR archmandrite in Israel explains what I believe is that already existant understanding:

"Please look at the "Kalendar' Moskovskoi Patriarkhii" for any recent year. (I
saw this in the 2008 calendar, and have not checked the 2009, but believe it will be
the same in this respect). Look under the section on the autocephalous Orthodox
Churches. Each one has a section with a picture of its First Hierarch, a brief
history of the Church in question, and, most importantly for this discussion,
a description of the "canonical territory" of each autocephalous Church.

Look at the sections on the Churches of Constantinople, Antioch and Serbia
(and perhaps Romania and Bulgaria -- I don't remember if they fit this pattern
as well). Under each Church, the "old world" territory is described -- Turkey
and some Greek islands plus Mount Athos; Lebanon and Syria; Serbia and the coun-
tries of the former Yugoslavia -- AND under the "canonical territory" of these
churches, dioceses in North America are included.


The Russian Orthodox Church in the Homeland recognizes dioceses in North
America as part of the canonical territory of the autocephalous Churches of
Constantinople, Antioch and Serbia (and perhaps Romania and Bulgaria as
well; I forget). It does not insist that these dioceses, by virtue of their
being on the "canonical territory" of what for the sake of clarity we shall call the
OCA must recognize the OCA, or submit to the OCA, or commemorate the First
Hierarch of the OCA at the divine services. The OCA has no jurisdiction over
these dioceses, and the Russian Orthodox Church in the Homeland, the most
important of the several autocephalous Churches that recognize the OCA (while
many other important autocephalous Churches do not recognize it), acknowledges
the canonicity of this situation (by referring to those dioceses as "canonical
territory" of other Churches).

What this amounts to is this: everyone, including the Russian Orthodox Church
in the Homeland, acknowledges the reality that "autocephaly" in the *full*
sense of the word still eludes the OCA.
In the narrow sense that the OCA is
fully self-governing, everyone, including the Russian Orthodox Church Outside
Russia, agrees that it is "autocephalous." No one makes any claim to the right
to administer the dioceses and institutions of the OCA; their Holy Synod and
diocesean bishops alone have that right. But no one, including His Holiness
the Patriarch of Moscow and all Rus' and His Eminence Metropolitan Hilarion,
the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, makes
the claim that any Orthodox in the North American dioceses that do not
belong to the OCA is obliged to submit administratively to the OCA or to
commemorate its First Hierarch at the divine services."


http://tinyurl.com/c3x5ha

Hope this helps.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #69 on: May 04, 2009, 02:38:28 PM »

Quote
And it seems you're going along with their day dreaming about the Tomos of Autocephaly being revoked, and imagining that the PoM blesses their personal opinions on the OCA's autcoephaly, rather than the PoM and the Holy Synods official and liturgical canonical statements and acts on the matter.

It only "seems" this way to you because you refuse to believe ROCOR's position.

ROCOR is not in a position to have a position.  She is not autocephalous, nor has the authority to deal directly with autocephalous Churches.  Hence, evidently, why the ROCOR Metropolitan is not the one on SCOBA.

When does Metropolitan Hilarion commemorate the EP?

Quote
Also, no place have I ever said or posted anything from ROCOR which claims that she believes OCA autocephaly has been "revoked".
 

No, just the wishful thinking that it was on the chopping block.

Quote
You consistently play dirty pool in these discussions with statements like this but I'll address one other point.


I always link (something others don't).  Readers can always go back and judge for themselves.


From a straight forward reading of the canons (and I personally think the EP supporters - especially GiC - have made a good case on this point) the territory should be the EP's.  The other jurisdictions don't agree so the issue is who's interpretation of the canon.  I am just hoping this upcoming pan-Orthodox Synod does not harm the unity we already have.


Since the Act of Canonical Communion specifically and explicitly says you are outside the canonical territory of Russia, if the EP is right, you are his.  You cannot let the EP take a stab at the OCA without slitting your own throat.

I'll take the time to respond here.

The problem in trying to discuss this topic with you is you are reading what you want into my statement while selectively ignoring other parts of it which give a different understanding to the statement than the one you are putting forward.   

You don't come back to me and say, "hey, what exactly do you mean when you say "The other jurisdictions don't agree so the issue is who's interpretation of the canon."

You don't engage me in trying to understand the point I am trying to make with my statement, you simply take one part of it, isolate it, then ignore the other parts and then try to smack me with what you claim I am saying.   

Let me walk you through this, even though you probably don't think I have the authority to make a statement on my statement and that you are as much as an authority on my statement as me!

Please don't gloss, just read everything that I am going to explain

I always do.

Quote
if you honestly care what my position is.  Below is my "official statement" on my statement as opposed to your interpretation of it. 

Note that I said "From a strait forward reading of the canons (and I personally think the EP supporters - especially GiC - have made a good case on this point) the territory should be the EP's."

That means without interpretation, words on the paper, strait forward.   As the words lay on the page, minus all other factors.

That's why I posted it, straight forward, words on the page, nothing else:

Quote
Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome.  For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city.  And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (ἴσα πρεσβεῖα) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.

Quote
Note that I also said "I personally think".  Now, I know this type of caveat is foreign to your "ex cathedra style" posts but I am commenting that, from what I have read on the poster GiC's and other EP supporters case on the canons, they make a good point.   That's what I personally think.   Does that mean that the other jurisdictions agree with this interpretation?  No.  It means I think GiC and EP supporters make a good case on their reading of the canon.  It also does not mean that other positions might not also be a good case.  

Placing this back into the general topic on this thread I would like to clarity that while ROCOR, along with the EP, does not accept OCA autocephaly she does so for different reasons.

I believe I've asked what reason, and what grounds, ROCOR has to not accept the OCA's autocephaly.

Quote
Don't fade on me.  This next part is important.  It is a strong statement from me and it sums up what I "believe" to be the truth of the matter.  

"The other jurisdictions don't agree so the issue is who's interpretation of the canon."

Why do you ignore this part of my statement?  


Because you belong to the jurisdiction of a local, autcephalous Church that disagrees with the EP's interpretation of the canon, and supports OCA autocephaly.  The idea of part of a local, autocephalous Church (vicarate, diocese, archdiocese, metropolitanate, exarchate, whatever...) contradicting the decisions of the ruling primate and his synod, I find no canonical support in this instance.  Except economia.

Quote
Who has the authority to interpret the canons and act on them?  Neither you nor I.  The Bishops do.
We can post all day our "personal opinions" on what we "think" but in the end the only thing that matters
are "official statements" of the Bishops and the ACTIONS of the jurisdiction which prove how she governs herself based on those "official statements".

Like the Patriarchal Parish Archpriest (not even a bishop) representing the PoM on SCOBA, not the Metropolitan of Eastern America and NY?

Quote
Having said that I have given you "official statements" from ROCOR which state the Act gives us the freedom your "personal opinion" denies.

I could multiple examples of official white house statements that are 100% spin, but that might land us in "Politics."

Quote
I have backed up those "official statements" with ACTIONS that show ROCOR operates with this freedom with full support and encouragement from the MP.   I have backed up those "official statements" with explanations from ROCOR officials telling us why by our ACTIONS we do not recognize OCA autocephaly.    If you or others choose not to believe them, that's has no effect on the official statements .


Can you tell us, what what official action did Met. Laurus do at Christ the Savior when Patriarch Alexei commemorated Met. Jonah?

Quote
Here is a recent post from an ROCOR Archmandrite in Israel at a group you can access.  This poster has a very soft way of explaining the situation.   You might like it because he basically asserts ROCOR in effect does "recognize OCA autocephaly,  just NOT the common definition of it"  Wink.   He also basically points out by example that the MP also does not recognize the common definition of autocephaly as it pertains to the OCA.

http://tinyurl.com/c3x5ha

A very good post indeed.  I think it is important to note that, regardless of the autocephaly issue, there ARE good relations going on between ROCOR and OCA.    I think that between the hierarchs of the administrations there is already an understanding in that the MP does not recongize America as exclusively OCA territory.

This statement from a ROCOR archmandrite in Israel explains what I believe is that already existant understanding:

"Please look at the "Kalendar' Moskovskoi Patriarkhii" for any recent year. (I
saw this in the 2008 calendar, and have not checked the 2009, but believe it will be
the same in this respect). Look under the section on the autocephalous Orthodox
Churches. Each one has a section with a picture of its First Hierarch, a brief
history of the Church in question, and, most importantly for this discussion,
a description of the "canonical territory" of each autocephalous Church.

Look at the sections on the Churches of Constantinople, Antioch and Serbia
(and perhaps Romania and Bulgaria -- I don't remember if they fit this pattern
as well). Under each Church, the "old world" territory is described -- Turkey
and some Greek islands plus Mount Athos; Lebanon and Syria; Serbia and the coun-
tries of the former Yugoslavia -- AND under the "canonical territory" of these
churches, dioceses in North America are included.


The Russian Orthodox Church in the Homeland recognizes dioceses in North
America as part of the canonical territory of the autocephalous Churches of
Constantinople, Antioch and Serbia (and perhaps Romania and Bulgaria as
well; I forget). It does not insist that these dioceses, by virtue of their
being on the "canonical territory" of what for the sake of clarity we shall call the
OCA must recognize the OCA, or submit to the OCA, or commemorate the First
Hierarch of the OCA at the divine services. The OCA has no jurisdiction over
these dioceses, and the Russian Orthodox Church in the Homeland, the most
important of the several autocephalous Churches that recognize the OCA (while
many other important autocephalous Churches do not recognize it), acknowledges
the canonicity of this situation (by referring to those dioceses as "canonical
territory" of other Churches).

What this amounts to is this: everyone, including the Russian Orthodox Church
in the Homeland, acknowledges the reality that "autocephaly" in the *full*
sense of the word still eludes the OCA.
In the narrow sense that the OCA is
fully self-governing, everyone, including the Russian Orthodox Church Outside
Russia, agrees that it is "autocephalous." No one makes any claim to the right
to administer the dioceses and institutions of the OCA; their Holy Synod and
diocesean bishops alone have that right. But no one, including His Holiness
the Patriarch of Moscow and all Rus' and His Eminence Metropolitan Hilarion,
the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, makes
the claim that any Orthodox in the North American dioceses that do not
belong to the OCA is obliged to submit administratively to the OCA or to
commemorate its First Hierarch at the divine services."


http://tinyurl.com/c3x5ha

You stopped short, including (but not limited to) leaving this out:
Quote
For what it is worth, a friend of mine who is a priest in a Patriarchal
parish in the US told me that he received the Ukaz instructing him
to commemorate Metropolitan Jonah by e-mail, and then his dean
called him and told him *not* to commemorate Metropolitan Jonah,
who will, as before, be commemorated only at the St Nicholas Cathedral
in New York.

This contradicts the order on the Russian Church in the USA's official web site:
http://www.russianchurchusa.org/index.php3?mode=984&id=9002&ln=en

Btw, the Russian Church in the USA's official website has among "Main Documents of the Russian Orthodox Church" the Tomos of Autocephaly.
http://www.russianchurchusa.org/index.php3?mode=1318&id=2171&ln=en

I don't have the PoM Calendar, so I can't comment.  I would like to see the section on Constantinople, if Finland is there (as Finland has been removed from the EP's web site, perhaps because of Archb. Leo's warm welcome to Met. Jonah as he took the helm.  I know that Arb. Paul of blessed memory had an altercation with the EP over a visit of Met. Theodosius), and what it says about Estonia.  Does it include the Serbian Church in Romania?  What does it say about the "New Lands" of Greece?....Any link to said calendar?

Your link says other interesting things:
Quote
I am grateful to be a native speaker of English, a language blessed with both
a definite and an indefinite article. I have long believed that the OCA is not
*the* Orthodox Church in America, but *an* Orthodox Church in America.
Just as the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdicese, the Greek Orthodox
Archdiocese, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia and others can
be called an Orthodox Church in America. And I was gratified to read that,
by inference, the Russian Orthodox Church Inside Russia has essentially the
same position. Even if they have not repudiated the decision of the Soviet
government which they were obliged to implement granting that Church
(now called the OCA) a Tomos in 1970.

The emphasis is mine. It is interesting that the father to infere contrary to the plain statements of the Patriarchate.  I also fall to see how you can blame the Soviets for forcing autocephaly, since the insistence of the Soviets of a loyalty oath to the Soviet State was long the reason why the Metropolia refused reunification with the Russian Patriarchate.  Nor do I see how becoming independent was yoking oneself to the oppressor, as Solzhenitsyn characterized it: "How can this be? Out of compassion for those in bondage, instead of knocking the chains off of them, to put them also upon oneself? Out of compassion for slaves, to bend one's own neck in submission beneath the yoke?
http://gnisios.narod.ru/rocorsobors.html

Wishful thinking also seems to be at work:
Quote
This situation, as strange as it may seem to you, Fr Ambrose, is simply an
acknowledgment of the reality that the OCA has failed to become what it
prematurely and, I would submit, inaccurately, claimed to be back in 1970.
And I would suggest that coming to light of the troubles the OCA has had
as an institution only confirms what all of us Orthodox in North America who
are not subordinate to the OCA previously believed: that the institution of
the OCA is not, by itself, prepared to lead Orthodoxy on this continent.

During the time leading up to the granting of the Tomos to the North
American Metropolia, the leading canonist of that jurisdiction, A. Bogolepov,
published a book in which he argued that the path to autocephaly did not
lie in receiving all permission first, but in simply *being* the autocephalous
Church of a region, and that recognition would follow in time. (I may have
stated the position differently from Professor Bogolepov, but I believe the
argument is essentially the same; apologies if I am wrong.) Based on some
historical precedent, he may have had a point. But I think that today we are
witnesses to the proof of the contrapositive of his argument. Fail to *be* the
autocephalous Church of an area, and what recognition you may have had
will wither.

The Bulgarian Exarchate became what it claimed to be the moment it was born.  Yet she had to wait 73 to be fully recognized.  I don't believe the OCA will have to wait as long.

Jerusalem just had a scandal, and its primate deposed.  I guess she must not be prepared to lead Orthodoxy in the Holy Land.

Btw, compare:
Quote
The Council of Bishops, having listened to the report of the Synod of Bishops concerning the so-called Metropolia's having received autocephaly from the Patriarchate of Moscow, approves all the steps taken in due course by the Synod of Bishops to convince Metropolitan Irinei and his colleagues of the perniciousness of a step which deepens the division which was the result of the decision of the Cleveland Council of 1946 which broke away from the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.
The American Metropolia has received its autocephaly from the Patriarchate of Moscow, which has not possessed genuine canonical succession from His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon from the time when Metropolitan Sergii, who later called himself Patriarch, violated his oath with regard to Metropolitan Petr, the locum tenens of the patriarchal throne, and set out upon a path which was then condemned by the senior hierarchs of the Church of Russia. Submitting all the more to the commands of the atheistic, anti-Christian regime, the Patriarchate of Moscow has ceased to be that which expresses the voice of the Russian Orthodox Church. For this reason, as the Synod of Bishops has correctly declared, none of its acts, including the bestowal of autocephaly upon the American Metropolia, has legal force. Furthermore, apart from this, this act, which affects the rights of many Churches, has elicited definite protests on the part of a number of Orthodox Churches, who have even severed communion with the American Metropolia.
Viewing this illicit act with sorrow, and acknowledging it to be null and void, the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, which has hitherto not abandoned hope for the restoration of ecclesiastical unity in America, sees in the declaration of American autocephaly a step which will lead the American Metropolia yet farther away from the ecclesiastical unity of the Church of Russia. Perceiving therein a great sin against the enslaved and suffering Church of Russia, the Council of Bishops DECIDES: henceforth, neither the clergy nor the laity [of the Russian Church Abroad] are to have communion in prayer or the divine services with the hierarchy or clergy of the American Metropolia
http://uk.geocities.com/guildfordian2002/History/OrthodoxChurch20thCenturyP3.htm#_ftnref165

and this:
Quote
Acts issued previously which preclude the fullness of canonical communion are hereby deemed invalid or obsolete.
http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/engdocuments/enmat_akt.html
« Last Edit: May 04, 2009, 02:48:20 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #70 on: May 04, 2009, 07:36:33 PM »

ialmisry quite a while back in '07, after a surface reading the same Tomos, I posted this thread.

Notice the post by the list members Veniamin and Irish Hermit:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13878.new.html#new

Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,517



« Reply #71 on: May 04, 2009, 09:39:23 PM »

In all of this back and forth, I may have missed the one thing that is of importance. Can somebody please explain why is it that ROCOR must not recognize the autocephaly of the OCA, even though it reputedly has good relations with OCA?  And, if it is a matter of "what is" versus "what must be," when will the two churches unite in some way?
« Last Edit: May 04, 2009, 09:39:56 PM by Second Chance » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #72 on: May 04, 2009, 09:47:20 PM »

ialmisry quite a while back in '07, after a surface reading the same Tomos, I posted this thread.

Notice the post by the list members Veniamin and Irish Hermit:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13878.new.html#new

As I asked:
The Act itself is in opposition to the OCA Tomos in what it secures as ROCOR's status.

How is the Act itself in opposition to the OCA Tomos?  Please cite.

and I stated:

The fact that the MP has issued a directive putting off implemeting point #5 indicates that he and the Holy Synod are being VERY indulgent with ROCOR, which, given the situation, is a right and proper exercise of economia.  But the day is envisioned, and will come, when those in ROCOR will have to get over whatever problems they have, and have to hear the Patriarch of Moscow commemorated by every ROCOR DL.

Glad you brought this up.  Notice how this point is spelled out?  It was important enough to include in the Act.  A ukaz was then issued within ROCOR which gives a dispensation of five years of noncommemoration.   Now notice that not a peep was mentioned about OCA autocephaly.  Contrary to mentioning it, the Act infringes upon it.

Actually, no.  It doesn't.

you have come to see:

 
Reading over the OCA Tomos issued from the MP I found this interesting section.  I am wondering how this
stipulation was addressed in terms of what ROCOR and the MP have recently agreed upon.  Seems to me there is a contractual problem:

The Tomos of Autocephaly

 . . . . . . . . 7. The Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America shall have exclusive spiritual and canonical jurisdiction over all bishops, clerics and laymen of the Eastern Orthodox confession in continental North America, excluding Mexico, and including the State of Hawaii who are presently part of the Metropolitanate, or who shall later enter the Metropolitanate; and over all parishes which now belong or later shall be accepted into the Metropolitanate, excepting the entire clergy, possessions and parishes enumerated in Paragraph 3, points a,b,c.
Emphasis added.
Please excuse me for picking this up so late in the game.  Veniamin, seeing that you are in the OCA I thank you for pointing this out.  Others do not read do not have the same read on this as you do.   
« Last Edit: May 04, 2009, 09:50:12 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Punch
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,083



« Reply #73 on: May 04, 2009, 11:01:46 PM »

In all of this back and forth, I may have missed the one thing that is of importance. Can somebody please explain why is it that ROCOR must not recognize the autocephaly of the OCA, even though it reputedly has good relations with OCA?  And, if it is a matter of "what is" versus "what must be," when will the two churches unite in some way?

Probably not.  As I understand it, the ROCOR considers itself part of the Church of Russia.  Always has been, and always will be.  It is as it is named, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia.  The OCA is the Orthodox Church in America.  Just what does that mean?  America is not an Orthodox country (it is hardly a Christian country), and OCA autocephaly is not recognized by most of the other Orthodox.  I guess that I do not see why it is such a big deal that the ROCOR does not recognize OCA autocephaly either.  The whole issue is just a meaningless red herring that is beat to death by people who have obviously accomplished all that is necessary for salvation in their own lives and now need to devote their time and attention to this rather trivial matter.  That both Churches recognize each other as canonical Churches and enjoy a good relationship should be a joy to us.   
Logged

Orthodox only because of God and His Russians.
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #74 on: May 05, 2009, 08:11:28 AM »


Quote
Quote
ROCORthodox said concerning OCA autocephaly: Contrary to mentioning it, the Act infringes upon it.

isalmisry replied: Actually, no.  It doesn't.

No? Earlier you admitted:

Quote
Quote
witegia in part said: The OCA's Tomos of Autocephaly and the ROCOR's Act of Canonical Communion are in contradiction and *cannot* reconciled. And yet the MP is clearly standing behind both.

to which isalmisry replied: Since ROCOR is partially grandfathered, the two are totally in contradiction. But yes, there are sticking points.

isalmisry, can you fully explain what you mean here, particularly what you see as the total contradiction between the Tomos and the Act?

Quote
isalmisry says: you have come to see:


Quote
Quote
ROCORthodox: Reading over the OCA Tomos issued from the MP I found this interesting section.  I am wondering how this stipulation was addressed in terms of what ROCOR and the MP have recently agreed upon.  Seems to me there is a contractual problem:

Quote
Veniamin replied: The Tomos of Autocephaly

 . . . . . . . . 7. The Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America shall have exclusive spiritual and canonical jurisdiction over all bishops, clerics and laymen of the Eastern Orthodox confession in continental North America, excluding Mexico, and including the State of Hawaii who are presently part of the Metropolitanate, or who shall later enter the Metropolitanate; and over all parishes which now belong or later shall be accepted into the Metropolitanate, excepting the entire clergy, possessions and parishes enumerated in Paragraph 3, points a,b,c.

Emphasis added.

ROCORthodox replied: Please excuse me for picking this up so late in the game.  Veniamin, seeing that you are in the OCA I thank you for pointing this out.  Others ..do not have the same read on this as you do.
   


"I have come to see"?  Sir, the OCA poster was refuting my 'questioning conclusion' by pointing out the Tomos only has authority over those "who are presently part of the Metropolitanate, or who shall later enter the Metropolitanate".

This point supports the MP calendar which recognizes USA as the canonical territory of the other ancient autocephalous Churches.   Like our officials have been saying, ROCOR is not obligated to enter the Metropolitanante, nowhere in the Act is such a move agreed upon.



« Last Edit: May 05, 2009, 08:24:09 AM by ROCORthodox » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #75 on: May 05, 2009, 11:39:26 AM »


Quote
Quote
ROCORthodox said concerning OCA autocephaly: Contrary to mentioning it, the Act infringes upon it.

isalmisry replied: Actually, no.  It doesn't.

No? Earlier you admitted:

Quote
Quote
witegia in part said: The OCA's Tomos of Autocephaly and the ROCOR's Act of Canonical Communion are in contradiction and *cannot* reconciled. And yet the MP is clearly standing behind both.

to which isalmisry replied: Since ROCOR is partially grandfathered, the two are totally in contradiction. But yes, there are sticking points.

isalmisry, can you fully explain what you mean here, particularly what you see as the total contradiction between the Tomos and the Act?

LOL. My bad.

That the MP receives Met. Jonah as a visiting primate is not in question.   What is interesting, and I think your statement below touches on this, is why the MP would enter into an agreement with ROCOR (who's Synod is based in USA) which states: [snip]

Indeed.  If ROCOR did recognize OCA autocephaly all of those points you mention and more, including the language in point 3 (and others) would be a violation.

I think this is where you and I differ. I agree that it would be (in fact is) a violation. I just don't think it matters.

Look, the MP clearly recognizes Metropolitan Jonah as the primate of an autocephalous synod and commemorates him as Metropolitan of North America at every liturgy. Just as clearly, the MP has authorized ROCOR to continue to act in ways that violate the OCA's autocephaly. The OCA's Tomos of Autocephaly and the ROCOR's Act of Canonical Communion are in contradiction and *cannot* reconciled. And yet the MP is clearly standing behind both.
Since ROCOR is partially grandfathered, the two are totally in contradiction.  But yes, there are sticking points.

I see now that I left out the "not" in "are not totally." Hence the adversive (Russian "a"?) "But."

On the one hand, if you changed the references to the Patriarchal Parishes to ROCOR and its parishes, grandfathering as it were, the Act does not contradict the Tomos, as the Tomos itself has terms regarding the PoM retaining some jurisdiction in North America (and no, this is NOT without precedence.  For instance, the thread discussing the Serbian Parishes in Romania, a relic of the Austro-Hungarians (Orthodox Romanians originally could only flee to shelter to the Serbia patriarchate of Karlowitz).  The problem is that ROCOR was not party to the Tomos, nor in communion with anyone party to it.  The main sticking point comes from the Tomos' clauses that the Russian Orthodox Church not receiving parishes, bishops, etc. in the territory delineated by the Tomos for the OCA, excepting heterodox groups (I don't think that applies to ROCOR) or uncanonical groups in Canada (ROCOR being uncanonical in the eyes of both the Metropolia and ROC at the time).  The latter could be an escape clause, but it seems ROCOR wants to emphasize its Metropolitan being in the US.  Which not only causes problems, but also raises the question of why Met. Hilarion isn't on SCOBA.

As someone already stated, the ROC now has created an autonomous Church (ROCOR is technically only self ruling, but de facto acts more like an autonomous Church, at least for now), an exarchate, and an autocephalous Church on the same soil.  Ah, the quirks of history.

Btw, Father Ambrose has already answered your question about point 3:
I think you are chosing not to reveal the fact the the supreme authority of the Russian Church Abroad is....  Moscow.

Let's look at the following statutes of the Act of Canonical Communion.

9. The supreme instances of ecclesiastical authority for the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are the Local Council and the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church.

10. Decisions of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church extend to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia with consideration of the particularities described by the present Act, by the Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and by the legislation of the nations in which she performs her ministry.


The text is here - the official site of the Russian Church Abroad

http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/engdocuments/enmat_akt.html

and here - the official site of the Patriarchate

http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/070517113937.htm

you have come to see:

Reading over the OCA Tomos issued from the MP I found this interesting section.  I am wondering how this
stipulation was addressed in terms of what ROCOR and the MP have recently agreed upon.  Seems to me there is a contractual problem:

The Tomos of Autocephaly

 . . . . . . . . 7. The Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America shall have exclusive spiritual and canonical jurisdiction over all bishops, clerics and laymen of the Eastern Orthodox confession in continental North America, excluding Mexico, and including the State of Hawaii who are presently part of the Metropolitanate, or who shall later enter the Metropolitanate; and over all parishes which now belong or later shall be accepted into the Metropolitanate, excepting the entire clergy, possessions and parishes enumerated in Paragraph 3, points a,b,c.


Emphasis added.

Please excuse me for picking this up so late in the game.  Veniamin, seeing that you are in the OCA I thank you for pointing this out.  Others do not read do not have the same read on this as you do.   


"I have come to see"?  Sir, the OCA poster was refuting my 'questioning conclusion' by pointing out the Tomos only has authority over those "who are presently part of the Metropolitanate, or who shall later enter the Metropolitanate".



Quote
This point supports the MP calendar which recognizes USA as the canonical territory of the other ancient autocephalous Churches.

I'm sorry, but I don't know the canons on church calendars.  Those concerning the diptychs make much of Patriarch Alexei, and Kyrill commemorating "Иона, митрополит всея Америки и Канады," and ordering all his clergy in "All America and Canada" to commemorate "Господи Блаженнейшего Иону, Митрополита всея Америки и Канады."  As to his jurisdiction over "All America and Canada."

Quote
Like our officials have been saying, ROCOR is not obligated to enter the Metropolitanante, nowhere in the Act is such a move agreed upon.


At present no. But your status now is like that of the points before and after "this point" that you are depending on:
Quote
5. Parishes and clergy in the U.S.A. which remain in the canonical jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate shall be governed by the Most Holy Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia through one of his vicar bishops; not having a title of the local American Church, especially appointed for this, and until such time as these parishes express their official desire to join the Autocephalous Church in America in the manner described below.

6. Parishes and clergy which at this time constitute the Edmonton, Canada Diocese of the Moscow Patriarchate and remain in the canonical jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, shall be governed by the Most Holy Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia through one of his vicar bishops not having a title of the local American Church, especially appointed for this, and until such time as these parishes express their official desire to join the Autocephalous Church in America in the manner described below.....

...8. The Moscow Patriarchate shall not lay claim to either spiritual or canonical jurisdiction over bishops, clergy and laymen of the Eastern Orthodox confession, or over parishes mentioned in Division 1, Paragraph 7, and by the present yields to the Metropolitanate, all jurisdiction to which she has laid claim on the above men¬tioned territory (Paragraph 7); excepting the entire clergy, possessions and parishes enumerated in Para¬graph 3, points a,b,c.

9. The changing of jurisdictions by parishes which are in the canonical care of the Moscow Patriarchate after the proclamation of the Metropolitanate’s autocephaly shall occur on the initiative of the parishes them¬selves and after bilateral agreements in each concrete case between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Auto¬cephalous Church in America.

10. The Moscow Patriarchate shall not receive into its care in North America any clerics without written release or any parishes except parishes from uncanonical ecclesiastical organizations in Canada; and shall not canonically permit clergy and parishes remaining in its care to enter any of the Orthodox jurisdictions but the jurisdiction of the Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America.

This is the real crux as regards reconciling the Tomos and the Act of Canonical Communion.

Quote
11. The Patriarchate assures the parishes remaining in its care of its readiness to defend their status as parishes of the Moscow Patriarchate, and also defend the enumerated parishes from attempts to change their present status without a free expression of their decision without the written agreement of the Moscow Patriarchate.

12. The Moscow Patriarchate and the Orthodox Autocephalous Church in America shall maintain sincere fraternal relations, in which they should be guided by the bilateral agreements, signed by His Eminence, Metropolitan IRENEY, and by His Eminence, Metropolitan NIKODIM, Metropolitan of Leningrad and Novgorod, on March 31, 1970.

13. The Exarchate of North and South America, together with the dioceses in the U.S.A. and Canada which comprised it, is abolished.

Confirming the Autocephaly of the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in America, we bless her to call herself The Holy Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America; we acknowledge and proclaim her our Sister Church, and we invite all local Orthodox Churches and their Primates and their faithful children to acknowledge her as such and to include her in the dyptichs in accordance with the Canons of the Church, the traditions of the Fathers and ecclesiastical practice.


Again, I don't have the calendar, so I can't comment on it, although I'd like to see some things on it, as I mentioned above.

Btw, some interesting things regarding this in the agreements (unlike the one of Fr. Shaw or Lebedeb, actually referenced by the instrument of the Tomos), point 12.
Quote
Article III
Jurisdiction of the Autocephalous Church
 
(1) The Patriarchate agrees that the Metropolia after its proclamation as Autocephalous Church shall have exclusive jurisdiction, both spiritual and temporal, over all the bishops, clerics, and faithful of the Eastern Orthodox faith in continental North America, including the State of Hawaii, who are now in communion with the Metropolia or who shall hereafter enter into communion with the Metropolia, and also over all the parishes which are now affiliated with the Metropolia or which hereafter may be received into affiliation with the Metropolia, excluding all clergy, all properties and parishes enumerated in Article V, paragraph (1), subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c).

(2) The Patriarchate agrees that it shall not hereafter assert jurisdiction, either spiritual or temporal, over the bishops, clergy and faithful of the Eastern Orthodox faith referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article, or over the parishes referred to in said paragraph (1), and hereby cedes to the Metropolia all such jurisdiction in every respect which it now claims to possess, in that territory, excluding all clergy, properties and parishes enumerated in Article V, paragraph (1), subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c). 

Article IV
Dissolution of Exarchate
 
The Patriarchate agrees forthwith to dissolve its Exarchate in North America and to recall the Patriarchal Exarch from the territory of the Metropolia as described above and not to reestablish an Exarchate in such territory at any time in the future.

The Patriarchate further agrees that simultaneously with the issuance of the proclamation declaring the autocephaly of the Metropolia, as hereinafter provided, it shall issue a proclamation of His Holiness, the Patriarch of Moscow, and the Holy Synod formally declaring the dissolution of the Exarchate, and also agrees that the Patriarch shall communicate such proclamation to the Metropolitan of the Metropolia and to the heads of all other autocephalous Orthodox Churches. 

Article V
Parishes, properties and clergy remaining in the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate
 
(1) On the territory of North America there are excluded from Autocephaly:
(a) The St. Nicholas Cathedral, together with all its property located at 15 East 97th Street in the City of New York, as the Delegation (representation) of the Moscow Patriarchate, and the residence annexed thereto, and the real property located at Pine Bush, New York, together with the buildings and improvements thereon.

(b) The Parishes and clergy in the United States of America which are now affiliated with the Exarchate of the Patriarchate and which wish to remain canonically affiliated with the Patriarchate.

(c) The Parishes and clergy in Canada which are now affiliated with the Diocese of Edmonton and Canada of the Moscow Patriarchate and which wish to remain affiliated with the Patriarchate.
 
(2) The St. Nicholas Cathedral together with its property and the residence attached thereto and the real property in Pine Bush, New York, shall be administered by His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow by means of a person in the priestly rank representing the Patriarch.

Note, not a bishop.

Quote
(3) The Parishes and clergy presently remaining affiliated with the Patriarchate in the United States of America shall be administered by His Holiness, the Patriarch of Moscow, by means of one of his vicar bishops (not having the title of the local American Church) especially appointed to this office and until such time as these parishes will officially express their wish to join the Autocephalous Church in America, in the manner hereinafter provided.

(4) The parishes and clergy constituting presently the Diocese of Edmonton and Canada of the Moscow Patriarchate and presently remaining affiliated with the Patriarchate shall be administered by His Holiness, the Patriarch of Moscow, by means of one of his vicar bishops (not having the title of the local church) especially appointed to this office until such time as these parishes will officially express their wish to join the Autocephalous Church in America in the manner hereinafter provided.

(5) The Patriarchate agrees that it shall use its efforts to effect the affiliation with the Autocephalous Church in America of the clergy and the faithful of the faith who are now affiliated with the Patriarchal Exarchate and agrees not to counselor assist the affiliation of such clergy, faithful and parishes with any church of the Eastern Orthodox faith in continental North America and Hawaii except the Autocephalous Church in America.

(9) The Patriarchate shall not accept into its jurisdiction in North America either clerics without ca¬nonical releases, or parishes, except parishes from uncanonical ecclesiastical bodies in Canada, and shall not issue canonical permissions either to clerics or parishes in its jurisdiction to join any Orthodox jurisdiction except the jurisdiction of the Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America.

(12) Each of the Churches – the Moscow Patriarchate and the Orthodox Church in America – pledge not to undertake any actions or efforts directed at an intervention into the internal affairs of the other church or its parishes and each also pledges not to make any efforts to change the jurisdictional status of parishes under the authority of the other agreeing party. Clergy and parishes of each of the agreeing parties shall abide in peace and concord with one another.

Article VII
Parishes of the Metropolia
 
The Patriarchate agrees that the Metropolia shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all parishes located in continental North America and Hawaii which now are or may hereafter become affiliated with the Metropolia except that which is mentioned in Article V, paragraph (1): The Patriarchate further agrees that it will not directly or indirectly at any time or in any way
(a) assert jurisdiction over any of such parishes or the property of any of such parishes, except what has been mentioned in Article V, paragraph (1);

(b) assert any claim to any right, title or interest in any of the property of any of such parishes, except what has been mentioned in Article V, paragraph (1);

(c) accept any property from any of such parishes, or

(d) cooperate with any of such parishes either in a disaffiliation or attempted disaffiliation from the Metropolia or in an affiliation or attempted affiliation with any church other than the Autocephalous Church in America
http://www.oca.org/DOCautocephaly.asp?SID=12&ID=65
« Last Edit: May 05, 2009, 12:10:56 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #76 on: May 05, 2009, 12:13:30 PM »

Contrary to mentioning it, the Act infringes upon it.

Actually, no.  It doesn't.

No? Earlier you admitted:

The OCA's Tomos of Autocephaly and the ROCOR's Act of Canonical Communion are in contradiction and *cannot* reconciled. And yet the MP is clearly standing behind both.

Since ROCOR is partially grandfathered, the two are totally in contradiction. But yes, there are sticking points.

isalmisry, can you fully explain what you mean here, particularly what you see as the total contradiction between the Tomos and the Act?

LOL. My bad.

That the MP receives Met. Jonah as a visiting primate is not in question.   What is interesting, and I think your statement below touches on this, is why the MP would enter into an agreement with ROCOR (who's Synod is based in USA) which states: [snip]

Indeed.  If ROCOR did recognize OCA autocephaly all of those points you mention and more, including the language in point 3 (and others) would be a violation.

I think this is where you and I differ. I agree that it would be (in fact is) a violation. I just don't think it matters.

Look, the MP clearly recognizes Metropolitan Jonah as the primate of an autocephalous synod and commemorates him as Metropolitan of North America at every liturgy. Just as clearly, the MP has authorized ROCOR to continue to act in ways that violate the OCA's autocephaly. The OCA's Tomos of Autocephaly and the ROCOR's Act of Canonical Communion are in contradiction and *cannot* reconciled. And yet the MP is clearly standing behind both.
Since ROCOR is partially grandfathered, the two are totally in contradiction.  But yes, there are sticking points.

I see now that I left out the "not" in "are not totally." Hence the adversive (Russian "a"?) "But."

On the one hand, if you changed the references to the Patriarchal Parishes to ROCOR and its parishes, grandfathering as it were, the Act does not contradict the Tomos, as the Tomos itself has terms regarding the PoM retaining some jurisdiction in North America (and no, this is NOT without precedence.  For instance, the thread discussing the Serbian Parishes in Romania, a relic of the Austro-Hungarians (Orthodox Romanians originally could only flee to shelter to the Serbia patriarchate of Karlowitz).  The problem is that ROCOR was not party to the Tomos, nor in communion with anyone party to it.  The main sticking point comes from the Tomos' clauses that the Russian Orthodox Church not receiving parishes, bishops, etc. in the territory delineated by the Tomos for the OCA, excepting heterodox groups (I don't think that applies to ROCOR) or uncanonical groups in Canada (ROCOR being uncanonical in the eyes of both the Metropolia and ROC at the time).  The latter could be an escape clause, but it seems ROCOR wants to emphasize its Metropolitan being in the US.  Which not only causes problems, but also raises the question of why Met. Hilarion isn't on SCOBA.

As someone already stated, the ROC now has created an autonomous Church (ROCOR is technically only self ruling, but de facto acts more like an autonomous Church, at least for now), an exarchate, and an autocephalous Church on the same soil.  Ah, the quirks of history.

Btw, Father Ambrose has already answered your question about point 3:
I think you are chosing not to reveal the fact the the supreme authority of the Russian Church Abroad is....  Moscow.

Let's look at the following statutes of the Act of Canonical Communion.

9. The supreme instances of ecclesiastical authority for the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are the Local Council and the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church.

10. Decisions of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church extend to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia with consideration of the particularities described by the present Act, by the Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and by the legislation of the nations in which she performs her ministry.


The text is here - the official site of the Russian Church Abroad

http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/engdocuments/enmat_akt.html

and here - the official site of the Patriarchate

http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/070517113937.htm

you have come to see:

Reading over the OCA Tomos issued from the MP I found this interesting section.  I am wondering how this
stipulation was addressed in terms of what ROCOR and the MP have recently agreed upon.  Seems to me there is a contractual problem:

The Tomos of Autocephaly

 . . . . . . . . 7. The Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America shall have exclusive spiritual and canonical jurisdiction over all bishops, clerics and laymen of the Eastern Orthodox confession in continental North America, excluding Mexico, and including the State of Hawaii who are presently part of the Metropolitanate, or who shall later enter the Metropolitanate; and over all parishes which now belong or later shall be accepted into the Metropolitanate, excepting the entire clergy, possessions and parishes enumerated in Paragraph 3, points a,b,c.


Emphasis added.

Please excuse me for picking this up so late in the game.  Veniamin, seeing that you are in the OCA I thank you for pointing this out.  Others do not read do not have the same read on this as you do.   


"I have come to see"?  Sir, the OCA poster was refuting my 'questioning conclusion' by pointing out the Tomos only has authority over those "who are presently part of the Metropolitanate, or who shall later enter the Metropolitanate".



Quote
This point supports the MP calendar which recognizes USA as the canonical territory of the other ancient autocephalous Churches.

I'm sorry, but I don't know the canons on church calendars.  Those concerning the diptychs make much of Patriarch Alexei, and Kyrill commemorating "Иона, митрополит всея Америки и Канады," and ordering all his clergy in "All America and Canada" to commemorate "Господи Блаженнейшего Иону, Митрополита всея Америки и Канады."  As to his jurisdiction over "All America and Canada."

Quote
Like our officials have been saying, ROCOR is not obligated to enter the Metropolitanante, nowhere in the Act is such a move agreed upon.


At present no. But your status now is like that of the points before and after "this point" that you are depending on:
Quote
5. Parishes and clergy in the U.S.A. which remain in the canonical jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate shall be governed by the Most Holy Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia through one of his vicar bishops; not having a title of the local American Church, especially appointed for this, and until such time as these parishes express their official desire to join the Autocephalous Church in America in the manner described below.

6. Parishes and clergy which at this time constitute the Edmonton, Canada Diocese of the Moscow Patriarchate and remain in the canonical jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, shall be governed by the Most Holy Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia through one of his vicar bishops not having a title of the local American Church, especially appointed for this, and until such time as these parishes express their official desire to join the Autocephalous Church in America in the manner described below.....

...8. The Moscow Patriarchate shall not lay claim to either spiritual or canonical jurisdiction over bishops, clergy and laymen of the Eastern Orthodox confession, or over parishes mentioned in Division 1, Paragraph 7, and by the present yields to the Metropolitanate, all jurisdiction to which she has laid claim on the above men¬tioned territory (Paragraph 7); excepting the entire clergy, possessions and parishes enumerated in Para¬graph 3, points a,b,c.

9. The changing of jurisdictions by parishes which are in the canonical care of the Moscow Patriarchate after the proclamation of the Metropolitanate’s autocephaly shall occur on the initiative of the parishes them¬selves and after bilateral agreements in each concrete case between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Auto¬cephalous Church in America.

10. The Moscow Patriarchate shall not receive into its care in North America any clerics without written release or any parishes except parishes from uncanonical ecclesiastical organizations in Canada; and shall not canonically permit clergy and parishes remaining in its care to enter any of the Orthodox jurisdictions but the jurisdiction of the Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America.

This is the real crux as regards reconciling the Tomos and the Act of Canonical Communion.

Quote
11. The Patriarchate assures the parishes remaining in its care of its readiness to defend their status as parishes of the Moscow Patriarchate, and also defend the enumerated parishes from attempts to change their present status without a free expression of their decision without the written agreement of the Moscow Patriarchate.

12. The Moscow Patriarchate and the Orthodox Autocephalous Church in America shall maintain sincere fraternal relations, in which they should be guided by the bilateral agreements, signed by His Eminence, Metropolitan IRENEY, and by His Eminence, Metropolitan NIKODIM, Metropolitan of Leningrad and Novgorod, on March 31, 1970.

13. The Exarchate of North and South America, together with the dioceses in the U.S.A. and Canada which comprised it, is abolished.

Confirming the Autocephaly of the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in America, we bless her to call herself The Holy Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America; we acknowledge and proclaim her our Sister Church, and we invite all local Orthodox Churches and their Primates and their faithful children to acknowledge her as such and to include her in the dyptichs in accordance with the Canons of the Church, the traditions of the Fathers and ecclesiastical practice.


Again, I don't have the calendar, so I can't comment on it, although I'd like to see some things on it, as I mentioned above.

Btw, some interesting things regarding this in the agreements (unlike the one of Fr. Shaw or Lebedeb, actually referenced by the instrument of the Tomos), point 12.
Quote
Article III
Jurisdiction of the Autocephalous Church
 
(1) The Patriarchate agrees that the Metropolia after its proclamation as Autocephalous Church shall have exclusive jurisdiction, both spiritual and temporal, over all the bishops, clerics, and faithful of the Eastern Orthodox faith in continental North America, including the State of Hawaii, who are now in communion with the Metropolia or who shall hereafter enter into communion with the Metropolia, and also over all the parishes which are now affiliated with the Metropolia or which hereafter may be received into affiliation with the Metropolia, excluding all clergy, all properties and parishes enumerated in Article V, paragraph (1), subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c).

(2) The Patriarchate agrees that it shall not hereafter assert jurisdiction, either spiritual or temporal, over the bishops, clergy and faithful of the Eastern Orthodox faith referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article, or over the parishes referred to in said paragraph (1), and hereby cedes to the Metropolia all such jurisdiction in every respect which it now claims to possess, in that territory, excluding all clergy, properties and parishes enumerated in Article V, paragraph (1), subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c). 

Article IV
Dissolution of Exarchate
 
The Patriarchate agrees forthwith to dissolve its Exarchate in North America and to recall the Patriarchal Exarch from the territory of the Metropolia as described above and not to reestablish an Exarchate in such territory at any time in the future.

The Patriarchate further agrees that simultaneously with the issuance of the proclamation declaring the autocephaly of the Metropolia, as hereinafter provided, it shall issue a proclamation of His Holiness, the Patriarch of Moscow, and the Holy Synod formally declaring the dissolution of the Exarchate, and also agrees that the Patriarch shall communicate such proclamation to the Metropolitan of the Metropolia and to the heads of all other autocephalous Orthodox Churches. 

Article V
Parishes, properties and clergy remaining in the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate
 
(1) On the territory of North America there are excluded from Autocephaly:
(a) The St. Nicholas Cathedral, together with all its property located at 15 East 97th Street in the City of New York, as the Delegation (representation) of the Moscow Patriarchate, and the residence annexed thereto, and the real property located at Pine Bush, New York, together with the buildings and improvements thereon.

(b) The Parishes and clergy in the United States of America which are now affiliated with the Exarchate of the Patriarchate and which wish to remain canonically affiliated with the Patriarchate.

(c) The Parishes and clergy in Canada which are now affiliated with the Diocese of Edmonton and Canada of the Moscow Patriarchate and which wish to remain affiliated with the Patriarchate.
 
(2) The St. Nicholas Cathedral together with its property and the residence attached thereto and the real property in Pine Bush, New York, shall be administered by His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow by means of a person in the priestly rank representing the Patriarch.

Note, not a bishop.

Quote
(3) The Parishes and clergy presently remaining affiliated with the Patriarchate in the United States of America shall be administered by His Holiness, the Patriarch of Moscow, by means of one of his vicar bishops (not having the title of the local American Church) especially appointed to this office and until such time as these parishes will officially express their wish to join the Autocephalous Church in America, in the manner hereinafter provided.

(4) The parishes and clergy constituting presently the Diocese of Edmonton and Canada of the Moscow Patriarchate and presently remaining affiliated with the Patriarchate shall be administered by His Holiness, the Patriarch of Moscow, by means of one of his vicar bishops (not having the title of the local church) especially appointed to this office until such time as these parishes will officially express their wish to join the Autocephalous Church in America in the manner hereinafter provided.

(5) The Patriarchate agrees that it shall use its efforts to effect the affiliation with the Autocephalous Church in America of the clergy and the faithful of the faith who are now affiliated with the Patriarchal Exarchate and agrees not to counselor assist the affiliation of such clergy, faithful and parishes with any church of the Eastern Orthodox faith in continental North America and Hawaii except the Autocephalous Church in America.

(9) The Patriarchate shall not accept into its jurisdiction in North America either clerics without ca¬nonical releases, or parishes, except parishes from uncanonical ecclesiastical bodies in Canada, and shall not issue canonical permissions either to clerics or parishes in its jurisdiction to join any Orthodox jurisdiction except the jurisdiction of the Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America.

(12) Each of the Churches – the Moscow Patriarchate and the Orthodox Church in America – pledge not to undertake any actions or efforts directed at an intervention into the internal affairs of the other church or its parishes and each also pledges not to make any efforts to change the jurisdictional status of parishes under the authority of the other agreeing party. Clergy and parishes of each of the agreeing parties shall abide in peace and concord with one another.

Article VII
Parishes of the Metropolia
 
The Patriarchate agrees that the Metropolia shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all parishes located in continental North America and Hawaii which now are or may hereafter become affiliated with the Metropolia except that which is mentioned in Article V, paragraph (1): The Patriarchate further agrees that it will not directly or indirectly at any time or in any way
(a) assert jurisdiction over any of such parishes or the property of any of such parishes, except what has been mentioned in Article V, paragraph (1);

(b) assert any claim to any right, title or interest in any of the property of any of such parishes, except what has been mentioned in Article V, paragraph (1);

(c) accept any property from any of such parishes, or

(d) cooperate with any of such parishes either in a disaffiliation or attempted disaffiliation from the Metropolia or in an affiliation or attempted affiliation with any church other than the Autocephalous Church in America.

Article XI
Jurisdiction of the Orthodox Church in South and Central America
 
The parties agree that neither of them now possesses or claims to have exclusive jurisdiction of the Orthodox faith in the continent of South and Central America where the canonical status quo is preserved. 

Article XVI
Execution of Agreement
 
This agreement has been executed in duplicate in the Russian language, the agreed upon English translation being appended to the original, the parties agreeing that the Russian text is authentic and that each executed duplicate signed by both parties shall have the full force and effect of the original for all purposes. The present agreement is subject to unconditional observance by both parties. It shall remain equally binding upon the Moscow Patriarchate and upon the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in America after the procla¬mation of its autocephaly.
http://www.oca.org/DOCautocephaly.asp?SID=12&ID=65
« Last Edit: May 05, 2009, 12:21:16 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #77 on: May 09, 2009, 02:53:35 PM »

FYI:

A regular session of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia was held on May 5-7, 2009, in New York, in the presence of the Kursk-Root Icon of the Mother of God, presided over by His Eminence Metropolitan Hilarion . . . It was also decided to form a commission to study the relationship with the Orthodox Church in America and to hold joint meetings to discuss the sources of the division between the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and the American Metropoliate. Included in this commission are Bishop George, President; Archimandrite Luke (Murianka); Protopriest Alexander Lebedeff, Secretary; Protopriest David Moser and Priest Peter Jackson. The commission is to study and present findings on the reasons for the division and to evaluate the mutual accusations, and propose methods of healing the separation. 
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #78 on: May 09, 2009, 11:14:04 PM »

FYI:

A regular session of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia was held on May 5-7, 2009, in New York, in the presence of the Kursk-Root Icon of the Mother of God, presided over by His Eminence Metropolitan Hilarion . . . It was also decided to form a commission to study the relationship with the Orthodox Church in America and to hold joint meetings to discuss the sources of the division between the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and the American Metropoliate. Included in this commission are Bishop George, President; Archimandrite Luke (Murianka); Protopriest Alexander Lebedeff, Secretary; Protopriest David Moser and Priest Peter Jackson. The commission is to study and present findings on the reasons for the division and to evaluate the mutual accusations, and propose methods of healing the separation. 


Slava Boghu!  Maybe before 2018 all what the Bolsheviks did can be undone.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #79 on: May 11, 2009, 05:12:32 PM »

That both Churches recognize each other as canonical Churches and enjoy a good relationship should be a joy to us.   

Dear Punch,
 
I fully agree.    As a sign of the good relationship we see that the OCA has voluntarily transferred one of its parishes to the Russian Church Abroad.  Smiley
 
See
http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws:80/synod/eng2009/5enmhinterview.html
Logged
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #80 on: June 22, 2009, 12:56:46 PM »

I think this statement from Met. Jonah explains why ROCOR does not recognize OCA "autocephaly" nor was she required to upon her agreement with the MP:

"The Tomos does not allow for the full consequences of autocephaly to be proclaimed, that all other churches on the territory of the OCA are thereby uncanonical. Rather, it allows for the preservation of their ties to their mother churches until such time as all can be brought into a new unity, a single Church for America.

Thus, the OCA’s charter and vocation is for it to disappear: it is kenotic. Either it is to become the basis for the unity of the rest of the Churches in America; or it must enter into a new organization that will be fully autocephalous. We await this day, eagerly, so that the mission of the Orthodox Church and the proclamation of the Gospel are no longer compromised by the scandal of disunity."

http://www.ocanews.org/

Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #81 on: June 22, 2009, 02:17:08 PM »

I think this statement from Met. Jonah explains why ROCOR does not recognize OCA "autocephaly" nor was she required to upon her agreement with the MP:

"The Tomos does not allow for the full consequences of autocephaly to be proclaimed, that all other churches on the territory of the OCA are thereby uncanonical. Rather, it allows for the preservation of their ties to their mother churches until such time as all can be brought into a new unity, a single Church for America.

Thus, the OCA’s charter and vocation is for it to disappear: it is kenotic. Either it is to become the basis for the unity of the rest of the Churches in America; or it must enter into a new organization that will be fully autocephalous. We await this day, eagerly, so that the mission of the Orthodox Church and the proclamation of the Gospel are no longer compromised by the scandal of disunity."

http://www.ocanews.org/



I had hesitated to bring this up, and won't directly, but you do realize that what he is addressing, namely the episcopal assembly scheme of the EP, would mean the dissolution of ROCOR, as her hierarch under Patriarch Kyrill is not in the dyptichs, and no part of ROCOR is not located where the EP is claiming jurisdiction, do you?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #82 on: June 22, 2009, 03:36:04 PM »

Isa still suffers from EPitis.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #83 on: June 22, 2009, 06:04:07 PM »

Isa still suffers from EPitis.

Ultramontanism is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #84 on: June 23, 2009, 08:37:17 AM »

Isa still suffers from EPitis.

Ultramontanism is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure.

Perhaps you've checked my signature? You should.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #85 on: June 23, 2009, 10:17:27 AM »

Isa still suffers from EPitis.

Ultramontanism is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure.

Perhaps you've checked my signature? You should.

That's why I paraphrased.

Btw, depending on when I get news from DC, I'll be in Pittsburgh for the elevation next Saturday, Lord willing.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #86 on: June 24, 2009, 04:53:51 PM »

I think this statement from Met. Jonah explains why ROCOR does not recognize OCA "autocephaly" nor was she required to upon her agreement with the MP:

"The Tomos does not allow for the full consequences of autocephaly to be proclaimed, that all other churches on the territory of the OCA are thereby uncanonical. Rather, it allows for the preservation of their ties to their mother churches until such time as all can be brought into a new unity, a single Church for America.

Thus, the OCA’s charter and vocation is for it to disappear: it is kenotic. Either it is to become the basis for the unity of the rest of the Churches in America; or it must enter into a new organization that will be fully autocephalous. We await this day, eagerly, so that the mission of the Orthodox Church and the proclamation of the Gospel are no longer compromised by the scandal of disunity."

http://www.ocanews.org/



I had hesitated to bring this up, and won't directly, but you do realize that what he is addressing, namely the episcopal assembly scheme of the EP, would mean the dissolution of ROCOR, as her hierarch under Patriarch Kyrill is not in the dyptichs, and no part of ROCOR is not located where the EP is claiming jurisdiction, do you?

Sure.  Regardless of what (if anything) finally gets agreed upon by the Patriarchates, my point was to show via Met. Jonah's own statement that ROCOR was not off in her position concerning the OCA.  Earlier I had posted a comment by the ROCOR Archmandrite in Jerusalem wherein he basically explained that ROCOR's non-recognition of OCA autocephaly was based on the general definition of that term.  ROCOR recognizes OCA's right to make decisions and govern herself purely on her own yet at the same time does not recognize OCA exclusive authority over the American territory or other jurisdictions on that territory.   Met. Jonah's statement also lines up with what the Archmandrite explained concerning the MP calendar listing America as the canonical territory of other Patriarchates.

Anyway, I pray for all to be worked out occording to God's will and am glad for good relations that exist between ROCOR and OCA.   
« Last Edit: June 24, 2009, 04:57:05 PM by ROCORthodox » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #87 on: June 24, 2009, 05:05:49 PM »

I think this statement from Met. Jonah explains why ROCOR does not recognize OCA "autocephaly" nor was she required to upon her agreement with the MP:

"The Tomos does not allow for the full consequences of autocephaly to be proclaimed, that all other churches on the territory of the OCA are thereby uncanonical. Rather, it allows for the preservation of their ties to their mother churches until such time as all can be brought into a new unity, a single Church for America.

Thus, the OCA’s charter and vocation is for it to disappear: it is kenotic. Either it is to become the basis for the unity of the rest of the Churches in America; or it must enter into a new organization that will be fully autocephalous. We await this day, eagerly, so that the mission of the Orthodox Church and the proclamation of the Gospel are no longer compromised by the scandal of disunity."

http://www.ocanews.org/



I had hesitated to bring this up, and won't directly, but you do realize that what he is addressing, namely the episcopal assembly scheme of the EP, would mean the dissolution of ROCOR, as her hierarch under Patriarch Kyrill is not in the dyptichs, and no part of ROCOR is not located where the EP is claiming jurisdiction, do you?

Sure.  Regardless of what (if anything) finally gets agreed upon by the Patriarchates, my point was to show via Met. Jonah's own statement that ROCOR was not off in her position concerning the OCA.  Earlier I had posted a comment by the ROCOR Archmandrite in Jerusalem wherein he basically explained that ROCOR's non-recognition of OCA autocephaly was based on the general definition of that term.  ROCOR recognizes OCA's right to make decisions and govern herself purely on her own yet at the same time does not recognize OCA exclusive authority over the American territory or other jurisdictions on that territory. 

This is a different element in the issue.

Quote
 Met. Jonah's statement also lines up with what the Archmandrite explained concerning the MP calendar listing America as the canonical territory of other Patriarchates.

Anyway, I pray for all to be worked out occording to God's will and am glad for good relations that exist between ROCOR and OCA.   

Amen!
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #88 on: June 24, 2009, 05:27:14 PM »

Thus, the OCA’s charter and vocation is for it to disappear: it is kenotic. Either it is to become the basis for the unity of the rest of the Churches in America; or it must enter into a new organization that will be fully autocephalous. We await this day, eagerly, so that the mission of the Orthodox Church and the proclamation of the Gospel are no longer compromised by the scandal of disunity."

http://www.ocanews.org/

We must remember that this is simply theoretical musings about the future by Metropolitan Jonah.  He is the Primate of the OCA and not its Pope.  It is just his personal thoughts.  None of what he said has the approbation of the Synod of bishops and it is they who are in fine the canonical authority in the Church.  Nor can any of his theorising be used to define the canonical relationship of OCA with ROCA.  Such relationships are based on the cold hard facts of ecclesial life and not on one bishop's musings about the future.

Pope Benedict himself indulged in such theorising when as a Cardinal he proposed the creation of "Patriarchates" across the Roman Catholic Church, what he called "Ecclesiae in Ecclesia."  Nothing has come of it.   Likewise it may be unwise for ROCORians to hold their breath and await the day when Met Jonah's ideas come to pass.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #89 on: August 26, 2009, 12:57:02 PM »

Which leads to the existential question: what does the ROCOR think it is?

It is not a local Church, as it is outside, by its own self-definition, of its home. It's not autocephalous, as it names the primate of a local Church, i.e. Moscow, as its supreme primate. Yet it claims "complete independence." Is there precedence for such a Church?

Actually, I just thought Sinai is the closest example I can think of.  What think you?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
KevinOrr
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: United Methodist
Posts: 82


« Reply #90 on: August 27, 2009, 08:26:18 AM »

The tell tale sign on this matter is if ROCOR recognized OCA autocephaly we would be commemorating Met. Jonah at all services.   We don't. 

Not an argument.

Some of our priests are still not commemorating the Russian Patriarch liturgically.  This is being tolerated by both Moscow and New York as a transitional thing.  But I hope you won't argue that this non-commemoration is a telltale sign that we have not yet achived full union with Moscow !! ??   Grin

It would be good if people stopped trying to use ROCOR to prove anything. ROCOR's structure was always 'irregular', ROCOR itself always admitted that. Both the Metropolia and ROCOR were attempts to deal with an unprecedented situation--there are no canons defining how missionary dioceses and bishops-in-exile are supposed to operate when the main body of the Church is held captive by an anti-religious government which not only persecutes but attempts to infiltrate the Church, corrupt its communications, etc, etc. One can criticize many aspects of how one or the other (or both as well as the MP) responded to the situation, but everyone--including the other autocephalous churches recognized that the actions were being taken in an extraordinary context.

The Communists had some 8 decades to disrupt the life of the Church. Since their fall, it took almost a decade-and-a-half for not only the situation in Russia to normalize but for both sides to get past the anger, suspicion, fear, regret, resentment in order to start to normalize their relationship. And as Father points out, even now so the ROCOR still lost some members who couldn't see past the history and the situation is still not completely normalized.

The ROCOR and the OCA are going to take a similar amount of time to heal all the wounds committed over the 80 years. And the two couldn't even really start until the ROCOR and MP had normalized their relationship. Thankfully, all our bishops seem to be approaching this in a pastoral manner. Hopefully, eventually, the bishops will all sit down and work out how to normalize the canonical relationship of the ROCOR and OCA. But it is a lack of charity to assume that it has to happen NOW NOW NOW. Let the healing of the split between ROCOR and the MP have a chance to fully set in, and then the OCA-ROCOR issue can be addressed--yes, it's uncanonical, but that's why we have shepherds and not judges as bishops.

What a wonderful post. Thank you!
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #91 on: August 27, 2009, 10:08:39 AM »

The tell tale sign on this matter is if ROCOR recognized OCA autocephaly we would be commemorating Met. Jonah at all services.   We don't. 

Not an argument.

Some of our priests are still not commemorating the Russian Patriarch liturgically.  This is being tolerated by both Moscow and New York as a transitional thing.  But I hope you won't argue that this non-commemoration is a telltale sign that we have not yet achived full union with Moscow !! ??   Grin

It would be good if people stopped trying to use ROCOR to prove anything. ROCOR's structure was always 'irregular', ROCOR itself always admitted that. Both the Metropolia and ROCOR were attempts to deal with an unprecedented situation--there are no canons defining how missionary dioceses and bishops-in-exile are supposed to operate when the main body of the Church is held captive by an anti-religious government which not only persecutes but attempts to infiltrate the Church, corrupt its communications, etc, etc. One can criticize many aspects of how one or the other (or both as well as the MP) responded to the situation, but everyone--including the other autocephalous churches recognized that the actions were being taken in an extraordinary context.

The Communists had some 8 decades to disrupt the life of the Church. Since their fall, it took almost a decade-and-a-half for not only the situation in Russia to normalize but for both sides to get past the anger, suspicion, fear, regret, resentment in order to start to normalize their relationship. And as Father points out, even now so the ROCOR still lost some members who couldn't see past the history and the situation is still not completely normalized.

The ROCOR and the OCA are going to take a similar amount of time to heal all the wounds committed over the 80 years. And the two couldn't even really start until the ROCOR and MP had normalized their relationship. Thankfully, all our bishops seem to be approaching this in a pastoral manner. Hopefully, eventually, the bishops will all sit down and work out how to normalize the canonical relationship of the ROCOR and OCA. But it is a lack of charity to assume that it has to happen NOW NOW NOW. Let the healing of the split between ROCOR and the MP have a chance to fully set in, and then the OCA-ROCOR issue can be addressed--yes, it's uncanonical, but that's why we have shepherds and not judges as bishops.

What a wonderful post. Thank you!

I'll second that.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #92 on: January 17, 2014, 12:37:51 AM »

I guess I can see why the MP would tell ROCOR they don't have to recognize the OCA's autocephaly: since they're not in a position to officially recognize anyone's autocephaly (since they don't commemorate the diptychs of the Church), then their statements of non-recognition mean little since they are members of a Church (the Patriarchate of Moscow and all Russia) which does indeed recognize said autocephaly.
I wonder if the recent letter of ROCOR against, er, to the ACOBNCA changes this, as being discussed in this thread:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,56060.msg1064453.html#msg1064453
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 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 0.541 seconds with 120 queries.