OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 22, 2014, 09:54:57 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: ROCOR to Join Moscow Patriarchate  (Read 17336 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
amnesiac99
Always Hopeful, Yet Discontent
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 93

Create in me a clean heart, O God


WWW
« on: June 26, 2005, 01:48:46 PM »

I searched the boards for this subject and couldn't find it, so I'm posting it now. If it has already been discussed, then I apologize.


http://en.rian.ru/society/20050621/40555919.html

MOSCOW, June 21 (RIA Novosti, Olga Lipich) - The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) is set to join the Moscow Patriarchate as a self-governed branch, similar to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

The union was envisaged by a draft act on canonical communication, which was published Tuesday on the official Web sites of the foreign ties department of the Moscow Patriarchate and ROCOR, along with other documents adopted by the cross commissions for the bilateral dialogue.

"These documents cover the key issues that ROCOR considered to be major obstacles on the way to a full dialogue," said Protopope Nikolai Balashov, the secretary for Orthodox ties of the Moscow Patriarchate.

Under the draft act, ROCOR will retain independence in terms of organization, but will still become part of the Moscow Partriarchate. By way of example, he cited the Ukrainian, Latvian, Moldovan and Estonian Orthodox Churches, all branches of the Moscow Patriarchate.

According to the draft act, "ROCOR is independent in terms of pastoral, enlightening, administrative, economic, property and secular issues."

The document also states that ROCOR bishops are members of the Local and Bishop Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, and can participate in the Holy Synod sessions. ROCOR will also receive its holy oil from the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church.

The cross commissions for dialogue between the Moscow Patriarchate and ROCOR were established in December 2003. Metropolitan Laurus, the ROCOR Protohierarch, visited Russia in May 2004. Then the sides decided to begin the work of the commissions, and determined the range of issues to be discussed.

Since then, four joint sessions have been held.

"We are hopeful that the commissions will finish their work before the all-Foreign Council next May," Balashov said.


You can also view the documents produced by the Joint Session here on the Moscow Patriarchate site: http://www.mospat.ru/text/e_news/id/9553.html
« Last Edit: June 26, 2005, 01:49:32 PM by amnesiac99 » Logged

Through the prayers of our Holy Fathers, Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy upon and save us. Amen!
Michael
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 225


« Reply #1 on: June 26, 2005, 06:09:19 PM »

Blessed be God!
Logged
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #2 on: June 26, 2005, 06:58:20 PM »

What does this mean for ROCOR's relationship with other Orthodox Churches, such as the OCA or EP?
Logged
Donna Rose
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 937


« Reply #3 on: June 26, 2005, 08:16:22 PM »

Quote
What does this mean for ROCOR's relationship with other Orthodox Churches, such as the OCA or EP?

Hmm, I assumed in my head that, since the OCA is still in some degree attached to the MP (to much of the EO world, it is attached completely), we (OCA) would automatically be in communion w/ ROCOR...maybe this is a naive assumption and there's probably more to it, but anyone who knows better, please correct me if I'm off.

As for the EP, I have no clue what it means for them.

Well, come to think of it, there probably is a lot more to it than what I described above...now I'm curious as well. Anyone who knows or has a better idea of what this means for the relationshio between ROCOR and OCA, please chime in.
Logged

hmmmm...
Mattheos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 94


I'm a llama!


« Reply #4 on: June 26, 2005, 08:17:16 PM »

And does this mean that ROCOR will sever ties with Schismatic Old Calendar churches such as the "Synod in Resistance"?

That would mean that the rest of the canonical Orthodox World would have defacto communion with these schismatic groups if ROCOR doesn't drop them.

This news of reconciliation is welcome and fantastic. I'm just curious as to the backlash from the fanatic ROCOR members.

Mattheos
Logged

NULL
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #5 on: June 27, 2005, 12:21:48 AM »

What does this mean for ROCOR's relationship with other Orthodox Churches, such as the OCA or EP?

The Posistion of the Oecumenical Throne has long been that this is an Internal Issue, thus maintaining the Right of Moscow to determine the Canonicity of all the Bishops and Faithful (Schismatic or otherwise) under her Omophorion (Including the ROCOR Bishops). Thus, presumably, Communion between the Oecumenical Patriarchate and ROCOR Bishops would resume as soon as the ROCOR become Bishops In Communion with and Under the Synod of Moscow, which would be at the next Synod of Moscow IF the ROCOR Bishops' Names are entered into the Minutes as both Members of and Subject to the Synod of Moscow...that is to say if Relations between these ROCOR Bishops and their Canonical Synod in Moscow are Normalized.

And does this mean that ROCOR will sever ties with Schismatic Old Calendar churches such as the "Synod in Resistance"?

That would mean that the rest of the canonical Orthodox World would have defacto communion with these schismatic groups if ROCOR doesn't drop them.

ROCOR would become an Autonomous Church under the Patriarchate of Moscow, but only Autocephalous Churches, not Autonomous Churches, have the Authority to determine determine Issues of Communion with Other Churches. By virtue of this agreement the ROCOR Synod would have to Submit to the Synod of Moscow inregard to inter-Church relations...thus being required to Break Communion with Any Moscow is not in Communion with (or enter into communion with any Moscow is in Communion with).
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #6 on: June 27, 2005, 04:53:43 AM »

FWIW I believe the Cyprianites said they would sever their already thin ties to the ROCOR. 
Logged
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #7 on: June 27, 2005, 06:01:07 AM »

And I read (from a ROCOR priest) that ROCOR was trying to encourage schismatic Old Calendarist groups like the True Orthodox Church of Romania to reconcile themselves to the Mother churches as long as they are given assurances on the calendar. I sincerely hope that succeeds. I'd like to be able to visit Slatioara (their main monastery close to where my wife is from) and worship on what I consider to be the true Calendar. I also think it would result in us moving back to the Old Calendar in the long run - I know an awful lot of ordinary Romanian clergy and lay folk who disapprove (but reluctantly follow) the New Calendar.

James 
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
amnesiac99
Always Hopeful, Yet Discontent
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 93

Create in me a clean heart, O God


WWW
« Reply #8 on: June 27, 2005, 10:05:46 AM »

And I read (from a ROCOR priest) that ROCOR was trying to encourage schismatic Old Calendarist groups like the True Orthodox Church of Romania to reconcile themselves to the Mother churches as long as they are given assurances on the calendar.

That would certainly be a welcome change. I've long said that the Orthodox Church needs a definitive break from the ecumenical movement in order to heal the myriad internal rifts she has suffered. Metropolitan +Laurus deserves great credit for leading ROCOR in this dialogue with Moscow, in spite of the rift within the Church Abroad that resulted. We cannot allow these divisions to become permanent in reality or in our hearts.
Logged

Through the prayers of our Holy Fathers, Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy upon and save us. Amen!
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #9 on: June 27, 2005, 10:26:37 AM »

That would certainly be a welcome change. I've long said that the Orthodox Church needs a definitive break from the ecumenical movement in order to heal the myriad internal rifts she has suffered. Metropolitan +Laurus deserves great credit for leading ROCOR in this dialogue with Moscow, in spite of the rift within the Church Abroad that resulted. We cannot allow these divisions to become permanent in reality or in our hearts.

The Oecumenical Movement, if not a Necessity to the Fulfillment of our Evangelical Mission, is Certainly Politically vital and essential to the Well-Being of the Church in Nations where Orthodox Christians constitute a minority of the Population. These Schismatic Entities which have broken from the Church need to Either Learn to Submit to the proper Synods and Compromise on these clearly Non-Dogmatic Non-Moral issues of Church Discipline, otherwise they are no longer Orthodox and the Break between us and them is a Permanent as between us and the Latins or Anglicans.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
amnesiac99
Always Hopeful, Yet Discontent
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 93

Create in me a clean heart, O God


WWW
« Reply #10 on: June 27, 2005, 10:45:14 AM »

The Oecumenical Movement, if not a Necessity to the Fulfillment of our Evangelical Mission, is Certainly Politically vital and essential to the Well-Being of the Church in Nations where Orthodox Christians constitute a minority of the Population. These Schismatic Entities which have broken from the Church need to Either Learn to Submit to the proper Synods and Compromise on these clearly Non-Dogmatic Non-Moral issues of Church Discipline, otherwise they are no longer Orthodox and the Break between us and them is a Permanent as between us and the Latins or Anglicans.

No, that is simply wrong-headed. These groups, while schismatic, remain Orthodox in their theology and practice; as such, the divisions between us and them deserve more attention than the divisions between the Orthodox Church and, for instance, the Roman Catholic Church. In reality, it is too much to hope that Rome will surrender papal conceits or that Canterbury will abandon its moral and theological relativism. Ecumenism is an increasingly futile exercise and one that has damaged the Church of Christ more than it has helped. Now, if we wish to persist in bilateral dialogue with specific churches, that is fine. But our continued membership in bodies such as the WCC and NCC is a scandal and should be ended.
Logged

Through the prayers of our Holy Fathers, Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy upon and save us. Amen!
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #11 on: June 27, 2005, 11:04:31 AM »

The Oecumenical Movement, if not a Necessity to the Fulfillment of our Evangelical Mission, is Certainly Politically vital and essential to the Well-Being of the Church in Nations where Orthodox Christians constitute a minority of the Population. These Schismatic Entities which have broken from the Church need to Either Learn to Submit to the proper Synods and Compromise on these clearly Non-Dogmatic Non-Moral issues of Church Discipline, otherwise they are no longer Orthodox and the Break between us and them is a Permanent as between us and the Latins or Anglicans.

One wonders if you were banging your fists on your desk as you typed out this post LOL.

Ecumenism distorts the evangelical mission of the Church.  Read the documents that Orthodox have signed that call into question the unique salvific work of the Orthodox Church and her sacraments (such as your Patriarch's recognition of Lutheran "baptism" last year, etc.)  I recall the statements of Nissiotis, the archecumenist, who apologized for the Orthodox believing themselves to be the only true Church in the 1960's.  While Niss. is not the Orthodox Church, nothing was done to him.  The Ecumenical movement actually keeps some conservative Protestants from joining Orthodoxy; my Missouri Synod Lutheran friend took a long time to come to Orthodoxy because of its involvement in the WCC.  And others do not come over because they think that Orthodoxy accepts them as is.  I recall the difference in approach between Professor Florovsky, namely "for me, Christian unity can only mean universal conversion to the Orthodox Church" and that of my own professor, Dr. Bouteneff (whom I admire just so it is known) who stated in his book on ecumenism that coroporate reunion should have a priority over personal conversion, etc., thus in effect denying the sacraments to an entire group of people in the hopes that their "church" will come over to Orthodoxy en masse.

As far as political concerns, please.  Don't sell the souls of Orthodox for political concessions.  Besides, when Orthodox take money from Protestant groups and gov't agencies due to ecumenism, but don't actually accept such people as truly in the right, isn't there a bit of dishonesty going on here?

Finally, your rant about the "schismatics," amusing as it may be, reveals your lack of concern for the ecclesiological implications of ecumenism and your overreliance on the papal claims of Constantinople and other sees.  The issue of ecumenism is dogmatic, is moral, and as such, being a betrayal of Orthodoxy, calls to question the obligation to submit to such an authority.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,441


« Reply #12 on: June 27, 2005, 11:25:57 AM »

Thank you Anastasios.  Well said.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #13 on: June 27, 2005, 11:32:47 AM »

No, that is simply wrong-headed. These groups, while schismatic, remain Orthodox in their theology and practice; as such, the divisions between us and them deserve more attention than the divisions between the Orthodox Church and, for instance, the Roman Catholic Church. In reality, it is too much to hope that Rome will surrender papal conceits or that Canterbury will abandon its moral and theological relativism. Ecumenism is an increasingly futile exercise and one that has damaged the Church of Christ more than it has helped. Now, if we wish to persist in bilateral dialogue with specific churches, that is fine. But our continued membership in bodies such as the WCC and NCC is a scandal and should be ended.

Though some of these Groups may remain Orthodox in Theology (then again, so are some Anglo-Catholics), I would argue that by virtue of entering into Schism they are not Orthodox in their Practice. Discussions between us and these Schismatic organizations are as much oecumenical discussions as those between us and the latins or anglicans; and just like with our discussions with the latins and anglicans, we have expectations we expect these groups to meet if we are to consider them Orthodox and enter into Communion with them. The Orthodox Church has considerable influence in and receives considerable benifit from membership in the WCC, and now is not the time to go back on our Comitment to this Organization; for even if we did, without a subsequent shift towards radicalism and fundamentalism within the Church issues of communion with the said schismatics would not be resolved.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #14 on: June 27, 2005, 11:48:58 AM »

One wonders if you were banging your fists on your desk as you typed out this post LOL.

Nope, I've always found that a calm argument with carefully chosen words, while letting the other person bang his fists on their desk and head against the wall, is more effective; I try to avoid getting emotionally involved iny debates.

Quote
Ecumenism distorts the evangelical mission of the Church.ÂÂ  Read the documents that Orthodox have signed that call into question the unique salvific work of the Orthodox Church and her sacraments (such as your Patriarch's recognition of Lutheran "baptism" last year, etc.)ÂÂ  I recall the statements of Nissiotis, the archecumenist, who apologized for the Orthodox believing themselves to be the only true Church in the 1960's.ÂÂ  While Niss. is not the Orthodox Church, nothing was done to him.ÂÂ  The Ecumenical movement actually keeps some conservative Protestants from joining Orthodoxy; my Missouri Synod Lutheran friend took a long time to come to Orthodoxy because of its involvement in the WCC.ÂÂ  And others do not come over because they think that Orthodoxy accepts them as is.ÂÂ  I recall the difference in approach between Professor Florovsky, namely "for me, Christian unity can only mean universal conversion to the Orthodox Church" and that of my own professor, Dr. Bouteneff (whom I admire just so it is known) who stated in his book on ecumenism that coroporate reunion should have a priority over personal conversion, etc., thus in effect denying the sacraments to an entire group of people in the hopes that their "church" will come over to Orthodoxy en masse.

The Corporate Conversion philosophy, however, does have the advantage of allowing evangelism without proselytism...a line that is often Crossed when any religious group tries to evangelize individuals; with that said, there is room for both in the Orthodox Church one does not have to exclude the other, it simply requires us to be careful. Furthermore, the exposure the Orthodox Church gets to the World through the WCC can also be benificial, we can influence other churches and make ourselves and our posistions known. The WCC is a useful forum which has brought both political and economic benifit to the Orthodox Church.

Quote
As far as political concerns, please.ÂÂ  Don't sell the souls of Orthodox for political concessions.ÂÂ  Besides, when Orthodox take money from Protestant groups and gov't agencies due to ecumenism, but don't actually accept such people as truly in the right, isn't there a bit of dishonesty going on here?

We have made our Posistions quite clear, there is no deceit involved. Much of the money we receive are for cultural preservation, benifiting everyone whether they're Orthodox or not, but costs we would have to pay out of pocket if not for these grants from oecumenical organizations

Quote
Finally, your rant about the "schismatics," amusing as it may be, reveals your lack of concern for the ecclesiological implications of ecumenism and your overreliance on the papal claims of Constantinople and other sees.ÂÂ  The issue of ecumenism is dogmatic, is moral, and as such, being a betrayal of Orthodoxy, calls to question the obligation to submit to such an authority.

I have made no secret of my Loyality to the Oecumenical Throne on this board; I believe the Oecumenical Patriarch and the Bishops who stand with him on these issues to be correct and representative of the Orthodox Church as a whole, I do not believe they have compromised on doctrinal or moral issues, though politics, in the greatest spirit of Byzantium, have certainly been played...to our advantage IMO. As far as my 'rant' about the schismatics, I believe myself to be correct in my statements, they broke from the Church and defied their Synod over issues of nominal significance, in light of Chrysostom's statement that Schism is a worse crime than Heresy, I do not see how we can regard these organizations as being substantially more orthodox than the Latins or Anglicans.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Felipe Ortiz
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 83

For He was made man that we might be made God.


« Reply #15 on: June 27, 2005, 02:13:25 PM »

Those ones who wish to find by themselves if sergianism is an "issue of nominal significance" would do well in looking for a book named The Truth About Religion in Russia, issued by the Moscow Patriarchate and published in English in 1942 by Hutchinson and Co. as part of the propaganda efforts of the MP in the West during the II World War. Its purpose is showing to the Western readers that there was no religious persecution at all in the USSR. The exemplary preface was written by Patriarch Sergius himself; the rest of the book is the work of various MP Hierarchs and clergymen. I believe this book had a massive printing and worldwide distribution (despite the hardship of circumstances) and it may not be too hard to find, as even in Brazil I was able to find a copy in a local library.

The joint declaration of the MP and ROCOR Commissions about sergianism is a monument to doublespeak, a "criticism without condemnation". It does movingly "regret" and criticize the sergianist path in not a few passages; but, at the same time, most of the text is rather dedicated to the justification of this path, given its results and the current circumstances. Sergianist ecclesiastical policies are considered to have been responsible for the salvation of the Russian Church ("the policies of Metropolitan Sergius enabled the reestablishment of church life during and after the Second World War") while the way of non-cooperation with communist persecutors is dismissed as inefficacious ("the passage of time showed that communities refusing communion with the church hierarchy headed by Metropolitan Sergius were deprived of the possibility of survival under persecution, and those remnants that did survive could not openly confess Christ's teachings and influence the spiritual life of the people") or spiritually dangerous ("among those who remained separated from communion with the Moscow Patriarchate, the danger arose of veering into sectarianism") and thus the sergianist way, no matter how fairly one can "criticize" it, is not to be condemned at all ("at the same time, a critical view of the above document does not equate to a condemnation of His Holiness Patriarch Sergius, and does not express an effort to besmirch his person and mitigate his First-Hierarchical service in the difficult years of the Church's life in the Soviet Union.").

These are the bases upon which ROCOR and MP are planning to reconcile now: the justification of sergianism as a "necessary evil" and, therefore, an express repudiation of all previous condemnations of it ("in connection with this, it is proposed that when the above Act [of Canonical Communion] is put into effect, all previous acts which would hinder the fullness of canonical communion are declared invalid" -- See another joint declaration by ROCOR and MP Commissions).
« Last Edit: June 27, 2005, 04:48:37 PM by Felipe Ortiz » Logged
yBeayf
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #16 on: June 27, 2005, 03:17:20 PM »

Quote
in light of Chrysostom's statement that Schism is a worse crime than Heresy, I do not see how we can regard these organizations as being substantially more orthodox than the Latins or Anglicans.

Well, except for the fact that they hold to no heresy...
« Last Edit: June 27, 2005, 03:17:27 PM by Beayf » Logged
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #17 on: June 27, 2005, 05:06:11 PM »

Before you get too wrapped up in your arguments, GreekisChristian, please keep in mind the better parts of the Church throughout the world are quite opposed to the ecumenical movement.  The recent confrence on the subject in Thessaloniki (and if your travels ever take you there, you may be surprised at just how many people are anti- ecumenists) is a prime example of that.  The entire Athonite establishment, many bishops within Greece (including the well respected Metr. Hierotheos Vlachas and the Archbishop Panteleimon of Thessaloniki of blessed memory), such promiment bishops as Patriarch Pavle of Serbia, Metr. Amfilohije of Montenegro and Bishop Artemije (who it appears the EP is trying to silence!) have all spoken vocally against ecumenism. 

Before claiming the Phanar represents the pan Orthodox view on this matter, I'd look first at what the modern saints and fathers of the church felt on the issue: Saint Nektarios, Saint Savvas the new, Saint Justin Popovich, Elder Philotheos Zervakos, Elder Joseph the Hesychast, Elder Ephraim of Katounakia or Elder Cleopa of Sihastria. 
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #18 on: June 28, 2005, 03:10:35 AM »

Those ones who wish to find by themselves if sergianism is an "issue of nominal significance" would do well in looking for a book named The Truth About Religion in Russia, issued by the Moscow Patriarchate and published in English in 1942 by Hutchinson and Co. as part of the propaganda efforts of the MP in the West during the II World War. Its purpose is showing to the Western readers that there was no religious persecution at all in the USSR. The exemplary preface was written by Patriarch Sergius himself; the rest of the book is the work of various MP Hierarchs and clergymen. I believe this book had a massive printing and worldwide distribution (despite the hardship of circumstances) and it may not be too hard to find, as even in Brazil I was able to find a copy in a local library.

The So-Called Heresy of which Patriarch Sergi of Moscow is accused is essentially the clearly diabolical teaching of "Render Unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's.' The Patriarchate of Moscow did what they had to do to Survive and the Church in Russia today is in a better Posistion because of it. Surely one would not argue that Russia would be better off today if the Communists had completely surpressed the Church and eliminated every trace of it from Russia, which very well may have happened if the Church insisted on being a continuing Counter-Revolutionary force. Upon the Patriarchate taking measures to Survive a few Self-Righteous Bishops who were safely enthroned beyond the reach of the Communist Governments of the world decided to take it upon themselves to condemn their own Synod and Patriarch and establish their only new 'Church,' in defiance of the said Synod. In light of this, it should be no Surprise why Constantinople and the Rest of the Orthodox Patriarchs, whether in the Communist or Capitalist world, decided not to be swayed by this small group and rather did that they knew was best for Orthodoxy, both in Russia and for the Unity of the Orthodox Churches.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #19 on: June 28, 2005, 03:11:00 AM »

Well, except for the fact that they hold to no heresy...

My point was that Schism was worse than Heresy.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #20 on: June 28, 2005, 03:22:14 AM »

Before you get too wrapped up in your arguments, GreekisChristian, please keep in mind the better parts of the Church throughout the world are quite opposed to the ecumenical movement.ÂÂ  The recent confrence on the subject in Thessaloniki (and if your travels ever take you there, you may be surprised at just how many people are anti- ecumenists) is a prime example of that.ÂÂ  The entire Athonite establishment, many bishops within Greece (including the well respected Metr. Hierotheos Vlachas and the Archbishop Panteleimon of Thessaloniki of blessed memory), such promiment bishops as Patriarch Pavle of Serbia, Metr. Amfilohije of Montenegro and Bishop Artemije (who it appears the EP is trying to silence!) have all spoken vocally against ecumenism.ÂÂ  

As I have said many times, I am a subject of the Oecumenical Throne, it is the Oecumenical Patriarchate's view on Oecumenism that concerns me most, Monastics and Spiritual Fathers have their place in the Church, a very important place, but it is not in Ruling the Church and establishing policy. His All-Holiness is a competent and skilled Canonist, and I believe has what is best for the Church in mind.

Concerning the Conference in Thessaloniki, as I was told from a Priest who attended and spoke at it, it was clearly stacked. A single Monastery had arranged it with an agenda, and people who did not fit into their agenda were not invited...so it's to be expected that the said agenda was advanced by the conference. The Priest to whom I refer was one of the very few people to speak favourably of the Oecumenical Movement.

Oecumenism is essentially nothing more than dialogue and the politeness and civility that goes along with dialogue. When people speak against Oecumenism they sometimes speak against dialogue, but more often than not they object to the politeness and civility. These people need to realize that the Oecumenical Throne and others involved in these Dialogues are not selling anyone or anything out, they maintain the Orthodox Theology, Praxis, and Mindset that they have always held...they have simply been around enough to realize that you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Bogoliubtsy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,268



« Reply #21 on: June 28, 2005, 03:31:13 AM »

Upon the Patriarchate taking measures to Survive a few Self-Righteous Bishops who were safely enthroned beyond the reach of the Communist Governments of the world decided to take it upon themselves to condemn their own Synod and Patriarch and establish their only new 'Church,' in defiance of the said Synod. In light of this, it should be no Surprise why Constantinople and the Rest of the Orthodox Patriarchs, whether in the Communist or Capitalist world, decided not to be swayed by this small group

Absurd. Those bishops who resisted submission to the godless bolsheviks were not just those safe outside of Russia's borders. Dozens of bishops were martyred for not submitting to this authority, as I'm sure you know. So it's ridiculous to claim that those bishops outside of Russia were "self righteous" when their voices echoed the voices of the bishops already murdered for their beliefs- only the emigres could speak openly without fear of persecution. What should they have done, kept quiet?
That being said, you have some audacity to place the word churchin quotation marks, considering this church produced one of the greatest saints of this century. Also, I hope you do realize that the GOA was in communion with ROCOR at least until the 1960's. After that, the GOA began to break ties with ROCOR for ROCOR's refusal to join the ecumenical movement, as well as their condemnation of the Orthodox decline of the ecumenical throne. And, as I'm sure you know as an astute student of the "fair and balanced" Orthodox seminary you attend- the Patriarchates of Serbia and Jerusalem have always maintained communion with ROCOR. It was Serbia who helped house and protect ROCOR's bishops after the revolution. I realize that Holy Cross' Church history classes which deal with 20th century Orthodoxy rarely extend beyond the history of Greek Christians in America, but this lack of knowledge is pathetic, especially when spoken with such pomp. Did you convert at seminary?
Logged

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara
Felipe Ortiz
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 83

For He was made man that we might be made God.


« Reply #22 on: June 28, 2005, 10:13:34 AM »

The So-Called Heresy of which Patriarch Sergi of Moscow is accused is essentially the clearly diabolical teaching of "Render Unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's.' The Patriarchate of Moscow did what they had to do to Survive and the Church in Russia today is in a better Posistion because of it. Surely one would not argue that Russia would be better off today if the Communists had completely surpressed the Church and eliminated every trace of it from Russia, which very well may have happened if the Church insisted on being a continuing Counter-Revolutionary force.

Absurd as well. We are not talking about "being a continuing counter-revolutionary force". We are talking about adopting the same stance the holy Confessors and Martyrs of the first three centuries adopted when facing Roman persecutions.

The Holy Martyrs of the first three centuries were not a "revolutionary" or "counter-revolutionary force" at all, but they did not actively cooperated with the Roman persecutors. They did not provide lists of Christians to the persecuting authorities. They did not usurpate the ecclesiastical prerrogatives of arrested Hierarchs. They did not write letters to authorities asking them not to release these Hierarchs. They did not deny to the whole world the very existence of persecution. They did never lie. They were not active colaborators in governmental anti-Christian propaganda, neither praised such colaboration as a civic virtue. They did not worked as informers to the persecutors. They did not condemn as betrayers Christians who affirmed the existence of persecution. Most of all, they never were so lacking of faith, or so arrogant, that they thought the Church might not survive if they confessed the Faith truly and properly and were punished with death because of it. They knew that the Church is eternal, the very foundation of Universe, and that the world will come to an end, but not the Church. They knew that they were not to "save the Church", but the Church was to save them, if they remained faithful to the Church until the end. They knew that God would keep and sustain the Church, in His own way, according to His promise.

The last phrase of your statement above is an example of the "what-is-not-seen falacy", as Bastiat called it. Who knows how much time communist rule in Russia would take if all the Hierarchs have adopted the traditional stance in face of persecutions? Who knows if God would have mercy on them and shorten those days? All we know is what we have seen: the traditional teaching about how Christians should endure persecutions was not followed by some pivotal members of the Church -- with tragic and enduring spiritual consequences.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2005, 10:17:51 AM by Felipe Ortiz » Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #23 on: June 28, 2005, 10:43:50 AM »

Orthodox participants in the ecumenical movement want to catch people? Have never weakened the Orthodox praxis, ethos, and doctrine? Have you ever even read anything that the Orthodox ecumenists have written or signed, GreekisChristian?

As far as speaking against politeness and civility, that is absurd.  Some people certainly are like that but the majority of the time people are speaking against the "dialogue" not the politeness.  What anti-ecumenical writings have you read, by the way?

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #24 on: June 28, 2005, 11:28:53 AM »

Absurd. Those bishops who resisted submission to the godless bolsheviks were not just those safe outside of Russia's borders. Dozens of bishops were martyred for not submitting to this authority, as I'm sure you know. So it's ridiculous to claim that those bishops outside of Russia were "self righteous" when their voices echoed the voices of the bishops already murdered for their beliefs- only the emigres could speak openly without fear of persecution. What should they have done, kept quiet?
That being said, you have some audacity to place the word churchin quotation marks, considering this church produced one of the greatest saints of this century. Also, I hope you do realize that the GOA was in communion with ROCOR at least until the 1960's. After that, the GOA began to break ties with ROCOR for ROCOR's refusal to join the ecumenical movement, as well as their condemnation of the Orthodox decline of the ecumenical throne. And, as I'm sure you know as an astute student of the "fair and balanced" Orthodox seminary you attend- the Patriarchates of Serbia and Jerusalem have always maintained communion with ROCOR. It was Serbia who helped house and protect ROCOR's bishops after the revolution. I realize that Holy Cross' Church history classes which deal with 20th century Orthodoxy rarely extend beyond the history of Greek Christians in America, but this lack of knowledge is pathetic, especially when spoken with such pomp. Did you convert at seminary?

Actually it was ROCOR's failure to Submit to their Proper Synod in Moscow that lead to the Oecumenical Throne breaking Communion with them. As Constantinople ruled, the Status of ROCOR is an entirely internal Issue within the Synod of Moscow: if Moscow Regards them as part of their Synod, and Hence members of the Church, they are...if Moscow regards them as out of Communion, then they are. As it's an internal issue the opinions of Serbia and Jerusalem are of nominal concern as they lack Jurisdiction. It's a simple issue of Canonical Order within the Church, and the fact that None of the Orthodox Patriarchates broke Communion with Moscow over this issue (Not even Serbia or Jerusalem) demonstrates that this is entirely an issue of Church Discipline and not Theology...Moscow fell into no heresy, but ROCOR did commit Schism. With this said, I hope the bonds of communion are restored, for while I have little tolerance or simpathy for Schismatics I can sympathize with the plight of the White Russians.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Felipe Ortiz
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 83

For He was made man that we might be made God.


« Reply #25 on: June 28, 2005, 11:33:37 AM »

Upon the Patriarchate taking measures to Survive a few Self-Righteous Bishops who were safely enthroned beyond the reach of the Communist Governments of the world decided to take it upon themselves to condemn their own Synod and Patriarch and establish their only new 'Church,' in defiance of the said Synod. In light of this, it should be no Surprise why Constantinople and the Rest of the Orthodox Patriarchs, whether in the Communist or Capitalist world, decided not to be swayed by this small group and rather did that they knew was best for Orthodoxy, both in Russia and for the Unity of the Orthodox Churches.

Bogoliubtsy answered it well. My only additions to his answer are the following:

a) ROCOR was not established "in defiance of MP Synod", but on the grounds of the Directive #362 issued by the Holy Synod of Moscow (then presided by the holy New Martyr St. Tikhon) in November 7/20, 1920. This Ukaze has allowed Bishops outside Russia to form an administration of their own.

b) The canonical basis of ROCOR was then object of universal recognition; the first headquarters of ROCOR were in Constantinople. In December 2, 1920, Metropolitan Dorotheus, Locum Tenens of the EP (there was no Ecumenical Patriarch from 1918 to 1921, so Metropolitan Dorotheus was in the higher position of that local Church), has blessed the Higher Church Administration of ROCOR to continue his work there, under the leadership of Metropolitan Anthony. (ROCOR would move her headquarters to Serbia one year later).

c) Communion between ROCOR and EP continued until the 60's, when it was made utterly impossible by the actions and sayings of Patriarch Athenagoras. A selection of quotations from Patriarch Athenagoras:

"The Age of Dogma has passed." (June, 1963)

"We see no obstacle on the path leading to union between the Church of Rome and the Church of the East... We do not see an obstacle, for the very simple reason that such obstacles do not exist." (October, 1967)

"All of the Christian Churches are journeying, today, towards Church unity. Christian peoples have grown weary of looking at the darkness of the past. The interminable quarrels of nine whole centuries have led to nothing other than the spiritual coldness of many people and an obfuscation of their awareness that the Church is one." (November, 1967)

"We Churches are all emerging from ourselves. We are awakening the consciences of Christians to the fact that we belong to the same religion. We are making the longing for union the predominant demand of our age. We are lowering the banners of hatred and, in their place, we are raising the Cross of love and sacrifice. And finally, we are exchanging Holy Cups with each other, praying that we may, one day, commune from the same Cup, as we used to live during the first millennium of Christianity, in spite of the differences that existed then." (November, 1967)

"In the movement for union, it is not a question of one Church moving towards the other, but let us all together refound the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, coexisting in the East and the West, as we lived up until 1054, in spite of the theological differences that existed then." (December, 1967)

"We are deceived and we sin, if we think that the Orthodox faith came down from Heaven and that all [other] creeds are unworthy. Three hundred million people have chosen Islam in order to reach their god, and other hundreds of millions are Protestants, Catholics, and Buddhists. The goal of every religion is to improve mankind." (December, 1968)

Such teachings were denounced by Metropolitan Philaret of New York in his Sorrowful Epistles. EP's reaction was not to review these statements, but rather in practice put an end to the intercommunion that had existed between EP and ROCOR until then.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2005, 11:44:30 AM by Felipe Ortiz » Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #26 on: June 28, 2005, 11:39:20 AM »

GreekisChristian:

Do you have the proper documentation for when Constantinople broke communion with ROCOR? It is my understanding that this only happened after ROCOR approved after the fact of the consecrations of bishops for the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians.  Others, however, claim that Constantinople and ROCOR never actually broke communion but simply refrain from concelebrating; witness, for instance, the 2 to 3 concelebrations between ROCOR and Pat of Constantinople clergy in various settings over the past 2 years that are public knowledge.

Some would say that ROCOR didn't commit schism; the MP did when it enthroned Sergius and created the anti-canonical MP in 1946.  Others would claim that it really doesn't matter if Constantinople approves of this or that group, considering that the Masonic Patriarch Meletius once even approved of the Living Church (!) and entered communion with it.

Btw, I'm just curious why we should care that you have little tolerance or sympathy for schismatics? Wink  That's why I imagined in a previous post that you get excited about this stuff, because you seem to have a penchant for telling us what you personally like or dislike, who you are in allegiance to, etc...I don't see how any of that matters in the discussion at hand, but I suppose you are free to throw it around.  You don't for instance see me often cite the authority or position of the Orthodox Church to which I am affiliated, for instance.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,432



« Reply #27 on: June 28, 2005, 11:54:09 AM »

My point was that Schism was worse than Heresy.

You have just quoted any number of Episcopal bishops in justifying their consents to the consecration of V. Gene Robinson.

Just thought you should know.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #28 on: June 28, 2005, 11:56:51 AM »

Absurd as well. We are not talking about "being a continuing counter-revolutionary force". We are talking about adopting the same stance the holy Confessors and Martyrs of the first three centuries adopted when facing Roman persecutions.

The Church today is not the Pre-Imperial Church of the first three centuries, Church and State cannot be separated as easily as you might like. Be it with the Roman Emperors, Tzars, Ottoman Sultans, et cetera the Church has been closely tied to the State, Christian or Not...and so this Continued into the Communist Era. The Church did what it needed to to survive, and part of this Survival was to weed out the Counter-Revolutionary elements within the Church for their existance was a threat to the Church as a whole. It may be unfortunate that it came to that point, but it was necessary. There was no freedom of speech in the USSR, but neither is Freedom of Speech a central Element of Orthodoxy; Complaints about persecution were political, not religious, in nature. While being martyred for the faith is a great act of self-sacrifice and devotion to the Church, being Killed so that you can have the right to publically complain about it is political, not religious, martyrdom.

The last phrase of your statement above is an example of the "what-is-not-seen falacy", as Bastiat called it. Who knows how much time communist rule in Russia would take if all the Hierarchs have adopted the traditional stance in face of persecutions? Who knows if God would have mercy on them and shorten those days? All we know is what we have seen: the traditional teaching about how Christians should endure persecutions was not followed by some pivotal members of the Church -- with tragic and enduring spiritual consequences.

I'm simply honestly looking at history and analyzing it...a few more bishops sent to Labour Camps and the remainder of the Churches in the USSR shut down would not have undermined the USSR. And the Church would not be better off today for having no Churches, no Infastructure, and no Government Support...you think the Protestants are problematic now, imagine what it would be like if every trace of the Church had been destroyed by the Communists.

Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #29 on: June 28, 2005, 12:07:19 PM »

Do you have the proper documentation for when Constantinople broke communion with ROCOR? It is my understanding that this only happened after ROCOR approved after the fact of the consecrations of bishops for the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians.  Others, however, claim that Constantinople and ROCOR never actually broke communion but simply refrain from concelebrating; witness, for instance, the 2 to 3 concelebrations between ROCOR and Pat of Constantinople clergy in various settings over the past 2 years that are public knowledge.

I dont have any documentation right now, though I'll look for some later when I get home from work. What I had always been taught is that Constantinople broke Communion with ROCOR when Moscow broke Communion with ROCOR. Moscow had allowed the Bishops outside Russia to see to their own administration immediately after the Revolution when things were in Chaos, but this was never intended to be permanent; when the Synod of Moscow finally came to the Conclusion that things had settled down enough that they could again address the issue of their Jurisdictions outside Russia they Summoned back the ROCOR Bishops, so that they could act as part of the Synod of Moscow as a whole. Unfortunately the ROCOR Bishops refused, they appealed to Constantinople, Constantinople Ruled in Favour of Moscow by saying it was an internal matter, at which time Communion was broken with ROCOR.

Quote
Some would say that ROCOR didn't commit schism; the MP did when it enthroned Sergius and created the anti-canonical MP in 1946.  Others would claim that it really doesn't matter if Constantinople approves of this or that group, considering that the Masonic Patriarch Meletius once even approved of the Living Church (!) and entered communion with it.

But it was not with Moscow that the Vast Majority of the Orthodox Church broke Communion, clearly it was the Opinion of the Orthodox Patriarchates that it was the Synod of Moscow's right to establish a Patriarch, for they did have the blessings of an Endimousa Synod to have a Patriarchate.

Quote
Btw, I'm just curious why we should care that you have little tolerance or sympathy for schismatics? Wink  That's why I imagined in a previous post that you get excited about this stuff, because you seem to have a penchant for telling us what you personally like or dislike, who you are in allegiance to, etc...I don't see how any of that matters in the discussion at hand, but I suppose you are free to throw it around.  You don't for instance see me often cite the authority or position of the Orthodox Church to which I am affiliated, for instance.

I had already cited St. John Chrysostom in reference to Schism and had established my Opinion to be inline with His. So while I may refer to opinion out of literary style, I have already backed it up with a Patristic Authority, and if requested I can do it again.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #30 on: June 28, 2005, 12:14:42 PM »

You have just quoted any number of Episcopal bishops in justifying their consents to the consecration of V. Gene Robinson.

Just thought you should know.

Except in consenting to the consecration they seem to be creating a Schism within the Global Anglican Communion. We'll see at the next Lambeth Conference, is it in 2008?
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #31 on: June 28, 2005, 12:27:30 PM »

greekischristian,

Quote
I'm simply honestly looking at history and analyzing it...a few more bishops sent to Labour Camps and the remainder of the Churches in the USSR shut down would not have undermined the USSR. And the Church would not be better off today for having no Churches, no Infastructure, and no Government Support...you think the Protestants are problematic now, imagine what it would be like if every trace of the Church had been destroyed by the Communists.

Of course, conversly, one could argue that it is precisely because of the worldliness and spirit of comprimise within the hierarchy of the MP, that they are now having the problems they are battling the Evangelicals, Mormons, etc. coming into Russia proper - why they frankly seem to have so little to offer in competition to these sects (and why they're so quick to rely on legal measures to deal with these groups.)

As you can see, asking these kind of "what if" questions is always a double edged sword.  Rather than utilitarian arguments, I would think any discussion of ecclessiastical legitimacy would ultimatly be founded upon principle - and this seems to me to be the biggest weakness of your argument thus far... it seems evangelical principles have taken a back seat, and  all is reduced to mere "survival" (at any price, which seems to be precisely the opposite of the message left to the Church by the phenomenon of Christian martyrdom) in the most basic, and frankly, atheistic/providence-denying way (as if the survival of the Church and Her mission was ever ultimatly in human hands.)

Voices like yours however, are giving me more reason to think and perhaps re-examine just why I am where I am, and if in all good conscience I should remain - since frankly, everything in "ecumenist-Orthodoxy" involves the sort of rabid "reductionism" and latent materialism you seem only too eager to defend.

Logged
Strelets
Стрелец
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 444


« Reply #32 on: June 28, 2005, 12:49:35 PM »

Guess what, guys and gals.  All this re-hashed arguing is irrelevant if the recently signed documents mean what they appear to mean - that ROCOR is back in full communion with the MP, and thusly the other "world" Orthodox jurisdictions.  It's utterly meaningless to continue going over the Sergianism bugaboo if ROCOR has apparently gotten over it.  Unless, of course, you're in a parish that's about to go "Protestantal", so to speak, and bolt ROCOR to create a new True ROCOR jurisdiction.
Logged

"The creed is very simple, and here is what it is: to believe that there is nothing more beautiful, more courageous, and more perfect than Christ; and there not only isn't, but I tell myself with a jealous love, there cannot be." ~ Fyodor Dostoevsky
Felipe Ortiz
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 83

For He was made man that we might be made God.


« Reply #33 on: June 28, 2005, 12:51:16 PM »

The Church did what it needed to to survive, and part of this Survival was to weed out the Counter-Revolutionary elements within the Church for their existance was a threat to the Church as a whole. It may be unfortunate that it came to that point, but it was necessary.

This is the way you talk about the (at least) twenty million Holy New Martyrs of the Communist Yoke in Russia...

As a "counter-revolutionary threat", a sort of "scoria" the Church needed to be "weed out".

This is the way you justify all the lies, all the denunciations, all the ecclesiastical facilitation to such mass-murdering. As a part of the "weeding out" that would assure the "survival" of the Church.

Am I talking with a Christian? Is such an effort of providing apologies for mass-murderers and their collaborators worthy of a decent man imbued with basic and generally accepted morality, whatever may be his religion?

Nevertheless there still remains a good point in your answers: they show, with irresistible clearness, the ultimate logical and moral consequences of the justification of sergianism. They are the best warning I know to those ROCOR members who are being tempted by the weak grounds of the recent process of reconciliation.

A few more bishops sent to Labour Camps and the remainder of the Churches in the USSR shut down would not have undermined the USSR.

The "what-is-not-seen falacy" simply re-hashed. I have described what was seen, your answer is a speculation about what was not seen (and can never be seen). This kind of reasoning is simply not a satisfactory answer; but it may provide a comfort to a guilty conscience.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2005, 12:59:00 PM by Felipe Ortiz » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #34 on: June 28, 2005, 01:11:10 PM »

Guess what, guys and gals.ÂÂ  All this re-hashed arguing is irrelevant if the recently signed documents mean what they appear to mean - that ROCOR is back in full communion with the MP, and thusly the other "world" Orthodox jurisdictions.ÂÂ  It's utterly meaningless to continue going over the Sergianism bugaboo if ROCOR has apparently gotten over it.ÂÂ  Unless, of course, you're in a parish that's about to go "Protestantal", so to speak, and bolt ROCOR to create a new True ROCOR jurisdiction.

Very True, Moscow appologized to ROCOR, ROCOR has retracted their 'condemnations' of Moscow (if they haven't formally appologized; I don't know what they have said, but it's of little significance in the long run)...the issue is pretty much Settled that Moscow may have been abit Harsh on ROCOR and their Allies, but it was far from Heresy, a necessary evil at worse, but in any case all is forgiven and we can get on with life...with the excepton of internet orthodoxy, we'll still be here debating these issues for years to come Wink
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Felipe Ortiz
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 83

For He was made man that we might be made God.


« Reply #35 on: June 28, 2005, 01:21:14 PM »

All this re-hashed arguing is irrelevant if the recently signed documents mean what they appear to mean - that ROCOR is back in full communion with the MP, and thusly the other "world" Orthodox jurisdictions.

Not yet. Those documents were approved to be discussed in the IV All-Diaspora Council, to be convened in San Francisco in the first semester of 2006. Then they may be accepted or rejected by the Bishops, Clergy and Laity deputies.

It's utterly meaningless to continue going over the Sergianism bugaboo if ROCOR has apparently gotten over it. Unless, of course, you're in a parish that's about to go "Protestantal", so to speak, and bolt ROCOR to create a new True ROCOR jurisdiction.

Even if ROCOR joins MP in the future and a given person remains in this new ROCOR under MP, there will be still reasons enough to this person outspokenly denounce sergianism, ecumenism and all kinds of modernism and worldliness in the Church. The reasons are the same that lead the best voices in New Calendarist and WWC members jurisdictions to protest against these evils. It does not matter if a wrong is to be made or if it was already made; one should protest against it because it is a wrong. Simply, those ROCOR members who oppose sergianism (the documents clearly show that no longer everybody in ROCOR does really oppose) will became "resisters from within" if they put themselves under the proposed ROCOR/MP jurisdiction -- much as many members of EP, OCA, Antiochian etc. The fact that you are in the jurisdiction "X" does not make you necessarily a yes-man for the views sustained by such jurisdiction. There is no such a thing as a "ROCOR Orthodox Christian", a "MP Orthodox Christian", an "OCA Orthodox Christian". You are an Orthodox Christian, period. Your ultimate commitment is with the Christian Orthodox Faith and Tradition that provides the grounds for all past, present and future jurisdictions.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2005, 01:24:32 PM by Felipe Ortiz » Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,432



« Reply #36 on: June 28, 2005, 01:25:04 PM »

Guess what, guys and gals.ÂÂ  All this re-hashed arguing is irrelevant if the recently signed documents mean what they appear to mean - that ROCOR is back in full communion with the MP, and thusly the other "world" Orthodox jurisdictions.ÂÂ  It's utterly meaningless to continue going over the Sergianism bugaboo if ROCOR has apparently gotten over it.ÂÂ  Unless, of course, you're in a parish that's about to go "Protestantal", so to speak, and bolt ROCOR to create a new True ROCOR jurisdiction.

Hear, hear!
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #37 on: June 28, 2005, 01:26:06 PM »

This is the way you talk about the (at least) twenty million Holy New Martyrs of the Communist Yoke in Russia...

No, this is how I talk of those who died to profess a political opinion, rather than died refusing to renounce the faith. Mind you, there's nothing wrong with political martyrdom under the right circumstances, it can even be quite virtuous, but it's not religious martyrdom and people should not expect the Church to risk its very existance to support these political Ideologies.

Quote
This is the way you justify all the lies, all the denunciations, all the ecclesiastical facilitation to such mass-murdering. As a part of the "weeding out" that would assure the "survival" of the Church.

The Church wasn't killing anyone, though they were doing their best to distance themselves from some.

Quote
Am I talking with a Christian? Is such an effort of providing apologies for mass-murderers and their collaborators worthy of a decent man imbued with basic and generally accepted morality, whatever may be his religion?

You're talking to someone who, though he has not experienced it himself, has a general idea and understanding of what the Church in Russia was going through, and accordingly supports the difficult decisions of the Synod of that Church that were necessary for the Church in Russia to Survive, and more than Survive to try to continue ministering to the Needs of their Faithful. Idealists may attack the Church based on a lack of perfection, but in the Real world no situation is Perfect and sometimes difficult courses of action must be taken for the greater good.

Quote
Nevertheless there still remains a good point in your answers: they show, with irresistible clearness, the ultimate logical and moral consequences of the justification of sergianism. They are the best warning I know to those ROCOR members who are being tempted by the weak grounds of the recent process of reconciliation.

If one doesn't like the actions of the ROCOR synod, they can always go off and join the True Orthodox Church or Genuine Orthodox Church or Pastor Bob's Fundamentalist Bible-Believing Independent Baptist Church...but the Orthodox Church is, in very large part, about Communion, and I think the ROCOR Bishops realize this and want to do what they need to to enter back into Communion with the Rest of Orthodoxy.

Quote
The "what-is-not-seen falacy" simply re-hashed. I have described what was seen, your answer is a speculation about what was not seen (and can never be seen). This kind of reasoning is simply not a satisfactory answer; but it may provide a comfort to a guilty conscience.

We may not know for certain what history would have brought (though from the Study of History we can often get a pretty good Idea...government authorities can seriously undermine Christianity when they try (look at the Middle East)); however, it's also the case that the Synod of Moscow at the time had a better Idea of what they were up against than ROCOR or Constantinople, then or Now...Constantinople did and does realize this which is why they yielded the Decisions on these matters to Moscow.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Strelets
Стрелец
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 444


« Reply #38 on: June 28, 2005, 05:20:01 PM »

Even if ROCOR joins MP in the future and a given person remains in this new ROCOR under MP, there will be still reasons enough to this person outspokenly denounce sergianism, ecumenism and all kinds of modernism and worldliness in the Church.

Sure they can.  But it's as frivolous as denouncing Nestorianism and Iconoclasm when your bishop and synod agrees that the Patriarch in the mother jurisdiction is not guilty of such heresies.  If you're going to continue insisting that the bishops in your jurisdiction are KGB stooges, or are closet Iconoclasts or what heresy have you, then go ahead and live a miserable life full of anger against the world.  That's pretty much my impression of those sorts.

The reasons are the same that lead the best voices in New Calendarist and WWC members jurisdictions to protest against these evils.

It's not the voicing against the evils that's problematic, but the single-handedness in someone personally convicting others guilty of such evils, even though your bishops and synods have decided otherwise.

The fact that you are in the jurisdiction "X" does not make you necessarily a yes-man for the views sustained by such jurisdiction. There is no such a thing as a "ROCOR Orthodox Christian", a "MP Orthodox Christian", an "OCA Orthodox Christian". You are an Orthodox Christian, period. Your ultimate commitment is with the Christian Orthodox Faith and Tradition that provides the grounds for all past, present and future jurisdictions.

Oh, let's take it one step further and say that you're a Christian, period.  You have the right as an autonomous judging individual, outside the mind of the community of all believing Orthodox Christians, to determine who's following the Bible or the letter of canon law and if others don't agree with your interpretations, then start your own "walled off" Church within the Church.  That is the essence of the argument put forward, yes?  Those who don't agree with the personal interpretations of True O Joe Blow aren't True Christians, and thusly their thinking as part of the mind of universal Church doesn't count.
Logged

"The creed is very simple, and here is what it is: to believe that there is nothing more beautiful, more courageous, and more perfect than Christ; and there not only isn't, but I tell myself with a jealous love, there cannot be." ~ Fyodor Dostoevsky
Silouan
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 818

Bogurodzica dziewica zbaw nas


« Reply #39 on: June 28, 2005, 07:40:47 PM »

What I take issue with, and you keep dodging, GreekisChristian, is you seem to imply that the Phanar represents the pan Orthodox view on any given topic, particularly ecumenism.  The Ecumenical Patriarchate is actually rather small and very unrepresentative of Orthodoxy - a few thousand Christians in Turkey and then a few places in the diaspora. 

Also your claim that the anti-ecumenists I mentioned were simply monks - that is also false.  While the vast majority of Orthodox monasticism is anti-ecumenistic, I also pointed out several bishops that are well respected - Metr. Amfilohije, Patr. Pavle, Archbp. Artemije, Metr. Hierotheos Vlachos, et al.  Note that those are all bishops with real flocks as well.

The fact that you would also disregard modern saints as unimportant in "policy" is very disturbing.  I would encourage you to look at the teachings of Saints Nektarios, Savvas the new, Justin Popovich et al.  Since they are ones in our era that have lived theosis, I'd be very cautious to dismiss them. 

I agree with Saint John Chrysostomos that schism is a very dangerous issue - if only the Phanar did as well!  The ambitions for power within the phanar in the past 80 years have led the church very close to the brink of large internal schisms.  Saint John Maximovitch wrote an excellent paper on the issue of the EP's decline in recent times.  From ambitions in the Czech lands, to Estonia to "excommunicating" Patriarch Diodoros of Jerusalem there is seemingly no end to what the Phanar will do in its grab for power - even to the point of threatning schism. 
Logged
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #40 on: June 28, 2005, 09:29:08 PM »

Guess what, guys and gals.ÂÂ  All this re-hashed arguing is irrelevant if the recently signed documents mean what they appear to mean - that ROCOR is back in full communion with the MP, and thusly the other "world" Orthodox jurisdictions.ÂÂ  It's utterly meaningless to continue going over the Sergianism bugaboo if ROCOR has apparently gotten over it.ÂÂ  Unless, of course, you're in a parish that's about to go "Protestantal", so to speak, and bolt ROCOR to create a new True ROCOR jurisdiction.

And give us a Russian Orthodox Church Outside the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia? (ROCOROCOR if you want the acronym)
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #41 on: June 28, 2005, 09:40:05 PM »

But the ROCOR Council of Bishops has signed nothing, and it is the supreme legislative body of the ROCOR. They have to approve it in an up or down vote (I think they will but let's just make the process clear).

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

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

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 83

For He was made man that we might be made God.


« Reply #42 on: June 28, 2005, 09:59:55 PM »

The discussion is moving in circles... Your point, Strelets, was already addressed many posts ago. If you are to simply consider those Bishops, Elders and Saints mentioned by Silouan as "single-handed" or any other thing like that, well, let us agree in disagree. There is a lot of disputation in the Church regarding these subjects, many Bishops hold quite opposite views about them and it is not possible that all of them are right at the same time. I have an understanding about which side does correctly represent Orthodox Tradition. If it is right, so those Elders and Hierarchs who resist against modernism are not alone or even minoritary, no matter how "single-handed" they may appear, but have the whole host of Saints and Angels backing them. By the other hand, if my understanding is wrong, so I am in a terrible spiritual delusion. Please pray for me so I can realize it and change my mind, if it is the case. (I am being quite serious.)

You seem to suggest that a common layman may not legitimately think or opine about such questions but rather should blindly accept the decision of the Synod of Bishops he happens to find himself under, whatever may be such a decision. These argument imply a kind of "infalibility of Local Churches" that certainly is not part of Orthodox Tradition. And I do not think that Orthodoxy comprises such a deep and utter submission of the individual conscience to the outward ecclesiastical authority as you perhaps suggest. The common clergymen and laity of Constantinople seemed not to think like that in the XV Century and strongly protested against the false Union of Florence, proposed by virtually all of their Hierarchs, together with the First Hierarchs of all the other local Churches -- Saint Mark of Ephesus was the only Asian Hierarch who refused to endorse it. The Orthodox people of Constantinople made really disgusting things, like spitting in the Hierarchs' hands when taking their blessing. Yet they (and St. Mark) were right, all the other Hierarchs (who seemingly represented the "consensual mind of the Universal Orthodoxy") were wrong, and the Church eventually acknowledged it. This case must mean something.

Nevertheless the essence of your post is about an important and interesting problem -- while not enterely connected with the original theme of this thread. Most of us, specially Western converts, are too used to think in terms either of a Roman Catholic submission to outward manifestations of ecclesiastical authority or a Protestant individualism that makes each Christian his own ultimate master. More and more I think this is a false dichotomy and that Orthodoxy copes with the problem of freedom in a different way, neither authoritarian nor individualistic, but I must confess that my own thoughts about this issue are still too sketchy and it is better to keep them to myself for now.

All I suppose I can and must say for now is that we may never think that active and deliberate cooperation with enemies of the Church -- either by means of providing sensible information to them, or by means of lying and denying the existence of persecution and accepting to play a role in the enemy's propaganda strategy, or by any other means -- is acceptable or justifiable in any circumstances, whatever may be its apparent results. Frankly, I thinked like that even when I still was a Roman Catholic; this seems to me as basic morality, not specifically Orthodox; I simply cannot imagine a good reason to change my mind now about this subject. I will rejoice with a union among ROCOR and MP based in a utter and unequivocal rejection of sergianism; but I deem it as a false and merely outward reconciliation that one which is based in a justification of sergianism, blatant or veiled -- like the one that is being advanced now. Much like the seemengly unity of each one of the Local Churches corroded by ecumenism is just an outward and formal unity, instead of being grounded on actual oneness of mind. This purely outward unity is at least as scandalous as the schisms we could see in the recent past -- nevertheless it receives much less attention. Or did the Patriarch Meletios of Constantinople and Saint Nicholas Planas, members of Synods nominally in communion with each other, really confess the same Orthodox faith -- the major prerequisite for communion in the same Eucharistic Cup?... Isn't it embarrassing for all of us that, so many decades after both have reposed, no Conciliar decision had put an end to such ambiguity, to such disorder?
« Last Edit: June 28, 2005, 10:01:10 PM by Felipe Ortiz » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #43 on: June 28, 2005, 10:23:57 PM »

What I take issue with, and you keep dodging, GreekisChristian, is you seem to imply that the Phanar represents the pan Orthodox view on any given topic, particularly ecumenism.ÂÂ  The Ecumenical Patriarchate is actually rather small and very unrepresentative of Orthodoxy - a few thousand Christians in Turkey and then a few places in the diaspora.ÂÂ  

The posistion of the Oecumenical Throne is of far greater significance than you would like to believe, when the Oecumenical Throne declares a Posistion, Alexandria and Cyprus nearly always back her up, as well as either Antioch or Jerusalem (usually both...depending on the issue), that is 4 if not all 5 of the Five ancient Eastern Churches as laid forth in the Oecumenical Synods. Furthermore, even amongst the newer autocephalous Churches in Athens and the Slavic Lands, Nearly all of them (with the Possible Exception of Moscow) will follow the lead of Constantinople. The Archbishop of Constantinople is truly the Oecumenical Patriarch, it is the First see of Orthodox and receives the honour due to her by most the Other Churches. Assults on the Oecumenical Throne (if they don't come from Moscow for other Political Reasons) nearly always come from Schismatic Organizations, trying to improve their posistion by attacking the Symbol and Standard of Orthodoxy, the Oecumenical Throne.

Quote
Also your claim that the anti-ecumenists I mentioned were simply monks - that is also false.ÂÂ  While the vast majority of Orthodox monasticism is anti-ecumenistic, I also pointed out several bishops that are well respected - Metr. Amfilohije, Patr. Pavle, Archbp. Artemije, Metr. Hierotheos Vlachos, et al.ÂÂ  Note that those are all bishops with real flocks as well.

Actually I said that the conference was organized by ONE Monastery that happened to be anti-oecumenist, and they invited who they wanted to hear speak according to their agenda. It is true that many monasteries tend to be fundamentalist and unreasonable to the demands of the Secular world, but this is by no means universally the case, there are also monastics who work in the Oecumenical Movement.

Quote
The fact that you would also disregard modern saints as unimportant in "policy" is very disturbing.ÂÂ  I would encourage you to look at the teachings of Saints Nektarios, Savvas the new, Justin Popovich et al.ÂÂ  Since they are ones in our era that have lived theosis, I'd be very cautious to dismiss them.ÂÂ  

While these local saints may be spiritually edifying to the community from which they come and hence serve an important purpose in the Church. They are not authorities on these matters Church Discipline and Order and should not be treated as such, such matters are rather the concern of the standing Synods of the Orthodox Church. Each of which are free to pursue these matters in the manner they deign best until an endimousa synod address the issue.

Quote
I agree with Saint John Chrysostomos that schism is a very dangerous issue - if only the Phanar did as well!ÂÂ  The ambitions for power within the phanar in the past 80 years have led the church very close to the brink of large internal schisms.ÂÂ  Saint John Maximovitch wrote an excellent paper on the issue of the EP's decline in recent times.ÂÂ  From ambitions in the Czech lands, to Estonia to "excommunicating" Patriarch Diodoros of Jerusalem there is seemingly no end to what the Phanar will do in its grab for power - even to the point of threatning schism.ÂÂ  

My first instinct would be to answer you with the statement that the Oecumenical Throne is the Standard of Orthodoxy, and those in Communion with her are Orthodox and those out of Communion are Heterodox, thus the Oecumenical Throne does not enter into Schism but those who break communion with her do, and then argue this from the Historical Roles of the Oecumenical Throne. But as I've already put for this argument much to the dismay of some here, and it seems to end in circular arguments, I shall answer your question differently.

As I have said before when Constantinople Speaks, most of Orthodoxy Follows, Constantinople does not enter into Schism if for no other reason than the various Churches do not break Communion with her, rather they support her. Constantinople's claims of authority in the lands north of her are canonically solid, it is not the actions of Constantinople that are Unacceptable but rather the conduct of those who oppose her maternal attempts to establish justice and order and see to the well-being of the Church. The Rights of Constantinople are far greater than those she chooses to execute, always with the best interest of the Church in mind, instead she restrains herself and often denies herself her rights, power, authority, and honour inorder to allow for what is in the best interest of the Church and Orthodox Faithful. You accuse the Oecumenical Throne of threatening Schism, but she has not done this, these situations of which you speak are either cases of the Holy and Oecumenical Throne attempting to preempt or fight schism or to bring Order and Discipline where her Daughter Churches have failed and have allowed Chaos and Disorder to reign.

Concerning Bishop John Maximovitch, perhaps these libelous attacks are amongst the reasons why he has not been entered into the Synaxarion of the Great Church of Christ.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #44 on: June 28, 2005, 11:33:38 PM »

"Concerning Bishop John Maximovitch"

St John of Shanghai and San Francisco is an Orthodox saint and he should be referred to as such on this forum.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 »  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 0.183 seconds with 72 queries.