Author Topic: Pictures of ROCOR Sobor  (Read 6993 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Thomas

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,885
Re: Pictures of ROCOR Sobor
« Reply #45 on: May 11, 2006, 10:49:29 PM »
It doesn't sound to me like they did anything butÂÂ  enforce the status quo and ask for further study and clarifiaction with the MP. Am I misreading it? It does seem to approve the direction that the Metropolitan is taking ROCOR but is not to full communion yet.

Thomas
« Last Edit: May 12, 2006, 08:32:25 AM by Thomas »
Your brother in Christ ,
Thomas

Offline Elisha

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,630
Re: Pictures of ROCOR Sobor
« Reply #46 on: May 11, 2006, 11:12:57 PM »
It doesn't sound to me like they did anything but  enforce the status quo and ask for further study and clarifiaction with the MP am I misreading it? It does seem to approve the direction that the Metropolitan is taking ROCOr but is not to full commnuinion yet.

Thomas

I think you are misreading it.  What part of this do you not understand?  Restoring Communion (the main point) was not the only issue of the Council but the main/most important one.

"We archpastors, pastors and laymen, members of the IV All-Diaspora Council, unanimously express our resoluteness to heal the wounds of division within the Russian Church—between her parts in the Fatherland and abroad. Our Paschal joy is joined by the great hope that in the appropriate time, the unity of the Russian Church will be restored upon the foundation of the Truth of Christ, opening for us the possibility to serve together and to commune from one Chalice.

Hearing the lectures read at the Council, the reports made by the Commission on negotiations with the corresponding Commission of the Moscow Patriarchate, and the various points of view expressed during the discussions, we express our conciliar consent that it is necessary to confirm the canonical status of the Russian Church Abroad for the future as a self-governing part of the Local Russian Church, in accordance with the Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia currently in force."

How is the italicized bold part much different than what the AOA currently has?

Again, this is the statement/resolution of the Council (delegates - composed of lay under non-Episcopoi clergy) - final decision by the Synod of course.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2006, 11:14:05 PM by Elisha »

Offline StephenG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 229
Re: Pictures of ROCOR Sobor
« Reply #47 on: May 16, 2006, 06:43:30 PM »
Bishop Basil (Osbourne) of the British Sourozh diocese of the MP had recently petitioned the Patriarch to be allowed a canonical release to the EP. This has been refused and Bishop Basil, administator of the British diocese is dismissed.

Portal-credo.ru apparently are reporting that a commission has appointed to investigate the situation in the British MP diocese. The commission is Archbishop Innokenty of Korsun, ROCOR's Archbishop Mark of Berlin, Germany and Great Britain, with the blessing of Metropolitan Laurus, ROCOR primate, Fr Nikolai Balshov , MP department of external church relations and Fr Mikhail Dudko.

It appears the MP-ROCOR relationship might be more of a done thing than some suggest, if this be true?

Offline observer

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 546
  • Vivre die Raznitsa!
Re: Pictures of ROCOR Sobor
« Reply #48 on: May 16, 2006, 08:49:48 PM »
My  sympathies lie with Bishop Basil.  You build a nice parish of 200, who have put their sweat and money into building their church when along comes an influx of 100,000 foreigners  with members demanding this and that. OK Sourozh is not very traditional, but they did sustain the church and build an English-speaking diocese; but then the heavy hand of the MP comes down and it is all gone.  What an insult to the memory of Met Anthony that ROCOR's inspector general is going to investigate the situation.   What arrogance!
Thou shalt not prefer one thing to another (Law of Liberalism)

Offline StephenG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 229
Re: Pictures of ROCOR Sobor
« Reply #49 on: May 17, 2006, 08:57:38 AM »
Arrogant? Possibly, but very 'odd' and certainly lacking any sensitivity to the MP British diocese - considered from an MP perspective. For many 'traditionalists' this latest development will simply be another sign that the MP - ROCOR rapprochemont is a done deal, although many of the real concerns that seperated the two remain as much today as at any time in the past.

Offline Benjaminw1

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • St Edward Orthodox Brotherhood
Re: Pictures of ROCOR Sobor
« Reply #50 on: May 19, 2006, 10:19:15 AM »
[quote author=Νεκτάριος link=topic=8994.msg120016#msg120016 date=1147155059]
So you are essentially saying, Arimethea, that things shouldn't be translated - that it is wrong to express the ecclesiastical date in terms of the civil date?ÂÂ  The vast majority of Orthodox Christians use the Julian calendar.ÂÂ  
[/quote]

Indeed!

How many Russians in Russia are on the Papal calander?
« Last Edit: May 19, 2006, 10:20:27 AM by Benjaminw1 »
Arma Pacis Fulcra

Offline Benjaminw1

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • St Edward Orthodox Brotherhood
Re: Pictures of ROCOR Sobor
« Reply #51 on: May 19, 2006, 10:22:14 AM »
Arma Pacis Fulcra

Offline Benjaminw1

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • St Edward Orthodox Brotherhood
Re: Pictures of ROCOR Sobor
« Reply #52 on: May 19, 2006, 10:27:17 AM »
My  sympathies lie with Bishop Basil.  You build a nice parish of 200, who have put their sweat and money into building their church when along comes an influx of 100,000 foreigners  with members demanding this and that. OK Sourozh is not very traditional, but they did sustain the church and build an English-speaking diocese; but then the heavy hand of the MP comes down and it is all gone.  What an insult to the memory of Met Anthony that ROCOR's inspector general is going to investigate the situation.  ÃƒÆ’‚ What arrogance!

They were not the only ones

http://www.saintedwardbrotherhood.org/
Arma Pacis Fulcra

Offline StephenG

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 229
Re: Pictures of ROCOR Sobor
« Reply #53 on: May 19, 2006, 06:54:53 PM »
According to an epistle to the flock of ROCOR dated 4/17 May, 2006, signed by all the bishops, it would appear rapprochement between the 'sundered' parts of the Russian Church is a done deal.........................?

Somehow I do not feel any joy in it!

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,383
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Pictures of ROCOR Sobor
« Reply #54 on: May 19, 2006, 07:05:06 PM »
How many Russians in Russia are on the Papal calander?
All of 'em as far as I know, including the Orthodox.
Have a look at the website of Pravoslavie.ru in Russia, and tell me what date is in the top right hand corner of the website. Is it the Julian date, or what you call the "Papal" date?
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline Myrrh

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 98
Re: Pictures of ROCOR Sobor
« Reply #55 on: June 11, 2006, 07:07:29 PM »
According to an epistle to the flock of ROCOR dated 4/17 May, 2006, signed by all the bishops, it would appear rapprochement between the 'sundered' parts of the Russian Church is a done deal.........................?

Somehow I do not feel any joy in it!

It appears to be a done deal in that Laurus talked about calling an All Russia Council after the union.

Regardless that Archbishop's Agathangel's analysis showed this union to be premature as it's not in ROCOR's brief to decide such matters.


http://www.ipc.od.ua/_jizn_tcervi_txt_060523.html

Notice to the flock of the Odessa and Zaporozh'ye Dioceses of ROCOR
regarding the conclusions of the IV All-Diaspora Council and Council
of Bishops

By the will of God, the IV All-Diaspora Council of the Russian
Orthodox Church Outside of Russia was conducted in the spirit of
unanimity and sobornost'. Regarding the union with the Moscow
Patriarchate, practically all those who spoke said that this union
was desired, but in our Church there are different understandings of
when and under what conditions such a union can take place.

The resolution of the IV All-Diaspora Council, accepted practically
unanimously (with but a few abstaining or voting against), states
that such a union is possible in the future, after the elimination
of the differences between us of a fundamental nature (ecumenism was
mentioned), and that this union can become final only at the Local
Council of the entire Russian Church, with the participation of
clergy and laity.

There is some evidence that the thrust of this document was inspired
by St. John. Maximovich, on whose relics were laid the preliminary
draft of the resolution while a moleben was served. Personally, the
invisible presence and influence of St. John on the work of the
Council are obvious to me.

Such was the divinely-inspired determination of the IV All-Diaspora
Council.

The Council of Bishops which took place afterwards confirmed this
determination of the All-Diaspora Council. The principal discussion
at the Council of Bishops concerned the Act of Canonical Communion √
a completely confidential document, developed by the commissions for
discussion, the consideration of which had not been provided for
even among all the bishops of ROCOR and the reading of which was not
initially proposed even at the All-Diaspora Council. In view of its
questionable nature, references to this Act were intentionally
excluded both from the resolution of the IV All-Diaspora Council and
from the Epistle of the Council of Bishops.

At the Council of Bishops I gave a separate opinion about this Act.
In it is said:

"I consider the appearance itself of this Act of Canonical Communion
and, all the more, its consideration, to be premature, since the
differences of a fundamental nature between our sides - questions
about ecumenism and sergianism √ have not yet been resolved.

Furthermore, we recognize that according to the decision of the
Local Council of 1918, the supreme authority in the Church belongs
to the Local Council with the participation of bishops, clergy and
laity. Only such a Council is empowered to select a church
administration which may act in the inter-conciliar period. The
fullness of the Russian Church has awaited and waits for namely this
Council since the time of the repose of Patriarch Tikhon and, since
such a Council has not been convened, we do not have the right to
arbitrarily establish a Supreme Church Authority, or ourselves
determine our canonical status. We only can temporarily, until the
convocation of the Local Council, mutually recognize or not
recognize the canonicity of the existence of various parts of the
Church with their existing authority, with the condition of the
acknowledgement of the absence to this day of a legitimately chosen
Supreme Church Authority.

The Act, however, without basis places one part of the Church above
the other and actually makes the authority of one of the parts of
the ROC the Supreme Church Authority (commemoration of the head of
one part of the Church by the other part, obtaining of Holy Myrrh,
the confirmation of hierarchs, etc.,), which is illegitimate.

Upon reaching unanimity on the questions of ecumenism and
sergianism, and mutual recognition of the authority in the ROC of
the coming Local council, we can establish eucharistic communion
without creating in this case, naturally, a common supreme authority.

In light of what has been presented, I consider it necessary to put
off the examination of the aforementioned Act, bearing as it does a
threat to the existence itself of ROCOR, until an agreement in
principle is reached on all the questions which divide us."(text
based on a draft of this document).

This separate opinion was appended to the protocols of the Council
of Bishops.

The document was supported also by their Graces Daniel and Gabriel.
There was no vote on adoption of the Act and therefore I am not
completely clear on the provenance of the assertion that the
Act "was adopted and approved in principle." Neither does the
communication correspond to reality when it says that "final
confirmation of the text of the Act, as well as details as to its
ceremonial signing, was conferred upon the Synod of Bishops." The
question of the "final confirmation of the text of the Act by the
Synod of Bishops" was in fact raised (without reference to
the "details as to its ceremonial signing" √ I read this word
combination for the first time on the Internet), but because of the
presence of different opinions it was postponed without a final
decision of the Council. Voting on this question also was not
conducted. Therefore the communiquИ about the conclusion of the
Council of Bishops of ROCOR of May 19, 2006, placed on the official
site of our Synod, causes, at the least, bewilderment - indeed,
besides the above- mentioned, it actually contradicts the resolution
taken and affirmed by the IV All-Diaspora Council.

I believe that some time will be needed in order to comprehend all
that which occurred at the All-Diaspora and Bishops' Councils and
henceforth, until there has been a complete and final explanation of
Conciliar opinion, it will be necessary to abstain from various
categorical statements which contradict the spirit and letter of
both Councils of our Church. So far it can only be said definitively
that the Councils undertook no "revolutionary" changes in the life
of ROCOR, and it remains for us to live the same life as always.
There can only be a question about which direction (in relations
with the MP) this church life is given.

Glory be to our God!

+ Bishop Agathangel

Odessa, May 23, 2006



Offline Anastasios

  • Webdespota
  • Administrator
  • Merarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,497
  • Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina
    • AnastasiosHudson.com
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Re: Pictures of ROCOR Sobor
« Reply #56 on: June 11, 2006, 07:35:55 PM »
All of 'em as far as I know, including the Orthodox.
Have a look at the website of Pravoslavie.ru in Russia, and tell me what date is in the top right hand corner of the website. Is it the Julian date, or what you call the "Papal" date?


LOL you know what he meant. Don't play with words. If you felt he was imprecise, then respond that you feel he is being imprecise. But don't play with words.

Anastasios
Please Buy My Book!

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

Offline Νεκτάριος

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,437
Re: Pictures of ROCOR Sobor
« Reply #57 on: June 11, 2006, 07:45:42 PM »
Quote
It appears to be a done deal in that Laurus talked about calling an All Russia Council after the union.

Please refer to METROPOLITAN Laurus by his proper title ÂÂ

Offline Myrrh

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 98
Re: Pictures of ROCOR Sobor
« Reply #58 on: June 11, 2006, 08:09:03 PM »
[quote author=Νεκτάριος link=topic=8994.msg123915#msg123915 date=1150069542]
Please refer to METROPOLITAN Laurus by his proper title ÂÂ
[/quote]


Is this a requirement of the List owners?

Offline Νεκτάριος

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,437
Re: Pictures of ROCOR Sobor
« Reply #59 on: June 11, 2006, 08:15:16 PM »
Quote
Is this a requirement of the List owners?

Beyond that it is simply a matter of respect when on a public forum that is pan-Orthodox. 

Offline Myrrh

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 98
Re: Pictures of ROCOR Sobor
« Reply #60 on: June 11, 2006, 08:39:57 PM »
[quote author=Νεκτάριος link=topic=8994.msg123918#msg123918 date=1150071316]
Beyond that it is simply a matter of respect when on a public forum that is pan-Orthodox.ÂÂ  
[/quote]

Yes or no?