www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC)

Joyce,

I would advise you to join Orthodox-Forum on yahoogroups (http://groups.yahoo.com), find the email of (David) Constantine Wright, and email him. He went through all of the stages: OCA to ROCOR to ROAC. Now he is back in the OCA. He repented of his sectarianism.

You should also note that Bishop Tikhon of the OCA has publicly made the claim that Met. Valentin is set to go on trial in Russia for child molestation. I don't know if it's true but I doubt an OCA bishop would just make that up.

You might be happy in the Antiochian Archdiocese. Traditional for the most part, and heavy on evangelization, so your zeal could be used for good.

I'll pray for you.

anastasios

Dear Joyce,

Anastasios has some good advice.

But don't go, don't go!

What do we have to do to get you to stay?

Alex

AFAIK ROCOR gets the benefit of the doubt from other Orthodox because of the necessity of its founding, in the chaos right after the Russian Revolution, when relations with the Church of Russia were impossible and its communications unreliable, prone to tampering by the Communists.

Relations between ROCOR and other Orthodox were better in the past, but still, today nobody calls ROCOR non-Orthodox despite not being in communion. Interestingly ROCOR never has claimed to be a new Church (autocephalous); its first hierarch never has claimed to be a patriarch. It always has held it is a temporary arrangement for Russian Orthodox abroad. (Its official name, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, reflects this — ROCOR, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, seems more like a universally accepted unofficial name.) It exists on the authority of the patriarch of Moscow, St Tikhon, who issued an order (указъ ) before his capture by the Soviets telling the Russian Orthodox bishops abroad to make whatever arrangements they found necessary for church government.

Now that the USSR appears to be gone (hooray!), the question ROCOR is asking is, "Is it really over yet? Can we go back to the official Russian Church or are they still untrustworthy leftover Communist stooges?' Some of those who fear reunion at this time have gone over to Met. Valentin and his ROAC.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: Serge ]

"Which seems pretty silly, since if Synod X, doing the deposing, is a non-Church, and the same Synod X is the one that priested and consecrated Bishop Truedoxios as a bishop, that would mean Bp T never really was a priest or a bishop! So much for his new Synod's claim to be "true Orthodox'."

Right, except that often these folks will similarly resort to an almost, daresay, scholastic approach and assert that the offending Synod was the Church at the time of ordination, but then subsequently lost grace at some point prior to the time of the offending ecclesiastical deposition. There is often quite a lot of ink spent defending both the prior Orthodoxy (ie, so as not to undermine the orders) and the time when grace was lost (ie, to make it prior to the time that Bishop Truedoxios was deposed) -- all of which totally misses the point of the Church as communion with the remaining churches. It's not up to Bishop Truedoxios to decide whether the offending Synod has left the Church -- its up to the rest of the churches in communion with that Church (ah, but, then again, they are also outside the Church, right.....?)

Brendan

Dear Joyce,

Not to overdo a point, but please read over Serge's and Brendan's last posts here, and then tell us if you want to join one of these Orthodox groups.

(Don't go, don't go!).

Did I mention to you how much I would like you to stay?

Alex

"From what I have learned so far the Modernist Orthodox are those who practice false ecumenism, act and look like Eastern Catholics, I guess they mean "Uniates" or Latinized Eastern Rite Catholics, but who have not become official Byzantine Rite Catholics, who are thoroughly Western in mindset and seperated from the pleroma or fullness of True Orthodoxy. I guess that is what is considered Modernist Orthodox."

Dear Joyce:

This discussion has been interesting and I hope you can help me with a point that I am not clear on. I am confused by your definition of "modernist Orthodox" and hope that you can help me to understand your point of view. I grasp the idea of "false ecumenism" since this accusation is used by many in the self-defined "traditionalist" camp of Orthodoxy. But, I am stumped by the reference to modernist Orthodox "acting and looking like Eastern Catholics without becoming Byzantine Rite Catholics." What does this mean? Can you help? I don't know of any Orthodox who claim to be a close facsimile of Eastern Catholics and don't even know how one would decipher this because the vestments and other garb of both churches are the same, with the exception of certain Greek Catholic clergy who still wear the Roman style of cassock. Some Orthodox also may wear the Roman or semi-Jesuit style cassocks out of convenience or habit, but not many, so I am lost as to who is being insinuated in the definition of modernist. Does it refer to the wearing of the more western but widely accepted "clerical collar and suit" which many Orthodox do now use? Among Orthodox bishops, especially Metropolitan Philip of the Antiochian Archdiocese and some of his bishops wear the suit and I don't see anything "un-Orthodox" about this. It is more an issue of accepted style rather than of one's Orthodoxy in faith. I know that some "hyper-Orthodox" groups insist on the wearing of the cassock in the streets, etc, but this again, is a matter of cultural practice, not dogmatic. In many parts of Europe, for instance, it is quite common to see clergy wearing a cassock in a secular setting, while the "clerical suit" is not used by most priests, i.e.: in Greece, Ukraine, even Rome, etc.

I would be grateful if you would clarify what is meant by "modernist Orthodox" who imitate the Eastern Catholics. For me, this is a new reference and while I know the other issues that contribute to such accusations of modernism by those who consider themselves to be the "true" Orthodox, I have never heard the grounds that you have mentioned. I think that for one to be considered a real "modernist" it would have to go deeper than style of dress, as I believe you may have really meant. I'm only focusing on appearance and externals because of the reference to "acting and looking." Did you rather mean those churches who are seen associating with Catholics or other Christians? I still don't get the definition. You did mention "thoroughly western in mindset." Does this mean theologically or ecclesiologically or simply a preference for current day social practice in the countries where we live, as I alluded to above?

Brendan, Serge, Alex and the others have indeed given you very solid advice. Do not be tricked into the endless debate inaugurated by those who feel a need to defend their reasons for existing. It usually detracts from the real issues and will never be concluded, because those of this mindset will never agree with others on hardly anything at all.

I do have one request: You use the term "uniate" in your description. If you could choose a different term for use here on our forum, I'm sure that most of us "Greek or Eastern Catholics" would be very grateful. As you may or may not know, it is an older term that we consider to be seriously pejorative and derogatory. For most of us alive today and the Eastern Catholic churches to which we belong, we did not "come into union" with anyone or attempt to unite (uniate) with a larger body, but are simply here where we and/or our churches started from. Your intentions have our prayers and thoughts. Thank you for understanding and may God bless you on your journey.

I think there are far fewer true Modernists — those who dismiss the claims of Christianity and substitute a belief in human progress and religious relativism — in the Orthodox Churches (and indeed among Byzantine Catholics) than in the Western communions. I know NO Orthodox, including the Catholic-friendly, who practice intercommunion with other Churches or sects.

Here, though, among true-believer hardliner types among us Orthodox, the M word can mean anything from serious matters like flirting with Western-style relativism (denying the uniqueness of the Church or of Christian revelation — again, exceedingly rare) to such small issues as having pews in churches (in the case of East Coast OCA churches, one of the few cases of leftover circa-1900 Greek Catholic influence), clerical attire and beards, reception of converts by means other than Baptism and enforcing the strict rules of Orthodox fasting.

Ideally, a Byzantine Rite temple should not have pews, but such is a matter of culture, not dogma, and not worth breaking communion over.

I'm all for Eastern cassocks (in practice, the подрясникъ or undercassock for street wear) and clerical beards. But, when pushed against the wall, I'll concede these are cultural and not dogmatic. I've seen and admired fine old-school Byzantine Catholic priests who were clean-shaven like their Roman contemporaries. Clergy suits aren't evil. There exists somewhere a photo of Bishop Tikhon (future St Tikhon) when he was the bishop of the Russian mission in America, based at the time in San Francisco, wearing a suit and collar much like a Roman or Anglican cleric of the time.

The M word is often used to describe those among us who are Catholic-friendly and hold as our rightful opinion as Orthodox that other Churches outside our communion might indeed have grace. Not fair. Both side on this issue are Orthodox. All agree that Orthodoxy is the Church and has grace.

Regarding fasting, those who for whatever reason opt not to starve themselves and endanger their health during the fasts are not Ms or un-Orthodox.

It seems to me that often the hardliners who fling the M word are converts who retain a legalistic "fundamentalist' approach to things, learning Orthodoxy from books. This includes their legalistic approach to fasting, which isn't the real Orthodox approach to these things. Such an attitude is rare among ethnic born Orthodox. And, in sectarian Protestant fashion, such hardliners often flit from jurisdiction to jurisdiction looking for the perfect church, often after a row with a clergyman — just like Protestants who run off and start their own churches.

Those Orthodox accused of being Ms by the hardliners often are anything but that compared to what one sees in practice in the West. Fr John Meyendorff supported the breakaway conservative former Episcopalians, helping them start their seminary in California. Fr Alexander Schmemann, whose books do require caution and discernment, said the Anglicans' attempted ordination of women is "the death of dialogue'. Even New Skete, accused of liturgical revisionism, to me looks sound, like a Byzantine version of what the Catholic liturgical movement in the '50s wanted.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: Serge ]

I have another interesting question; so were the Ruthenian Orthodox clergy that entered Union with Rome deposed by the Orthodox at the time of Union? And if so does that mean that Byzantine Catholics do not have Grace from an Orthodox standpoint? I think that is what you are saying, that if a hierarch is deposed by a canonical Orthodox Jurisdiction he has no priestly powers. Does deposition mean that a bishop or priest or deacon is stripped of the Power of Holy Orders? Please help me understand this. Thank you.

"I have another interesting question; so were the Ruthenian Orthodox clergy that entered Union with Rome deposed by the Orthodox at the time of Union?"

That's an interesting historical question -- I don't know the answer. Alex, Serge -- do you know whether there was an excommunication, an ecclesiastical deposition, an anathematization -- or perhaps none of the above?

"And if so does that mean that Byzantine Catholics do not have Grace from an Orthodox standpoint?"

Not that simple. Orthodoxy says "we don't know whether or not there is grace outside the visible boundaries of what we know is the Church". Orthodox can still privately believe, however, that grace exists in an extra-ecclesial manner -- in other words, outside the boundaries of the Church. This would be extraordinary, extra-ecclesial grace resulting from the love and mercy of the Holy Spirit -- but Orthodoxy does not categorically exclude that this is possible. Many "Trues" are mixed up on this issue, and seek, instead, to determine categorically themselves here the Holy Spirit can and cannot be -- which is a completely foolish way to approach the Holy Spirit.

"I think that is what you are saying, that if a hierarch is deposed by a canonical Orthodox Jurisdiction he has no priestly powers. Does deposition mean that a bishop or priest or deacon is stripped of the Power of Holy Orders?"

Yes, that is correct, from the perspective of the Church. However, as noted above, we can't categorically exclude the possibility that the Holy Spirit would nevertheless still choose to confer extraordinary grace in an extra-ecclesial manner -- we simply don't know whether or not He does that. We can say that these men no longer have the facility to perform sacramental rites in the Church -- which is the normal way that grace is transmitted in an ecclesial manner. We can't say for sure whether the Holy Spirit would nevertheless grace such rites, if they were performed, in an extraordinary, extra-ecclesial, manner.

Brendan

[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: Brendan ]

Dear Brendan and Joyce,

Yes, indeed, the Ruthenian Orthodox that entered into Communion with Rome were formally anathematized by the Orthodox.

This also occurred following the Union of Brest at an Orthodox local council that did the same.

And, Joyce, while it is certainly true that one would find far fewer Modernists among the Orthodox, our Orthodox brothers have their problems too.

These problems stem not from the issue of theological liberalism, but theological conservative "over-kill" as has been mentioned.

Although I too love the Orthodox Church, I sometimes wonder if some jurisdictions don't come under the censure of Christ who attacked those who place human traditions above those of God.

So I'm glad you've decided to stay with us . . .

Sorry Brendan! Better luck next time!!

Your gleeful Alex

Well I woouldn't go so far as to say that I am going to stay Latin. I am rather disenheartened by some of the comments here, especially about ROAC. What I think is that anyone with at least a cursory reading of the Canons, i.e. the Rudder, will know that ALL of us are breaking the Canons everyday, espcially Orthodoxy in America. The only thing here is at least the Eastern Catholics are honest enough to say that they no longer hold to the Rudder, but have the Roman Curia to come up with their own Canons. But I cannot see how Orthodox, who define Orthodoxy on how much one follows the Canons, can be in such a state of chaos - allegedly based on ethnic nonsense i.e. Miss Romanovna (Russian) won't go to the Greek Church and Miss Demetrios (Greek)won't even walk into the nave of a Church of those "wierd Russians" and on and on. I think I will just do some more praying. I am dead set on being Orthodox, but the real shtick is to find a Jurisdiction that follows the Rudder more closely than the others. I am probably going towards the Russian Orthodox Church outside of Russia as far as Jurisdictions are concerned. And regarding my comment about Byzantine Catholics in reference to the Rudder. I think there is a fundamental difference between the Uniate Church and the Orthodox. The fundamental differnce is that the Orthodox are the Catholic Church circa 1054 whereas the Eastern Rite Churches are a more progressive Orthodox Church, since they have the Pope and he CAN change their Canons enforce laws, change discipline et al. I mean if a Pope wanted to he, by virtue of his Apostolic Authority, could make the Byzantine Liturgy just like the New Order of Mass like we Latins have. Don't tell me he couldn't, because history shows he has the Power to, especially in regard to discipline i.e. the married presbyter issue. I mean we could get a new Pope after John Paul II who could reverse all of the progress made in regard to restorations. I mean the new Pope could hold to a totally traditional view and ecclesiology of the Church and chuck this Sister Church stuff; or he could be a flaming liberal and start ordaining women to the priesthood and believe me most of those in the Latin Church wold go along with it. So here again you have the Byzantine Rite Catholics, who are ipso facto traditional, scandalized again by Rome. I think what I am getting at is the difference between the Uniate and the Orthodox Churches is that the Eastern Catholics are always in danger of being compromized by their hierarchy and Pope, by being modernized and reformed, by being latinized and Novus Ordo-ized whereas the Orthodox can never change and never will, they are the Ancient Apostolic Church frozen in time and yet rather timeless.

I think I will be Orthodox and communicate with a priest of ROCOR about becoming a catechumen.

I am open to your suggestions, comments. thanks.

Hi Joyce --

Good to hear from you again.

"But I cannot see how Orthodox, who define Orthodoxy on how much one follows the Canons, can be in such a state of chaos"

There are actually very *few* Orthodox who define Orthodoxy on how much one follows the canons or the rudder. Most of the ones who have that mindset are actually rather heavily influenced by Latin ideas. In Orthodoxy, traditionally canons, canon law and the like has had a significantly lower place, in terms of importance, than in the Western Churches -- we have consistently employed a more flexible approach to our canons than the often "bright-line" approach that has been taken in the West (at least in the past). The Orthodox who are the most hyped up about the canons and the rudder are often those who have the least Orthodox 'phronema' of them all, in my experience.

The canons exist to serve the Church -- the Church does not exist to give obeisance to the canons. Having said that, it is true that the entire diaspora situation is canonically problematic -- everyone admits that. Many of us sincerely wish more would be done to rectify that, and, thankfully, many of our hierarchs are working hard to try to make that a reality, despite the lack of support from certain "old country" jurisdictions. Nevertheless, despite the obvious canonical irregularity, Orthodoxy survives, the Orthodox Church survives -- and even thrives -- in this canonically irregular situation. The reason for that is that while the canons have their own importance, the life of the Church is the Eucharist and the sacramental mysteries -- no canon can change that.

Above all, Orthodoxy is not -- it cannot -- be measured by how closely one follows the canons, the rudder, the typikon, etc. It is always tempting to try to measure one's Orthodoxy by reference to these external criteria (after all, that relieves one from having the required compunctive introspection that is the true mark of an Orthodox Christian) -- but, in fact, all these materials are simply tools to help one become more Orthodox. Orthodoxy is measured by how one lives one's life -- and that is the only measure of Orthodoxy that is really important. The canons, the typikon, the rudder -- these are guides to help us structure our lives to help us become more Orthodox -- they aren't the measure of Orthodoxy themselves, and they never can be.

"I am dead set on being Orthodox, but the real shtick is to find a Jurisdiction that follows the Rudder more closely than the others."

With all due respect, that is one backwards way to look at the matter. The most important thing is not fidelity to the rudder. The most important thing is does the local parish you will be joining provide a place where you, personally, can grow spiritually into an Orthodox person. When you become Orthodox, you join a parish, not a jurisdiction (the parish belongs to a jurisdiction, of course, but for most Orthodox that is secondary to the parish). Find a parish where you can grow, and don't worry about the rudder. The Orthodox Church existed long before the Rudder did, and did just fine without it.

"I am probably going towards the Russian Orthodox Church outside of Russia as far as Jurisdictions are concerned."

A fine jurisdiction, but, again, I would recommend exploring various parishes -- including Eastern Rite Catholic parishes -- rather than focusing on a particular jurisdiction.

"whereas the Orthodox can never change and never will, they are the Ancient Apostolic Church frozen in time and yet rather timeless"

Let's all hope that Orthodoxy will never be 'frozen in time'. Tradition is a living thing, it grows over time, it restates itself in a new setting. Orthodoxy believes that this is simply a restatement of an existing truth .... but Orthodoxy does not hold that the book is completely closed on Holy Tradition. We take a much more cautious view towards this than the Latin Church has done since the separation -- that is certainly true -- but we aren't frozen in time. Things change, but they just change fairly slowly, and organically, over time, that is all.

"I think what I am getting at is the difference between the Uniate and the Orthodox Churches is that the Eastern Catholics are always in danger of being compromized by their hierarchy and Pope, by being modernized and reformed, by being latinized and Novus Ordo-ized"

At best, this seems to be a theoretical risk. One thing that Rome *hates* to do is to double-back on itself. That is sometimes not helpful in the ecumenical conversation, but it is helpful in the sense that it is highly unlikely that a subsequent Pope would completely reverse position on the Eastern Catholics. It is, of course, possible - which is one reason why the reforms in Eastern Catholicism should proceed apace (making a subsequent change even more difficult) - but highly unlikely.

In this respect, some of the wisest words I have heard on these kinds of matters were spoken by the Orthodox priest who eventually received me into Orthodoxy. During our first meeting he candidly pointed out that moving from being an Eastern Catholic to being an Eastern Orthodox was simply exchanging one set of problems for another set of problems, and that you should feel comfortable with the problems you are inheriting, because they are many. Something for you to keep in mind as you explore.

Brendan

Dear Joyce,

I too lived through the massive changes wrought by Vatican II and the period of implementation following it. I understand and empathasize with your pain and frustration.

I must say though that I believe that the Faith that I was taught before the Council and the Faith being taught now are expressions of the same Faith that I live everyday. The Liturgy in which I participated before the Council is the Liturgy in which I worshipped Sunday. There have been massive changes. The music is different; the language is different; the priest faces the people; the words in which the Faith is explained have changed; and so on.

During the Council I was in the seminary. I learned about what was being proposed and what was decreed. I went through the implementation along side you.

I know that the changes were not made lightly, and like all changes the process was and is messy. Change, like growing up, is not easy and is usually full of mistakes through which we learn. The life of us in the Latin Church has not been easy during this time of change.

It is important to me to remember that the Popes and bishops have led us through this time. None of the changes have happened apart from their guidance. Christ is leading us through this time of change. I hope that remembering this will help you to endure and grow as you are being asked to do by the Spirit, I believe.

Your committment to the Faith is admirable. Your longsuffering is palpable. Many others in our Catholic family hear that and are praying for you and caring for you.

I am not telling you what to do. That is not my role. Of course, I hope that you can hold onto the Faith of the Catholic Church and maintain loyalty to the Pope. To that end I am writing this post.

There are many issues in your postings. They are serious issues. They deserve serious consideration and discussion. You will find that here, I think.

My sister in Faith, please consider what you do. You know that Christ is present in the Latin Church. He is present in the Liturgy. The Spirit is guiding His Latin Church and I believe each one of us to where He would have us be.

The current Pope is a remarkable man, in my view. He remains active at an age where most of us would justly enjoy the fruits of our endeavors. He does this in obvious physical pain. I think that he does this because he believes in the truth of the value of saving suffering and pain. You, like him continue, in pain, your search and your struggle to maintain your lifelong Faith.

Please listen to him when he advises us, "Do not be afraid!" The Spirit is active in all of this. Perhaps he is using your pain, my pain, and the pain of others to provide the example of sacrificial love to othes in the Latin Church.

I hope personally that you will not take that example from us!

Fraternally,

Steve
JOY!

[ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: Inawe ]

All that being said, Joyce, Brendan offers some sage advice for practical steps to take on your journey! I pray that your feel the love and prayers as you make your way on the pilgramage.

Steve
JOY!

[ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: Inawe ]

[ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: Inawe ]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dear Sister Joyce,
I am happy that you are seeking to find the orthodox path. May I suggest that the Rudder is not the path but rather a guide to the Clergy in how to respond to various situations that are presented to them by their parishioners. If read, the Rudder is found on the surface to frequently contradict itself. Its purpose is to be used by the Bishops of the Church and their fellow servants the priests, through the inspiration of the Holy Spririt.

Orthodoxy is not a heavily defined faith with lots of rules and regulations that must be embraced by all of its branches. Indeed many canons of the church are local canons given for a particular people or nationality. T the Rudder utilized by the Greeks (Pedalion) differs from that utilized by Slavik people. Our English translation (Oddly enough not published by an Orthodox Publishing House) has been seen by clergy, who read the original toungues, as being a poor translation and in some place the wrong penalty was written for the sin. The purpose of course is to bring the sinner back into the fold of Christ, not to drive them away.

Some of the Vagante and non-canonical Old Calendar churches hold onto the Rudder as if it were the Holy Scripture, but utilize it without the Holy Spirit and as such have driven some sweet sinners who could have been loved into communion of the Church out of the church by harsh penalties.

I agree with Serge that you may be happy in the ROCOR---a conservative Old Calendar Church in communion with the Patriarch of Jerusalem and Serbia. They have in Oklahoma several excellent priests who I believe have a very personal relationship with the Holy Sprit and the other members of the Holy Trinity.

Despite your fears of "modernism" you may also be happy in some of the New Calendar Churches that have conservative pastors and Bishops---the Antiochian Bishop for your area, His Grace Basil is noted for his conservative, spiritual approach to evangelical orthodoxy ---he has several Western Rite parishes in His Diocese as well. He is not a "modernist" bishop. The parish I attend has no pews, follows the full typicon for services, and is still growing. Our priest (Now an Archpriest), a former Campus Crusader for Christ, embraced Orthodoxy and models the ideal of a holy priest who cares for his flock day and night.

When I left the Epsicopal Church 14 years ago, my Orthodox priest asked me Why do wish to leave the Church you were raised in? I left because I needed orthodoxy of belief and the apostolic Church. You need to ask yourself the same question and not just be running from the badly concieved Norvo Ordo. I will include you in my prayers as you seek to make this most important change in your spiritual life.

Your brother in Christ,
Thomas

[ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: Thomas ]

[ 12-19-2001: Message edited by: Thomas ]