www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West What will happen to ROCOR?

Dear Latin Trad,

Thank you for your response.

Rest assured that I'm the last one who would want to muddy the waters by pushing unity into some sort of fogginess. Within my own communion, I'm considered all too conservative on these issues.

Of course, in the East, we insist that ALL who approach the chalice are unworthy and approach unworthily. There are simply degrees of unworthiness. At a certain degree of unworthiness, we ask that person to simply stay away for a period of time or even the remainder of their life - those most serious sins (or "mortal sins" in Latinspeak) by which one excommunicates oneself pending reconciliation and pennance: (apostacy, murder, abortion, adultery, sodomy, fornication, etc.) These excommunicated, should they die before readmission to communion, are still burried as members of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Even unbaptized catechumens are burried as members of the Church. This, again, is the maddeningly gray soteriology (maddening for a Westerner) that points to salvation as a process and that we Easterners fully accept.

My post and comments are made in the context of the previous ones in which we discussed ROCOR and their level of canonicity, their tendency to see themselves as out of communion with the OCA while the OCA sees herself as in communion with ROCOR, etc. I am not speaking to situations where the parties obviously have dogmatic disagreements, such as Roman Catholic vs. Eastern Orthodox. (Still, even I find it hard to look at Mother Theresa and declare that she is not part of the body of Christ. I would just say that I know that she may not commune from our chalice....ie we know where the Spirit is moving, but we do not declare where the Spirit is not moving.)

So it is for Eastern Orthodox with the Oriental Orthodox, or even Eastern Catholics. For example, we allow Oriental orthodox to perform weddings using our churhces. I've read and chanted in Byzantine Eastern Catholic Churches. We see there degrees of unity that we don't see elsewhere, but still we may not share the chalice.

I previously discussed the disunion of East and West using the analogy to a married couple as being "separated but not divorced."

In the case of canonical Orthodoxy and ROCOR, "they've argued and called each other nasty names but are not really separated."

In the case of Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox they are "separated, never remarried, and can't explain why they stayed apart all of these years other than because of stubborn pride."

In the case of Eastern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox we might even say that "they are separated only because the Orthodox partner doesn't approve of the company that the Eastern Catholic partner keeps (with Western Catholics)."

I find "degrees of unity" a helpful tool, but the eucharist remains the ultimate and most important reality regarding all discussion of unity.

In Christ,
Andrew

Brian- no, the monarchical model was an historical accident, not essential to the excercise of papal authority. However, that it is authority that we're talking about is essential. Petrine authority is not something like the archbishop of Canterbury, a position of honor without teeth. Peter was given the keys and time and again it was Rome which settled questions of faith for the Church.
And Andrew, your words, like every explanation of unity and authority from the Orthodox I have heard, leaves me confused and unsatisfied: Yes, but in practical terms what does that mean? It all sounds vague compared to the clarity of Catholic ecclesiology.

Dear Daniel,

I'm sorry. You've bumped into what the Easterners will call the "super legalism" of the West, where all is always neatly defined vs. what we may call Eastern "processional soteriology."

My good friend, a brilliant physicist, devout Latin, and member of Opus Dei once paid me an enourmous compliment (in my eyes) when he referred to one of my explanations as part of the "inscrutable mysticism of the East." He knew deep down inside that the explanation was correct, but he just could't figure it out in his atom-splitting mind.

We are on a journey to that day, "the kairon," when we meet our glorious creator. We will arrive by various paths and at different times (according to "kronos"). So while we (the Eastern Orthodox or others) may maintain divisions at the chalice in order to avoid chaos in the Churches, we also know deep down inside that others who did not drink from that chalice will also be there (at the kairon/in the kingdom). In short we may define where the Spirit is, but we may not define where it is not.

If the Spirit were not moving outside of the boundaries of the canonical Church, how would anyone ever be enlightened to find the Church? Did they find it on their own with no help from God? The testimonies of the newly-baptized leads us to believe that they were assisted by a Spirit not bound by what we mortal men declare.

I hope that this is in some way helpful.

In Christ,
Andrew

I don't see that there is any great merit in vagueness about such important questions. I am happy, though, that you recognize the mystery of God's grace and its existence outside the visible boundaries of the Church. Other Orthodox do not.

Diak said, I think I should expand on the point I was trying to make. The hierarchies of the two churches were reconciled in 1991 under Patriarch Pavle. In 1998 the two groups adopted a common constitution and are continually consolidating into one church structure. Official unification is a far cry from being on mere "speaking terms".

My point was that the Serbian Orthodox Church is now officially reunited with New Gracanica. ROCOR and the MP are not. Both groups (I say both for your sake; truthfully, there is only one Serbian Orthodox Church with only one patriarch) recognize both ROCOR and the MP and are in communion with both. I also believe that the Serbs are working with the Russians to aid in their "official" reunification. I believe this can be helpful.

Diak also said, If parish members being on speaking terms with members of other parishes in some town or other defined whether or not churches were "in communion" or united, there would be a lot of Roman Catholic churches not in communion with each other, having mere "official" union under the Pope.

Consider the case of Holy Trinity Slovak Catholic Church in Hazleton, PA. Its creation caused such uproar between it and another Roman Catholic church (primarily Slovak) that police had to be called in to stop a riot. I don't think that put either of them outside of communion with Rome.

So the feuding of groups in your town (or any town) does not place these groups outside the jurisdiction of Patriarch Pavle, just as, even in Roman ecclesiology, feuding Ruthenian and Ukrainian parishes are not outside the See of Rome. To assert such is silly.

Orthodox ecclesiology is more fluid than Roman ecclesiology, but it certainly isn't so fluid as to reduce it to the lowest common denominator in any individual parish.

I stick by my earlier, and briefer, statement that the current healing of the Serbian schism can help ease the Russian schism by creating a model for successful reunification, even if it is "merely" official.

I am not sure what you are getting at here. I was only describing at least in our area what the reality is. Years or generations may be needed to make real unity down to the parish level. I didn't question the unification of the Serbian hierarchies, but only described a local reality between two parishes of whom now are in the same jurisdiction but materially at least in the short term can not realistically be considered "unified" in the Christian sense of brotherly relations.

Yes, it happens all too often, unfortunately. But when a parish doesn't let the Bishop of the new, unified Church visit them out of spite, are they really in union? Thanks for your concern of clarification to me ("for my sake"), but I completely understand the hierarchy is united and I am friends with both parish priests here. In this specific case unity is in name only, and is basically ignored at the parish level, even by admission of the two pastors. May God intervene and warm hearts to unity.

I do agree that this situation of dual communion with the Serbs between the MP and ROCOR could be pertinent to the ROCOR situation.

I suppose my larger point, which I admittedly did not make well, is that in any situation where there has been an extended ecclesiastical separation, the reality is that reparation may take years if not generations. Real ecclesial unity has to entail brotherly communion, beyond two bishops just signing an agreement and concelebrating. This has more to do with charity and forgiveness on the parish level than fluidity of ecclesiology.

On another point, I recently corresponded with a ROCOR monastic friend that said without question his monastery could not be in communion with a hierarchy that included New Skete. He did not go into detail on that issue, but it seems the prospects of reunification may be a harder sell with the monastics who are reluctant to approach a communion that may include more "progressive" jurisdictions.


May God grant a speedy reunification between ROCOR and the MP, and may the Holy Spirit inspire the hearts of the faithful to charity and love.

Dear Friends,

I think that to some extent cultural identity comes into play in the relationship between ROCOR and the OCA - or their perceptions of each other.

ROCOR is not only about a strong commitment to the purity of Russian Orthodoxy - it is also about a strong commitment to Russian identity with respect to the historic monarchical state of Orthodox Russia and to being truly "Russian."

For a number of Eastern Churches, their religious and cultural identities are one and the same. In times of national persecution (ie. the Turkish Yoke for instance), it is the Orthodox Church that becomes the defender and promoter of not only religious values, but of cultural and national values as well.

I think this has something to do with the uneasiness between ROCOR and the OCA.

The OCA is much more culturally adaptable and pliable within the melting pot that is North America (Bishop Seraphim's Psalter refers to the enlightener of Rus' as "St Volodymyr of Kyiv" - class, or what, guys? ).

Something similar occurred when the Union of Brest came about.

For Ukrainian Orthodox to be in communion with Rome was perceived to be a form of treason against their Orthodox Church/State and their identity.

This is why St Alexis of Wilkes-Barre, in his diaries, ONLY refers to Greek-Catholic priests with the term of opprobrium which is the Polish word for "priest" or "kshondz" and to Greek-Catholic churches with the opprobrious (for E. Slavs) term of "Kostiol."

Only true Orthodox, not Catholics masquerading as such, from the Orthodox point of view, could be said to have "svyaschennyky" and "tserkvi."

Let us also remember that cultural identity issues plays an important part in the discussions between the Armenian Orthodox Church with Constantinople - as Fr. Meyendorff, I believe, once discussed.

The Armenians are deathly afraid that their overall uniqueness as a religious/cultural nation would somehow run the risk of dilution upon union with the EO's.

Alex

Tak pravda, pan doktor. There is a "package" here. It includes, perhaps more for the monastics who often use English now in some sketes, the adherence to ritual and monastic purity. But it also includes as you state, a real cultural struggle between the Russian identity, seen as ideal in its later Imperial form by most ROCOR adherents, and a seeming watering down of that identity by the OCA.

The OCA has done a good job in its outreach and inclusion to multiple ethnic backgrounds. The Romanian Diocese, Bulgarian Diocese, etc. are all good examples of how the OCA has tried to include diverse Orthodox in the ecclesiastical structure. And, these different parishes can actually often get along! Sorry, Andrew, I almost forgot the Albanians!!!

But the bottom line is, as you say, not only an issue of liturgical purity and integrity but one of concern for losing an identity rooted largely in Russian Imperial culture.

But, God willing, the differences can be put aside for the sake of unity. The ROCOR site indicates more in the ROCOR hierarchy are advocating a "speedy" (to use the words of the site) reunification with the MP.

The Russian Church Abroad has just held a clergy conference at Nyack, which involved a festive dinner to mark the one hundredth anniversary of the glorification of Saint Seraphim of Sarov. For this dinner, the invited guests included three priests of the Moscow Patriarchate and two priests of the Orthodox Church in America. How things do go and happen! Incognitus

What's wrong with churching moms before 40 days? If some women can go shopping three days after giving birth, then they can certainly go back to church! My canon law professor said that one of the reasons women were to stay home forty days was to recupperate (sp) and that the number forty was symbolic, and was not strictly enforced. If the woman is out shopping and doing secular things, she should be back in the church.

I won't touch the issue of menstruation because that's a touchy subject but I think it is reasonable to assume that the prohibition reflects the ancient science of the day when menstruating women didn't go out at ALL because it was thought that the menses was poisonous!

At any rate, the Levitical Law is NOT canon law. Canon law is based on the Lord Jesus Christ and as Trullo 102 stated, the canons are remedies for sickness, not rules and regulations to be applied without condescension. Getting too legalistic about this stuff just doesn't reflect the nature and tast of canon law.

anastasios

LOL. I love how Roman apologists take examples of Rome being appealed to as proof of the petrine ministry. They omit the fact that usually the same person appealed to several sees to try and get the most help or the best deal.

What will happen?

Vladyka Laurus said in an interview that he hopes for the 2 sides to return to communion and concelebration with each other. He says administrative unity is out of the question.

He makes no reference at all to the OCA. They have gone their own way and probably won't figure into the equation at all.

The interview can be found at: www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws [russianorthodoxchurch.ws]

Michael

Why is this tragic? I am a former RC who has chosen a fuller Catholic faith in the Eastern Church. IMHO I have lost none of my Catholicity but I have inhereted a more full expression of my faith. I have no hard fellings whatsoever for my former religion. I feel it has prepared me for this most wonderful of faiths.

JoeS

If you have broken communion with Peter, in the person of his successor, John Paul II, it is indeed tragic. I understand the temptation, esthetically, but the fact remains that Orthodoxy remains nearly as fragmented and confusing as Protestantism [though, thank God, not so doctrinally or liturgically barren] and Rome, whatever its problems, retains a clarity and a unity in diversity that the East cannot even claim.
I would add that Rome's problems are duplicated in the East- for they are common to humanity- but not nearly as well publicized.

I used to believe this "story" until I got involved with Orthodox personally and in-depth and realized that they are not as disunified as Catholics claim they are.

Orthodox and Catholics have the same types of problems; it's just that with Catholics you have a huge bureaucracy in Rome that sweeps these problems under the carpet or keeps them hush hush. The Catholic Church has its share of bishops threatening to break communion, stealing sheep, playing financial games, favorites, fights between religious orders, etc etc etc.

anastasios