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

Dear Andrew,

Yes, it is very wet here in Toronto. My dog got ill from the cold rain and I spent some of the night nursing him. He's fine now, but I've a headache!

I agree with you completely here and I suppose any special concessions to a future united ROCOR would be made as a result of enduring attitudes more than strictly ecclesial matters.

If everything goes smoothly, ROCOR will wind up as "MP Uniates."

When it comes to teaching us the lesson of humility, the Lord leaves no one out!

Alex

Somebody wrote that learning about Liturgy from the Church Abroad is the equivalent of turning Orthodoxy into a "rite". Seems an odd criticism. Jordanville has recently published an English-language edition of an excellent grammar of Church-Slavonic. Does making use of this grammar turn Orthodoxy into a Berlitz school? We should be willing to learn - and we should be even more willing to encourage others to learn - from any reliable source. Incognitus

I believe the Serbian Orthodox Church, which is apparently in communion with both the MP and ROCOR, is helping to mediate some of the problems. As I recall, a similar schism was healed in their own community.

I suspect that this schism will be corrected in the near future.

Now does anyone doubt the need for a ministry of universal jurisdiction in the Church?
Division ad infinitum and ad naseam when Jesus spoke of unity and fraternal harmony.
Stephanos I

Dear Stephanos,

But are there not divisions in the Latin Church?

Liberals vs conservatives et alia?

Perhaps they remain united for the most part. But that doesn't mean there is perfect harmony.

Alex

Great point, Alex. In spite of all of the supposed centrality of the Roman Pontiff there are many divisions, liturgical abuses, some bishops in blatant refusal of Vatican directives, etc.

Cizinec has brought up the interesting question of the union of the Patriarchal and former New Gracanica Serbs. While the hierarchy of the two is on speaking terms, many of the parishes, while they may be "officially" united under one Bishop, are in essence still divided.

Our two local Serbian parishes, one from each former jurisdiction, remain materially divided. Yes, the pastors do talk to one another but at least in the pew there is still much bitterness and division, families who won't speak to one another, etc.

Dear Diak,

And most of our parishes in Toronto relate to either an old political party or to a particular region.

The politics is dying out hard and fast, but it is interesting that within the Byzantine-Ukrainian Rite there are further ritual subdivisions based on region i.e. Galician, Kyivan, Volhynian, Bucovinian.

Fr. Bohdan Lypsky studied this and became quite an expert on these "sub-rites."

Alex

There is a big difference between maintaining (ethnic or regional) identity within the Church and maintaining division within the Church. The former is acceptable and the latter not.

This is why, even for me - sometimes seen as an zealot for ethnicity, getting all of the Orthodox bishops onto the same council is so important. It is easy to stay away from a table (council) when you have not yet become a part of it. It is much harder to walk away once you have become a member.

By sitting together and facing one another regularly, the bishops become responsible to one another - building each other up, challenging the errant brother, and even removing the unrepentant - truly making the work of the Church a conciliar one. In this context, they are less likely to cause or maintain divisions that ought not to be.

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Andrew -
I apologize for my ignorance here, but... Isn't there a lot of ethnic superiority in the Orthodox churches? I mean, the Greek Orthodox think they're better than everyone else because the Septuagint was written in Greek, and the Russians think they're better, and nobody will talk to the Ethiopians, etc? I don't know a lot about the subject but it seems to me I've heard of this attitude amongst the various branches of Orthodoxy. How do you get them all to sit around a table and be conciliatory?
Tammy

Diak & Alex,

Nothing doing. You have to recognize that the Catholic Church has juridical coherence to it that the various Orthodox Churches do not. Despite widespread disobedience, etc., one can still give an account of what it means to be a member of the Catholic Church. One cannot do so for the Orthodox. Is it being in communion with one Patriarch or another? No, because all bishops are "equal". Is it being in communion with the "mainstream" bishops? If so, why? If every bishop is equal, why not the ROAC, and everybody else lacks grace? Do you just let the Rudder be your guide? Etc.

I'm probably not saying this too well, but it seems to me that if all bishops are equal, then there is no priciple on which to base a united Church. For if all bishops are equal, and 1 or 2 or 3 of them break away, why are they not equally "the Church"? What if one Patriarch excommunicates another (as happens quite often)? Doesn't that imply that the one Patriarch is ABOVE the other? Etc.

Just some thoughts.

LatinTrad

LT -

I absolutely agree with you. Within Catholicism we have:

1. consolidated teachings and Traditions that must be adhered to
2. a hierarchical structure with a final authority to settle the issues (the Pope)
3. disciplinary procedures for those who dissent from the teachings of the Magisterium

It is because Orthodoxy lacks these that you see arguments on this board regarding what the Orthodox believe. For example, does Orthodoxy allow birth control? I saw adamant arguments on both sides of that question, quoting websites and Orthodox theologians. There is no final authority on the question like there is in Catholicism. While many Catholics practice birth control, you cannot say it is unclear as to whether the Church allows it!

I'm not trying to start an argument on birth control. That has been pounded into the ground on another thread a few months ago. I'm just using this as an example of the difference in authority and hierarchy between Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

Tammy

Precisely, and well put. There is every kind of division within the Church except juridical. Within Orthodoxy there is every kind of division including juridical, which makes all the difference in the world. As an outsider I must say Orthodoxy is confusing and one does not even know who is "canonical" and who is not; there is no agreement on this that one can claim is universal. With Catholicism it is clear who is in the Church and who is not, and clear who within is orthodox and who is not. And unity, if it is to be the sign Our Lord said it would be, must be visible.

but that unity that OUr Lord meant does not have to be monarchical

It's not too hard for Orthodox to determine with whom they are in communion and who is canonical. Their bishops can always tell them this. And a single bishop doesn't have the authority to make these decisions by himself, but in consultation with ALL the other bishops sitting on the same council of his respective autocephalous Church.

Individually, their authority is limited to eikonomia (management/application of the faith) and the teaching of the faith. Collectively, they have the authority to define the faith handed down to them (paradosis) by their predecessors that was laid as a foundation (paratheke) by the apostles themselves.

Just as the mysticism of the East (and all of the Holy scriptures) sees salvation as a process and not a state, we also see the unity of the Church that same way. Ultimately, we draw lines of "in communion" and "not in communion." We neither pretend that these lines are perfect, nor do we individually redraw the lines as we feel moved to do.

So, although I may come and commune every Sunday at the chalice, if I have hatred, divisiveness, and discord in my heart, how much less in union am I with Christ and his Church than the believer who approaches with joy in his heart and love for his brother? I think that there are different levels or degrees of unity.

The Church is neither mathematics nor chemistry, but a process and struggle of learning to discern the loving God who stands in our very midst.

In Christ,
Andrew

Dear Andrew,

Thank you for your post. It is quite interesting--and of course one who approaches the Chalice unworthily has separated himself from Christ.

Nevertheless, the notion that the unity of the Church is a "process" rather than a "state" does seem kind of troubling.

The Paradosis of the East seems to hold, along with the West, that the unity of the Church is a visible Mark by which it may be known. I apologize for speaking somewhat vaguely, and without citations, but is it not a heresy of our time that the Church is invisible, or divided into different branches that hold differing dogmas while remaining united invisibly?

LatinTrad