"Chirothesia" 0f 1971 by the ROCOR

[nathanv]

how does this respond to my request to prove the above claims that ROCOR already in 1971 was no longer a true Church because it had compromised and committed spiritual fornication with the ecumenists?

I haven't heard anyone else say this, this is just my own speculation. I wouldn't even call it theologoumena. I believe that freemasons, new calendarists, ecumenists and Sergianists are already condemned.

Fr. Alexander Lebedeff wrote an email in 2006 that said that ROCOR had been involved in ecumenism since the 1920s, in the predecessor to the WCC in the Committee on Faith and Order. His email is referenced here. He wrote:

Even as late as 1951, the ROCOR sponsored a European sub-Assembly of the WCC, held in Baden-Baden. You can see pictures of this assembly, with ROCOR Archbishop Benedict and Bishop Alexander surrounded by the usual WCC melange of Copts, Armenians, Anglicans, Methodists, Lutherans, etc. in the official history of the ROCOR, published during the time of Metropolitan Philaret in 1968 (the two-volume Sollogub opus).

ROCOR also sent an official delegation, led by Archbishop Anthony of Geneva, to the Second Vatican Council in 1962.

So I don't see how you can make the case that ROCOR had maintained a true confession of faith. The only groups that had maintained a true confession were the Matthewites and the Josephites.

So this is just my own speculation. I don't believe that grace gets turned off like a light switch. And I don't believe that someone is a heretic unless they formally embrace it. So there is some "fuzziness" here. I am just trying to develop a consistent position.

[jgress]

Fr Alexander had his own agenda, which was to show that the ROCOR was in fact always involved in ecumenism, and hence that her entering into communion with World Orthodoxy was justified, as it didn't constitute any change of course or position. Suffice to say there were plenty in ROCOR who disagreed, and they now constitute the various TOC offshoots of ROCOR.

As I pointed out elsewhere, the extremists at both ends, Matthewites on the right and Ecumenists and Cyprianites on the left, seem to agree on a light-switch theory of grace. You should focus less on the mistakes made in the past and ask yourself currently who is rightly confessing the Orthodox Faith? I'm not even going to try to direct you to join my jurisdiction, but do call people up and don't base your whole knowledge of True Orthodoxy on internet and book research. Talk to people, if possible go and visit. It's important that the church you join has the right faith, but also that the bishop and his flock are both pious and spiritually healthy. The kind of legalistic obsession with details of every little canonical transgression that you find with the extremists (again I'm referring to both extremes) are signs of spiritual illness.

[Matthew]

Thank you Jonathan for giving proper focus here. Who is rightly confessing the faith NOW. We can ask endless questions and examine endless claims about the past. The important thing is to be where the truth is NOW.

[Sdcn.Ephrem]

Jonathan's second point is a vital one. He said, "The kind of legalistic obsession with details of every little canonical transgression that you find with the extremists (again I'm referring to both extremes) are signs of spiritual illness." People often treat canonical transgressions as if they were on the same level as heresy.

This was discussed here a while ago in reference to similar allegations against the ROCOR. I'll restate what I said then.

"Abuses are not the reason that the World Orthodox are deprived of grace. There are 'abuses' even in True Orthodoxy, and may God forgive us for them. But abuses aren't the same as heresy. The difference between abuse and heresy is the way we react to reproof from those who are strong in the faith.

"If there is repentance, then we are guilty of abuse, and subsequently we must face the consequences. This is where the canons against praying with heretics come into play, for instance. If a priest prays with Jews or heretics out of ignorance or out of fear of persecution, then he is guilty and must be censured in accordance with the canons. Here we have an example of abuse. Yet, when the priest prays with Jews or heretics because he believes in their impious teachings or gives them sort sort of validity, then he is anathema, completely excluded from the Church. Such is the difference between the abuses [Fr. Lebedeff mentions] and the actual, evident heresy found in the World Orthodox Churches.

"Take, for instance, the example of the current Patriarch of Constantinople. He is not a heretic because he broke the canons against praying with Jews and heretics; he is a heretic because he dares to say that the Orthodox and the Catholics are two lungs of the same body. He is not merely worthy of canonical censure; he is under anathema!

"Such is the difference between abuse and heresy. Abuse makes us guilty, and so we are punished by the Church. Heresy makes us guilty also, yet when we are stubborn in heresy we are put out of the Church and must answer to God. 'It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.'"

[Maria]

Fr Alexander had his own agenda, which was to show that the ROCOR was in fact always involved in ecumenism, and hence that her entering into communion with World Orthodoxy was justified, as it didn't constitute any change of course or position. Suffice to say there were plenty in ROCOR who disagreed, and they now constitute the various TOC offshoots of ROCOR.

As I pointed out elsewhere, the extremists at both ends, Matthewites on the right and Ecumenists and Cyprianites on the left, seem to agree on a light-switch theory of grace. You should focus less on the mistakes made in the past and ask yourself currently who is rightly confessing the Orthodox Faith? I'm not even going to try to direct you to join my jurisdiction, but do call people up and don't base your whole knowledge of True Orthodoxy on internet and book research. Talk to people, if possible go and visit. It's important that the church you join has the right faith, but also that the bishop and his flock are both pious and spiritually healthy. The kind of legalistic obsession with details of every little canonical transgression that you find with the extremists (again I'm referring to both extremes) are signs of spiritual illness.

Excellent post, Jonathan.

Another sign of spiritual illness is the rush to embrace heresy (Name-Worshipping and Awake Sleepers) and to cover up sinful behaviors as is being done in HOCNA. Then there are those who engage in dissension and lies, such as Archbishop Gregory, who was formerly with HOCNA. HOCNA does not produce good fruit.

[Matthew]

Thank you Sdcn Ephrem for the thoughtful ideas.
Maria, I agree with you that HOCNA has some kind of latent disease that seems to follow it and tarnish those who are schooled in it. Hence, even though Abp Gregory had enough sense to separate himself from Panteleimon, he is still infected by the spirit of HOCNA, the Romanidean spirit, and the general spirit of independence that HOCNA espouses. For this reason, now that such a large contingent of HOCNA faithful have come to us, we should consider that that kind of inculcation does not disappear overnight by changing jurisdictions, or get expunged simply because of recognising a serious problem in HOCNA and leaving. The fact is they had abundant reasons to leave long before and did not. Hence, they will, I fear find the evil one attempting to stir up trouble for them, perhaps even through them, now that they are with us in the GOC/HOTCA. We must pray that their transition is a successful one and relatively smooth and free of disruptions. I am certain the the evil one will seek to cause all manner of disruptions if he can. It must be opposed by prayer and the help of the saints. God help us all and especially our dear brothers and sisters formerly of HOCNA to be healed and find a peaceful haven for our souls in the TOC. Amen.

[Archimandrit Nilos]

It's unfortunately true: The ROCOR was till 1920 involved in ecumenical activities. Also Metrop. Anthony Khrapovitsky himself was by the inthronisation of the Neo-Calendarist Romanian Patriarch Myron Cristea, formerly a Roman Catholic Uniate, a strong follower and defender of the new calendar, and after many many transgressions of the holy canons of various kinds.