Patriarch Alexis II calls for Orth. unity in W. Europe

[Serge]

http://www.sourozh.org/news/patriarch010403_en.htm

[尼古拉前执事]

Very interesting!

I see it is even addressed to His Grace the Right Reverend Amvrosii, Bishop of Geneva and Western Europe (Russian Orthodox Church Abroad)

Some interesting quotes from it:

"We can hardly doubt that the time has come for a restoration of unity. We have already written on this matter in brotherly epistles, in September of last year to His Holiness Bartholomew, Patriarch of Constantinople, and in the preceding year to the members of the Episcopal Council of the Russian Church Abroad.

[Seraphim Reeves]

These are encouraging words - one wonders if they have any connection to the widely circulated (and seemingly credible) story circulating that Patriarch Alexis had some sort of extraordinary vision/experience recently.

I would like nothing more than to see a healing of the divisions between not only ROCOR and Moscow, but also ROCOR and the OCA. However, such a healing will have to be according to truth.

The unfortunate truth is that there have arisen, since the revolution, other issues complicating reunion between ROCOR (which has always understood itself to be part of the Russian Church) and Moscow. The most obvious one is Moscow's involvement in the ecumenical movement, and the affects of this on her life. This is even more sorely felt when one looks at the OCA, which I humbly say has suffered the effects of theological liberalism even further.

If that can be resolved, and if it is made very clear by Moscow that it repudiates the great offences committed previously by the MP during the communist yoke, then there would be a good basis for reunion. Of course beyond this, are other complicating factors (namely the ecumenism issue beyond the Russian Church in other parts of the Orthodox world, and what Moscow's intentions are in regard to this.) But these are, perhaps, the most immediate.

Seraphim

[Mor Ephrem]

The unfortunate truth is that there have arisen, since the revolution, other issues complicating reunion between ROCOR (which has always understood itself to be part of the Russian Church) and Moscow. The most obvious one is Moscow's involvement in the ecumenical movement, and the affects of this on her life. This is even more sorely felt when one looks at the OCA, which I humbly say has suffered the effects of theological liberalism even further.

As an outsider, this raises some interesting questions, and I hope you will not be offended if I ask them. It seems that Serbia and Jerusalem either a) do not see these as problems serious enough to cut off communion with Moscow and the OCA or b) do not think that there is a problem here at all, since they still maintain communion. So, is (a) true, meaning that they do see these things as problems? And if so, why are they not thought of as serious enough to cut off communion, even though it seems that ROCOR thinks along those lines? Are they serious enough that Serbia and Jerusalem bring up such things in any discussions they have with the MP and the OCA, or do they not do this? Or, is (b) true? And if it is, then why does ROCOR maintain communion with Serbia and Jerusalem, when it seems logical (at least to me) that they would be consistent if they also cut off Serbia and Jerusalem?

[尼古拉前执事]

Mor,

Its a complicated question, but I only have a minute before I have to take off, so let me try to make a generalization that covers some of the answer. The Serbian and Jerusalem orthodox Churches are our friends. One is more willing to excuse or forgive the mistakes of a friend than someone they do not know or someone one has tension with. I hope that helps, as I have got to run.

[Mor Ephrem]

The Serbian and Jerusalem orthodox Churches are our friends. One is more willing to excuse or forgive the mistakes of a friend than someone they do not know or someone one has tension with. I hope that helps, as I have got to run.

True enough, but love and truth go hand in hand. What kind of love is it to not point out error if such exists, but instead to let the friend live on in error? That is not love. One may be more willing to forgive a friend's mistakes, but shouldn't you let the friend know that X was a mistake, especially if they go about as if they are right? I know you said you were in a hurry, and I know you were making a generalisation, but this attitude still does not seem consistent.

[Justin Kissel]

Mor,

The traditionalists have voiced concern about some things that are done by some that we are formally in communion with. The Serbs in particular have done some things over the past few decades that traditionalists have spoken up about. Their is a huge difference between the Serbs though (which has many spiritual children of two modern saints--Nikolai and Justin--within it's ranks, including positions as high as bishop) and other groups.

What Nicholas said was right on the mark. Friendship, love, and giving the benefit of the doubt all factor into this. We are in formal communion with them now, to break that communion would be a very far-reaching and drastic thing to do. Reestablishing communion with those you've already broken communion with, on the other hand, is another matter entirely. It's always easier to keep communion than it is to reestablish it. For a historical example, just look at the relationship between Constantinople and Rome in the latter part of the 4th century. Here we had a Saint of the Church, Gregory the Theologian as Patriarch, and Rome still wasn't formally in communion with them. (I don't think they came back into communion until Chrysostom became Patriarch, did they?)

There's also the fact that Serbia and Jerusalem have not fallen into the error--at least to the same extent--that caused traditionalists to distance themselves from certain groups in the first place. Ecumenism and the calendar change (seen as a sign of modernism/ecumenism) was the big issue.

Now, some do hold to the "consistent" ecclesiology you mentioned (these are what I think could be called "super-correct" groups). From Athos to America, there are a number of groups (numbering in the tens of thousands) which hold to this belief. IMO, consistency gives way to love; this is the basis of the whole Orthodox tradition, isn't it? If there was no place to "bend" (appearing to be inconsistent), then ekonomia would have no place. As we look at history though, there's a ton of inconsistency. How could a saint of the Church condemn Chrysostom, for example? How could numerous saints in the fourth century all favor different patriarchs for the see of Antioch? There's lots of examples of "inconsistency" in the Church. I suppose we all do as best we can, maintaining communion if we can, and trying not to lose our own Orthodoxy when speaking with those whom we are out of communion with.