ROCOR-L UNANIMOUSLY VOTES TO UNITE WITH MP!

[Myrrh]

Well, I think the resolutions are ambiguous, and if given a vote would have to abstain because I don't understand what they're voting for...

Is this for union as in 'one Church headed by the MP' or union as in 'in eucharistic communion'?

It could be that they were only voting on the second idea:

Friday, May 12th, 2006
7:07 pm №24: Interview about the Resolution
INTERVIEW
THE RESOLUTION OF THE SOBOR 2006
[An Interview With DR MAGEROVSKY]

Sbn Nathanael Kapner: "Dr Magerovsky. Are you in contact with any Anti-MP delegates who are now present at the SOBOR in San Francisco?"

Dr E.L. Magerovsky: "Indeed I am in contact. In fact, I get firsthand reports every day from the SOBOR in San Francisco."

Sbn Nathanael: "Many are confused by the RESOLUTION. Some call it "ambiguous," while others believe it to be a mandate to the bishops to go forward with the union. Why the confusion?"

Dr Magerovsky: "But the delegates are not confused! There have been two or three RESOLUTIONS offered, and this final RESOLUTION is quite pointed. The RESOLUTION is not at all 'ambiguous!'

~ "Three very specific points are stated in this RESOLUITON which obviates any movement towards a present unification with the Moscow Patriarchy."

Sbn Nathanael: "What is the 1st point? And how is the 1st point a victory for the ANTI-MP contingent?"

Dr Magerovsky: "The RESOLUTION does not make an 'ANTI-MP Stand' per se. For there is nothing that would predicate such a stand. In paragraph 3, the RESOLUTION simply puts forth a stance of 'continuation' of the ROCA--as it has existed for the past 87 years.

~ "The RESOLUTION simply confirms that the ROCA continues--apart from any regard to the Moscow Patriarchy! It's that simple and quite specifically 'clear-cut.'

~ "We the ROCA, according to the RESOLUTION, continue as a self-governing Local Russian Church. PERIOD. In other words, no union with the MP is in this RESOLUTION'S purview! But the RESOLUTION does not rule out an eventual union once all the stumbling blocks have been removed."

Sbn Nathanael: "What is the 2nd point?"

Dr Magerovsky: "The 2nd point is made in paragraph 4 of the RESOLUTION. Here the RESOLUTION calls upon the Moscow Patriarchy to withdraw its participation in the World Council of Churches."

Sbn Nathanael: "In this 2nd point of the RESOLUTION regarding the WCC - is this a 'condition' that must be met by the Moscow Patriarchy, before a union can take place?"

Dr Magerovsky: "There is no need to put forth 'conditions.' There are no presuppositions that supposed 'conditions' would be predicated on. The RESOLUTION, in the 1st point, laid down the foundation for all ensuing statements. That is - the ROCA continues as it has already existed. That, in and of itself, precludes all and any 'negotiating' statements."

Sbn Nathanael: "What is the 3rd point of the RESOLUTION?"

Dr Magerovsky: "The 3rd point is stated in paragraph 5 of the RESOLUTION. This is a call for an 'All Russian Land Council,' of which, the participants would be duly elected representatives.

~ "The first 'All Russian Land Council' was held in 1917-1918 under very inauspicious circumstances--namely the Revolution and the Civil War. But still, it was a 'representative' Land Council that was fully canonical.

~ "The RESOLUTION is calling for a second SOBOR or Council. For only a new 'representative,' fully canonical SOBOR, can resolve the issues at stake. These issues include sergianism; the unlawful Stalinesque consecration of the MP bishops--which includes the present Patriarch, Alexy II; the unlawful status of the MP entity; ecumenism; and many other issues as well."

Sbn Nathanael: "In conclusion, Dr Magerovsky--you are calling this RESOLUTION a victory for those against the union. Why is this RESOLUTION a victory?"

Dr Magerovsky: "Because the RESOLUTION casts aside all ideas of a 'union!'

~ "In other words, the RESOLUTION is not against the union per say - that is, an eventual merger of a one, true Russian Orthodox Church, but not at this point.”

~ "The RESOLTUION definitively states the present state of affairs of the ROCA. Namely this: ROCA maintains its independence at this point. Truly this is a victory!"

http://revniteli.livejournal.com/

[Myrrh]

Perhaps this ambiguity is leading to a kind of autocephaly for ROCOR, but in relation to the MP and not the EP?

I've been trying to find information on the beginnings of this 'union' idea - has the goal actually been defined by the current ROCOR hierarchs?

There's this from: the MP

Archbishop Innokentii of Korsun

THE UNIFICATION OF THE RUSSIAN DIASPORA
IN WESTERN EUROPE: A STEP TOWARDS
THE CREATION OF A LOCAL CHURCH

As we have already said, on 1 April 2003 His Holiness Patriarch Alexis sent to all the dioceses and parishes of Russian tradition in Western Europe an historic appeal that opened the way to a resolution of the problem of the diaspora in Western Europe. His appeal contained the offer to establish, on the basis of these dioceses, a metropolia, that is, a Church structure organized like a Local Church. It would be composed of several dioceses united on the basis of self-government by a Council (Sobor) and a Primate, with the appropriate permanent organs of administration.

"The creation, in response to the invitation of His Holiness, of a single ecclesial entity embracing all the parishes of Russian tradition in Western Europe would not only eliminate an unnecessary obstacle on the path to the establishment of a Local Church, but also be a step forward on this path. In effect, the creation in Western Europe of such a metropolia would serve as an example for the other Local Churches. The creation of several metropolias, each having the internal structure of a self-governing Church, could at a later stage fuse naturally into a single autocephalous Local Church in Western Europe."

http://www.dioceseinfo.org/InnokentiiDiaspora.htm

If ROCOR is moving to keep its current hierarchical structure rather than fragmenting into the above it could keep its present, what is in effect, autocephalous entity intact. And by not dividing itself on geographical lines could set a precedent giving other groups an alternative to joining the EP if wanting to keep their independence. Would Paris leave the EP to join something like this? It could be thought of as an option for Sourozh.

Myrrh

Myrrh

[Myrrh]

http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/syn ... tion2.html

SAN FRANCISCO: May 13, 2006

RESOLUTION
of the IV All-Diaspora Council on the Ministry and Mission of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

We, the participants of the IV All-Diaspora Council, having gathered in the God-preserved city of San Francisco, in the blessed presence of the Protectress of the Russian Diaspora, the Kursk-Root Icon of the Mother of God and the holy relics of Saint John of Shanghai and San Francisco, having heard lectures and presentations devoted to the life of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia in the modern world, express our conciliar opinion on vital questions of our church life.

Throughout the history of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, her bishops, theologians and thinkers untiringly stressed that the ministry of the Church Abroad in the world is inspired by the lofty spiritual ideals of Holy Russia, placing as its cornerstone the fulfillment of the testament of Christ on love for God and man. We confess dedication to the missionary spirit of Saints Sergius of Radonezh, Stefan of Perm, Job of Pochaev, Herman of Alaska, Innokenty of Moscow, Nicholas of Japan, St Tikhon of Moscow and St John of Shanghai and San Francisco. We call upon the children of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia to lovingly preserve devotion to this spirit, through faith, word and our very lives, to witness Holy Orthodoxy in the world surrounding us, and to act with responsibility within the Church.

We call upon the children of the Church to preserve faithfulness to our hierarchy, remembering the words of St Cyprian of Carthage: "where the bishop is, there is the Church."

The spiritual focus and wellspring of living strength of the Church is the bloodless and salvific Eucharistic sacrifice of the Son of God for all the living and the dead. In the church, at the holy Altar table, and in common church prayer, the earthly Church and the heavenly Church unite; present at the Divine Altar are people and angels and saints. We call upon the rebirth of Eucharistic life, we call for the understanding that in partaking of the Holy Gifts, we unite with Christ, and through Him, with the Universal Church.

We call for the rebirth within the conciliar consciousness of the pastors and flock of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia the lofty ideal of church community and parish. Only a parish which senses itself as the original structure of the Universal Church and an inseparable part of the Body of Christ will have the strength to battle against that which hinders our salvation—evil and sin. Only the parish that remembers that its roots go back to the time of the Acts of the Apostles can adopt the necessary measures to provide for the spiritual needs of youth, to show merciful love for the unfortunate and needy.

We, the delegates of the IV All-Diaspora Council, mark with profound gratitude the vital living ministry that the women of the Russian Church Abroad perform in the parishes and other establishments of our Holy Church, and we call upon all laypersons to provide help to the pastors in their very difficult podvig.

We call for the establishment of a Commission on Youth under the Synod of Bishops with the purpose of being an all-diaspora coordinating organ. Authorizing the Commission to examine the expediency of opening not only Saturday and Sunday schools everywhere, but also regular Orthodox educational establishments where the young generation would receive both general and Orthodox education, would serve towards the rebirth of Russian Orthodox culture.

[Myrrh]

Is this for union as in 'one Church headed by the MP' or union as in 'in eucharistic communion'?

Just reviewing some of my thoughts about this.

http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/syn ... iewpa.html

MOSCOW: May 1, 2006

Responses of Patriarch ALEXY II of Moscow and All Russia on Questions From the Official Internet Site of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

1. In your opinion, is a canonical evaluation of the path of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia needed? Who is authorized to make such an evaluation ?

It is, of course, necessary and important to make a detailed and dispassionate examination of the history of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. She must be analyzed from a canonical point of view. But it is important to realize that it is difficult, while assessing all the phenomena and figures of history, to come to full unanimity. The entire truth lies only in God's judgment.

But we see now that for every argument made by some historians, others propose a counter-argument or a different interpretation of historical events. Full agreement in this regard is not to be found, either in Russia or in the Diaspora.

Hearing the lectures read at the Council, the reports made by the Commission on negotiations with the corresponding Commission of the Moscow Patriarchate, and the various points of view expressed during the discussions, we express our conciliar consent that it is necessary to confirm the canonical status of the Russian Church Abroad for the future as a self-governing part of the Local Russian Church, in accordance with the Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia currently in force.

Paragraph 3.
FOR - 116 delegates
AGAINST - 2 delegates
ABSTAINED - 6 delegates

What do think this resolution is saying? It seems to me to be a decision to authorise, make permanent for the future, the current status. Who were the delegates against? Perhaps if we knew how they viewed 'reunion' it would make this clearer.

5. How do you envision the future organization of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, her status and relationship with the Moscow Patriarchate? How in Your Holiness' opinion should the relationship develop between the dioceses and parishes of the Moscow Patriarchate abroad and of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia located on the same territory? What is to be done in those instances when pastoral practice does not completely coincide between the two sides?

The organizational structure of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, it is our understanding, will remain the same as it is now, with her own Council of Bishops, her own Synod and her own existing administrative organs. If the Russian Church Abroad herself in the future wishes to change anything, that is another matter, but this question should not be addressed to us. We foresee the preservation of the historically-developed community of dioceses, parishes and monasteries of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia—as a self-governing part of one Local Russian Church. The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia defined herself in just this way over the course of decades, only before this status was described as temporary, "until the fall of the godless regime in Russia ."

Now, when all the conditions for this have been met, normal relations between the Church Abroad and the Moscow Patriarchate as a whole can be reestablished. They will be defined by an Act on Canonical Communion.

Of course, the reestablishment of communion and unity assumes that some ecclesio-legal norms prescribed by the holy canons will be applied. If bishops of the Russian Church Abroad become members of the Council of Bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate, then, naturally, the confirmation of their elections by the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate as designated by the canons will be required, although the actual elections will occur as before—by the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. The same applies to the election of the First Hierarch.

What the MP is looking for is ROCOR to consider itself an autonomous church, but it seems to me that Resolution 3 is rejecting this because Metropolitan Laurus said that ROCOR isn't looking for 'merger' or 'unification' - so a renewal of the Ustav and on the horizon new opportunities -

It is crucial to regularize the situation the Local Russian Church finds herself in, as the Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia obliges us to do, for this is a document by which we live and exist. It is interesting to note that a committee on reviewing the Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia was appointed even before 2000. This shows that even then it was clear that our Regulations, our Ustav, was in need of renewal. Since 2000, new opportunities also presented themselves. Now the Regulations may be reexamined on the basis of future decisions, to some extent, yet also by taking into consideration new possibilities.

It is important to point out here that we are not talking about "unification" or a "merger," but of reconciliation and mutual recognition, of establishing Eucharistic communion with the Moscow Patriarchate while retaining our administrative independence, for we understand the needs of our clergymen and flock better than they are understood in Moscow. http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/syn ... sobor.html

And, it seems to me, the Resolution

"We call upon the children of the Church to preserve faithfulness to our hierarchy, remembering the words of St Cyprian of Carthage: "where the bishop is, there is the Church." ............ we call for the understanding that in partaking of the Holy Gifts, we unite with Christ, and through Him, with the Universal Church."

is setting the scene for the new possibilities in an organisation which by claiming it knows the needs of its flock and clergy better than the MP can know them is rejecting autonomy in favour of continuing in complete autocephaly.

But Metropolitan Laurus reminds of an interesting point - do we really need any hierarchical structure above any bishop?

Myrrh

[Ekaterina]

Fr Siluan wrote:
Katya:

XB!
Do you also think as this Deacono John think about us?
Once you told me that it was in against the union with the MP but your facts never demonstrated this way.

In Christ
Priest Siluan

Father:
There is nothing I hate worse than a one-sided arguement. I posted the rebuttal because I mostly do not feel that Vladimir Moss is objective in his postings. I disagree with most of what he writes.

I am hestitant of the the closer ties with the MP as I do not see the clear benefit to ROCOR. I, however, do have a degree of trust in my bishops and so hope that GOD is guiding them. Time will tell if this is a God guided thing or not.

However I also take exception to the use of the word "union". It seems that only our opponants are using this word to describe the current talks, ROCOR keeps using the word concelebration......something I see as being different from "union". There is a lot of unsupported speculation and supposition and even more twisting of the words and writings currently posted. Also a great deal of "putting words in mouths that have never spoken them" or certainly not in the context argued.

Of course the animosity, condemnation and hatred is certainly sorrowful to an Orthodox person who is only trying to find their way. Animosity, condemnation and hatred will not win any to your side.

I have on several occassions on this and other forums noted that priests and other laity have been less than Priestly in their responces to other posters, especially if they are of the "enemy" jurisdiction. I fully understand that priests are people like everyone else, just as prone to sinfulness as the next person, but you (this is used as a general term and not directed to you specifically) wear the mantel of Christ and as such more is expected of you. You hold in your hands the soulful welfare of your flock and of others who hear and read your words.

Mankind often is influenced by example. For most of us the most frequent example comes from the priests we encounter in our lives. I have met many priests in my life, some very wonderful caring spiritual men, some good, some mediocre and some I would not want near me... ever. My spiritual father, God rest his soul, used to say that it was my guardian angel guiding me. I have no other way to "judge" (for lack of a better word) where to seek than your words and the words of others who espouse your cause. That includes your Bishops and so on.

You never know when your words may help someone or just as easily hurt someone. It is a fine line. It is for this reason that I believe the Fathers of the Church have always cautioned us to be mindful of our words.

Many years ago I was approached by an elderly woman at a 7-11 store, she wanted to tell me about God....I think she was a Baptist.....I brushed her off with an admittedly flippant remark. When I came out of the store, she reproached me for my comment. I felt a strong twinge of a guilty conscience. In her reproach I heard the voice of God telling me I had blundered and missed an opportunity to be an Orthodox person. To this day I still feel that guilt, it has not lessened at all, it has made me cautious in my words to others.

A dear Priest friend of mine, once told my husband that priests are more assaulted by the evil one than are regular people. I believe this to be very true. I certainly felt that his burden was greater than mine.

If you stand for Truth-- then your words must shine with the Truth. They must be the path through which the children of God, can find the Truth. If, however, your words are tempered with sarcasm, derision, hatred and condemnation, then the children of God will never find the way to the Truth through you.

You do not know me, and probably never will. You do not know the "nature" of my Orthodoxy. I hold no malice towards you or to any other laity....your chosen path is harder than mine. But sometimes someone like me needs to remind someone like you to be careful.

Katya

[尼古拉前执事]

15 May 2006, 14:30
Russian Orthodox bishop against linking Moscow Patriarchate participation in WCC with reunification with Church Abroad
http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=1416

Moscow, May 15, Interfax - Resolving differences between the Russian and abroad parts of the Russian Church, including the one over membership of the Moscow Patriarchate in the World Council of Churches, should not be made a condition for reunification with the Church Abroad.

This statement has been made by Bishop Hilarion of Vienna and Austria, representative of the Russian Orthodox Church at European international organizations. He believes ‘all these differences can be settled after the unity of the two parts of the Russian Church is restored’.

Earlier the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia repeatedly stated that the ecumenical work of the Moscow Patriarchate was an obstacle for restoration of full unity between them.

‘Will the withdrawal from the WCC benefit the Russian Church? I doubt it. In general I believe the withdrawal from the WCC will not affect the internal life of the Russian Orthodox Church in any way and will go more or less unnoticed on the level of parishes, monasteries and theological schools’, the bishop said as cited by the press service of the Russian Church representation in Brussels.

Moreover, he continued, the withdrawal from the WCC will deprive the Moscow Patriarchate of ‘an important platform for bearing witness to the truth of Orthodoxy in face of non-Orthodox Christians’ and will rather benefit the Patriarchate of Constantinople, ‘which already now uses the WCC as a platform to expanding its influence’.

On the other hand, Bishop Hilarion agrees with those who believe that at present, relations should be strengthened primarily with Churches, ‘which safeguard their traditional spiritual and moral values, not with Protestants of liberal trend’.

In this connection he expressed the opinion that a Council made up of the Catholic, Orthodox and Oriental (non-Chalcedonian) Churches would be more effective than the WCC - ‘Council’ not in the sense of theological or ecclesiological union but in the sense of a strategic alliance or pact concluded for protecting traditional Christianity’, the bishop explained.

He believes the forms of the Russian Orthodox Church’s participation in inter-Christian dialogue should remain a subject of conciliar discussion, and ‘it is important that the bishops of the Church Abroad should take an active part in this discussion along with Moscow Patriarchate bishops’.

‘It is my conviction that this matter should be resolved in the context of a common strategy to be elaborated by the two parts of the Russian Church, which will hopefully unite around the one Eucharistic cup shortly’, the bishop concluded.

[尼古拉前执事]

15 May 2006
Synod of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad opening in San Francisco
http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=dujour&div=75

Moscow, May 15, Interfax - The Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) will take place from May 15 to 19 in San Francisco.

It is expected to adopt an Act on Canonical Community with the Patriarchate of Moscow. The 4th All-Diaspora Council adopted earlier two resolutions, one of the devoted to the reunification of the two parts of the Russian Church.

The Act on Canonical Community, drafted by commissions of the Russian Church outside Russia and the Church in Russia, was published in June 2005. According to the draft act, the ROCOR, if the Act is adopted, will be independent in pastoral, educational, administrative, management, property and civil matters. The supreme authority within the Russian Church Abroad will belong to Council of Bishops.

At the same time, decisions falling outside the competency of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia will be made in concord with the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church. The Local and Bishops' Councils of Moscow Patriarchate will be the highest instance of ecclesiastical authority and the bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia will be their members.

The ROCOR Synod of Bishops approved in 2003 the membership of its commission on the reunification with the Moscow Patriarchate. Late in May 2004 when the First Hierarch of the Church Abroad, Metropolitan Laurus of Eastern America and New York, made his first visit to Moscow, it was announced that the Russian Church Abroad and the Church in Russia restored their communion in prayer. ‘We have already restored our communion in prayer, the next on the agenda is restoration of the Eucharistic communion’, Patriarch Alexy said at that time.

Metropolitan Laurus, on his part, in his Easter Epistle this year, has called the faithful to lift up special prayers for the restoration of church unity.