Looks like ROCOR priest concelebrated with EP and MP priests

[bogoliubtsy]

Priest Dionysi,
Maybe as a layman in ROCOR you were not aware of ROCOR's real position?

First section written by John Hudanish, starosta of Our Lady of Kursk Chapel in Woodburn, Oregon.

"The anathema we have proclaimed is de jure a manifestation of a purely local character of the Russian Church Abroad. . ."

"No Orthodox body outside the Russian Church Abroad is bound by it, just as the anathema against the three-fingered sign of the cross proclaimed by the Council of the One Hundred Chapters (Moscow, 1552) was not binding on the Greeks at that time. About all our Russian Church Abroad can do is to refrain from concelebrating with or admitting to the Holy Mysteries the clergy and laity of those Orthodox jurisdictions which appear to be involved in the ecumenist heresy. Our bishops have no authority to discipline any but their own." (pp. 8-9)

This section written by Fr.John Whiteford some years ago after the HOCNA schism:

Metropolitan Vitaly confirmed this as the official view of the Church on the 1983 Anathema in his recent Nativity Epistle. In it he also clearly stated that those individual Synod clergymen who, in isolated incidents, have concelebrated with clergy of ecumenist or new-calendar jurisdictions have done so by economy. In this Epistle, Metropolitan Vitaly wrote:

"We proclaimed an anathema against ecumenism only for the children of our Church, but by this we very humbly but firmly, gently but decisively, as if invite the local churches to stop and think. This is the role of our most small, humble, half-persecuted, always alert, but true Church.
We, de facto, do not serve with either new-calendarists or ecumenists, but if someone of our clergy, by economy, would presume to such a concelebration, this fact alone in no way influences our standing in the truth."

[bogoliubtsy]

There was a time, two years ago, that such a thing would have caused a real storm. But, since so many let so much happen for so often, the attitude has, well.....

Maybe the people who would have caused a schism over this two years ago already left ROCOR for the ROAC and ROCiE schisms.

[Logos]

That's my question: when does a church become heretical? Where do you draw the lines? I was baptized in the OCA. Could one really say that I wasn't baptized at all, that I'm a simple heathen who has been receiving confession and communion to her condemnation? OR have the sacraments I've received been devoid of grace because ROCOR has concelebrated with ecumenists?

I'm just looking for the truth, for what will save my soul.

That is what I am looking for too. You've made some good points. Where do you draw the lines as to when a church becomes heretical? Everyone is claiming to be the real Orthodox but who is it? Why does God let this transpire? I could go on here and criticize the church but I won't.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Peter,

In this case, what is the difference if the Anathema was for the ROCOR's children only, or for "world Orthodoxy"?

Either way, a ROCOR priest and bishop communing with the EP does in fact constitute a communion with heresy does it not?

And that's no small matter??

[Seraphim Reeves]

Maybe the people who would have caused a schism over this two years ago already left ROCOR for the ROAC and ROCiE schisms.

The problem, Peter, is that it appears ROCOR has fallen under it's own anathema. Even if one holds to the "this anathema is only of local, Synodal relevence" line (which I'm not entirely convinced of, since the very explanation you posted giving this line of reasoning states that participation in ecumenism, the very thing anathematized by the '83 anathema, is grounds for not having communion with a given group - it sounds to me like others ARE being judged by the measure of this anathema), the sad fact is that concelebrations are going on, by ROCOR clergy and heirarchs with those involved in the ecumenist heresy as outlined by the anathema.

This to me, is a very big problem, and one I've never had satisfactorily resolved. It's easy to say "these people" or "those people" are schismatics, but perhaps it would be better to show why they are wrong, since name calling just devolves into more of the same.

A key idea in the anathema, it would seem to me, was the condemnation of a false ecclessiology - one which says that it's possible to confess falsehood, to seperate one's self from right believing brethren (or persist in such a separation), and yet somehow still be "the Church." This would seem to be the problem with the "Cyprian" ecclessiology ROCOR officially accepted when it united with the TOC Greek Old Calendarists - the idea of "holy heretics" as it's been put (people confessing lies, heirarchs teaching lies, and making policy based on those falsehoods, yet somehow still being in the Church of Christ.) I can see how this is a big problem - what materially is the difference between this, and the erroneous ecclessiology of the ecumenists?

I suppose the only ground for argument may be that they (ecumenism tainted "world Orthodoxy") are still in the process of "slipping away", and have not yet in total "fallen over the edge." I can sympathize with that view, but I really debate how true it is. However, what I think can be said safely, is that even if one is indulging that kind of debate, it's actually irrelevent to the question fo maintaing ecclessiastical communion with these groups, since it is quite obvious that at least the "big players" are quite unrepentent of either their involvement with ecumenism, or their flattering of those who are. On that level, at least, ROCOR's recent activities make me worry, and I think lend credibility to the argument of the "schismatics" that ROCOR's agenda and orientation has changed very much since the time of Metropolitan Philaret.

Seraphim

Seraphim

[ania]

Maybe there was an investigation, maybe there wasn't. A good reason for the Met. Lavr not to order an investigation of Bsp. Peter is this... Met. Lavr has known Bsp. Peter for a very long time. Since he was a boy, Bsp. Peter (then Paul), was closely involved in the church. He was an alter boy for St. John of Shanghi, and often participated in services in the San Fransisco cathedral. He came to seminary, and there became a favorite cell attendant to many visiting bishops. Paul was regarded as so trustworthy that they would request him when they needed to be driven somewhere, and knew that he could be trusted never to repeat anything he overheard while the bishops conversed. Granted, there were jokes that he practiced every morning before the mirror giving 2 handed blessings.
Fr. Victor, I came to find out recently, has personal reasons for hating Bsp. Peter, reasons instigated by his Matushka. These are back from the seminary days.
As far as the other priest bringing up accusations... he is a known (at least by people who bother to investigate, both by looking at his history in parishes, as well as his collections of "donations," and an incident that happened a while back that involved a antique statue of a bear that had been in the Synod for many years showing up in an antique shop selling for $1000s of dollors in upper Manhatten) for not being the most reliable of witnesses. I would take what he says with a grain of salt, and a miniscule one at that.
As far a one particular bishop not wanting to participate in the hiratonia, well, he didn't. Once again, note that magority ruled, & Bsp. Peter got the votes. That our bishop of Manhatten didn't vote in favor, well tough toodles.
Vl. Met. Lavr is a very wise man. He has known Bsp. Peter for many many many years. He's lived in the same monastary with him for a looooooooooooooooooooooooong time, basicly from the time he came to seminary (with the exception of Bsp. Peter going to Belgrade to study in a Serbian seminary) until he left for Jerusalem to be the Head of the Mission. I think Vl. Met. Lavr would know if these acusations were true, and would have known a very vevery very long time ago.
Sorry if this message is disjointed, drove in very late last night.
Ania

[bogoliubtsy]

The problem, Peter, is that it appears ROCOR has fallen under it's own anathema.

But it really doesn't appear as if that's happened since Met.Vitaly seems to have made the character of the anathema pretty clear-

We, de facto, do not serve with either new-calendarists or ecumenists, but if someone of our clergy, by economy, would presume to such a concelebration, this fact alone in no way influences our standing in the truth."

Whether one agrees with this line of reasoning in regards to the character of an anathema or not is another story all-together. But it seems the real "position" of ROCOR is to allow these concelebrations for the sake of economy. One can agree or disagree with whether that makes sense, but one shouldn't state that the ROCOR has changed course, vandalized the lighthouse, etc. etc.