Coming soon - reunion of ROCOR with the Church of Russia

[Justin Kissel]

I cannot disagree with you

[Matushka Anna]

Dear Seraphim et al,

Justin wrote:

I cannot disagree with you <

I can.

In fact, even though I try not to post much any more, I feel compelled to disagree.

Seraphim wrote:

To use the means of charity as an underhanded jab is shamelessly distasteful; the same goes for copious psycho-spiritual analysis of the real motives/problems of others in the context of a public dialogue/debate. <

This ascribes all kinds of unkind motives to someone who pointed out something which needs pointing out.

I am greatly troubled by the tenor of posts to this forum, because so many are made with such certaintly by people who either aren't Orthodox or haven't been for long. The poll that I posted makes it clear that there ARE long time Orthodox around, but that's not who answers the questions. But the questions that are asked are mostly things that people should ask their own priests rather than running it by a bunch of strangers on the internet.

We joke about Orthodoxy not being an organized religion, but the truth is that it is founded upon order and held together in order, and that the order is beautiful and good. It keeps us from becoming Protestants. Within families there is order -- the children answer to their mother and to their father, the wife is under the loving authority of her husband, and the husband does all things with the good of his wife and children (and society and the Church) in mind. In parishes, the singers follow the choir director, who answers to the priest. The altar boys listen to the readers, who answer to the subdeacons and deacons, who are guided by the priest, who is under the supervision of his Dean and omophorian of his bishop. The bishop answers to the Synod, which responds to the people and answers to God.

The structure of our services is set, so that we don't debate among ourselves, for example, if St. Herman or St. Spyridon is greater, because the structure of the service dictates that one is a Vigil-rank saint and the other isn't. This doesn't make one greater than the other, but it means each priest and choir director don't have to figure out on their own which Saint's troparia and stikhera go first in the service.

The structure of our parishes is set. The younger women watch out for the welfare of the older ones and listen to their advice. The older men keep track of what needs to be done to keep up the building and grounds, and the younger men help them, learning the job for the future. The children help out where the adults allow and direct, but they don't spontaneously take over putting out candles or straightening lampadas and the like. That would be indecorous, and potentially dangerous.

But on the internet, some questions are earnestly asked and some are placed to solicit specific reactions. People ask disingenuous questions so people can promote their friends' books. People ask disingenuous questions so that others can promote their jurisdiction. People ask earnest questions which are used for nefarious purposes by people with an agenda. You don't know what you're getting or who is answering.

Because we have lived many places for many years, I do know many of the people who post. I've know Fr. Gregory Abu Asali since I was Roman Catholic and he was a novice, back in the early 1970's. Fr. Mark's family and we go back a ways -- they very kindly put us up when we were moving, driving from Texas to Connecticut. Who knew Tulsa would be so beautiful, or that Oklahoma had mountains? Nik Stanosheck and his amazing daughter attend our parish. Justin and Mary Cecilia are a long drive but short phone call away. I also know many of the people who are quoted. Metropolitan Philaret spoke in my father's house when I was a child. Met. Vitaly ordained my husband deacon (and Vladyka Hilarion ordained him priest, nearly 15 years ago). Met. Laurus hosted the St. Herman's Conference where I met my husband 23 years ago yesterday. But, you have no way of knowing that just because I post online. When we read a question, we don't know where it's coming from. When we read an answer, we don't know where it's coming from.

Before I became Orthodox, you wouldn't believe how much I knew. And, um, you would have been right not to believe how much I knew.

But, I had such missionary zeal! I was so excited at finding the Pearl of Great Price that I thought it made me an expert on gems. I taught things to my classmates, my tent-mates at YMCA camp, I had friends doing prostrations and saying the Jesus Prayer. I was eleven. But what I had was beaucoup zeal, coupled with way little knowledge. And the trust that I should have been putting in God, I ascribed to people who, others assured me, were way holier than I was. (Most people are.)

But the Holy Elder was, in time, accused by nearly 40 former novices of things not proper to discuss in public. If my trust had remained only in him, my soul would have been lost.

Mercifully, my family did one very important thing:
We went to church a lot.

We went to Saturday Morning Liturgy at the monastery every Saturday from before I was made a catechumen in fourth grade until after I graduated from college and got married and, in due time, was too tired, working and being pregnant, to go to so many services. The year my daughter was born was the year HTM left us.

Saturday afternoons, we went to Church School at the Russian parish, where we learned the Law of God, the structure of the services, the Eight Tones and how to sing them, and enough Church Slavonic to be able to read a little and sing a lot. We learned how much there was more to learn, and over the years the Church has provided places for us to learn more -- conferences, the Music School at Jordanville, the travelling Music Conferences where we learn the history and structure of the services. Church School opened my eyes to how much there was to know, to the theology behind the structure of the services, to the lessons inherent even in the order in which we say prayers, to which is added the lessons inside the prayers themselves. Layers upon layers upon layers still to learn. No wonder even our oldest bishops are constantly studying still.

Saturday evening, the Vespers part of Vigil was required for all Church School students. As we got older, we would stay for Matins, and confession, in which we learned more, because the priest would take the time to explain WHY something was sinful. He would make us kids apologize to each other and to our parents and even teachers whom we'd offended. My brothers and I jokingly referred to the period before bed on Saturday nights as "Forgiveness Saturday." We always had people over after Vigil for dinner -- nearby friends and people passing through town. Visiting seminarians, out of town visitors.

On Sundays, we would go to Liturgy, and stay for trapeza, and then for trapeza clean-up. This is where the real education came, as ladies from the Sisterhood would pass along important lessons. Don't sit on the table -- every table should remind us of the Mystical Supper. Don't throw out bread -- you ask God for it, don't waste it. If people won't eat it, give it to the birds. I learned about the sufferings people endured in Russia, in Germany, in Boston, as they fled one form of persecution and found another and another and another, and still persevered, still prayed, built a beautiful church and kept making it more beautiful. Dad would drive the elderly who had no ride, and forged friendships and learned much. I encourage everyone who attends a parish to stay for the meal, and to extend himself to others by offering to cook, to clean, to drive. It brings us all closer.

The Agape meal, of which today's trapeza is the continuation, was originally an essential part of the service. This is because we can't talk during services, we can't get to know each other, but by eating together we grow closer. We become a community of believers.

You learn Orthodoxy by praying with Orthodox people.
You learn Orthodoxy by eating with Orthodox people.
You learn Orthodoxy by making mistakes around Orthodox people who love you enough to correct you.
Very few people can be Orthodox in isolation. St. Mary of Egypt managed. That's the only example I can think of. And how many centuries has it been since that?

I used to joke that every convert wanted to write a book. Now, every convert has a web page. But more than that, every aspiring catechumen has a web site, where he evaluates each jurisdiction that he's never visited, critiques each bishop that he's never met, and assures you of the piety and correctness of people in other parts of the world who assure him that they are, indeed, the holiest and most Orthodox and only correct.

We used to be warned not to be armchair theologians, learning our Orthodoxy from books and never practicing it, quoting books on the Jesus Prayer while our prayer ropes grow old and dusty. But at least when you take out a book, you can show it to your priest, ask if it's something you're ready for, find out if the author was Orthodox, and if he died in the Church or not.

Now we have an even worse phenomenon -- laptop theologians, people who surf to find their theology, but never actually GO to an Orthodox parish to taste and see, because the things that we've read on the web lead us to judge them unseen.

When I purge my electronic cookies (things websites attacht to you) after logging off, I'm always astonished at how many there are, and where all they come from. Did I read the Washington Post today? I don't recall reading an Arkasas newspaper. Likewise, when we surf the net, we glean images that stay with us longer than cookies do, but we don't remember where they came from. We remember that someone said this priest was bad, we remember that someone said that parish was suspect, but who said it? And who was that person?

If you haven't lived through the cycle of services, if you don't regularly pray at an Orthodox parish with people who love you and will drive you crazy and correct you and tell you things you don't want to hear, if you haven't lived through Pascha and Nativity and all the weeks in between, what do you know of Orthodoxy? It would be like me telling you all about Southern California, which I've never visited but which one surely can read a great deal about on various websites. The information I pass on may or may not be accurate -- how would I know? And if you base your life on it, you may be okay. Or, you may be swallowed up in a mudslide.

My late father's favorite Russian proverb is this:
Your friends will argue with you.
Your enemies don't care.

Seraphim, GO to an Orthodox parish. Stand through the services. Eat with the people. Then think about posting. Reading about Orthodoxy makes you no more an expert than reading "Joy of Cooking" will make you a chef.

It saddens me greatly to see so many people not attend the real Orthodox parishes near them because the cyber-Orthodoxy they read about is so much purer. Cyber-Orthodoxy isn't purer, it's illusionary. It isn't even stones for bread, but rather jpegs of bread.

My dad also used to quote St. John Chrystostom, saying that a friend is one who watches out for your salvation. I suspect that David has been a friend to Seraphim's soul.

Forgive me if I've offended. But my sophmore English teacher used to say that Hamlet was a tragedy that wouldn't have taken place if just one person in the drama had said one sensible word. David said more than one sensible word. It would be a tragedy if you missed real Orthodoxy because the things you read about are prettier.

In Christ,
matushka Ann Lardas

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

matushka Ann,

I am not inclined to reply to such a heartfelt, caring, and much needed message as this, but I feel there are a few observations which are important.

I would just like to say that having read and been a part of this and many other forums over the years, Seraphim, while not even Orthodox, has proven that a Catechuman can speak with a far more authentic Orthodox voice than even some new-calendar bishops on the Internet such as Bishop Tikhon. It is so ironic that what most people accept as an Orthodox bishop can be such a trivial, abrasive, and even a well-embraced scandal, while someone like Seraphim, who is always level-headed and reasonable, can draw pleads of silence.

And there are many others, even ROCOR priests, who are constantly driving the steamroller of slant toward a union with the MP-ecumenist-monophysite communion. Who is more distructive, a catechuman who admits he is a catechuman and is working towards reason, or men who have a following and are pretending to lead people on the right path?

Truly, discussions among lay people, catechumans, and even pagans has been the cause of many people converting to Orthodoxy over the centuries. And experience in Orthodoxy has never proven anyone to be immune from delusion, this is self-evident.

So while I agree with you, I just think your comments are better placed at the foot of those like Fr. John Shaw.

If I have offended you Ann, I do apologize, as I have a great respect for you and your husband.

[Matushka Anna]

Dear Orthodoxy or Death,

Do you have a Christian name we can use?

I would just like to say that having read and been a part of this and many other forums over the years, Seraphim, while not even Orthodox, has proven that a Catechuman can speak with a far more authentic Orthodox voice than even some new-calendar bishops on the Internet such as Bishop Tikhon. <

No. He can't. Bishop Tikhon is an Orthodox Christian and Seraphim isn't.

C.S. Lewis wrote, in "Mere Christianity," about how people say that the fact that Miss A. who's not Christian is so much nicer than Miss B. who isn't "proves" that Christianity doesn't help anyone. Lewis says this isn't proper logic. What we should be looking at is how Miss A. would be if she were Christian, and how Miss B. would be if she weren't.

And there are many others, even ROCOR priests, who are constantly driving the steamroller of slant toward a union with the MP-ecumenist-monophysite communion. <

No. "MP-ecumenist-monophysite communion" is a slogan. The reality is that ROCOR has never rebaptised, remarried or reordained people who come from the MP. What you're describing is what my brother calls the "AIDS Awareness Theory of Intercommunion," which is, he describes, "that when you have communion with someone, you have communion with everyone that person ever had communion with, and every person THAT person ever had communion with, and so on, and so on." People use this to argue that we shouldn't be in communion with Jerusalem and Serbia. But the reality is that ROCOR is in communion with Jerusalem and Serbia. This is the past and current reality.

And so it's gratuitous slander to throw in the whole "ecumenist-monophysite" thang.

It is so ironic that what most people accept as an Orthodox bishop can be such a trivial, abrasive, and even a well-embraced scandal, while someone like Seraphim, who is always level-headed and reasonable, can draw pleads of silence. <

Orthodox bishops can be trivial, abrasive, and even scandals and still be Orthodox. We are not Donatists. The Church has had bishops who were drunkards and adulterers and gamblers and smokers and worse. Still She survived. No matter how reasonale and level-headed Seraphim may be, he isn't Orthodox yet.

So while I agree with you, I just think your comments are better placed at the foot of those like Fr. John Shaw.<

Wow! You've managed to judge me, judge Fr. John Shaw, lump me with him BUT lower, AND prove how non-judgemental you are, all in one seemingly humble sentence. I would doff my hat, were this something we Orthodox were supposed to be doing. But we're not supposed to judge others. And what I said about Seraphim is not about his persona or his likability. For all I know he could be a new Mother Teresa, while I'm a scummy sinner. But Mother Teresa wasn't Orthodox, and this scummy sinner is.

And that's my whole point: either one is Orthodox or one is not.
If one isn't Orthodox, no matter how well read or kind one is, one cannot KNOW Orthodoxy; one can only know "about" Orthodoxy. And that comes from secondary sources, each of which has a prejudice. Now, granted, a Saint would have a good prejudice, an "agenda" that would include getting us to stop sinning and start praying, while a sinner would have an agenda that includes promoting a person or group for the sake of consolidating power. But if one isn't Orthodox, one cannot know Orthodoxy. It's that simple.

Likeability doesn't make us Orthodox. The Grace of the Church does.

[Justin Kissel]

Matushka Anna,

What you're describing is what my brother calls the "AIDS Awareness Theory of Intercommunion," which is, he describes, "that when you have communion with someone, you have communion with everyone that person ever had communion with, and every person THAT person ever had communion with, and so on, and so on." People use this to argue that we shouldn't be in communion with Jerusalem and Serbia. But the reality is that ROCOR is in communion with Jerusalem and Serbia. This is the past and current reality.

A ROCOR bishop once pointed out (at a meeting of bishops, no less) that it was "irrational" for ROCOR to be in communion with Serbia and the JP, since they were in communion with the Moscow Patriarchate. I hope your brother wouldn't call this bishop an adherent of the "AIDS Awareness Theory of Intercommunion" because of this.

One ROCOR Priest I respect (though seem to disagree with a lot on such issues ) has told me that we in ROCOR are already in an indirect-communion with Antioch since we are in Communion with Serbia/JP, and they with Antioch. Would you agree or disagree with that? It sounds like the same sort of "chain" ecclesiology that your brother stigmatizes. Or perhaps I have misunderstood your point (using your brother's terminology?)

Awaiting correction,

Justin

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Dear matushka Ann,

Then it seems we could at least agree that Seraphim may know more "about" Orthodoxy than bishop Tikhon seems to "know" Orthodoxy.

And I reject your C.S. Lewis qoute on the grounds he was not Orthodox.

"MP-ecumenist-monophysite communion" is a slogan. What you're describing is what my brother calls the "AIDS Awareness Theory of Intercommunion," which is, he describes, "that when you have communion with someone, you have communion with everyone that person ever had communion with, and every person THAT person ever had communion with, and so on, and so on."

Thank you for this note Matushka.

Trying to reply to this, I have come full circle remembering the words of St. Maximos the Confessor, who was hesitating to write about the Eucharist as he feared that he would in some way trivialize it with mere words.

The foundation of Orthodox ecclesiology is the Holy Eucharist: the bishops, surrounded by and presiding over the presbyterate and the community. Any local church, in so far as it is faithful to the faith of the apostles, the catholic faith of the church, is the Church of Christ because of its unity through the Holy Eucharist. The church is the Mystery par excellence.

The Church is not made one the way the pope thinks, by hard discipline and obedience to a prescribed hierarchy, but the Church is made one by the mystical communion in the Body and Blood of Christ. Every church where the Holy Eucharist is performed and where the faithful are gathered “in the same place” comprises the whole image of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. What makes one parish comprise one body with all other parishes in the world, and one diocese comprise one body with all other dioceses, is the mystical communion of all in the Body and Blood of Christ in the Holy Spirit and truth.

The unity of the Church, therefore, is a mystical bond which is forged during the Holy Eucharist when the faithful partake of the Body and Blood of Christ. Christians are one body, those who live upon the earth today and those who have lived before us in past centuries, those who will live in the years to come, and also those no matter were they are in the world; and this is because we have a common root, the Body of Christ. “We many are one bread, one body, for we all partake of the one Bread”.

And to conclude: it is no “AIDS Awareness Theory” when St. John of Damascus says: “If union is in truth with Christ and with one another, we are assuredly also united voluntarily with all those who partake with us"

And to also add the voice of St. Theophan the Recluse, "With a great voice, Saint John Chrysostom declared that not only heretics, but also they who hold communion with them are enemies of God. Concerning the faith, the heretics were totally shipwrecked; and as for the others, even if their reason did not founder, nonetheless, because of their communion with heresy, they too were destroyed."

[Matushka Anna]

Dear Justin,

A ROCOR bishop once pointed out (at a meeting of bishops, no less) that it was "irrational" for ROCOR to be in communion with Serbia and the JP, since they were in communion with the Moscow Patriarchate.<

It bothers me that one bishop's observations in a meeting of his peers would be fodder for internet discussion. We have to give them some space to talk without the world commenting on everything said. I know when my husband and I are discussing a course of action that pertains to the kids, we may start out with one of us suggesting we buy ice cream and another suggesting we make them clean the livingroom and the end result could be either or both or first the latter and then the former. But if the kids were to run to each other inciting either panic or riot, I'd be annoyed. We need to give the bishops respect and space.

That said, the fact remains that ROCOR is and has been in communion with the Serbs and Jerusalem; whether any individual speaking privately among peers finds it rational or not, it was pleasing unto the Synod and the Holy Spirit. In an earlier time, our bishops concelebrated even with the Greek Archdiocese and the Antiochians -- I know a priest ordained by both the late Vladyka Nikon AND (now Met.) Phillip Saliba in the 1970's.

One way of looking at it is to say that it's irrational for us to be in communion with Jerusalem and the Serbs since they're in communion with Moscow. Another way of looking at it would be to say that since we're in communion with the Serbs and Jerusalem, let's look at the obstacles that remain between us and Moscow, since there are at least two things we agree on here already.

I hope your brother wouldn't call this bishop an adherent of the "AIDS Awareness Theory of Intercommunion" because of this.<

No, the Aids Awareness Theory would say that since we're in communion with Moscow and Moscow is in communion with Constantinople and Patriarch Bartholomew prayed with the Pope, then now we must be in communion with the Episcopalians down the road whom the Catholics commune. The Aids Awareness Theory is panic driven and given to excess.

...has told me that we in ROCOR are already in an indirect-communion with Antioch since we are in Communion with Serbia/JP, and they with Antioch. Would you agree or disagree with that?<

That's the larger message: we don't say that the Antiochians AREN'T Orthodox, and we indirectly (but don't directly) share communion.

Consider, also, that if another group thinks itself Orthodoxer than ROCOR, did they obtain ordination at ROCOR's bishops' hands? Have they repudiated that ordination? And if so, did they make the people they confessed re-confess? Did they re-marry those they married? Did they re-bury the dead?

It sounds like the same sort of "chain" ecclesiology that your brother stigmatizes. Or perhaps I have misunderstood your point (using your brother's terminology?)<

No, one conclusion is logical and recognizes boundaries. The other leaps headlong to make unpleasant associations that don't jibe with reality. It is a comfort that we are indirectly in communion with the rest of the Orthodox world, because it underscores that the things that separate us can cease and we can one day be one. It has happened before in the history of the Church that local churches were not in communion with each other but were in communion with other Orthodox. When the obstacles were overcome, there was rejoicing all around.

The other conclusion -- that everyone but me and thee must be a corrupted heretic -- is the opposite of comforting, and also is the opposite of Christian.

The Church is big and heals us. It isn't small and dependent upon our virtue to survive. The Church can survive people making temporary mistakes, even making them for centuries, so long as once the Church in council defines something as a heresy, those who held that belief give it up. Individual Orthodox Christians can be in error so long as they accept the authority of the Church once She points out the error. The canons of the Church don't inflict themselves upon people, but rather are brought to bear by the appropriate authorities, be it the priest in confession, the bishops in synod, or the Church in council.

So, for example, if you are driving down a patch of road with no speed limits posted and someone is zooming past you at 100 mph, you can say, "That isn't prudent!"

You can refuse to drive like he does.

You can keep your loved ones from riding in a car he drives.

But you can't pull him over and take his license away.

One you come to a stretch of road with milage posted, you can say, "Yo! The speed limit is 65 miles per hour here!"

If he heeds you, you may have saved his life (and license!).

If he doesn't heed you, it takes a lawyer to say whether or not you could pull him over in a citizen's arrest and take his license. But I wouldn't try it.

Now, once you come to a stretch of road where there's a police officer, the situation changes.

You can appeal to the police officer to enforce the law.

Or perhaps the officer will enforce the law on his own.

Or perhaps the other driver, seeing an officer nearby, will slow down of his own accord.

Or maybe he'll be pulled over by the police officer, and have his license taken.

But meanwhile, as long as there's a police officer nearby, it's a good idea to make sure that your seat belt is buckled and your lights are on, no?

What Metropolitan Philaret did, in his Sorrowful Epistles, in this metaphor, was to suggest that everyone check their odometers and correct their course.

The Extremist talk would be to refer to the other driver as the criminal speedster unlicensed dragster. Some of it may be true, but some isn't. No one has pulled him over, no one has pulled his license, so he may be speeding, but he's not a felon yet. And so it would be slander to call him one.

The point of the more recent ROCOR talks with the MP are to point out, using the same metaphor, that Moscow is no longer driving at 100 mph. Is Moscow driving at 80? 70? 65? Maybe even 50? Who knows, yet! That's for later talks. But it's prudent and Christian to say, "Yes, that much is better." And it's not Christian to say, "I could never share the road with such a driver!" because who knows, Driver Ed can cure a lot. But at any rate, you and I aren't the cops, we're just driving along.

Does that help?

Meanwhile, the idea that the bishops talking to others would keep people from Church troubles me to the marrow.

If we are to apply the canons of the Orthodox Church strictly, anyone who goes three weeks without communing is out of the Church!

Good thing the canons don't inflict themselves.

So, we check our seat belts and mileage, and drive on prayerfully.