Thursday, October 18, 2018

As predicted, ROCOR is next Church to sever ties with EP

As I mentioned some days ago, Moscow would be the first to respond definitively to the Ecumenical Patriarch's blitzkrieg on Ukraine followed swiftly by ROCOR. Well, here it is.


(ROCOR) - The Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia communicates to the plenitude of her clergy and faithful, and to her fellow Orthodox Christians throughout the world, her profound sorrow at the uncanonical undertakings perpetrated by the Church of Constantinople over the past days; in particular with regard to its Message of 11th October 2018. Simultaneously we express our complete support of the position taken by the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Moscow, following its meeting of 15th October 2018 and announced in its statement of the same date.

The illicit actions of the Church of Constantinople are able to suffer no canonical defence and constitute a grave and dangerous injustice against the traditions of Orthodoxy, as well as a shocking disregard for the spiritual welfare of the sheep of Christ (cf. John 10.3, 11). Having expressed its intention to establish stravropegia of its Church in the Ukraine, Constantinople thus solidifies its intrusion into another Local Church’s canonical territory, an anti-canonical violation of the highest order which the Synod of Constantinople has no power or right to undertake. We make explicit that under no circumstances will we consider such institutions to have any legal substance, nor will we acknowledge any legitimacy whatsoever to those who, deeming themselves shepherds, submit to these non-Church establishments.

Yet more grave is the decision of the Church of Constantinople to ‘restore’ to canonical status various schismatic individuals that have, on account of severe canonical violations, been deposed from their rank by the Bishops Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, with the assent of the other Local Orthodox Churches. Proceeding from a false assertion that the ancient prerogative of receiving appeals for pan-Orthodox mediation equates to an autonomous and unilateral power held by the See of Constantinople, that See now arrogates non-existent powers to itself in the attempt to justify its interference in the canonical contexts of other Local Churches. The reality, however, is that the Church of Constantinople possesses no such canonical authority and, in exercising this lawless abrogation of authentic primacy, distorts the true nature of the concept of being “First among equals,” directly opposing canonical Orthodoxy.

For the sake of the clear understanding of the present situation amongst the faithful, we hereby make explicit that the just anathematisation by the Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of schismatics that persist in their errors, cannot be and has not been overturned by the unilateral action of the Church of Constantinople. In the eyes of God, and in accordance with the Holy Canons and the teachings of the Orthodox Church, these individuals remain under their just condemnation, and are considered in schism; that is, fallen away from Holy Orthodoxy. Moreover, we remind the faithful of the Holy Canons which clearly express the principle that those who intercommune with the justly deposed, themselves enter into schism from the Orthodox Church (cf. Antioch, 2). Therefore any who, following the lawless decision of the Church of Constantinople, enter into communion with these schismatic individuals, do thereby depart from Orthodox canonical unity into schism, and the mortal peril it represents to the soul.

The Orthodox Church of the Ukraine, under the Archpastoral care of His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry and his martyric co-Archpastors, remains today, as it has since the Act of 1686, the sole canonical body within that blessed land. The present decision of the Church of Constantinople to ‘revoke’ the Synodal Letter of that year is simply meritless, and according to the Orthodox canonical tradition is by nature an impossibility. Despite the statement made by the Holy Synod of the Church of Constantinople on 11th October of this year, the faithful may rest fully assured that the Act of 1686 remains valid and binding, and that the canonical authority of the Church of Ukraine and of the Patriarchate of Moscow remain unaffected by this groundless presumption of power by the Phanar.

In light of these most grievous affronts to the very nature of canonical Orthodoxy, the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia has no option except, with profound sorrow and yet with full conviction, publicly to register her assent with the decision of the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Moscow, which recognises that continuing Eucharistic communion with the Church of Constantinople is impossible, at any level, until this ancient and once-glorious sister Church repents from its introduction of false and alien teachings about primacy and universal authority, contrary to the ancient Orthodox Faith, and ceases from its lawless actions.

We thereby inform our clergy and faithful that Eucharistic intercommunion with the Church of Constantinople is presently impossible, for Hierarchy, Clergy and Laity. So long as this situation remains, it is not possible for clergy of our Church to celebrate in any parish of the Church of Constantinople, or for clerics of that Church to celebrate in ours; nor is it possible for laypersons to partake of the Holy Mysteries performed in the temples of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. We further reiterate that the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia will not participate in theological inter-church meetings, or other dialogues, including the regional Assemblies of Bishops, which are chaired or co-chaired by clerics or hierarchy of the Church of Constantinople.

We call upon all the faithful to redouble their prayers for the peace of the Church, currently being so tryingly put to the test by the lawless actions of a novel ecclesiology and false teaching — and not to lose heart or grow faint, trusting that the Lord’s Wisdom conquers all falsehood, if only we hold fast to what is true and sacred. We implore the Primates of the Local Orthodox Churches to reflect upon the current circumstances, in due course coming together to reach an authentic, canonical resolution to these urgent matters.

We firmly believe and hope that our Lord Jesus Christ, Who does not abandon His children and Who overcomes all human pride with the limitless love of Divine Truth, will strengthen His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry and the Hierarchy, Clergy and Faithful of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, and all Orthodox faithful of all tongues and lands.

23 comments:

  1. "...submit to these non-Church establishments...."

    This legalistic reductionism (or is it an expansionism - canons and ecclesiological boundaries blown up to be inexorable signs/markers of His Grace and His "boundaries"?) is a kind of 'this is the hill we are going to die on' position.

    If the question is asked how can the EP going to 'walk back' from his action and canonical interpretation/application, it must be asked how Moscow and friends can walk back from theirs.

    It's almost as if neither has any real skin in the conflict, and are simply moving pieces on the board as if they can "win"...


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jake it’s staggering you would write such nonsense. If Constantinople changed course, stopped meddling in the Ukraine, and left Disienko to rot in his unrepentant, false church, communion with Constantinople would be restored almost immediately. You have obviously failed to understand the situation yet you’re quick to comment on it aren’t you?

      Delete
    2. Alex, it appears that it is you who is stag-ger-ing under the weight of an immense legalism. Ecclesiology, to say nothing of the rest of Christianity and life, is not a legal problem. Have you ever read St Paul's letter to the Romans (to say nothing of how situations such as this has actually played out in the past)?

      Remember what Saint Basil tells us, that schism is not a sin against doctrine but a sin against Charity...

      Delete
    3. "I love you and I will slap you down because I love you".
      Such words of sweetness belie all the actions.
      Foolish activities of proud men vying for land, money & power all in the "name of Him" by throwing out and dismissing the other clearly show nothing of His Love for His sheep.

      Delete
    4. Jake, who are you? A lay person? What are your credentials to have such expertise on the matter. You’re throwing around terms like legalism and ecclesiology and I bet it feels good to sound smart using those terms. It would help me with this dialogue if you have a theology degree from one of our orthodox seminaries... or if you’re a priest. I would like to know. After all, you know my full name. I’m easy to find. I speak openly about this matter.

      Lets talk about the sin against charity. What charity is the EP showing by tearing church unity and harmony asunder? What charity is he showing to the canonical metropolitan Onufrey who is on a ukie nationalist hit list, being branded as an enemy of the state? Do you really think charity has anything to do with the actions of the EP? Disienko is a totally unrepentant schimatic. He was given 5 years to repent before he was excommunicated (rightly). Then he continues in his obstinance and the EP rewards his sins, his soul destroying activities, and the Russian Orthodox Church should just be OK with this? The entire Orthodox world is on the side of Met. Onufrey and the canonical church. What side are you on?

      Delete
    5. "What side are you on?"

      Have you considered Alex, that you are being (mostly emotionally) manipulated? 'Sides'...really...somebody has you right where they want you. Do you carry around a handkerchief for when you spit out the word "schismatic"?

      Welcome to the pseudonymous internet, and try to enjoy your stay :)

      Delete
  2. Given that ROCOR is part of the MP, isn't this more of an exclamation point on Moscow's sentence than anything else.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No this is not an exclaimation point. ROCOR is an autonomous body within the Russian Orthodox Church. They always issue their own statements to their faithful. The statement is in harmony with the mother church. Brothers dwelling in unity. Cynical remarks do nothing to help the situation.

      Delete
  3. I love the ROCOR and it’s superb legacy, but if one is to be consistent...

    Bishops from ROCOR ordained a hierarchy for Florinite Old Calendarists in Greece. ROCOR subsequently went into communion with various Old Calendarists in Greece (Florinites, Matthewites Cyprianites). ROCOR also ordained True Orthodox bishops in Russia. These schisms persist to this day...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Although it’s nowhere near the same context, nor as abysmally disastrous for the Church but...

      Didn’t the MP unilaterally declare the OCA autocephalous?

      Didn’t Cnople go into communion with schismatic Ukies in the US and grant them canonicity?

      Delete
    2. Actually, two bishops of ROCOR did this unilaterally, and then were censured by the Synod of Bishops for doing so. Ironically, one of the two bishops headed a New Calendar diocese in ROCOR.

      Delete
    3. Yes, Father, the two bishops were Archbishop Seraphim of Chicago and the Romanian Theophil Ionescu who headed a Romanian group under ROCOR'S protection. This happened in Chicago circa 1960. Two years later, two ROCOR bishops from South America consecrated Archimandrite Petros in Astoria, NY, again without the Synod's knowledge or consent. Ironically, Fr. Petros had previously belonged to both the OCA(then known as the Metropolia) and briefly, also to the MP here in the US.

      Delete
    4. BorisJojicj,

      + Leonty and Seraphim of Caracas ordained Petros of Astoria.

      From a footnote of a published work about Petros:

      No official synodal statements between 1960 and 1969 appear in the ROCOR Synodal Archives discussing this issue. However, photographs circulate that are dated to this period showing various ROCOR bishops meeting with the Greeks and even concelebrating with Bishop Petros in one case. There is also video footage of Bishop Petros serving at Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville, New York in 1968. This seems to suggest that while not accepted officially, several ROCOR bishops held privately the opinion that the Greek Old Calendarist bishops were legitimate.

      Delete
  4. this whole matter has made us look like petty little children - an embarrassment to our youth ---- we thrive on such controversy and loose our youth in the process -- time to go back to the Bible and become Christians again - come on guys learn to play in the sandbox together very poor role models, very poor i shed a tear, many tears

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes Fr, but neither + Seraphim, + Theophil or + Leonty we’re disciplined by these unilateral consecrations. Going into communion with “schismatics”.

    Plus, in 1969 the Synod under Met Philaret officially signed on to these consecrations. Going into official communion with Florinites and Matthewites. In 1994 the Synod went into communion with Cyprianites. All of these in the territory of the Greek Church. Subsequently ROCOR ordained a parallel hierarchy in Russia too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe they were censured for doing it. Obviously, some bishops supported the idea, but not the majority. The attempted communion with the Florinites and Matthewites was very short lived. I believe the Matthewites back out first, and then our bishops took the position that we would have nothing to do with them, at least officially, until they got their act together.

      It is true that ROCOR went into communion with the Cyprianos Synod, though really after about 3 years, relations began to cool, and eventually, concelebrations ceased, though it continued on paper, up until 2007.

      ROCOR also did consecrate bishops during the Soviet period. They believed that there was a catacomb Church outside of the MP, and they consecrated some men who presented themselves as having some connection with it. In several cases, these were clergy of the MP who had been under discipline. They claimed it was because they were being persecuted. Later on it became clear that they were malcontents.

      There really was a catacomb Church in the 1930's, but the reality was that when the Soviet government relaxed persecution of the Church, those in the catacombs returned to the MP, and for all practical purposes, there was no catacomb Church after 40's. Our bishops didn't believe that, in the 80's and 90's.

      I believe ROCOR's involvement with the Greek Old Calendarists was a huge mistake. It was in reaction to a number of shocking actions by the EP and others, such as the lifting of the Anathemas against the Pope. But the fruits of both actions show that they were bad decisions.

      Delete
  6. These two links offer proof of my assertions:

    http://genuineorthodoxchurch.com/histFloriniteAkakian.htm

    A letter from + Seraphim of Chicago stated that ROCOR went into communion with the Matthewites and Florinites in order for both “schismatic” groups to unite into one. That’s the same tactic the EP is using...

    http://www.easternchristiansupply.biz/holytrinityoxnard/bin/Home/Entries/2008/2/25_Historical_Moments_in_the_Relations_Between_the_Russian_Orthodox_Church_Abroad_and_the_Holy_Synod_in_Resistance.html

    This link proves that ROCOR went into communion with noncanonical groups in Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Russia and the Ukraine.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See my comments above. The first was a flash in the pan. The second lasted longer, but also was a mistake. When ROCOR began discussing reconciliation with the MP, the MP offered to work with the Churches of Greece, Romania, and Bulgaria to work to reconcile those groups too. They had no interest.

      I remember distinctly hearing Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna claim that they were ready and willing to meet with the Church of Greece to discuss the issues that separated them, but the Church of Greece had no interest. In 2007 they were given exactly that opportunity, and they blew it off.

      If you read the various (conflicting) histories of the Greek Old Calendarist movement in Greece, I think it is clear that they had a legitimate beef, and they were persecuted in shameful ways. Unfortunately, the parallels with the Old Believers don't stop there.

      Delete
    2. Fr.

      I agree that these unions were short-lived, however, they happened. My point is that the ROCOR intervened within the territory and the affairs of other local churches. Therefore, this Church should have some leniency regarding this situation.

      The EP has embraced some strange new Zizioulan form of primacy and it's a trial for us all. But in my opinion, Russia has broken with him over territory. Is Ukraine really worth it?

      I desired for Russia/ROCOR to censure the EP for his actions much earlier, even if it was in the form of a statement or inquiry. The EP has previously broken the canons, prayed with heterodox at the Holy Sepulcher (!!), issued errant statements bareheaded, entered into unity with Ukrainian schismatics in the US, etc, etc. No bishop did or said anything. This is the fruit of hierarchical apathy and inaction. But when he trespasses on territory and grants "canonicity" to schismatics, its a deal breaker that outweighs Orthodox unity. To me, even this is nothing compared to the Calendar in 1924, The Lifting in 1965, Crete in 2016...

      Lord save Thy people!

      Delete
    3. Forget ROCOR and the Greek Old Calendar churches. The EP interfered in the Canonical territory of the Serbian church. The Czechoslovak mission started in the 20's was part of the Serbian church. Constantinople consecrated a rival Czech bishop, Savatty, when the Serbs already had assigned Bishop Gorazd to the Czech diocese.

      Delete
  7. This is sad. Of all jurisdictions and churches, ROCOR should be the most understanding, as they too were canonically "irregular" for almost a century, again, over politics. Have they forgotten the nasty and bitter distrust of the MP that delayed reconcilation for decades, decrying "Sergianism"? Perhaps the Ukrainians still harbor this distrust, and for them "Sergianism" is still alive and well. How can they be so quick to dismiss that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am ROCOR. Many of us are Ukrainian. Most of us stand with the long-suffering Ukrainian people. The problem is that the Ukrainian diaspora is largely represented by the Ukrainian Catholic minority. Many of those people won't rest as long as any trace of Russia remains in Ukraine. Sad, but true.

      Delete
    2. No doubt the people of ROCOR sympathize and pray for all Ukraine. I am under the EP, and we do the same.

      The history of the Unia is an ugly one, and it does have implications for today. My focus is not on the Uniates (they are outside the Church, so don’t factor in this point), but the many people (there are arguments over the exact numbers, but it is still a significant chunk of the Ukrainian population) in Western Ukraine who, due to their deep distrust and antipathy towards the MP have decided against all odds to break away. My point is that this is the same distrust that ROCOR once held towards the MP. For the Separatists, “Sergianism” isn’t just a footnote of history but a continuing reality in the MP. They view it as an arm of the Russian government, which unfortunately for much of its history it was. The MP’s response has been to take the hard line: Repent, and then “we’ll talk.” The MP has no credibility with them, and are viewed as a tool of their oppressor, so is it reasonable or feasible to demand this? Is there another way? The MP doesn’t seem to be interested in finding out.
      I think the pastoral aspect is being totally overlooked here, in favor of “who’s right” and Canon slinging. Politics and Turf, with the Gospel being totally pushed aside. I’m not saying that I agree totally with what my Patriarch has done here, but what about the regular people who are hurt in all of this? That goes for people in the UOC-MP too. They are being painted as collaborators and “traitors” to Ukraine, which isn’t true either. Whatever you think about the EP’s actions, it is obvious that the Status Quo is not working here.


      Delete