Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Talks with the MP

Expand Messages
  • mwoerl@yahoo.com
    On the one hand, yes, a public discourse on the issue of talks and/or talks leading to union with the MP (please correct me if I am wrong: Was not the letter
    Message 1 of 61 , Dec 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      On the one hand, yes, a public discourse on the issue of talks
      and/or talks leading to union with the MP (please correct me if I am
      wrong: Was not the letter to the Sobor by various clergy in favor
      of "dialogue leading to union" with the MP? Now, it seems, we hear
      only about "dialogue," and "what's wrong with talking?" Have the
      signers of the letter to the Sobor taken a step back? Is it
      only "dialogue" they are suggesting now, not "dialogue leading to
      union?" I've asked this question several times, and on several lists;
      unbelievably, I have yet to receive an answer; really, MOST
      unbelievably, as some of the clergy who supported this letter rarely
      pass by on a chance to voice their opinions . . .), if it was nothing
      more than an extension of 'the internet debate' would be a disaster.
      Father John Shaw suggests leaving this totally to the Episcopate. At
      this point, I'm afraid we don't really know the position of 'the
      Episcopate' one the issue, or if there is indeed a unified position
      among them. From official announcements, we hear that there is a
      unified position, that there is no bishop or group of bishops that
      favor union with the MP, and unofficially we hear how this bishop or
      that bishop is, indeed in favor of union. I'm not suggesting a
      democratically run Church, but it would be nice if we had an inkliong
      as to exactly what the situation is.
      For the past several years, there have been several suggestions,
      for the most part, I think, from clergy, to hold an all-Diaspora
      council of the Church Abroad, which would include representatives,
      not only from among the bishops, but the clergy and laity as well. As
      the question of dialogue and/or dialogue leading to union with the MP
      is undoubtedly one of the most important facing our Church since its
      beginning (and, were there MORE important issues than this discussed
      at the 2nd (1938) and 3rd (1974) All-Diaspora Councils?), could this
      not be a possibility to bring the decision making and the decisions
      more out into the open? It seems to me that this would be a possible
      way to handle things, making it much more acceptable to many. Of
      course, there is also the precedent of wider involvement in the All
      Russian Council of 1917-1918. Wouldn't this be healthier than "here's
      how it is, if you like it, fine, if not, too bad," and internet
      And, no offense meant to Father John Shaw, but believe me, I have
      heard innumerable clergy spout the same line that we have to trust
      all to our bishops, until, that is, the bishops make a decision that
      this or that priest does not like, and then the 'trust' apparently
      goes out the window, and here come the 'I can't believe they'd do
      that,' etc., etc., etc. and so on. If tomorrow, the bishops decided
      that there would be no talks whatsoever with the MP, no contacts with
      the MP, no talk aboout talks with the MP-would that calm down all
      those who want those things, would they totally accept with faith the
      decision of their bishops? I doubt it very seriously.
      Or, maybe some feel it is better that all this should be handled
      as 'top secret.' My question is, is this the Church or the CIA?
      I still wonder what we will talk about with the MP. Patriarch
      Alexey has made it very clear, in his answer to our answer to his
      appeal (follow that one?) that a)there was absolutely nothing wrong
      with the way Metropolitan Sergius handled things (and, for Father
      John Shaw-he did say, in this answer, that Metropolitan
      Sergius 'tried to save the Church'), and that b) we must engage in
      ecumenism to fight terrorism. These positions seem pretty clear to
      me. Another question I have asked of proponents of 'dialogue,'
      and/or 'dialogue leading to union,' and for which I have never
      recieved an answer, is what becomes of our relationships to the
      Greek, Romanian and Bulgarian Old Calendarists? Do you feel the MP
      would allow these relationships to continue? Or maybe some of those
      who feel the need to come closer to the MP now feel we shouldn't have
      raltions with these Old Calendarists to begin with-I don't know.
      Union with the MP is inevitable at some point, but I don't think
      now is the right time. There are MP bishops who were members of the
      KGB-members of an organization that, along with its predecessors, was
      responsible for the horrible deaths of hundreds of bishops, thousands
      of clergy and monks, and millions of Orthodox laymen, and the
      destruction of innumerable churches, and the destruction of church
      life in Russia, with the aim of totally destoying the Russian
      Orthodox Church. This gives the 'pro-dialogue' group no qualms
      whatsoever? Oh, it's OK if they repent? How would you have them
      repent? Say, "I'm sorry"? Like the Pope apologizing for the Unia and
      all its consequences for the Orthodox? When these bishops step down,
      or meet their reward, perhaps then it is time to begin dialogue. But
      now, we keep hearing that Metropolitan Sergius did nothing wrong, and
      that since we didn't live there, we didn't know what it was like.
      This last excuse, of course, covers all misdeeds possible.
      One post stated that the legitimacy of the MP hierarchy had to be
      established. I believe this echoes the position of the Church Abroad
      in the past (see any ROCOR epistle after the "election" of a new MP
      Patriarch), because, as the post stated, the hierarchs and Patriarchs
      of the MP were chosen by the soviet government, in violation of
      probably all canonical rules regarding such, as well as the
      enactments of the All Russian Sobor of 1917-1918. What does the pro-
      dialogue faction think about this? Undeniably, the MP will not ever
      even entertain the thought of allowing questions about the legitimacy
      of the MP hieracrchy come up. So, we don't discuss this? It's
      all "OK" now? It would be good for those who want dialogue to comeout
      into the open with their positions regarding such issues. I may have
      missed it in the past, but I sure haven't seen it since I have been
      on this list.
      So, does anybody agree that these things have to be examined in the
      light of day? Does anybody agree that there are other possibilities
      available than a)the bishops handle it all, no questions asked, or b)
      debating it in inappropriate ways over the internet? Is there no
      other way? I will be interested in all replies . . .
      With Love in Christ,
      Michael Woerl
    • rdrjohn2000
      Fr. Maximos: You should work for the GAO Are you refering to the General Accounting Office or some Greek church of which I am unfamiliar? Just kidding, Q
      Message 61 of 61 , Dec 10, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Fr. Maximos:

        "You should work for the GAO"

        Are you refering to the General Accounting Office or some Greek
        church of which I am unfamiliar?

        Just kidding,

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.