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

15614Re: [orthodox-synod] Re: ROCOR and the rest?

Expand Messages
  • michael nikitin
    Dec 1, 2005
      Is it true what priest James states? Does ROCOR commune those in the OCA, but are forbidden to take communion from the OCA?

      Michael N

      James Baglien <jbgln@...> wrote:
      --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, michael nikitin
      <nikitinmike@y...> wrote:
      >
      > Could Fr.James please send us the Ukase of 1971 so we can read what
      > it says for ourselves? We would like to see where Fr.James got
      the idea
      > that those in the OCA can take communion from ROCOR, but we in ROCOR
      > cannot take communion from OCA.
      >
      > Thankyou.
      >
      > Michael N


      Despite the disrespectful tone of Mr. Nikitin's question, for the
      benefit of those who might be sincerely interested in this matter, an
      English translation of the 1971 Ukase follows (Fr. John or others
      might wish to commment on its accuracy):

      "FROM THE RESOLUTION AND DECISIONS OF THE COUNCIL OF BISHOPS OF 1971

      PROTOCOL #8

      With regard to the question of relations with the so-called Metropolia,

      RESOLVED:

      The Council of Bishops, having listened to the report of the Synod of
      Bishops concerning the so-called Metropolia's having received
      autocephaly from the Patriarchate of Moscow, approves all the steps
      taken in due course by the Synod of Bishops to convince Metropolitan
      Irenei and his colleagues of the perniciousness of a step which
      deepens the division which was the result of the decision of the
      Cleveland Council of 1946 which broke away from the Russian Orthodox
      Church Outside of Russia.

      The American Metropolia has received its autocephaly from the
      Patriarchate of Moscow, which has not possessed genuine canonical
      succession from His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon from the time when
      Metropolitan Sergy, who later called himself Patriarch, violated his
      oath with regard to Metropolitan Peter, the locum tenens of the
      Patriarchal Throne, and set out upon a path which was then condemned
      by the senior hierarchs of the Church of Russia. Submitting all the
      more to the commands of the atheistic, anti-Christian regime, the
      Patriarchate of Moscow has ceased to be that which expresses the voice
      of the Russian Orthodox Church. For this reason, as the Synod of
      Bishops has correctly declared, none of its acts, including the
      bestowal of autocephaly upon the American Metropolia, has legal force.
      Furthermore, apart from this, the act, which affects rights of many
      churches, has elicited definite protests on the part of a number of
      Orthodox Churches, who have even severed communion with the American
      Metropolia.

      Viewing this illicit act with sorrow, and acknowledging it to be null
      and void, the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church
      Outside of Russia, which has hitherto not abandoned hope for the
      restoration of ecclesiastical unity in America, sees in the
      declaration of American autocephaly a step which will lead the
      American Metropolia yet farther away from the ecclesiastical unity of
      the Church of Russia. Perceiving therein a great sin against the
      enslaved and suffering Church of Russia, the Council of Bishops DECIDES:

      henceforth, neither the clergy, nor the laity are to have communion in
      prayer or the divine services with the hierarchy or clergy of the
      American Metropolia. "

      This document is addressed to our flock, not to the OCA. Specifically, it
      restricts participation by the flock of the ROCOR in the services of
      the Metropolia/OCA. As Fr. John has pointed out, it did not change
      the policies of our Church toward communing members of other
      jurisdictions.

      Anticipating the counter-arguments that might be raised, consider the
      following:

      Understanding the ukase as unilateral precisely parallels (while
      differing entirely in degree) the interpretation of the canonical
      prohibition against prayer outside the Church, which does not preclude
      outsiders from joining in *our* prayers.

      The intent of this ukase was to protect the faithful of the ROCOR from
      an ecclesial situation which she regards as irregular. To claim that
      such a ukase should be applied reciprocally is to argue, in essence,
      that the faithful of the OCA need to be protected from contact with the
      ROCOR . . .

      in IC XC,

      Priest James


      ---------------------------------
      Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 14 messages in this topic