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

19116Re: [orthodox-synod] waiting?

Expand Messages
  • mary marczyk
    Feb 4, 2007

      Yes the first, I think paragraph did say that all who voted at the SObor would follow the Bishops but the Bishops have not followed the outcome of the SObor and ognored some very crucial facts. I think the following letters will explain my comment about the Following the resolution byt the Bishops from Sobor( Council):
      №27: An open letter by the delegates to the Sobor

      A Letter of a Group of IVth All-Diaspora Council’s Delegates

      We were the delegates at the IVth All-Diaspora Council held in San Francisco in May, 2006. The clergy and laypeople at the Council met in a spirit of true brotherly love and much progress was made to come to a mutual understanding of the many difficult issues facing our church. We are increasingly concerned that the Resolution of the IVth All-Diaspora Council and the discussions which took place there are being portrayed incorrectly by representatives of our Church. Also, that the Council and its Resolution are being used as pretexts for further steps toward union which were not sanctioned by the Council.

      The Council’s Resolution did not call for the immediate establishment of Eucharistic communion or canonical union between the Moscow Patriarchate (MP) and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR). The first draft of the Council’s Resolution did indeed propose such a union. At the suggestion of numerous delegates, it was omitted from subsequent drafts and does not appear in the final version. The Resolution does express, almost unanimously, “our resoluteness to heal the wounds of division within the Russian Church” so that we may serve together and commune from one Chalice, but “in the appropriate time.”

      His Eminence Metropolitan Laurus recently stated that there is no exact time for this and there are still important questions which need to be resolved before this can occur. His Eminence cites ecumenism as being chief among them and the Council delegates shared his concern. That is why the Resolution specifically addresses this matter, when it states that the MP’s participation in the World Council of Churches “evokes confusion among our clergy and flock.” It then appeals to the hierarchy of the MP “to heed the plea of our flock to expediently remove this temptation.” The question of “sergianstvo” was also discussed extensively at the Council, and though it may not have appeared in the Council’s Resolution, it remains an important issue for us as well.

      We therefore find it completely appropriate that Bishop Agafangel, in his letter to his diocese, correctly explained to his faithful that these issues must still be resolved by the working committees before any further action is taken. He also noted that the relationship of the two churches must be resolved at a Local (Pomestnyi) Council (Sobor) of One Russian Church. The call for a Local Council was expressed in this Council’s Resolution and we eagerly await the convocation of such a council to further heal the divisions between us.

      It is important to note that the Council’s Resolution does not include any mention of the “Act of Eucharistic Communion,” which apparently was considered at the Council of Bishops immediately following the Council. The draft of the “Act” was read to all the delegates at the Council, but it was not voted on nor accepted officially at the Council. The “Act” proposes conditions for union which are not desirable by many delegates and we ask that the bishops set it aside and allow the process of the working committees to continue.

      The unification process is not served by bishops or clergy of our Church concelebrating with representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate as if union has already occurred. Bishop Mark’s recent meeting with Met. Kyrill in Jerusalem and possible serving together is an example of actions which can lead to confusion and discord within our church. The laypeople do not know how to understand these different manifestations. We are equally saddened that the Patriarch’s invitation to have B. Mark become involved in matters in the Surrey diocese in England was accepted by our bishops. The matter was strictly an internal matter of the Moscow Patriarchate and should have been handled by them alone.

      Not too long ago, a seminarian from ROCOR was tonsured a deacon at the Moscow Theological Academy. We believe this is also premature and only imperils the ongoing process. Our hearts go out to the faithful in Russia and we look forward to the day that we will be one with them, but all in due time. For now, let us allow the process to continue. Our desire, as stated in the IVth All-Diaspora Council’s Resolution, is to place our “complete trust and love of the pastors and laity to our First Hierarch, His Eminence Metropolitan Laurus and the Council of Bishops” to lead us to the realization of God’s will for our Church.

      The 4th All-Diaspora Council put their trust in His Eminence and the Council of Bishops to continue working to resolve the issues before us and prepare for the Local Council. Much progress has been made and with God’s blessing we shall achieve, as stated in the Council Resolution, “the restoration of that unity which is desired by all.”


      №48: Engl. transl. of the diocesan Resolution proposed by the "Loyal Opposition"

      "We, the clergy of the Eastern American Diocese, having gathered in the blessed city of Sea Cliff, express our great sorrow and anguish as we view the efforts of a distinct group of bishops and clerics of our Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) to force the premature establishment of Eucharistic communion with the Moscow Patriarchate (MP). This is being done in spite of the statement made in the 4th All-Diaspora Council Resolution and Bishops Council Resolution that the “Matter of union within the Church of Russia will not be put off, but done only after the resolution of the remaining disputed points in a mutually satisfying manner.” The disputed points that have scarred our Church in the past and to this day, remain a deep wound in the body of our Church. They are the membership of the MP in the WCC, ecumenism, sergianstvo and the unlawful appropriation of the title “the Mother Church” by the MP.

      Our conscience forbids us to follow the uncanonical and groundless decisions made by the members of the negotiating committees, who do not seek to fulfill the Will of God and His Truth, but rather to please earthly masters. The ratification of the Act without the resolution of all the disputed points that torment the Russian Church forces ROCOR to fall under its own anathema, which is stated in all the cathedrals of our Church during the Triumph of Orthodoxy service. We are concerned for this group of clergy who violate the Canons and Laws of the Holy Church without remorse and who do not heal the wounds in the its body, but rather, worsen them.

      We are saddened that the most fundamental principles of the lawful and canonical leadership of the Church in the spirit of true unity are being violated. The resultant discord among the church faithful is leading to schism, which, according to the teachings of the Holy Fathers of the ancient Church, is the worst heresy of all. We pray before the Hodigitria of the Russian disapora, the Kursk-Root Wonderworking icon, and the relics of Saint John, the Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, that peace, unity, trust, the softening of hearts, love, tranquility and seriousness of purpose rule throughout all the parts of our Church Abroad – since when one part of our church body is ill, the entire Church suffers.

      We feel this pain deeply.

      Therefore, we, the clergy and laypeople of the Eastern American Diocese and participants of the Pastoral Conference, express our support for the efforts to heal the rift dividing all the parts of the Russian Orthodox Church. Alas, we cannot agree to the stipulation in the Act that all previously issued declarations preventing complete Eucharistic communion are now deemed invalid or no longer binding. The declarations of the 4th All-Diaspora Council can be negated and invalidated just as easily, not to mention all the other Councils, held by ROCOR earlier and which constituted the basis of our split. No negotiating committee has the right to ask on behalf of the Local Church of all its faithful to behave in a manner contradictory to the Holy Canons, which should guide every Christian in his or her life.

      Currently, we see that there are those who are leading ROCOR into schism without any regard to the canons or the wisdom of the Church Fathers. We aver our distrust of the members of the ROCOR negotiating committee, including Archbishop Mark, Archpriest Alexander Lebedev and Archpriest Nicholas Artemoff.

      We state our support for Archbishop Hilarion, the First Deputy to the ROCOR Hierarch, who brings attention in his letter to Synod to the disputed points that have not been resolved within the MP (ecumenism, WCC, sergianstvo) and that they may lead to schism within our Church.

      We state our support for our governing bishop, Bishop Gabriel, for his steadfastness in the Truth and hope that he remains, as did his great-grandfather Holy New Martyr Gabriel, a witness to God’s Truth to the end.

      We state our support for Bishop Daniel who sent his opinion to the Hierarch, Metropolitan Lavr, that the ill-timed union with the MP will lead ROCOR to disaster.

      We are deeply grateful to Bishop Agafangel, and to the entire clergy vouchsafed to him by God, for their witness to the Truth and their steadfastness in the belief that while sergianstvo and ecumenism remain deep wounds in the body of the Church, Eucharistic communion cannot occur.

      We state our support for the 72 clergymen of our Church, who have made the hierarchy of our Church aware of the serious consequences of these actions and how they may indeed lead to a schism within ROCOR.

      We demand an accounting of our sacred possessions, which our bishops and clergy have recently given out as gifts, as we consider these actions to be the submission of spoils to a Patriarch, whose election was never recognized by our bishops.

      We appeal to the episcopate, clergy and laypeople of our Church and emphatically ask them to weigh carefully each statement they make, not to mention each act, in these fateful days, when our ROCOR is being pushed to the brink of schism and secession.

      Let us remember the word of God that we shall answer for every prideful word, not to mention deed, at Judgment Day. Amen."



      DDD <dimitradd@...> wrote:
      On Wed, 31 Jan 2007 15:12:22 +1100 (EST), mary marczyk wrote:
      HI Dimitra,

      YOur comment would be fair if the Synod of BIshops had followed the
      Resolutions of the SOBOR, but they did not. Perhaps we need to ask
      why this was so? Indeed, this question has been asked and there have
      been no replies to this as far as I am aware.

      Hi, Mary (?) (Dodeegirl?),

      This is the second post I've read that claims our bishops have not followed the resolutions of the Sobor. Could you please enumerate what resolutions you feel have not been followed, and why?

      One of the resolutions of the Sobor was that clergy and people would follow the Bishops. It doesn't look like *that* resolution is being followed by everyone... (I'm being serious, not sarcastic...)

      Thanks for your reply (and hope I see it among the hundreds of posts),

      Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod

      Yahoo! Groups Links

      Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 10 messages in this topic