19119RE: [orthodox-synod] waiting?
- Feb 4, 2007The Council of Bishops and the Synod Of Bishops followed the letter and
spirit of the resolution of the 4th All-Diaspora Sobor - the union was to
occur "at the appropriate time" and all vowed to " follow the Bishops". The
Council of Bishops deemed the current time to be appropriate. It is
certainly their prerogative to do so, being mandated by the Holy Spirit to
lead the Church. If some disagree as to the "appropriateness of the time",
it may be their "right" to disagree, but it does not nullify the bishops'
decision. Even if the bishops are wrong in deeming the time to be
appropriate, it is not sufficient reason to disobey and leave the bishops.
Anyone doing so is going into schism. The only reason for leaving one's
bishop is the bishop's preaching heresy bare-headed in Church. Being wrong
as to the appropriateness of time does not even come close.
The part in the resolution regarding the pending Local Council of the _One_
Russian Church to settle any remaining differences, it is obvious from the
wording that it is a Council of the ONE Russian Church, thus requiring the
Union of the two parts of the Russian Church to have already occurred. In
any case, it is impossible to have a SOBOR, in other words SOBORNOST, of
parts of the Russian Church which are not in communion with each other.
People accusing our bishops of acting uncanonically do not have leg to stand
on - it is all based on adulteration of the facts. It is rather very sinful
and uncanonical to hurl such baseless accusations onto one's lawful
hierarchs and spiritual fathers.
Archpriest Ilya Gorsky
From: mary marczyk [mailto:dodee842@...]
Sent: Sunday, February 04, 2007 6:13 AM
Subject: Re: [orthodox-synod] waiting?
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
THE REVNITELI SOCIETY OF THE BLESSED METROPOLITAN ANTHONY (KHRAPOVITSKY)
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
RESOLUTION OF 17 NOVEMBER 2006, PROPOSED BY THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE EASTERN
AMERICAN DIOCESE, BUT REJECTED BY "AUTHORITIES" AND NOT VOTED UPON
"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
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
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
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:
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]
Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
Yahoo! Groups Links
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>