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

Re: [orthodox-synod] Re: ROCOR and the rest? ROCOR/OCA relations

Expand Messages
  • larry most
    GLORY TO JESUS CHRIST GLORY TO HIM FOREVER DEar Father James, Thank you for the reply. It dosen t matter (to me) whether they unite like under one Bishop,
    Message 1 of 14 , Dec 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      GLORY TO JESUS CHRIST GLORY TO HIM FOREVER
      DEar Father James,
      Thank you for the reply. It dosen't matter (to me)
      whether they "unite" like under one Bishop, but please
      be civil to each other. I've experience some rather
      "poor" comments from both sides, regarding the other,
      and I don't see where that does any good. If Orthodox
      has any faults, one would be sometimes they are overly
      nationlistic, ie, Russian Church is somehow "holier"
      than the Greek Church, which is somehow better
      than,maybe the Antiochain Church, and then you can go
      "nuts" over which calendar. To me (just my very humble
      opinion) this just tears the One Holy Orthodox Church
      apart, and we should know better.
      Love in Christ,
      Sub-deacon Lawrence Most

      --- James Baglien <jbgln@...> wrote:

      > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, larry most
      > <larrymost2002@y...>
      > wrote:
      > >
      > > GLORY TO JESUS CHRIST GLORY TO HIM FOREVER
      > > DEar gene,
      > > That would be WONDERFUL.
      > > Love in Christ,
      > > Sub-deacon Lawrence Most
      > >
      > > --- gene703 <gene703@y...> wrote:
      > >
      > > > Maybe a ROCOR/OCA Reconciliation Committee is
      > in
      > > > order ? Wouldn't that be nice ? Maybe two local
      > > > sisters should kiss and make up first before the
      > big
      > > > Moscow thing happens ? Work out the same issues
      > > > facing MP/ROCOR on a local level, so to speak ?
      > > >
      > > > Gene T
      >
      > Your sentiments are praiseworthy, but a bit
      > "Americo-centric" in
      > perspective. The reality runs up against some very
      > hard "rocks":
      >
      > 1) The discussions between the MP and the ROCOR are
      > framed in the
      > context of reconciliation within the *Russian*
      > Church. Since the OCA
      > claims to be *American* (and autocephalus), it by
      > definition excludes
      > itself from the conversation. (I understand that an
      > inquiry was made
      > by the OCA to the MP concerning the possibility of
      > their participation
      > in the joint talks, and the official reply was
      > precisely that: "these
      > matters are an internal affair of the Russian
      > Church.")
      >
      > 2) The ROCOR has parishes in approximately 40
      > countries around the
      > world. The OCA is an American church (albeit one
      > with parishes in
      > Canada, Mexico, and ?). As a practical matter,
      > reconciliation between
      > the ROCOR and the OCA could occur only in the
      > context of a return of
      > the OCA to the worldwide mission of the ROCOR, with
      > the abandonment of
      > its premature pretentions to American autocephaly.
      > Although many
      > would regard this as a positive step, the liklihood
      > of such a "change
      > of heart" on the part of the OCA hierarchs seems
      > very remote.
      >
      > Priest James Baglien
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >




      __________________________________
      Yahoo! Music Unlimited
      Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
      http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
    • michael nikitin
      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 ... the idea ... Despite
      Message 2 of 14 , Dec 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        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]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.