Re: [orthodox-synod] Re: ROCOR and the rest?
- Is it true what priest James states? Does ROCOR commune those in the OCA, but are forbidden to take communion from the OCA?
James Baglien <jbgln@...> wrote:
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, michael nikitin
> 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
> that those in the OCA can take communion from ROCOR, but we in ROCORDespite the disrespectful tone of Mr. Nikitin's question, for the
> cannot take communion from OCA.
> Michael N
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
With regard to the question of relations with the so-called Metropolia,
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
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
Anticipating the counter-arguments that might be raised, consider the
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,
Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]