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

Communion with MP

Expand Messages
  • DDD
    Christ is Risen! Dear Rupert, You have hit the nail right on the head. Our hierarchy is not only being accused now, but even way back in 1981—only then it
    Message 1 of 2 , May 8, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Christ is Risen!

      Dear Rupert,
      You have hit the nail right on the head. Our hierarchy is not only
      being accused now, but even way back in 1981—only then it was Metropolitan
      Philaret of Blessed Memory, whose relics were later found to be incorrupt,
      whom they were accusing. Metr. Philaret was accused of changing the course
      of the Russian Church, because he had had the life of the Elder Tavrion—a
      Catacomb priest who, like St. Afanasy Sakharov, went back to the
      "sergianist" Church after the death of Metr. Sergius—printed in Orthodox
      Word.
      Metr. Philaret and the Synod of Bishops of ROCOR came back with a
      scathing denunciation of those who were attacking their hierarchs:

      http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/tavrion.aspx

      Metr. Philaret's accusers are still at it with our present
      hierarchy, and the above "Response" of the Synod should still be an
      instruction to us all—particularly the end of it:

      "Learning in docility and abounding in cheerfulness, and ministering with
      alacrity, we shall not all be the tongue which is the more active member,
      not all of us apostles, not all prophets, nor shall we all interpret.

      And again:

      Why cost thou make thyself a shepherd when thou art a sheep? Why become a
      head when thou art a foot? Why cost thou try to be a commander when thou art
      enrolled in the number of the soldiers?

      The canon ends with the following words:

      But if anyone be found weakening the present canon, he is to be cut off for
      forty days.

      The situation of the Church in Russia is without precedent, and no norms can
      be prescribed by any one of us separately. If the position of the Catacomb
      Church would change relative to its position in past years, any change in
      our attitude would have to be reviewed not by individual clergymen or laymen
      but only by the Council of Bishops, to which all pertinent matters should be
      submitted."

      Thus, while legitimate concerns can be and are being submitted to
      the Sobor of Bishops even now, the end decision is precisely with the Sobor
      of Bishops.

      —Dimitra Dwelley
      Russian Orthodox Church of the Epiphany
      Boston, MA (ROCOR)
      (My opinions are purely my own and do not necessarily represent the opinions
      of clergy or parishioners of my parish or those of ROCOR)
      _______________________________________________________________________
      "Yet much of what I read seems infused with the "spirit of the age"
      and especially the Western tendancy toward the democratic/egalatarian
      ideal where it is perfectly acceptable to assert ones own
      independence and to opine freely and emotionally about any topic --
      even ones for which you have little background. We must be careful
      here. It is "natural" for us in the West to become rebellious at the
      drop of a hat."


      -----Original Message-----
      From: orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com [mailto:orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com]
      On Behalf Of ruperthay1
      Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2006 11:33 PM
      To: orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [orthodox-synod] Communion with MP

      As a relatively new convert to Orthodoxy via the Church Abroad
      (baptized by Father Paul Bassett in Cincinnati on Lazarus Saturday
      2002)I must confess that I am quite confused by the statements about
      communion with the MP contained here and elsewhere. The source of my
      confusion seems to be the differences in what the Synod is saying is
      the purpose of the talks vs. what others are saying are the purpose
      of the talks.

      It seems to me that if we are unable to take our heirarchs'
      statements about the purpose of the current talks at face value, we
      have a much bigger problem than the MP. Is that what I detect in
      many of the posts? A distrust of our bishops? If so, please provide
      this poor gullible soul with the historical evidence that shows
      incompetence over the wide range of decisions that they have made.
      And please do not give me opinions but rather hard, verifiable
      EVIDEMCE of such malfesence and not just on this issue. It seems to
      me that if there is reason to mistrust their collective judgement, it
      will have been clear over many issues -- not just the current one.

      What the Synod seems to be saying is that this isn't about
      adminstrative union, but rather communion. The idea of reunion seems
      to give birth to the polemics I read here and elsewhere. But the
      Synod is specifically saying that is NOT on the table. What is on
      the table is being able to serve the Mysteries together.

      It seems that our bishops are talking about a relationship pretty
      much like we have with the Serbian Church. (My memory doesn't always
      serve me well, but weren't they pretty involved in ecuminism until
      recently? And were they not a local Church within a Communist
      country? Could there have been spies in the Serbian Church as
      well?) And it seems to me that we have good relations with the
      Serbs. Yet no one is calling for us to wall ourselves off from them
      because of past indiscretions. I don't understand this seeming
      double standard.

      Another aspect of this that is confusing is the tenor of the
      arguments at times. While that the "mind of the Church" is not the
      exclusive possesion of any grouping of bishops and that the consensus
      of faith resides with all of the faithful and that certainly at such
      times when called upon we must be faithful to give spirit filled
      communications to those given the responsibility to make decisions.
      Yet much of what I read seems infused with the "spirit of the age"
      and especially the Western tendancy toward the democratic/egalatarian
      ideal where it is perfectly acceptable to assert ones own
      independence and to opine freely and emotionally about any topic --
      even ones for which you have little background. We must be careful
      here. It is "natural" for us in the West to become rebellious at the
      drop of a hat.

      Please help me understand more fully the vehemence I read here.

      Foolish Rupert









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


      Yahoo! Groups Links
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.