The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Augoustinos, Poliscifi, The Cub, P H, Hardrada
5604 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 registered members (1 invisible), 65 guests, and 463 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Russian Greek Catholic Global Congress
OL EuroEast II (2007) Group
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics34,743
Posts411,994
Members5,604
Most Online2,716
Jun 7th, 2012
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 4 of 4 1 2 3 4
Re: ROCOR says no to Chambesy process [Re: Apotheoun] #403140 01/23/14 03:11 PM
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 357
C
chadrook Offline
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 357
Originally Posted by Apotheoun
I found Fr. John Whiteford's essay from his blog informative:

ROCOR and the Assembly of Bishops


"Also, I believe St. John Chrysostom once pointed out that it is far more likely that a healthy person hanging around a sick person which catch the sick person's illness, than that the sick person will catch the well person's health."

Classic Fr. John.

"I like the problems we have better than the problems I see in some of the other jurisdictions right now..."

Again classic Fr. John

Re: ROCOR says no to Chambesy process [Re: chadrook] #403146 01/23/14 05:23 PM
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 80
Xristoforos Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 80
Fr. John's comments are very similar to those that Bishop Bernod Fellay and or his priests in the "Roman Catholic" SSPX tend to say about the average RC diocese in the USA.

They are valid concerns, being a minority preserving mostly orthodox teachings and not being seen as a threat to the majority is challenging.

Many people would prefer that the positive traits of these minorities gradually spread to become traits more frequently encountered in the majorities. I think that in both Catholic and Orthodox Church that is occurring slowly, with of course some resistance also.

If I can say this without offending anyone.
ON some level I am not bothered if groups like the ROCOR or SSPX remain outsiders to certain degrees. I can not fully make sense of these things, but it is surely not "entirely bad" that they remain "out of the loop", even if it is "generally bad". I find these matters confusing.

I suppose I am thinking of the way Ralph Nader or Ron Paul have had some positive effects on popular politics in the United States. Both of them being originally "thirty party" leaders who initially attracted idealistic professors/conspiracy theorists and radicals but had too the ideas that were also popular with the average people. Perhaps they sometimes brought a balance into the groupthink of the two main parties that has been helpful to them forcing them to accept ideas that they would have otherwise ignored.


Last edited by Xristoforos; 01/23/14 05:38 PM.
Re: ROCOR says no to Chambesy process [Re: Xristoforos] #403148 01/23/14 05:56 PM
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 78
C
Cavaradossi Offline
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 78
Originally Posted by Xristoforos
Fr. John's comments are very similar to those that Bishop Bernod Fellay and or his priests in the "Roman Catholic" SSPX tend to say about the average RC diocese in the USA.

They are valid concerns, being a minority preserving mostly orthodox teachings and not being seen as a threat to the majority is challenging.

Many people would prefer that the positive traits of these minorities gradually spread to become traits more frequently encountered in the majorities. I think that in both Catholic and Orthodox Church that is occurring slowly, with of course some resistance also.

If I can say this without offending anyone.
ON some level I am not bothered if groups like the ROCOR or SSPX remain outsiders to certain degrees. I can not fully make sense of these things, but it is surely not "entirely bad" that they remain "out of the loop", even if it is "generally bad". I find these matters confusing.

I suppose I am thinking of the way Ralph Nader or Ron Paul have had some positive effects on popular politics in the United States. Both of them being originally "thirty party" leaders who initially attracted idealistic professors/conspiracy theorists and radicals but had too the ideas that were also popular with the average people. Perhaps they sometimes brought a balance into the groupthink of the two main parties that has been helpful to them forcing them to accept ideas that they would have otherwise ignored.



There is a major difference though, because unlike the SSPX, ROCOR is in communion with the other jurisdictions in America, and unlike the members of the SSPX, Fr. John's criticisms of less fortunate jurisdictions (like my very own GOA) have not caused him to cut off his communion with them. In fact, Fr. John not only accepts laymen from other jurisdictions as communicants at his parish without issue (so long as they have confessed recently), but he also participates in services held by other jurisdictions, like when he served as a priest in the vespers service of the Annunciation (along with maybe 16 or 17 other clergy in the Houston area) at a local Greek Orthodox parish, when His Eminence Isaiah (from the GOA) was in town.

I personally know Fr. John, and I do not really appreciate the conparison very much, since he is a good shepherd of his flock and not at all an isolationist with schismatic tendencies as your comparison to the SSPX might imply.

Last edited by Cavaradossi; 01/23/14 05:59 PM.
Re: ROCOR says no to Chambesy process [Re: Xristoforos] #403151 01/23/14 08:41 PM
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226
Recluse Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226
Originally Posted by Xristoforos
ON some level I am not bothered if groups like the ROCOR or SSPX remain outsiders to certain degrees.


Outsiders? ROCOR? Explain yourself. They are a canonical Orthodox Church celebrating the fullness of the Orthodox faith in all its splendor.

Originally Posted by Xristoforos
I can not fully make sense of these things, but it is surely not "entirely bad" that they remain "out of the loop", even if it is "generally bad".


Generally bad?!? ROCOR? Please explain.


Re: ROCOR says no to Chambesy process [Re: Recluse] #404529 03/25/14 10:45 PM
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735
Slavipodvizhnik Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,735
It's just "NO" to Least Common Denominator Orthodoxy.
ROCOR's position is basically this:
“Sure, we like meeting with the other bishops. If you want to hammer out some common rules regarding the release and reception of clergy, inter-Orthodox marriages, etc. then, if we can come to agreement on this or that item, that is a good subject for our meetings and dialogue. However, since the admitted goal of this organization is to bring about administrative unity under the omophor of Constantinople, there is no way under God's blue sky that this will ever happen, and if indeed this is the case, we cannot, in good faith, continue this discussion.”

And David, you wrote "I do not wish to list all of my bases for my opinion about their leadership and some of their communion, but I will say that historically the manner in which many of their clergy treated other Orthodox clergy during their years of non-canonical status was more often than not disrespectful to say the least."
When exactly was ROCOR non-canonical? Who exactly declared them non-canonical? Can you provide me with dates? When Archbishop Iakovos presided at the funeral of Metropolitan Anastassy, did he bury an uncanonical bishop?

Re: ROCOR says no to Chambesy process [Re: Slavipodvizhnik] #404530 03/26/14 01:03 AM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 576
B
bergschlawiner Offline
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 576
For 13 years on an off while stationed in Germany I went to ROCOR churches, was married in them (and divorced in them once), my son baptized in them. But in Germany ROCOR was just the Orthodox church down the street so to say, its priests were largely not well educated and the parishioners were mostly emigres or refugees who mostly still lived in camps, worked menial jobs, had no cars or anything much. The priest I knew best relied on American alchohol and cigarettes I supplied him while he worked as a laborer in a ciity slaughterhouse. There was also no "holier than thou" attitude as I encountered in the few ROCOR churches I went to in the States. Seems that ROCOR became an exclusive club here in the US maybe not in Germany where it evolved as the only "russian" church recognized by the Third Reich. However in the later 1970's it started to attract younger native Germans some of who probably became priests later on.

.

Re: ROCOR says no to Chambesy process [Re: Slavipodvizhnik] #404538 03/26/14 11:20 AM
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953
D
DMD Offline
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,953
Originally Posted by Slavipodvizhnik
It's just "NO" to Least Common Denominator Orthodoxy

And David, you wrote "I do not wish to list all of my bases for my opinion about their leadership and some of their communion, but I will say that historically the manner in which many of their clergy treated other Orthodox clergy during their years of non-canonical status was more often than not disrespectful to say the least."
When exactly was ROCOR non-canonical? Who exactly declared them non-canonical? Can you provide me with dates? When Archbishop Iakovos presided at the funeral of Metropolitan Anastassy, did he bury an uncanonical bishop?


Metropolitan Anastassy reposed in 1965. Later that year, ROCOR took under its care Holy Transfiguration Monastery (Brookline, MA) after the latter had broken communion from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. I believe that event precipitated the decades long break with the Church of Constantiople. (Later, of course, that group and ROCOR came to a bitter divide.)

Bishop, later Metropolitan Laurus (Skurla) was consecrated a bishop by the ROCOR in 1967. In February of 1972 his first cousin died. The cousin and his large family were and are members of my ACROD parish. Since 1939 that parish had, and has, antimensia of a canonical Orthodox Bishop under the omophorion of the Patriarch of Constantinople. My father was a Orthodox priest, ordained by his Orthodox bishop (himself consecrated at the Phanar by Bishops of the EP' s Synod) and was pastor of the church were the funeral occurred. The Bishop politely declined my father's invitation to preside at the funeral or even offer a prayer at the end, explaining tearfully that his Metropolitan expressly forbade him to on account of issues with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. This caused something of a "mini scandal" in our parish at the time. I was there and witnessed this.

From the early seventies until 2009 no ROCOR priest participated in our Sunday of Orthodoxy or any service in my church, or any other local OCA, ACROD or GOARCH church. (The UOC were "out of the loop" as well during much of that period.)

The Iveron Icon was brought to St. Michael's with a contingent of clergy from the ROCOR cathedral in Mayfield, PA and St. Tikhon's OC Monastery that year where all the local Orthodox clergy and parishes were represented, including by that time the local UOCUSA ( excepting for the GOC priest who broke off from ROCOR at the time of the reunion to found a schismatic parish in Owego,NY).

I have previously related the visible joy in the faces of the celebrants and attendees at that Akathist.

For after all, the Psalmist reminds us that it is good for brothers to dwell in unity. (Even when there are little family spats.)

I hope that addressed your question. I realize that my recitation does not line up with that of ROCOR during those difficult years, but it does (anecdotally at least) reflect the common view of the non ROCOR churches which more or less remained in communion with each other during those trying years.

I would hate to see a return to the past. If ROCOR' s stand is intended to protest potential Hellenization of non Hellenes in such a united American church, it would likely be well received by many of us. But...if it is intended to convey a desire that ROCOR' s unique and venerable practices should be the norm, it will be rejected.

It's leaders need to convey the former and express the position that the strongest unified Orthodox Church in the Americas would be one firmly united in doctrine and equally firmly committed to respect for the cultural diversity which often obscures our religious unity.





Page 4 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  Father Anthony 

The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2019 (Forum 1998-2019). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3