www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Canonical status of ROCOR

Does anybody know what the Canonical status of ROCOR is? Are they a recognized body by the rest of Orthodoxy? If so, are they in Communion with the MP?

Columcille

ROCOR, in its own eyes, is the last canonical church left. In the eyes of the rest of Orthodoxy and the world, it is uncanonical. They may still be in communion with the Serbian Patriarchate, the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, and some Old Calendarist Greek Orthodox, but apparently they go in and out of communion with these groups. Although they may at times be in communion with the same people, the two churches (ROCOR and ROC-MP) are definately not in communion. There have been recent moves on the part of the MP to make an attempt at reunion, but ROCOR still views their hierarchy as "Sergianists" and Communist collaborators.

Daniil

THE ABOVE IS A COMPLETELY FALSE AND MISLEADING STATEMENT ABOUT ROCOR!!! I, BEING A MEMBER OF THAT VENERABLE BODY, CAN ATTEST THAT SHE HAS NEVER MADE ANY STATEMENTS IN A SYNODICAL NATURE CONDEMING ALL OTHER ORTHODOX AS HERETICAL. TRUE THE OPINIONS OF A FEW PRIEST MAY EITHER LEAN, OR ACTUALLY BE, CLOSE TO THIS RHETORIC, BUT AS A WHOLE THE SYNOD ACCEPTS THE MYSTERIES OF EVERY LOCAL CHURCH, INCLUDING THE MOSCOE PATRIATE AS VALID. THE SAME GOES FOR THE LATTER CHURCH AS WELL. THE REASON I AM EMPHASIZING THIS MESSAGE SO WELL IS BECAUSE I AM AWARE THAT THIS FALSE AND MISLEADING VIEW OF ROCOR IS TAKEN BY MANY PEOPLE TOP BE TRUTH. YET NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM IT. GO TO THE SYNODAL WEB SITE AT WWW.rocor.org [www.rocor.org] AND LOOK AT THE DOCUMENTS PAGE TO GET A CLEAR VIEW OF THE PREVIOUS STATEMENTS MADE BY THE SYNOD ON VARIOUS ISSUES, INCLUDING THE REUNION OF HERSELF WITH THE MP.
i ASK AGAIN FOR PEOPLE NOT TO MAKE SUCH BOLD AND IRRATIONAL COMMENTS ON THE INTERNET WITHOUT FIRST RESEARCHING THEM THROUGH. EVEN IF YOU MAY MEET A PARTICULAR ROCOR PRIEST WHO SEEMS TO AFFIRM THESE STERYOTYPES FOR YOU, PLEASE REMEBER THAT HIS OPINIONS ALONE ARE NOT THOSE OF THIS WHOLE BODY!
ROBERT K.

ROCOR exist as a Church in exile just as the Ukrainian Orthodox Church was for a good while. True she is vey conservative in her doctrinal approach but still it is only because she truly loves and wishes to preserve her faith. Many people seem to take great delight in slandering the Synod but she does have acanonically valid reason for her existance. During the revolution, the Russian Orthodox Patriarch Tikhon issued a ukaz stating that all the bishops who where cut off from their sees were to establish ahigher Church administration so as to preserve the life of the Russian Church Abroad. ROCOR is afulfilment of this ukaz and for the last 80 years has strived to witness to the world regarding the suffering of the Church of Russia by the godless Soviets. Communion was offical broken with Moscow in 1927 when the then acting Patriarch Sergius, under tremendous pressure from the Communist, issued a declaration stating that the joys and sufferings of the Soviet regiem were those of the Church as well. This made the Moscow Patriarchate in fact bound to serve the Communist authorities and even lie to the whole world stating that no persecution of the Church in Russia was happening. Obviously ROCOR couldnt play ball with them any longer so she offically severed ties with the MP untile she was free of communism. THe last decade has seen the end of that accursed institution but in the Synods eyes, the MP must be completely free of the reprucution of their collaboration before she reunites with them. REcently a process of dialogue has begun and hopefully shall bear fruit in the near future.
Many saints and holy people, including the venerable St. John Maximovitch, belonged to the Synod. In fact St. John wrote a book on our Churches hsitory which is still published by the Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville NY. His incorrupt remains lay in our own ROCOR cathedral in SAn fRancisco (A truly amazing place if youve been there). Aslo many weeping and miraculous ikons have manifested themselves in ROCOR parishes all attesting to the sanctity of this jurisdiction. So please remeber, if your going to critisize ROCOR, then your also going to slander a lot of holy people who served her faithfully and died in her loving arms with oders of sanctity
Robert K.

In spite of Robert K.'s remarks in defense of his Church, I believe the current situation is that, from the general pserpective of Orthodoxy, ROCOR is semi-canonical. A very good friend of mine is a ROCOR priest, and that was his assessment of the situation (which he termed "political"). Since ROCOR is in communion with the Serbian and Jerusalem Churches (who are themselves canonical), it would be wrong to call it un-canonical, but it's equally wrong to call it canonical since it is not in communion with the rest of Orthodoxy.

Edward, deacon and sinner

Wasn't ROCOR formerly a member of SCOBA? (If so, then they were considered canonical.)

Doesn't non-canonical (e.g., the former situation of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA and the Ukr. Greek Orth. Church of Canada) in Orthodoxy imply that there are doubts about the "regularity" (or using the Latin term, validity) of orders & Mysteries? If so, then ROCOR is completely canonical, since even though most other Orthodox Churches aren't in communion with it, there has never been a doubt about the validity of ROCOR hierarchs'/priests' Mysteries or orders.

Rich:

I may be wrong, but I do not remember ROCOR ever being in SCOBA. On the same token, neither is the MP vicar in the USA.

Robert:

Please use paragraphs to break up your posts. They are hard to read without spaces.

Thanks,
Stefan

[ 03-25-2002: Message edited by: Stefan-Ivan ]

The heretical Cyprianite ecclesiology, as the Mathewites call it?

I have to admit there are similarities between the Old Calendrists and the non-Indult Latin traditionalists.

I liken the Mathewites to the sedes, and ROCOR to the SSPX. The former has cast out everyone but themselves into the grace-less zone, while the latter insists that it does not condemn canonical Orthodox as being outside of grace (recognizing the Pope as legitimate, so to speak).

I understand ROCOR's suspicions and need to be fully confident in ROC's being purged of any remnant of the godless order. I hope both will eventually remove any obstacles standing in the way of their reunion.

Same goes for Rome and the SSPX.

In IC XC
Samer

ROCORs mysteries are recognized as valid by the worlds Orthodox Churches, especially the Moscow Patriarchate. This is a fact since clergy leaving ROCOR for other jurisdictions are not re ordained but merely recieved throug a confession of faith. There would be a big problem if the Synod didnt have proper orders since, in the past, her bishops have participatedin the consecration of several bishops for the other jurisidictions and even a Patriarch, I believe. Most ROCOR priest that I know will allow other Orthodox to recieve communion in their parishes without any fuss in the matter. Why Ive even heard of some of our priest going to Russia and recieving communion and confession in MP Churches! No body makes a big deal about the situation its just the way things are.
Although ROCOR may now seem to be a Church "in resistance" that was not the original purpose for her foundation. Quit thankfully she has been ever so slowely moving away from the so called Cyprianite viewpoint in the last few years and back to a more mainstream theological outlook. Much of this is do to the recent Canadian schism
(Go to www.russianorthodoxchurchinexile.com [russianorthodoxchurchinexile.com] for a real treat)most of our crazys are departing us and this makes moderate ROCORites like me do a good old fashioned Irish jigg of delight.
Robert K.

It is true that ROCOR'S orders were never considered to be invalid or irregular. What might have been considered irregular by some would be the fact that they are not in communion with most of "world Orthodoxy" nothing else. Yes, it is mostly a matter of politics, not the integrity of orders or sacraments.

Likewise, in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in the USA, not one of their priests were re-ordained and none of their faithful re-chrismated when they suddenly became part of the EP and were then "magically" canonical. It goes to show that any issues can be set aside if the situation is right. Ukrainian orders have generally not been in question since the "canonical" 1942 consecrations and the passing of Metropolitan Theodorovich and some of the clergy of the 1921 Sobor. But, it should be realized that for many Ukrainian Orthodox to this day, the validity of even the 1921 Sobor is unquestioned and seen as a heroic act, even if it may have been irregular. Many hierarchy, clergy and faithful gave their lives for this "1921 Sobor." It is the Sobor that marks the "re-birth" or "vidrodzhennya" or the self-governing Ukrainian Church, free from Moscow's control. But, this is to get into more complicated issues than are present for the Russian Synod (ROCOR).

For those interested in the history of the UAOC of the 1921 Sobor, there is a book available from Basilian Press, entitled "Vidrodzhennya Cerkvi v Ukrayini 1917 - 1930. Unfortunately, I believe it is currently only in Ukrainian.

Fr. Joe

Regarding the canonicity of the churches:

http://www.redshift.com/~amerorthodox/a_real_look_at_canonicity-1.htm

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/canonicity.htm

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/6516/canonsitu.html

I think there is a misunderstanding of the term 'canonical' and ' official'. The latter is a new term and is used to describe those churches that are a part of World Orthodoxy. Canonical means to follow the canons and have Apostolic succession. In light of this we have a situation where some Orthodox churches are 'official' i.e. in communion with most others, but are often not canonical in their support of ecumenism and other modern practices, for example. ROCOR and its SISTER churches, i.e. Synod of Met Cyprian, Bulgarian Old Calendar and Romanian Old Calendar are not 'official' but definitely canonical. Hence the saints they produce and their strong witness to Holy Tradition etc.

ROCOR is not in communion with the Serbian or Jerusalem Patriarchates, but there are friendly, if unofficial relations. For example, ROCOR clergy are often invited to concelebrate at the Holy Sepulchre and there are occasional exchanges between Serbs and ROCOR. I know several Serbian bishops who consider ROCOR to be heretical on the grounds of phyletism.

Curiously enough, nonrecognition of the Ecumenical Patriarch does not exclude one from Holy Orthodoxy. St Maximus the Confessor is one example. I simply mention this, not to be provocative but to explain that the EP is not the head of the Orthodox Church, although he might like to consider himself the Pope of the East, for all I know!

ROCOR is not in communion with the Serbian or Jerusalem Patriarchates, but there are friendly, if unofficial relations. For example, ROCOR clergy are often invited to concelebrate at the Holy Sepulchre and there are occasional exchanges between Serbs and ROCOR. I know several Serbian bishops who consider ROCOR to be heretical on the grounds of phyletism.


I was always under the impression that ROCOR was in communion with the Serbs? Im ROCOR yet am affiliated with a Serbian parish in the KC area because non exist here. In fact, I even asked the ROCOR Archbishop of Chicago and he gave me the approval to do so.

Of course, Ive always thought all this talk of "world Orthodoxy" vs TRue Orthodoxy was always rather silly. I am quit comfortable with recieving communion in any Orthodox Church that I come across bcause they are all basically the same thing.

If ROCOR wishes to excommunicate me for this then I suppose they have the right. But I can not except the Cyprianite ecclessiology as being valid.

It is also strange that Serbian bishops (Of all people) would accuse ROCOR of the dreaded phyletism. Its no secret that the Serbs are quit proud of their ethnicity and its hard to find a Serbian parish that dosnt emphasize this.

Robert K.

Dear Robert,

I am curious to know why you cannot accept the ecclesiology of Met Cyprian. As far as I know, Met C has been criticized for recognizing grace in all the Orthodox Churches, although not being in communion with them.

How do you view the ROCOR's relationship and full communion with this Synod?

From my experience of ROCOR, I find your views unusual. Maybe there are big differences between ROCOR parishes here on the West coast and those in UK and Europe.

Anyway ROCOR is canonical, even if some of its members are not.
(I'm not accusing you of this!).

Yours in Christ,
Fr Serafim

Batyushka bless!
Well unlike many people, I was attracted to the ROCOR because I felt that she had a strong preservation of Russian identity and the Orthodox traditions that acompany this. The things that most people join the Synod for, ie, to flee the apostacy of world Orthodoxy and to "wall off" themselves from ecumenism and so forth never really held much with me.

In fact, I always felt that the Synod was walking a very dangerous line in not having communion with the worlds other Orthodox Churches. It has fulled a sectarian mentality with many of her members. Unofrtunatly this has manifested itself in the present schsimatic activity rampant in many quarters of ROCOR.

I would like to see the ROCOR in communion with the rest of world Orthodoxy because I do not want to see her slide into oblivion (Which is the destination of all sectarian groups). All local Churches need to be in communion with one another in orer for the Church to be truly Catholic. If no unity exist then there is no real catholic universality for the Church. It is dangerous to make it seem that its okay if churches dont recognize one another since then one starts getting into the whole concept of the "invisible church" of protestantism idea WHICH IS NOT GOOD AT ALL.

Robert K.