On second thought

A lot of the "disappointed faithful" who are indulging in schism are hacked off about the Moscow Patriarchate allowing the use of the "New Calendar" (Gregorian, for those keeping score at home.) Not what I would call a salvific issue, but we Orthodox have, alas, many among us who major in BSiffication and pissery. The current Patriarch is, perhaps, problematic, having served as a Colonel in the unlamented KGB. I cannot presume to know his heart, but I suspect the bishops of ROCOR would not be on this bus if they had doubts about the sincerity of the Patriarch's repentance. Healing schisms would seem to be a Good Thing generally, even if somebody writes a contrary op-ed.

Separation of church and state just seems the soundest way.

I have no doubt that there is sinful corruption pervading the Church - this has been our sad legacy since Judas' betrayal and Peter's denial. We have a long history of distorting, diminishing, and corrupting the good gifts that God gives. My sense is that this reunion is a good gift, tainted by human sinfulness and rebellion. The full implications of "Sergianism" have yet to be understood. Some of his statements can certainly be construed as collaborating with an evil regime. In other statements, he echoes the Apostle Paul's counsel to pray for the (pagan) emperor. God only knows what all went on in those dark decades and the nature of the hierarchy's culpability. On this Soul Saturday and tomorrow in the kneeling prayers of Holy Pentecost, we should remember all of those who were caught up (as well as those still enmeshed) in this horrible history. In our little OCA mission, the Russian emigres seem largely supportive of the reunion. I'll join them in rejoicing in this gift, praying that our merciful God will bring something good out of all of this, even though we frail creatures are likely to make a mess of it. Lord have mercy.

Ms. Kizenko has been busy writing such columns in the past week. They have all been filled with false accusations and false depictions of what actually took place. Her statement that "The process was secretive..." for example is simply a lie. She well knows that the process took place over a period of a few years with very public meetings of clergy and laity. For four or five years parishes and deaneries met to discuss the issues, the concerns, the hopes and all of this was widely reported. She knows of the very well-publicized meetings in New York, attended by clergy and laity from every ROCOR diocese and parish around the world. She knows of the Council which met in San Francisco composed of laity & clergy from every ROCOR deanery & diocese around the world. She knows that for three years the committees from ROCOR and the MP met in Europe, Russia, and New York to hammer everything out between the two churches. Nothing of the process was ever secretive. She knows this, but her aim is to discredit both the Putin government (with a better than 85% approval rating inside Russia) and the Russian Orthodox Church. Her concerns are not at all theological or moral, simply political. The idea that Moscow will begin confiscating property from the Church Abroad is simply scaremongering. She knows (because the meetings and decisions and documents have been widely publicized and are readily available) that the issue of property was long ago settled between the two entities (MP and ROCOR). The impression she gives that there are large numbers of the ROCOR faithful jumping ship is nothing but dissembling of the truth. There have been a few clergy, a few of the laity; nothing like a large movement. The vast and great majority of ROCOR are overjoyed with the reunion. Some who left prior to the reunion are now beginning to find their way back, realizing that they had succumbed to scare tactics of folks like Ms. Kizenko. The dust she raises will blow away and she will find, to her great disappointment, that the reunion was not only a blessing, but an inspiration for the furtherance of the Church she so dislikes.

Hooboy, I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Daniel, the New Calendar issue stems from the fact that once ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate restored communion, all the other local churches in communion with Moscow are automatically in communion with ROCOR, which is offensive to some Old Calendar zealots. Said zealots are voting with their feet and joining non-canonical bodies to avoid the remote possibility of sharing the Chalice with heretics like me. It reminds me of Garrison Keillor's Sanctified Brethren. Eventually one ends up being the only authentic Orthodox on the planet.

"Daniel, the New Calendar issue stems from the fact that once ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate restored communion, all the other local churches in communion with Moscow are automatically in communion with ROCOR, which is offensive to some Old Calendar zealots." Okay, yes, that's right. This communion with New Calendar churches was/is a problem for some people. I should know, as I used to be one of the people extremely concerned about this. I have since changed my mind. Sorry for misunderstanding your reference, Scott. As Fr. Seraphim correctly notes, Ms. Kizenko's article is riddled with errors. I have two posts on the subject at Eunomia talking about some of these errors and the larger pastoral problem that reconciliation helps to address and which Ms. Kizenko completely fails to address. I will have more to say in the coming days.

I am probably expressing a minority opinion in my own jurisdiction (Antiochian), but I think that we New calendar jurisdictions should just go back to being old calendar. Let's have all of the Orthodox on the same calendar. The New calendar doesn't make any sense anyway since we still use the traditional dating of Pascha. So, it is really a hybrid calendar. But, thank God for this reunion between ROCOR and Moscow and I pray that we can have a Pan-Orthodox synod to sort out all of these issues amongst the Orthodox.

I find it unfortunate that so much damage has been done to the Russians and their church that the healing of a schism must be viewed as an occasion for suspicion rather than a cause for rejoicing. My first time in an Orthodox church ever was in the ROCOR cathedral in Seattle, and at the time I had no idea what it meant that it was "ROCOR", I just knew that it was my first step on a huge journey. Forgiveness? Compassion? Are these words that are ever applicable for us Orthodox? For those suspicious, would there ever have been enough transparency for them to be satisfied, or would an abandonment of the process have been the only way they would have been satisfied that their voice had been heard and the fix wasn't in? Funny thing about the groups who break off from things like this--they tend to only be in communion with themselves. Richard

The same review said that mouslim religious leaders appeared to be more warm than the west sending congratulations, and that no western paper found it interesting to mention that after signing the act of Communion at Christ the Saviour Cathedral Moscow Patriarch and Metropolitan Laur went to Butovo, on a place of mass graves of martyrs killed by Stalin's regime. A church service with crowds of people was held on that place and it was shown at all central chanels of the russian TV.

Is Eugene Rose (Fr.Seraphim) known in USA? One Russian Orthodox woman living in California says it grows there, but maybe she sees what she wants to see. I also thought that O.C. in America were something like Papuans in Russia, and if articles appear in big newspapers they must be most likely written by emigrants who mix their political views with the church, because simply about church it will be not interesting to publish. Hardly anyone would verify if what that woman-historian wrote in her article was true, maybe she distorted quotes, used wrong sourses or used rumours circling at her parish, and it forms not positive opinions, but maybe noone reading that That woman from California said that exhibitions of orthodox art are always sold out, that americans are very much interested in orthodox spiritual music and icons, and she seen many children there coming with parents.

Fr. Seraphim Rose is known in the USA, yes. He's not an uncontroversial figure by any means, but he is definitely known. Richard

One other thought concerning this--I know nobody's reading this anymore, but this sticks in my craw. As long as the Church Abroad existed as an independent entity, it implicitly challenged the authority of Moscow to speak for the Russian Church. It consistently denounced the collaboration of the church with the Communist Party, called for a more positive valuation of Russia's prerevolutionary and anticommunist past and served as a hopeful beacon to Orthodox Christians in Russia seeking an alternative. This whole paragraph comes across as wildly ignorant of Orthodox ecclesiology. Either the Church is one or she is not; if she is, then schisms are to be healed, not maintained for political advantage. Orthodoxy always hearkens back to a day when one didn't have the option of going church-shopping; it seems disingenuous to argue that healing a schism is a bad thing because it robs one of the present-day option (real, perceived, or otherwise) to do so. Richard