How Russian Orthodox Church Feels Today In Russia

[David_Pritchard]

If there is re-unification then the Russian Orthodox Church needs to start with a fresh politically neutral profile to appease the Russian diaspora.

>snip<

Alexei II refuses to recognize that the Imperial remains are authentic. This is yet another contentious issue that needs to be addressed.

>snip<

The Russian Orthodox Church can do as it wishes; how exactly does it benefit from this uncomfortable union? If the ROCOR People become too demanding, they can always be left to make their own course.

The issue about the remains is not their identity but rather their disposition. The corpses if truely the Imperial Family should be venerated as martyrs in a manner that the Russian Orthodox Church sees most appropriate. The bones of Saints and Martyrs are not normally buried under a stone floor but rather venerated in alters and other such holy places. Either the Imperial Family are Martyrs and their remains are treated as such or they are not martyrs and they are permanently buried. This seems to be the sticking point with HH Aleksei II as far as I know.

David

[Tania]

SAN FRANCISCO: May 11, 2006

Resolution of the IV All-Diaspora Council of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

We, the participants of the IV All-Diaspora Council, having gathered in the God-preserved city of San Francisco, in the blessed presence of the Protectress of the Russian Diaspora, the Kursk-Root Icon of the Mother of God, and the holy relics of Saint John of Shanghai and San Francisco, in trembling recognition of the duty laid upon us, in obedience to our Archpastor, Christ, with complete trust and love of the pastors and laity to our First Hierarch, His Eminence Metropolitan Laurus, and the Council of Bishops, attest that as loyal children of the Holy Church, we shall submit to Divine will and obey the decisions of the forthcoming Council of Bishops.

We archpastors, pastors and laymen, members of the IV All-Diaspora Council, unanimously express our resoluteness to heal the wounds of division within the Russian Church—between her parts in the Fatherland and abroad. Our Paschal joy is joined by the great hope that in the appropriate time, the unity of the Russian Church will be restored upon the foundation of the Truth of Christ, opening for us the possibility to serve together and to commune from one Chalice.

Hearing the lectures read at the Council, the reports made by the Commission on negotiations with the corresponding Commission of the Moscow Patriarchate, and the various points of view expressed during the discussions, we express our conciliar consent that it is necessary to confirm the canonical status of the Russian Church Abroad for the future as a self-governing part of the Local Russian Church, in accordance with the Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia currently in force.

From discussions at the Council it is apparent that the participation of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate in the World Council of Churches evokes confusion among our clergy and flock. With heartfelt pain we ask the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate to heed the plea of our flock to expediently remove this temptation.

We hope that the forthcoming Local Council of One Russian Church will settle remaining unresolved church problems.

Bowing down before the podvig [spiritual feats] of the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, glorified both by the Russian Church Abroad and by the Russian Church in the Fatherland, we see within them the spiritual bridge which rises above the abyss of the lethal division in the Russian Church and makes possible the restoration of that unity which is desired by all.

And we, the members of the IV All-Diaspora Council, address our brothers and sisters in the faith in our renascent Homeland with the Paschal hymns: "Pascha! Let us embrace each other joyously!"
_________________
In Christ,
Deacon Nikolai

[Belochka]

[The issue about the remains is not their identity but rather their disposition. David

The Moscow Patriarch publically declared that he does not recognize the authenticity of the "so called Yekaterinburg remains".

[Ref: Moscow Russian Orthodox Press Release statement for 7 December, 2004]

At this point he prefers to believe an unknown Japanese "expert" whose professional profile involved the molting of silkworms, epilepsy and hepatitis studies over a quorum of international forensic DNA experts who worked in the field; scattered in the U. S., England, Norway and Russia itself.

Now that the Imperial Family has been buried with some symbolism and ceremony it will be most embarrasing to turn around and declare that he made an error of judgement in 1998 by not attending, and now continues to not give full recognition to the Emperor his family and loyal staff as they fully deserve.

No doubt it is difficult for him to play a different tune.

[Belochka]

The issue about the remains is not their identity but rather their disposition. The corpses if truely the Imperial Family should be venerated as martyrs in a manner that the Russian Orthodox Church sees most appropriate. The bones of Saints and Martyrs are not normally buried under a stone floor but rather venerated in alters and other such holy places. Either the Imperial Family are Martyrs and their remains are treated as such or they are not martyrs and they are permanently buried. This seems to be the sticking point with HH Aleksei II as far as I know.

David

This issue as I believe it to be is that ROCOR recognized the Imperial Family as being martyrs years before the Moscow Partiarch was permitted to do so because he was dominated by his soviet government at the time.

Emperor Nikolai II was the head of the Church, but Alexei II never availed himself of the opportunity to view the Imperial remains even when they lay in the Moscow Morgue. Then after they were buried in 1998, the Moscow Church declares in 2000 that Nikolai II was a martyr afterall. Strange behavior don't you agree?

[David_Pritchard]

Russian Orthodox Church Abroad Seeks Reconciliation With Moscow Church

Created: 20.05.2006 12:42 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 13:52 MSK, 8 hours 43 minutes ago


MosNews


 The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia said Friday it would move toward reconciling with the Moscow-based parent church from which it split after the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, The Associated Press reported.

The two churches would still have separate administrations, but would bond spiritually and allow their followers to worship in each other’s churches. “This division is coming to an end,” said the Rev. Alexander Lebedeff, secretary of the exile church’s commission on reconciliation.

The move was announced after a meeting of the 14 bishops of the New York-based exile church, which has more than 400 parishes worldwide and about 480,000 U.S. members.

For only the fourth time since it split with its parent church, the church in exile convened a special 134-member All-Diaspora Council, which met in San Francisco. The council, made up of clergy and lay people, voted last week to recommend the bishops rejoin the Russian Orthodox Church, also known as the Russian Orthodox Patriarchate.

Each church still would maintain their own council of bishops, but priests could participate and lead mass in both churches. The two churches also could cooperate with religious education, youth programs and missionary activities. The two churches still need to develop and sign a document to complete their reunification, which could happen within the next year.

The emigre church split from the Patriarchate three years after the Bolshevik Revolution and cut all ties in 1927, after Patriarch Sergiy declared the church’s loyalty to the Soviet Union’s communist government.

The Russian Orthodox Church had said that Sergiy’s move was aimed at saving the church. It recently disavowed the declaration. The emigre church and its parent began discussions about re-establishing ties after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, and the two churches recently set up working groups to ease the process.

[David_Pritchard]

Russian Church abroad ruling body approves reunion with Moscow

10:25 | 20/ 05/ 2006
  
MOSCOW, May 20 (RIA Novosti) - The governing body of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) voted Friday evening to reunite with Moscow, signaling the end of an 80-year rift.

A statement on the ROCOR Web site said the church's Council of Bishops had approved an Act on Canonical Communion drafted this week by the church's international conference, the All-Diaspora Council held in San Francisco. The ROCOR will now join the Moscow Patriarchate as a self-governed branch, similar to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

It will retain its autonomy in terms of pastoral, educational, administrative, economic, property and secular issues.

The revolutions of 1917 and ensuing Civil War in Russia caused a split in the Russian Orthodox Church in the 1920s, when some top clergy in exile refused to be subordinated to Church leaders who had allegedly collaborated with the Communists.

Metropolitan Laurus, the head of the ROCOR, visited Russia in May 2004 and participated in a number of joint services. The sides decided at the time to set up joint commissions, and determined the range of issues to be discussed at the All-Diaspora Council, which met for the first time since 1974.

[LisaDavidson]

The issue about the remains is not their identity but rather their disposition. The corpses if truely the Imperial Family should be venerated as martyrs in a manner that the Russian Orthodox Church sees most appropriate. The bones of Saints and Martyrs are not normally buried under a stone floor but rather venerated in alters and other such holy places. Either the Imperial Family are Martyrs and their remains are treated as such or they are not martyrs and they are permanently buried. This seems to be the sticking point with HH Aleksei II as far as I know.

David

This issue as I believe it to be is that ROCOR recognized the Imperial Family as being martyrs years before the Moscow Partiarch was permitted to do so because he was dominated by his soviet government at the time.

Emperor Nikolai II was the head of the Church, but Alexei II never availed himself of the opportunity to view the Imperial remains even when they lay in the Moscow Morgue. Then after they were buried in 1998, the Moscow Church declares in 2000 that Nikolai II was a martyr afterall. Strange behavior don't you agree?

Belochka: I don't believe the Imperial remains were ever in the Moscow Morgue. AFAIK, the remains went from the Koptyaki forest to the Ekaterinburg Morgue, and from there were transported to St. Petersburg for burial.

[Belochka]

The issue about the remains is not their identity but rather their disposition. The corpses if truely the Imperial Family should be venerated as martyrs in a manner that the Russian Orthodox Church sees most appropriate. The bones of Saints and Martyrs are not normally buried under a stone floor but rather venerated in alters and other such holy places. Either the Imperial Family are Martyrs and their remains are treated as such or they are not martyrs and they are permanently buried. This seems to be the sticking point with HH Aleksei II as far as I know.

David

This issue as I believe it to be is that ROCOR recognized the Imperial Family as being martyrs years before the Moscow Partiarch was permitted to do so because he was dominated by his soviet government at the time.

Emperor Nikolai II was the head of the Church, but Alexei II never availed himself of the opportunity to view the Imperial remains even when they lay in the Moscow Morgue. Then after they were buried in 1998, the Moscow Church declares in 2000 that Nikolai II was a martyr afterall. Strange behavior don't you agree?

Belochka: I don't believe the Imperial remains were ever in the Moscow Morgue. AFAIK, the remains went from the Koptyaki forest to the Ekaterinburg Morgue, and from there were transported to St. Petersburg for burial.

Yes they most certainly were. The Chief Moscow Procurator, Vladimir Soloviev who conducted the government investigation (completed in January 1998), accepted custody of the remains from the governor of Ekaterinburg. The bones were transfered to the Moscow Forensic Medical Center for further anthropologic examination.

[palimpsest]

Exterior view of the Russian Orthodox Church in San Francisco, Friday, May 19, 2006. Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia said Friday, May 19, 2006, they would move forward to reconcile with the Moscow-based parent church it cut ties with after the country's 1917 Bolshevik revolution. The 11 bishops of the New York-based exile church said it was an important step in the process of reuniting, but leaders from both churches still must iron out remaining issues. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma)

[palimpsest]

Archbishop Mark Arndt, right, of Germany, leads a line of clergy to a news conference at a Russian Orthodox Church in San Francisco, Friday, May 19, 2006. Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia said Friday, May 19, 2006, they would move forward to reconcile with the Moscow-based parent church it cut ties with after the country's 1917 Bolshevik revolution. The 11 bishops of the New York-based exile church said it was an important step in the process of reuniting, but leaders from both churches still must iron out remaining issues. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma)

[palimpsest]

Archbishop Mark Arndt, Germany, smiles during a news conference at a Russian Orthodox Church in San Francisco, Friday, May 19, 2006. Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia said Friday, May 19, 2006, they would move forward to reconcile with the Moscow-based parent church it cut ties with after the country's 1917 Bolshevik revolution. The 11 bishops of the New York-based exile church said it was an important step in the process of reuniting, but leaders from both churches still must iron out remaining issues. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma)

[palimpsest]

Rev. Alexander Lebedeff, of Los Angeles, smiles during a news conference at a Russian Orthodox Church in San Francisco, Friday, May 19, 2006. Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia said Friday, May 19, 2006, they would move forward to reconcile with the Moscow-based parent church it cut ties with after the country's 1917 Bolshevik revolution. The 11 bishops of the New York-based exile church said it was an important step in the process of reuniting, but leaders from both churches still must iron out remaining issues. (AP Photo/Paul Sakuma)

[Tania]

Thank you Palimpsest for the added pictures. Yes it was a very large gathering, and the cathedral meeting was filled to capacity.

Nice of you to offer pictures throughout these threads. It is very much appreciated.

Tatiana+

[AlexP@asia.com]

You are correct, the OCA is now an Autocephalus Church. This status was granted by HH Aleksei II of Moscow and all of Russia. The Moscow Patriarchate did however retain one parish in the USA, the Saint Nicholas Cathedral in New York City. A beautiful church which I had the pleasure to visit on one occassion, about ten maybe eleven years ago.

David

David,

I am sorry to have to call you on this one here but this is all wrong...all of it, exept the fact that you visited St. Nicholas Cathedral on East 97th Street.  

1.  Negotiations for the Tomos of Autocephaly began under the aegis of the late Metropolitan Nikodom of the then city of Leningrad, with the blessing of His Holiness Patriarch Alexis (Symansky), the very distinguished former Metropolitan of St. Petersburg who sat out the blockade of Leningrad by the Germans.

2.  This Tomos of Autocephaly was granted in 1970 by Patriarch Alexis with the future Patriarch Pimen being one of the main signatories.  The currrent Patriarch Alexei II bears no relation to the now defunct Patriarch Alexis.

3.  In all ecclesiastical honesty, the newly "autocephalised" Orthodox Church in America was all but snubbed by world body of Orthodoxy for at least the next twenty years, until the fall of communism, because it was felt rather "strange" to say the least that a Red-controlled institution could grant anything to a church in the United States.

4.  It is NOT true that the Moscow Patriarchate has retained only church in the United States today.  They have  retained many, many parishes in the United States and I would refer you to www.mospat.ru for a listing in its entirety.

5.  The Orthodox Church of America has strayed very far from  its Orthodox roots and is viewed by the rest of the Orthodox communities as a Protestant-like, highly reformed, highly diluted version of an Orthodox Church.  In many cases its liturgical practices deviate quitely remarkably from the "Typikon", that is the liturgical rules for Orthodox churches.

6.  Additionally, the Orthodox Church of America is in the midst of an EXTREMELY serious and perhaps fatal scandal, the result of which may be its reabsorption into the Mother Church.  Millions and millions of dollars have been plundered by a handful of senior clerics with no accountability; one very prominent former church person was forced into retirement because he has contracted AIDS; and the entire governing body of this institution is fighting amongst itself.  I can only refer our readers to www.ocanews.org where the full length and breadth of this horrific scandal is set out for all to see.  It makes any scandal in the Catholic Church look like a kindergarten event.

Alex P.

[AlexP@asia.com]

The issue about the remains is not their identity but rather their disposition. The corpses if truely the Imperial Family should be venerated as martyrs in a manner that the Russian Orthodox Church sees most appropriate. The bones of Saints and Martyrs are not normally buried under a stone floor but rather venerated in alters and other such holy places. Either the Imperial Family are Martyrs and their remains are treated as such or they are not martyrs and they are permanently buried. This seems to be the sticking point with HH Aleksei II as far as I know.

David

This issue as I believe it to be is that ROCOR recognized the Imperial Family as being martyrs years before the Moscow Partiarch was permitted to do so because he was dominated by his soviet government at the time.

Emperor Nikolai II was the head of the Church, but Alexei II never availed himself of the opportunity to view the Imperial remains even when they lay in the Moscow Morgue. Then after they were buried in 1998, the Moscow Church declares in 2000 that Nikolai II was a martyr afterall. Strange behavior don't you agree?

Belochka: I don't believe the Imperial remains were ever in the Moscow Morgue. AFAIK, the remains went from the Koptyaki forest to the Ekaterinburg Morgue, and from there were transported to St. Petersburg for burial.

Yes they most certainly were. The Chief Moscow Procurator, Vladimir Soloviev who conducted the government investigation (completed in January 1998), accepted custody of the remains from the governor of Ekaterinburg. The bones were transfered to the Moscow Forensic Medical Center for further anthropologic examination.

Belochka, dear friend,

Indeed you are quite correct here.  The mortal remains were placed in custodial care the at the Moscow Institute of Forensic Medicine where a team of forensic scientists from Moscow State University, MID, and the "Chetvoraya Upravleniya" labored long and hard to make an accurate and determined finding of  of forensic science.

It is true that the Patriarch, aka Mr. Drozdov (AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE EVERYONE ON THIS SITE TO READ THE DROZDOV FILE) never once visited the Morgue nor did any of his entourage.

Now, in terms of Palimpset's rather cursory notice of the impending re-unification of these two Russian Church -- this is not quite the case.  What has happened, however, is that a determination has been made that Holy Communion and all of the Sacraments will be given by the clery of the ROCOR to members of the Moscow Church and vice-versa.  That is the first step and it is called eucharistic reunification.

The second step, which will much more drawn out, will determine the structure of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad in the body of world Orthodox.  It is generally expected that ROCOR will become a self-governing, canonical member of the world body of Orthodox Churches, say, just the same as the Church of Greece, the Church of Georgia, etc.  It will NOT report to Moscow nor be subject to Moscow's diktates.

The Metropolitan of ROCOR will remain First Hierarch of that Church, but in a very unusual move, all of the Bishops of ROCOR will integrated in toto into the corpus of the Synod of Bishops of the Moscow Church, while retaining their own independent stature.  And Metropolitan Laurus of the ROCOR will assume the ecclesiatical dignity of a Metropolitan of the Russian Church in Moscow while retaining his primacy of ROCOR.

A truly complicated event, to say the least.