The following letter has and will be updated as often as reliable information can be obtained. "Updates" to this letter will consist in the addition of names from those clergy who have signed onto this letter and where availible the clergyman's comments issued after Father Seraphim Holland (webmaster of the official Synodal website) proposed this letter to be written. These additions to the original letter as recieved will be clearly marked in Bold.
Beyond this no alteration has been done.
Subj: [rocaclergy] Sobor dates, list of those who want to sign a letter Who else are willing to consider signing such a letter (as yet unwritten)? Who will try to write a letter? I propose that we use this list for something constructive, for building up and not breaking down. Who else are willing to consider signing such a letter (as yet unwritten)? Please reply to the list, and I will keep track of the names. To keep the size of the mail messages down, please delete all the names except your email address (and Name)
The Membership of rocaclergy: + Priest Jeremiah Loch frjeremiah@home.com
+ Archpriest Alexander Lebedeff lebedeff@westworld.com has volunteered to write the letter. ( see the text) + Archimandrite Damian frdamian@monastery.org + Hieromonk Gregory Otgri@aol.com Protodeacon Leonid Mickle makes an interesting response which has some good ideas, however it is troublesome in the regard that of late there has been increasing hints of the bending of public opinion to convoke and "All- Russian Church Council" In this letter is much of the same gentle leading: "As a curmudgeon of long standing, I feel the need to vent a little bit, and to repeat on this closed (??) list what I have been privately telling those who have lobbied me to sign the petition. I have never been reticent about expressing my opinion that talks with the MP are long overdue, and for several years now, have been labeled by some among the ROCOR clergy as pro-MP or worse. I believe more strongly than ever that it is time for face-to-face dialogue on the issues that preclude us from sharing the Blood of Christ from the same chalice, from being able with a clear conscience to say "Christ is in our midst" and "He is and ever shall be." Still, I cannot bring myself to sign the petition. When Fr. Seraphim first proposed that we agree to sign a letter asking our bishops to "...immediately vigorously pursue serious, intense, and brotherly dialogue with the MP with the aim of union of the ROCOR and MP...," the letter had not yet been composed. Yet, we were provided with a list of clergy divided into two groups: those who intended to support such a letter, and those who had not expressed their support. I am wary of signing petitions whose text I had not had the opportunity to read, and I am uncomfortable with the idea of drawing up lists of people who are "for" and "other." It is too easy to read "other" as "against." The post which included the actual text of the letter listed only those clergymen who have signed on. However, I am troubled by a phrase in the opening sentence of the appeal to the bishops: "...we, the clergy of the Russian Church Abroad who are your faithful subjects, address you..." I have some nit-picking or perhaps simply ignorant questions: Is that conventional usage in letters appealing to our bishops? If not, what does it say about those who do not sign? Are they the wicked servants, the faithless servants??? I do not like the implication that if I do not sign a petition, I am one with those who would prefer to rewrite the founding documents of ROCOR and turn our Church into an independent, isolationist sect, with those who have openly rebelled against the Sobor of Bishops of ROCOR and have formed or are forming other jurisdictions, or with those who "stood up for traditional Orthodoxy" right up to the minute they joined ecumenist, new-calendar bodies. We do need to let our bishops know that we support them, that we support the decisions of the Sobor, that we recognize that ROCOR has not strayed from its guiding principles, and that holding discussions with the MP on what continues to divide us would not betray those principles. It is my personal opinion that having each clergyman email or telephone his bishop to express his views would have a greater effect on them than would a letter which implicitly divides us into two opposing camps. If I am being petty, I ask your forgiveness, and welcome your criticism and correction. I am sensitive to the "them vs. us" characterization because for a number of years I have been labeled "pro MP." Had I not taken the opportunity to confront one of my accusers, to actually ask him what he meant by the term, I would never have learned that he and others within the deanery applied it to anyone who had a) spoken to an MP clergyman or b) supported the idea of discussions with the MP. If we were to affirm that ROCOR, or a select group of people within ROCOR, constituted the entirety of the Church, we would be on the road to becoming something akin to a Protestant sect; the Primitive Baptist model comes to mind. In ignoring the substantive, positive changes that have taken place within the MP we do damage to our credibility among the faithful. I believe that as members of ROCOR, as part of the Russian Orthodox Church, as members of a body whose founding documents affirm that we exist as an authority temporarily separated administratively from the other component parts of the Church, we must yearn to heal the rifts which separate those parts from one another. That cannot be realized if we ignore one another, if we snub positive gestures on the grounds that they may not be genuine. While I was heartened by a number of statements in the MP appeal to our bishops, I was not convinced that it was as loving and fraternal as some have made it out to be. The absence of any reference to ecumenism or to forcible seizure of church properties, and the twin assertions that a) all of the differences separating us have been resolved and b) that they are willing to set up a committee to study our differences, should give one pause, as should the timing of the appeal. Nonetheless, it is through talks that our substantial differences can be presented and actual commitments to specific needed changes can come. Once those commitments were publicized, the faithful would make it increasingly difficult for the MP leadership to go back on those commitments. So there we are: Sorry to disappoint those who want me to sign, and (well, not very ) sorry to disappoint those who take the absence of such a signature as I evidence that I am opposed to talks with the MP. In what category do I now fit? Oh yes, I forgot: curmudgeon. Deacon Leonid Mickle" abphilar@ozemail.com.au Father Seraphim Holland responds to the posting of this letter: Subject: Comments from the webmaster of monasterypress: Father Seraphim apparently didn't realize it, but "Priest Andrew" has been off the Rocaclergy list for 10 months ... it is interesting to note how Fr. Seraphim applies the list rules... When "Priest Andrew" made him aware one month ago concerning a priest on this mentioned list who was forwarding him pro-moscow sentiments posted by "good synodal clergy" nothing was done ( the guilty priest is still on the clergy list membership which can be seen above). Now when a GOOD synodal priest who is VERY concerned forwards this shameless appeal from the webmaster of the official synodal website immediate retribution strikes! He who has ears let him hear! For the record Fr. Seraphim Holland is correct in his analysis of Priest Andrew... but he is not a heretic. The acceptedletter, subsequently written by Fr Alexander Lebedeff, follows: We fully support all of the decisions and epistles of the Sobor of Bishops that took place last year, and we consider that they are in no way a change in the direction of the Russian Church Abroad, but rather a natural and organic continuation of decisions made at previous Sobors and the historical positions of our Church. We fervently pray that the Lord God at the coming Sobor of Bishops will continue to fill you, our Archpastors, with the spiritual wisdom to "rightly divide the word of truth," and to make correct decisions for the good estate of the Holy Church. With regards to the widely disseminated "Brotherly Epistle" of the Patriarch of Moscow and his Synod, we express our hope, that you, our Archpastors and Fathers, would not decline the good intentions and hopes that are found therein, but would find it possible to reply in a cordial Brotherly Epistle, and express the readiness of the Russian Church Abroad to engage in wide-ranging and open dialogue with the Moscow Patriarchate, with the goal of the resolution of those issues and the elimination of those barriers that impede the restoration of the unity of the Russian Church.
Asking your holy prayers and archpastoral blessing, |
|||