WARNING

NOT EVERYTHING THAT

CALLS ITSELF ORTHODOX IS

TRULY ORTHODOX


The above warning was given to me when I first met Orthodoxy in 1986. Today [2009] it is even more perilous, even more difficult to find the Royal Path. For one thing there is a far greater abundance of misinformation. And many materials are missing, and other materials are being rapidly rewritten. For another thing there are fewer than ever guides remaining on the Royal Path, especially who speak English. Hopefully this website will be a place where Newcomers to the Faith can keep at least one foot on solid ground, while they are "exploring."


blog owner: Joanna Higginbotham

joannahigginbotham@gmail.com

jurisdiction: ROCA under Vladyka Agafangel

who did not submit to the RocorMP union in 2007

DISCLAIMER



The Church seems divided? Yet, is it?


Q & A from The Shepherd Magazine

Question:
page 14 
 THE MORE I learn about the Orthodox Church, the more I 
seem to find it seems divided, yet is it?  The Greece Orthodox Church, 
The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, The Moscow Patri- 
archate, The Orthodox Church of Bulgaria, and the Western Rite, I 
expect there are more divisions. Are they just names for the Orthodox 
Church in different parts of the world?” - Rev’d M.C,  Devon. 

Answer:
OH YES, many more divisions!  I am reminded of an occasion 
way back when I lived in London. I used to go to a shop run by a Muslim 
couple, and one day the wife told me that Muslims were divided into two 
groups, Sunni and Shiite, and she added with evident pride: “Our part is 
divided into 72 different sects!” The thought went through my mind then 
that perhaps we Orthodox ought to adopt the same technique rather than 
always being so apologetic about our divisions. 

 But more seriously, the apparent divisions within Orthodoxy have 
various causes and consequently some are more serious than others.  First 
of all, after the schism of Rome from Orthodoxy, there were four Pa- 
triarchates left, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, and 
some smaller autocephalous Churches, Cyprus, Georgia, etc.  Then, with 
the spread of Orthodoxy into regions hitherto not evangelized, new ter- 
ritories were added. 

 For centuries now, in these new territories, the Orthodox Church 
has been administered very largely with separate, autocephalous, hierar- 
chies for each nation state.  Thus there was a Russian Church, a Greek 
Church, a Bulgarian Church, a Serbian Church, a Romanian Church, and 
so on.  This is in fact very similar to the situation within the Anglican 
Communion.  Naturally, over the centuries, with various political chang- 
es, the borders of these National (or, as they are properly called, Local) 
Churches varied and indeed for periods some of them disappear.  All 
these Churches shared the same Faith and, with the exception of some 
local and temporary difficulties, were in full communion with each other.  
Their divisions were purely administrative.

 With the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and the consequent en- 
slavement of the administration of the Church in what is by far the largest 
of the Orthodox Local Churches, a second and much more serious type 
of division occurred.  Metropolitan (later Patriarch) Sergius subjected 
the Church administration to the Soviet and atheistic rulers of the state, 
and thus compromised her integrity.  Within Russia, many clergy and 
lay people did not accept this compromise and went underground, form- 
ing a Catacomb Church.  Outside Russia, the clergy and laity divided. 
The Russian Church Abroad was formed which stood in resistance to 
the Sergianist compromise until it largely capitulated in 2007.  Sadly 
two other jurisdictions were also formed.  One in Western Europe placed 
itself under the Patriarchate of Constantinople; and in the United States 
the American Metropolia followed an independent course, for a time re- 
joining the Church Abroad, and then separating again, and in the 1970s 
receiving an irregular recognition from Moscow as the Orthodox Church  
in America.  The original divisions in this sad history, the separation of 
the Church Abroad administratively from Moscow and the separation 
of the Catacomb Church were soundly based acts of resistance to the 
enslavement of the Church to a theomachist state. 

 A third set of divisions has occurred over the past decades as 
a reaction to the espousal by the official Local Churches of the heresy 
of ecumenism, the adoption of the new calendar, and the concurrent 
abandonment of traditional Orthodox piety and the encroachment of 
modernism.   (In many of the Local Churches, in the first instance this 
move was in fact imposed upon them by their Soviet rulers, as it suited 
their purposes.)  So in Greece, Romania and Bulgaria in particular, old 
calendarist Synods have been established.  Sadly, particularly in Greece, 
this movement has fragmented into a number of Synods of varying au- 
thenticity, some holding extremist views and some striving to follow the 
consensus of the Fathers.  I suppose, from your point of view, that to an 
extent one may liken this last set of divisions to the break-away tradi- 
tionalist manifestation in the Roman Catholic confession. 
  
 The Western Rite as such is not a “division,” because it is prac- 
tised only in the Antiochian Church and the Russian Orthodox Church 
Abroad-Moscow Patriarchate (ROCA-MP), and is fully and wholly 
within their jurisdictions.  However, it seems to me that though the idea 
of it might have stemmed from good intentions it is a flawed concept, 
but that is a much wider question, although I think I do not stray far from 
a fair assessment of the facts if I say that the history of this experiment 
within Orthodoxy bears out my opinion. 

I think that it is fair to say that there has hardly 
been a time in history when the Orthodox Church
has been in a worse state than it is now. 


 I think that it is fair to say that there has hardly been a time in 
history when the Orthodox Church has been is a worse state than it is 
now.  Perhaps at other times it has been weaker, but always there seem to 
have been spiritual giants who remained faithful. Quite obviously there 
are such today, or the promise of our Saviour would have proved false, 
which is unthinkable, but it is perhaps for history to judge, and not for us 
to boast who they are in any other way than by adhering to them and to 
their confession.  However, I believe, that we can unnecessarily depress 
ourselves by regarding the Church only in administrative terms and thus 
concentrating on all these divisions and contentions. This can lead to 
distraction, both internally and externally. Our part is rather to remain 
faithful, and to have a regard for the inner integrity and faithfulness of the 
Church. 

 I remember one of our parishioners asking St Philaret the New 
Confessor, when he visited England in, I believe, the late seventies, how 
in this day and age one can remain faithful to Orthodoxy.  He replied that 
we should be like a little child fearful of losing its mother in a crowd and 
holding tightly to her skirt.  That is why we placed ourselves under the 
omophorion of Metropolitan Cyprian. 



*This answer is given by Archimandrite [Abbot] Alexis whose
monastery is in the Synod In Resistence [SIR] which is a 
"sister church" in communion with our ROCA under
Metropolitan Agafangel. 

No comments: