My own feeling regarding the ROCOR's current status is not "Now, it's canonical," but rather, "Now, our barriers for full fellowship have been removed."
Regarding canonicity as such, we're all uncanonical here in one way or another. Pretty much every single one of us represents a massive incursion into lands firmly outside the canonical boundaries of our respective churches. I very much hope that this gets sorted out soon.
I believe it was Elder Ephraim who, when asked if ROCOR was "uncanonical", replied "of course not!", but then quickly added, although *every* Orthodox Church has deviations from the canons.
I know *you* of all people, know better, Father- it wasn't mean for you! But I'm sure you've come across people in your travels who say as much.
The difficulty is that uncanonical has come to mean a variety of things ranging from "not Orthodox" to "Orthodox, but we're not in communion with them." On its face, though, it simply means "not according to the canons."
These definitional issues are part of the Church's emerging consciousness regarding how to have internal and external relations in a world of (relative) religious freedom and the pluriform mutations of Protestantism, many of which look rather like Catholics or Orthodox (complicated by experience showing us that such groups are sometimes essentially "pre-Orthodox").
Well, Misha, hate to disappoint you, but that was the main part of it! :P It's intended as a rant... just expressing my personal opinion, not intended as a manifesto, or anything.
i can't help but think that there are no (the holy prophet) nathans amongst the russian bishops to call on david for his sins. and that's the problem. and you could say this has been a fairly consistent problem throughout the history of the CHURCH whenever the caretakers feel they need a close relationship with the state. it's almost as if they fear incurring the wrath of the ruler than the wrath of GOD =D. the irony is that GOD demonstrates mercy as a ruler of all much better than the rulers on earth =D.
i'm glad america doesn't have that problem ... and like you said, because the united states is not orthodox =].
this is really interesting what you are writing by the way. i'm sure i'll have something to say after reading your complete train of thought ... even if it is just a rant.
I completely agree with you on the ethnicity issue: what kind of Christians are we if we forget the words "there is neither Greek nor Jew"? What kind of Christianity is that when the faith and the Church are just folcloric attributes of one's ehtnic identity? I really, really cannot stand this
( ... )
Comments 7
Regarding canonicity as such, we're all uncanonical here in one way or another. Pretty much every single one of us represents a massive incursion into lands firmly outside the canonical boundaries of our respective churches. I very much hope that this gets sorted out soon.
Reply
I know *you* of all people, know better, Father- it wasn't mean for you! But I'm sure you've come across people in your travels who say as much.
Reply
These definitional issues are part of the Church's emerging consciousness regarding how to have internal and external relations in a world of (relative) religious freedom and the pluriform mutations of Protestantism, many of which look rather like Catholics or Orthodox (complicated by experience showing us that such groups are sometimes essentially "pre-Orthodox").
Reply
Reply
Reply
i'm glad america doesn't have that problem ... and like you said, because the united states is not orthodox =].
this is really interesting what you are writing by the way. i'm sure i'll have something to say after reading your complete train of thought ... even if it is just a rant.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment