Dr. E.L. Magerovsky Untangles Super-Correct Thinking

Thursday, December 18th, 2008
1:51 pm
№157: A long but interesting discussion of the various questions, evidently troubling some...
RESPONSE TO BLOG:

UNKNOWN WRITER ASKS ACCUSATORY QUESTIONS:

Dr. Magerovsky,

There is one issue that continues to trouble me. We both agree that Vladika Laurus took part of ROCOR into schism. Now, before Vladika Laurus, the Synod of Bishops had Metropolitan Vitaly as the helm of the ROCOR. Did Metropolitan Vitaly preside over any false councils? If the answer is no, then what about the Council of 1990, which specifically said that the two bishops that Vladika Agafangel accepted through chirotesia, can only be accepted through ordination (thus, NOT finding their ordinations actual)? How can this contradiction happen?

We know that canons can use ikonomia in some instances, where love is infused into the words of the Church’s laws to assuage and withhold the fullness of the law, for Truth’s sake. Now, if you can, please answer me this. Can a handful of bishops change any decisions of a Council of bishops, if we agree that the Council was not a false one? If the answer is yes, then please show me, where in Church history this has taken place. 

Lastly, the God’s Church on earth is made up of bishops, clergy and the laypeople. Sobornost is when there is a unity in Truth between all three components. The bishops, are the head. I don’t disagree with this. But, the head needs the body to move and for anything to happen. Likewise, the bishops cannot forget that they have a flock that they must guide and always shepherd towards salvation. Also, the flock needs to have trust in the shepherd. IF there is no trust, then no matter how well intentioned a shepherd is, he will not succeed without this trust. 
 


Now, I have said all this about trust in the shepherd because of what Vladika Agafangel has been doing and saying and allowing to be said. In May of 2007. he was the only bishop in ROCOR who did not join with the MP. I would say his trust factor went up in the eyes of those who didn’t wish to follow Vladika Lavr into the ready hands of Putin, Alexei 2 and the FSB.

Later on, Vladika Agafangel says that his goal is not to search for union between the various splinters of ROCOR (like the Tihonovtsi and Vitalievtsi). Then, he says nothing when challenged about Father Viktor Dobrov saying that "We will not look at the past resolutions of ROCOR as some kind of "sacred cows". If we have to change, rewrite or entirely omit some issue from past resolutions of ROCOR, we will do so." (Remember, a secretary of a Okrug doesn’t have a personal opinion...when he writes on the internet, everyone knows who he is and his word is weighed more than that of others). Thus, one can only interpret that Vladika Agafangel agrees with these sentiments! (please show me otherwise)
 
All these contradictions lead one to suppose many things. I earlier spoke of trust for the shepherd from his flock. How, pray tell, after watching a bishop in the face of Laurus, lead many of the flock astray (and we knew him and trusted him), how are we supposed to follow a bishop, that we in the abroad parishes barely know, who constantly contradicts himself?



DR. E L MAGEROVSKY'S REPLY:
elmager 2008-12-16 01:46 pm (local) (от 68.197.15.140) (ссылка)



I have the following to say to your very reasoned question. First of all, the Church is a living human organism, created and administered by people, not "saints", who are known to make mistakes. Therefore nothing ever is firmly stated as the absolute truth. We always have to qualify our actions as something "that appears to us as the truth, but we don't know for sure", otherwise we are simply not honest with ourselves. For some, that is taken for granted, for others--happily ignored. And those who insist that some Church actions are correct--come hell or high water--as stated by the enactors, are paying attention only to one half of the human dilemma.

The Church Fathers have met this problem head-on and provided for the ability to correct an error in their various organizational schemes. I think you see where I am driving. Whether it is the Sobor or the PSECA, there are provisions to be able to alter or modify or even abruptly change and abolish enactments of the previous like Councils or Authorities. That is a "sine quam non".
 


Specifically to your point, the 1990 Finding of the Council of Bishops or ROCOR, acting on what we know now as insufficient or even erroneous data, supplied by Bp.Lazar, an interested party to the dispute, stated that "correctness of the consecration or ordination of bishops in question needs to be established before any further decision on them is made". This was later misinterpreted by the Lazar group as an announcement of the impossibility to enter into communion with them. This is what is known to me of the affair.

So to your question, "can properly consecrated canonic bishops change rules or positions made earlier by other like bishops?" The answer unequivocally is yes, they can, provided they occupy the same or like position in the administration of the Church. And in this case, they certainly did.
 


As to your question about "false councils presided over by Vlad. Vitaly," I find it--forgive me--a little bit childish. Don't you remember his age in 1990 or later? By all reports even then, he had some periods of lucidity, while others were totally erased from his memory. He also constantly was under great strain and incessant pressure of the pro-MP clique in the very Synod he was presiding over. Can you reasonably expect him constantly to remain perfectly lucid even then, at all times?
 


You raised also a very good point concerning trust. Trust is the mortar that holds the entire Church edifice together. It actually should have been raised by you first. Because without trust you cannot have a "church", you can have a motley of like-minded individuals but not a Church. Therefore, when such doubts as you have expressed even arise, it is an indication that something is not right in this edifice. For they indicate an inherent distrust of those authorities who have to be trusted "ab initio", before you even start the worship. And that is what I find sorely lacking.
 


I am sorry I have to end approximately half-way through your very good and reasoned series of excellent questions. I wish there was someone to whom I could direct you for the rest of the replies. I'm not a clergyman, just a 74 year person who has seen his share of human misery. Look into this position on my site, perhaps I'll be able to return and finish what I've started.
_________________________________________________________(Continuation)

Tell me, why are you so concerned about the acceptance of these two bishops? What, besides putting a square peg into a square hole and a round one into a round one, concerns you so? They will continue to serve their distant parishes and have little or no connections with any of us. Or is it you, who are apparently uncomfortable if something is not demonstrated to you as absolutely correct?

Let us assume for a moment that our bishops committed an error with those two. How does it affect our worship? Have they lost something? They have only committed a very human mistake, such as they will probably commit many times over again--because it's very human to commit errors. Judging by what I know, they haven't, but what was the crime if they did, not maliciously, but unknowingly? Because of this, suddenly our merciful God becomes a punishing Jehova? No, the problem is definitely not with the bishops, but with their detractors who see only punishments for their mistakes and not merciful acceptance of their mistakes by their would-be fellow beings. I find this attitude as all wrong. Luckily, it concerned only 3 people out of 46. Our Church law is mitigated by Church mercy because we all are human. And those who do not believe so, do not belong in our Church. They are there by mistake.

Generally speaking, you’ll agree that events that befell the Russian Church in years 1917 to the present, cannot be said as being "normal". Therefore, some allowances have to be made, and you have to account for the real conditions that existed then. In the abnormal conditions that it has operated from, say, 1918 on, there could be no regular issuance of various letters of credence customarily given to its clergy members. The "catacomb" conditions and the real risk of death prevented that. There are countless writers attesting to that, both in Russian and English. So to demand strict observance of various rules extant in "normal" times is both unwise and unreal. Therein lies, I think, the crux of the matter. For some reason, the "alleged opponents" of the bishops in question, as well as the 1990 Synod of ROCOR, have very conveniently forgotten about that.

As far as chirotonia and chirotesia are concerned, what I have been taught in school is that chirotonia is the full rite of consecration (in case of a bishop, performed by two or more bishops), and chirotesia is the rite performed when it is impossible to determine whether the previous chirotonia (which apparently is obligatory) was properly done. Therefore, obviously, since they performed a chirotesia, they apparently had indications that some form of chirotonia was performed. But, ironically, all that is the province of bishops who are solely responsible for all consecrations AND DEFINITELY NOT THE LOWLY CLERGY OR LAYMEN. They play in it no role and, if they interfere with such matters, are interfering not lawfully and not in their own business. THAT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER.

As to your question of where actually reversals of church policy have taken place I, not being a historian of the church, cannot state, but what I can do is to surmise that if no prohibitions of such practices are clearly stated in church documents, they are, in fact, accepted. Also, since provisions in the statutes of various church bodies are frequently made for change and/or abolition of many outdated practices, such—apparently—is the customary behavior of the Church.

I do not quite understand your not understanding of two quite separate but very logical positions of Vlad. Agafangel. The first one was that we cannot possibly seek direct and immediate union between us and the various uncanonical "splinter groups" that emerged from ROCOR’s betrayal of its traditions and its eventual merger with the MP. Because virtually all of these groups appeared as raskoly or canonically illegal splintering-off of regular church entities. There are ways, some of them—quite involved, in which this can be done, but they are apparently not much to the liking of many of these groups.

The second was a general statement that we will not make "sacred cows" (a Hindu expression) out of outdated or erroneous positions of our predecessor, the former Synod of ROCOR. One position does not have any connection with the other, and is based on my previous extensive discussion. There is beautiful proverb in Russian: "the berries grow in my garden, and I’ve got an uncle living in Kiev". In other words, one has nothing to do with the other and there’s simply no connection between the two.

I also surmise that Fr. Victor’s positions are in agreement with Vlad. Agathangel’s, and if they are not, the latter will so signify. I, frankly, find no contradiction between them. And also, by becoming the diocesan Secretary, Fr. Victor did not renounce any of his personal rights or positions. As presumably an American, you should know that whatever is written under his signature and without the heading or logo of the Diocese is his personal opinion and is solely his, and what’s on its letterhead or bears its logo—is his position as the Secretary. I trust that is also self-evident. Well, I think I’ve tried to answer most of your questions.