Why is the relationship between Rome and the Russian Orthodox particularly strained?

[Rawb]

Dear Rawb,

It’s not the same, because the Arians were clearly heretical. But there is no consensus in the Eastern Orthodox Church that the Catholic Church is heretical (though those who believe we are are certainly more vociferous).

Blessings,
Marduk

At the very least y’all are heterodox, and to many Orthodox the difference between ‘heterdox’ and ‘heretic’ is negligible. At any rate, however, we’re specifically talking about the Russian Church who are, as I’ve said, the most conservative, so most likely their bishops do find RCism to be outright heretical.

 

[ringil]

With all due respect, this, to the Russian Orthodox (recalling that they are generally probably our most conservative brothers, but recalling also that the gap between our ‘conservatives’ and our ‘general Orthodox believer’ isn’t that large) isn’t any of their concern. It would be similar to asking in the Early Church “But since Arians live in your jurisdiction they need to be served by the church. How can this happen with the ideas you express?”

Why don’t the Russian Orthodox have the spirit of dialogue and openess practiced by the Holy Father and the Council for Interreligious Dialogue?

In layman’s terms they sound “pissy and arrogant.” I’m not saying you seem that way but that the Orthodox put out that vibe.

Barthalomew doesn’t seem like this at all. He seems like a very holy and kind man- like the Pope.

Sometimes it looks as if Rome is trying hard to find common ground and be charitable and the Russian Orthodox come across as not interested.

 

[dzheremi]

Heresy, heterodoxy, or otherwise notwithstanding, I think the point is that neither the ROC or any Orthodox church is required to support or approve of the building of a place of worship for any other sect or religion outside of it. When Muslims in Axum tried to build a mosque around St. Mary’s Church, the local Orthodox tore it down…

 

[Rawb]

Why don’t the Russian Orthodox have the spirit of dialogue and openess practiced by the Holy Father and the Council for Interreligious Dialogue?

I don’t know, you’d have to ask them. In general however most Orthodox aren’t really interested in reunion with the Roman Catholics until the Roman Catholics get their own house in order.

In layman’s terms they sound “pissy and arrogant.” I’m not saying you seem that way but that the Orthodox put out that vibe.

You have to understand the Orthodox, myself included, truly believe we have the full and true Faith. We will not abandon it or compromise it. I realize that comes across as ‘pissy and arrogant’ to some. To others it comes across as strong and confident. Matter of perspective.

Patriarch Bartholomew doesn’t seem like this at all. He seems like a very holy and kind man- like the Pope.

The Russians our most conservative, the Greeks our most liberal. His All-Holiness gets in trouble because of that ‘spirit of dialogue’ however. It seems like this must be put down to valuing different things within our churches.

Sometimes it looks as if Rome is trying hard to find common ground and be charitable and the Russian Orthodox come across as not interested.

As I’ve said, it probably seems that way because, in general, they aren’t.

 

[KyivAndrew]

Ukrainian Catholics only resided in one province of Ukraine, namely Galicia, with parishes here and there elsewhere. Russian Tsarism also did its share of EC suppression. Also, we should not forget Roman Catholic suppression of Eastern Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy under Poland - that is another story.

Haven’t posted for awhile here on CAF but I don’t think you can ghettoize Ukrainian Catholic history to “one province in Ukraine” - Galicia - as you do in your otherwise very comprehensive post Alex. There were many hundreds (as I can recall from history) Ukrainian Catholic parishes in right-bank Ukraine in the eighteenth century, which became Russian Orthodox after Tsarist Russia annexed Right-Bank and central Ukraine. Some were “converted” to Russian Orthodoxy from Ukrainian Catholicism by force. These areas of central Ukraine had never been under Russian rule until then. Indeed, originally there were more Greek Catholics in central Ukraine than in Galicia. I know the situation before Brest, but there were Greek Catholics throughout Ukraine in history - how they appeared and vanished is too long a story for one post, but it wasn’t just Galicia.

I also consider “Zakarpattia” (another province in today’s Ukraine formerly under Hungary also called Transcarpathia) to be Ukrainian and this area of Ukraine was clearly Greek-Catholic.

Then there is the province of Bukovina (under Romania between the wars) which had its fair share of Ukrainian Catholic families and parishes, especially when intermarriages and movement were quite common under Austria-Hungary.

Then of course there is the matter of tens of thousands of Ukrainian Catholics being deported from western Ukraine by Stalin and sent to areas in Eastern Ukraine or Kazakhstan. Their grandkids have tremendous difficulty in setting up any Ukrainian Catholic parishes in areas of Ukraine under Russian Orthodox hegemony, never mind the dire situation in Russia per se. The Russian Orthodox Metropolitan of Odesa is a vicious anti-Ukrainian and Russian imperialist who is a member of Odesa province’s government and he won’t let 50,000 Ukrainian Catholics even build one church in the province, while many Protestant and other sects are allowed to build mega-churches there because American Mormon money for instance is gladly accepted by the pro-Russian Orthodox politicians in Odesa. Go figure.

The following question is valid: how much is today’s Russian Orthodox Church run on the basis of a religious mission and how much of it is political (i…e. propagating Putin’s Russian neo-imperialism in Ukraine by proclaiming allegiance to the Ruskyj Mir or Russian world.) The speeches of Moscow’s Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kirill in Ukraine sound akin to those of Russian Duma speaker Zatulin, or former Moscow mayor Luzhkov - i.e. a thoroughly political message. If it was clearly religious, then the Ukrainian Orthodox in Ukraine (the second largest population of Orthodox in the world) would have their own Autocephalous Orthodox Church and would not be taking direct orders from Moscow. But the Ukrainian Orthodox Church is not allowed to have its own church independent of Moscow - this clearly isn’t religion, it is politics and imperial politics at that of the highest degree.

And I don’t like it when heavyweights in the Russian Orthodox Church like today’s Metropolitan Hilarion justify Stalin’s vicious and forcible liquidation of the Ukrainian Catholic Church in 1946. In my opinion, today’s Russian Orthodox Church in Russia has never made a clean break with the Kremlin, the Soviet or the current Putinist one. The current Patriarch of Moscow got along great with the Bolsheviks in the 1970s for real, and he gets along great with the FSB men in today’s Kremlin. It’s still the same cast. Why did Father Gleb Yakunin (who suffered under the Soviets in the Gulag for his Russian Orthodox beliefs) still get excommunicated from his Russian Orthodox Church after the collapse of the Soviet Union after mentioning the KGB past of some of the current hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church and the need for Christian repentance? Has the Russian Orthodox Patriarch of Moscow ever said anything to Putin demanding that the executioner of the old Russian Orthodox Church - Vladimir Illyich Lenin - be taken down from his sanctified mausoleum in the middle of Moscow ? No today’s Russian Orthodox Patriarch says nothing to Putin when the latter says Lenin deserves pride of place in the center of Moscow and he will not be taken down. Lenin gets more visitors than any saint of the Russian Orthodox Church I think.

Cardinal Myroslav Lubachivsky of the Ukrainian Catholic Church long ago in the 1980s wrote a letter of forgiveness to the entire Russian church and nation when Ukrainian Catholics were still living a life in the catacombs in the Soviet Union while the Russian Orthodox had state sanction. The Russian Orthodox never responded to this hand put out in Christian charity, neither under the Soviet Union nor now; instead its hierarchy to this day proclaims Ukrainian Catholics to be part of its patrimony, without any religious foundation - this is politics, and Caesar calling the shots for a Church.

It should change. Sadly, it probably won’t for a long time. The Ukrainian Catholic Church deserves better, and so do the people of Russia for that matter, namely a Church fully serving Christ and not Caesar.

Anyway my two cents. Tomorrow is supposed the be the hottest day on record up here so I hope I have not raised the temperature. Just my thoughts.

 

[dvdjs]

Not quite right on a few points.

Perhaps, but your response hardly helps to straighten things out.

Orthodox Bishops do not establish parishes in other bishop’s diocese, even within the same synod. For a Greek Bishop to establish a parish in a Russian Bishop’s diocese is not correct.

It is indeed non-canonical. It is however rather normal outside of Orthodox countries. It has led to schism but realtively rarely.

From that perspective the Latins have absolutely no right to invade the Russian Bishops’ diocese. The Russian Catholics are an entirely different story - the Orthodox have entirely different issues with them.

This is a very queer statement. First, what is this invasion your are talking about? Major populations of RCs in Russia are there because the Russia forced them there - like the ethnic Poles in Magadan and points west. If the the ROCs mood has changed since the days of the gulag when Catholic and Orthodox intercommunion was sanctioned, and now they want nothing to do with Catholics, so be it. But to think in terms of an invasion is - well that is just the usual kool-aid history that we get served from those parts. And any hint of justification of efforts to interfere with the exercise of religious freedom of these people, Catholic for generations, is contemptible.

I can assure you it’s not to “some extent”. We are one Church. To insinuate otherwise is rude, unless you honestly didn’t know that.

What does it mean to be one church? When the possibility of reunion of Catholic and Orthodox churches is discussed, some take “reunion”, simply to mean restoration of communion, others assume that a “reunion” would entail an integration of administrative structure. The Orthodox have the former, but not the latter.

In America your parish will probably have “Serbian” “Bulgarian” “Russian” “Greek” “Jerusalem” or what have you on the sign, but that refers to who their bishop is …

Yes - and thus designates a particular church.

There is no territorial (jurisdictional is a more correct term) exclusivity in America, unless one argues that the OCA (Orthodox Church in America) should have sole control of all parishes as some do. I’ll explain Russia’s ‘ownership’ in the next quote.

The proliferation of multiple particular churches in the US is non-canonical and a source of abuse. The history that you give about Orthodoxy in America is tidy, but not correct.

Whether Roman Catholics can claim jurisdiction here in America is irrelevant to us because you’re not Orthodox, so your missionary activity here has no effect on ours.

Rome is invading a territory it has no right to by any argument, historical or theological … More than all this though, Orthodox Bishops in Russia… are protecting their sheep from a heterodox religion by any means possible.
Well there is the goose and gander thing. If we were one Orhtodox/Catholic church there would be sense to the Orthodox position in Russia, but not the US. As separated brethren, the situation in the US makes sense, but not that in Russia.

Again the invasion rhetoric is offensive, kool-aid history. One should also be cautious about the “any means possible rhetoric” . One could judge from history that some EOs feel this way, as that felling has played a role in gross violations of human rights, not only of Catholics, but also, for example, of Jews. For the most part, however decent EOs do not disguise pogroms as protecting sheep, but express regret about them.

 

[Cavaradossi]

It is indeed non-canonical. It is however rather normal outside of Orthodox countries. It has led to schism but realtively rarely.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Something also should be said about the issue of “sheep stealing”. Russia is a pretty unchurched place. Some estimates are that no more than 15% of the populace goes to any church. (experts can compare their figures). There are a few Catholic priests in Russia, and the Russian government (and ROC) sort of tolerate their presence precisely because their primary function is to minister to the Catholics who were whisked away from their countries (e.g., Poles, Lithuanians, Western Ukrainians) by the Soviet government and sent as prisoners and exiles to remote locations, primarily in Siberia.

But neither will tolerate the installation of a Catholic bishop, or so it was the last I knew, for the “territorial” reasons previously mentioned.

The ROC argues that the Catholic Church’s priests are engaged in “sheep stealing”; that is, attempts to convert Orthodox people to Catholicism, not just ministering to the Poles, Lithuanians, etc. There might be some truth to that at the margins, but it’s probably more theoretical than real, because the ROC considers unchurched Russians as their own “sheep” as well as committed Orthodox, whereas the Catholic Church’s position is that people who go to no church at all are suitable persons to try to bring into any church’s fold.

A possibly interesting but doubtfully topical side note: Generally, the Orthodox consider protestantism as a sort of aberrant subdivision of the Latin Church. But since many in Orthodoxy consider Catholicism heretical and/or aberrant anyway, the status of protestantism and ecumenical dialogues with protestant churches is of little concern to them. To a great degree, conservative Orthodox think of Catholicism as about the same thing as Protestantism. Interestingly, the Catholic Church accepts the validity of Orthodox ordinations and sacraments and would prefer reunion, whereas the Orthodox do not consider Catholic clergy or sacraments valid and generally have no interest in reunion.

 

[dvdjs]

Surely you’re not arguing that reunion should entail the second option. That’s not reunion, that’s absorption.

I am not and never have. It is unrealistic to think of administrative unity between Catholic and Orthodox communions since the Orthodox communion does not have that unity even to the point of multiple jurisdictions in the same territory.

I can agree with that, in some ways. It is a double standard to say that the ROC has the exclusive claim to Russia but that it’s ok for the ROC to be in competition with the RCC in the US.

Thanks.

Any mass-killing in order to “protect the flock” is deplorable. Most churches (the RCC included) have perpetrated them at some time in the past. That being said, I don’t think that most modern Orthodox or Catholics would argue that the killing of heretics is the correct way to handle such a situation, so why make a point of contention about it?

I am not sure that we need to discuss killing, mass or otherwise. Rawb seem to be suggesting that subversion of freedom of religion by cooperation with the government would be not also be deplorable. I think it is. And this is not a matter of distant or recent past for the Orthodox. It is the present.

 

[MrPip]

Is it possible to discuss ANY history from a neutral point of view? I’m asking, not telling.

Perhaps you mean “dispassionate” - my statement about the “servants of satan” might have been open to a less than dispassionate interpretation . . . yes, I see how that could be . . .

Alex

Okay…“dispassionate” works. Or “balanced”. But no one yet has referenced any soucrces that discuss this. Any one??? Sources??? Please???



Jeff

 

[johnnykins]

Hello Everyone,

This is my first post on this sub-forum but I know you guys would know the answer or would be able to tell me if I am mistaken, which is entirely possible.

I have noticed that among the Orthodox Churches the relationship with the Russian Church seems the most challenging. Why is that?

Just in case anyone is wondering I am just posting because of my ignorance and not to be controversial. I know that some folks do post threads like that but that’s definitely not my aim here.

Thanks and God Bless!

Well, I think you got lots of good answers that can sum up your answer in one word: “History”

Whether we like it or not human history, including the overlay of religious belief, is not a story that is uplifting, though I do believe it is informative and instructive. The Fall happened and we are all prey to it.

Whether you look at Irish/English, German/French, Russian/Polish, Spanish/Portuguese, Chinese/Japanese, Catholic/Protestant, Christian/Jewish, Orthodox/Islam, European/Native American and any number of other problematical historical relationships - we’ve all been bloody bastards. Unfortunately, we all tend to hold ourselves as victims or otherwise justify our ancestors actions. IMHO, better to just try to learn from the past, let the slights go and try not to repeat them. Yeah, I know - GOOD LUCK WITH THAT!

 

[Celticnovice]

Something also should be said about the issue of “sheep stealing”. Russia is a pretty unchurched place. Some estimates are that no more than 15% of the populace goes to any church. (experts can compare their figures). There are a few Catholic priests in Russia, and the Russian government (and ROC) sort of tolerate their presence precisely because their primary function is to minister to the Catholics who were whisked away from their countries (e.g., Poles, Lithuanians, Western Ukrainians) by the Soviet government and sent as prisoners and exiles to remote locations, primarily in Siberia.

But neither will tolerate the installation of a Catholic bishop, or so it was the last I knew, for the “territorial” reasons previously mentioned.

The ROC argues that the Catholic Church’s priests are engaged in “sheep stealing”; that is, attempts to convert Orthodox people to Catholicism, not just ministering to the Poles, Lithuanians, etc. There might be some truth to that at the margins, but it’s probably more theoretical than real, because the ROC considers unchurched Russians as their own “sheep” as well as committed Orthodox, whereas the Catholic Church’s position is that people who go to no church at all are suitable persons to try to bring into any church’s fold.

A possibly interesting but doubtfully topical side note: Generally, the Orthodox consider protestantism as a sort of aberrant subdivision of the Latin Church. But since many in Orthodoxy consider Catholicism heretical and/or aberrant anyway, the status of protestantism and ecumenical dialogues with protestant churches is of little concern to them. To a great degree, conservative Orthodox think of Catholicism as about the same thing as Protestantism. Interestingly, the Catholic Church accepts the validity of Orthodox ordinations and sacraments and would prefer reunion, whereas the Orthodox do not consider Catholic clergy or sacraments valid and generally have no interest in reunion.

I have read about the communities of Poles and Lithuanians, but is there any truth to the situations of groups of Russian Old Believers forming their own communities of Orthodox in Communion with Rome?

 

[Celticnovice]

rumkatkilise.org/necplus.htm

 

[Volodymyr]

But is there any truth to the situations of groups of Russian Old Believers forming their own communities of Orthodox in Communion with Rome?

Of course there may be Old Believers who seek community with Roman Church. However, Old Believers are of various different types, predominant difference, those with priests and those priestless. Those with priests are predominantly membes of the Russian Old-ritual Church or the Russian Ancient-Orthodox church. Picture below is of Mitropolit Korniliy of Moskow and All Rus of Old ritual church durign procession. There are also some communities which are united to Russian Orthodox church, which after 1920s lifted the prohibition of Old Ritual liturgy. These are in many large Russian cities and called Yedinovyerniyi churches (one faith churches). But have not heard of union with Roman Catholic church.

http://rpsc.ru/files/img/4dd2674167afa.jpg

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Russian Byzantine Catholics of the “Nikonian” and of the Old Rite are recognized by Rome, to be sure.

It was the Servant of God and Hieromartyr, Fr. Potapy Emilianov, an Old Believer priest, who established a community of Catholic Russian Old Believers under the omophorion of the Ven. Metropolitan of Galicia, Andrew Sheptytsky (to whom Pope St Pius X gave jurisdiction over all Eastern Catholics throughout Russia). Bl. New Hieromartyr Leonid Fyodorov, a Russian Byzantine Catholic priest, served in both Russian Rites, and even sent a letter from his Russian Catholic Old Believer parish to the Tsar to assure him of his prayers for his son. The Tsar wrote back to him to thank him.

Fr. Potapy was tortured for his faith and died a New Martyr. He was and is venerated as a saint by Russian Catholics who promote his canonization:

en.catholicmartyrs.org/index.php?mod=pages&page=emelianovbooklet

Alex

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

The relationship is truly more strained between Moscow and Rome than, let’s say, Constantinople and Rome, Bucharest and Rome, or Athens and Rome. The Patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope met each other many times since the mutual anathemas were lifted by EP of Constantinople Athenagoras and Pope Paul VI. Also, Pope John Paul II visited Romania and met Romanian Patriarch Teoctist in 1999 (there might have been visits by the Romanian Patriarch to Rome as well). And Pope John Paul II visited Athens and met the leader of the Church of Greece. But no Russian EO Patriarch would visit Rome, and the Pope is not welcome in Moscow. Pope John Paul II never realized his fervent dream and desire of visiting Moscow and Russia, because Moscow made it clear that he wasn’t welcome to visit.

I will add a few observations of my own, partly derived from my involvement with Russian Orthodox faithful and clergy (clergy of ROCOR - Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia), partly from surfing the internet, especially Russian EO websites affiliated with ROCOR, and Interfax Religion (Interfax is a Russian news service) and occasionally Ukrainian news sites.

One of my first experiences was that the Calendar is huge for Russian EO folks. Yes they consider us Catholics as heretics on account of us using the New Calendar (Gregorian Calendar instituted by Pope Gregory in the 16th century), but they also consider the EP of Constantinople, the Greek EOC, Romanian EOC, and so on, as heretics for the same reason. When Rome invented the New Calendar (Gregorian Calendar), the various EO Churches held many pan-Orthodox conferences and local conferences and issued a string of condemnations and anathemas against the New Calendar, starting with the late 16th century and up until the early 20th century. Then, around 1922, the EP of Constantinople transitioned from the Old Calendar (Julian Calendar) to the New Calendar (Gregorian Calendar), and his move was followed by some but not all EO Churches. Well, the Russians not only didn’t transition to the New Calendar, but regard the EP and others as heretics since they reversed a position they held since the late 16th century, namely a position of condemnation of the New Calendar. The ROCOR priest whose church I visited many times, told his parishioners to stay away from New Calendar churches such as the Greek and Antiochian EOC, whenever possible. So, my point is, the Russians are not exactly in love with us Catholics, but they also condemn, quite harshly, the New Calendar EO Churches.

The adoption of the New Calendar by the EP was seen, rightly so, as a concession to the spirit of ecumenism and reconciliation with Rome, and ecumenism is another heresy and big NO-NO as far as the Russians are concerned.

If the adoption of the New Calendar was bad, the mutual lifting of the 1000-year old anathemas in 1965, by EP Athenagoras I and Pope Paul VI, was seen as more than bad, it was seen as an even worse heresy. Metropolitan Philaret of ROCOR wrote a series of Sorrowful Epistles (open letters) addressed to the EP, protesting the lifting of the anathemas. Also, the Holy Synod of ROCOR anathematized specifically the ecumenical movement later on during the 1970s-1980s. See:

orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/philaret_lifting.aspx

romanitas.ru/eng/The%20Anathema-Lifter%20Fr.%20John%20Shaw.htm

As an aside, I recently stumbled upon a biography of the late Metropolitan Philaret of New York of ROCOR, describing his great courage in the face of Soviet and Chinese Communist persecution, and his miraculous escape to freedom in America. I was totally taken aback - the man was a very courageous, and very holy person. He is now regarded as Saint Philaret and Confessor by the Russians, and I would like to venerate him as such, even though I obviously think that he was in error when he rejected the authority of the Pope.

I hope I demonstrated, somewhat, the Russian standpoint as I observed it up close and personal among my Russian acquaintances. And I haven’t even mentioned yet that they also condemn the use of musical instruments (as opposed to human voice only) during Divine Liturgy, and the presence of pews in such churches as the Greek and Antiochian. So, do they condemn us Catholics? Yes, on account of many things, especially the New Calendar, but also the musical instruments, pews, leavened bread, no beard on clergy, and so on. But my point is, they condemn just as much (or almost as much) the Greek, Antiochian, Romanian New Calendar EO Churches, and the ROCOR priests advise the faithful not to attend those churches except for reasons of economy when the Russian Church is not available, and also the ROCOR priests advise the Russian faithful not to present themselves for Holy Communion in the New Calendar EO Churches (except, again, in cases where an Old Calendar church and priest is not available to administer the Sacraments).

This great emphasis on details might have something to do with the Russian psyche. Let’s not forget, there were thousands and thousands of Russian Old Believer martyrs, who chose imprisonment, torture, and death, over issues that seem even more minor than the Calendar, or the presence of pews and musical instruments in churches. Essentially, when the leaders of the Russian EOC and the state imposed some minor modifications (minor to us, outsiders, but not to them!!!) to the way of making the sign of the cross, and to liturgical prayers, that lead to a significant schism within the Russian EOC, where the state imprisoned, tortured, and executed many Russian “Old Believers”, who refused, for example, to make the sign of the cross using three fingers joined instead of the traditional way of two extended fingers only. It may seem minor to us, but people went to prison and died over this issue.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Friend,

The issues are really more to do with politics than religion or culture (including the Old Calendar). But you have researched these matters well.

And St Philaret of New York City was born Orthodox so he did not “reject” papal authority as someone who had earlier maintained it.

There is no reason why he could not be venerated as a saint by all, even though he has only been canonized by one local Russian group and is not recognized as a saint among the ROC in general.

Alex

 

[Volodymyr]

So, do they condemn us Catholics? Yes, on account of many things, especially the New Calendar, but also the musical instruments, pews, leavened bread, no beard on clergy, and so on. But my point is, they condemn just as much Greek, Antiochian, Romanian New Calendar EO Churches ).

.

There are many difficulties and bannings with Orthodox on this site right now, so I am almost fearful to try to defend Orthodox. But I will try and hope not to offend Catholics. Russian Orthodox and Ukrainian Orthodox and Belorusan Orthodox in these countries do not condemn Catholics. Our churches do not have benches, organs and follow Julian calendar. Some Greko Catholic churches, which are Catholic, would surprise you - they have no benches, no organs and follow Julian calendar.

But also it is not just some Russian Psyche that liturgy and changes in it are important. I have read many times on this sait that are traditionally Catholic persons who want Latin language Holy Mass only, who want singing during Holy Mass to be Gregorian chant, who want only to receive Holy Mysteries while kneeling in front of priest. These differences to non Catholic may seem like small liturgical variations. But I can think that there are many who consider these things important. Just so, how to make the Crossing, how the Holy Name of Jesus is spelled are important things to Old Believers. Music only with human voices and standing only in the presence of God are important for Orthodox.

But because of them we do condemn Catholics.

 

[Rawb]

I will add a few observations of my own, partly derived from my involvement with Russian Orthodox faithful and clergy (clergy of ROCOR - Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia), partly from surfing the internet, especially Russian EO websites affiliated with ROCOR, and Interfax Religion (Interfax is a Russian news service) and occasionally Ukrainian news sites.

When was your involvement with the Russian Orthodox? ROCOR is in complete communion now with the rest of the Orthodox, and the sites you link to (though occasionally helpful) are Old Calendarist sites. That’d be like linking to an SSPX site and saying it represents all of the Traditionalists. If your experience with ROCOR was a bit ago you should update your information - you’re giving dated experiences that no longer accurately represent the situation of things. As I said, however, this is understandable because the issues with ROCOR weren’t settled that long ago.

I should also state, however, that you probably could find in a ROCOR parish in America a priest condemning the new calendar as heretical but this is getting more rare because, as I’ve said, they are in full communion with “New Calendarists”. This would be more like finding an FSSP priest preaching like an SSPX priest more than the typical scenario, however.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I have read about the communities of Poles and Lithuanians, but is there any truth to the situations of groups of Russian Old Believers forming their own communities of Orthodox in Communion with Rome?

I’m really not aware of it, if so. I do recall a person, a member of a very small Russian (non-Latin, non-Ukranian, but specifically Russian) community in Russia, in communion with Rome, that had been there a very long time. Whether they came over from Old Believers, I don’t know, but I don’t recall his saying that.

I think there are some other Catholic groups in Russia, very small ones. As I recall, there might be some Rusyns or Ruthenians overlapping into Russia, for example.