ROCOR priest proposes World Orthodox Council in Moscow or Novy Ierusalim

[Tamara]

   
23 May 2007, 17:29
ROCOR priest proposes World Orthodox Council in Moscow or Novy Ierusalim
http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=3094

Moscow, May 23, Interfax - Fr. Andrew Phillips from the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia proposes a special inter-Orthodox consultative body - World Orthodox Council with the central office in Moscow or Novy Ierusalim near Moscow.

‘Today is the beginning of the 21st century, but some representatives of certain Local Orthodox Churches are still under the crapulent illusions of the previous century’s ecumenism. We think we should revive an Orthodox Russia and establish a World Orthodox Council to confront this scandal and solve many real problems,’ said Fr. Andrew in the article published by Pravaya.ru website.

According to him, the council might become ‘an Orthodox forum, a center for meetings and reflections’ for Orthodox Churches. ‘It is absurd that to meet with each other the Orthodox need any non-Orthodox bodies as the WCC or the Conference of European Churches.’

Fr. Andrew suggested to locate the World Orthodox Council in Moscow or near it. ‘It seams there is no other place on earth where the council could get the required support and infrastructure,’ he said.

The reviving Russian Orthodox Church, he opined, is not just ‘the only potential power able to bring to an end the steps’ towards liberalism in some Orthodox Churches, but also ‘a source of power and authority that could help to restore order and harmony in the currently chaotic ecclesiastical jurisdictions of the Orthodox diaspora.’

[Heorhij]

Sorry, but to this Ukrainian nationalist the mere name "Novy Jerusalym" in association with Moscow just smacks of the Russian messianic imperialism.

[Innocent_T]

Christ is in our midst!
I think it would be a good thing if that would become reality.

[Tamara]

George,

It is scary isn't it. Hopefully, the other local churches will not ignore this situation. The Russian hierarchs have already had one very large council a few years ago so they do know how to set-up such a meeting.

[macedonia74]

Sorry, but to this Ukrainian nationalist the mere name "Novy Jerusalym" in association with Moscow just smacks of the Russian messianic imperialism.

As a Macedonian National, I was always under the impression that "New Jerusalem" was in Athens. I guess we learn something new every day 

Other than that, I believe that the council-idea is a step in the right direction.

[Tamara]

As a Macedonian National, I was always under the impression that "New Jerusalem" was in Athens. I guess we learn something new every day 

Other than that, I believe that the council-idea is a step in the right direction.

I think most of us want to see a world Orthodox council but it is obvious that when words like 'power' and 'authority' are used in reference to only one local church we need to take notice. Orthodoxy is not about worldly power. One local church should not supercede and rule the others.

[macedonia74]

I think most of us want to see a world Orthodox council but it is obvious that when words like 'power' and 'authority' are used in reference to only one local church we need to take notice. Orthodoxy is not about worldly power. One local church should not supercede and rule the others.

Nice point Tamara, thank you for it.

[AMM]

What are "crapulent illusions"?

Anyway, does this surprise anyone?  There are people who believe Vladimir Putin should call and chair the next Pan Orthodox council.

[Heorhij]

I dunno guys. I love all humans and all nations and I love all my Orthodox brethren from everywhere in the world, and I want Orthodox unity as much as the next guy. But I am afraid of the "velikoderzhavnyj" Russian chauvinism, of all these mania-grandiosa ideas that Moscow is the Third Rome, the New Jerusalem, etc. So many Russians still do not even believe that Ukrainians exist as a separate people with their right to have their own country. They regard us as ungrateful rebellious little provincial separatists. The current Kremlin government does everything to boost exactly this kind of mentality, supporting monsters like Yanukovich. Ah.

[Tamara]

What are "crapulent illusions"?

Anyway, does this surprise anyone?  There are people who believe Vladimir Putin should call and chair the next Pan Orthodox council.

I wouldn't be surprised if Putin called a pan Orthodox council.  

[Linichka]

I too would like to hear:  what are "crapulent illusions"? 

[authio]

I wouldn't be surprised if Putin called a pan Orthodox council. 

I believe the only precedent for a secular ruler to call a council is St Constantine.

[Elisha]

I believe the only precedent for a secular ruler to call a council is St Constantine.

...who is not "alive" in the commonly accepted sense. 

[Anastasios]

I believe the only precedent for a secular ruler to call a council is St Constantine.

All of the 9 ecumenical councils were called by the most pious emperors.  The later pan-Orthodox councils were called by the patriarch of Constantinople I believe as he was the ethnarch of the Romans during the Turkocratia.

Anastasios

[arimethea]

Sorry, but to this Ukrainian nationalist the mere name "Novy Jerusalym" in association with Moscow just smacks of the Russian messianic imperialism.

Since a number of people have already jumped off the handle about the "New Jerusalem" reference in this article I think you should know that he is talking about a monastery that is located just on the outskirts of the Moscow city center. If memory serves me right this was the place that the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem would stay on their visits to Russia in the 1800's.

"Istra, also known as New Jerusalem, is where the 17th Century Patriarch Nikon thought to build a new Jerusalem, recreating some of the ancient sites of Jerusalem, including an underground church." from http://www.passportmagazine.ru/article/481/

Here are some links including photos
http://www.pbase.com/romanm/ny_2004
http://www.sacred-destinations.com/russia/moscow-new-jerusalem-monastery.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jerusalem_Monastery

[macedonia74]

Since a number of people have already jumped off the handle about the "New Jerusalem" reference in this article I think you should know that he is talking about a monastery that is located just on the outskirts of the Moscow city center. If memory serves me right this was the place that the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem would stay on their visits to Russia in the 1800's.

"Istra, also known as New Jerusalem, is where the 17th Century Patriarch Nikon thought to build a new Jerusalem, recreating some of the ancient sites of Jerusalem, including an underground church." from http://www.passportmagazine.ru/article/481/

Here are some links including photos
http://www.pbase.com/romanm/ny_2004
http://www.sacred-destinations.com/russia/moscow-new-jerusalem-monastery.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jerusalem_Monastery

Thanks for the info. But I think you can agree that it's difficult to construe this from the text.

[Heorhij]

Thanks, Joseph. Still, Fr. Andrew should have said "in Moscow or in Istra." Or, to be consistent, "In Third Rome or in New Jerusalem."

[arimethea]

I think you are both reading way too much into this press release.  If he said he wanted to hold a local council of Orthodox in America and issued a press release that said the following...

"Fr. Andrew Phillips from the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia proposes a special inter-Orthodox consultative body - American Orthodox Council with the central office in Nashville or Antioch near Nashville."

Would any of you think he actually meant Antioch in Turkey? Would you think he was trying to create a second Antioch here in America? Please!

[Heorhij]

Joseph, but the great state of Tennessee is not known for its imperial-messianic ambitions, while Muscovy... oh well, I shut up.

[authio]

All of the 9 ecumenical councils were called by the most pious emperors.  The later pan-Orthodox councils were called by the patriarch of Constantinople I believe as he was the ethnarch of the Romans during the Turkocratia.

Anastasios

I was addressing their role as secular rulers, as in they were not chrismated or tonsured or crowned by a hierarch of the Church.  St Constantine was none of these - he was baptized very late in life, so he was definitely a secular ruler.

[Starlight]

Putin's regime became a major threat of our time. Certain circles just aspire to set up a Council and then exploit it as a political tool, which has nothing to do with Orthodoxy per se.

Also, Fr. Andrew Philips is a fanatic, who hates the Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople with passion.

While the Pan-Orthodox Council should transpire, that event has to be planned and organized on totally different terms.

[jmbejdl]

Also, Fr. Andrew Philips is a fanatic, who hates the Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople with passion.

You should be very careful about libeling the clergy. Fr. Andrew is no fanatic and there are people here (myself certainly) who know him. He helped me as an enquirer, as a catechumen and continues to do so now. He is not anti- anybody.

He sent people to our parish when it was starting out to help with the chanting, despite our parish being Romanian and he, as a ROCOR priest being unable to concelebrate with ours at the time, his parish contains members from pretty much every Orthodox church. He loves Russia, certainly, but only in the way that I love Romania and he most certainly isn't against anyone else. He promotes our western saints with a passion which I rarely see anywhere else and I know many people, in all jurisdictions here in Britain, who have much to thank him for. Your ignorant accusations, luckily, merely show you for what you are, an anti-Russian fanatic yourself. No non-Russian (not even a Ukrainian George - he's concerned solely with the Orthodox faith as held to by the Russian church not Russian secular politics) has anything to fear from Fr. Andrew's suggestion.

Thank you, arimethea, for setting the record straight about New Jerusalem. At least not everyone here is so quick, in their ignorance, to jump to conclusions about Fr. Andrew on so little evidence. Why anyone would assume, even with that poorly worded press piece (and if you want to see just how busy he was at the time he was talking to the reporters in Russia, I suggest people read his diary of the events on his website) that he's some sort of Russian imperialist given that he is an English convert is rather beyond me. I'm, frankly, dismayed to see such animosity levelled at a priest I personally hold dear.

James

[GiC]

If such a body were to meet, it would seem to me that the most appropriate place would probably be near the offices of the Oecumenical Patriarchate in Geneva.

[arimethea]

If such a body were to meet, it would seem to me that the most appropriate place would probably be near the offices of the Oecumenical Patriarchate in Geneva.

Better yet why not New York since every Patriarchate has a church in that city.

[GiC]

Geneva has several advantages, foremost amongst them is the traditionally neutral status of the state. Politics between Russia and the US (or the West in general) are less likely to be an issue if the meetings in Geneva. Also the proximity to the WCC and other oecumenical organizations could help in matters of infastructure and communications.

[grov]

...

He sent people to our parish when it was starting out to help with the chanting, despite our parish being Romanian and he, as a ROCOR priest being unable to concelebrate with ours at the time, his parish contains members from pretty much every Orthodox church. He loves Russia, certainly, but only in the way that I love Romania and he most certainly isn't against anyone else. He promotes our western saints with a passion which I rarely see anywhere else and I know many people, in all jurisdictions here in Britain, who have much to thank him for... I suggest people read his diary of the events on his website... he is an English convert ...a priest I personally hold dear.

James,

Fr. Andrew sounds like a fascinating person.  Would you be comfortable providing an address to the website you mention?

Thanks,
George R.

[Starlight]

Geneva and New York seem to be both strong contenders. Also, it may be possible to consider some place in a country, where Orthodoxy started to flourish recently, but successes became obvious. That would be definitely an encouraging event there.

[Starlight]

James,

Your ignorant accusations, luckily, merely show you for what you are, an anti-Russian fanatic yourself.

Me being a fanatic? Hahaha.
You see, I am against certain regimes, but I am not against any country. I have Russian friends, who share the same opinion about the regime of Russia. I have Iranian friends, who made me even more convinced about certain negative sides of the government of Iran. I have Korean friends with whose absolutely negative opinion about the regime of North Korea I absolutely agree.

My opinion about Fr. Andrew Philips is based on his disrespectful writings about the Ecumenical Patriarchate. I remember him being not appropriate about Romanian Orthodox Church as well. And his description of Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Archdiocese of Russian Orthodox Parishes in Western Europe, Belarusian Council of Orthodox Parishes of North America and former Diocese of Surozh has not been remotely acceptable.

Regarding British Saints, as a former resident of UK (yes, been there) I highly enjoyed seeing this veneration becoming common for British Orthodoxy. That tendency started long before Fr. Philips' return to England in 1997.

anything to fear from Fr. Andrew's suggestion.

I do not fear anything coming from Fr. Andrew Philips. I just see manipulation of some authorities of the Orthodox Church by certain circles of government in Russia. The aforementioned circles often operate without any blend of Christian love. That sort of influence on Church does not appear beneficial in my opinion. 

[PeterTheAleut]

My opinion about Fr. Andrew Philips is based on his disrespectful writings about the Ecumenical Patriarchate. I remember him being not appropriate about Romanian Orthodox Church as well. And his description of Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Archdiocese of Russian Orthodox Parishes in Western Europe, Belarusian Council of Orthodox Parishes of North America and former Diocese of Surozh has not been remotely acceptable.

Can you provide for us documentation of Fr. Andrew's "unacceptable" attitude, such as these "disrespectful writings" you attribute to him?  I don't mean to disparage your pov, for I know nothing about Fr. Andrew.  But if you're going to defend your allegations the way you just did, you would simply do well to give us evidence to support your case.

[Starlight]

Can you provide for us documentation of Fr. Andrew's "unacceptable" attitude, such as these "disrespectful writings" you attribute to him?  I don't mean to disparage your pov, for I know nothing about Fr. Andrew.  But if you're going to defend your allegations the way you just did, you would simply do well to give us evidence to support your case.

First of all, thank you for respectful tone.
Here is Fr. Andrew Philips' site:
http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/hp.htm

I gladly admit validity of some materials there. But on the other had here:
http://www.orthodoxengland.org.uk/sourozh1.htm

Quotation:
The Paris Exarchate, in reality only a few hundred strong and dependent on a few families and intellectuals, resembles strangely the London-Oxford Sourozh group. Thus, the former calls itself an Exarchate of ‘the Russian Tradition’. With the many new calendar communities of both this Exarchate and the Sourozh Diocese, continual calls for the new Paschalia (reprinted naturally in the magazine ‘Sourozh’), communion without confession, masonic handshakes in churches, rampant ecumenism and liberalism, ordinations of ill-prepared, sometimes divorced men, sometimes married to Non-Orthodox, Proskomidia carried out in the middle of the church, abbreviation of services and regular cases of intercommunion, ignorance of Russian calendar, liturgical custom and vestments, unheadscarfed women, one wonders what ‘Russian Tradition’ the Paris Exarchate and Sourozh Diocese are actually talking about.

[Starlight]

Dear PeterTheAleut,
I would rather bring much more positive examples - Elder Kleopa, etc., but here is some more:


http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/rebuild.htm
Quotation:
This OCA group created for itself a huge number of problems by behaving without consultation. For instance, it forced the Catholic calendar on all its parishes outside Alaska, calling it the 'corrected Julian' (sic!) calendar. Many of its finest and largest parishes left it. Many others would have gone, except for the fact that they would not have been able to take their church buildings with them. Certain OCA parishes continued with other 'reforms', discouraging monasticism

Now, personally I have a very high opinion about OCA and never witnessed this Jurisdiction forcing anything or being antimonastic.

[PeterTheAleut]

I gladly admit validity of some materials there. But on the other had here:
http://www.orthodoxengland.org.uk/sourozh1.htm

Having read the article linked above, I do have to admit that it does appear to represent the traditionalist, anti-Parisian, anti-EP rhetoric for which the ROCOR has become known.  I don't have much good to say about where the EP has gone since Patriarch Meletios in the 1920's--my beef is with Constantinople's uncanonical expansion into territories overseen by other Orthodox bishops and primates--but I don't buy into a lot of the ROCOR's pro-(Imperial)Russian rhetoric, either.  The one of Fr. Andrew's articles I've read so far does appear a bit TOO over-the-top in its ranting for my comfort level.  Again, what do I know?

[Starlight]

PeterTheAleut,
I highly respect your right to have your point of view. While I am a dedicated member of the EP (let us not go out of topic and not discuss that, okay), I really appreciate your mature, frank and respectful Christian presenation of your thoughts.

Again, let me repeat  - I admit validity of some other articles of this author.

[Anastasios]

Dear Starlight,

Would it be your contention that the accusations in that paragraph are untrue? Or that it was the way he wrote it that bothered you?  It seems to me that he is responding polemically to some attacks on his diocese, which may or may not be a prudent thing to do, I don't know.  There has been a long history of animosity between the two groups that we outsiders may not fully be aware of.  Of course, you say you lived in England, so you may know more about this than I do. If any of the charges he alleges are true, however, that would be very disconcerting to me.  What are your thoughts on this?

In Christ,

Anastasios

[PeterTheAleut]

Dear Starlight,

Would it be your contention that the accusations in that paragraph are untrue? Or that it was the way he wrote it that bothered you?  It seems to me that he is responding polemically to some attacks on his diocese, which may or may not be a prudent thing to do, I don't know.  There has been a long history of animosity between the two groups that we outsiders may not fully be aware of.  Of course, you say you lived in England, so you may know more about this than I do. If any of the charges he alleges are true, however, that would be very disconcerting to me.  What are your thoughts on this?

In Christ,

Anastasios

I think part of the issue is undoubtedly the sting that the EP delivered to the Sourozh diocese just last year by receiving into her jurisdiction the former Russian Metropolitan of Sourozh, a bishop whom the Moscow Patriarch wanted to question regarding his alleged misrule of his metropolia.  Moscow alleged that the EP acted in violation of those canons prohibiting the interference of a Patriarch in the internal affairs of another Patriarch's jurisdiction and therefore refused to recognize the Metropolitan's transfer.

Of course, I do agree that, even with the good that came out of her reforms, much of what I am aware happened within the Paris exarchate was indeed abusive of the Typikon.  (I'll admit that this does shade my current perception of Fr. Schmemann's work.  I still respect the man as a pastor and liturgist, and I won't deny his continued influence on my view of Orthodox worship, but I want to understand his thoughts within the context of the whole of Sacred Tradition.  This, however, is more properly the subject of a totally different thread.)

[PeterTheAleut]

http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/rebuild.htm
Quotation:
This OCA group created for itself a huge number of problems by behaving without consultation. For instance, it forced the Catholic calendar on all its parishes outside Alaska, calling it the 'corrected Julian' (sic!) calendar. Many of its finest and largest parishes left it. Many others would have gone, except for the fact that they would not have been able to take their church buildings with them. Certain OCA parishes continued with other 'reforms', discouraging monasticism

Actually, the OCA sees itself as having continued much of the work the All-Russian Sobor of 1917 started but was unable to follow through with after the Bolshevik Revolution.  This includes the calendar reform, which I understand was actually considered by the Sobor.  If anything, many in the OCA have often complained of how the ROCOR appeared to totally ignore the work of the Sobor of 1917 and continued to enforce the synodal mentality that plagued the ROC during the caesaropapism of the Romanov Tsars.

[Starlight]

Dear Anastasios,
Thank you for another respectful post.
My problem is how Fr. Andrew Philips presents his conclusions. It is possible to disagree, but what about the style of evaluation?
I did not have an opportunity to visit high numbers of parishes in UK, but I tried to find available information. British Orthodoxy does not experience nothing similar to processes in certain Episcopalian circles. In fact, British Orthodoxy is developing!
During the concentration of a New ROCOR Cathedral in London, Archbishop Grigorios (EP) and Bishop Basil (MP at that time) were present. So, at least lately animosity decreased.

Another example:
http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/crisukra.htm

Quotation:
Finally, there is another group of political opportunists. This is a group of quite uncanonical, self-consecrated, right-wing emigrants under an Archbishop Vsevolod of Chicago. Many of their founders left the Ukraine with the Nazis in 1944-5, where they had persecuted the Jews. In the 1990s they were, amazingly, taken under the canonical protection of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, one of the tiniest Orthodox Churches. And since then they have been interfering in the Ukraine itself. This has given the impression that the Phanar is playing a political game to get control of more territory, just as they have done in Estonia, in Greece, on Mt Athos, and within their own dissident jurisdictions in the US, Australia and Western Europe, causing schism, division and canonical chaos. Among other things, Archbishop Vsevolod has already tried to set up a mixed Orthodox-Uniat group in the Ukraine under the joint jurisdiction of Rome and Constantinople

Comments:
Another group of political opportunists - not the case.
UOC-USA is canonical.
Archbishop Vsevolod leads the diocese of Chicago, not the entire UOC-USA, not enough research with jumps to big conclusions.
Implied information about collaborations of founders of UOC with nazis. I never heard about an important activist of UOC being convicted of something like this. Currently, I know many converts from Judaism, including some very close friends, who converted within UOC-USA.
Finally, I know Archbishop Vsevolod personally. He never tried to orchestrate a quick set up of a jurisdiction, partially subordinated to Rome.

[Anastasios]

Well, seeing what he wrote about you guys, I can understand why you would be annoyed   Very unfactual what he wrote.  For the record, what he wrote about my Church is full of innaccuracies, too

[Starlight]

Thank you very much, Anastasios!

[jmbejdl]

Dear Starlight,

Would it be your contention that the accusations in that paragraph are untrue? Or that it was the way he wrote it that bothered you?  It seems to me that he is responding polemically to some attacks on his diocese, which may or may not be a prudent thing to do, I don't know.  There has been a long history of animosity between the two groups that we outsiders may not fully be aware of.  Of course, you say you lived in England, so you may know more about this than I do. If any of the charges he alleges are true, however, that would be very disconcerting to me.  What are your thoughts on this?

In Christ,

Anastasios

The accusations are not untrue. I have heard the same thing from Greeks and Romanians here and even, I am not joking in the slightest, from Russian parishioners in the Sourozh diocese. Noting flaws is not sign of hatred and if anything were inaccurate then I'm quite certain that Fr. Andrew would alter things if told. I'm not claiming he's infallible, merely defending him from some of the hatred displayed towards him in this thread.

I have never heard Fr. Andrew say anything disparaging about any local church. He certainly criticises certain things that they do (but he likewise criticises some of the actions taken by ROCOR - something Starlight utterly failed to mention) but he is a Traditionalist. He is not a fanatic. Nobody who knows him could possible get that idea. He always encouraged me to stay in the Romanian church, even when I was having issues with the calendar, as an example. What kind of a fanatic would do that?

Some may not like his style of writing (I sometimes feel he goes overboard on the Russianness, but then my church isn't Russian) but that does not make him bad. He is a good and kind man and he is vigorous in his defence of our faith. If he criticises some of the actions of the EP, or Patriarch Teoctist or some other heirarch, it is because those actions deserve to be criticised, not out of hatred but out of love. I honestly can't believe that I'm seing such vitriol being levelled at a member of the clergy on such flimsy grounds.

James

[PeterTheAleut]

The accusations are not untrue. I have heard the same thing from Greeks and Romanians here and even, I am not joking in the slightest, from Russian parishioners in the Sourozh diocese. Noting flaws is not sign of hatred and if anything were inaccurate then I'm quite certain that Fr. Andrew would alter things if told. I'm not claiming he's infallible, merely defending him from some of the hatred displayed towards him in this thread.

I have never heard Fr. Andrew say anything disparaging about any local church. He certainly criticises certain things that they do (but he likewise criticises some of the actions taken by ROCOR - something Starlight utterly failed to mention) but he is a Traditionalist. He is not a fanatic. Nobody who knows him could possible get that idea. He always encouraged me to stay in the Romanian church, even when I was having issues with the calendar, as an example. What kind of a fanatic would do that?

Some may not like his style of writing (I sometimes feel he goes overboard on the Russianness, but then my church isn't Russian) but that does not make him bad. He is a good and kind man and he is vigorous in his defence of our faith. If he criticises some of the actions of the EP, or Patriarch Teoctist or some other heirarch, it is because those actions deserve to be criticised, not out of hatred but out of love. I honestly can't believe that I'm seing such vitriol being levelled at a member of the clergy on such flimsy grounds.

James

Assessing my earlier comments in light of the above: I don't know anything about this priest except what I've read on this thread.  I spoke of a rhetoric distinctive of ROCOR traditionalism, but I don't mean that to be a judgment of the writer.  I am familiar with how Fr. Seraphim Rose often used the same polemical tone in his defense of ROCOR and criticism of those he thought were out of line, and I deeply respect the man and would like to see him glorified as a saint even though I disagree with much of his pro-ROCOR perspective.  Even so, Fr. Andrew's (and Fr. Seraphim's) pro-ROCOR rhetoric still strikes me as a bit too strong at times.  Their criticisms may be necessary and on target, but their manners of presentation can be a bit of a turnoff.

[jmbejdl]

Assessing my earlier comments in light of the above: I don't know anything about this priest except what I've read on this thread.  I spoke of a rhetoric distinctive of ROCOR traditionalism, but I don't mean that to be a judgment of the writer.  I am familiar with how Fr. Seraphim Rose often used the same polemical tone in his defense of ROCOR and criticism of those he thought were out of line, and I deeply respect the man and would like to see him glorified as a saint even though I disagree with much of his pro-ROCOR perspective.  Even so, Fr. Andrew's (and Fr. Seraphim's) pro-ROCOR rhetoric still strikes me as a bit too strong at times.  Their criticisms may be necessary and on target, but their manners of presentation can be a bit of a turnoff.

This I have no argument with at all. I would not write some of the things he writes in the way he does. I only object to people attributing ulterior motives and making accusations of hatred based, apparently, solely of rehetorical style. I shudder to think what such an attitude might make of the writings of some of the Fathers! I, unlike Starlight, know Fr. Andrew and I know that his accusations do not fit the man at all. It is also telling that he dredges up criticisms of the actions of other jurisdictions as evidence of 'hatred' for them whilst ignoring his criticisms of ROCOR. This is clearly deliberate and prejudicial distortion. I don't know about him, but I would think very carefully before allowing myself to libel a priest.

James

[Innocent_T]

A couple month ago I read an article from Fr. Andrew on the ROCOR website: http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/eng2006/11enphillipsivsobor.html. I had  mixed feelings about this article and found especially one paragraph in the article very disturbing (in the Friday 12 May section):

The black SUV is missing today. The Resolution passed, they, whoever they are, probably have no more interest. The importance of what was accomplished yesterday is only now beginning to sink in among us. The other parts of the Russian Church, which broke off from ROCOR, the OCA, the Paris Jurisdiction, the newly-separating Sourozh clerics and modernists, and perhaps others, will now have to decide what they too are going to do, in the wake of our decision.

Maybe I have to get used to more russian polemic
I think Fr. Andrew has good intentions but goes a little overboard sometimes.

Torsten

[Anastasios]

What's interesting to me is that I agree with a lot of the ROCOR's former criticisms of other jurisdictions, as a member of an Old Calendarist Church whose bishops were consecrated by ROCOR bishops.  However, I have always been wary of the tone of polemics and believe they should be limited because I know how easy it can be turned against someone else by a polemicist.  For instance, once ROCOR started moving towards the MP, people like Fr Andrew and others stopped talking about the MP being the big, bad, schismatic group and now it's us Old Calendarists that are the big, bad, schismatic (oh yes, and "soooo meannnnn!") guys, etc.  Sure, we were in communion with them, and sure, they created us, but now we are oh so intransigent, stubborn, schismatic, etc., because we don't support their reunification program.  I think someone said here once or elsewhere that if you wrestle with a pig, you both get muddy but only the pig has fun.  Polemics are sometimes (rarely) needed to distinguish truth from error, but they can quickly become unappetizing for the soul.

Anastasios

[macedonia74]

Geneva has several advantages, foremost amongst them is the traditionally neutral status of the state. Politics between Russia and the US (or the West in general) are less likely to be an issue if the meetings in Geneva. Also the proximity to the WCC and other oecumenical organizations could help in matters of infastructure and communications.

Wow, this scenario seems pretty "Left Behind" to me. I can just hear Kurt Cameron on TBN, explaning to mall-goers how the antichrist has begun his reign in Geneva, among the World / Oecumenical Organizations forming the "New Jerusalem."

OOOPPA!! 

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > General Forums > Christian News (Moderator: serb1389) > Topic: ROCOR priest proposes World Orthodox Council in Moscow or Novy Ierusalim