OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 21, 2014, 12:24:18 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Lazar Puhalo  (Read 15500 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Economan
Guest
« Reply #45 on: January 25, 2003, 02:05:21 AM »

Reacting to Fr Seraphim (Rose), did Fr Deacon Lev Puhalo believe in the bizarre notion of 'soul sleep' until the Last Judgement, an idea so off the wall only Jehovah's Witnesses teach it?

If he did and wants to be Orthodox again, certainly he'd have to recant if he hasn't already.

Then ROCOR could lift his suspension and there should be no problem IMO with him being received economically as Archbishop Lazar in an Orthodox church such as the OCA.

The right thing for the OCA to do before receiving him would be to refer his case back to ROCOR since ROCOR suspended him.

AFAIK, Serge, the problem that Lazar had with the "toll house" teaching is that in the ROCOR it's become virtually dogmatized.  The rest of Orthodoxy accepts it only as "theologoumen" (theological opinion) with which one may disagree and still be considered completely Orthodox.  No, Deacon Lev was suspended because of *disobedience* to the ROCOR's Synod of Bishops in publicly disagreeing with Fr. Seraphim Rose over the "toll-house" theory and refusing to be silenced, and thus creating confusion among the Faithful in the eyes of the ROCOR's Synod.  In Orthodoxy, a disobedient cleric is almost as bad, if not worse, than a heretic in a bishop's eyes.

Hypo-Ortho
Since I'm not a cleric or a member of ROCOR, I'll weigh in on this:
I really blame Fr. Seraphim for making a big deal out of the toll-houses in the first place. I bet, but do not know for sure, that toll-houses were a very low-key topic before he started writing. And, for the matter, I think ROCOR was wrong to dogmatize it, like Deacon Lev said. After all, the Jordanville PB was changed to incorporate the toll-houses in 1986, I think, after Deacon Lev lost his battle.

Also, when has the ROCOR been faithful in following the OCA's disciplinary actions-what about St. Mary of Egpyt church in the OCA's Diocese of the South, in the re-baptism controversy?

Economan

Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #46 on: January 25, 2003, 10:26:46 AM »

Economan<<Also, when has the ROCOR been faithful in following the OCA's disciplinary actions-what about St. Mary of Egpyt church in the OCA's Diocese of the South, in the re-baptism controversy?>>

Good point, Economan.  But two wrongs do not a right make.  The ROCOR also received into its jurisdiction from the OCA the Monastery of the Glorious Ascension in Resaca, GA, after the monks, or at least some of them, had gone to Mount Athos and accepted re-baptism there, for which they were disciplined by His Eminence, Archbishop DMITRI of Dallas and the South (OCA).  Rather than condemning the unOrthodox practice of re-baptism, many in the ROCOR were instead gleefully exuding joy over the "coup" they had won in receiving the Resaca monastery and somehow "skipping over" the issue of the re-baptism of the monks.

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
gbmtmas
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54



« Reply #47 on: January 25, 2003, 08:53:53 PM »

Hypo-Orthodox wrote:

Quote
Rather than condemning the unOrthodox practice of re-baptism...

Dear Hypo-Orthodox,

Isn't the issue of the mode of reception of converts still not a resolved issue in the Church?  In some Greek jurisdictions (both New and Old Calendar), ROCOR, and I think Jerusalem, the common method of reception of converts is through baptism, while other jurisdictions such as the OCA, Antiochians, the GOA receive converts through Chrism and Confession.  Still yet, the MP receives Roman Catholic converts through merely Confession (with the intention of uniting to Orthodoxy) without Chrismation, and Protestants through Chrismation and Confession.  I don't know what the Bulgarians and Serbians, Georgians and Romanians do.

With that in mind, how can any of the above modes (Confession alone, Confession & Chrismation, or the whole Baptism) be considered un-Orthodox?  IIRC, this issue hasn't been uniformly and universally resolved in the Church.  Those who receive converts from other confessions through Baptism do not believe that they are rebaptizing the convert (since they are of the school that only the Church can confer true Baptism and there is no Baptism outside the Church).  Those who receive those converts through Confession & Chrismation believe that this oikonomia is completing what is lacking or deficient in convert's non-Orthodox Baptism.  And I'm not sure what those jurisdictions who receive through only Confession believe regarding the convert's Baptism (the MP Website seems to take an optimistic view of Roman Catholic sacraments).  ISTM that until the issue is resolved regarding the Church's attitude towards non-Orthodox sacraments, then perhaps the mode of reception may not be unanimous either.  No?

This type of non-uniformity has existed in the Church for at least 400 years.  The Russian Church (since the 17th century) employed the 3 degrees of reception (Baptism for Jews, Muslims, Pagans, Chrism for Protestants, Confession for Armenians, Nestorians and Roman Catholics).  OTOH, the Greek Church, since the 16th century has tended to be much stricter (generally), administering Orthodox Baptism to those who embrace Orthodoxy (regardless of their non-Orthodox background).

In Christ,
Stephen
Logged

+God Be Merciful To Me A Sinner (GBMTMAS)+
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #48 on: January 26, 2003, 12:59:08 AM »

Stephen, speaking only about the reception of the monks of the Monastery of the Glorious Ascension into Holy Orthodoxy through the Mystery of Chrismation by the OCA, thereby completing what may have been lacking in their heterodox baptisms, this "ekonomia" of reception was approved by canonical Orthodox bishops for the monks in question.  It is not for you or me to question the application of "ekonomia" by Orthodox bishops of whatever jurisdiction.

But when these same monks go to Mount Athos and accept a baptism AFTER their Orthodox Chrismations, well, something is totally out of sync here, wouldn't you say?  And Archbishop DMITRI rightly disciplined these monks for upsetting canonical order.   Btw, I personally have witnessed the reception of converts by the ROCOR in exactly the same manner as did the OCA for these monks!!!

As for the Greeks, I have witnessed in a GOA cathedral in the past year the reception of a convert from Roman Catholicism through an Orthodox profession of faith and the reception of the Mystery of Chrismation, no differently than the OCA practice or the practice I observed for one convert in the ROCOR.

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #49 on: January 26, 2003, 05:30:16 PM »

Quote
As for the Greeks, I have witnessed in a GOA cathedral in the past year the reception of a convert from Roman Catholicism through an Orthodox profession of faith and the reception of the Mystery of Chrismation, no differently than the OCA practice or the practice I observed for one convert in the ROCOR.

I was recieved into the GOA by Chrismation (former Roman myself).  From what I gather all RC converts are "supposed" to be recieved this way in the GOA.
Logged
Economan
Guest
« Reply #50 on: January 26, 2003, 05:54:34 PM »

Stephen,
I think Hypo was referring to the practive of people who had already been recieved into Orthodoxy by a method other than baptism, recieving baptism in order, in their minds, to correct fully what wasn't (a bunch of nonsense if you ask me). I think the Jerusalem Patriarchate practices this, as well as some ROCOR parishes.

Economan
Logged
Economan
Guest
« Reply #51 on: January 26, 2003, 06:15:53 PM »

Nektarios,

As you probably know, Elder Epharim's monasteries revcieve all converts, I believe, by baptism, regardless of the circumstances.
In my experience in the OCA, there was even alot of diversity in how chrismation was performed. Some parishes used the Hapgood book (what was used for me) and some follow the latest Syosset protocalls, which are significantly watered down from Hapgood.

It looks like I sure got this topic off track!

Economan
Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #52 on: January 26, 2003, 06:18:02 PM »

Stephen,
I think Hypo was referring to the practive of people who had already been recieved into Orthodoxy by a method other than baptism, recieving baptism in order, in their minds, to correct fully what wasn't (a bunch of nonsense if you ask me). I think the Jerusalem Patriarchate practices this, as well as some ROCOR parishes.

Economan
Right on, Economan!  Those ROCOR parishes that do administer Baptism AFTER those converts to Orthodoxy have already been received through a method OTHER THAN Baptism, e.g., Chrismation, are in disobedience to the directives of their own ROCOR hierarchs.  

While I would agree with the principle that reception into Orthodoxy by Baptism *should be* the norm, I also believe that it is within the provenance of canonical Orthodox bishops to rightly administer ekonomia for exceptions to the norm, and all canonical Orthodox bishops should maintain canonical order by fully respecting the exercising of ekonomia by those bishops in other jurisdictions that have so exercised ekonomia in the reception of converts by methods other than Holy Baptism.  And it is not up to me (or any of us) to judge or demean a bishop or Synod of Bishops in such an exercise of ekonomia or the Mysteries that are administered in their name(s).

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #53 on: January 26, 2003, 06:39:12 PM »

Economan<<In my experience in the OCA, there was even alot of diversity in how chrismation was performed. Some parishes used the Hapgood book (what was used for me) and some follow the latest Syosset protocalls, which are significantly watered down from Hapgood.>>

I have observed the same diversity over the years in my experience within the OCA also.  Twenty-five years ago the Hapgood book was followed to the letter and was used almost exclusively.  I noticed that Hapgood is also followed in the ROCOR even now in the same way as the OCA used to use it.  The new OCA Rite of Reception of Converts eliminates all the public refutation of errors by the convert that occur in the rite "a la Hapgood" and is identical to the method of reception in the typical GOA parish, i.e., profession of Orthodox Faith (Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed) and Chrismation for those being received from most non-Orthodox Christian denominations.  Psychologically, I think this is a mistake in the new rite: the formal refutation of errors is very important, IMHO, and should have been retained to help the convert get a "clean slate" in his/her Orthodox beliefs.  I wonder: is the new rite of reception a concession to ecumenism?  

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
gbmtmas
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54



« Reply #54 on: January 26, 2003, 06:58:55 PM »

Hypo-Orthdodox wrote:

Quote
But when these same monks go to Mount Athos and accept a baptism AFTER their Orthodox Chrismations, well, something is totally out of sync here, wouldn't you say?

and Economan wrote:

Quote
Stephen,
I think Hypo was referring to the practive of people who had already been recieved into Orthodoxy by a method other than baptism, recieving baptism in order, in their minds, to correct fully what wasn't (a bunch of nonsense if you ask me). I think the Jerusalem Patriarchate practices this, as well as some ROCOR parishes.

OK, now I see where you are coming from.  You're referring to a specific incident where one jurisdiction pretty much deems invalid the mode of reception of a convert in another jurisdiction.  I see your point.  Speaking of ROCOR, now that you mentioned it, I know of a Lutheran woman who was received into ROCOR by Profession of the Orthodox Faith, Confession and Chrismation (in the late 1990s), and I also know of someone who is now a priest who was received into the Antiochian jurisdiction (from Roman Catholicism) by Chrismation, was eventually ordained a priest by Metropolitan Phillip, and who subsequently went into ROCOR, and was received into ROCOR by vesting. IOW, he was not baptized--and his reception into the Antiochians was accepted as a proper reception by virtue of the fact he was simply vested.  So I see your point -- where I had not previously drawn that distinction.  It's a matter of wholly ignoring another jurisdiction's practice or discernment.

Thanks,
Stephen
Logged

+God Be Merciful To Me A Sinner (GBMTMAS)+
gbmtmas
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 54



« Reply #55 on: January 26, 2003, 07:06:28 PM »

Hypo-Orthodox wrote:

Quote
I have observed the same diversity over the years in my experience within the OCA also.  Twenty-five years ago the Hapgood book was followed to the letter and was used almost exclusively.  I noticed that Hapgood is also followed in the ROCOR even now in the same way as the OCA used to use it.  The new OCA Rite of Reception of Converts eliminates all the public refutation of errors by the convert that occur in the rite "a la Hapgood" and is identical to the method of reception in the typical GOA parish, i.e., profession of Orthodox Faith (Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed) and Chrismation for those being received from most non-Orthodox Christian denominations.  

Now this concerns me a little bit... Any feedback from the clergy (who use the newer rite) as to why the OCA has toned down the renunciation of errors aspect of the reception ceremony?  

I know in my own home parish (OCA), a friend of mine, who was Presbyterian was received via Chrismation exactly according to the Hapgood book.  He had to renounce the Calvinist errors, and confess various tenets of the Orthodox Faith.

Quote
Psychologically, I think this is a mistake in the new rite: the formal refutation of errors is very important, IMHO, and should have been retained to help the convert get a "clean slate" in his/her Orthodox beliefs.  I wonder: is the new rite of reception a concession to ecumenism?

I agree with both the benefits of the renunciation of errors and the concern/question about whether the newer rite is concession to ecumenism.

In Christ,
Stephen
Logged

+God Be Merciful To Me A Sinner (GBMTMAS)+
sinjinsmythe
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 737



« Reply #56 on: January 26, 2003, 07:19:36 PM »

In my OCA parish, from the Chrismations I have seen, the converts had to renunciate their errors.  I have not seen it done any other way, of course I have been to only two other parishes.
Logged

Life is just one disappointment after another.
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #57 on: January 26, 2003, 07:22:58 PM »

UPDATE: Getting this thread back somewhat to its original subject, i.e., the reception into the OCA of Archbishop Lazar Puhalo and Bishop Varlaam as "retired hierarchs," I have been in contact with Fr. John Matusiak, the OCA Communications Officer in Syosset, and have been told that all rumors, inuendos, and statements by any and all parties that LAZAR and VARLAAM (including LAZAR's own New Ostrog Monastery website) have already been received are *premature* and that the matter is STILL under consideration by the OCA's Holy Synod of Bishops, but nothing has as yet been formalized and finalized.  No announcement will be made from Syosset until the Holy Synod has reached a final decision in this matter.

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #58 on: January 26, 2003, 07:33:45 PM »

In my OCA parish, from the Chrismations I have seen, the converts had to renunciate their errors.  I have not seen it done any other way, of course I have been to only two other parishes.  

Sinjin, I think that some OCA priests are simply uncomfortable with the New Rite for Reception of Converts.  The "New Rite" may be used in the pastoral discretion of a priest who has thoroughly catechized a prospective convert and is satisfied that the convert knows well the differences between Orthodoxy and his/her former faith affiliation.  These may be few and far between, I don't know.  But perhaps our OCA priests are more conservative and pastorally knowledgable than those who are pushing the "New Rite" are.

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #59 on: January 26, 2003, 08:22:15 PM »

Quote
As you probably know, Elder Epharim's monasteries revcieve all converts, I believe, by baptism, regardless of the circumstances.
In my experience in the OCA, there was even alot of diversity in how chrismation was performed. Some parishes used the Hapgood book (what was used for me) and some follow the latest Syosset protocalls, which are significantly watered down from Hapgood.

I don't believe they still do this as the GOA bishops weren't overly happy about the practice.  I know they do NOT baptize a convert who was not recieved via baptism post factum.  It should be remembered though thta even Fathers were divided on this issue and not to "triumph" one's position.
Logged
Mexican
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria
Posts: 489


« Reply #60 on: January 27, 2003, 04:05:48 AM »

From what I know from the priests from the Greek Archdiocese here, unconfirmed converts who were originally baptized in the RC, are generally received through chrismation, confession and profession of Orthodox faith. And when the RC had been previously chrismated, proffession of faith is often enough, though unction with Holy Chrism is administered to, but differs from the full sacrament of chrismation.

And about "renouncing their errors", Bishops have called to have a criteria about each individual situation. The thing here is that not all the cases of conversions to Orthodoxy from the RC are that of the "convinced" RC who decides to become Orthodox only because he/she wants to marry an Orthodox, or because of a similar reason.

I don't think a person who was baptized in the Roman Church, but doesn't attend Catholic Mass for whatever reason (in many cases a reason of conscience which separates him from the hetherodox doctrines proffessed by that community and that mass, etc.), and is clearly out of that community, and then places himself in Orthodox services, and gradually becomes Orthodox, then the person would in essence not be a Catholic, de facto, in the first place, relying exclusively on the Orthodox Church for the sacraments, for community worship, etc.
Logged
Stephen Barrow
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 44



« Reply #61 on: February 05, 2003, 06:39:57 PM »

From the OCA web-site today 2/5/2003 regarding the meeting of the Lessor Synod of the OCA:

"Lesser Synod members also heard a report by Father Kondratick concerning the status of Archbishop Lazar [Puhalo] who, while in principle approved for reception into the OCA by a previous decision of the Holy Synod, has yet to have his status formalized. Members of the Lesser Synod decided, after a review of all documentation available, to affirm the decision of the Holy Synod made at its May 24,2002 session to formally accept Archbishop Lazar and Bishop Varlam ]Novakshonoff] as retired bishops of the Orthodox Church in America."

The article may be found here:

 http://www.oca.org/pages/news/news.asp?ID=316
Logged
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #62 on: February 05, 2003, 06:48:06 PM »

Thanks for this up-to-the-minute-update on the status of Archbishop Lazar [Puhalo] of New Ostrog and Bishop Varlaam [Novakshonoff] of Vancouver as finally being received as "Retired Hierarchs" of the OCA, Stephen.

I wonder why this was left to the OCA's Lesser Synod to confirm and not the OCA's entire Holy Synod of Bishops though.

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
sinjinsmythe
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 737



« Reply #63 on: February 05, 2003, 07:30:50 PM »

Thanks for this up-to-the-minute-update on the status of Archbishop Lazar [Puhalo] of New Ostrog and Bishop Varlaam [Novakshonoff] of Vancouver as finally being received as "Retired Hierarchs" of the OCA, Stephen.

I wonder why this was left to the OCA's Lesser Synod to confirm and not the OCA's entire Holy Synod of Bishops though.

Hypo-Ortho  

Perhaps the entire Synod feared being blasted for the decision, so they had the Lesser Synod make the decision and the scapegoats for any criticism.  This is my hypothesis.
Logged

Life is just one disappointment after another.
Hypo-Ortho
Guest
« Reply #64 on: February 05, 2003, 07:43:44 PM »

Sinjinsmythe<<Perhaps the entire Synod feared being blasted for the decision, so they had the Lesser Synod make the decision and the scapegoats for any criticism.  This is my hypothesis.>>

Could be so, Sinjins, could be so.  Let us hope that this ends the ecclesiastical peregrinations of Archbishop Lazar and Bishop Varlaam and that they have both finally found peace in being canonical once more after such a long hiatus in uncanonical jurisdictions, one of which no longer exists (the so-called "Free" Serbian Orthodox Diocese of New Gracanica, which has ended its schism and rejoined the canonical Serbian Patriarchate as the Serbian Orthodox Metropolitanate of New Gracanica).

For my part, I wish both His Eminence, Archbishop LAZAR, and His Grace, Bishop VARLAAM, well and pray that God may grant both of these newly-received "retired" Orthodox hierarchs MANY YEARS!  M'nogaya, blagaya l'eta!

Hypo-Ortho
Logged
Tags: Lazar Puhalo 
Pages: « 1 2  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.087 seconds with 47 queries.