OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 20, 2014, 02:22:07 PM *
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 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Strange things in MP's Parishes and Ialmisry's thoughts on Chrism and Innovation  (Read 15057 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,171



« Reply #45 on: April 10, 2009, 07:45:01 PM »


It's awful inter-church etiquette to commemorate a bishop during Liturgy but not submit to him.  Sorry to be a skeptic.

You forget that the heads of the autocephalous churches commemorate each other without submitting to them.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #46 on: April 10, 2009, 08:58:20 PM »

"It would certainly make sense for ROCOR and OCA to be united being daughters of the same mother on the same shores."

ROCOR does not view the MP as her mother church. The reunification was promoted as "the reunification of the two parts of the Russian church." This point was crucial.  Read part II here:

www.synod.com/synod/engdocuments/enop_pastoralappeal.html

ROCOR's official position is her mother is the historic Russian Church.

This does not mean something can't be worked out with the OCA. The calandar issue would need to be resolved, though.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,843


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #47 on: April 10, 2009, 09:05:40 PM »


It's awful inter-church etiquette to commemorate a bishop during Liturgy but not submit to him.  Sorry to be a skeptic.

You forget that the heads of the autocephalous churches commemorate each other without submitting to them.

I forget not; They do indeed in a way submit to them, and to the communion of the Church.  However, it is the exception that proves the rule: there is a specific protocol for commemorations only used by the heads of the Autocephalous Churches; for everyone else, it is "commemorate your bishop; if he is there, he commemorates the president of his synod, and the other clergy commemorate him."
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
IPC
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: RZC
Posts: 308


« Reply #48 on: April 10, 2009, 09:21:54 PM »

ialmisry the new ROCOR is part of the Moscow Patriarchate, it does not have an independent status.

ROCOR parishes are Patriarchal parishes, headed by the Patriarch of Moscow and all russia. The transfering of patriarchal parishes to OCA is not allowed by the TOMOS, but many things explicitly forbidden by it, happen.

For instance, according to the TOMOS, some areas of the Americas, like Mexico, are territory of the Moscow Patriarchate, and only patriarchal churches should be established. In violation to the TOMOS OCA appointed an episcopacy to Mexico, and established parishes there.

Logged

THIS USER USED THE SCREEN NAME PRAVOSLAV09 BEFORE.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #49 on: April 11, 2009, 12:12:20 AM »

ialmisry the new ROCOR is part of the Moscow Patriarchate, it does not have an independent status.

ROCOR parishes are Patriarchal parishes, headed by the Patriarch of Moscow and all russia,

My understanding (Father Ambrose, please illuminate) that ROCOR is autonomous.  It would make sense if their parishes were consolidated with the PP, but I think there autonomy as it stands and the OCA Tomos prevents that.  ROCOR has their own bishops and are not under the PP bishop at St. Nicholas.

Quote
The transfering of patriarchal parishes to OCA is not allowed by the TOMOS, but many things explicitly forbidden by it, happen.

For instance, according to the TOMOS, some areas of the Americas, like Mexico, are territory of the Moscow Patriarchate, and only patriarchal churches should be established. In violation to the TOMOS OCA appointed an episcopacy to Mexico, and established parishes there.

I'd have to look at the Tomos again (too tired now) but as I recall, it wasn't that the PP couldn't go to the OCA, just that they couldn't be forced to, and would not be released to anyone else but the OCA.  I don't recall anything about Mexico.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #50 on: April 11, 2009, 03:52:17 AM »

ialmisry the new ROCOR is part of the Moscow Patriarchate, it does not have an independent status.

ROCOR parishes are Patriarchal parishes, headed by the Patriarch of Moscow and all russia,

My understanding (Father Ambrose, please illuminate) that ROCOR is autonomous.  It would make sense if their parishes were consolidated with the PP, but I think there autonomy as it stands and the OCA Tomos prevents that.  ROCOR has their own bishops and are not under the PP bishop at St. Nicholas.

Quote
The transfering of patriarchal parishes to OCA is not allowed by the TOMOS, but many things explicitly forbidden by it, happen.

For instance, according to the TOMOS, some areas of the Americas, like Mexico, are territory of the Moscow Patriarchate, and only patriarchal churches should be established. In violation to the TOMOS OCA appointed an episcopacy to Mexico, and established parishes there.

I'd have to look at the Tomos again (too tired now) but as I recall, it wasn't that the PP couldn't go to the OCA, just that they couldn't be forced to, and would not be released to anyone else but the OCA.   I don't recall anything about Mexico.

This is correct.

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #51 on: April 11, 2009, 07:25:23 AM »

ROCOR parishes are not Patriarchial parishes.  This is a statement from the Synod explaining the details:

"According to the “Act on Canonical Communion,” the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is “self-governing in pastoral, educational, administrative, management, property and civil matters” (par. 2). No decrees of the Synod of Bishops or Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are subject to the review or confirmation of the Holy Synod or Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, except those of a canonical nature.  Consequently, there can be no discussion of the “subjugation” of one side to another, or of the self-dissolution of the Russian Church Abroad. Quite the opposite, the “Act on Canonical Communion” confirms the future canonical status of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia—by recognizing that she “in the historically-developed complement of the dioceses, parishes, monasteries, brotherhoods and other ecclesiastical establishment, continues to be an inseparable, self-governing part of the Local Russian Orthodox Church” as she always deemed herself to be.  The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, in her fullness, thus preserves her existence and self-governing status. She will continue to have her own First Hierarch, her own Council of Bishops, her own Synod of Bishops, her own Regulations, and will govern herself with complete independence."

http://www.synod.com/synod/eng2006/9enaktexplanantion.html
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,171



« Reply #52 on: April 11, 2009, 11:29:56 AM »

I finally found Mark Stokoe's explanation:

"The matter is really quite simple regarding the commemoration of +Jonah by the MP. It is standard practice for representational churches under the omphor of an extra-territorial Patriarchate ( such as the Russian parish in Athens, or the Antiochian parish in Moscow) to commemorate the name of their Patriarch, and then the head of the local autocephalous church in whose jurisidiction they live, then their immediate Bishop. In the case of St. Nicholas parish in NYC, the representational church of the MP inthe US and for the UN, it was a demonstration of good order that the deacon commemorated first Patriarch Kirill, then Jonah, then Mercurios. First the Patriarch, then the head of the local church ( Jonah) and then their bishop... In short, it was nothing more, or less, than an affirmation of the autocephalous status of the OCA by the Russian Church. Hope this helps."
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
IPC
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: RZC
Posts: 308


« Reply #53 on: April 11, 2009, 12:46:56 PM »

In the Act of Canonical Communion we read:

"1. The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, ... remains an indissoluble, self-governing part of the Local Russian Orthodox Church."

Comment: In that document, the Moscow Patriarchate is referred to as Local Russian Orthodox Church.

"4. The First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is elected by her Council of Bishops. This election is confirmed, in accordance with the norms of Canon Law, by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church."

Comment: Here it is made clear that the Patriarch of Moscow has the authority to approve or reject the appointment of the First Hiearch of ROCOR. In short, the First Hiearch of the ROCOR is under the authority of the Patriarch of Moscow

"6. Decisions on the establishment or liquidation of dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are made by her Council of Bishops in agreement with the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church."

Comment: The Patriarch of Moscow is in control of the administration of ROCOR, main administrative measures, such as the above mentioned, have to be previously discussed with him, and he takes the final decision.

"7. The bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are elected by her Council of Bishops or, in cases foreseen by the Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, by the Synod of Bishops. Such elections are confirmed in accordance with canonical norms by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church."

Comment: It is again, stressed out, that the Patriarch of Moscow is the ultimate authority of ROCOR,  the ROCOR bishops are under his control, and he has the faculty to accept or reject the appointment of Bishops of ROCOR.

"8. The bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are members of the Local Council and Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church...."

Comment: By this, it is stressed out that the Bishops of ROCOR constitute their own local council, but do not constitute a separate ecclesiastical organization, they remain an integral part of the Council of Bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate.

"10. Decisions of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church extend to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.........."

Comment: This means the ROCOR is subject to the Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate.

"11. Appeals on decisions of the supreme ecclesiastical court of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are directed to the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia."

"12. Amendments to the Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia by her supreme legislative authority are subject to the confirmation of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in such case as these changes bear a canonical character."

Comment: In this way, the Patriarch of Moscow is given full authority over ROCOR, and acts as it's First Hiearch. ROCOR became totally under his direct control. Nothing can be done in ROCOR without the permission and direct order of the Patriarch of Moscow.

"Acts issued previously which preclude the fullness of canonical communion are hereby deemed invalid or obsolete. "

By this statment, ROCOR recants all it's previous statements and condemnation of the Moscow Patriarchate, and gives away it's freedom of speech. 

According to the Acto fo Canonical Communion ROCOR loses it's independence and passes under the full control of the Moscow Patriarchate as an integral part of it. Even though ROCOR is self governing, all it's decisions have to be reviewed, discussed, censored and approved by the Patriarch of Moscow.

The pastoral and educational activities of ROCOR are under close scrutiny of the Moscow Patriarchate, who constantly sends representatives, in the form of exchange priests, clergy, seminarians, visiting professors, and the like.

Church property of ROCOR is placed under the name of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate).

It is clear by this and similar documents, that ROCOR under the Moscow Patriarchate is under total control and has lost all authority and freedom.  There was no union, but a swallowing up of a part of ROCOR by the totalitarian Moscow Patriarchate.



« Last Edit: April 11, 2009, 12:47:53 PM by Pravoslav09 » Logged

THIS USER USED THE SCREEN NAME PRAVOSLAV09 BEFORE.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #54 on: April 15, 2009, 07:06:34 AM »

Quote
3. The following are excluded from autocephaly on the territory of North America:....
6. Our Lady of Kazan Church, San Diego, State of California
7. Resurrection Church, Chicago, State of Illinois...

I think the parish in Chicago was folded when the priest was recalled back to Russia to help with the demand there after the collapse of the Soviet Union. 

Rather ironic, now that I notice, that the folded Church comes right after the parish that received the new Metropolitan into Orthodoxy.

I went to a school in a rather, shall we say, less visited part of town (less visited by "European Americans"), today.  As I was on the bus going down, I passed by 1457 N. California.  The building, unmistakably, once was an Orthodox Church: it has a copper copula with a three bar cross on it. The building must have been something in its day, its sanctuary facing East, but its entrance looking out over Humboldt Park, a rather large expanse that in the previous century was upkept green with a large, tended lake in the middle, the park being the center of what was a premier neighborhood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humboldt_Park,_Chicago
Quote
The park was named for Alexander von Humboldt, a German naturalist. William Le Baron Jenney began developing the park in the 1870s, molding a flat prairie landscape into a "pleasure ground" with horse trails and a pair of lagoons. The park opened to the public in 1877, but landscape architects such as Jens Jensen made significant additions to the park over the next few decades. Between 1905 and 1920, Jensen connected the two lagoons with a river, planted a rose garden, and built a fieldhouse, boathouse, and music pavilion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humboldt_Park_(Chicago_park)
The Church turns into another, attached, building in the back, which has the words "Humboldt Park Rectory" in stone across its side.  There is an announcement board in front, but the identification has been defaced.  In front is a statue, of a rather strange character (looks like a thin crusty the clown, without make up).  The pedestal is either defaced or weathered, so if he is identified, I can't make it out.

You can see, through the large fromt window, that probably was stained glass once (like the tower window), that there was a sanctuary there.  It now has a spiral staircase going up, and other residential accoutrements.  Because it seems that the building has been converted into a residential spot.  A sign reads "Alger Apts."  A google search came up with a residence listed as "The Church."  How chic.

Can anyone confirm that this was indeed the "Resurrection Church," now dead but hopefully living on in Holy Mother Russia?  (I seem to recall that the iconostasis of Resurrection was shipped back to Russia for a restored parish there).  Whose corpse is now not revered as a relic and turned into a store front Church (as, for instance, the Swedish Lutheran church (with the stone Swedish inscriptions) has been down the street), but rather in a sense mocked as so many Churches during the Bolshevik yoke in the Russian Homeland?   

Yes, these dead dry bones can live, but it is still hard to see them strewn on the valley. Or the neglected city park.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2009, 07:13:49 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #55 on: April 15, 2009, 07:46:20 AM »

ialmisry the new ROCOR is part of the Moscow Patriarchate, it does not have an independent status.

ROCOR parishes are Patriarchal parishes, headed by the Patriarch of Moscow and all russia,

My understanding (Father Ambrose, please illuminate) that ROCOR is autonomous. 


The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad does not have the status of an autonomous Church (although many people assume so) but it has the lesser status of a self-governing Church.

We share this status of a self-governing Church with

1. the Church of Estonia

2. the Church of Moldova

3. the Church of Latvia

4. the Church of the Ukraine  (self-governing but with some elements
    of an autonomous Church.)


The provisions which govern Self-Governing Churches of the Church of Russia are given in Chapter VIII of the Ustav (in Russian.) See

http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/133132.html

 
As an example of an autonomous Church (in contrast to a self-governing Church) we can refer to the Church of Japan.


Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #56 on: April 15, 2009, 08:01:42 AM »

ialmisry the new ROCOR is part of the Moscow Patriarchate, it does not have an independent status.

ROCOR parishes are Patriarchal parishes, headed by the Patriarch of Moscow and all russia,

My understanding (Father Ambrose, please illuminate) that ROCOR is autonomous. 


The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad does not have the status of an autonomous Church (although many people assume so) but it has the lesser status of a self-governing Church.

We share this status of a self-governing Church with

1. the Church of Estonia

2. the Church of Moldova

3. the Church of Latvia

4. the Church of the Ukraine  (self-governing but with some elements
    of an autonomous Church.)


The provisions which govern Self-Governing Churches of the Church of Russia are given in Chapter VIII of the Ustav (in Russian.) See

http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/133132.html

 
As an example of an autonomous Church (in contrast to a self-governing Church) we can refer to the Church of Japan.




It would seem the Patriarchal Parishes have the even lesser status of not even being self governing.

The distinction between autonomy and self rule is interesting in view of the goings on in the self/sole-ruled Antiochian Archdiocese of North America.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #57 on: April 15, 2009, 01:46:29 PM »

In the Act of Canonical Communion we read:

"1. The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, ... remains an indissoluble, self-governing part of the Local Russian Orthodox Church."

Comment: In that document, the Moscow Patriarchate is referred to as Local Russian Orthodox Church.

You are not correct.  ROCOR was always a part of the Local Russian Orthodox Church, even when it was not in communion with the MP.   Aside from the volumes of ROCOR statements which says exactly that, please note the word "REMAINS" in your snip above.

Quote
"4. The First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is elected by her Council of Bishops. This election is confirmed, in accordance with the norms of Canon Law, by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church."

Comment: Here it is made clear that the Patriarch of Moscow has the authority to approve or reject the appointment of the First Hiearch of ROCOR. In short, the First Hiearch of the ROCOR is under the authority of the Patriarch of Moscow

Here is the complete act.   One gets a different picture as opposed to your conclusions when the act is read whole:

We, the humble Alexy II, by God's mercy Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, jointly with the Eminent Members of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, having gathered at a meeting of the Holy Synod (date) in the God-preserved city of Moscow; and the humble Laurus, Metropolitan of Eastern America and New York, First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, jointly with the Eminent Bishops, members of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, having gathered (time, place);

Being guided by the effort towards reestablishing blessed peace, Divinely-decreed love, and brotherly unity in the common work in the harvest-fields of God within the Fullness of the Russian Orthodox Church and her faithful in the Fatherland and abroad, taking into consideration the ecclesiastical life of the Russian diaspora outside the canonical borders of the Moscow Patriarchate, as dictated by history;

Taking into account that the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia performs its service on the territories of many nations;

By this Act declare:

1. That the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, conducting its salvific service in the dioceses, parishes, monasteries, brotherhoods, and other ecclesiastical bodies that were formed through history, remains an indissoluble, self-governing part of the Local Russian Orthodox Church.

2. That the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is independent in pastoral, educational, administrative, management, property, and civil matters, existing at the same time in canonical unity with the Fullness of the Russian Orthodox Church.

3. The supreme ecclesiastical, legislative, administrative, judicial and controlling authority in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is her Council of Bishops, convened by her Primate (First Hierarch), in accordance with the Regulations [ Polozheniye ] of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

4. The First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is elected by her Council of Bishops. This election is confirmed, in accordance with the norms of Canon Law, by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church.

5. The name of the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church and the name of the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are commemorated during divine services in all churches of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia before the name of the ruling bishop in the prescribed order.

6. Decisions on the establishment or liquidation of dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are made by her Council of Bishops in agreement with the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church.

7. The bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are elected by her Council of Bishops or, in cases foreseen by the Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, by the Synod of Bishops. Such elections are confirmed in accordance with canonical norms by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church.

8. The bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are members of the Local Council [ Pomestny Sobor ] and Council of Bishops [ Arkhiereiskij Sobor ] of the Russian Orthodox Church and also participate in the meetings of the Holy Synod in the prescribed order. Representatives of the clergy and laity of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia participate in the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in the established manner.

9. The supreme instances of ecclesiastical authority for the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are the Local Council and the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church.

10. Decisions of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church extend to the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia with consideration of the particularities described by the present Act, by the Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and by the legislation of the nations in which she performs her ministry.

11. Appeals on decisions of the supreme ecclesiastical court of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are directed to the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.

12. Amendments to the Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia by her supreme legislative authority are subject to the confirmation of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in such case as these changes bear a canonical character.

13. The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia receives her holy myrrh from the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia.

By this Act, canonical communion within the Local Russian Orthodox Church is hereby restored.

Acts issued previously which preclude the fullness of canonical communion are hereby deemed invalid or obsolete.

The reestablishment of canonical communion will serve, God willing, towards the strengthening of the unity of the Church of Christ, of her witness in the contemporary world, promoting the fulfillment of the will of the Lord to “gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad” (John 11:52).

Let us bring thanks to All-Merciful God, Who through His omnipotent hand directed us to the path of healing the wounds of division and led us to the desired unity of the Russian Church in the homeland and abroad, to the glory of His Holy Name and to the good of His Holy Church and Her faithful flock. Through the prayers of the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, may the Lord grant His blessing to the One Russian Church and Her flock both in the fatherland and in the diaspora.

Logged
IPC
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: RZC
Posts: 308


« Reply #58 on: April 19, 2009, 07:03:00 PM »



Quote
You are not correct.  ROCOR was always a part of the Local Russian Orthodox Church,

I didn't say otherwise, ROCOR remains part of the True Local Russian Orthodox Church.

The Moscow Patriarchate is not the Local Russian Orthodox Church, it is just a government institution founded by the revolutionary government, and which is impossible to call a Church.

Quote
even when it was not in communion with the MP.

Not only is ROCOR not in communion with the MP, She has never recognized it, and has always declared the election of it's Patriarchs (Sergius, Pimen, Alexis I, Alexis II...) as arbitrary acts of the government, and all it's decisions as void, and having no force.

And the more, ROCOR has declared the MP as a heretical organization several times. For instance, when Nikita Krushev ordered the MP to enter in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church, the Synod of Bishops issued a resolution in which the MP is condemned as follows: "By being in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, the Moscow Patriarchate has become part of it's heresies".

Quote
Aside from the volumes of ROCOR statements which says exactly that, please note the word "REMAINS" in your snip above.

Volumes of statements and Synodical resolutions of ROCOR, clearly condemn the Moscow Patriarchate, and it's unorthodox preaching and practices.

ROCOR has always remained one with the Russian True Orthodox Church (Catacomb Church), and She has not only condemned, but exorcised the Moscow Patriarchate, and all the collaborators of the revolutionary Government. All this was done during the last All Russian Synod, headed by Patriarch Tikhon, and it remains in full force.

The new ROCOR under MP usurps the name, but it is definitely not ROCOR, definitely definitely not ROCOR, just like MP today usurps the name and is definitely not MP, definitely definitely not MP.

In the same perspective, we see how the Roman Catholic Church uses the name of One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and this does not correspond to the truth. We know that just like the MP and it's new acquisition, ROCOR under Met Hilarion, they remain false churches, denying Christ, preaching heresy, and persecuting the Church of Christ.

There is a strange phenomena, people are quick to reject uniats, even when some communities do things the orthodox way, even the creed is said correctly, the only noticeable thing is they commemorate the pope, while people are quick to accept the MP as a valid orthodox church despite their open persecution of Russian Churches that do not recognize them, their preaching of heresies, distortion of liturgics and prayers, and their cynical preaching of political propaganda.




 



Logged

THIS USER USED THE SCREEN NAME PRAVOSLAV09 BEFORE.
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 9,100


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #59 on: April 19, 2009, 09:19:35 PM »

And the more, ROCOR has declared the MP as a heretical organization several times. For instance, when Nikita Krushev ordered the MP to enter in full communion with the Roman Catholic Church, the Synod of Bishops issued a resolution in which the MP is condemned as follows: "By being in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, the Moscow Patriarchate has become part of it's heresies".

Your credibility is close to zero, Pravoslav09. Show us proof that the MP is, or has ever been, in communion with the Roman Catholic church during the Soviet period or beyond.
Logged
IPC
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: RZC
Posts: 308


« Reply #60 on: April 19, 2009, 10:27:11 PM »

Your credibility is close to zero, Pravoslav09. Show us proof that the MP is, or has ever been, in communion with the Roman Catholic church during the Soviet period or beyond.

If you know russian, the answer is in archive of the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate and other official documents.

The resolutions of the Synod of Bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate dated December 19 1969, established communion with the Roman Catholic Church. 

The information below can be found in the archive of the ROCOR publication "Orthodox Life":

In the resolutions of the Synod of Bishops of ROCOR dated March 31, 1970 it is clearly stated stated "... By entering into communion with the heterodox, the Moscow Patriarchate ...becomes a partaker of their heresy"

The resolution of the MP was done under the iniciative of Metropolitan Nikodim Rotov, who was also a Roman Catholic Cardinal, and Patriarch Kirill Gundyaev (KGB agent Adamant?) was his cell attendant and one of his closest collaborators.


Libelous accusations removed  -PtA


During the enthronement of Patriarch Kirill, the main directors of Taizé were present, and applauded the election of their brother, with a long standing commitment to ecumenism.

« Last Edit: April 26, 2009, 03:54:22 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

THIS USER USED THE SCREEN NAME PRAVOSLAV09 BEFORE.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #61 on: April 19, 2009, 10:39:16 PM »

Your credibility is close to zero, Pravoslav09. Show us proof that the MP is, or has ever been, in communion with the Roman Catholic church during the Soviet period or beyond.

If you know russian, the answer is in archive of the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate and other official documents.

The resolutions of the Synod of Bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate dated December 19 1969, established communion with the Roman Catholic Church.

What really happened was that as a matter of extreme economy and charity it was decided to offer communion to the tiny number of Catholics (in fact wasn't it only to the Russian Catholics of the Byzantine Rite?)  living in the Soviet Union who had been cut out from their own Church for decades by the Communist regime.

However, as far as I know, this decsion was *never* implemented. One of the reasons was that Constantinople warned Moscow that communing Catholics could result in a breach on communion between the the two Patriarchates.

Quote


This information can be found in the archive of the publication "Orthodox Life" of ROCOR:

In the resolutions of the Synod of Bishops of ROCOR dated March 31, 1970 it is clearly stated stated "... By entering into communion with the heterodox, the Moscow Patriarchate ...becomes a partaker of their heresy"

I suppose that one could say that what was proposed was "entering into communion" but I really think it is disingenuous to present it in that light when you know the facts as given above.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2009, 10:45:20 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #62 on: April 19, 2009, 10:49:37 PM »

Your credibility is close to zero, Pravoslav09. Show us proof that the MP is, or has ever been, in communion with the Roman Catholic church during the Soviet period or beyond.
Libelous accusation removed  -PtA

Your credibility here just took a nosedive.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2009, 03:55:44 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #63 on: April 19, 2009, 10:52:18 PM »

For instance, according to the TOMOS, some areas of the Americas, like Mexico, are territory of the Moscow Patriarchate, and only patriarchal churches should be established. In violation to the TOMOS OCA appointed an episcopacy to Mexico, and established parishes there.

From the OCA's Tomos:
Article VII (and for the record Article V has no mention of Mexico)
The Patriarchate agrees that the Metropolia shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all parishes located in continental North America and Hawaii which now are or may hereafter become affiliated with the Metropolia except that which is mentioned in Article V, paragraph (1):

Article XI
The parties agree that neither of them now possesses or claims to have exclusive jurisdiction of the Orthodox faith in the continent of South and Central America where the canonical status quo is preserved.


Not sure if Mexico was to be defined as North America or Central America, but either way, your statement above is clearly incorrect.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
IPC
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: RZC
Posts: 308


« Reply #64 on: April 20, 2009, 02:29:50 AM »


If according to the TOMOS, OCA has jurisdiction on continental North America, and Hawaii. What is the canonical basis for the existence of Patriarchal Churches and Episcopacy in that territory?

If that specific article you mentioned was in full force, then all Patriarchal churches, even those governed by the ROCOR under MP, should be under OCA, but there is jurisprudence*.

Jurisprudence: The interpretation of the law and legal dispositions, by the corresponding authority.

Even though Mexico is geographically part of North America, it was considered by the USSR as a key satelite country. The Soviet Government was very interested in positioning itself in Mexico, and the establishment of parishes of the Moscow Patriarchate, was an important part of its strategy.

The Mexican United States (Mexico) was also a socialist atheist nation, controlled by the Communist Party, and with strong ties with the USSR, it it's time, the Mexican President Calles, as part of what he called "process of de-fanatizing the nation" created his own Mexican Patriarchate, the Mexican Catholic Apostolic Church, lead by Patriarch Joaquim Perez y Budar. But it failed, because the pope created an intestine war, and people could not get used to the idea of having a church without the pope. 



Logged

THIS USER USED THE SCREEN NAME PRAVOSLAV09 BEFORE.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,408


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #65 on: April 20, 2009, 03:01:59 AM »

Your credibility is close to zero, Pravoslav09. Show us proof that the MP is, or has ever been, in communion with the Roman Catholic church during the Soviet period or beyond.

If you know russian, the answer is in archive of the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate and other official documents.

The resolutions of the Synod of Bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate dated December 19 1969, established communion with the Roman Catholic Church. 

The information below can be found in the archive of the ROCOR publication "Orthodox Life":

In the resolutions of the Synod of Bishops of ROCOR dated March 31, 1970 it is clearly stated stated "... By entering into communion with the heterodox, the Moscow Patriarchate ...becomes a partaker of their heresy"

The resolution of the MP was done under the iniciative of Metropolitan Nikodim Rotov, who was also a Roman Catholic Cardinal, and Patriarch Kirill Gundyaev (KGB agent Adamant?) was his cell attendant and one of his closest collaborators.


Libelous accusations removed  -PtA


During the enthronement of Patriarch Kirill, the main directors of Taizé were present, and applauded the election of their brother, with a long standing commitment to ecumenism.
Can you provide links to or the titles of any public documents that support any of the statements you just made above?
« Last Edit: April 26, 2009, 03:57:01 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #66 on: April 20, 2009, 07:35:43 AM »


If according to the TOMOS, OCA has jurisdiction on continental North America, and Hawaii. What is the canonical basis for the existence of Patriarchal Churches and Episcopacy in that territory?

If that specific article you mentioned was in full force, then all Patriarchal churches, even those governed by the ROCOR under MP, should be under OCA, but there is jurisprudence*.

Jurisprudence: The interpretation of the law and legal dispositions, by the corresponding authority.

Even though Mexico is geographically part of North America, it was considered by the USSR as a key satelite country. The Soviet Government was very interested in positioning itself in Mexico, and the establishment of parishes of the Moscow Patriarchate, was an important part of its strategy.

The Mexican United States (Mexico) was also a socialist atheist nation, controlled by the Communist Party, and with strong ties with the USSR, it it's time, the Mexican President Calles, as part of what he called "process of de-fanatizing the nation" created his own Mexican Patriarchate, the Mexican Catholic Apostolic Church, lead by Patriarch Joaquim Perez y Budar. But it failed, because the pope created an intestine war, and people could not get used to the idea of having a church without the pope. 





Not to derail thread, more, but PS09: since the Russian Church is such a subservient slave to the Vatican and in communion with her, can you explain why JP II wasn't allowed to set foot in Russia, when Pres. Putin had extended an invitation? Roll Eyes
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #67 on: April 20, 2009, 08:08:16 AM »

The MP had allowed Roman Catholics to come to communion but this decision was halted by the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) date July 29, 1986,(see Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, No 9, 1986, page 7).

How can we accuse the MP of something they corrected?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #68 on: April 20, 2009, 10:43:19 AM »

Christ is Risen!

If according to the TOMOS, OCA has jurisdiction on continental North America, and Hawaii. What is the canonical basis for the existence of Patriarchal Churches and Episcopacy in that territory?
What is the canonical basis of any metochia?

Quote
If that specific article you mentioned was in full force, then all Patriarchal churches, even those governed by the ROCOR under MP, should be under OCA, but there is jurisprudence*.

Jurisprudence: The interpretation of the law and legal dispositions, by the corresponding authority.

Even though Mexico is geographically part of North America, it was considered by the USSR as a key satelite country. The Soviet Government was very interested in positioning itself in Mexico, and the establishment of parishes of the Moscow Patriarchate, was an important part of its strategy.
Mexico has one parish, founded during the Brezhnev years.
http://mx.geocities.com/iglesiaortmex/bas
So it couldn't have been THAT interested.

Quote
The Mexican United States (Mexico) was also a socialist atheist nation, controlled by the Communist Party, and with strong ties with the USSR, it it's time, the Mexican President Calles, as part of what he called "process of de-fanatizing the nation" created his own Mexican Patriarchate, the Mexican Catholic Apostolic Church, lead by Patriarch Joaquim Perez y Budar. But it failed, because the pope created an intestine war, and people could not get used to the idea of having a church without the pope.

I don't want to know what an "intestine" war is.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2009, 10:44:02 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #69 on: April 20, 2009, 10:57:26 AM »


If

There's no 'if' involved. I provided the actual text of the Tomos--including the part in Article V where the MP & OCA agreed to except certain Patriarchal churches. I didn't quote the part about a titular bishop being assigned by the Patriarch to administer these parishes but it's easily found if you were interested in the facts. The fact that you ignore the actual text for baseless speculation would tend to indicate that that is not in fact the case--you have an agenda to push, regardless of the inconvenient facts which disprove it.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
IPC
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: RZC
Posts: 308


« Reply #70 on: April 20, 2009, 11:30:30 AM »

The MP had allowed Roman Catholics to come to communion but this decision was halted by the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) date July 29, 1986,(see Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, No 9, 1986, page 7).

How can we accuse the MP of something they corrected?

Libelous accusations removed


In the past five days, both Fr. Chris, our forum Admin, and I have asked you to provide sources to substantiate your accusations of recent heretical conduct by Patriarch Kyrill and the Moscow Patriarchate, yet all you have provided thus far--yes, Bright Week is over and the deadline past--is a web site that doesn’t appear to have been updated in thirteen years and two congratulatory letters from the WCC and the Taizé Brotherhood that speak nothing of the specific heretical activities that you have alleged.  Therefore, your accusatory posts are being removed and you are hereby placed on post moderation for the next 40 days for libel.  What this means is that every post you submit during your moderation must now be approved by an admin or moderator before it will appear on the forum.  If you think this action unfair, feel free to file an appeal with cleveland, the global moderator in charge of the Free-for-All boards.

- PeterTheAleut
« Last Edit: April 26, 2009, 04:12:23 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

THIS USER USED THE SCREEN NAME PRAVOSLAV09 BEFORE.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,408


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #71 on: April 20, 2009, 03:43:22 PM »

Your credibility is close to zero, Pravoslav09. Show us proof that the MP is, or has ever been, in communion with the Roman Catholic church during the Soviet period or beyond.

If you know russian, the answer is in archive of the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate and other official documents.

The resolutions of the Synod of Bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate dated December 19 1969, established communion with the Roman Catholic Church. 

The information below can be found in the archive of the ROCOR publication "Orthodox Life":

In the resolutions of the Synod of Bishops of ROCOR dated March 31, 1970 it is clearly stated stated "... By entering into communion with the heterodox, the Moscow Patriarchate ...becomes a partaker of their heresy"

The resolution of the MP was done under the iniciative of Metropolitan Nikodim Rotov, who was also a Roman Catholic Cardinal, and Patriarch Kirill Gundyaev (KGB agent Adamant?) was his cell attendant and one of his closest collaborators.


Libelous accusations removed  -PtA


During the enthronement of Patriarch Kirill, the main directors of Taizé were present, and applauded the election of their brother, with a long standing commitment to ecumenism.


The MP had allowed Roman Catholics to come to communion but this decision was halted by the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate) date July 29, 1986,(see Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, No 9, 1986, page 7). How can we accuse the MP of something they corrected?

Libelous accusations removed  -PtA


Pravoslav09, what you've written above accuses a hierarch of heresy and constitutes libel if it cannot be verified.  You need to substantiate the above claims or face the consequences of irresponsible and potentially illegal action.  The way to avoid these consequences is to provide references from public documents--and they had better be good references--by the end of Bright Week.  Otherwise, your accusatory posts will be deleted and you will be placed on Post Moderation.

- PeterTheAleut, Moderator
« Last Edit: April 26, 2009, 03:58:35 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #72 on: April 20, 2009, 10:29:01 PM »

Christ is Risen!

On another thread, I came across a very strange definition of the EP of what is an autocephalous Church, which goes well beyond the issue of a few metochia:

Quote
+ PATRIARCHAL AND SYNODICALLY CANONICAL TOMOS

The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, November 13, 1924, concerning the declaration of the Orthodox Church in Poland as an Autocephalic Church.

+GREGORIOS VII, by the grace of God Archbishop of Constantinople -the New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch

The Holy Orthodox Church in the God-Protected Polish State, endowed with an autonomous system and administration and proving its firmness in faith, zealousness by charitable works has requested our Holy Apostolic and Ecumenical Patriarchal See to bless and confirm its autocephalous administrative system, considering that in the new circumstances of political life, only such a system can satisfy and guarantee its needs.... We and our Holy Metropolitans, Our beloved brothers and co-workers in the Holy Spirit, considered it our obligation to give ear to the request presented to Us by the Holy Orthodox Church in Poland and to give Our blessing and approval to its autocephalous and independent administration.

As a consequence of this conciliar decision, following the guidance of the Holy Spirit, We have decided: to recognize an autocephalic administration for the Orthodox Church in Poland and give our blessings to this,...To preserve and canonically maintain united with Our Holy Apostolic Ecumenical Patriarchal See, as well as with all other Autocephalic Orthodox Churches, We mention here the obligations which every Metropolitan of Warsaw and of all Poland will have: ie...In addition to this we decree, that the Autocephalous Orthodox Sister-Church in Poland must obtain its Holy Myrh (oil) from Our Great Christian Church.
In the year of Our Lord 1924, November 13th....

The Patriarch of Constantinople, +GREGORIOS VII (Approved).
The Metropolitan of Kiza, +KALYNYK
The Metropolitan of Sardia and Pisidia, +HERMAN
The Metropolitan of Nicea, BASIL
The Metropolitan of Chaldea, +JOAKIM
The Metropolitan of Philadelphia, +PHOTIUS
The Metropolitan of Derkos, +CONSTANTINE
The Metropolitan of Syliria, +EUGENE
The Metropolitan of Brus, +NICODEMOUS
The Metropolitan of Rodopolia, +CYRIL
The Metropolitan of the Princes Islands, +AHAFANAHEL
The Metropolitan of Neocesarea, +AMBROSIOS
The Metropolitan of Anea, +THOMAS

According to the French translation from the original Greek, Translator, Konstantinidis.

The Ecumenical Patriarchate, November 13, 1924

Chancellor HERMAN, Metropolitan of Sardia
http://www.ourchurch.com/view/?pageID=146797
(the page goes on to argue for the Ukrainian Autocephalous Church).
Btw, does Mike or Michal or any Polish Orthodox have a copy of the REAL Tomos of autocephaly?  (the one the PoM issued?).  Does the Church of Poland use this as its basis of autocephaly, or Moscow's Tomos?

Get his chrism from the EP?  How is he autocephalous then?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,843


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #73 on: April 20, 2009, 10:38:27 PM »

Get his chrism from the EP?  How is he autocephalous then?

Getting myrrh has nothing to do with Autocephaly; yes, non-Autocephalous churches cannot get their myrrh from outside their Church/Patriarchate, and Autocephalous churches can consecrate their own, but it's not a definition of whether one is or is not autocephalous, which has to do (as with most things of Church governance) with hierarchs (election, deposition, etc.).
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #74 on: April 21, 2009, 12:18:51 AM »

Get his chrism from the EP?  How is he autocephalous then?

Getting myrrh has nothing to do with Autocephaly; yes, non-Autocephalous churches cannot get their myrrh from outside their Church/Patriarchate, and Autocephalous churches can consecrate their own, but it's not a definition of whether one is or is not autocephalous, which has to do (as with most things of Church governance) with hierarchs (election, deposition, etc.).
Technically speaking, any bishop can bless Chrism, but that has become a perogative of the primate of the Church, per Apostolic Canon 36, the same reasoning that links the bishops into a syonod that elects, deposes etc. bishops and elects primates.

Quote
During the early centuries of Christianity, a firm tradition existed in the Church in which the Holy Chrism was sanctified only by the bishops of the Church and not by the presbyters (priests).  At that time, there were no distinctions among bishops, that is among bishops of dioceses and metropolitanate bishops of greater church districts. As the years passed, however, the common right of all bishops was eventually transferred to the bishops of churches with greater status, that is, to the Patriarchs, and finally to the Ecumenical Patriarch, who today is able to transmit this right to the heads of local Orthodox churches. In other words, even though each bishop has the right to sanctify the Holy Chrism by his status as bishop, he is not permitted by canon law to do so. It appears that there are three reasons that restrict the right of sanctifying the Holy Chrism to the Ecumenical Patriarch. These reasons include: a) the scarcity of the materials and the difficulty for each bishop to prepare the Holy Chrism, b) the constant increase of dependence of the diocese on the head of the greater church and district, and c) the special position that the Ecumenical Patriarchate received through the centuries in relation to the other patriarchates of the East and that expresses the spiritual bond between the Church of Constantinople and the local churches of the people who received the Christian faith from its missionaries.

In reality, this exclusive right to sanctify the Holy Chrism of the Ecumenical Patriarchate does not mean that local churches are dependent and subordinate to Constantinople. This act of receiving the Holy Chrism from the Ecumenical Patriarchate is a tangible and visible sign of the amity and bond of local churches, patriarchates, and autocephalous churches with the Ecumenical Patriarchate.† It is a necessary sign, not a sign of superiority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Orthodox Church, but an existing visible sign of unity among the cluster of local Orthodox churches. Nevertheless, in the Orthodox Church, the Holy Chrism, in addition to being sanctified in the Ecumenical Patriarchate, is sanctified in the contemporary patriarchates of Moscow, Belgrade, and Bucharest.


http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8420

This restriction to the EP is an innovation.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #75 on: April 21, 2009, 01:23:03 AM »

Christ is Risen!

......................

 Grin  You're clever!  How'd you manage to change the subject line and include your name?  Anyways I've always been told that putting names in subject lines was very bad netiquette.   Grin Unless it is someone of major importance such as Obama or Putin.  Mybe it's only a British thing?
 You have been warned about derailing threads time and time again.
You are being placed on post moderation for 40 days.
If you submit any post for moderation which does contravenes forum policies & rules you will be muted.
Any problems talk to Fr. Chris.
George (ozgeorge)
Global Moderator.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2009, 02:04:28 AM by ozgeorge » Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #76 on: April 21, 2009, 02:15:18 AM »

This restriction to the EP is an innovation.
National Churches such as the Church of Greece are an innovation. The Unity of the Church is not an innovation.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #77 on: April 21, 2009, 07:09:57 AM »

Christ is Risen!
This restriction to the EP is an innovation.
National Churches such as the Church of Greece are an innovation.

Really?  That's odd. As Armenia, the world's oldest Christian nation, has one (hierarchy consolidated 301, autocephalous 371).

His All Holiness also contradicts you in his "Tomos of Autocephaly" for Poland.  See the link above.

Quote
The Unity of the Church is not an innovation.

But deriving that unity from a man other than Christ is.  Or has Vatican I been declared an Orthodox council?
« Last Edit: April 21, 2009, 07:11:43 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #78 on: April 21, 2009, 07:53:44 AM »

Quote
The Unity of the Church is not an innovation.

But deriving that unity from a man other than Christ is. 
Our Chrism receives it's Power from Christ- where does yours receive it from?
« Last Edit: April 21, 2009, 07:58:00 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #79 on: April 21, 2009, 10:40:28 AM »

Quote
The Unity of the Church is not an innovation.

But deriving that unity from a man other than Christ is. 
Our Chrism receives it's Power from Christ- where does yours receive it from?

From Christ.

But not by the hand of his All Holiness.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
FrChris
The Rodney Dangerfield of OC.net
Site Supporter
Taxiarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 7,252


Holy Father Patrick, thank you for your help!


« Reply #80 on: April 22, 2009, 09:37:41 PM »



Christ Is Risen!

Pravoslav09,

What Peter has requested was done with my approval.

We are not here to persecute you. However, you have alleged that the Patriarch of Moscow
has:


Quote
Libelous accusations removed  -PtA

Please provide proof of these assertions, as these are the first I have heard of them. If you have the proof, then share it with the rest of us so that we can be educated.

However, if you cannot substantiate these statements, then either retract them or face the consequences of such conduct against a Hierarch of the Body of Christ.

+FrChris

Forum Admin


« Last Edit: April 26, 2009, 03:42:36 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,613



« Reply #81 on: April 22, 2009, 09:51:48 PM »

I just remembered this thread
"Serbian Orthodox Church in Romania."
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,8314.0.html

So it does that mean that Romania isn't autocephalous, as those who would read that into the existence of the Patriarchal Parishes in America?

Speaking of Romania, since, according to the titles ex officio, Pat. Daniel is locum tenens of the see of Caesarea in Cappodocia, does that mean that the EP is not autocephalous? Shocked Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: April 22, 2009, 10:03:04 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
IPC
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: RZC
Posts: 308


« Reply #82 on: April 22, 2009, 10:18:09 PM »

Thank you for your words Father Chris, your explanation has been very helpful, and I totally agree with you.

There is an old saying "The way you ask for things determins what you'll receive"

Here are some things to prove what I posted for the enlightment of others:

I don't have much online information in english, one of the few things I could find is this wonderful online book:

http://ecumenizm.tripod.com/ECUMENIZM/index.html

The Chapters "Church in Distress" and "PROFANATION OF HOLY MYSTERIES" provide information about what I mentioned above.

Quote from the Chapter "Church in Distress":

"The practice of offering Communion to the heterodox (see the Chapter on the Profanation of Holy Mysteries) is reaching epidemic proportion in the MP. This may be illustrated by the state of affairs in the Kaliningrad vicariate of the MP which is one of the ecumenical establishments and is ruled by Bishop Panteleimon (Kutov), a subordinate of Metropolitan Kirill (Gundyaev). In connection with the building project (still only a project, although some donations have already been collected a long time ago) for a Cathedral in the former Koenigsberg (now Kaliningrad), local parishioners hope that "this will be an Orthodox church not only by its name. Unfortunately, Bishop Panteleimon's ecumenical views leave little hope that in the new Cathedral things will be any different from what they are now in the patriarchal churches of the Kaliningrad area,  where Orthodox people are offered Communion from one chalice with heretics. Bishop Panteleimon himself felt no embarrassment when he declared that "Catholics ...partook of Communion in our churches, and the priests offered prayers for them" [374]*. "

*[374] Vedomosti Pravoslavnoi zhizni (News of Church Life), No. 2/12, 1996. Quoted from Orthodox Russia, No. 1553, 15/28 Feb. 1996, p. 12.


Concerning Patriarch Kirill's ecumenical activities, there is an article about his long career in ecumenical activities.

http://www.oikoumene.org/en/news/news-management/eng/a/article//russian-orthodox-church-e.html

Libelous accusations removed  -PtA


Concerning Patriarch Kirill's close cooperation with the catholic-MP ecumenical organization Taizé of which he is a honorary "brother":

http://www.taize.fr/en_article8079.html

Quoting from that article "We pray for the ministry of communion that is entrusted to you at the heart of the Holy Russian Orthodox Church, and also for the service of witnessing to the unity of all Christians, which the world so badly needs."

Thank you Father Chris for your help, and thank you for using the magic word: PLEASE






« Last Edit: April 26, 2009, 04:00:50 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

THIS USER USED THE SCREEN NAME PRAVOSLAV09 BEFORE.
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,076



« Reply #83 on: April 22, 2009, 10:24:59 PM »

I think the letter "z" is being used way too much here.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,408


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #84 on: April 23, 2009, 02:21:57 AM »

I don't have much online information in english, one of the few things I could find is this wonderful online book:

http://ecumenizm.tripod.com/ECUMENIZM/index.html

The Chapters "Church in Distress" and "PROFANATION OF HOLY MYSTERIES" provide information about what I mentioned above.

Quote from the Chapter "Church in Distress":

"The practice of offering Communion to the heterodox (see the Chapter on the Profanation of Holy Mysteries) is reaching epidemic proportion in the MP. This may be illustrated by the state of affairs in the Kaliningrad vicariate of the MP which is one of the ecumenical establishments and is ruled by Bishop Panteleimon (Kutov), a subordinate of Metropolitan Kirill (Gundyaev). In connection with the building project (still only a project, although some donations have already been collected a long time ago) for a Cathedral in the former Koenigsberg (now Kaliningrad), local parishioners hope that "this will be an Orthodox church not only by its name. Unfortunately, Bishop Panteleimon's ecumenical views leave little hope that in the new Cathedral things will be any different from what they are now in the patriarchal churches of the Kaliningrad area,  where Orthodox people are offered Communion from one chalice with heretics. Bishop Panteleimon himself felt no embarrassment when he declared that "Catholics ...partook of Communion in our churches, and the priests offered prayers for them" [374]*. "

*[374] Vedomosti Pravoslavnoi zhizni (News of Church Life), No. 2/12, 1996. Quoted from Orthodox Russia, No. 1553, 15/28 Feb. 1996, p. 12.
I've taken a look at this Ecumenizm web site you just recommended.  It reads like nothing more than the same extremist propaganda you've been feeding us here.  I hardly find this authoritative.

I also see that you have provided no evidence of your specific claims that Patriarch Kyrill personally concelebrated Liturgy with Pope Benedict, that Pope Benedict gave Patriarch Kyrill a chalice in remembrance of their concelebrations, that Patriarch Kyrill personally gave Communion to non-Orthodox.  All these claims you have made, and all these claims you still need to substantiate.

Concerning Patriarch Kirill's ecumenical activities, there is an article about his long career in ecumenical activities.

http://www.oikoumene.org/en/news/news-management/eng/a/article//russian-orthodox-church-e.html

Libelous accusations removed  -PtA

A letter from the WCC to Patriarch Kyrill congratulating His Holiness on his recent election to the Patriarchal Throne.  That in itself may cause legitimate discomfort that the MP has become too cozy with ecumenical organizations and with other non-Orthodox churches, but the letter offers no detailed information whatsoever regarding specific ecumenical activities such as those you just detailed in the above quote.  In the end, it is still you and you alone alleging that these ecumenical activities involve joint services and the distribution of Communion to all present therein.

Concerning Patriarch Kirill's close cooperation with the catholic-MP ecumenical organization Taizé of which he is a honorary "brother":

http://www.taize.fr/en_article8079.html

Quoting from that article "We pray for the ministry of communion that is entrusted to you at the heart of the Holy Russian Orthodox Church, and also for the service of witnessing to the unity of all Christians, which the world so badly needs."
Such a connection with Taizé as this certainly implies does not constitute heresy per se, unless the mere friendship with those who are not Orthodox is itself tantamount to heresy.  Can you substantiate any allegation that His Holiness actually joined Taizé services to pray with them or that he concelebrated liturgical services with them.  This would constitute heretical behavior, not what little you have stated thus far.


Thank you Father Chris for your help, and thank you for using the magic word: PLEASE
What happened to the spirit of goodwill you had toward me as recently as a couple of days ago?  Am I not your friend anymore? Cry

No, PeterTheAleut does not have to apologize for any of his comments. It's wise not to pry into other people's business, but since you're so interested in the relationship between PeterTheAluet and I, I must tell you the following:

a) PeterTheAleut has been proper, polite and impersonal in his replies.

b) The reason why I said what I said is because PeterTheAleut first gave me a warning, then he moved my posts and the thread from the section they were posted, to here, and all this make me feel he was getting personal, and that he was being mean, and determined to abuse his faculties as a moderator to come after me.

I was wrong about PeterTheAleut, he is a good person. I see I caused all the problems, I got angry, I was aggressive, and mean, and I got personal, and if anyone deserves an appology, is PeterTheAleut.

I'm sorry, I appologize to you PeterTheAleut.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2009, 04:01:15 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,436


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #85 on: April 23, 2009, 02:36:29 AM »

I don't have much online information in english, one of the few things I could find is this wonderful online book:

http://ecumenizm.tripod.com/ECUMENIZM/index.html

The Chapters "Church in Distress" and "PROFANATION OF HOLY MYSTERIES" provide information about what I mentioned above.

Quote from the Chapter "Church in Distress":

"The practice of offering Communion to the heterodox (see the Chapter on the Profanation of Holy Mysteries) is reaching epidemic proportion in the MP. This may be illustrated by the state of affairs in the Kaliningrad vicariate of the MP which is one of the ecumenical establishments and is ruled by Bishop Panteleimon (Kutov), a subordinate of Metropolitan Kirill (Gundyaev). In connection with the building project (still only a project, although some donations have already been collected a long time ago) for a Cathedral in the former Koenigsberg (now Kaliningrad), local parishioners hope that "this will be an Orthodox church not only by its name. Unfortunately, Bishop Panteleimon's ecumenical views leave little hope that in the new Cathedral things will be any different from what they are now in the patriarchal churches of the Kaliningrad area,  where Orthodox people are offered Communion from one chalice with heretics. Bishop Panteleimon himself felt no embarrassment when he declared that "Catholics ...partook of Communion in our churches, and the priests offered prayers for them" [374]*. "

*[374] Vedomosti Pravoslavnoi zhizni (News of Church Life), No. 2/12, 1996. Quoted from Orthodox Russia, No. 1553, 15/28 Feb. 1996, p. 12.
I've taken a look at this Ecumenizm web site you just recommended.  It reads like nothing more than the same extremist propaganda you've been feeding us here.  I hardly find this authoritative.


The website in question may be "extremist propoganda" but Pravloslav09 has provided a written citation that a bishop of the MP has admitted to freely communing Roman Catholics. I find that pretty disturbing, unless someone can prove it is not true.  It seems to me you are dismissing the evidence too quickly.  It would fit in with the fact that the MP officially allowed communion for Roman Catholics starting around 1968 and ending at a time I am not sure about, but I believe in the 1970's or 1980's.  I am not saying it is a slam dunk connection, but it seems like it could be part of a larger trend.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2009, 02:37:55 AM by Fr. Anastasios » Logged

Check out my personal website with 130+ articles: www.anastasioshudson.com

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,408


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #86 on: April 23, 2009, 03:08:19 AM »

I don't have much online information in english, one of the few things I could find is this wonderful online book:

http://ecumenizm.tripod.com/ECUMENIZM/index.html

The Chapters "Church in Distress" and "PROFANATION OF HOLY MYSTERIES" provide information about what I mentioned above.

Quote from the Chapter "Church in Distress":

"The practice of offering Communion to the heterodox (see the Chapter on the Profanation of Holy Mysteries) is reaching epidemic proportion in the MP. This may be illustrated by the state of affairs in the Kaliningrad vicariate of the MP which is one of the ecumenical establishments and is ruled by Bishop Panteleimon (Kutov), a subordinate of Metropolitan Kirill (Gundyaev). In connection with the building project (still only a project, although some donations have already been collected a long time ago) for a Cathedral in the former Koenigsberg (now Kaliningrad), local parishioners hope that "this will be an Orthodox church not only by its name. Unfortunately, Bishop Panteleimon's ecumenical views leave little hope that in the new Cathedral things will be any different from what they are now in the patriarchal churches of the Kaliningrad area,  where Orthodox people are offered Communion from one chalice with heretics. Bishop Panteleimon himself felt no embarrassment when he declared that "Catholics ...partook of Communion in our churches, and the priests offered prayers for them" [374]*. "

*[374] Vedomosti Pravoslavnoi zhizni (News of Church Life), No. 2/12, 1996. Quoted from Orthodox Russia, No. 1553, 15/28 Feb. 1996, p. 12.
I've taken a look at this Ecumenizm web site you just recommended.  It reads like nothing more than the same extremist propaganda you've been feeding us here.  I hardly find this authoritative.


The website in question may be "extremist propoganda" but Pravloslav09 has provided a written citation that a bishop of the MP has admitted to freely communing Roman Catholics. I find that pretty disturbing, unless someone can prove it is not true.  It seems to me you are dismissing the evidence too quickly.  It would fit in with the fact that the MP officially allowed communion for Roman Catholics starting around 1968 and ending at a time I am not sure about, but I believe in the 1970's or 1980's.  I am not saying it is a slam dunk connection, but it seems like it could be part of a larger trend.
Honestly, Father, I'm not so sure I am dismissing the evidence too quickly.  Even if giving Communion to Catholics was normative practice in the Soviet church 20-40 years ago, and even if Patriarch Kyrill participated actively in this uncanonical practice way back then, I still find quite disturbing Pravoslav09's charges that these practices of intercommunion are being continued today by none less than His Holiness, and I would still like to see something to substantiate this.  Even the Ecumenizm publication we're discussing right now speaks of the official practice of communing known Roman Catholics having been discontinued in 1986.  So what evidence does the publication provide that His Holiness Patriarch Kyrill is STILL giving Communion to known Catholics?  The most recent footnote I see on either of the two pages Pravoslav09 cited dates back to 1996, which makes me wonder if the web site itself hasn't been updated in 13 years.

I'm also making what appears to be more of a differentiation than you appear to be making between the Moscow Patriarchate and the larger Russian Orthodox Church.  According to one of the articles Pravoslav09 cited, the MP granted somewhat more discretionary freedom to individual diocesan bishops to rule the affairs of their own dioceses regarding these matters of relations with heterodox churches and intercommunion.  I will grant that it's possible that some diocesan bishops in Russia may have been more permissive than might be deemed canonical, but this doesn't reveal as much about the internal practices and governance of the MP as it may have a couple of decades ago, again because of the greater localization I see in the direct jurisdictional authority exercised by the MP.  Again, with the decentralization of authority in the Russian Church comes decreased culpability for the actions of the diocesan bishops in his synod.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2009, 03:54:25 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #87 on: April 23, 2009, 03:27:38 AM »

It would fit in with the fact that the MP officially allowed communion for Roman Catholics starting around 1968 and ending at a time I am not sure about, but I believe in the 1970's or 1980's.  I am not saying it is a slam dunk connection, but it seems like it could be part of a larger trend.

Christ is Risen!

Dear Father Anastasios,

My recollection is the Russian Synod made a decision to offer communion to Catholics inside the Soviet Union who had been cut off from any ministrations of their own Church for decades.   The thought keeps niggling at my mind that this was in fact further restricted to Russian Greek Catholics and to Old Believers.

From a Russian Greek Catholic site:

"Shortly thereafter, on December 16, 1969 the then Metropolitan Alexei of Tallinn, now Patriarch Alexei II, acting as Director of Affairs of the Moscow Patriarchate, announced the Sacred Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church's decision to admit Catholics to receive communion in Russian Orthodox churches (this decision was subsequently rescinded several years later)."
http://rumkatkilise.org/necplus.htm


From Fr Ambrosios Pogodin:

"In one of its decrees the Vatican Council felt it possible and even desirable that Roman Catholics finding themselves beyond the vicinity of a Catholic Church, could receive the holy sacraments, including Holy Communion, from Orthodox Churches in their vicinity. Only the Moscow Patriarchate responded to this and announced a decision favorable to the Catholics, allowing them to receive Communion in Orthodox Churches where there were no Roman Catholic churches. This decision was accepted by the Patriarchal Synod on December 16, 1969 and was also affirmed at a later date. See Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate in English, 1983, No 4, p. 76."

Source  ::  "Reception of Persons into the Orthodox Church"
by Archimandrite Ambrosios Pogodin
Appendix 2
http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/reception-appendices.html
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #88 on: April 23, 2009, 03:27:38 AM »

I will grant that it's possible that some diocesan bishops in Russia may have been more permissive than might be deemed canonical, but this doesn't reveal as much about the internal practices and governance of the MP as it may have a couple of decades ago, again because of the greater localization I see in the direct jurisdictional authority exercised by the MP. 

Christ is Risen!

Dear Peter,

Speaking as a member of the Church of Russia I can affirm that what Pravoslav09 is saying about communing Roman Catholics is out of left field.  It is quite impossible that the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad would have united with the MP if this were an MP practice.

Here is something from 9 months ago forbidding mixed prayer with the heterodox.  How less likely is it that we would be engaged in interpcommunion!?   Shocked

Russian Bishops say that if believers visit non-Orthodox church services
they may not engage in either external or internal prayer.


http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=4928

11 July 2008, 14:17
Bishops' Council against isolation and confessional mix, the Moscow
Patriarchate says

Moscow, July 11, Interfax - The Russian Church Bishops' Council
recently held in Moscow has "decisively dissociated from two extreme
ideologies," deputy head of the Moscow Patriarchate Department for
External Church Relations Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin said.

"On one side, it is Bishop Diomid's isolation and identifying
Orthodoxy with a certain political choice. On the other, it is "a
confessional mix" and the so-called theory of branches which equals
all Christian confessions that supposedly belong to one living tree,"
Fr. Vsevolod told an Interfax-Religion correspondent on Friday.

"I think the question of our participation in ecumenical prayers
messing up Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant traditions is settled
once and forever," the priest said.

He reminded that once the Orthodox participation in such prayers was
justified as "then Western Christians were closer to us in true faith
kept by the Orthodox Church, while today they, especially the world
of liberal Protestantism, have got even further from the possibility
of such unity."

According to the priest, the Council stated that "witness to the
truth of the Holy Orthodoxy" is an objective of inter-Christian and
inter-religious dialogues, and the councilor decision reads that the
Russian Orthodox Church "doesn't accept any attempts to "mix
confessions," to hold joint prayer services that artificially combine
confessional or religious traditions."

Besides, Fr. Vsevolod further said, one of the Council's preliminary
documents - theological and canonical analysis of letters and appeals
signed by Bishop Diomid - reminds of "the very clear thought stated
in the Basic Principles of the Attitude of the Russian Orthodox
Church Towards the Non-Orthodox, that the Orthodox Church is "the
one, holy catholic and apostolic Church."

The interviewee of the agency noted that the Theological and
canonical analysis also stated that "Orthodox believers can visit
Catholic or Protestant churches, attend non-Orthodox service without
voiced or inner prayer, Orthodox prayer before all-Christian shrines
is also acceptable while public or private prayers with non-Orthodox
are inadmissible for Orthodox believers."



Logged
IPC
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: RZC
Posts: 308


« Reply #89 on: April 23, 2009, 08:28:22 PM »

I think the letter "z" is being used way too much here.

PArdon me AMM? I hope you're not calling anyone a z z Tongue
Logged

THIS USER USED THE SCREEN NAME PRAVOSLAV09 BEFORE.
Tags: chrism Agent Drozdov Moscow Patriarchate Russian Orthodox Church 
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  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 0.216 seconds with 72 queries.