OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 22, 2014, 01:58:42 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Apostasy of ROCOR  (Read 20865 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
IPC
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: RZC
Posts: 308


« on: June 07, 2009, 10:49:43 PM »

This topic was split from the thread on the Slavic Languages, titled "Хронология апостасии РПЦ(з)." --Heorhij, moderator

Dear Father Anastasii, moderator, and everyone,

The language and tone in the posts I submitted in this section is used by the Church, as we can see in many liturgical texts such as the supplications during Divine Liturgy for the deliverance of the persecuted True Orthodox people in the Motherland (Russia), and the anathemas chanted every year during the service of Sunday of Orthodoxy.

We can not censor, modify, or change the words and tone used by the Christ Himself, and His Church, simply because someone doesn't like it, or feels offended by them.

Every True Orthodox Christian has the duty, and the right, to call things by their name, without being attacked, censored, silenced, or persecuted.

If anyone feels what has been said is incorrect, they can freely discuss, debate, refute, and even reject whatever they want, following the rules in this forum, which clearly state we must TARGET THE SUBJECT OF DISCUSSION and RESPECT OTHERS.

As far as I'm concerned, I am closely following the rules, by posting the information in a respectful way, and respecting everyone, while others have been blatantly and stubbornly violating the rules. The prove is, I haven't gotten personal, and some have. I have targeted the subject and others have targeted me.

Based on the rules of this forum, and the law, there is no ground nor justification to delete or sanction these kind of messages.

If there is something to be corrected, it's acceptable to correct it according to the faith, with words such as "this is from God, because,,,," or "This is satanic, because,,,"  It shouldn't be a motive of scandal, outrage, or violence.

If we are Christians, we should speak like our Master and Lord.

Why down tune, alter, change, re-interpret the Gospel, when the Lord told us not to?






« Last Edit: June 08, 2009, 11:20:49 AM by Heorhij » Logged

THIS USER USED THE SCREEN NAME PRAVOSLAV09 BEFORE.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 07, 2009, 10:55:44 PM »

I'm not familiar with the Holy Fathers referring to entire groups of people as spawn of Satan. I am, however, aware of them addressing specific heresiarchs in such ways that have been condemned.

I also am not aware of any anathema against an entire group of people, but rather anathemas against people who hold certain opinions.

In any case, none of us are Church Fathers, and so we should be careful to speak clearly without creating labels like "spawn of Satan." The Church will judge, but it will do so with moderation as it always has. But we are not deified Church Fathers and the potential for us to insert our personal feelings in is too great. We can discuss heresies in a factual way without the need to resort to such labels.

I believe that anyone who informed on someone confessing did the work of Satan and was a false priest or false hierarch. I believe I can say this without saying that everyone in the entire Moscow Patriarchate was the spawn of Satan. I believe that the creation of the Moscow Patriarchate was the result of Stalin and was anti-ecclesiastical, and I categorically reject the reunion of the ROCOR under Metropolitan Laurus with this Church, but I do so without feeling a need to create labels to describe their spiritual state.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2009, 11:21:15 AM by Heorhij » Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

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
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,144


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #2 on: June 08, 2009, 06:25:47 AM »

... and I categorically reject the reunion of the ROCOR under Metropolitan Laurus with this Church ...

May I suggest, Fr Anastasios, that you read my earlier post of the analysis of the Sixteen Points of Met. Philaret? Then you might be in a better position to form an informed opinion on the reconciliation of ROCOR and the MP.  police
« Last Edit: June 08, 2009, 11:21:37 AM by Heorhij » Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #3 on: June 08, 2009, 09:58:00 AM »

... and I categorically reject the reunion of the ROCOR under Metropolitan Laurus with this Church ...

May I suggest, Fr Anastasios, that you read my earlier post of the analysis of the Sixteen Points of Met. Philaret? Then you might be in a better position to form an informed opinion on the reconciliation of ROCOR and the MP.  police

LBK...LBK...

I did a thesis on the life of Metropolitan Petros for my Master's Degree. I had access to the ROCOR archives and spent two days in there. I copied hundreds of pages of information when I was in there. I have also read everything available on the internet on this topic in English, and have asked my friends to translate some of the Russian material, and have several dozen back issues of the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate's English edition which I scoured. I even had a ROCOR contact involved with the joint theological commission who would give me daily updates of what was going on during the pre-planning stages.  But even after informing myself, gasp, I came to a different conclusion than you did  angel

My bishop Metropolitan Pavlos literally grew up around Metropolitan Laurus.  Our Youtube channel features footage of then-Bishop Laurus serving at our Cathedral St Markella's in Astoria with Metropolitan Pavlos then a subdeacon serving with him.  In the 1980's and early 1990's, he regularly met with now-Met Hilarion and now-Bp Gabriel for lunch.  He was in the altar when Metropolitan Laurus was installed (his support of Met Laurus caused some consternation with other bishops in our Synod who had supported Met Vitaly).  Metropolitan Laurus visited him when he had a stroke in 2006.  My bishop knows the ROCOR bishops very well and had numerous lengthy discussions with them about the proposed union before it happened. And he also came away with a different opinion on it.

So thanks for encouraging me to read this document from Metropolitan Philaret, but I've already seen these sorts of things, along with the years of being subjected to reading the posts of Frs. Whiteford, Shaw, and Lebedeff where they tried every argument to sway people for the union and when necessary against the Greek Old Calendarists. Why, one time, Fr. John Whiteford even tried to tell people that St. John Maximovitch did not support the Greek Old Calendarists! That was news to me, since in the ROCOR Synod archives the minutes from one of the Synod meetings in the late 1950's have him asking the Synod to make bishops for us, and of course he came to St. Markella's with Archbishop Averky to visit Bishop Petros (you may have seen these photos online before).

The reunion between the MP and the ROCOR is something we disagreed on ecclesiologically, but it also presented a great personal difficulty as it represented the final estrangement of our bishop with the ROCOR bishops with whom he grew up and with whom he was once of one mind and heart. We are much more aware of the situation and the implications than you seem to be aware, so hence why I have taken the time to write this post to clarify the matter.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2009, 02:42:45 PM by Fr. Anastasios » Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

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
IPC
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: RZC
Posts: 308


« Reply #4 on: June 08, 2009, 10:02:57 AM »

Dear Father Anastasii,

If we recall the Scriptures, and the canons and dogmas of the Church, heretics are referred to as enemies of Christ who are worst than pagans, church of evil doers, those whose father is the devil and partake in his worship, synagogue of satan, and other terms which now days are being suppressed.

The first condemnation of the new Moscow Patriarchate created by the revolutionary government was done by the All Russian Synod, presided by Patriarch Tikhon (Martyr and Confessor). In this synodical resolution, the revolutionaries and all their allies were anathematized and exorcised.

Seeing the perniciousness and fury of heretics, the anathemas of the Church describe the heresy anathematized, the heresiarch, and condemn everyone who a) Accepts the heresy b) Submits to the heresiarch c) Those who are in communion with them.

In addition to this, there are canons instructing us to shun heretics, and makes us subject to excommunication if we dare to pray with them, because this is the establishment of communion in prayer with them, and a way of endorsing and supporting error.

Seeing the malice and danger of heretics, the Holy Fathers of the Church were very energic with them, as we can see in the words of Saint John Chrysostomos "I'm like a bee, with honey for believers and a sting for heretics".

In addition to this, the Church has Canons forbidding any sort of dialogue, agreement, and alliance of any kind with heretics. According to the Church, there must only be a monologue, where the Church speaks and heretics listen, and the heretics must make the choice to join Her or not.

This might sound like a harsh measure, but it's not. The devastating effect of the dialogues, round tables, agreements, strategic alliances, and other canonical violations to deal with heretics in a new way, is clearly seen nowdays. Roman Catholics, sergianists, non chalcedonians, and other heterodox groups, insist in their error, and make no concessions, while the leadership of "World Orthodoxy" are lead by error and inforce reforms in faith, and practice, to come closer to their heterodox strategic allies, and at the same time, refuse any contact with the True Orthodox Church and constantly attack Her, as witnessed by the violent attacks of the Ecumenical Patriarch to the monastery of Esphigmenou in Mount Athos, and the violent attacks of the Patriarch of Moscow against the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad via their new allies leaded by Ab. Laurus of sorrowful memory.  


« Last Edit: June 08, 2009, 11:22:26 AM by Heorhij » Logged

THIS USER USED THE SCREEN NAME PRAVOSLAV09 BEFORE.
Dan-Romania
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #5 on: June 08, 2009, 12:20:57 PM »

Pravoslav09 , I don`t see heretics or unorthodox christians worst than pagans . What is good for all christians is that we have Christ , while Jesus said : "who will break one of this commandements very little shall be called in the kingdom of heaven".So whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.I think buddhists and muslims are worst than heretics , atheists worst than believers , and pagans worst than all.The chair of satan , or throne of satan of synagogue of satan is based on lies , heresies , sins etc. As other christian denomination might be heretics in a way or another , they still have a part of truth , wich is Jesus Christ.But it gets darker and darker outside christianism.I am of the opinion that an orthodox should not commune/pray or do other things wich count as worship with the heretics. Cause while we are with them , and the majority are heretics we are under the spirit of lie and another spirit , and we take a part of their innapropriate veneration of another spirit.But I believe that is good for the to come and take a part of true worship with us , with the good group.I think those words are a little transhant Pravoslav09.Remmber the letter adressed to the 7 Churches from Revelation . What the Spirit speaks to the Churches. Remmeber that not all Churches had the truth of God , btw them were infiltrated heresies , but what does Jesus say : repent and turn to the truth. 
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,874


« Reply #6 on: June 08, 2009, 01:58:34 PM »

Now ROCOR is anathema? How does this work? I see this same tactic over and over again by some alleged represetative of some alleged "true" Orthodoxy with some "true" apostolic succession towards the "heretical world Orthodoxy". Does one obtain a copy of The Rudder and memorize canon laws & predetermine that the mass of Orthodox, let alone the mass of humanity, are "heretics?"
« Last Edit: June 08, 2009, 01:59:32 PM by recent convert » Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #7 on: June 08, 2009, 02:01:01 PM »

Now ROCOR is anathema? How does this work? I see this same tactic over and over again by some alleged represetative of some alleged "true" Orthodoxy with some "true" apostolic succession towards the "heretical world Orthodoxy". Does one obtain a copy of The Rudder and memorize canon laws & predetermine that the mass of Orthodox, let alone the mass of humanity, are "heretics?"

Wow, you figured out our secret!  Grin Tongue
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

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
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,428


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #8 on: June 08, 2009, 02:47:25 PM »

Pravoslav09 , I don`t see heretics or unorthodox christians worst than pagans . What is good for all christians is that we have Christ , while Jesus said : "who will break one of this commandements very little shall be called in the kingdom of heaven".So whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.I think buddhists and muslims are worst than heretics , atheists worst than believers , and pagans worst than all.The chair of satan , or throne of satan of synagogue of satan is based on lies , heresies , sins etc. As other christian denomination might be heretics in a way or another , they still have a part of truth , wich is Jesus Christ.But it gets darker and darker outside christianism.I am of the opinion that an orthodox should not commune/pray or do other things wich count as worship with the heretics. Cause while we are with them , and the majority are heretics we are under the spirit of lie and another spirit , and we take a part of their innapropriate veneration of another spirit.But I believe that is good for the to come and take a part of true worship with us , with the good group.I think those words are a little transhant Pravoslav09.Remmber the letter adressed to the 7 Churches from Revelation . What the Spirit speaks to the Churches. Remmeber that not all Churches had the truth of God , btw them were infiltrated heresies , but what does Jesus say : repent and turn to the truth. 
Actually, Dan, despite my very outspoken disagreement with Pravoslav09 regarding who is to be condemned for heresy, I do agree with him on the point that heretics are much worse than pagans.  The very fact, which you cited, that heretics have been enlightened by much more truth than have the pagans, is what makes them more dangerous.  Heretics are much more capable than pagans of mixing the truth with lies and thus deceiving the faithful.  Pagans may live in the dark outside the Church, but they've generally always been there, and the darkness of their minds we Christians can recognize pretty clearly and not allow as much infiltration into the flock.
Logged
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,378


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #9 on: June 08, 2009, 03:47:29 PM »

So let me see if I understand this. The Greek Old Calenderists who are not in communion with World wide Orthodoxy are calling ROCOR "heretics" for coming back into communion with the rest of Orthodoxy?

So the schismatics are calling those who are no longer in schism "heretics"?

I'm sorry, but how does that make sense?
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #10 on: June 08, 2009, 03:51:09 PM »

I'm sorry, but how does that make sense?

It's Orthodoxy. It doesn't have to make sense.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2009, 03:51:28 PM by mike » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,493



« Reply #11 on: June 08, 2009, 03:59:05 PM »

So let me see if I understand this. The Greek Old Calenderists who are not in communion with World wide Orthodoxy are calling ROCOR "heretics" for coming back into communion with the rest of Orthodoxy?

So the schismatics are calling those who are no longer in schism "heretics"?

I'm sorry, but how does that make sense?

I don't think that Pravoslav09 is a Greek Old Calendarist. I also do not get the sense that Father Anastasios, who is an Old Calendarist, has called ROCOR heretical--he just is not very happy with ROCOR's decision to rejoin with MP. .
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,378


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #12 on: June 08, 2009, 04:01:31 PM »

I'm sorry, but how does that make sense?

It's Orthodoxy. It doesn't have to make sense.

LOL, ah yes, "it's a mystery."  laugh
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #13 on: June 08, 2009, 04:02:27 PM »

So let me see if I understand this. The Greek Old Calenderists who are not in communion with World wide Orthodoxy are calling ROCOR "heretics" for coming back into communion with the rest of Orthodoxy?

So the schismatics are calling those who are no longer in schism "heretics"?

I'm sorry, but how does that make sense?

If you think ROCOR was in schism before 2007, or that the Greek Old Calendarists only had legitimacy insofar as they were in communion with ROCOR, then obviously it wouldn't make sense. But obviously, other people have a different perspective, which is why there is a disagreement in the first place.
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

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
Andrew21091
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,266



« Reply #14 on: June 08, 2009, 04:05:02 PM »

I thought ROCOR remained in communion with everyone except Moscow before the signing of restoration of communion between the MP and ROCOR.
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #15 on: June 08, 2009, 04:05:47 PM »

I thought ROCOR remained in communion with everyone except Moscow before the signing of restoration of communion between the MP and ROCOR.

That is what some would have us believe. Actual mileage may vary.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2009, 04:05:57 PM by Fr. Anastasios » Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

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
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #16 on: June 08, 2009, 04:09:33 PM »

I thought ROCOR remained in communion with everyone except Moscow before the signing of restoration of communion between the MP and ROCOR.

It is said that it remained in communion only with Jerusalem and Serbia.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
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 #17 on: June 08, 2009, 04:45:26 PM »

That is what some would have us believe. Actual mileage may vary.

It's not really an issue of what some believe. It's what did it's Synod decide. And while they officially refrained from concelebration with numerous jurisdictions, they never stopped such with Serbia or Jerusalem and they never officially broke communion with any Autocephalous Church.

I've heard stories of individual parishes denying communion to various New Calendrists. I, on the other hand, was received in the GOA, became OCA when I moved from there, and when I travelled was able to receive communion (with proper preparation) in ROCOR parishes from Texas to Canada even at the 'height' of ROCOR's growing distance from the autocephalous churches.
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
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #18 on: June 08, 2009, 04:51:19 PM »

That is what some would have us believe. Actual mileage may vary.

It's not really an issue of what some believe. It's what did it's Synod decide. And while they officially refrained from concelebration with numerous jurisdictions, they never stopped such with Serbia or Jerusalem and they never officially broke communion with any Autocephalous Church.

I'm not sure it's as simple as you suggest, because there were different factions in the 1970's that wanted to see things go one way or the other, and there were conflicting statements made at various times.  For instance, I have a copy of a letter from Bishop Leonty of Chile to Bishop Petros of Astoria where he states categorically that he is not in communion with Patriarch German of Serbia.  What are we supposed to make of that? Was it official or not? Was he responding that way because the Synod had made such a decision? Or was he acting unilaterally? And what does it mean that they did not "officially break communion" with any autocephalous Church? They certainly officially broke communion with the Moscow Patriarchate no? And they certainly declared the creation of the OCA to be schismatic, no? Did they concelebrate with bishops of the other mainstream Churches between 1968 and 1992? When they entered in to full and official liturgical communion with the GOC in 1969, did they maintain communion with the EP? They certainly told us they did not. That is what I am getting at--there are official statements, and actual mileage may vary.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2009, 04:58:07 PM by Fr. Anastasios » Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

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
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #19 on: June 08, 2009, 04:52:24 PM »

I thought ROCOR remained in communion with everyone except Moscow before the signing of restoration of communion between the MP and ROCOR.

It is said that it remained in communion only with Jerusalem and Serbia.

I don't yet understand why they would have not maintained communion with Georgia...?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,181


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #20 on: June 08, 2009, 04:55:15 PM »

That is what some would have us believe. Actual mileage may vary.

 and they never officially broke communion with any Autocephalous Church.



Um...care to validate that?  Or explain it?  I was under the impression that communion WAS broken because they...refused to be in communion.  There are multiple levels to my question:

a.  did they actually "say" something and break communion

b.  did they not recieve communion at any other autocephalous church (which for the most part is true, so they were NOT in ACTUAL communion...paper or otherwise)
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #21 on: June 08, 2009, 04:57:28 PM »

That is what some would have us believe. Actual mileage may vary.

 and they never officially broke communion with any Autocephalous Church.



Um...care to validate that?  Or explain it?  I was under the impression that communion WAS broken because they...refused to be in communion.  There are multiple levels to my question:

a.  did they actually "say" something and break communion

b.  did they not recieve communion at any other autocephalous church (which for the most part is true, so they were NOT in ACTUAL communion...paper or otherwise)

Yes you make a very good point that I was trying to make above; is it only official if you send a letter on official letterhead, or is it official when for many years you refuse to concelebrate, have little contact, and at times even receive people in to your church via profession of faith from other jurisdictions? Is that not official? What does it mean to be a official decision?
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

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
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 #22 on: June 08, 2009, 05:21:04 PM »

I don't doubt that you have such letter. And it was not just the 70's that there were certainly individuals from the episcopal down to the lay level who *wanted* ROCOR to be out of communion with all the New Calendar churches and anyone else associated with them.

But the fact is, those individuals never had their position validated by a decision of the full synod of ROCOR. Yes, an individual priest might deny an individual commuion. He might be backed up by his bishop. But you could cross into the next diocese and receive communion.

And I don't know where you get your information serb1389. Because just as I'm sure Fr. Anastasios has the letter he does, I knew New Calendrists (including myself) who throughout the 80s and 90s (70s is a bit before my time) received communion in ROCOR churches. I knew ROCOR parishoners who received in New Calendar churches while traveling. And I knew former ROCOR parishoners whose (ROCOR) spiritual father told them to attend SCOBA church when they moved to an area that didn't have a ROCOR parish (in fact, my eldest's godfather was one such--who was attending the local GOA parish in 92 at the direction of his spiritual father).

The individuals who acted outside the consensus of their episcopal synod will have to answer for themselves, but I'll repeat my point--at no point did the synod of ROCOR, acting in council as the highest authority of ROCOR, break communion with the autocephalous churches. If there was a synodal declaration I missed, I'm fully prepared to be corrected, but as I've indicated, I've been on regular terms with ROCOR laity and clergy since my own reception and no one's ever indicated that ROCOR did more than forbid concelebration (which is certainly a show of eccliastical disapproval, but a whole order of magnitude lower than stopping communion).
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #23 on: June 08, 2009, 05:27:29 PM »

I thought ROCOR remained in communion with everyone except Moscow before the signing of restoration of communion between the MP and ROCOR.

It is said that it remained in communion only with Jerusalem and Serbia.

The Russian Church Abroad remained in CONCELEBRATION with the Jerusalem and Serbia.

Concelebration with other Orthodox Churches was the norm until 1968.  After that time, with no official announcement from anybody at all, it gradually disappeared.   Basically it proceeded from the concerns of ROCA's bishops about the ecumenical movement which in those years was at its worst.

Intercommunion?   This was always taking place with all Orthodox Churches EXCEPT for Moscow.   ROCA faithful were able to receive in all other Orthodox Churches.

The attachment below is from the Yearbook of the Greek Archdiocese of America for 1968 and it shows that the Greek Church recognised the Russian Church Abroad as a Church with which it was in communion.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2009, 05:33:20 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Bogoliubtsy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,268



« Reply #24 on: June 08, 2009, 05:38:45 PM »

I thought ROCOR remained in communion with everyone except Moscow before the signing of restoration of communion between the MP and ROCOR.

It is said that it remained in communion only with Jerusalem and Serbia.

The Russian Church Abroad remained in CONCELEBRATION with the Jerusalem and Serbia.

Concelebration with other Orthodox Churches was the norm until 1968.  After that time, with no official announcement from anybody at all, it gradually disappeared.   Basically it proceeded from the concerns of ROCA's bishops about the ecumenical movement which in those years was at its worst.

Intercommunion?   This was always taking place with all Orthodox Churches EXCEPT for Moscow.   ROCA faithful were able to receive in all other Orthodox Churches.

The attachment below is from the Yearbook of the Greek Archdiocese of America for 1968 and it shows that the Greek Church recognised the Russian Church Abroad as a Church with which it was in communion.

Always found it amazing how ROCOR detractors before the union would point to the undefiled days of Met. Philaret while those good old days were spent in full communion with the ecumenist Greek Archdiocese, it seems.
Logged

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,144


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #25 on: June 08, 2009, 05:56:16 PM »

It must also be remembered that at no time has ROCOR ever formally and officially insisted or specified that anyone's baptism or marriage in the MP (even if this was conducted during Soviet times) be "corrected" before their acceptance into a ROCOR parish. As witega said, suspension of formal communion is one thing, declaration of heresy is quite another.

Let's also not forget that even the great St John of Shanghai and San Francisco was wont to commemorate the Patriarch of Moscow by name in the litanies. One could hardly regard him as a "liberal".
Logged
IPC
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: RZC
Posts: 308


« Reply #26 on: June 08, 2009, 06:23:58 PM »

If you think ROCOR was in schism before 2007, or that the Greek Old Calendarists only had legitimacy insofar as they were in communion with ROCOR, then obviously it wouldn't make sense. But obviously, other people have a different perspective, which is why there is a disagreement in the first place.
.

Dear Father Anastasii:

The new ROCOR under the Moscow Patrirarchate was in schism before 2007.

In July 2001, a group of irresponsible dissidents with an unorthodox frame of mind who seized key positions in ROCOR, secured part of Church property and fonds under their names and the names of organizations controlled by them, met in the headquarters of ROCOR in New York City. and attempted to  force their First Hiearch, Metropolitan Vitaly of thrice blessed memory, to sign his "voluntary retirement" as well as pile of documents in which he transfered all the properties and fonds under his name, both those in which he was the "legal representative" and the private owner to them, in order to gain full control of ROCOR.

Metropolitan Vitaly refused, declared the meeting void, and decided to leave, but the dissidents did not want to let him out of the building. Someone who was present there had to made a phone call to the NYPD (Police), and thanks God the police officers rescued Metropolitan Vitaly.

Latter on, the group of dissidents appointed Ab Laurus Skhurla as the first hiearch of their newly created ROCOR, with the full approval and endorsement of the Moscow Patriarchate, and Patriarch Alexis II of sorrowful memory, and continued their attacks against Metropolitan Vitaly and the ROCOR. It was thanks to the canadian police, that laurist representatives, in the company of private security guards, could not kidnap Metropolitan Vitaly.

By voluntarily separating themselves from their First Hiearch and the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR), the creation of a parallel synod, their appointment of a new First Hiearch for themselves, this group of dissidents presided by Ab Laurus became an uncanonical (illegal according to Church Law) breakaway faction of the ROCOR.

After the formal incorporation of ROCOR (L) in 2007, they passed from being schismatics, to actually being apostates.

ROCOR and the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece, have a good relationship. In the newspaper "Agathangelos" from the Monastery of Esphigmenou, Abbot Methodios recognized Metropolitan Vitaly as the legitimate and only First Hiearch of the ROCOR, and in the synodicalof ROCOR under the presidency of Metropolitan Vitaly, has openly recognized the struggle of the Fathers of Esphigmenou.

ROCOR had not issued any statement disputing the legitimacy of the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece, presided by Ab Chrisostomos II (Kiousis) of Athens and all Greece.

In my personal opinion, you are a legitimate true orthodox priest with a valid ordination, and grace, given that you belong to the GOCG under Ab Chrisostomos, and you are in the prayer list section for the orthodox christians.




« Last Edit: June 08, 2009, 06:27:09 PM by Pravoslav09 » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,144


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #27 on: June 08, 2009, 07:10:05 PM »

Pravoslav09 and Fr Anastasios

I'm still waiting for examples of heresy (i.e. false doctrine) preached by MP or ROCOR through their respective liturgical deposits. After all, lex orandi, lex credendi. Irregularities or anomalies of an administrative nature are not, in and of themselves, heresies.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2009, 07:13:07 PM by LBK » Logged
Andrew21091
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,266



« Reply #28 on: June 08, 2009, 07:17:24 PM »

Pravoslav09, I find it very disrespectful that when you refer to Metropolitan Laurus and Patriarch Alexis of sorrowful memory. I see it as extremely unnecessary and disrespectful; I don't care if you don't like them, you shouldn't show such disrespect. Do you really think your going to win over any new converts to the Old Calendarist Church by being insulting to others? What happened to preaching the Gospel in a loving manner instead of attacking everyone else?

St. Papa Nicholas Planas and Blessed Elder Ieronymos who were zealously old calendar but you didn't see them running around calling people heretics and apostates did you?
« Last Edit: June 08, 2009, 07:19:36 PM by Andrew21091 » Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #29 on: June 08, 2009, 07:33:56 PM »

Pravoslav09 and Fr Anastasios

I'm still waiting for examples of heresy (i.e. false doctrine) preached by MP or ROCOR through their respective liturgical deposits. After all, lex orandi, lex credendi. Irregularities or anomalies of an administrative nature are not, in and of themselves, heresies.

I'm still waiting for you to explain how heresy can be limited to a liturgical deposit--and I mean that in all sincerity; I really am curious. It seems to me you have defined in an idiosyncratic manner what the deposit of faith is and then are expecting others to conform to your definition; but I believe your definition is limited.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2009, 07:56:43 PM by Fr. Anastasios » Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

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
IPC
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: RZC
Posts: 308


« Reply #30 on: June 08, 2009, 07:41:33 PM »

Dear Andrew21091

Thank you for your words, I apologize if I offended or hurt anyone. I'm taking your words to heart.



« Last Edit: June 08, 2009, 07:43:42 PM by Pravoslav09 » Logged

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

Posts: 2,268



« Reply #31 on: June 08, 2009, 07:48:04 PM »

If you think ROCOR was in schism before 2007, or that the Greek Old Calendarists only had legitimacy insofar as they were in communion with ROCOR, then obviously it wouldn't make sense. But obviously, other people have a different perspective, which is why there is a disagreement in the first place.
.

Dear Father Anastasii:

The new ROCOR under the Moscow Patrirarchate was in schism before 2007.

In July 2001, a group of irresponsible dissidents with an unorthodox frame of mind who seized key positions in ROCOR, secured part of Church property and fonds under their names and the names of organizations controlled by them, met in the headquarters of ROCOR in New York City. and attempted to  force their First Hiearch, Metropolitan Vitaly of thrice blessed memory, to sign his "voluntary retirement" as well as pile of documents in which he transfered all the properties and fonds under his name, both those in which he was the "legal representative" and the private owner to them, in order to gain full control of ROCOR.

Metropolitan Vitaly refused, declared the meeting void, and decided to leave, but the dissidents did not want to let him out of the building. Someone who was present there had to made a phone call to the NYPD (Police), and thanks God the police officers rescued Metropolitan Vitaly.

Latter on, the group of dissidents appointed Ab Laurus Skhurla as the first hiearch of their newly created ROCOR, with the full approval and endorsement of the Moscow Patriarchate, and Patriarch Alexis II of sorrowful memory, and continued their attacks against Metropolitan Vitaly and the ROCOR. It was thanks to the canadian police, that laurist representatives, in the company of private security guards, could not kidnap Metropolitan Vitaly.

By voluntarily separating themselves from their First Hiearch and the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR), the creation of a parallel synod, their appointment of a new First Hiearch for themselves, this group of dissidents presided by Ab Laurus became an uncanonical (illegal according to Church Law) breakaway faction of the ROCOR.

After the formal incorporation of ROCOR (L) in 2007, they passed from being schismatics, to actually being apostates.

I'm sure there are plenty of threads already on OC.net that cover this mumbo jumbo that is again and again rehashed on the web.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2009, 07:48:56 PM by Bogoliubtsy » Logged

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #32 on: June 08, 2009, 07:55:08 PM »

Dear Father Anastasii,

If we recall the Scriptures, and the canons and dogmas of the Church, heretics are referred to as enemies of Christ who are worst than pagans, church of evil doers, those whose father is the devil and partake in his worship, synagogue of satan, and other terms which now days are being suppressed....


I don't want to belabor a point on which I don't in essence disagree with you on. I do not in any way deny that heretics are enemies of Christ, that the Church has spoken definitively on various heresies and heretics, etc.  What I am concerned about here is the pastoral application of such statements to people that may not be personally guilty of the heresy due to ignorance or other factors. I'm also not sure that it's a good idea for us to use such strong language when we are not Holy Fathers and thus are liable to insert our own anger and emotions in to the statements. So I prefer to stick to the factual information without using subjective descriptions of individuals. I don't believe that that is in any way censuring the truth, but rather choosing to express it in a particular way instead of another way.
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

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
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #33 on: June 08, 2009, 08:00:04 PM »


Always found it amazing how ROCOR detractors before the union would point to the undefiled days of Met. Philaret while those good old days were spent in full communion with the ecumenist Greek Archdiocese, it seems.

I am not sure I know of any detractors who spoke of the undefiled days of Metropolitan Philaret.

It seems to me there were factions even from before the time of Metropolitan Philaret and that he dealt with them in a certain manner.  But he allowed divergent views such as those of Bishop Anthony of Geneva, in an effort to keep the Church Abroad united, which later exploded into several divisions that we see now.

It seems to me that there never was, therefore, a pristine time,  but I would certainly say that Metropolitan Philaret was right in his views.

At any rate, the Greek Archdiocese Yearbook lists ROCOR until 1968, but ROCOR seems to have stopped reciprocating some time around 1962-5 as far as I can tell. It was concelebrating with Metropolitan Petros in 1968, and was in full communion with the GOC by 1969. For me, those would have been the good old days Smiley
« Last Edit: June 08, 2009, 08:17:04 PM by Fr. Anastasios » Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

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
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #34 on: June 08, 2009, 08:02:22 PM »

I don't doubt that you have such letter. And it was not just the 70's that there were certainly individuals from the episcopal down to the lay level who *wanted* ROCOR to be out of communion with all the New Calendar churches and anyone else associated with them.

But the fact is, those individuals never had their position validated by a decision of the full synod of ROCOR. Yes, an individual priest might deny an individual commuion. He might be backed up by his bishop. But you could cross into the next diocese and receive communion.

See, I would say the so-called strict position became the norm and that the position of Bp Anthony of Geneva was the minority view.  However, I will fully allow that it is understandable that the view you hold, which is the reverse of mine, is plausible.  I believe that the ambiguity of the ROCOR eventually led to the schisms we have witnessed from 1986 to 2007 (we will probably disagree on who was the party that went in to schism).
« Last Edit: June 08, 2009, 08:07:35 PM by Fr. Anastasios » Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

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
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #35 on: June 08, 2009, 08:03:47 PM »

Pravloslav09,

I think it's best we not get in to Met Vitaly vs Met Laurus on this thead.

I am aware of both sides of the argument and would be happy to discuss it with you in another venue, but feel it will throw this thread off track.

In Christ,

Fr Anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

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
IPC
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: RZC
Posts: 308


« Reply #36 on: June 08, 2009, 08:42:07 PM »

One of the key points to understand the apostacy of ROCOR, is to focus on the following:

Over the course of more than 80 years, the ROCOR has not recognized the Moscow Patriarchate founded by the soviet authorities and Metropolitan Sergius in the 20's, and has categorically condemned it as a government institution. This is witnessed in the countless public documents and publications of ROCOR published in the course of decades.

All of a sudden, the group of dissidents who decided to join the MP, recognize it and constantly repeat the same lie as their motto "ROCOR has always recognized the MP". Why didn't they recognize they have changed their views and attitude towards the Moscow Patriarchate, instead of lying constantly?

If their claims to be doing "the will of God" are true, why do they resource to cunning and deceit? Why the lies?

When the Ecumenical Patriarchate lifted the anathema to the Roman Catholicism, it's representatives didn't say "the orthodox church has never said catholics are not heretics", they created apologetics, explaining the anathemas as "misunderstandings, created mostly by political reasons".

Why didn't the leadership of ROCOR under Met Laurus made a similar move, like "yes, ROCOR condemned the MP because,,,,,,, but we've reached a "better understanding" about the issue, and decided to lift the condemnations and for the first time in history, give the MP full recognition...."

Lies, cunning, deceit and falsehood are the main issue of ROCOR under the MP, and what clearly marks their abandonment of the Comforter Spirit of Truth, and their submission to the father of lies.

Now, parting from this, let us discuss the issue.

What made the ROCOR (L) accept the MP not only as the real Russian Church, but also as the mother Church?

What is the dogmatic and canonical basis for the dissolution of ROCOR (L) into the MP?

Let this be factual and accurate, and not post distorted documents, and desinformation, let us be honest.

Logged

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

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 2,760



« Reply #37 on: June 08, 2009, 09:49:08 PM »

*Sigh* Some people must not have any real problems...
« Last Edit: June 08, 2009, 09:49:26 PM by Rosehip » Logged

+ Our dear sister Martha (Rosehip) passed away on Dec 20, 2010.  May her memory be eternal! +
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #38 on: June 08, 2009, 09:54:01 PM »

*Sigh* Some people must not have any real problems...

I know... Smiley
Logged

Love never fails.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #39 on: June 08, 2009, 10:08:48 PM »

One of the key points to understand the apostacy of ROCOR, is to focus on the following:

Over the course of more than 80 years, the ROCOR has not recognized the Moscow Patriarchate founded by the soviet authorities

The Moscow Patriarchate was founded by Boris Gudonov, St. Job and the rest of the Orthodox Patriarchs.  It was restored by St. Tikhon, and the last Oberkurator, and the Holy Synod.


Quote
and Metropolitan Sergius in the 20's, and has categorically condemned it as a government institution. This is witnessed in the countless public documents and publications of ROCOR published in the course of decades.

What was the Holy Govorning Synod?

Quote
All of a sudden, the group of dissidents who decided to join the MP, recognize it and constantly repeat the same lie as their motto "ROCOR has always recognized the MP". Why didn't they recognize they have changed their views and attitude towards the Moscow Patriarchate, instead of lying constantly?

If their claims to be doing "the will of God" are true, why do they resource to cunning and deceit? Why the lies?

When the Ecumenical Patriarchate lifted the anathema to the Roman Catholicism, it's representatives didn't say "the orthodox church has never said catholics are not heretics", they created apologetics, explaining the anathemas as "misunderstandings, created mostly by political reasons".

Why didn't the leadership of ROCOR under Met Laurus made a similar move, like "yes, ROCOR condemned the MP because,,,,,,, but we've reached a "better understanding" about the issue, and decided to lift the condemnations and for the first time in history, give the MP full recognition...."

Lies, cunning, deceit and falsehood are the main issue of ROCOR under the MP, and what clearly marks their abandonment of the Comforter Spirit of Truth, and their submission to the father of lies.

Now, parting from this, let us discuss the issue.

What made the ROCOR (L) accept the MP not only as the real Russian Church, but also as the mother Church?

Uh, it's the Church in Russia.

Quote
What is the dogmatic and canonical basis for the dissolution of ROCOR (L) into the MP?

Let this be factual and accurate, and not post distorted documents, and desinformation, let us be honest.

What is the dogmatic and canonical basis for the ROCORettes to remain in schism from the MP?

Let this be factual and accurate, and not post distorted documents, and disinformation, let us be honest.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2009, 10:18:49 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
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 #40 on: June 08, 2009, 10:12:39 PM »

See, I would say the so-called strict position became the norm and that the position of Bp Anthony of Geneva was the minority view.  However, I will fully allow that it is understandable that the view you hold, which is the reverse of mine, is plausible.  I believe that the ambiguity of the ROCOR eventually led to the schisms we have witnessed from 1986 to 2007 (we will probably disagree on who was the party that went in to schism).

With appropriate reversal of perspective, I think we are in general agreement here. But absent official statements, perception of what was the minority and what was the majority view at any point in time is necessarily going to be subjective based on what particular selection of ROCOR members one knew (directly or indirectly).

But I'm not even clear on why the proportion matters? Private opinions, even private directives are not the official position of a *Church*. Nor do our churches operate by a simple majority rules. The official position is what the bishops in council declare it is. And ROCOR started in communion with all the autocephalous Churches, never declared a change to that, and never, as a group, stopped the practice. (Even if they did take other actions, like intercommunion with Old Calendrists that seemed paradoxical--but yes, there was plenty of times when a GOC parishoner and EP/GOA parishoner might have taken communion one after another from a ROCOR priest).
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #41 on: June 08, 2009, 11:51:53 PM »

[Latter on, the group of dissidents appointed Ab Laurus Skhurla as the first hiearch of their newly created ROCOR, with the full approval and endorsement of the Moscow Patriarchate, and Patriarch Alexis II of sorrowful memory, and continued their attacks against Metropolitan Vitaly and the ROCOR. It was thanks to the canadian police, that laurist representatives, in the company of private security guards, could not kidnap Metropolitan Vitaly.

I really have to say something about the tissue of lies and misrepresentation which Pravoslav09 of the Russian Zarist Church is presenting to the Forum.

Let me take just one example since it is the one for which I can supply documentation easily, about the kidnapping of Mertropolitan Vitaly by laurist [sic] representatives.  It will show how he is twisting things.

(Btw, "laurist" is contrary to Forum Rules which require the proper form of address and titles for Orthodoxy clergy.)

There is an eye witness report from Fr Paul Iwaszewicz which describes this
sad episode and the assault on Vladyka Vitaly (a 91 year old man) by the
thugs hired by Bishop Michael Donskoff. Fr Paul describes the actions of
Bishop Michael's men as a "violent assault" and "outrageous and unjustifiable."


November 23, 2001

I was sent to Holy Transfiguration Skete, in
Mansonville, by the Synod of Bishops to speak on
their behalf to Metropolitan Vitaly. I was to
take care of him if he happened to agree to
travel to New York where he would meet with
Metropolitan Laurus in order to heal the schism
within our church. The Synod commanded only Fr.
Alexander Iwaszewicz (who ultimately had not
arrived by November 22nd) and myself to travel
for this purpose. By his own initiative, as he
was not instructed to, Bishop Michael met me at
the airport and drove me to the skete.

On the way to Mansonville we were joined by, what
turned out to be private police officers hired by
Bishop Michael's lawyers. Upon arrival at the skete, they
physically forced Metropolitan Vitaly into the limousine
against his will. What the hired police officers
did is outrageous and not justifiable. Soon,
Metropolitan Vitaly's lawyer was contacted and
then by the order of the judge, Vladyka Vitaly
was permitted to stay at the monastery.

While waiting to hear from the lawyers I sat with
Metropolitan Vitaly in the limousine for several
hours and he displayed no mistrust in me.

Unpredictably and quite sorrowfully, I witnessed
acts by Bishop Michael that were not sanctioned
by the Synod. This is why he is relieved from
the administration of the Canadian Diocese and sent to reside at
HolyTrinity Monastery in Jordanville until the matter would be
resolved by a spiritual court.

On a personal note, I would like those who are
making hostile phone calls not to lower
themselves to the level of those who violently
assaulted Metropolitan Vitaly, and to understand
that Vladyka Vitaly himself would not approve of
such behaviors on his behalf.

Asking for your holy prayers,

Reverend Paul Iwaszewicz
--------------------

Bishop Michael was punished for his actions by being sent to the Jordanville Monastery by the Synod of Bishops.



Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #42 on: June 08, 2009, 11:55:10 PM »

Why is the thread called "Apostasy of ROCOR"?

Poeple must be aware that there are radical differences canonically between schism, heresy, and apostasy.

Would something here who is knowledgeable about these matters please give us the definitions.  It would give us all a better idea what we are discussing.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2009, 11:58:30 PM by Irish Hermit » 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 #43 on: June 09, 2009, 12:11:14 AM »

Private opinions, even private directives are not the official position of a *Church*.

I realize its bad form to quote oneself in the same thread, but just to give an example. The filioque was unquestionably the majority opinion of the Church of the West long before the Great Schism, but it wasn't until it became the *official* position of the Orthodox Church (and the Church of the West *officially* excommunicated the EP) that Rome was actually considered in schism.
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #44 on: June 09, 2009, 12:11:47 AM »

It seems to me there were factions even from before the time of Metropolitan Philaret and that he dealt with them in a certain manner.  But he allowed divergent views such as those of Bishop Anthony of Geneva,

This is looking at things in a manner as if the Church has a papal structure with a head honcho issuing orders from the top and even ordering other Bishops around..

Father, you will remember that frequently back in those days the Russian Church Abroad was referred to as "The Russian Synod" and simply "The Synod."   Its structure was very conciliar and synodical.   The position of the First Hierarch held no power.  For, example, he could not issue instructions to any other bishop.  He could not compose encyclicals and order them to be read in any diocese but his own.  His authority was restricted, as is that of all bishops, to his own diocese. As you would know ROCA was so conciliar that it never issued any synodal statements unless there had been full unanimous agreement from all the hierarchs.  So the personal views of the First Hierarch remained personal views and could not prevail over the agreed synodical view of his brother bishops.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2009, 12:20:36 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Tags: ROCOR 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 »  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 0.153 seconds with 72 queries.