OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 21, 2014, 11:10:49 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 22553 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: 10,487


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

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,431


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: 10,487


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

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
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
Warned
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
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,922


« 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: 10,487


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

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,898


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« 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: 3,397


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: 21,470


« 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
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,925



« 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: 3,397


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: 10,487


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

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Andrew21091
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,271



« 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: 10,487


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

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,470


« 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
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: 10,487


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

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
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: 8,425


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: 10,487


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

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
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
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,431


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
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,431


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: 1,271



« 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: 10,487


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

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
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: 10,487


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

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


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

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


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

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


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

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
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
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: 37,963



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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #45 on: June 09, 2009, 01:52:04 AM »


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


If the Russian Church Abroad is apostate, then we can probably close this thread.  An apostate is someone who has abandoned Christ and Christianity.  He has probably become a pagam or a Hare Krishna.

Why would we bother discusing apostates here?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #46 on: June 09, 2009, 01:53:29 AM »


There are 300 million Orthodox Christians who recognise the Moscow Patriarchate as the canonical Church of Russia and only a few thousands who do not.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,898


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #47 on: June 09, 2009, 02:24:42 AM »


There are 300 million Orthodox Christians who recognise the Moscow Patriarchate as the canonical Church of Russia and only a few thousands who do not.
So what?  Do you think truth is determined by majority vote?
Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Posts: 6,948



« Reply #48 on: June 09, 2009, 02:50:59 AM »

So what?  Do you think truth is determined by majority vote?

Nope, but the majority is usually the determining factor in 'catholic consciousness.'  Even if a small minority defend the truth at a certain time, eventually all the Church will come to believe it, in essence sanctioning their views.  So time will tell the tail, and the determining factor will be the beliefs of the majority of the Ecclesia.
Logged
Dan-Romania
Warned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 746


« Reply #49 on: June 09, 2009, 03:48:05 AM »

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?

Exactly . What happened with "respect your elders" . At least if you didn`t respect them while they were alive Proslalov09 , respect their memory , and let them rest in peace.Don`t dig for corpses.
Logged

This user no longer posts here.
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #50 on: June 09, 2009, 04:06:33 AM »

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

... Heretics are much more capable than pagans of mixing the truth with lies and thus deceiving the faithful. ...

I am yet to hear the reasoning of groups that have split from ROCOR for ROCOR's alleged "chage of the position" if they still commune faithful from Jerusalem and Serbia, with whom they were in communion while being ROCOR.

BTW, when Patriarchate was restored in Moscow, bolsheviks were not in power there at all. That much about "mixing the truth with lies...".
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,898


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #51 on: June 09, 2009, 04:22:54 AM »

... Heretics are much more capable than pagans of mixing the truth with lies and thus deceiving the faithful. ...
LOL!  Looks like you're not ignoring me all that well. laugh
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #52 on: June 09, 2009, 04:33:24 AM »


 I do agree with him on the point that heretics are much worse than pagans. 
Let me see if I understand this teaching I am hearing on this Orthodox forum:
Heretics are much worse than pagans.
So, if a Roman Catholic were to convert to Orthodoxy, then he would have to believe that his mother and father who taught him to pray the Lord's prayer and the Apostles Creed, that his mother and father who read to him from the Bible, especially the New Testament, that his mother and father who taught him to love Jesus and the Holy Mother of God,  that his Catholic mother and father were much worse than pagans? Do I have it right?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,898


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #53 on: June 09, 2009, 05:07:06 AM »


 I do agree with him on the point that heretics are much worse than pagans. 
Let me see if I understand this teaching I am hearing on this Orthodox forum:
Heretics are much worse than pagans.
So, if a Roman Catholic were to convert to Orthodoxy, then he would have to believe that his mother and father who taught him to pray the Lord's prayer and the Apostles Creed, that his mother and father who read to him from the Bible, especially the New Testament, that his mother and father who taught him to love Jesus and the Holy Mother of God,  that his Catholic mother and father were much worse than pagans? Do I have it right?
Only if I judge said Roman Catholics to be heretics, which I don't.  I recognize that most Roman Catholics grow up deceived into believing a number of heretical teachings, but that doesn't make these individuals heretics in my eyes.  To me, heretics are those who once embraced Orthodox teaching yet have fallen away to follow after false doctrines.  Those who have grown up in heretical traditions and have never known the fullness of Orthodox doctrine I cannot rightly call heretics.

Now, back to the subject of this thread... Wink
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #54 on: June 09, 2009, 07:03:35 AM »


There are 300 million Orthodox Christians who recognise the Moscow Patriarchate as the canonical Church of Russia and only a few thousands who do not.
So what?  Do you think truth is determined by majority vote?

In a certain sense, yes.  The criteria of Saint Vincent, known as the Vincentian canon, are important for us Orthodox - "what has been believed by everyone, at all places and at all times."

So if the entire Church is agreed that the Moscow Patriarchate is canonical, we need to give serious thought to that assessment.  The alternative hardly bears thinking about - that the entire Church is in error on this point and the Church of Russia is an errant body, the "spawn of Satan" as Pravoslav09 has posted.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #55 on: June 09, 2009, 07:09:38 AM »

Now, back to the subject of this thread... Wink

The subject of this thread makes no sense to me. Apostasy is the abandonment of Christ and Christianity.  Is that what this thread is affirming - that the Russian Church Abroad has abandoned Christ?   How many people here actually agree with the subject of this thread?
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #56 on: June 09, 2009, 07:53:14 AM »

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.

Father, I kept it when I split several posts from the original thread that had a similar name in Russian (see Slavic Languages), merely to honor the original poster. I did not feel any right to change it, again, not because I am personally of the opinion that ROCOR is entirely apostatic, but simply because the original poster is entitled to HIS opinion and is free to call his threads anything. --Heorhij, mod.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2009, 07:54:01 AM by Heorhij » Logged

Love never fails.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #57 on: June 09, 2009, 08:28:21 AM »

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.

Father, I kept it when I split several posts from the original thread that had a similar name in Russian (see Slavic Languages), merely to honor the original poster. I did not feel any right to change it, again, not because I am personally of the opinion that ROCOR is entirely apostatic, but simply because the original poster is entitled to HIS opinion and is free to call his threads anything. --Heorhij, mod.

Thanks for the explanation, Heorhij.  So basically we need the original poster to justify the accusation that the Russian Church Abroad is apostate and has abandoned Christ.  It seems to me that to do that he needs to prove that the Church of Russia has abandoned Christ, as also the entirety of the Orthodox Churches which maintain communion with the Church of Russia.  I believe that the confusion here centres on the wrong use of "apostasy" by the original poster.
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,431


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #58 on: June 09, 2009, 09:32:48 AM »

"If we have a form of religion on the outside, but inside we are opposed to the rulers of the church as well as to kings and princes, we are using our faith as a pretext for evil." (St Hilary of Arles, commentary on 1 Peter 2:16-17)
Logged
Douglas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 608


« Reply #59 on: June 09, 2009, 10:21:08 AM »

Now, back to the subject of this thread... Wink

The subject of this thread makes no sense to me. Apostasy is the abandonment of Christ and Christianity.  Is that what this thread is affirming - that the Russian Church Abroad has abandoned Christ?   How many people here actually agree with the subject of this thread?

Well... I've watched this thread develop and decided to enter it only to answer your question, Father. I do not agree with the subject of this thread, essentially because I do not believe the ROCOR is in apostasy nor the MP for that matter. I also believe that those who make such claims need to back them up with substance and so far I've seen nothing of the sort... just baseless accusations. I'm also a bit concerned by the type of language (i.e. spawn of Satan) that has been permitted.
Logged

Douglas no longer posts on the forum.
LizaSymonenko
Слава Ісусу Христу!!! Glory to Jesus Christ!!!
Global Moderator
Toumarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: God's Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the U.S.A.
Posts: 13,453



WWW
« Reply #60 on: June 09, 2009, 10:47:20 AM »


It just amazes and saddens me that the Orthodox Church has so many "issues".

We all have (I assume) the same goal - to live as Christ instructed, to spread the Word of Salvation to all, to please God, and to preserve His Church.

Imagine how grand it would be if everyone, and I do mean everyone, put aside their pride (because it is pride that divides, and keeps us from calm discussion and realization of "truth")...of which I too, am guilty ... but, truly what joy it would be if we were all One?  Can you even imagine?

If we Orthodox truly loved one another and greeted each other with sincere joy and trust?

However, I realize that in order to preserve the Truth...Man must weed out certain misconceptions, anomalies, untruths, etc...and that bickering is inevitable.

But, still it hurts to see our Orthodox so split.

I love you all! 

Peace!

Logged

Conquer evil men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of legality to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.
—St. Isaac of Syria
IPC
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: RZC
Posts: 308


« Reply #61 on: June 09, 2009, 11:07:35 AM »


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."

I will now post the sworn statment of Metropolitan Vitaly of thrice blessed memory. The text is respected in it's integrity, and nothing can be changed, given that it constitutes a legal document of public domain, and altering it is actionable. By respecting the integrity of the text, both myself and the forum are protected by Law against any legal action.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This document is Metropolitan Vitaly’s certified account, originally written in French and sent by his attorneys to the courts, concerning the attack on his person rendered by the representatives of the Lavrite Synod on November 22, 2001.

Deposition

On November 22, 2001, approximately 8:45 in the morning, when I was at the Holy Transfiguration Skete, in Mansonville, seated at the table with clergy and laymen, a group of people burst into the dining room. These people were not invited by anyone and no one advised us of their arrival. They forcefully burst in where no one bid them to enter. They broke the lock on the entrance door. They did not bother to announce their arrival, knock on the door, as civilized people do or ask for permission to enter. They violated the sanctity of a private residence and disturbed the course of monastic living. They persistently threatened and offended those present.

Heading the assault, was bishop Michael Donskov, (Simeon Donskov, further referred to as simply – Donskov), and priest Paul Iwaszewicz, (further referred to as Iwaszewicz), both foreigners. With them were lawyers Michel Tajfer (Michael Taillefer, further referred to as Tajfer), and Stephan Trihey, (further referred to as Trihey), aided by hired security guards. Neither the lawyers nor the hired bodyguards bothered to introduce themselves. When asked who are you, they refused not only to name themselves but did not answer, especially neglecting to explain the reason for their arrival. Some of them were recognized by those who were witnesses of prior assaults as described in other documents.

Violently bursting in, these people tried to present themselves as peace officers, and threatened to arrest, on the spot anyone who refused to co-operate. They demanded that no one move. Several times they cut the phone lines. They interfered with the use of the fax machine, whether it be to transfer documents or for copying. Lawyers went to so far as to expose themselves as police officers, and when asked if they had a warrant, they advised yes, but refused to serve it or state who had issued it. They did not produce any papers and we did not see any documents on their persons. Then without permission, Tajfer, with his accomplices, first conducted a thorough search including that floor on which afterwards would unfold the main perpetration. This illegal and humiliating search was conducted throughout all of the rooms, without any permission or explanation and without any care. At a minimum, the following were confiscated without any warning, without a receipt and without analyzing to whom they belonged: car keys, registration, my passport, my medical insurance card and a package containing documents, my will and other papers. They rummaged in my desk and through other furniture in my study. The same was done in the secretary’s study and in the reception hall.

Tajfer personally opened all of the water faucets, creating a noise to muffle all that which was to take place.

Donskov entered, but his arrival was also totally undesirable, (because of his prior improprieties), to which he was informed of.

Not paying attention to reprimands Donskov approached me. Having recognized him, I reiterated my anathema, which was previously declared more than once, orally and in writing, to which he deigned not to answer. I very clearly made him understand that I do not intend to speak with him. After falsely reporting that I, well, was not allowed to speak with him, I agreed to speak in hopes of reasoning with him. I did not know that this offer was simply a trap.

And so, I climbed to the second floor. Attorney Tajfer followed preventing me from turning back. Tajfer and Iwaszewicz threatened one of my guests for taping the actions of the attack on videotape. His camera was broken; an act representing the roughest violence perpetrated, the capture of another’s property and its destruction and the infringement on human rights. Despite this, the videocassette remained in tact, a testament to the above facts. I certify, that it fully complies with the truth and am enclosing it to this claim.

My aggressors at this point arranged a small meeting amongst themselves. My objections did not stop the meeting and were only a prelude for things to follow. They locked-up those who presently climbed up to the second floor and left one guard to guard them. Another guard also guarded the stairs. The suffering victims described this real capture in detail.

They forcibly took my wallet, with personal documents and money and returned it only after the police force of Quebec intervened. They took my car keys and returned them after a week by a middleman, Alexander Iwaszewicz.

Stopping their pretensions of wanting to talk with me, Donskov and Iwaszewicz threw themselves over me and aggressively began to dress me with the obvious purpose to draw me outside and to abduct me. I resisted as I could. They tumbled me down to the floor so that it would be easier for them to pull Iwaszewicz’s coat on me. I tried to beat them off, but their hirelings helped the two apostate clergymen. I tried to shout, but Tajfer began to choke me with a white/dark blue down pillow, which he especially brought purposely from the car for that reason.

Physical violence and threats achieved apogee when one of my companions, who just received instructions from my lawyers, decided to approach us. He yelled to Tajfer that my lawyers are with a judge, (who successfully managed to report all by phone and fax), who demanded they stop everything and to release me. Then my attackers decided at once to take me away, which they tried to do, furiously threatening me. Even after having received the order (from the judge – editors), all of them still disclosed themselves as peace officers and roughly forced me to descend downstairs.

In the dining room I noticed shocked and powerless expressions on the faces of my close friends and interlocutors. Then I started to protest against my abduction to New York, having mentioned that I am a free Canadian citizen and have committed no crimes. I persuaded my friends to protest and to photograph all of this on film. This they did: photos were taken from this moment up to the moment I was placed into the limousine. I testify to the authenticity of these photos and enclose them to this deposition.

New threats were issued at those who did not approve and doubted the legality of this operation or at those wishing to protect me. Notwithstanding, Donskov, Tajfer, Iwaszewicz and their hirelings, forcefully with improbable roughness, dragged me towards the front door. At the same time, Tajfer, with the above mentioned down pillow and Donskov, with the other case-less pillow, prohibited me from screaming. Seizing, pushing and dragging me, they simply also beat me! Donskov struck from behind my face, through a pillow. Iwaszewicz grabbed me by the right hip, so that I could not escape from Donskov, coiling, in order to free myself from the pillow and Tajfer with his fist hit me on the chest through the down pillow. I fell down. Tajfer, Donskov and some hirelings uprooted me out of the hands of those who tried to keep me from falling and keep me in their protection. I was dragged, pushed, struck from all directions up to the door of the dining room, which lead into the courtyard, where a parking lot for automobiles was located.

Amazed at Donskov’s aggression, I repeated to him an ecclesiastically retaliatory verdict.

From the door of the dining room, they dragged me up to the cars of the kidnappers. On the way they several times dropped me to the ground, lifting me by my legs, head downwards, striking me to force me to go and dragged me as one would drag any kind of thing.

Having reached the limousine in which they were going to drive me away, (a huge black car with dark glass windows – why dark?), they forced me to climb inside. Two times I evaded, resisting or at least tried to detain the events. Blows to the head and kidneys forced me to bend, but I once again tried to evade. Finally, Donskov climbed into the car on the other side and forcefully pulled me from within. The door shut behind me.

Forcibly they held me in the car, with closed doors for an extended period of time, with the unpleasant and shameful company of Donskov and Iwaszewicz. While outside, Tajfer was on the phone discussing something. The car started to move, then stopped, bumper to bumper with the just now arrived police car. Only later, my friends’ request was granted that one police officer would sit with me for my protection.

Only with the insisting of my friends was I allowed to drink a glass of water, (the first glass being maliciously splashed out by Tajfer). My kidnappers would not agree on opening a window for some fresh air. This was done later, at the insistence of a police officer. Only a half-inch on the side of the driver was opened, by the orders of Tajfer and Trihey. Later, this privilege was granted on my side of the car, giving me more rest from the likes of Donskov and Iwaszewicz.

After lengthy negotiations and again under the insistence of the police, Tajfer, Trihey and these others, took a long time to agree to let me go to the lavatory, moreover under supervision! Again, I was obliged to the Quebec police for freeing me from the presence of Donskov, when being transferred to another car of their motorcade. The same thing was repeated, when dinner time approached; it was required that I be accompanied by two police officers in order to satisfy Tajfer and Donskov’s spiteful nature, to keep me confined in the car at all cost.

During their licentious behavior, sirs Tajfer and his colleague made many false accusations on my behalf. They insisted I was an American citizen, that I was from New York and that Iwaszewicz is my trustee. I clearly denounce all these false statements. At last, after many long hours, the police of Quebec, pending the courts decision, released us from the unbidden guests. But, despite the fact that the police had told them to keep away from the Skete, they bothered us and remained until the late of night, and the next day, with several illegal appearances, which we immediately informed the police. And still a group of attackers hid in cars on the night of the 22nd and 23rd of November 2001 on our property, in the alley leading to the Skete’s cemetery. The Royal Canadian Frontier Guard drove them off our property at two o’clock in the morning.

Also, I must add, the attackers were armed with spritzes (sprays) of a suspicious nature.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that all actions of the attackers were premeditated and rehearsed, and they had spent the previous night in close proximity from us. A very thorough training was witnessed from all of their actions. Resources, monetary, material and human, to realize this operation are impossible for budgets in our Churches.

Their lawyers were not ashamed to break the rules of professional ethics. Illegal methods of violence are not similar to the polite behavior of the members of my church and are more of a reminder of that world from which my church departed.

I serve notice against my aggressors, named above, against their accomplices and those who gave the order, be it orally, in writing or as financial support, (direct or indirect).

I do not exclude, that (and in this case I also serve a complaint on this fact), for the realization of this operation, the aggressors used my own personal monetary funds.

I emphasize that many witnesses were present at the events of November 22, 2001. I at this time, mention only a few of these witnesses:

Bishop Varfolomei Vorobiev, Bishop Sergei Kindjakov, Bishop Vladimir Chelishev, Father Sergei Petrov, reader (engineer) Sergei Agu, engineer Peter Paganuci, engineer-architect Aldea Shturza, seminarians Ivan Byrr and Justin MacDonnell.

In addition to these witnesses, included are the members of the Quebec police and The Royal Canadian Frontier Guard, whom I wish to thank for their assistance and human servitude.

I certify, that this deposition is truthful.

Written in Mansonville, February 10/23, 2002

Signature: + Metropolitan Vitaly Ustinov

(Text written by the notary): I swear that this is my signature

Signature: + Metropolitan Vitaly Ustinov

(Text written by the notary: signed in my presence Ville de lac Brome,
Quebec, Le 12 Mars 2002)

Signature of the notary: Marie Gagne, notary

Stamp: authentic copy made from the original, March 12, 2002
Ville de lac Brome, Quebec

Signature of the notary: Marie Gagne, notary.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above posted legal document constitutes a solid and indisputable proof of what really happened, which can be easily verified by anyone interested in the issue. Here is the link to the pictures mentioned: http://www.monasterypress.com/metro22FrameSet.htm .



« Last Edit: June 09, 2009, 11:18:36 AM by Pravoslav09 » Logged

THIS USER USED THE SCREEN NAME PRAVOSLAV09 BEFORE.
Douglas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 608


« Reply #62 on: June 09, 2009, 11:18:06 AM »


It just amazes and saddens me that the Orthodox Church has so many "issues".

We all have (I assume) the same goal - to live as Christ instructed, to spread the Word of Salvation to all, to please God, and to preserve His Church.

Imagine how grand it would be if everyone, and I do mean everyone, put aside their pride (because it is pride that divides, and keeps us from calm discussion and realization of "truth")...of which I too, am guilty ... but, truly what joy it would be if we were all One?  Can you even imagine?

If we Orthodox truly loved one another and greeted each other with sincere joy and trust?

However, I realize that in order to preserve the Truth...Man must weed out certain misconceptions, anomalies, untruths, etc...and that bickering is inevitable.

But, still it hurts to see our Orthodox so split.

I love you all! 

Peace!



Thanks for this, Liz. As long as pride rules (even the pride of being right!) and as long as egos reign (I'm right and I'll prove it) we're going to have this sort of division. As you posted, we should be about His business of sharing the good news and working out our salvation. And how do we work it out... with FEAR and TREMBLING. But sadly, that's not what I see... just accusations and name-calling. It's an indictment on our claims to be His Body. May He forgive us and have mercy upon us.
Logged

Douglas no longer posts on the forum.
Bogoliubtsy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,268



« Reply #63 on: June 09, 2009, 11:18:55 AM »

Pravoslva09

^ Anyone who has been following the "traditionalist" vs. "New ROCOR" debate over the years has seen all of the documents you've posted and has heard all of the arguments. I am reluctant to engage you and post responses refuting your claims because, quite frankly, after years and years of it, the discussion is tiresome.

Let me summarize:

-There are two versions of the Met. Vitaly story. Neither you or I know which one is true.

-There is much speculation over the "true" reasons for the union of ROCOR and the MP. The best either of us can do is speculate on those reasons.

-We can pull out official and unofficial statements of the Synod, of her individual bishops, of saints of the Church Abroad, or maybe even a vague prophecy or two until we're blue in the face. None of this will convince you of the ROCOR side, just as nothing your "side" has posted over the years has convinced me (or many others) of your version of truth.

All of the documents, perceived wrongs, statements, etc. amount to a version of history that can neither be wholly verified as true, or rejected as false. This is not mathematics- it is entirely subjective and open to interpretation. You have absolutely no way to "prove" you are correct, and neither do I. It is what it is. You believe ROCOR to be apostate. I don't.  The presentation of proof texts and one singular interpretation of particular histories will get us nowhere.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2009, 11:19:19 AM 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
Douglas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 608


« Reply #64 on: June 09, 2009, 11:22:15 AM »

The presentation of proof texts and one singular interpretation of particular histories will get us nowhere.


Amen! And you are so right... it is tiresome in the extreme. Why don't we just drop it? In fact, I'm exercising some personal discipline by removing myself from this thread. Bad Douglas... bad for posting here!  Roll Eyes
Logged

Douglas no longer posts on the forum.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,898


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #65 on: June 09, 2009, 02:06:03 PM »


There are 300 million Orthodox Christians who recognise the Moscow Patriarchate as the canonical Church of Russia and only a few thousands who do not.
So what?  Do you think truth is determined by majority vote?

In a certain sense, yes.  The criteria of Saint Vincent, known as the Vincentian canon, are important for us Orthodox - "what has been believed by everyone, at all places and at all times."

So if the entire Church is agreed that the Moscow Patriarchate is canonical, we need to give serious thought to that assessment.  The alternative hardly bears thinking about - that the entire Church is in error on this point and the Church of Russia is an errant body, the "spawn of Satan" as Pravoslav09 has posted.
But you've not described any consensus that can be called "the whole Church", unless you're willing to excommunicate all those who disagree with the majority.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,898


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #66 on: June 09, 2009, 02:18:34 PM »


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."

I will now post the sworn statment of Metropolitan Vitaly of thrice blessed memory. The text is respected in it's integrity, and nothing can be changed, given that it constitutes a legal document of public domain, and altering it is actionable. By respecting the integrity of the text, both myself and the forum are protected by Law against any legal action.

...

The above posted legal document constitutes a solid and indisputable proof of what really happened, which can be easily verified by anyone interested in the issue. Here is the link to the pictures mentioned: http://www.monasterypress.com/metro22FrameSet.htm .
I'm not aware that a legal deposition given under oath necessarily means that the account given can be regarded as solid and indisputable proof of what really happened.  It is still fundamentally one person's account of events, which can be contradicted at points by another person's account given in a legal deposition under oath.  And there's also the possibility of perjury, not to imply that Metropolitan Vitaly perjured himself in any way--I'm just speaking in pure generalities that we need to always see perjury as possible when reading such legal depositions.  All we can say, assuming that Metropolitan Vitaly offered the above statements totally in good faith, is that what he presented was merely his experience of events.
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #67 on: June 09, 2009, 03:14:37 PM »

Now, back to the subject of this thread... Wink

The subject of this thread makes no sense to me. Apostasy is the abandonment of Christ and Christianity.  Is that what this thread is affirming - that the Russian Church Abroad has abandoned Christ?   How many people here actually agree with the subject of this thread?

I suppose the OP is suggesting that the MP became so closely associated with the Communist government that it technically became atheistic...

In that case "apostasy" is an appropriate reference.

Though no, I don't agree that the MP actually became as associated with the Communists as the OP suggests.
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
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,898


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #68 on: June 09, 2009, 03:31:49 PM »

Now, back to the subject of this thread... Wink

The subject of this thread makes no sense to me. Apostasy is the abandonment of Christ and Christianity.  Is that what this thread is affirming - that the Russian Church Abroad has abandoned Christ?   How many people here actually agree with the subject of this thread?

I suppose the OP is suggesting that the MP became so closely associated with the Communist government that it technically became atheistic...
That's what I gather, too.  The allegation I see is essentially this:
1.  The Moscow Patriarchate fell into apostasy during the Soviet era by cooperating with the murderously anti-Christian Soviet government and has never truly repented, thus remaining apostate.
2.  Communion with apostates makes those who so commune apostates themselves.
3.  Therefore, ROCOR falls into the same pit of apostasy through her act of formal reunion with the apostate Moscow Patriarchate.

Do I believe the above?  No, I do not.  I'm just trying to express what I understand to be the logical rationale for why Pravoslav09 deems the ROCOR apostate.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #69 on: June 09, 2009, 03:41:37 PM »

Only if I judge said Roman Catholics to be heretics, which I don't.  I recognize that most Roman Catholics grow up deceived into believing a number of heretical teachings, but that doesn't make these individuals heretics in my eyes.  To me, heretics are those who once embraced Orthodox teaching yet have fallen away to follow after false doctrines.  Those who have grown up in heretical traditions and have never known the fullness of Orthodox doctrine I cannot rightly call heretics.

Now, back to the subject of this thread... Wink
OK. thanks.
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: 37,963



« Reply #70 on: June 09, 2009, 03:47:45 PM »

Now, back to the subject of this thread... Wink

The subject of this thread makes no sense to me. Apostasy is the abandonment of Christ and Christianity.  Is that what this thread is affirming - that the Russian Church Abroad has abandoned Christ?   How many people here actually agree with the subject of this thread?

I suppose the OP is suggesting that the MP became so closely associated with the Communist government that it technically became atheistic...
That's what I gather, too.  The allegation I see is essentially this:
1.  The Moscow Patriarchate fell into apostasy during the Soviet era by cooperating with the murderously anti-Christian Soviet government and has never truly repented, thus remaining apostate.
2.  Communion with apostates makes those who so commune apostates themselves.
3.  Therefore, ROCOR falls into the same pit of apostasy through her act of formal reunion with the apostate Moscow Patriarchate.

Do I believe the above?  No, I do not.  I'm just trying to express what I understand to be the logical rationale for why Pravoslav09 deems the ROCOR apostate.

Then I'm afraid they are going to have to join the Old Believers, if not some earlier sect.  Besides the Lutheran-modeled Holy Governing Synod ruling the Russian Church for centuries before the communists took over, and its Western inspired practices, then there's the problem that it was in communion with those Churches cooperating with the murderously anti-Christian Muslim governments, which have never truly repented, thus remaining apostate.
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 #71 on: June 09, 2009, 03:59:04 PM »


There are 300 million Orthodox Christians who recognise the Moscow Patriarchate as the canonical Church of Russia and only a few thousands who do not.
So what?  Do you think truth is determined by majority vote?

In a certain sense, yes.  The criteria of Saint Vincent, known as the Vincentian canon, are important for us Orthodox - "what has been believed by everyone, at all places and at all times."

So if the entire Church is agreed that the Moscow Patriarchate is canonical, we need to give serious thought to that assessment.  The alternative hardly bears thinking about - that the entire Church is in error on this point and the Church of Russia is an errant body, the "spawn of Satan" as Pravoslav09 has posted.
But you've not described any consensus that can be called "the whole Church", unless you're willing to excommunicate all those who disagree with the majority.

I see that you are in the OCA. One suggestion to resolve this satisfactorily in your instance as an OCA member is to approach your bishop and enquire if he counts the Moscow Patriarchate as canonical or uncanonical. 

The question of excommunicating all those who disagree? - that would also be a decision for your bishop.  I imagine that in fact he would treat gainsayers as excommunicate since he would probably not be willing to commune those such as the bishops and faithful of the Russian Zarist Church who deny the canonicity of the OCA's Mother Church.  But of course that is up to his decision.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #72 on: June 09, 2009, 04:07:14 PM »

[That's what I gather, too.  The allegation I see is essentially this:
1.  The Moscow Patriarchate fell into apostasy during the Soviet era by cooperating with the murderously anti-Christian Soviet government and has never truly repented, thus remaining apostate.
2.  Communion with apostates makes those who so commune apostates themselves.
3.  Therefore, ROCOR falls into the same pit of apostasy through her act of formal reunion with the apostate Moscow Patriarchate.

Do I believe the above?  No, I do not.  I'm just trying to express what I understand to be the logical rationale for why Pravoslav09 deems the ROCOR apostate.

If this is Pravoslav09's reasoning then why single out the Russian Church Abroad?  It means the OCA has apostasized and abandoned Christ by virtue of its communion with Moscow.  Ditto for the Greeks, Jerusalem, Alexandria... etc.  Pravoslav09 is saying the entire Orthodox world has apostasized and not merely the Russian Church Abroad which is, when all is said and done, a very tiny Church compared to the rest of them.

Where do we go for a trustworthy declaration that Pravoslav09's opinion represents the consensus of the Orthoodox Church?
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 #73 on: June 09, 2009, 04:30:30 PM »

If this is Pravoslav09's reasoning then why single out the Russian Church Abroad?  It means the OCA has apostasized and abandoned Christ by virtue of its communion with Moscow.  Ditto for the Greeks, Jerusalem, Alexandria... etc. 

I wasn't following the first of this discussion, when it was in the Slavic language forum, but I believe that's rather the point. The Old Calendrists already believed that the ancient patriarchates and autocephalous Churches were no longer Orthodox. By reuniting with Moscow (and through them all the the other autocephalous Churches), the contention is that ROCOR has fallen into the same apostasy as the rest of us.

The problem with that view is what I argued earlier--one cannot find a time when ROCOR was actually out of communion with the Churches in question. The reconciliation with Moscow involved the resolution of an administrative problem and the restoration of concelebration. It did not change ROCOR's basic position of intercommunion (and therefore status as part of the same One Church as the Greeks, Alexandria, Serbia, etc). The Old Calendrists (particularly those who have schismed from ROCOR as a result of the administrative change but also the Greek Old Calendrists whose bishops' episcopal succession derives from ROCOR) need to believe that ROCOR's reunion was a change in ROCOR's fundamental nature (i.e., apostasy from being an 'Old Calendar Church') rather than an administrative change in order to justify their own positions.
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
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,898


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #74 on: June 09, 2009, 09:08:15 PM »


There are 300 million Orthodox Christians who recognise the Moscow Patriarchate as the canonical Church of Russia and only a few thousands who do not.
So what?  Do you think truth is determined by majority vote?

In a certain sense, yes.  The criteria of Saint Vincent, known as the Vincentian canon, are important for us Orthodox - "what has been believed by everyone, at all places and at all times."

So if the entire Church is agreed that the Moscow Patriarchate is canonical, we need to give serious thought to that assessment.  The alternative hardly bears thinking about - that the entire Church is in error on this point and the Church of Russia is an errant body, the "spawn of Satan" as Pravoslav09 has posted.
But you've not described any consensus that can be called "the whole Church", unless you're willing to excommunicate all those who disagree with the majority.

I see that you are in the OCA. One suggestion to resolve this satisfactorily in your instance as an OCA member is to approach your bishop and enquire if he counts the Moscow Patriarchate as canonical or uncanonical. 

The question of excommunicating all those who disagree? - that would also be a decision for your bishop.  I imagine that in fact he would treat gainsayers as excommunicate since he would probably not be willing to commune those such as the bishops and faithful of the Russian Zarist Church who deny the canonicity of the OCA's Mother Church.  But of course that is up to his decision.
I'm not trying to find resolution to the question of whether the Moscow Patriarchate is canonical or not, for my mind is already made up.  I just found your appeal to the majority, a logical tactic you seem to like using quite often, a rather weak approach to proving our shared opinion that the Moscow Patriarchate is canonical and the Russian Tsarist Church is not.
Logged
IPC
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: RZC
Posts: 308


« Reply #75 on: June 09, 2009, 09:29:36 PM »

During the rule of Czar Nicholas II, the Russian Orthodox Church elected Patriarch Tikhon as the Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia, and restored the Moscow Patriarchate.

During that period of time, the elite of liberal revolutionary progressists began to gain force in the Russian Orthodox Church, and began to introduce their unorthodox ideology in Church circles. One of the most active and aggressive members of the elite was Met. Sergei Stragorodsky who began to disseminate and publish controversial theological works, which were sanctioned by the Synod of Bishops.

During the first stage of the Russian revolution, the liberal ideology began to be systematically disseminated, forcing a transformation in the political structure of the Empire. The Czar was forced to resign, and a new liberal provissional government was created.

The Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, presided by Patriarch Tikhon, opposed the provisional government, and during the last free All Russian Synod, Bishops, clergy, monastics, and laypeople from all over Russia gathered to decide how would the Church face the new series of happenings. Among other things, the liberal revolutionaries, the provissional government, and all their adherents and supporters were placed under anathema.

In order to consolidate and legitimatize itself, test the grounds, and measure the reaction of people, the revolutionary emerging government formed it's own church, with the aid of Met Sergius, and other active revolutionaries. This new church was called "the Rennovationalist, or Living Church". The revolutionary government could not risk their close collaborators to public shame, loss of credibility and the fury of peole in case something went wrong, and decided to elect "disposable" persons to preside the Rennovationalist Church. While people like Met Sergius coached the government on how to form this new Church away from the public eye, others were in charge to carry on the plans in public and face the people directly.

And thus, at the beginning of the revolution there existed two parallel Churches, with their respective Synods of Bishops, the Moscow Patriarchate, and the Rennovationalist Church.

The project of the Rennovationalist Church, carried on the most dramatic revolutionary reforms, they openly denied some of the basic dogmas of the Church, disseminated State propaganda, and they reduced the rituals and customs to a minimum. The change was too drastic and sudden for people to accept, and the grand majority, realizing it was all a fabrication of the government, rejected it.

Seeing the great failure of the project, the government decided to change strategy, on one hand, it decided to remove and sanction the ones who in view of the people were the leadership of the Rennovationalist Church, to infiltrate rennovationalist clergy, such as Met.Sergei Stragorodsky, and using force to remove those who would not submit to them completely, and remained "enemies of the revolution".

When Met. Sergius made his act of public repentance in the Church, the people began to yell, begging Patriarch Tikhon not to accept him, saying that he's lying and is deceiving him, and Patriarch Tikhon was forced to explain that he does not have the authority to reject Met. Sergius, but given the seriousness of his sins, he was received simply as a monk, released from his duties until the corresponding Ecclesiastical Organ, put him to trial, and resolved his definitive status. In short, Met Sergius was under interdiction.

The revolutionary government made a "purge" inside the Moscow Patriarchate, to eliminate those who were faithful to Christ and remained firm in the Orthodox Faith. Some were brutally killed in public, others were taken to concentration camps, and others like Patriarch Tikhon, died under mysterious circumstances. (According to the extraofficial report of Patriarch Tikhon's personal physician, his death could be related to poissoning).

Once the rennovationalists took control of key possitions in the Moscow Patriarchate, they continued the rennovationalist project, and by the end of the 20's Met Sergius, made an official declaration submitting the Moscow Patriarchate to the control of the government, transforming it into government institution, and becoming the first Patriarch appointed by secular atheistic authorities.

The ground to consider the Moscow Patriarchate a secular government institution, and placing it under anathema is the following.

1.- Since it's very foundation in 1927, and further consolidation in 1945 by Stalin, the Moscow Patriarchate is an ally of the revolutionary government, falling by this, under the anathema declared by the All Russian Synod, against the revolutionaries and those with them. This anathema remains in full force even now.

2.- The capitulation the Church to the civil power, violates the Church canons concerning the civil power. To replace Christ as the head of the Church, with a civil power constitutes an apostacy.

The role of the Russian Government as the head of the Moscow Patriarchate was clearly seen in the process of the incorporation of a group of ROCOR members with the corresponding fonds, properties, and fellowship to the Moscow Patriarchate. This process took place largely in the Russian Embassy, and the Kremlin, where President V. Putin received Met Laurus and delegations ROCOR under MEt Laurs, in addition to the public official statements made by President Putin and government officials.

3.- The new church politics and the systematic reformations still carried on by the Moscow Patriarchate, is a  continuation of the renovationist project, only in a more refined and very dangerous form. In this form, some of the external traditions are preserved, and there exist an carefully planned series of declarations, alternating unorthodox declarations, with traditionalist declarations, clouding the minds of the believers, consciously hiding from them the real agenda.

An example of this can be seen in the most recent declarations of the MP. Shortly after the appointment of Met Kirill as acting Patriarch, until the election of a new Patriarch, there were official statements saying that if he is elected Patriarch, one of his main tasks was to strengthen the ties between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Roman Catholic Church, and smooth the way for the visit of Pope Benedict XVI to Russia, given his good relationships with the Vatican. Shortly after his election as Patriarch of Moscow, Pat. Kirill made official statements in which he rejected any dogmatic compromise with the Roman Catholic Church, and suspended interreligious dialogue with them.

The Roman Catholic Church was not condemned by the Patriarch or the MP, and none of the catholic theories adopted by the MP, such as the jesuit "Social Christian Doctrine" have been recanted and removed, even tho interreligious dialogue was officially suspended, the interreligious activities between Roman Catholics and the MP have not stopped completely, and the Patriarch has not pronounced himself against a future visit of Pope Benedict XVI to Russia, he can be critical in the future, but it's very unlikely for him to refuse the Pope an invitation to welcome him to Russia.

With this post, I hope many understand the wording in the subject of this thread, and the reasons why ROCOR can not change Her ecclesiology and follow the path of the new ROCOR under Met. Hilarion, ROCOR under Met. Agathangel, OCA, and others who have associated with the MP directly or indirectly, openly, or discretely.



Logged

THIS USER USED THE SCREEN NAME PRAVOSLAV09 BEFORE.
IPC
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: RZC
Posts: 308


« Reply #76 on: June 09, 2009, 10:01:53 PM »


I love you all! 

Яkuю я теве!

Bы не печалься Liza  http://www.karaoke.ru/catalog/song/16338708   Smiley

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 #77 on: June 09, 2009, 11:29:41 PM »

I just found your appeal to the majority, a logical tactic you seem to like using quite often, a rather weak approach to proving our shared opinion that the Moscow Patriarchate is canonical and the Russian Tsarist Church is not.

In that case your quarrel is with the Fathers, and especially Saint Vincent of Lerins and the "Vincentian Canon" which the holy Fathers were happy to adopt as a rule of thumb ~  "what is believed by all, everywhere and at all times."

It is impossible to gauge if the opinion of the Russian Zarist Church comes close to this principle since nobody has any idea of this Church, who its bishops are and what credibilty they enjoy among the Orthodox, where its dioceses and parishes are, etc.  The statement that the Russian Church is the "spawn of Satan" has no integrity when those making it will not come out of the shadows and identify themselves.
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: 37,963



« Reply #78 on: June 09, 2009, 11:40:40 PM »

During the rule of Czar Nicholas II, the Russian Orthodox Church elected Patriarch Tikhon as the Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia, and restored the Moscow Patriarchate.

No, the Passion Bearer had abdicated almost a year earlier.  He wasn't ruling anything, including his own fate.

Quote
During that period of time, the elite of liberal revolutionary progressists began to gain force in the Russian Orthodox Church, and began to introduce their unorthodox ideology in Church circles. One of the most active and aggressive members of the elite was Met. Sergei Stragorodsky who began to disseminate and publish controversial theological works, which were sanctioned by the Synod of Bishops.

Some proof of this?  In particular as St. Tikhon is the one who elevated him to Metropolitan?

Quote
During the first stage of the Russian revolution, the liberal ideology began to be systematically disseminated, forcing a transformation in the political structure of the Empire. The Czar was forced to resign, and a new liberal provissional government was created.

The Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church, presided by Patriarch Tikhon, opposed the provisional government, and during the last free All Russian Synod, Bishops, clergy, monastics, and laypeople from all over Russia gathered to decide how would the Church face the new series of happenings. Among other things, the liberal revolutionaries, the provissional government, and all their adherents and supporters were placed under anathema.

Any proof, as it would be seem to be overkill: the provisional government had fallen before the end of the All Russian Synod, free, btw, because of the provisional government: not even the Czar could interfere.

Quote
In order to consolidate and legitimatize itself, test the grounds, and measure the reaction of people, the revolutionary emerging government formed it's own church, with the aid of Met Sergius, and other active revolutionaries. This new church was called "the Rennovationalist, or Living Church". The revolutionary government could not risk their close collaborators to public shame, loss of credibility and the fury of peole in case something went wrong, and decided to elect "disposable" persons to preside the Rennovationalist Church. While people like Met Sergius coached the government on how to form this new Church away from the public eye, others were in charge to carry on the plans in public and face the people directly.

And thus, at the beginning of the revolution there existed two parallel Churches, with their respective Synods of Bishops, the Moscow Patriarchate, and the Rennovationalist Church.

The project of the Rennovationalist Church, carried on the most dramatic revolutionary reforms, they openly denied some of the basic dogmas of the Church, disseminated State propaganda, and they reduced the rituals and customs to a minimum. The change was too drastic and sudden for people to accept, and the grand majority, realizing it was all a fabrication of the government, rejected it.

Seeing the great failure of the project, the government decided to change strategy, on one hand, it decided to remove and sanction the ones who in view of the people were the leadership of the Rennovationalist Church, to infiltrate rennovationalist clergy, such as Met.Sergei Stragorodsky, and using force to remove those who would not submit to them completely, and remained "enemies of the revolution".

When Met. Sergius made his act of public repentance in the Church, the people began to yell, begging Patriarch Tikhon not to accept him, saying that he's lying and is deceiving him, and Patriarch Tikhon was forced to explain that he does not have the authority to reject Met. Sergius, but given the seriousness of his sins, he was received simply as a monk, released from his duties until the corresponding Ecclesiastical Organ, put him to trial, and resolved his definitive status. In short, Met Sergius was under interdiction.

The revolutionary government made a "purge" inside the Moscow Patriarchate, to eliminate those who were faithful to Christ and remained firm in the Orthodox Faith. Some were brutally killed in public, others were taken to concentration camps, and others like Patriarch Tikhon, died under mysterious circumstances. (According to the extraofficial report of Patriarch Tikhon's personal physician, his death could be related to poissoning).

Once the rennovationalists took control of key possitions in the Moscow Patriarchate, they continued the rennovationalist project, and by the end of the 20's Met Sergius, made an official declaration submitting the Moscow Patriarchate to the control of the government, transforming it into government institution, and becoming the first Patriarch appointed by secular atheistic authorities.


At least you recognized that Sergei repented of his involvement with the "Living Church" and St. Tikhon accepted him back.

The Living Church, btw, restored the Holy Governing Synod, not the Patriarchate.

Quote
The ground to consider the Moscow Patriarchate a secular government institution, and placing it under anathema is the following.

1.- Since it's very foundation in 1927, and further consolidation in 1945 by Stalin, the Moscow Patriarchate is an ally of the revolutionary government, falling by this, under the anathema declared by the All Russian Synod, against the revolutionaries and those with them. This anathema remains in full force even now.

1. Produce this anathema.
2. Can you distinguish this from the Holy Governing Synod being an ally of Peter and Catherine, both of which placed disabilities over the Church?
3. Since St. Tikhon also came to a modus vivendi with the Bolsheviks, I guess he would come under the anathema. What does that do to your ukaze 362?

Quote
2.- The capitulation the Church to the civil power, violates the Church canons concerning the civil power. To replace Christ as the head of the Church, with a civil power constitutes an apostacy.

So the Russian Church was in Apostacy since Czar Peter's creation of the Oberprokurator.  Where does that leave you?

Quote
The role of the Russian Government as the head of the Moscow Patriarchate was clearly seen in the process of the incorporation of a group of ROCOR members with the corresponding fonds, properties, and fellowship to the Moscow Patriarchate. This process took place largely in the Russian Embassy, and the Kremlin, where President V. Putin received Met Laurus and delegations ROCOR under MEt Laurs, in addition to the public official statements made by President Putin and government officials.

And across the globe the basis of ROCOR's jurisdiction is the Russian Orthodox Church operating from the Czar's embassies and forts across the globe.  Your point?

Quote
3.- The new church politics and the systematic reformations still carried on by the Moscow Patriarchate, is a  continuation of the renovationist project, only in a more refined and very dangerous form. In this form, some of the external traditions are preserved, and there exist an carefully planned series of declarations, alternating unorthodox declarations, with traditionalist declarations, clouding the minds of the believers, consciously hiding from them the real agenda.


Yeah, they're all Freemasons. Roll Eyes

Quote
An example of this can be seen in the most recent declarations of the MP. Shortly after the appointment of Met Kirill as acting Patriarch, until the election of a new Patriarch, there were official statements saying that if he is elected Patriarch, one of his main tasks was to strengthen the ties between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Roman Catholic Church, and smooth the way for the visit of Pope Benedict XVI to Russia, given his good relationships with the Vatican. Shortly after his election as Patriarch of Moscow, Pat. Kirill made official statements in which he rejected any dogmatic compromise with the Roman Catholic Church, and suspended interreligious dialogue with them.

The Roman Catholic Church was not condemned by the Patriarch or the MP, and none of the catholic theories adopted by the MP, such as the jesuit "Social Christian Doctrine" have been recanted and removed, even tho interreligious dialogue was officially suspended, the interreligious activities between Roman Catholics and the MP have not stopped completely, and the Patriarch has not pronounced himself against a future visit of Pope Benedict XVI to Russia, he can be critical in the future, but it's very unlikely for him to refuse the Pope an invitation to welcome him to Russia.

Yes, Pat. Alexei of BLESSED memory rolled out the ol' red carpet for the Vatican.

Quote
With this post, I hope many understand the wording in the subject of this thread, and the reasons why ROCOR can not change Her ecclesiology and follow the path of the new ROCOR under Met. Hilarion, ROCOR under Met. Agathangel, OCA, and others who have associated with the MP directly or indirectly, openly, or discretely.
No instead she creates a new ecclesiology where she operates as a local Church outside its jurisdition, claiming to live in a government that disappeared nearly a century ago.
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
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,898


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #79 on: June 10, 2009, 03:26:58 AM »

I just found your appeal to the majority, a logical tactic you seem to like using quite often, a rather weak approach to proving our shared opinion that the Moscow Patriarchate is canonical and the Russian Tsarist Church is not.

In that case your quarrel is with the Fathers, and especially Saint Vincent of Lerins and the "Vincentian Canon" which the holy Fathers were happy to adopt as a rule of thumb ~  "what is believed by all, everywhere and at all times."
Yes, a very common logical fallacy I see many on this forum commit.  Post a controversial interpretation of the Fathers or a fallacious appeal to the majority and then recuse yourself of all responsibility by saying, "Your argument is with the Fathers, not with me."  No, Fr. Ambrose, my argument is with your fallacious logic, not with St. Vincent of Lerins, especially since I don't see your example of the majority fitting the definition of consensus.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2009, 03:27:09 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #80 on: June 10, 2009, 03:31:33 AM »

I just found your appeal to the majority, a logical tactic you seem to like using quite often, a rather weak approach to proving our shared opinion that the Moscow Patriarchate is canonical and the Russian Tsarist Church is not.

In that case your quarrel is with the Fathers, and especially Saint Vincent of Lerins and the "Vincentian Canon" which the holy Fathers were happy to adopt as a rule of thumb ~  "what is believed by all, everywhere and at all times."
Yes, a very common logical fallacy I see many on this forum commit.  Post a controversial interpretation of the Fathers or a fallacious appeal to the majority and then recuse yourself of all responsibility by saying, "Your argument is with the Fathers, not with me."  No, Fr. Ambrose, my argument is with your fallacious logic, not with St. Vincent of Lerins, especially since I don't see your example of the majority fitting the definition of consensus.

I really do not follow your logic which is too tenuous for me.  Are you saying that although all the Orthodox Churches accept the canonicity of the Russian Church that is insufficient to conclude that it is canonical.   If you could be specific about what more proof you need beyond this Orthodox consensus of Churches and their Synods I would try to provide it.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,898


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #81 on: June 10, 2009, 03:44:37 AM »

I just found your appeal to the majority, a logical tactic you seem to like using quite often, a rather weak approach to proving our shared opinion that the Moscow Patriarchate is canonical and the Russian Tsarist Church is not.

In that case your quarrel is with the Fathers, and especially Saint Vincent of Lerins and the "Vincentian Canon" which the holy Fathers were happy to adopt as a rule of thumb ~  "what is believed by all, everywhere and at all times."
Yes, a very common logical fallacy I see many on this forum commit.  Post a controversial interpretation of the Fathers or a fallacious appeal to the majority and then recuse yourself of all responsibility by saying, "Your argument is with the Fathers, not with me."  No, Fr. Ambrose, my argument is with your fallacious logic, not with St. Vincent of Lerins, especially since I don't see your example of the majority fitting the definition of consensus.

I really do not follow your logic which is too tenuous for me.  Are you saying that although all the Orthodox Churches accept the canonicity of the Russian Church that is insufficient to conclude that it is canonical.
No, that's not what I'm saying.  All I've done is question your equation of the majority with consensus.

If you could be specific about what more proof you need beyond this Orthodox consensus of Churches and their Synods I would try to provide it.
Again, majority does not equal consensus.  If you wish to offer evidence for an argument in the future, appeal to majority opinion is a rather unconvincing way to go.  Other than that, you're preaching to the choir if you think you need to convince me that the Moscow Patriarchate is canonical.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,898


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #82 on: June 10, 2009, 03:59:05 AM »

1.- Since it's very foundation in 1927, and further consolidation in 1945 by Stalin, the Moscow Patriarchate is an ally of the revolutionary government, falling by this, under the anathema declared by the All Russian Synod, against the revolutionaries and those with them. This anathema remains in full force even now.
This revolutionary government collapsed in 1991.  How is the MP still an ally of this government?

2.- The capitulation the Church to the civil power, violates the Church canons concerning the civil power. To replace Christ as the head of the Church, with a civil power constitutes an apostacy.
I echo ialmisry's concern about the Caesaropapism of Russian Orthodoxy from the reign of Tsar Peter the (not so) Great to the end of the Romanov Dynasty in 1917.  The Tsar essentially made himself the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, which would constitute apostasy according to your definition.

With this post, I hope many understand the wording in the subject of this thread, and the reasons why ROCOR can not change Her ecclesiology and follow the path of the new ROCOR under Met. Hilarion, ROCOR under Met. Agathangel, OCA, and others who have associated with the MP directly or indirectly, openly, or discretely.
Well, you've certainly explained your reasons for why we should not associate with the MP.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #83 on: June 10, 2009, 04:18:08 AM »

If you wish to offer evidence for an argument in the future, appeal to majority opinion is a rather unconvincing way to go. 

Dear PtA,

In this specific instance the appeal to majority opinion is sufficient proof.  As I mentioned, over 300 million Orthodox Christians accept the canonicity of the Church of Russia.  I find this sufficiently convincing.

Let us look at the autocephalous Churches:

Patriarchate of Constantinople ...  Yes
Patriarchate of Alexandria .........  Yes
Patriarchate of Antioch ............  Yes
Patriarchate of Jerusalem .........  Yes
Patriarchate of Serbia ..............  Yes
Patriarchate of Romania ............ Yes
Patriarchate of Bulgaria ............  Yes
Patriarchate of Georgia ............  Yes
Church of Cyprus ....................  Yes
Church of Greece ...................  Yes
Church of Poland ....................  Yes
Church of Albania ...................  Yes
Church of the Czech Lands
and Slovakia .........................  Yes
Orthodox Church in America .....  Yes
« Last Edit: June 10, 2009, 04:19:07 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,898


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #84 on: June 10, 2009, 04:25:44 AM »

If you wish to offer evidence for an argument in the future, appeal to majority opinion is a rather unconvincing way to go. 

Dear PtA,

In this specific instance the appeal to majority opinion is sufficient proof.  As I mentioned, over 300 million Orthodox Christians accept the canonicity of the Church of Russia.  I find this sufficiently convincing.
When trying to convince someone else of the truth of your position, it doesn't matter that you find the evidence sufficiently convincing.  You now need to present your case in a way that others find convincing.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #85 on: June 10, 2009, 04:33:46 AM »

If you wish to offer evidence for an argument in the future, appeal to majority opinion is a rather unconvincing way to go. 

Dear PtA,

In this specific instance the appeal to majority opinion is sufficient proof.  As I mentioned, over 300 million Orthodox Christians accept the canonicity of the Church of Russia.  I find this sufficiently convincing.
When trying to convince someone else of the truth of your position, it doesn't matter that you find the evidence sufficiently convincing.  You now need to present your case in a way that others find convincing.

Thank you for the advice.

In the case of the opinion of whether the Russian Church is canonical or not you are mistaken if you think I wish to convince you of the truth of "my" position.  I am giving the position of all the Orthodox Churches and their hierarchs throughout the world.    If the universal consensus of the pleroma of the Orthodox Church is not convincing for people, then there is nothing more I can add.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,898


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #86 on: June 10, 2009, 04:58:13 AM »

If you wish to offer evidence for an argument in the future, appeal to majority opinion is a rather unconvincing way to go. 

Dear PtA,

In this specific instance the appeal to majority opinion is sufficient proof.  As I mentioned, over 300 million Orthodox Christians accept the canonicity of the Church of Russia.  I find this sufficiently convincing.
When trying to convince someone else of the truth of your position, it doesn't matter that you find the evidence sufficiently convincing.  You now need to present your case in a way that others find convincing.

Thank you for the advice.

In the case of the opinion of whether the Russian Church is canonical or not you are mistaken if you think I wish to convince you of the truth of "my" position.  I am giving the position of all the Orthodox Churches and their hierarchs throughout the world.    If the universal consensus of the pleroma of the Orthodox Church is not convincing for people, then there is nothing more I can add.
But in presenting this "consensus"--more like a majority, since you really haven't satisfactorily established for anyone other than yourself that this majority fits the definition of consensus--you ARE trying to convince us of the truth of your point of view.  Why appeal to the majority or "consensus", as you call it, if you aren't?
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #87 on: June 10, 2009, 05:04:16 AM »

If you wish to offer evidence for an argument in the future, appeal to majority opinion is a rather unconvincing way to go. 

Dear PtA,

In this specific instance the appeal to majority opinion is sufficient proof.  As I mentioned, over 300 million Orthodox Christians accept the canonicity of the Church of Russia.  I find this sufficiently convincing.
When trying to convince someone else of the truth of your position, it doesn't matter that you find the evidence sufficiently convincing.  You now need to present your case in a way that others find convincing.

Thank you for the advice.

In the case of the opinion of whether the Russian Church is canonical or not you are mistaken if you think I wish to convince you of the truth of "my" position.  I am giving the position of all the Orthodox Churches and their hierarchs throughout the world.    If the universal consensus of the pleroma of the Orthodox Church is not convincing for people, then there is nothing more I can add.
But in presenting this "consensus"--more like a majority, since you really haven't satisfactorily established for anyone other than yourself that this majority fits the definition of consensus--you ARE trying to convince us of the truth of your point of view.  Why appeal to the majority or "consensus", as you call it, if you aren't?

Let's call it a day.  If every Orthodox Church and every bishop accepts the canonicity of the Russian Church who are we, a simple monk and a catechumen, to question the discernment of our hierarchs who have a gift from the Holy Spirit "to rightly define the word of truth."
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,898


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #88 on: June 10, 2009, 05:20:18 AM »

If you wish to offer evidence for an argument in the future, appeal to majority opinion is a rather unconvincing way to go. 

Dear PtA,

In this specific instance the appeal to majority opinion is sufficient proof.  As I mentioned, over 300 million Orthodox Christians accept the canonicity of the Church of Russia.  I find this sufficiently convincing.
When trying to convince someone else of the truth of your position, it doesn't matter that you find the evidence sufficiently convincing.  You now need to present your case in a way that others find convincing.

Thank you for the advice.

In the case of the opinion of whether the Russian Church is canonical or not you are mistaken if you think I wish to convince you of the truth of "my" position.  I am giving the position of all the Orthodox Churches and their hierarchs throughout the world.    If the universal consensus of the pleroma of the Orthodox Church is not convincing for people, then there is nothing more I can add.
But in presenting this "consensus"--more like a majority, since you really haven't satisfactorily established for anyone other than yourself that this majority fits the definition of consensus--you ARE trying to convince us of the truth of your point of view.  Why appeal to the majority or "consensus", as you call it, if you aren't?

Let's call it a day.  If every Orthodox Church and every bishop accepts the canonicity of the Russian Church who are we, a simple monk and a catechumen, to question the discernment of our hierarchs who have a gift from the Holy Spirit "to rightly define the word of truth."
I'm not a catechumen, for I was chrismated at Pentecost twelve years ago. Wink

Besides, in your assertion that every bishop accepts the canonicity of the Russian Church is logically implicit the judgment that those bishops who don't are not true bishops, hence a veiled jab at Pravoslav09's bishop and possibly even Fr. Anastasios's bishop.  Are you going to hide behind hierarchical discernment and not take responsibility for this?
« Last Edit: June 10, 2009, 05:21:05 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #89 on: June 10, 2009, 05:39:13 AM »


Besides, in your assertion that every bishop accepts the canonicity of the Russian Church is logically implicit the judgment that those bishops who don't are not true bishops, hence a veiled jab at Pravoslav09's bishop

We do not actually know if the Russian Zarist Church possesses bishops.  I cannot remember Pravoslav09 imparting this information.  I may have missed it though.  However there is no doubt from what he has posted, particularly in the Russian thread on the "Chronology of the Apostasy of ROCA(L)" that he sees our bishops as not true bishops.

Quote
and possibly even Fr. Anastasios's bishop.

I am not really aware of how Fr Anastasios' hierarchy calls it for our Russian bishops, whether his bishops see MP and ROCA bishops as authentic or not.

Quote
Are you going to hide behind hierarchical discernment and not take responsibility for this?

Hide?  If my bishops were to inform me that a hierarchy of a particular Church is without grace I would, under obedience, accept their word for it.  It's their call and not mine.   I could ask about the Russian Zarist Church on the clergy list if you like?   But I really would not feel comfortable taking a question about the Russian Zarist Church to my bishop Metropolitan Hilarion - he has a multitude of matters to deal with already.
Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #90 on: June 10, 2009, 06:10:06 AM »

...
I am yet to hear the reasoning of groups that have split from ROCOR for ROCOR's alleged "chage of the position" if they still commune faithful from Jerusalem and Serbia, with whom they were in communion while being ROCOR.


More particularly, since ROCOR was always in communion with Jerusalem and Serbia, not only concellebrations were quite regular (for instance, bishop Mark of ROCOR annually visits Celije Monastery to remember the day of St. Justin's repose, where he regularly concellebrates with present bishops of Serbian Patriarchate), but the faithful of these jurisdictions were able to partake communion in ROCOR.

Jerusalem and Serbia change nothing in their position during reconciliation of MP and ROCOR.

AFAIK, Old Calendarist splinter groups from ROCOR offer no communion to the flock of Jerusalem and Serbia, whom were, BTW, always on Church ("Old") Calendar, although they were allowing it while being ROCOR.

It makes their accusation against ROCOR for "change of position" ridiculous, since they, themselves, did change the position without even noticing it and without providing any reasoning for it.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2009, 06:28:15 AM by orthodoxlurker » Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
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: 37,963



« Reply #91 on: June 10, 2009, 07:00:06 AM »

...
I am yet to hear the reasoning of groups that have split from ROCOR for ROCOR's alleged "chage of the position" if they still commune faithful from Jerusalem and Serbia, with whom they were in communion while being ROCOR.


More particularly, since ROCOR was always in communion with Jerusalem and Serbia, not only concellebrations were quite regular (for instance, bishop Mark of ROCOR annually visits Celije Monastery to remember the day of St. Justin's repose, where he regularly concellebrates with present bishops of Serbian Patriarchate), but the faithful of these jurisdictions were able to partake communion in ROCOR.

Jerusalem and Serbia change nothing in their position during reconciliation of MP and ROCOR.

AFAIK, Old Calendarist splinter groups from ROCOR offer no communion to the flock of Jerusalem and Serbia, whom were, BTW, always on Church ("Old") Calendar, although they were allowing it while being ROCOR.

It makes their accusation against ROCOR for "change of position" ridiculous, since they, themselves, did change the position without even noticing it and without providing any reasoning for it.

The only time I intercommuned with ROCOR before the reconciliation with Moscow was when I was in Jerusalem.  There was a ROCOR priest present who concelebrated, and if I remember correctly, one of their bishops visiting.  I was OCA, some of the monks were CoG, the nuns were Church of Romania, there were Serbian visitors (their car had just been firebombed), and even a Chinese Orthodox family from Australia (they had been under Moscow before immigrating).  It would seem that wouldn't be possible with the ROCOR splinters now, so it would seem the splinters are the ones changing.
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
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: 37,963



« Reply #92 on: June 10, 2009, 07:05:15 AM »

I just found your appeal to the majority, a logical tactic you seem to like using quite often, a rather weak approach to proving our shared opinion that the Moscow Patriarchate is canonical and the Russian Tsarist Church is not.

In that case your quarrel is with the Fathers, and especially Saint Vincent of Lerins and the "Vincentian Canon" which the holy Fathers were happy to adopt as a rule of thumb ~  "what is believed by all, everywhere and at all times."
Yes, a very common logical fallacy I see many on this forum commit.  Post a controversial interpretation of the Fathers or a fallacious appeal to the majority and then recuse yourself of all responsibility by saying, "Your argument is with the Fathers, not with me."  No, Fr. Ambrose, my argument is with your fallacious logic, not with St. Vincent of Lerins, especially since I don't see your example of the majority fitting the definition of consensus.

I really do not follow your logic which is too tenuous for me.  Are you saying that although all the Orthodox Churches accept the canonicity of the Russian Church that is insufficient to conclude that it is canonical.
No, that's not what I'm saying.  All I've done is question your equation of the majority with consensus.

If you could be specific about what more proof you need beyond this Orthodox consensus of Churches and their Synods I would try to provide it.
Again, majority does not equal consensus.  If you wish to offer evidence for an argument in the future, appeal to majority opinion is a rather unconvincing way to go.  Other than that, you're preaching to the choir if you think you need to convince me that the Moscow Patriarchate is canonical.

Since all the autocephalous Churches find the Patriarchate of Moscow canonical, yes this majority is consensus, besides being unanimous.
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
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #93 on: June 10, 2009, 07:42:45 AM »

We do not actually know if the Russian Zarist Church possesses bishops.

I do not know that either, but the Web site, from where Pravoslav09 copied the original text in Russian, says that they represent +Bishop Diomid (Diomedes).
Logged

Love never fails.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #94 on: June 10, 2009, 10:02:47 AM »

I'm sorry that I am growing aloof from this discussion, but whereas for some these discussions are academic, for me they are extremely emotionally draining and I can't sustain them for long.  I find the current situation to be gut-wrenching, extremely sad, and difficult to comprehend.  However, I do have hope it can be overcome.

I can vouch that Pravoslav09 has a bishop.  I'm sure that various people here would discount his bishop's canonicity, but that is irrelevant to the question of whether he is in a Church with a bishop to whom he does obedience. And the answer is, he is, and I know which bishop it is. But he has expressed a desire to not share details of his personal life with the internet, and I will respect that.  If his reticence to reveal his bishop makes you think he has less credibility, that's your decision to make; but most likely he does not feel a pressing need to release that information since many of you would then just turn the argument towards why his bishop lacks credibility.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2009, 10:03:46 AM by Fr. Anastasios » Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
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: 37,963



« Reply #95 on: June 10, 2009, 10:37:09 AM »

I'm sorry that I am growing aloof from this discussion, but whereas for some these discussions are academic, for me they are extremely emotionally draining and I can't sustain them for long.  I find the current situation to be gut-wrenching, extremely sad, and difficult to comprehend.  However, I do have hope it can be overcome.

I can vouch that Pravoslav09 has a bishop.  I'm sure that various people here would discount his bishop's canonicity, but that is irrelevant to the question of whether he is in a Church with a bishop to whom he does obedience. And the answer is, he is, and I know which bishop it is. But he has expressed a desire to not share details of his personal life with the internet, and I will respect that.  If his reticence to reveal his bishop makes you think he has less credibility, that's your decision to make; but most likely he does not feel a pressing need to release that information since many of you would then just turn the argument towards why his bishop lacks credibility.
Well, then he shouldn't be throwing around terms like "spawn of Satan," "apostate" and denouncing Pat. Kyrill and Met. Laurus as anathema, now should he.  As we say in Arabic, "there are no fans in hell."
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
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #96 on: June 10, 2009, 10:39:45 AM »


Well, then he shouldn't be throwing around terms like "spawn of Satan," "apostate" and denouncing Pat. Kyrill and Met. Laurus as anathema, now should he.  As we say in Arabic, "there are no fans in hell."

I've already addressed my position on throwing around labels. Take it up with him.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
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: 37,963



« Reply #97 on: June 10, 2009, 10:51:43 AM »


Well, then he shouldn't be throwing around terms like "spawn of Satan," "apostate" and denouncing Pat. Kyrill and Met. Laurus as anathema, now should he.  As we say in Arabic, "there are no fans in hell."

I've already addressed my position on throwing around labels. Take it up with him.

Actually, my post wasn't directed at you, Father, just your post provided a convenient place to point this out to our OP.  sorry if you got in the crossfire, as you haven't been throwing kerosine on the fire.
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
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #98 on: June 10, 2009, 11:07:55 AM »


Well, then he shouldn't be throwing around terms like "spawn of Satan," "apostate" and denouncing Pat. Kyrill and Met. Laurus as anathema, now should he.  As we say in Arabic, "there are no fans in hell."

I've already addressed my position on throwing around labels. Take it up with him.

Actually, my post wasn't directed at you, Father, just your post provided a convenient place to point this out to our OP.  sorry if you got in the crossfire, as you haven't been throwing kerosine on the fire.

No problem; thanks.
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,898


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #99 on: June 10, 2009, 01:51:58 PM »

I just found your appeal to the majority, a logical tactic you seem to like using quite often, a rather weak approach to proving our shared opinion that the Moscow Patriarchate is canonical and the Russian Tsarist Church is not.

In that case your quarrel is with the Fathers, and especially Saint Vincent of Lerins and the "Vincentian Canon" which the holy Fathers were happy to adopt as a rule of thumb ~  "what is believed by all, everywhere and at all times."
Yes, a very common logical fallacy I see many on this forum commit.  Post a controversial interpretation of the Fathers or a fallacious appeal to the majority and then recuse yourself of all responsibility by saying, "Your argument is with the Fathers, not with me."  No, Fr. Ambrose, my argument is with your fallacious logic, not with St. Vincent of Lerins, especially since I don't see your example of the majority fitting the definition of consensus.

I really do not follow your logic which is too tenuous for me.  Are you saying that although all the Orthodox Churches accept the canonicity of the Russian Church that is insufficient to conclude that it is canonical.
No, that's not what I'm saying.  All I've done is question your equation of the majority with consensus.

If you could be specific about what more proof you need beyond this Orthodox consensus of Churches and their Synods I would try to provide it.
Again, majority does not equal consensus.  If you wish to offer evidence for an argument in the future, appeal to majority opinion is a rather unconvincing way to go.  Other than that, you're preaching to the choir if you think you need to convince me that the Moscow Patriarchate is canonical.

Since all the autocephalous Churches find the Patriarchate of Moscow canonical, yes this majority is consensus, besides being unanimous.
But then you've fallen into the same trap of stacking the deck so that a consensus emerges.

In the original post from Irish Hermit that started his and my debate over appeal to majority, Irish Hermit said the following:
There are 300 million Orthodox Christians who recognise the Moscow Patriarchate as the canonical Church of Russia and only a few thousands who do not.

Since then, his tune has changed to become more and more restrictive of those who don't recognize the MP, apparently in order to stack the deck to produce the consensus he desires to argue, and you've taken to following his trail, and rather late in the game at that.
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: 37,963



« Reply #100 on: June 10, 2009, 02:10:19 PM »

I just found your appeal to the majority, a logical tactic you seem to like using quite often, a rather weak approach to proving our shared opinion that the Moscow Patriarchate is canonical and the Russian Tsarist Church is not.

In that case your quarrel is with the Fathers, and especially Saint Vincent of Lerins and the "Vincentian Canon" which the holy Fathers were happy to adopt as a rule of thumb ~  "what is believed by all, everywhere and at all times."
Yes, a very common logical fallacy I see many on this forum commit.  Post a controversial interpretation of the Fathers or a fallacious appeal to the majority and then recuse yourself of all responsibility by saying, "Your argument is with the Fathers, not with me."  No, Fr. Ambrose, my argument is with your fallacious logic, not with St. Vincent of Lerins, especially since I don't see your example of the majority fitting the definition of consensus.

I really do not follow your logic which is too tenuous for me.  Are you saying that although all the Orthodox Churches accept the canonicity of the Russian Church that is insufficient to conclude that it is canonical.
No, that's not what I'm saying.  All I've done is question your equation of the majority with consensus.

If you could be specific about what more proof you need beyond this Orthodox consensus of Churches and their Synods I would try to provide it.
Again, majority does not equal consensus.  If you wish to offer evidence for an argument in the future, appeal to majority opinion is a rather unconvincing way to go.  Other than that, you're preaching to the choir if you think you need to convince me that the Moscow Patriarchate is canonical.

Since all the autocephalous Churches find the Patriarchate of Moscow canonical, yes this majority is consensus, besides being unanimous.
But then you've fallen into the same trap of stacking the deck so that a consensus emerges.

In the original post from Irish Hermit that started his and my debate over appeal to majority, Irish Hermit said the following:
There are 300 million Orthodox Christians who recognise the Moscow Patriarchate as the canonical Church of Russia and only a few thousands who do not.

Since then, his tune has changed to become more and more restrictive of those who don't recognize the MP, apparently in order to stack the deck to produce the consensus he desires to argue, and you've taken to following his trail, and rather late in the game at that.

The institutional Church is nearly two thousand years old, and the Autocephalous Church of Russia well over half a millenium, so yes, I'm rather late in the game. I do, however, predate the ROCORette Churches.

In all that history, NEVER have all of the autocephalous sees of the Church fallen to heresy at one time.  Always a Faithful remnant was left, and, as a matter of historical conincidence but also fact, the Church of Moscow has never fallen to heresy: indeed that is how she became autocephalous, by standing tall while while Constantinople fell.

Since All the autocephalous Churches recognize Moscow, then it would stand to reason that either the Church is right, or it has completely fallen to heresy.  I know that is the contention of those who left ROCOR, but since they were communing with Jerusalem and Serbs amongst others, I don't see who they can't condemn themselves.
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
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,898


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #101 on: June 10, 2009, 02:28:12 PM »

I just found your appeal to the majority, a logical tactic you seem to like using quite often, a rather weak approach to proving our shared opinion that the Moscow Patriarchate is canonical and the Russian Tsarist Church is not.

In that case your quarrel is with the Fathers, and especially Saint Vincent of Lerins and the "Vincentian Canon" which the holy Fathers were happy to adopt as a rule of thumb ~  "what is believed by all, everywhere and at all times."
Yes, a very common logical fallacy I see many on this forum commit.  Post a controversial interpretation of the Fathers or a fallacious appeal to the majority and then recuse yourself of all responsibility by saying, "Your argument is with the Fathers, not with me."  No, Fr. Ambrose, my argument is with your fallacious logic, not with St. Vincent of Lerins, especially since I don't see your example of the majority fitting the definition of consensus.

I really do not follow your logic which is too tenuous for me.  Are you saying that although all the Orthodox Churches accept the canonicity of the Russian Church that is insufficient to conclude that it is canonical.
No, that's not what I'm saying.  All I've done is question your equation of the majority with consensus.

If you could be specific about what more proof you need beyond this Orthodox consensus of Churches and their Synods I would try to provide it.
Again, majority does not equal consensus.  If you wish to offer evidence for an argument in the future, appeal to majority opinion is a rather unconvincing way to go.  Other than that, you're preaching to the choir if you think you need to convince me that the Moscow Patriarchate is canonical.

Since all the autocephalous Churches find the Patriarchate of Moscow canonical, yes this majority is consensus, besides being unanimous.
But then you've fallen into the same trap of stacking the deck so that a consensus emerges.

In the original post from Irish Hermit that started his and my debate over appeal to majority, Irish Hermit said the following:
There are 300 million Orthodox Christians who recognise the Moscow Patriarchate as the canonical Church of Russia and only a few thousands who do not.

Since then, his tune has changed to become more and more restrictive of those who don't recognize the MP, apparently in order to stack the deck to produce the consensus he desires to argue, and you've taken to following his trail, and rather late in the game at that.

The institutional Church is nearly two thousand years old, and the Autocephalous Church of Russia well over half a millenium, so yes, I'm rather late in the game. I do, however, predate the ROCORette Churches.
Rather late in the "game" of my debate with Irish Hermit, that is. Wink

In all that history, NEVER have all of the autocephalous sees of the Church fallen to heresy at one time.  Always a Faithful remnant was left, and, as a matter of historical conincidence but also fact, the Church of Moscow has never fallen to heresy: indeed that is how she became autocephalous, by standing tall while while Constantinople fell.

Since All the autocephalous Churches recognize Moscow, then it would stand to reason that either the Church is right, or it has completely fallen to heresy.  I know that is the contention of those who left ROCOR, but since they were communing with Jerusalem and Serbs amongst others, I don't see who they can't condemn themselves.
If you take the Church to be all the autocephalous regional churches speaking with one voice, then this makes for a much stronger definition of consensus than Irish Hermit's 300 million to few thousand majority. Wink
Logged
IPC
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: RZC
Posts: 308


« Reply #102 on: June 10, 2009, 07:30:55 PM »

"High Treason: The Luring of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad to the Moscow Patriarchate" By Professor Olga A. Dolskaya, plublished in the newspaper FIDELITY № 54 - June 2006.


INTRODUCTION:

In recent years, and especially since the onset of perestroika, changes have begun to take place in the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCA or ROCOR). At first, they were perceptible only to those who followed events closely, but then with the appearance of the October 2000 Epistle of the Council of Bishops, it became evident to anyone willing to read, that a new direction has been designed to create a path for communication and dialogue with the official Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) otherwise known as the Moscow Patriarchate (MP). The Epistle, although heavily cloaked in admonishing its flock to remain busy with their own salvation and personal piety rather than meddle in church affairs, also recognized the Moscow Patriarchate as a legitimate church and canceled the infamous Declaration of 1927 by Metropolitan Sergii (Stragorodsky), later to become known as the first “patriarch” of the official Soviet Orthodox Church (ROC) - a church that worked hand-in-hand with the communist regime in the destruction of thousands of churches and monasteries as well as the brutal torture and murder of millions of faithful, in other words - the annihilation of Orthodoxy. It is only natural that the October 2000 Epistle was followed by a multitude of protests, only for them to be silenced and the clergy forbidden to serve- simply because they came to the defense of the Church Abroad and gave very plausible reasons why a rapprochement with the MP was not possible. Such treatment of dedicated clergy is an ugly and unprecedented event in the history of ROCOR and it resembles the tactics and behavior of the KGB-controlled MP, rather than ROCOR.  The MP, which calls itself the Mother Church, despite the fact that it was established by Stalin and is younger than the pre-revolutionary Church Abroad - the MP is not a church but an organization that has been used as a tool to combat religion by the atheist communist regime.

*In the USSR, and in Russia today, the ROC has always been a tool of the State. Though technically, there was a separation between Church and State after the Bolshevik Revolution, the Church as a potential enemy with its own philosophy, was alien to the Soviet State and for that reason, in the initial stage of the Bolshevik Revolution, all the church people who honestly believed that they had their own Supreme Being to serve, not the State, were mostly exterminated.

Therefore, to suddenly speak of the MP as a legitimate church, as was done by the hierarchs in the October Epistle, created dissension and profound consternation, which was voiced by people, from around the world including Russia, through letters, protests and Orthodox Lists on the Internet. Finally, in July of 2001, the President of the Synod of Bishops of the Church Abroad, his Eminence Metropolitan Vitaly, was forcibly and illegally removed in what can be considered one of the most odious Coup d’Etats in history. Those unfamiliar with the Coup might want to acquaint themselves with at least the most recent events, for instance, the fact that Metropolitan Vitalii’s June 22 Epistle, which he ordered to be read from the amvon in all churches, was forbidden from being read- more specifically, suppressed on the orders of Bishop Gabriel. With unprecedented insolence on the part of a young bishop towards his First-Hierarch, Bishop Gabriel discredited Metropolitan Vitalii’s Epistle, with the help of Archbishop Mark, as not having been written by the Metropolitan. This accusation later was proved to be wrong and the document authentic. One should also become acquainted with the accounts of the infamous July 10th-13th  events, when the First-Hierarch was yelled at (literally) and lied to by the bishops under him. On July 10th, the Metropolitan walked out of the meeting in which he was rudely mistreated, thus canceling it and making all subsequent meetings of the new Synod illegal. Much has been written about the events that week, but suffice it to say, people who voiced their concern, and spoke in defense of the Metropolitan and the Church Abroad, as well as against union with the MP, were invariably silenced, labeled as mentally imbalanced or otherwise incompetent, and considered as schismatics who “refuse to obey their bishops.” Words such as sectarians, fanatics, extremists have been applied to them, words that stem directly from the KGB-controlled Moscow Patriarchate, and one must add, have always been used by the KGB to degrade, weaken and discredit.

It is with great sorrow and shame that one reads the reactions to the Coup in the Russian Press:  «Переворот в РПЦЗ: Митрополита Виталия, оказывается, отстранили от управления Церковью» (Coup d'Etat in ROCOR: Apparently Metropolitan Vitaly Has Been Expelled from Ruling the Church):

«Фактическое отстранение митрополита Виталия от должности первоиерарха РПЦЗ и его изгнание из Синода (архиепископ Лавр и епископ Михаил буквально потребовали, чтобы митрополит «освободил» свою комнату в здании Синода), совпали с «празднованием» 50-летия его архиерейского служения... Члены Зарубежного Синода не только не откликнулись на многочисленные предложения наградить его правом ношения второй панагии и титулом «Блаженнейший» но и подвергли обструкции. Отказ членов Зарубежного Синода от элементарных приличий и уважения к своему старцу-первоиерарху даже в день празднования его «золотого» юбилея является важным индикатором духовной адмосферы, царящей в нынешнем пропатриархийном руководстве РПЦЗ» (The virtual release of Metropolitan Vitaly from his duties as the First-Hierarch of ROCOR and his expulsion from the Synod (archbishop Lavr and bishop Michael literally demanded that he vacate his room in the Synod building), coincided with the 50th celebration of his services as a hierarch… The members of the Synod abroad not only did not respond to many offers to reward him with the right to wear a second panagia together with the title of the “Most Holy” but subjected him to obstruction. The refusal of the Synod Abroad members to use most elementary rules of respect for their elderly First Hierarch even on the day of celebration of his 50th “golden” anniversary, stands as an important indicator of the spiritual atmosphere which reigns in today’s pro-Moscow Patriarchate leadership of the Church Abroad.)

For those who do not have access to the Internet and are patiently “obeying their bishops,” it is crucial, for the sake of ROCOR’s existence, to become acquainted with that which has been withheld from them. After the Coup d’Etat,  an Epistle was issued by the Bishops stating that they “cannot fail to note how, through the wide dissemination of all manner of distortions and false interpretations- especially on websites formed for this purpose on the Internet… full of slander against the hierarchy.” The Epistle admonishes: “Pay no attention to the various Open Letters, Statements… [by that they mean the protests to the October 2000 Epistle voiced by those concerned]… which are being disseminated on the Internet and by electronic mail by various provocateurs.” What these bishops fail to mention is that for many years now, a very vocal, persistent and highly determined and organized group of real provocateurs have been unrelentingly brainwashing the flock on the Internet promoting what they thought would be a smooth rapprochement and convergence with the MP, cheering each other as they went along. These have become so obvious to the readers’ dismay, that they have been labeled as the “pro-MP” faction,  gradually leading the Church Abroad into union with the MP and ecumenical World Orthodoxy. As stated in their Epistle, “not one of the hierarchs is striving for a speedy unification with the MP-” maybe not speedy but a definite gradual, highly calculated, behind the scenes process has been under way for years. Behind the names of those who have become obvious advocates of the Union, stand others, who are steering the entire process. Their names will become known later, as more is unveiled- but for now it is important to make that unveiling process available to the public rather than being fearful of repercussions and personal attacks. It is to those who intend on working in whatever capacity God has endowed them with, to help the Church Abroad continue its existence, to those who will not be afraid of spreading the truth - and to disseminate literature banned by the official so-called pro-MP faction - and to those who do not have access to the Internet (apparently a large number of parishioners who have remained in the dark during the entire process), that this work is humbly dedicated.




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 #103 on: June 10, 2009, 08:55:04 PM »

In the original post from Irish Hermit that started his and my debate over appeal to majority, Irish Hermit said the following:
There are 300 million Orthodox Christians who recognise the Moscow Patriarchate as the canonical Church of Russia and only a few thousands who do not.

Since then, his tune has changed to become more and more restrictive of those who don't recognize the MP, apparently in order to stack the deck to produce the consensus he desires to argue, and you've taken to following his trail, and rather late in the game at that.

It's quite incorrect to say that I have "changed my tune."  I haven't.  I have pointed out, once, twice, three times, that the pleroma of Orthodoxy (which comprises 300 million Orthodox Christians and every single Orthodox Church and bishop) recognises the canonicity of the Russian Church.   

If Pravoslav09 wishes to say that he (presumbably in obedience to Bp Diomid?) does not recognise it, then that is his personal right.   Pravoslav09 has exercised his personal right to deny the validity of the 290+ bishops in my Church.  Bp Diomid has done the same. Likewise, it is also MY right, both as an individual such as he is and and as a cleric under obedience to the hierarchy of my Church and its canonical decisions, to say that I do not recognise Bishop Diomid.   To recogise the legitimacy of a bishop whom my Church has recently defrocked would be a gross act of defiance on my part which could be actionable by my bishop if he chooses.

This thread has given Pravoslav09 the right to deny the validity of the Russian Church and the Russian Church Abroad as if it were a fact.  Its subject is a statement "Apostasy of ROCOR."   It does not even finish with a question mark which would at least turn it into a question.

In conclusion ~ neither the Russian Church nor the Russian Church Abroad has apostasized.  Neither Church has abandoned Christ and Christianity.  As a Russian Orthodox priest and monk I find the assertion abominable.  No doubt Pravoslav09 will continue to send screeds of material to prove the opposite.  I pray God that he stop.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #104 on: June 10, 2009, 09:03:21 PM »

If you take the Church to be all the autocephalous regional churches speaking with one voice, then this makes for a much stronger definition of consensus than Irish Hermit's 300 million to few thousand majority. Wink

That tends toward a Roman Catholic argument.  They always like to remove the faithful from their decisions and make them only in the name of the top echelon, the magisterium. 

Now, if you run back over my posts, you will see that I have preferred to speak of the balance which exists within Orthodoxy -faithful AND hierarchy in unison.  That is why I referred to the pleroma of the Church (300 million Christians) AND all the autocephalous Churches and their bishops.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #105 on: June 10, 2009, 09:07:46 PM »

Since all the autocephalous Churches find the Patriarchate of Moscow canonical, yes this majority is consensus, besides being unanimous.
But then you've fallen into the same trap of stacking the deck so that a consensus emerges.


You speak as if the emergence of a consensus were somehow a bad thing?
« Last Edit: June 10, 2009, 09:12:00 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Bogoliubtsy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,268



« Reply #106 on: June 10, 2009, 09:32:04 PM »

"High Treason: The Luring of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad to the Moscow Patriarchate" By Professor Olga A. Dolskaya, plublished in the newspaper FIDELITY № 54 - June 2006.


INTRODUCTION:

In recent years, and especially since the onset of perestroika, changes have begun to take place in the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCA or ROCOR). At first, they were perceptible only to those who followed events closely, but then with the appearance of the October 2000 Epistle of the Council of Bishops, it became evident to anyone willing to read, that a new direction has been designed to create a path for communication and dialogue with the official Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) otherwise known as the Moscow Patriarchate (MP). The Epistle, although heavily cloaked in admonishing its flock to remain busy with their own salvation and personal piety rather than meddle in church affairs, also recognized the Moscow Patriarchate as a legitimate church and canceled the infamous Declaration of 1927 by Metropolitan Sergii (Stragorodsky), later to become known as the first “patriarch” of the official Soviet Orthodox Church (ROC) - a church that worked hand-in-hand with the communist regime in the destruction of thousands of churches and monasteries as well as the brutal torture and murder of millions of faithful, in other words - the annihilation of Orthodoxy. It is only natural that the October 2000 Epistle was followed by a multitude of protests, only for them to be silenced and the clergy forbidden to serve- simply because they came to the defense of the Church Abroad and gave very plausible reasons why a rapprochement with the MP was not possible. Such treatment of dedicated clergy is an ugly and unprecedented event in the history of ROCOR and it resembles the tactics and behavior of the KGB-controlled MP, rather than ROCOR.  The MP, which calls itself the Mother Church, despite the fact that it was established by Stalin and is younger than the pre-revolutionary Church Abroad - the MP is not a church but an organization that has been used as a tool to combat religion by the atheist communist regime.

*In the USSR, and in Russia today, the ROC has always been a tool of the State. Though technically, there was a separation between Church and State after the Bolshevik Revolution, the Church as a potential enemy with its own philosophy, was alien to the Soviet State and for that reason, in the initial stage of the Bolshevik Revolution, all the church people who honestly believed that they had their own Supreme Being to serve, not the State, were mostly exterminated.

Therefore, to suddenly speak of the MP as a legitimate church, as was done by the hierarchs in the October Epistle, created dissension and profound consternation, which was voiced by people, from around the world including Russia, through letters, protests and Orthodox Lists on the Internet. Finally, in July of 2001, the President of the Synod of Bishops of the Church Abroad, his Eminence Metropolitan Vitaly, was forcibly and illegally removed in what can be considered one of the most odious Coup d’Etats in history. Those unfamiliar with the Coup might want to acquaint themselves with at least the most recent events, for instance, the fact that Metropolitan Vitalii’s June 22 Epistle, which he ordered to be read from the amvon in all churches, was forbidden from being read- more specifically, suppressed on the orders of Bishop Gabriel. With unprecedented insolence on the part of a young bishop towards his First-Hierarch, Bishop Gabriel discredited Metropolitan Vitalii’s Epistle, with the help of Archbishop Mark, as not having been written by the Metropolitan. This accusation later was proved to be wrong and the document authentic. One should also become acquainted with the accounts of the infamous July 10th-13th  events, when the First-Hierarch was yelled at (literally) and lied to by the bishops under him. On July 10th, the Metropolitan walked out of the meeting in which he was rudely mistreated, thus canceling it and making all subsequent meetings of the new Synod illegal. Much has been written about the events that week, but suffice it to say, people who voiced their concern, and spoke in defense of the Metropolitan and the Church Abroad, as well as against union with the MP, were invariably silenced, labeled as mentally imbalanced or otherwise incompetent, and considered as schismatics who “refuse to obey their bishops.” Words such as sectarians, fanatics, extremists have been applied to them, words that stem directly from the KGB-controlled Moscow Patriarchate, and one must add, have always been used by the KGB to degrade, weaken and discredit.

It is with great sorrow and shame that one reads the reactions to the Coup in the Russian Press:  «Переворот в РПЦЗ: Митрополита Виталия, оказывается, отстранили от управления Церковью» (Coup d'Etat in ROCOR: Apparently Metropolitan Vitaly Has Been Expelled from Ruling the Church):

«Фактическое отстранение митрополита Виталия от должности первоиерарха РПЦЗ и его изгнание из Синода (архиепископ Лавр и епископ Михаил буквально потребовали, чтобы митрополит «освободил» свою комнату в здании Синода), совпали с «празднованием» 50-летия его архиерейского служения... Члены Зарубежного Синода не только не откликнулись на многочисленные предложения наградить его правом ношения второй панагии и титулом «Блаженнейший» но и подвергли обструкции. Отказ членов Зарубежного Синода от элементарных приличий и уважения к своему старцу-первоиерарху даже в день празднования его «золотого» юбилея является важным индикатором духовной адмосферы, царящей в нынешнем пропатриархийном руководстве РПЦЗ» (The virtual release of Metropolitan Vitaly from his duties as the First-Hierarch of ROCOR and his expulsion from the Synod (archbishop Lavr and bishop Michael literally demanded that he vacate his room in the Synod building), coincided with the 50th celebration of his services as a hierarch… The members of the Synod abroad not only did not respond to many offers to reward him with the right to wear a second panagia together with the title of the “Most Holy” but subjected him to obstruction. The refusal of the Synod Abroad members to use most elementary rules of respect for their elderly First Hierarch even on the day of celebration of his 50th “golden” anniversary, stands as an important indicator of the spiritual atmosphere which reigns in today’s pro-Moscow Patriarchate leadership of the Church Abroad.)

For those who do not have access to the Internet and are patiently “obeying their bishops,” it is crucial, for the sake of ROCOR’s existence, to become acquainted with that which has been withheld from them. After the Coup d’Etat,  an Epistle was issued by the Bishops stating that they “cannot fail to note how, through the wide dissemination of all manner of distortions and false interpretations- especially on websites formed for this purpose on the Internet… full of slander against the hierarchy.” The Epistle admonishes: “Pay no attention to the various Open Letters, Statements… [by that they mean the protests to the October 2000 Epistle voiced by those concerned]… which are being disseminated on the Internet and by electronic mail by various provocateurs.” What these bishops fail to mention is that for many years now, a very vocal, persistent and highly determined and organized group of real provocateurs have been unrelentingly brainwashing the flock on the Internet promoting what they thought would be a smooth rapprochement and convergence with the MP, cheering each other as they went along. These have become so obvious to the readers’ dismay, that they have been labeled as the “pro-MP” faction,  gradually leading the Church Abroad into union with the MP and ecumenical World Orthodoxy. As stated in their Epistle, “not one of the hierarchs is striving for a speedy unification with the MP-” maybe not speedy but a definite gradual, highly calculated, behind the scenes process has been under way for years. Behind the names of those who have become obvious advocates of the Union, stand others, who are steering the entire process. Their names will become known later, as more is unveiled- but for now it is important to make that unveiling process available to the public rather than being fearful of repercussions and personal attacks. It is to those who intend on working in whatever capacity God has endowed them with, to help the Church Abroad continue its existence, to those who will not be afraid of spreading the truth - and to disseminate literature banned by the official so-called pro-MP faction - and to those who do not have access to the Internet (apparently a large number of parishioners who have remained in the dark during the entire process), that this work is humbly dedicated.






http://www.bostonrusschurch.org/roca_way_en.html

THE PATH OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH ABROAD

Observations and Thoughts of an Old Priest.

(Translated and revised by the Author)

            In connection with the recent turmoil within the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, I think it would be beneficial to share certain observations and reflections. Recently there has been much talk about the path followed by the ROCA.  Now it has become obvious that the «straight» path which some people refer to, has led in the end to a schism within the ROCA.  This schism has been ripening over many years.  In order to understand what is going on, one should look first of all at the Guideposts that actually have determined the course of the ROCA throughout its history.

The First Guidepost was Ukaz (Decree) No. 362 of Patriarch Tikhon, dated Nov. 20, 1920, paragraph 2:  «In the event that a diocese, as a result of movement of the front lines, or changes of state borders, finds itself out of communication with the highest church authority, or that the highest church authority itself, headed by the Holy Patriarch, for some reason terminates its activity, the diocesan bishop should immediately contact the bishops of the adjacent dioceses in order to organize a higher level of church administration for several dioceses which find themselves in similar circumstances (in the form of a temporary church government or a metropolitan district, or in some other way)».

            This Ukaz was formulated at the time of the Civil War in Russia, whose consequence was the departure abroad of a sizeable lay flock (estimated at over a million), and of a substantial number of clergy and bishops.

The Second Guidepost on the path of the ROCA were the early Sobors (Councils) of Bishops Abroad, presided over by Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky): the First Sobor in Constantinople in 1920, in which 34 bishops participated in person or in writing; the First Sobor of representatives of the entire ROCA, held in the town of Sremskii Karlovtsi in Serbia in 1921; and the Sobor of Bishops Abroad on September 13, 1922, which estabilished a Temporary Synod of Bishops, based on the above-quoted Ukaz No. 362 of Patriarch Tikhon.  At those Sobors, which led to the formal establishment of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, were represented parishes in Europe, the Balkans, the Near and Far East, North and South America, including the soon-to-be-separated Metropolitan Districts: one known as  the Paris Metropolia, presently under the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the other known today as the Orthodox Church in America in the USA.

The Third Guidepost was the Resolution of the Sobor of Bishops of the ROCA, in September of 1927, which rejected the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius and defined the following rule:  «The part of the All-Russian Church located abroad must cease all administrative relations with the church administra-tion in Moscow…until restoration of normal relations with Russia and until the liberation of our Church from persecutions by the godless Soviet authorities…The part of the Russian Church that finds itself abroad considers itself an inseparable, spiritually united branch of the Great Russian Church. It does not separate itself from its Mother Church and does not consider itself autocephalous.»  This Resolution makes it clear that the emigre Hierarchs, while rejecting what later became known as «Sergianism», did not separate the part of the church that was abroad from that in the homeland, thus showing compassion to those who did not withstand the terror.  At about that time evolved the concept of the three parts of the Russian Church:  the «Church enslaved», that is, the Moscow Patriarchate; the «Catacomb Church», i.e, the secret, persecuted, underground Church of confessors within the borders of the Soviet Union; and the «Russian Orthodox Church Abroad», which was the free voice of the whole Russian Church.

The Fourth Guidepost was the adoption of the Temporary Polozheniye (Fundamental Law) of the ROCA by the General Sobor of Bishops on September 22-24, 1936.  Its first paragraph states:  «The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, which consists of dioceses, spiritual missions, and parishes outside Russia, is an inseparable part of the Russian Orthodox  Church, which exists temporarily under autonomous administration».  This Sobor, in effect, established an orderly administrative leadership of the ROCA for the entire period of its independent existence.

The Fifth Guidepost is defined by the Reply of the Blessed Metropolitan Anastassy in 1945, and of the Bishops' Sobor in Munich in 1946, in response to the address of the Patriarch of Moscow Aleksey I, who called for reunification after the Second World War.  During this terrible period of manhunts by Soviet agents for displaced persons and non-returnees all across Western Europe, Metropolitan Anastassy, reasserting the necessity for the continued existence of independent ROCA, writes:  «The bishops, the clergy and the laymen, subordinate to the jurisdiction of the Synod of Bishops Abroad, never broke canonical, prayer, or spiritual unity with their Mother Church.»  The Sobor of Bishops in its message, writes to the Patriarch of Moscow:  «We trust that…on the bones of martyrs a new free Russia will arise, strong in Orthodox truth and brotherly love…then all of her scattered sons, without any pressure or force, but freely and joyfully, will strive to return from all over into her maternal embrace.  Recognizing our unbroken spiritual bonds with our homeland, we sincerely pray to the Lord that he may speedily heal the wounds inflicted upon our homeland by this heavy, although victorious, war, and bless it with peace and well-being.»  This message was signed by Metropolitan Anastassy, three archbishops, and ten bishops.

The Sixth Guidepost, and probably the most important one in our days, is the Corporate Charter in the USA of our Church Abroad, which was signed by its most prominent Hierarchs, Metropolitan Anastassy, Archbishop Vitaly (Maximenko), Archbishop Tikhon, Archbishop Hieronim, Bishop Seraphim, and Bishop Nikon, and registered in the State of New York on April 30th, 1952.  It states:

            «II. The principal aim and purpose of the corporation shall be to provide for the administration of dioceses, missions, monasteries, churches and parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church, which are located in the United States of America, the Dominion of Canada and other countries which are outside of the Soviet Union and the satellites of the Soviet Union, but including dioceses, missions, monasteries and churches which recognise the corporation as the supreme ecclesiastical authority over them.

            «III. The corporation in its corporate functions and operation, and all of its trustees and officers, shall maintain no relations whatever with the Russian ecclesiastical authorities and organizations within the boundaries of the Soviet Union and the satellites of the Soviet Union, so long as the said countries, or any of them, shall be subject to Communist rule.»

            Further on, the next paragraph of the Charter refers to Ukaz #362 of Patriarch Tikhon of November 20, 1920, and its acceptance by the Sobor of Bishops on November 24, 1936. This

demonstrates that Metropolitan Anastassy and all Bishops, signatories of the Charter, just as, in their time, Metropolitan Anthony and the founding Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad, accepted the fact that the validity of the Ukaz of Patriarch Tikhon, which, in effect, is his Patriarchal Blessing, is limited in time.  In turn, they also Blessed the time-limited independent existence of the Russian Church Abroad until the fall of the Communist regime.

            The Seventh Guidepost is again the Polozheniye (Fundamental Law) of the Russian Church Abroad, revised and approved by the Sobor of Bishops, presided over by Metropolitan Anastassy, in 1956.  Its paragraph #1 states: «The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is an inseparable part of the Local (Pomestnoy) Orthodox Church, temporarily self-governing until the fall in Russia of the godless authorities, in compliance with the Decision of Holy Patriarch Tikhon and the Highest Church Council of the Church in Russia of 7 /20 November 1920, #362.»  The same Paragraph is repeated word for word in the Polozheniye, reviewed and re-approved in 1964.

In 1956 the Reply of Metropolitan Anastassy was reprinted by Holy Trinity Monastery.  The same themes were voiced by Archbishop Vitaly (Maximenko) of blessed memory, in his work «Motifs of My Life». Archbishop Andrew (Fr.Adrian) used to refer to the Church Abroad as a temporarily self-governing Diocese of the Russian Church.  Holy Archbishop John of Shanghai and San Francisco wrote: «The Russian Church Abroad does not separate itself spiritually from the suffering Mother Church. She offers up prayers for her, preserves her spiritual and material wealth, and in due time will reunite with her, when the reasons which have caused the separation will have vanished.»   Similar statements were made by many other archpastors, priests and writers in the church press.  It is from them that our generation, which came into the Church after the end of the Second World War in 1945, has acquired the understanding of the temporary existence of the independent Russian Church Abroad until the liberation of Russia from the Communist yoke.  The calls of Metropolitans Anastassy and Philaret of blessed memory to abstain even from conventional contacts with the representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate had to do with the period of the 1960s and 1970s, when the Soviet government began to use the Church for its own ends througout the Western world.  And Metropolitan Vitaly was completely correct when he said that we cannot declare that the Church in Russia is without Grace, but certain specific deeds of its clergy, performed on orders of the godless authorities in order to harm the Church, are, of course, graceless.

            In 1991 the Communist regime fell and the totalitarian Soviet state ceased to exist.  The leftovers of the Soviet mentality and even of the State government still remain, but the country and the Church consider themselves free and feel free, and there is no more party ideology to interfere with Church communications.  Therefore, with the fall of the Soviet government and cessation of terror in 1991, there also ended the time span, blessed by Holy Patriarch Tikhon and the founding Archpastors of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad for the existence of ROCA as a separate entity.

            The Path marked by the abovementioned Guideposts began to be subtly changed with the secret (and canonically questionable) consecration of Bishop Varnava (Barnabas) in about 1984.  A new ideology began to be evident, subtly but deeply russophobic.  Under the guise of restoring the archpastorship of the Catacomb Church, new church bodies began to be created within Russia, subordinate to the Church Abroad.  The old Catacomb Church, which was highly respected as the Church of true confessors, was soon forgotten.  The new ideology promoted the idea that the Russian Church Abroad is the only true Church, and the bearer of the restoration of the Church in Russia.  This led to estrangement and unnecessary confrontations between the Russian Church Abroad and the Mother Church, and then to a strange set of attitudes and actions on the part of some ROCA bishops, first in Russia, and more recently abroad.  Now that these bishops and their followers have expelled themselves from the Church Abroad and created their own church organizations, the Church Abroad has regained freedom of opinion and an opportunity to return to the path blessed by Holy Patriarch Tikhon and the Founding First Hierarchs and Archpastors of blessed memory.

            The new obstacles to normal relations that have been brought forward within our Church Abroad, such as the absence of repentance, failure to glorify the Royal New Martyrs, Sergianism, and participation in the ecumenical movement, have today ceased to be insurmountable.  Back in 1993 His Holiness, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, Alexey II and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church proclaimed, before God and the Russian people, repentance for the sin of regicide.  Their Epistle on the 75th anniversary of the murder of Emperor Nicholas II and his family states:  «With augmented prayer and great pain in our hearts we commemorate this sad Anniversary… The sin of regicide, which took place amid the indifference of the citizens of Russia, has not been repented of by our people. Being a transgression of both the law of God and civil law, this sin weighs extremely heavily upon the souls of our people, upon its moral conscience.  And today, on behalf of the whole Church, on behalf of her children, both reposed and living, we proclaim repentance before God and the people for this sin. Forgive us, O Lord!  We call to repentance all of our people, all of our children, regardless of their political views and opinions about history, regardless of their attitude toward the idea of Monarchy and the personality of the last Russian Tsar.  Repentance of the sin committed by our forefathers should become for us a banner of unity.  May today’s sad date unite us in prayer with the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, with whom we so sincerely desire restoration of spiritual unity in faithfulness to the Spirit of Christ... .»   The call was, unfortunately, ignored.

            The Royal New Martyrs were glorified, and Sergianism and ecumenism rejected, by the Jubilee Sobor of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church in the year 2000.  Sergianism, being in fact not a doctrine but a mode of behavior, was rejected in the chapter «Fundamental Conceptions of Society» in the published Acts of the Sobor, and ecumenism in the chapter «Fundamental Principles of Relations of the Orthodox Church to the Heterodox.»  In October of 2001, in his «Brotherly Epistle to the Sobor of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad,» His Holiness, Patriarch Alexey II again called for mutual forgiveness and restoration of liturgical communion.  The answer of the ROCA Sobor of Bishops was only mildly encouraging.

            Just as in the Church in Russia the veneration of the Royal New Martyrs was widely practiced by believers long before their official glorification, so it is that parishioners of the Church Abroad, when they visit Russia, pray, confess, and partake of Holy Communion in their beloved churches and monasteries of the Moscow Patriarchate, and have humbly done so for many years, without making an issue of it. And after visiting Russia, many of our clergy, including American converts to Orthodoxy, state in private conversations that those who say there is no Grace in the churches of the Moscow Patriarchate do not know what they are talking about.  As no one has wanted to provoke the ill winds of dissension within our ranks, it has been customary not to make such observations publicly.  However, now that the bearers of ill winds have expelled themselves from the Church, showing no respect for anyone including the Sobor of Bishops, the possibility has arisen again, and perhaps for the last time, of restoring God-pleasing spiritual unity and normal relations with the whole Mother Church.

            Sinful individuals and bad deeds have always existed, exist now, and will continue to exist both there, in Russia, and here in our midst. But a division which was lawful, must  not be allowed to evolve into sectarian schism, a phenomenon much discussed and feared by many of our priests and parishioners, both, Russians and Americans. If the Russian Church Abroad is allowed to become «a broken-off vine», it will be doomed to a slow but inevitable drying out, an atrophy from which no collection of selected quotations from the Canons will save us. On the other hand, the restoration of Eucharistic and Canonical unity with the Mother Church, with an autonomous administration of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, appears to be the natural next Guidepost in the current History of the Church of the Great Russian Exodus into Diaspora.

                                                                                    Archpriest Roman Lukianov

December 11, 2001                                                     Boston
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
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: 37,963



« Reply #107 on: June 10, 2009, 10:40:11 PM »

"High Treason: The Luring of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad to the Moscow Patriarchate" By Professor Olga A. Dolskaya, plublished in the newspaper FIDELITY № 54 - June 2006.


INTRODUCTION:

In recent years, and especially since the onset of perestroika, changes have begun to take place in the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCA or ROCOR). At first, they were perceptible only to those who followed events closely, but then with the appearance of the October 2000 Epistle of the Council of Bishops, it became evident to anyone willing to read, that a new direction has been designed to create a path for communication and dialogue with the official Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) otherwise known as the Moscow Patriarchate (MP). The Epistle, although heavily cloaked in admonishing its flock to remain busy with their own salvation and personal piety rather than meddle in church affairs, also recognized the Moscow Patriarchate as a legitimate church and canceled the infamous Declaration of 1927 by Metropolitan Sergii (Stragorodsky), later to become known as the first “patriarch” of the official Soviet Orthodox Church (ROC)

Soviet Orthodox Church would be SOC.  No such Church existed.

The first patriarch of ROC was St. Job.  Her first patriarch after the restoration was St. Tikhon.


Quote
- a church that worked hand-in-hand with the communist regime in the destruction of thousands of churches and monasteries as well as the brutal torture and murder of millions of faithful, in other words - the annihilation of Orthodoxy.

St. Tikhon tried to work with the Soviets as far as possible. It is a situation that we under the Muslim rulers are familiar with. Some in ROCOR, running off to safety, were not.  Perhaps if, after the communists took over Yugoslavia, these followers of the Karlovsky synod had stayed instead of running off so they continue to criticize those in the Church who stayed and bore the brunt of Soviet oppression, they would have learned.  Instead some continue to live in a Potemkin utopia where the czar rules and the serfs obey and no oppression comes to the Church. The Orthodox Church, however is one of martyrs, and the ROC produced plenty.

Quote
It is only natural that the October 2000 Epistle was followed by a multitude of protests, only for them to be silenced and the clergy forbidden to serve- simply because they came to the defense of the Church Abroad and gave very plausible reasons why a rapprochement with the MP was not possible. Such treatment of dedicated clergy is an ugly and unprecedented event in the history of ROCOR and it resembles the tactics and behavior of the KGB-controlled MP, rather than ROCOR.  The MP, which calls itself the Mother Church, despite the fact that it was established by Stalin and is younger than the pre-revolutionary Church Abroad

Dream on.  Moscow is the Mother Church: St. Jonas elected by an autocephalous synod there, and St. Job was elevated by the patriarchs in synod there.  There St. Tikhon led to the restoration of the patriarchate and stayed, like the Passion bearing Imperial Family, unlike those who fled  to safety after the Whites.  You don't disdain acknowledging Czar Peter's Oberprokurator, what is your excuse to withhold recognition from the patriarchate that Stalin recognized, the one established by St. Tikhon.


Quote
- the MP is not a church but an organization that has been used as a tool to combat religion by the atheist communist regime.

Neo-Donatism.  Pure, simple and ugly.

Quote
*In the USSR, and in Russia today, the ROC has always been a tool of the State.


You left out the Russian Empire.


Quote
Though technically, there was a separation between Church and State after the Bolshevik Revolution, the Church as a potential enemy with its own philosophy, was alien to the Soviet State and for that reason, in the initial stage of the Bolshevik Revolution, all the church people who honestly believed that they had their own Supreme Being to serve, not the State, were mostly exterminated.

Now you've hit a nerve, Ms. Dolskaya, near my bile duct. HOW DARE you spit on the myriads of martyrs for Orthodoxy who lived under Stalin while you lived in safety and comfort in the West.  HOW DARE you judge those who lived under the shadow of the Troyka of commissars.  HOW DARE you compare your Orthodoxy to theirs?

DON'T HAVE A MARTYR CONTEST WITH THE ROC, because you will LOSE.

The Greek Old Calendarists and the Romanian Old Calendarists have suffered for their beliefs. In fact THAT is the chief problem with the New Calendar (in my opinion, the only problem): the high handed manner in which it was enforced. What maryrdom have you experienced off in the West, where no one cares what you do?

Quote
The cessation of the separate existence of the Church Outside of Russia is needful and would be profitable only to the Soviet regime [and its successors in "free" Russia — ed.]. Through the clergy the latter desires to have control over the emigration and influence on it.

ROCOR lost this defense and its raison d'etre when it started opening parishes in the Motherland, "Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia inside Russia."  If the Church was so persecuted, how could they open parishes in the belly of the beast? Now there are those in the ROCiE who are still apoplectic over KGB, criticism that grates on my nerves like the Cuban exiles, mostly Batistas who sucked the country dry and made Castro possible.  Off in the safety of the US, they have been waiting for 50 years for Castro to fall "any day now," so they can go back and take the helm of the country. Excuse me?  You didn't suffer under Castro: what makes you think those who did want you back?  So to the aristocratic edge of much of ROCOR: if their class hadn't been so desolute and chasing the likes of Madame Blavatsky and eating cake while the lower, Christian (Christian and peasant were synomous in Russia) classes scrounged around for bread, perhaps the Revolution wouldn't have take the nasty edge it did.  To those who criticized Pat. Pimen, I would say, yes, I wouldn't do a lot of compromises that he was doing, but then again, neither did I have the weight of the responsibility of a hundred million souls on my conscience.  And neither did, nor do, his ROCOR critics.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn was one of those martyrs you deny: he was vomited from the belly of the beast of the Soviet Union into the safety of the West, and yes, did gravitate to ROCOR.  But when his citizenship was restored, back to Mother Russia he returned (something I note most of the PoM's detractors do not do.  They prefer the comforts of the West and stealing sheep to rule in Russia, from abroad, like a dissoltute absentee boyar landlord and his serfs).  He didn't mince words under the Soviets and not under the new regime, and he did have good things to say about Putin. And he fell asleep in the bosom of ROC, buried in her Donskoy Monastery.

Yelping Donatist dogs.  Make me want to puke.

Quote
Therefore, to suddenly speak of the MP as a legitimate church, as was done by the hierarchs in the October Epistle, created dissension and profound consternation, which was voiced by people, from around the world including Russia, through letters, protests and Orthodox Lists on the Internet. Finally, in July of 2001, the President of the Synod of Bishops of the Church Abroad, his Eminence Metropolitan Vitaly, was forcibly and illegally removed in what can be considered one of the most odious Coup d’Etats in history.

How about Peter Alexeyevich's takeover of the Church?

Quote
Those unfamiliar with the Coup might want to acquaint themselves with at least the most recent events, for instance, the fact that Metropolitan Vitalii’s June 22 Epistle, which he ordered to be read from the amvon in all churches, was forbidden from being read- more specifically, suppressed on the orders of Bishop Gabriel. With unprecedented insolence on the part of a young bishop towards his First-Hierarch, Bishop Gabriel discredited Metropolitan Vitalii’s Epistle, with the help of Archbishop Mark, as not having been written by the Metropolitan. This accusation later was proved to be wrong and the document authentic. One should also become acquainted with the accounts of the infamous July 10th-13th  events, when the First-Hierarch was yelled at (literally) and lied to by the bishops under him. On July 10th, the Metropolitan walked out of the meeting in which he was rudely mistreated, thus canceling it and making all subsequent meetings of the new Synod illegal. Much has been written about the events that week, but suffice it to say, people who voiced their concern, and spoke in defense of the Metropolitan and the Church Abroad, as well as against union with the MP, were invariably silenced, labeled as mentally imbalanced or otherwise incompetent, and considered as schismatics who “refuse to obey their bishops.” Words such as sectarians, fanatics, extremists have been applied to them, words that stem directly from the KGB-controlled Moscow Patriarchate, and one must add, have always been used by the KGB to degrade, weaken and discredit.

You whine about this, and pour your scorn on hierarchs whose life, and the lives of their flock, were in peril in the Soviet Union. That sound is me retching.

Quote
It is with great sorrow and shame that one reads the reactions to the Coup in the Russian Press:  «Переворот в РПЦЗ: Митрополита Виталия, оказывается, отстранили от управления Церковью» (Coup d'Etat in ROCOR: Apparently Metropolitan Vitaly Has Been Expelled from Ruling the Church):

«Фактическое отстранение митрополита Виталия от должности первоиерарха РПЦЗ и его изгнание из Синода (архиепископ Лавр и епископ Михаил буквально потребовали, чтобы митрополит «освободил» свою комнату в здании Синода), совпали с «празднованием» 50-летия его архиерейского служения... Члены Зарубежного Синода не только не откликнулись на многочисленные предложения наградить его правом ношения второй панагии и титулом «Блаженнейший» но и подвергли обструкции. Отказ членов Зарубежного Синода от элементарных приличий и уважения к своему старцу-первоиерарху даже в день празднования его «золотого» юбилея является важным индикатором духовной адмосферы, царящей в нынешнем пропатриархийном руководстве РПЦЗ» (The virtual release of Metropolitan Vitaly from his duties as the First-Hierarch of ROCOR and his expulsion from the Synod (archbishop Lavr and bishop Michael literally demanded that he vacate his room in the Synod building), coincided with the 50th celebration of his services as a hierarch… The members of the Synod abroad not only did not respond to many offers to reward him with the right to wear a second panagia together with the title of the “Most Holy” but subjected him to obstruction. The refusal of the Synod Abroad members to use most elementary rules of respect for their elderly First Hierarch even on the day of celebration of his 50th “golden” anniversary, stands as an important indicator of the spiritual atmosphere which reigns in today’s pro-Moscow Patriarchate leadership of the Church Abroad.)

For those who do not have access to the Internet and are patiently “obeying their bishops,” it is crucial, for the sake of ROCOR’s existence, to become acquainted with that which has been withheld from them. After the Coup d’Etat,  an Epistle was issued by the Bishops stating that they “cannot fail to note how, through the wide dissemination of all manner of distortions and false interpretations- especially on websites formed for this purpose on the Internet… full of slander against the hierarchy.” The Epistle admonishes: “Pay no attention to the various Open Letters, Statements… [by that they mean the protests to the October 2000 Epistle voiced by those concerned]… which are being disseminated on the Internet and by electronic mail by various provocateurs.” What these bishops fail to mention is that for many years now, a very vocal, persistent and highly determined and organized group of real provocateurs have been unrelentingly brainwashing the flock on the Internet promoting what they thought would be a smooth rapprochement and convergence with the MP, cheering each other as they went along. These have become so obvious to the readers’ dismay, that they have been labeled as the “pro-MP” faction,  gradually leading the Church Abroad into union with the MP and ecumenical World Orthodoxy. As stated in their Epistle, “not one of the hierarchs is striving for a speedy unification with the MP-” maybe not speedy but a definite gradual, highly calculated, behind the scenes process has been under way for years. Behind the names of those who have become obvious advocates of the Union, stand others, who are steering the entire process. Their names will become known later, as more is unveiled- but for now it is important to make that unveiling process available to the public rather than being fearful of repercussions and personal attacks. It is to those who intend on working in whatever capacity God has endowed them with, to help the Church Abroad continue its existence, to those who will not be afraid of spreading the truth - and to disseminate literature banned by the official so-called pro-MP faction - and to those who do not have access to the Internet (apparently a large number of parishioners who have remained in the dark during the entire process), that this work is humbly dedicated.


Since you don't like "World Orthodoxy," why don't you join the Old Believers, Professor?  They have the same "petite eglise" mentality as you.
« Last Edit: June 10, 2009, 10:44:46 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
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: 37,963



« Reply #108 on: June 10, 2009, 10:48:02 PM »

If you take the Church to be all the autocephalous regional churches speaking with one voice, then this makes for a much stronger definition of consensus than Irish Hermit's 300 million to few thousand majority. Wink

That tends toward a Roman Catholic argument.  They always like to remove the faithful from their decisions and make them only in the name of the top echelon, the magisterium. 

Now, if you run back over my posts, you will see that I have preferred to speak of the balance which exists within Orthodoxy -faithful AND hierarchy in unison.  That is why I referred to the pleroma of the Church (300 million Christians) AND all the autocephalous Churches and their bishops.

As is proper, as the Faithful and their hierarchs are one on this issue.  Obedience is easy when the hiearchs know what they are doing. Grin
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
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,898


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #109 on: June 11, 2009, 04:12:56 AM »

Since all the autocephalous Churches find the Patriarchate of Moscow canonical, yes this majority is consensus, besides being unanimous.
But then you've fallen into the same trap of stacking the deck so that a consensus emerges.


You speak as if the emergence of a consensus were somehow a bad thing?
It is when you reason in such a way as to create a consensus where none exists.  Face it, Irish Hermit, the only thing I've ever questioned in this debate is your faulty logic.  That's all and nothing more.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #110 on: June 11, 2009, 04:41:52 AM »

[It is when you reason in such a way as to create a consensus where none exists. 

But that is nonsensical.  How can one say that no consensus exists.  I am not aware of even one Orthodox Church which is not agreed that the Russian Church is canonical.   The consensus is 100%. 

Quote
Face it, Irish Hermit, the only thing I've ever questioned in this debate is your faulty logic.  That's all and nothing more.

I have appealed to the unanimous opinion of every Orthodox Church, the faithful and the hierarchs, to show that the Russian Church is canonical.   

Would you please show me in what way that is faulty logic?  Where else should we go for a final decision on the matter?  Would you please give us the alternative criteria for determining whether or not the Russian Church is canonical? 

And, coming back on topic,  by what criteria are people asserting that the Russian Church Abroad is in apostasy?   Because we are now concelebrating with Moscow?  With Metropolitan Jonah?  With Patriarch Theodoros?  It would be more useful to appeal to the logic of those upholding this view and require them to prove their claims.   So far this thead has failed completely in its purpose.  Nobody has proved that the Russian Church Abroad is apostate.     
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,431


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #111 on: June 11, 2009, 05:38:59 AM »

PtA, methinks you are straining at gnats, but swallowing camels.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,898


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #112 on: June 11, 2009, 06:10:12 AM »

[It is when you reason in such a way as to create a consensus where none exists. 

But that is nonsensical.  How can one say that no consensus exists.  I am not aware of even one Orthodox Church which is not agreed that the Russian Church is canonical.   The consensus is 100%. 

Quote
Face it, Irish Hermit, the only thing I've ever questioned in this debate is your faulty logic.  That's all and nothing more.

I have appealed to the unanimous opinion of every Orthodox Church, the faithful and the hierarchs, to show that the Russian Church is canonical.   

Would you please show me in what way that is faulty logic?  Where else should we go for a final decision on the matter?  Would you please give us the alternative criteria for determining whether or not the Russian Church is canonical?
Simple.  300 million Orthodox Christians on one side vs. a few thousand Orthodox Christians on the other does not equal a consensus, and you built your hierarchical consensus only out of all those bishops who agree with you, implicitly excluding as outside the pleroma of Orthodoxy those bishops, such as Bishop Diomid (Pravoslav09's ruling bishop?), who don't.  If you want to obey your bishop and not recognize those bishops he doesn't recognize, then that's your prerogative and duty, but you need to remember that I'm not bound to the same obedience to your bishop.  I'm free to disagree with him and with you if I so choose, thus I have the freedom to recognize Bishop Diomid and other such "schismatics" until I am convinced that I shouldn't.  Your arguments from an artificial consensus don't convince me.


And, coming back on topic,  by what criteria are people asserting that the Russian Church Abroad is in apostasy?   Because we are now concelebrating with Moscow?  With Metropolitan Jonah?  With Patriarch Theodoros?
See my Reply #68 above.

It would be more useful to appeal to the logic of those upholding this view and require them to prove their claims.   So far this thead has failed completely in its purpose.  Nobody has proved that the Russian Church Abroad is apostate.
Or should you say that nobody has convinced you that the ROCOR is apostate?  (Nobody has convinced me of this, either, but that's beside the point.)  However, I can't say anymore that Pravoslav09 hasn't at least tried to present a convincing case.  Additionally, I'm not particularly concerned that you wish Pravoslav09 would just shut up and go away; I'm not going to advocate silencing him just because you find his message offensive.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2009, 06:13:04 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #113 on: June 11, 2009, 06:22:07 AM »

Simple.  300 million Orthodox Christians on one side vs. a few thousand Orthodox Christians on the other does not equal a consensus, and you built your hierarchical consensus only out of all those bishops who agree with you, implicitly excluding as outside the pleroma of Orthodoxy those bishops, such as Bishop Diomid (Pravoslav09's ruling bishop?), who don't.  If you want to obey your bishop and not recognize those bishops he doesn't recognize, then that's your prerogative and duty, but you need to remember that I'm not bound to the same obedience to your bishop.  I'm free to disagree with him and with you if I so choose, thus I have the freedom to recognize Bishop Diomid and other such "schismatics" until I am convinced that I shouldn't.  Your arguments from an artificial consensus don't convince me.

Maybe you have more freedom as a layman in the OCA than the faithful in other Churches, but I am unsure if the OCA recognises as canonical the bishops defrocked by its Mother Church.


And, coming back on topic,  by what criteria are people asserting that the Russian Church Abroad is in apostasy?   Because we are now concelebrating with Moscow?  With Metropolitan Jonah?  With Patriarch Theodoros?
See my Reply #68 above.

It would be more useful to appeal to the logic of those upholding this view and require them to prove their claims.   So far this thead has failed completely in its purpose.  Nobody has proved that the Russian Church Abroad is apostate.
Quote
Or should you say that nobody has convinced you that the ROCOR is apostate?  (Nobody has convinced me of this, either, but that's beside the point.)  However, I can't say anymore that Pravoslav09 hasn't at least tried to present a convincing case.  Additionally, I'm not particularly concerned that you wish Pravoslav09 would just shut up and go away; I'm not going to advocate silencing him just because some find his message offensive.

Nor am I advocating silencing him because he is offensive.  Let him call my Church the "spawn of Satan."  It does not harm me but I would have thought it contravenes the Rules of the Forum.  The U-term for some Catholic Churches is not permitted on the Forum but we are at liberty to call Orthodox Churches the "spawn of Satan" on an Orthodox Forum!!   
Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #114 on: June 11, 2009, 06:23:30 AM »

To whom it might not be aware of the facts

Diomid was entrhoned some time back in 1990's, or 2000's, as a bishop of Moscow Patriarchate in Chukotka (and something). He was demoted to a monk by the same Patriarchate back in 2006/2007.

I fail to see any logic in claiming that Moscow Patriarchate is not canonical since it apostated either during Peter the Great, or during bolshevism, and simultaneously claiming to be of the flock of a bishop both enthroned and defrocked by an apostate Church.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #115 on: June 11, 2009, 06:25:18 AM »

PtA, methinks you are straining at gnats, but swallowing camels.

You are right.  Let sally forth and kill dragons...
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,898


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #116 on: June 11, 2009, 06:26:15 AM »

Simple.  300 million Orthodox Christians on one side vs. a few thousand Orthodox Christians on the other does not equal a consensus, and you built your hierarchical consensus only out of all those bishops who agree with you, implicitly excluding as outside the pleroma of Orthodoxy those bishops, such as Bishop Diomid (Pravoslav09's ruling bishop?), who don't.  If you want to obey your bishop and not recognize those bishops he doesn't recognize, then that's your prerogative and duty, but you need to remember that I'm not bound to the same obedience to your bishop.  I'm free to disagree with him and with you if I so choose, thus I have the freedom to recognize Bishop Diomid and other such "schismatics" until I am convinced that I shouldn't.  Your arguments from an artificial consensus don't convince me.

Maybe you have more freedom as a layman in the OCA than the faithful in other Churches, but I am unsure if the OCA recognises as canonical the bishops defrocked by its Mother Church.
Of course not, but I'm not going to buy into the faulty logic you seem to have employed here.  "100% of those bishops who agree with me agree with me."  What kind of a consensus is that?
« Last Edit: June 11, 2009, 06:26:43 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #117 on: June 11, 2009, 06:38:35 AM »

Of course not, but I'm not going to buy into the faulty logic you seem to have employed here.  "100% of those bishops who agree with me agree with me."  What kind of a consensus is that?

Much of the logic which prevails in the Church is by necessity circular.  That is just a fact.  The reason is that it stems from an initial act of faith - in other words "I believe that this is the authentic Orthodox Church founded by God Almighty and therefore I believe its bishops are gifted with the charism of discernment of truth."   It's circular.  Much the same as the Catholics who would say, "I believe that the Pope is chosen as the successor of Peter and has the gift of infallibility.  Therefore all that he defines on faith amd morals is true."

In neither case is this "logic" at all convincing to an outsider.  But it is convincing to a believer.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #118 on: June 11, 2009, 07:35:32 AM »

To whom it might not be aware of the facts

Diomid was entrhoned some time back in 1990's, or 2000's, as a bishop of Moscow Patriarchate in Chukotka (and something). He was demoted to a monk by the same Patriarchate back in 2006/2007.

I fail to see any logic in claiming that Moscow Patriarchate is not canonical since it apostated either during Peter the Great, or during bolshevism, and simultaneously claiming to be of the flock of a bishop both enthroned and defrocked by an apostate Church.

You have a good point.  And it's a logic with which I think Peter would agree.  If Pravoslav09 is certain that the bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate are apostate and graceless, then clearly the "consecration" of any bishop by them is graceless and has no validity.
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,431


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #119 on: June 11, 2009, 08:15:02 AM »

To whom it might not be aware of the facts

Diomid was entrhoned some time back in 1990's, or 2000's, as a bishop of Moscow Patriarchate in Chukotka (and something). He was demoted to a monk by the same Patriarchate back in 2006/2007.

I fail to see any logic in claiming that Moscow Patriarchate is not canonical since it apostated either during Peter the Great, or during bolshevism, and simultaneously claiming to be of the flock of a bishop both enthroned and defrocked by an apostate Church.

You have a good point.  And it's a logic with which I think Peter would agree.  If Pravoslav09 is certain that the bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate are apostate and graceless, then clearly the "consecration" of any bishop by them is graceless and has no validity.

Yup. Hoisted on their own petards.
Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #120 on: June 11, 2009, 09:11:35 AM »

...
... 
And it's a logic with which I think Peter would agree. 
...

Father, I believe I understand you, but my hopes are feeble.

Not only the "logic" he usually employs is flawed, but worse, I believe his attitude has already placed 700.000 Serbian Holy Martyrs as his opponents at the Judgment. It is too much for my weakness to hope anything for him.

Yet, my hopes are feeble like myself, and I do hope you know better.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
IPC
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: RZC
Posts: 308


« Reply #121 on: June 11, 2009, 09:52:29 AM »

"High Treason: The Luring of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad to the Moscow Patriarchate" By Professor Olga A. Dolskaya, plublished in the newspaper FIDELITY № 54 - June 2006.

Reactions from Moscow

Shortly after the forced removal of Metropolitan Vitaly, in July of 2001, the MP began to voice its endorsement:

Мы приветствуем тот факт, что наиболее здоровые силы в лоне Русской Зарубежной Церкви сегодня практически у руководства. (We welcome the fact that the more healthy forces in the Church Abroad have predominated and are now for all practical purposes in charge of it.)

“A Rapprochement with the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad?” sneers the Nezavisimaya gazeta on July 20, as it proceeds to state that a “new split within the émigré Russian Orthodox Church Abroad may lead to the reunification of many of that church’s leaders with the Moscow Patriarchate. The recent departure from the émigré church of its leader Metropolitan Vitalii opens the way to such a rapprochement.” And from the official website of Tass, in an article entitled “Metropolitan Vitaly is No Longer the Head of the Church Abroad,” we read:

“Bishop Michael, who was Metropolitan Vitaly’s immediate vicar, supported the suggestion of the other hierarchs to put an end to Metropolitan Vitaly’s powers. Archbishop Lavr (Shkurla) of Syracuse and [Holy] Trinity [Monastery] is the key figure in the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, those taking a stand for union with the Russian Church…The attainment of positions of leadership within the Church Abroad by supporters of union with the Mother Church permits us to hope that the surmounting of the [existing] divisions in the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is not too far distant.”

Having realized that their actions were becoming too obvious, and people were beginning to read and pay attention, shortly after the Coup d’Etat, the pro-MP faction of the bishops decided to switch gears and appear as if they were slowing down the process of unification. One guesses that it is only done temporarily, so as to pacify people, let them “fall asleep” and let them think all is well- after all, our bishops said that there is no unification process taking place. We learn that Abbott Ioakim, for instance, who was sent to hold talks with the MP, is excommunicated. The question arises, why hold “talks” and appoint someone who suddenly will not be “allowed” to talk? In “Blow to Possible Reunion in Russian Orthodoxy: The Thorny Path to Moscow,” Dmitry Starostin observes:

The repressed archimandrite declared his own adherence to the MP and was received into its bosom ‘at existing rank.’ The chief significance of Archimandrite Ioakim’s transfer into the jurisdiction of the MP is that now the “Commission of Relations” that he headed has ceased its existence…Even if Archbishop Laurus and his fraction retain control over RPTsZ (Church Abroad) they will not tackle any new contacts with Moscow very soon.”’

Then we learn that Fr. Joachim left the Church Abroad and joined the MP. Sergei Chapnin, in his article “К Чему Смута?” (Why the Discord?) unravels the ploy:

РПЦЗ - одна из порожденных той революцией церковных групп- сегодня тратит все свои силы на борьбу за выживание. С этой точки зрения только один вопрос имеет принципиальное значение: когда и на каких условиях состоится воссоединение РПЦЗ с Московским патриархатом (МП). Если говорить кратко, митрополит Виталий был лидером «сектантского» крыла РПЦЗ  (Тhe Church Abroad - one of those groups born of the revolution- today is wasting all its strength on the struggle for existence. Yet only one question remains meaningful: when and on what terms will the union of the Church Abroad with the Moscow Patriarchate take place? In short, Metropolitan Vitaly was the leader of the “sectarian” wing of the Church Abroad.)

Note that the word sectarian  reappears time and again, belittling the Church Abroad. When did the term sect become so popular that the Church Abroad, the original Russian Orthodox Church, which was forced into exile during the Bolshevik Revolution, is now suddenly labeled a sect? As to the recent statement made by the bishops in their July Epistle, denying the fact that there is a pro-MP faction amongst them, the Russian Press comments:

Это заявление может быть дипломатическим ходом и не соответствовать действительности в полной мере. Верующих необходимо успокоить и сделать это можно только одним единственным способом- подтвертить существующий status quo и заявить об отказе от каких бы то ни было перемен в политике по отношению к МП. Логика сохранения РПЦЗ как единого организма требует тактики умиротворения.  (This could have been a diplomatic step and did not correspond to reality. It is important to pacify the flock in the most efficient way possible, by reaffirming the status quo and deny any political changes with regards to the MP. The logic of preserving the Church Abroad is an organism that requires the tactic of conciliation.)

How were such devious tactics of conciliation acquired by ROCOR hierarchs?

« Last Edit: June 11, 2009, 09:59:06 AM by Pravoslav09 » 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 #122 on: June 11, 2009, 10:35:58 AM »

Histories of the Churches claiming to be the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad?

I believe that there are now 8 new Churches formed from going into schism from the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad or from a group which has itself gone into schism from ROCOR.

At the rate of present fragmentation that number is expected to double by the end of this year and there could be 16 Churches claiming to be ROCOR by December.

These Churches maintain no intercommunion with one another and some of them are bitter rivals, those such as the ROCOR-PSEA headed by Metropolitan Agathangel of Odessa claiming to be the only true ROCOR.

It is highly unlikely that any of these small groups are in fact the true ROCOR since schism upon schism is not usually an indication of the presence of the Holy Spirit Who is the Spirit of unity.

I would be interested if anyone has histories of each of these autogenic Churches.  Maybe Pravoslav09 knows where we can find brief historical sketches?

Many thanks, Hieromonk Ambrose ~ Russian Orthodox Church Abroad
Logged
Douglas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 608


« Reply #123 on: June 11, 2009, 11:19:42 AM »

Just as an observer... you make a great deal of sense, Fr Ambrose.  Smiley
Logged

Douglas no longer posts on the forum.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #124 on: June 11, 2009, 11:28:36 AM »

"High Treason: The Luring of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad to the Moscow Patriarchate" By Professor Olga A. Dolskaya, plublished in the newspaper FIDELITY № 54 - June 2006.

Тhe Church Abroad - one of those groups born of the revolution- today is wasting all its strength on the struggle for existence.

Speaking in my elderly way I would have to say that this alone is enough to show what a lot of ill-informed codswallop Olga Dolskaya's article is. 

Let us look at my diocese -Australia and New Zealand.    By 2006 our three parishes in New Zealand had soared from around 500 individuals maximum to over 7,000.  This was thanks to the immigration of Russians and others from the CIS which commenced in 1993 and continued steadily for the next 10 years.

Likewise in Australia the membership of the parishes of the Russian Church Abroad (which had been quite healthy anyway) soared by tens of 1000s of new immigrants. 

Dolskaya's contention that in 2006 we were wasting our strength on the struggle for existence is completely out of touch with reality.  Our struggle was to deal with our parishes which were bursting at the seams with new members.

I do not know if a similar process was taking place in the United States.  I suspect that it was and especially in the city parishes since new immigrants would have settled in the cities.
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: 37,963



« Reply #125 on: June 11, 2009, 11:34:47 AM »

"High Treason: The Luring of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad to the Moscow Patriarchate" By Professor Olga A. Dolskaya, plublished in the newspaper FIDELITY № 54 - June 2006.

Тhe Church Abroad - one of those groups born of the revolution- today is wasting all its strength on the struggle for existence.

Speaking in my elderly way I would have to say that this alone is enough to show what a lot of ill-informed codswallop Olga Dolskaya's article is. 

Let us look at my diocese -Australia and New Zealand.    By 2006 our three parishes in New Zealand had soared from around 500 individuals maximum to over 7,000.  This was thanks to the immigration of Russians and others from the CIS which commenced in 1993 and continued steadily for the next 10 years.

Likewise in Australia the membership of the parishes of the Russian Church Abroad (which had been quite healthy anyway) soared by tens of 1000s of new immigrants. 

Dolskaya's contention that in 2006 we were wasting our strength on the struggle for existence is completely out of touch with reality.  Our struggle was to deal with our parishes which were bursting at the seams with new members.

I do not know if a similar process was taking place in the United States.  I suspect that it was and especially in the city parishes since new immigrants would have settled in the cities.

My, my.  Seemes the KGB is busy stacking the deck around the world, huh?  As for the US, they are double busy, as those new immigrants are also coming to the OCA parishes. Too bad they don't have enough to stack the deck in all those splinter churches from ROCOR. LOL.

Amazing how the Soviet Union, which hasn't existed for nearly two decades, manages, according to sister Dolskaya, to maintain a world wide grip.  Or was New Zealand under Soviet control too?
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
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: 8,425


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #126 on: June 11, 2009, 01:52:29 PM »



Amazing how the Soviet Union, which hasn't existed for nearly two decades, manages, according to sister Dolskaya, to maintain a world wide grip.  Or was New Zealand under Soviet control too?

somebody should have let Tito know... Wink Grin Grin
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,898


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #127 on: June 11, 2009, 02:42:30 PM »

Not only the "logic" he usually employs is flawed,
I've already pointed out exactly the flaws I saw in someone else's logic.  Can you point out the specific flaws in mine?

but worse, I believe his attitude has already placed 700.000 Serbian Holy Martyrs as his opponents at the Judgment.
What do 700,000 Serbian Holy Martyrs have to do with this discussion?
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,431


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #128 on: June 11, 2009, 02:44:00 PM »

Gnats and camels, PtA, gnats and camels.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #129 on: June 11, 2009, 04:39:19 PM »

I've already pointed out exactly the flaws I saw in someone else's logic.  Can you point out the specific flaws in mine?

PetertheAleut:  "thus I have the freedom to recognize Bishop Diomid and other such "schismatics" until I am convinced that I shouldn't."

No argument with your logic there.  You are free to recognise Bishop Diomid as a bishop if you want.  You are free to buy him a ticket to America, have him celebrate Liturgy in your home, receive communion from him, be married by him.

The flaw in your argument will become obvious when your OCA bishops ask by what authority you have treated  as a bishop a person defrocked by your Mother Church the Church of Russia.   As you pointed out earlier in message #68 by allying yourself with an apostate or a schismatic you have yourself become one.   So no, there is no flaw in your "logic."  You do have the freedom to contravene the authority of the Church and its decision on the ex-bishop Diomid.  But your "logic" could well see your Church membership at risk (God forbid!) and *that* is the flaw in it.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,898


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #130 on: June 11, 2009, 04:55:46 PM »

I've already pointed out exactly the flaws I saw in someone else's logic.  Can you point out the specific flaws in mine?

PetertheAleut:  "thus I have the freedom to recognize Bishop Diomid and other such "schismatics" until I am convinced that I shouldn't."

No argument with your logic there.  You are free to recognise Bishop Diomid as a bishop if you want.  You are free to buy him a ticket to America, have him celebrate Liturgy in your home, receive communion from him, be married by him.

The flaw in your argument will become obvious when your OCA bishops ask by what authority you have treated  as a bishop a person defrocked by your Mother Church the Church of Russia.   As you pointed out earlier in message #68 by allying yourself with an apostate or a schismatic you have yourself become one.   So no, there is no flaw in your "logic."  You do have the freedom to contravene the authority of the Church and its decision on the ex-bishop Diomid.  But your "logic" could well see your Church membership at risk (God forbid!) and *that* is the flaw in it.

You do recognize that I only asserted my freedom as a way of making the point that I owe no obedience to your bishop, that I am not bound to an obedience that says I must refuse to recognize Bishop Diomid and other "schismatics" merely because your bishop says you must?  The submission and obedience I owe my OCA bishop is not relevant to my point, so no flaw in my logic.  (Personally, I don't recognize Bishop Diomid as a canonical Orthodox bishop, but I do so for my own reasons that I don't feel are relevant to this discussion.  So, in the end, I fail to see what issue you're trying to bring up by citing my bishop's authority.)
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #131 on: June 11, 2009, 05:11:10 PM »


You do recognize that I only asserted my freedom as a way of making the point that I owe no obedience to your bishop, that I am not bound to an obedience that says I must refuse to recognize Bishop Diomid and other "schismatics" merely because your bishop says you must? 

Btw, do your bishops share your attitude - that they are not obliged to recognise the deposition of bishops by other autocephalous Churches?  I thought there were actually heavy canonical penalties if any bishop allows a suspended or deposed bishop to act as a bishop?  Quite illogical but that's the way of it.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2009, 05:14:56 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,898


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #132 on: June 11, 2009, 05:49:28 PM »


You do recognize that I only asserted my freedom as a way of making the point that I owe no obedience to your bishop, that I am not bound to an obedience that says I must refuse to recognize Bishop Diomid and other "schismatics" merely because your bishop says you must? 

Btw, do your bishops share your attitude - that they are not obliged to recognise the deposition of bishops by other autocephalous Churches?  I thought there were actually heavy canonical penalties if any bishop allows a suspended or deposed bishop to act as a bishop?  Quite illogical but that's the way of it.
Whatever relationship my bishop has with your bishop is irrelevant to this debate, since I'm only talking about the relationship I have personally with your bishop.  If my bishop doesn't recognize a bishop deposed by other Orthodox churches, then I either submit to my bishop's decision or join a jurisdiction that does honor the deposed bishop--that's my prerogative.  But I don't personally owe any specific obedience to your bishop, since I'm not in his jurisdiction.  I either submit to my bishop's decision to remain in communion with your bishop or I don't, and that's all you need to know. Wink

As to the topic of this thread, I prefer just for the sake of discussion to assume that Pravoslav09's church IS Orthodox and that his opinion should at least be considered as that of a concerned Orthodox Christian, even if his church is officially in schism from most of the Orthodox world and even if I personally believe his church to be in schism.  I may disagree with everything he has to say, but I want to at least afford him the opportunity to speak his mind and offer up evidence to support his point of view.  If you don't find his evidence convincing, then tell him why you don't find his evidence convincing or refute it.  Likewise, if he or I don't find your evidence convincing, then be prepared to defend your evidence in a good faith effort to convince us.  (The fact that I have often found your arguments unconvincing is not because I disagree with your conclusions, for I actually agree with many of them.  It's just that I have a decent understanding of logic and how to present it in a convincing manner and often think you could present much more cogent arguments for our shared position. Wink)
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #133 on: June 11, 2009, 06:12:07 PM »

But I don't personally owe any specific obedience to your bishop, since I'm not in his jurisdiction.  I either submit to my bishop's decision to remain in communion with your bishop or I don't, and that's all you need to know. Wink

Do not recall saying you were under obedience to my bishop.  But I find it very unorthodox that a person says he has the freedom not to remain in communion with a bishop with whom his own bishop is in communion.  What canons allow this "freedom"?

Quote
As to the topic of this thread, I prefer just for the sake of discussion to assume that Pravoslav09's church IS Orthodox and that his opinion should at least be considered as that of a concerned Orthodox Christian, even if his church is officially in schism from most of the Orthodox world and even if I personally believe his church to be in schism.  I may disagree with everything he has to say, but I want to at least afford him the opportunity to speak his mind and offer up evidence to support his point of view.  If you don't find his evidence convincing, then tell him why you don't find his evidence convincing or refute it.  Likewise, if he or I don't find your evidence convincing, then be prepared to defend your evidence in a good faith effort to convince us.

I don't have to.  It is the decision of the bishops.  I accept their authority.  Why should I have to personally argue with every single member of the 8 and maybe more groups who have splintered from the Russian Church Abroad.   As regards the ex-bishop Diomid, it is sufficient that the Church has deposed him.  I don't need to conduct my own personal investigation and don't have the resources anyway.

Quote
  (The fact that I have often found your arguments unconvincing is not because I disagree with your conclusions, for I actually agree with many of them.  It's just that I have a decent understanding of logic and how to present it in a convincing manner and often think you could present much more cogent arguments for our shared position. Wink)
Perhaps I am speaking out of a sense of church-consciousness whereas you prefer to speak out of a sense of logic.   There is a lot that is illogical about the Christian faith and the Christian Church because, as I noted earlier, it commences with the statement "I believe...."  If you want a 100% logical Church I don't really know where you should turn.

Have you read Chesterton on logic and the madman?   Years since I read it myself and it always struck me as so true, and it made me laugh.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,898


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #134 on: June 11, 2009, 07:40:54 PM »

But I don't personally owe any specific obedience to your bishop, since I'm not in his jurisdiction.  I either submit to my bishop's decision to remain in communion with your bishop or I don't, and that's all you need to know. Wink

Do not recall saying you were under obedience to my bishop.  But I find it very unorthodox that a person says he has the freedom not to remain in communion with a bishop with whom his own bishop is in communion.  What canons allow this "freedom"?
Simple, I can just go join another church.  If you don't think that an Orthodox thing to do, that's your prerogative to think that. Wink

Now, Irish Hermit, please stop trying to derail this debate by arguing with what I have repeatedly stated is a peripheral concern.  The only thing you need to know is that I don't owe your bishop any obedience and that I am therefore free to develop my opinions and arguments in ways totally independent of your bishop.  Everything else is tangential.
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,431


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #135 on: June 11, 2009, 07:47:24 PM »

The only thing you need to know is that I don't owe your bishop any obedience and that I am therefore free to develop my opinions and arguments in ways totally independent of your bishop.  Everything else is tangential.

Nonsense, PtA. If your bishop regards Fr Ambrose's bishop as canonical, therefore, by default, you are obliged to recognise the canonicity of that other bishop. What is tangential to this thread is your persistent baiting and harassment of Fr Ambrose, to which he has responded with dignity and grace. Shame on you.
Logged
IPC
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: RZC
Posts: 308


« Reply #136 on: June 11, 2009, 08:04:56 PM »

"High Treason: The Luring of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad to the Moscow Patriarchate" By Professor Olga A. Dolskaya, plublished in the newspaper FIDELITY № 54 - June 2006.

Conciliation, convergence and high treason

As things unravel, one becomes aware of the fact that, contrary to the bishops’ denial, there has indeed been a unification process taking place and the pro-MP faction has been fast at work for years. Newspapers mention it without any reservation, yet the bishops dare keep it from their flock. One might begin with 1997, when in an Interview with the MP entitled «Надо стремиться к единству Русской Православной Церкви, и в этом направлении я стал предпринимать осторожные шаги» (We Must Strive Towards the Unification of the Russian Orthodox Church, and in that Direction I Began to Take Careful Steps), Archbishop Mark of Germany clearly stated:

Interviewer: «На Православие Вы смотрите широко, включая в него и Вселенскую Патриархию, и Московскую?» (You see Orthodoxy in general as including World Orthodoxy and the Moscow Patriarchate?)

Archbishop Mark: “Конечно, безусловно! Надо довести церковный народ до такого сознания, что это- правильный путь» (Of  course, indisputably! We must lead the people to such a state of mind, that this is - the right path.)

To this insolent statement vis-à-vis the people of ROCOR, which attempts to brainwash and lead people to a state of mind and which contradicts everything that ROCOR stands for, Metropolitan Vitalii replied:

Vladyko, no one ever, neither Sobor, nor Synod, nor I gave you permission to conduct these ongoing conferences, persistently leading towards a final resolution, as is written in your statement”

To Archbishop Anthony of San Francisco, Archbishop Mark of Germany is known to have written:

Если мы откажемся- по указке фанатиков- от общения с Сербской Церковью, тогда мы просто скатимся в сектантство… мы должны восстановить общение с Русской Церковью в ее полноте, мы теперь находимся в опасности вообще потерять связь со вселенским православием.  (If we refuse- as suggested by fanatics [sic] - to commune with the Serbian Church, then we simply will slide down into sectarianism... we must restore communication with the Russian Orthodox Church [MP] in full, as we are now in danger of losing contact with World Orthodoxy.)

Thus, for those who find it hard to believe, the issue is quite simple and Bishop Mark made his position quite clear, ROCOR must unite with World Orthodoxy and Ecumenism, the “heresy of heresies”! One might mention that the May 2001 (SCOBA) Meeting of Orthodox Canonical [sic] Bishops, [as purposely entitled by the Press-Secretary Representative of the MP in the USA], has established a committee and an administrative board that will look into interjurisdictional Orthodox problems in America, with the purpose of «attracting and inviting bishops and representatives of various Orthodox jurisdictions». Slowly but surely, the Church Abroad, if left out of these ecumenical meetings, will begin to be viewed as uncanonical. The path is indeed, highly organized and planned down to even a very specific use of such denigrating vocabulary as uncanonical, sect, fanatic, mentally imbalanced, etc. The sinister Beria, Stalin’s right hand was one of the masterminds behind some of the tactics used to bring people to a state of mind:

It is not always necessary to remove the individual. It is possible to remove his self-willed tendencies to the improvement of the gaols and gains of the whole. The technologies of Psychopolitics are graduated upon the scale which starts somewhat above the removal of the individual himself, upward toward the removal only of those tendencies which bring about his lack of co-operation.

Any man who cannot be persuaded into Communist rationale is to be regarded as somewhat less than sane, and it is therefore completely justified to use the techniques of insanity upon the non-Communist.  Entirely by bringing about public conviction that the sanity of a person is in question, it is possible to discount and eradicate all of the goals and activities of that person. By demonstrating the insanity of a group, or even a government, it is possible, then to cause its people to disavow it. By causing a revulsion on the part of the populace against its leader it is possible to stop any government or movement. “A paranoid believes he is being attacked by Communist.” Thus, at once the support of the individual so attacking Communism will fall away and wither. An entire revolution can be effected without the suspicion of a populace until it is an accomplished fact. Just as in Russia we had to destroy, after many, many years of the most arduous work, the Church, so we must destroy all faiths in nations marked for conquest.

The changes of loyalties, allegiances, and sources of command can be occasioned easily by psychopolitical technologies.  Defamation is the best and foremost weapon of Psychopolitics. Continual and constant degradation of national leaders, national institutions, national practices and national heroes must be systematically carried out, this is the chief function of Communist Party Members, in general, not only the psychopolitician. Every individual who rebels in any way, shape, or form against efforts and activities to enslave the whole, must be considered to be a deranged person whose eccentricities are neurotic or insane and who must have at once the treatment of a psychopolitician.

Used in psychological hospitals or “psikhushki” to this day, what does that treatment consist of?

Brain surgery, as developed in Russia, should be practiced by the psychopolitical operative in training to give him full confidence in 1) the crudeness with which it can be done, 2) the certainty of erasure of the stimulus response mechanism itself, 3) the production of imbecility, idiocy, and dis-coordination on the part of the patient and 4) the small amount of comment which casualties in brain surgery occasion. Using criminals and prisoners, the psychopolitical operative in training should experiment with duress in the absence of privation, administering electric shocks, beatings, and terror-inducing tactics, employed in hypnotism, and watch the conduct of the person when no longer under duress.
 
Dimitry Pospielovsky, a graduate of the London School of Economics and “confident in the leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate,” predicts the take-over of Rocor:

“To avoid confrontation and splits, the patriarch has chosen to avoid direct exposure and chastisement of the extremists within the church, concentrating instead on preaching morality, moderation and tolerance [the word tolerance in perestroika terminology, is often used promote conciliation and convergence] to the whole nation and its leaders… The renewed supreme ecclesiastic bodies, mandated by the whole church, commanding the respect and support of the flock, would then be able to take a stand, condemn extremism and racism, and ban dissemination of hatred by any groups within the church. Should this lead to some of the perpetrators of hate propaganda [sic!] joining the ROCOR or some or some other esoteric sect [sic!], it would not hurt the church as a whole; on the contrary, it would purify it and assure it of the position of spiritual leadership in the nation. Moreover, it is only then that the more moderate majority of the ROCOR membership would likely reunite with the mother church, and whatever might remain of the ROCOR would become irrelevant [sic!] as a small extremist sect.”

Why such a meticulously planned take over of Rocor? The answer is the same as “why perestroika?” Economics.  Western hard currency for military advancement is an old trick, even before perestroika, from the likes of Armand Hammer who robbed Russia of its treasures,  to Lenin’s NEP which fooled the world, to the Rosenbergs who gave away secrets to Soviets on jet engines. Soviets used them in the Korean war, before the US even had a chance to build them! Monastery and church lands forcibly being taken over by the MP are financially beneficial, and of course, power, control and modernization of Orthodoxy have something to do with it as well.

*We have to have all Russians united, wherever they live, whatever they preach!

Author: Why? What is their [the MP's] gain?

*Well, first, economic gain. The Russian community in some parts of the world is quite well off.

Archbishop Mark’s role, as a major leader in the process of unification, is quite clear from his writings and actions, as well from his choice of words, with such terminology as sectarians, fanatics, denigrating anyone dedicated to preserving the purity of Russian Orthodoxy. The Office of External Ecclesiastical Relations of the MP welcomed Archbishop Mark's efforts in joining the ecumenist World Orthodoxy:

On September 9, the body calling itself the Commission of German Orthodox Churches, which incorporates the German Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad headed by Archbishop of Berlin and Germany Mark, published a statement calling for continued communication between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, and expressed its disappointment with the Appeal of the ROCA Archbishopric Council of May 13, 1998 which defies such communication.

On the occasion of Orthodox Sunday in 1992, chaired by ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and attended by the Head of the Moscow Patriarchate, the Heads of Holy Orthodox Churches and World Orthodoxy strongly denounced what they labeled as «the schismatic activities of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad». It is important to keep in mind that Rocor considers ecumenism as the «heresy of heresies» and leaders associated with ecumenical organizations during the course of the 20th century, including the World Council of Churches, are the same people, and descendants of those, who laid the path for and brought into being the Revolution.

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: 37,963



« Reply #137 on: June 11, 2009, 08:06:57 PM »

But I don't personally owe any specific obedience to your bishop, since I'm not in his jurisdiction.  I either submit to my bishop's decision to remain in communion with your bishop or I don't, and that's all you need to know. Wink

Do not recall saying you were under obedience to my bishop.  But I find it very unorthodox that a person says he has the freedom not to remain in communion with a bishop with whom his own bishop is in communion.  What canons allow this "freedom"?
Simple, I can just go join another church.  If you don't think that an Orthodox thing to do, that's your prerogative to think that. Wink

Now, Irish Hermit, please stop trying to derail this debate by arguing with what I have repeatedly stated is a peripheral concern.  The only thing you need to know is that I don't owe your bishop any obedience and that I am therefore free to develop my opinions and arguments in ways totally independent of your bishop.  Everything else is tangential.
If your bishop has Fr.'s bishop in his diptychs, and Fr.'s bishop has defrocked bishop X, then yes, you are bound by Fr.'s bishop.  Unless you are making your own diptychs.
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
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: 37,963



« Reply #138 on: June 11, 2009, 08:09:13 PM »

"High Treason: The Luring of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad to the Moscow Patriarchate" By Professor Olga A. Dolskaya, plublished in the newspaper FIDELITY № 54 - June 2006.

Conciliation, convergence and high treason

As things unravel, one becomes aware of the fact that, contrary to the bishops’ denial, there has indeed been a unification process taking place and the pro-MP faction has been fast at work for years. Newspapers mention it without any reservation, yet the bishops dare keep it from their flock. One might begin with 1997, when in an Interview with the MP entitled «Надо стремиться к единству Русской Православной Церкви, и в этом направлении я стал предпринимать осторожные шаги» (We Must Strive Towards the Unification of the Russian Orthodox Church, and in that Direction I Began to Take Careful Steps), Archbishop Mark of Germany clearly stated:

Interviewer: «На Православие Вы смотрите широко, включая в него и Вселенскую Патриархию, и Московскую?» (You see Orthodoxy in general as including World Orthodoxy and the Moscow Patriarchate?)

Archbishop Mark: “Конечно, безусловно! Надо довести церковный народ до такого сознания, что это- правильный путь» (Of  course, indisputably! We must lead the people to such a state of mind, that this is - the right path.)

To this insolent statement vis-à-vis the people of ROCOR, which attempts to brainwash and lead people to a state of mind and which contradicts everything that ROCOR stands for, Metropolitan Vitalii replied:

Vladyko, no one ever, neither Sobor, nor Synod, nor I gave you permission to conduct these ongoing conferences, persistently leading towards a final resolution, as is written in your statement”

To Archbishop Anthony of San Francisco, Archbishop Mark of Germany is known to have written:

Если мы откажемся- по указке фанатиков- от общения с Сербской Церковью, тогда мы просто скатимся в сектантство… мы должны восстановить общение с Русской Церковью в ее полноте, мы теперь находимся в опасности вообще потерять связь со вселенским православием.  (If we refuse- as suggested by fanatics [sic] - to commune with the Serbian Church, then we simply will slide down into sectarianism... we must restore communication with the Russian Orthodox Church [MP] in full, as we are now in danger of losing contact with World Orthodoxy.)

Thus, for those who find it hard to believe, the issue is quite simple and Bishop Mark made his position quite clear, ROCOR must unite with World Orthodoxy and Ecumenism, the “heresy of heresies”! One might mention that the May 2001 (SCOBA) Meeting of Orthodox Canonical [sic] Bishops, [as purposely entitled by the Press-Secretary Representative of the MP in the USA], has established a committee and an administrative board that will look into interjurisdictional Orthodox problems in America, with the purpose of «attracting and inviting bishops and representatives of various Orthodox jurisdictions». Slowly but surely, the Church Abroad, if left out of these ecumenical meetings, will begin to be viewed as uncanonical. The path is indeed, highly organized and planned down to even a very specific use of such denigrating vocabulary as uncanonical, sect, fanatic, mentally imbalanced, etc. The sinister Beria, Stalin’s right hand was one of the masterminds behind some of the tactics used to bring people to a state of mind:

It is not always necessary to remove the individual. It is possible to remove his self-willed tendencies to the improvement of the gaols and gains of the whole. The technologies of Psychopolitics are graduated upon the scale which starts somewhat above the removal of the individual himself, upward toward the removal only of those tendencies which bring about his lack of co-operation.

Any man who cannot be persuaded into Communist rationale is to be regarded as somewhat less than sane, and it is therefore completely justified to use the techniques of insanity upon the non-Communist.  Entirely by bringing about public conviction that the sanity of a person is in question, it is possible to discount and eradicate all of the goals and activities of that person. By demonstrating the insanity of a group, or even a government, it is possible, then to cause its people to disavow it. By causing a revulsion on the part of the populace against its leader it is possible to stop any government or movement. “A paranoid believes he is being attacked by Communist.” Thus, at once the support of the individual so attacking Communism will fall away and wither. An entire revolution can be effected without the suspicion of a populace until it is an accomplished fact. Just as in Russia we had to destroy, after many, many years of the most arduous work, the Church, so we must destroy all faiths in nations marked for conquest.

The changes of loyalties, allegiances, and sources of command can be occasioned easily by psychopolitical technologies.  Defamation is the best and foremost weapon of Psychopolitics. Continual and constant degradation of national leaders, national institutions, national practices and national heroes must be systematically carried out, this is the chief function of Communist Party Members, in general, not only the psychopolitician. Every individual who rebels in any way, shape, or form against efforts and activities to enslave the whole, must be considered to be a deranged person whose eccentricities are neurotic or insane and who must have at once the treatment of a psychopolitician.

Used in psychological hospitals or “psikhushki” to this day, what does that treatment consist of?

Brain surgery, as developed in Russia, should be practiced by the psychopolitical operative in training to give him full confidence in 1) the crudeness with which it can be done, 2) the certainty of erasure of the stimulus response mechanism itself, 3) the production of imbecility, idiocy, and dis-coordination on the part of the patient and 4) the small amount of comment which casualties in brain surgery occasion. Using criminals and prisoners, the psychopolitical operative in training should experiment with duress in the absence of privation, administering electric shocks, beatings, and terror-inducing tactics, employed in hypnotism, and watch the conduct of the person when no longer under duress.
 
Dimitry Pospielovsky, a graduate of the London School of Economics and “confident in the leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate,” predicts the take-over of Rocor:

“To avoid confrontation and splits, the patriarch has chosen to avoid direct exposure and chastisement of the extremists within the church, concentrating instead on preaching morality, moderation and tolerance [the word tolerance in perestroika terminology, is often used promote conciliation and convergence] to the whole nation and its leaders… The renewed supreme ecclesiastic bodies, mandated by the whole church, commanding the respect and support of the flock, would then be able to take a stand, condemn extremism and racism, and ban dissemination of hatred by any groups within the church. Should this lead to some of the perpetrators of hate propaganda [sic!] joining the ROCOR or some or some other esoteric sect [sic!], it would not hurt the church as a whole; on the contrary, it would purify it and assure it of the position of spiritual leadership in the nation. Moreover, it is only then that the more moderate majority of the ROCOR membership would likely reunite with the mother church, and whatever might remain of the ROCOR would become irrelevant [sic!] as a small extremist sect.”

Why such a meticulously planned take over of Rocor? The answer is the same as “why perestroika?” Economics.  Western hard currency for military advancement is an old trick, even before perestroika, from the likes of Armand Hammer who robbed Russia of its treasures,  to Lenin’s NEP which fooled the world, to the Rosenbergs who gave away secrets to Soviets on jet engines. Soviets used them in the Korean war, before the US even had a chance to build them! Monastery and church lands forcibly being taken over by the MP are financially beneficial, and of course, power, control and modernization of Orthodoxy have something to do with it as well.

*We have to have all Russians united, wherever they live, whatever they preach!

Author: Why? What is their [the MP's] gain?

*Well, first, economic gain. The Russian community in some parts of the world is quite well off.

Archbishop Mark’s role, as a major leader in the process of unification, is quite clear from his writings and actions, as well from his choice of words, with such terminology as sectarians, fanatics, denigrating anyone dedicated to preserving the purity of Russian Orthodoxy. The Office of External Ecclesiastical Relations of the MP welcomed Archbishop Mark's efforts in joining the ecumenist World Orthodoxy:

On September 9, the body calling itself the Commission of German Orthodox Churches, which incorporates the German Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad headed by Archbishop of Berlin and Germany Mark, published a statement calling for continued communication between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, and expressed its disappointment with the Appeal of the ROCA Archbishopric Council of May 13, 1998 which defies such communication.

On the occasion of Orthodox Sunday in 1992, chaired by ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and attended by the Head of the Moscow Patriarchate, the Heads of Holy Orthodox Churches and World Orthodoxy strongly denounced what they labeled as «the schismatic activities of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad». It is important to keep in mind that Rocor considers ecumenism as the «heresy of heresies» and leaders associated with ecumenical organizations during the course of the 20th century, including the World Council of Churches, are the same people, and descendants of those, who laid the path for and brought into being the Revolution.



I notice that you subscribe to the heresy of the new orthography of the Godless Bolsheviks.
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
Douglas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 608


« Reply #139 on: June 11, 2009, 08:14:19 PM »

ialmisry, you have such a wonderful way with words.  Wink
Logged

Douglas no longer posts on the forum.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #140 on: June 11, 2009, 09:08:32 PM »

Used in psychological hospitals or “psikhushki” to this day, what does that treatment consist of?

Brain surgery, as developed in Russia, should be practiced by the psychopolitical operative in training to give him full confidence in 1) the crudeness with which it can be done, 2) the certainty of erasure of the stimulus response mechanism itself, 3) the production of imbecility, idiocy, and dis-coordination on the part of the patient and 4) the small amount of comment which casualties in brain surgery occasion. Using criminals and prisoners, the psychopolitical operative in training should experiment with duress in the absence of privation, administering electric shocks, beatings, and terror-inducing tactics, employed in hypnotism, and watch the conduct of the person when no longer under duress...
I am somewhat surprised at this brain surgery technique being used today in Russia. How many people in Russia have had their brains operated on in order to produce imbecility?
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #141 on: June 11, 2009, 10:07:45 PM »

Used in psychological hospitals or “psikhushki” to this day, what does that treatment consist of?

Brain surgery, as developed in Russia, should be practiced by the psychopolitical operative in training to give him full confidence in 1) the crudeness with which it can be done, 2) the certainty of erasure of the stimulus response mechanism itself, 3) the production of imbecility, idiocy, and dis-coordination on the part of the patient and 4) the small amount of comment which casualties in brain surgery occasion. Using criminals and prisoners, the psychopolitical operative in training should experiment with duress in the absence of privation, administering electric shocks, beatings, and terror-inducing tactics, employed in hypnotism, and watch the conduct of the person when no longer under duress...
I am somewhat surprised at this brain surgery technique being used today in Russia. How many people in Russia have had their brains operated on in order to produce imbecility?

In a figurative sense?
Logged

Love never fails.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #142 on: June 11, 2009, 10:23:43 PM »

Used in psychological hospitals or “psikhushki” to this day, what does that treatment consist of?

Brain surgery, as developed in Russia, should be practiced by the psychopolitical operative in training to give him full confidence in 1) the crudeness with which it can be done, 2) the certainty of erasure of the stimulus response mechanism itself, 3) the production of imbecility, idiocy, and dis-coordination on the part of the patient and 4) the small amount of comment which casualties in brain surgery occasion. Using criminals and prisoners, the psychopolitical operative in training should experiment with duress in the absence of privation, administering electric shocks, beatings, and terror-inducing tactics, employed in hypnotism, and watch the conduct of the person when no longer under duress...
I am somewhat surprised at this brain surgery technique being used today in Russia. How many people in Russia have had their brains operated on in order to produce imbecility?

In a figurative sense?
It seems like it says that this treatment of brain surgery to produce idiocy is being used today in Russia? Who exactly in Russia would be using this technique of brain surgery to produce idiocy ? Who are the patients or the victims of this surgery?
"Used in psychological hospitals or “psikhushki” to this day, what does that treatment consist of ?

Brain surgery, as developed in Russia, should be practiced by the psychopolitical operative in training to give him full confidence in 1) the crudeness with which it can be done, 2) the certainty of erasure of the stimulus response mechanism itself, 3) the production of imbecility, idiocy,..."
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #143 on: June 11, 2009, 11:09:20 PM »

"High Treason: The Luring of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad to the Moscow Patriarchate" By Professor Olga A. Dolskaya, plublished in the newspaper FIDELITY № 54 - June 2006.


Why such a meticulously planned take over of Rocor? The answer is the same as “why perestroika?” Economics.  Western hard currency for military advancement is an old trick,

Anybody here convinced by Dolskaya that the Russian Church Abroad united with the Moscow Patriarchate to further Russia's military advancement?  How much money has flowed into Russia' military machine since the May 2007 union?

I think that this and other major blunders in Dolskaya's article are more than sufficient to call her credibility into question.

I see that the sections of this article being supplied by Pravoslav09 were written in 2006.   Could anything be more embarassing than to be proven quite wrong with your predictions as the years unfold.   I suspect that Dolskaya would prefer her article to be buried and not brought into the spotlight.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2009, 11:12:56 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #144 on: June 11, 2009, 11:47:30 PM »

"High Treason: The Luring of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad to the Moscow Patriarchate" By Professor Olga A. Dolskaya, plublished in the newspaper FIDELITY № 54 - June 2006.

On the occasion of Orthodox Sunday in 1992, chaired by ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and attended by the Head of the Moscow Patriarchate, the Heads of Holy Orthodox Churches and World Orthodoxy strongly denounced what they labeled as «the schismatic activities of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad». It is important to keep in mind that Rocor considers ecumenism as the «heresy of heresies» and leaders associated with ecumenical organizations during the course of the 20th century, including the World Council of Churches, are the same people, and descendants of those, who laid the path for and brought into being the Revolution.

If memory serves, this statement by the heads of all Orthodox Churches was a condemnation of the activities of all schismatic groups, primarily the Old Calendaristic Movement, which was damaging the precious unity of the robe of Christ, the Holy Church, in various countries.  The Russian Church Abroad was also guilty of this.  Under the general confusion created by Perestroika some of our bishops (not all agreed with it) it had gone into Russia and created schismatic parishes and dioceses, something which the bishops later regretted.  But such was the ebullient mood in those early post-communist days.

Would you be able to supply the documents which Dolskaya references?  This is Forum policy although I can appreciate that it is not always possible.  However if her article is at least half way scholarly she would have included footnotes detailing her sources.  I would like myself and the Forum membership to see for ourselves to what Dolskaya is referring.
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,431


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #145 on: June 12, 2009, 12:41:57 AM »

Father, Russians, even more so than Greeks and Arabs, are champions of nursing conspiracy theories. I sincerely hope you're right about Mme Dolskaya later recanting her views of 2006, however, on the other hand, we have the arrant nonsense in Russia today of the ultranationalists (unsuccessfully) clamouring for the canonisation of Rasputin and Josef Stalin. Albert Einstein once said: Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,898


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #146 on: June 12, 2009, 02:27:40 AM »

Would you be able to supply the documents which Dolskaya references?  This is Forum policy although I can appreciate that it is not always possible.
Irish Hermit, I suspect you may be misrepresenting Forum policy with this statement, since I'm only aware that Pravoslav09 must credit the documents that he himself has referenced, which he has done quite consistently on this thread.  I'm not aware of any policy that requires him to supply the documents that the authors of his sources have referenced.  I'm currently reviewing Forum rules on this, but in the meantime, if you are intentionally misrepresenting Forum policy, you need to stop now.  If you want to discuss this with me, please do so via private message.

However if her article is at least half way scholarly she would have included footnotes detailing her sources.  I would like myself and the Forum membership to see for ourselves to what Dolskaya is referring.
Speaking now as a mere poster, I agree with this request.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2009, 02:28:43 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,431


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #147 on: June 12, 2009, 02:34:32 AM »

Would you be able to supply the documents which Dolskaya references?  This is Forum policy although I can appreciate that it is not always possible.
Irish Hermit, I suspect you may be misrepresenting Forum policy with this statement, since I'm only aware that Pravoslav09 must credit the documents that he himself has referenced, which he has done quite consistently on this thread.  I'm not aware of any policy that requires him to supply the documents that the authors of his sources have referenced.  I'm currently reviewing Forum rules on this, but in the meantime, if you are intentionally misrepresenting Forum policy, you need to stop now.  If you want to discuss this with me, please do so via private message.

However if her article is at least half way scholarly she would have included footnotes detailing her sources.  I would like myself and the Forum membership to see for ourselves to what Dolskaya is referring.
Speaking now as a mere poster, I agree with this request.

Gnats and camels, gnats and camels. What's your point in harassing Fr Ambrose, PtA? Please let us know.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #148 on: June 12, 2009, 02:47:18 AM »

"High Treason: The Luring of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad to the Moscow Patriarchate" By Professor Olga A. Dolskaya, plublished in the newspaper FIDELITY № 54 - June 2006.


I am very pleased to report that I have located an Internet site with this article   
High Treason: The Luring of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad to the Moscow Patriarchate

http://metanthonymemorial.org/VernostNo54.htm

I always prefer to read long articles on the Web where the format makes for better organisation and easier reading.  Unfortunately the authoress provides no references, or none that I have found.

The article is in English and commences about 1/4 of the way down the page.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,898


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #149 on: June 12, 2009, 03:34:03 AM »

Would you be able to supply the documents which Dolskaya references?  This is Forum policy although I can appreciate that it is not always possible.
Irish Hermit, I suspect you may be misrepresenting Forum policy with this statement, since I'm only aware that Pravoslav09 must credit the documents that he himself has referenced, which he has done quite consistently on this thread.  I'm not aware of any policy that requires him to supply the documents that the authors of his sources have referenced.  I'm currently reviewing Forum rules on this, but in the meantime, if you are intentionally misrepresenting Forum policy, you need to stop now.  If you want to discuss this with me, please do so via private message.

However if her article is at least half way scholarly she would have included footnotes detailing her sources.  I would like myself and the Forum membership to see for ourselves to what Dolskaya is referring.
Speaking now as a mere poster, I agree with this request.

Gnats and camels, gnats and camels. What's your point in harassing Fr Ambrose, PtA? Please let us know.
You did notice that, unlike all my previous posts on this thread, I did post the above in green text to indicate that I was posting as a moderator and not as a mere poster, thus indicating that I was addressing a totally different issue?  If you want to discuss this moderatorial comment further, then I ask that you follow the same advice I just gave Irish Hermit and take it up with me in a private message--after all, it IS forum policy that you do so.  I will not discuss this anymore here.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2009, 03:39:47 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #150 on: June 12, 2009, 04:28:26 AM »

Not only the "logic" he usually employs is flawed,
I've already pointed out exactly the flaws I saw in someone else's logic.  Can you point out the specific flaws in mine?

Be my guest.

...
Likewise, if he or I don't find your evidence convincing, then be prepared to defend your evidence in a good faith effort to convince us.

For the sake of underlining the paramount of (otherwise obvious) stupidity of the guy claiming to have "decend understanding of logic", I will say that I don't want to convince him in anything and I would (hypothetically) accept all the arguments and reasoning of Pravoslav'09, i.e. that Moscow Patriarchate is an apostate group established by Stalin. Consequently, since the guy claiming to have decent understanding of logic also claims to be of OCA flock (which I would for a moment also assume to be true for the sake of my point only), he himself, is a member of an apostate group, since that group (OCA) would either be an autonomous part of the very same apostate MP (in case I stand with those who don't recognize their autocephalia), or a distinct apostate group which was made independent (autocephalous) by apostate MP some 40-50 years after the apostasy (in case I stand with those who recignize OCA's autocephalia). Since he claims to be christmated twelve years ago (which I would also assume to be true for the sake of this debate only), he was christmated by apostates, whom, by definition, lack grace.

Now, the result of my reasoning demonstrates that I was right when I did not want to debate the issue of canonicity with him in the first place, for why would any Orthodox want to have canonicity recognized by an apostate, whom may as well never received grace and was never part of Church? Since when Church proves her canonicity to outsiders?

Yet, it isn't his stupidity that endangers him, for everyone gets the fitting cross. It's his malice.

...
 It's just that I have a decent understanding of logic and how to present it in a convincing manner...)

Me too, I am the most modest man among all the modest ones of all times, which is so obvious to everybody because I think so.
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #151 on: June 12, 2009, 04:58:17 AM »

"High Treason: The Luring of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad to the Moscow Patriarchate" By Professor Olga A. Dolskaya, plublished in the newspaper FIDELITY № 54 - June 2006.


I am very pleased to report that I have located an Internet site with this article   
High Treason: The Luring of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad to the Moscow Patriarchate

http://metanthonymemorial.org/VernostNo54.htm

I always prefer to read long articles on the Web where the format makes for better organisation and easier reading.  Unfortunately the authoress provides no references, or none that I have found.

The article is in English and commences about 1/4 of the way down the page.

According to the article , I read:
"A secret Soviet-era document uncovered in Estonia suggests that Patriarch Alexy II, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church and spiritual leader of tens of millions of Christians, was a fully fledged KGB agent….elected patriarch in 1990, he co-operated closely with the KGB under the code name Drozdov (Thrush)… he impressed the KGB with his eagerness, discretion and lively, forthcoming manner…from 1958 he was an active agent, using the KGB as a career ladder… to speed up the ladder he married to avoid the army, was ordained a deacon 4 days later, became the bishop of Tallin at 32, and in the same year rose rapidly within the WCC. He had a KGB officer whom he met with regularly in clandestine locations and who interrogated him. Agents Drozdov and Peresvyet traveled to England as part of the delegation to the Conference of European Churches.
Drozdov was the only one of the churchmen in the KGB’s service to be officially honored with an award for outstanding intelligence services.
"
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,431


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #152 on: June 12, 2009, 05:09:21 AM »

According to the article , I read:
"A secret Soviet-era document uncovered in Estonia suggests that Patriarch Alexy II, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church and spiritual leader of tens of millions of Christians, was a fully fledged KGB agent….elected patriarch in 1990, he co-operated closely with the KGB under the code name Drozdov (Thrush)… he impressed the KGB with his eagerness, discretion and lively, forthcoming manner…from 1958 he was an active agent, using the KGB as a career ladder… to speed up the ladder he married to avoid the army, was ordained a deacon 4 days later, became the bishop of Tallin at 32, and in the same year rose rapidly within the WCC. He had a KGB officer whom he met with regularly in clandestine locations and who interrogated him. Agents Drozdov and Peresvyet traveled to England as part of the delegation to the Conference of European Churches.
Drozdov was the only one of the churchmen in the KGB’s service to be officially honored with an award for outstanding intelligence services.
"

So far on this thread, nobody, nobody, has provided any shred of evidence, let alone proof, of heresy within the liturgical deposit of either the MP or ROCOR churches. I'm still waiting.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #153 on: June 12, 2009, 05:40:52 AM »

According to the article , I read:
"A secret Soviet-era document uncovered in Estonia suggests that Patriarch Alexy II, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church and spiritual leader of tens of millions of Christians, was a fully fledged KGB agent….elected patriarch in 1990, he co-operated closely with the KGB under the code name Drozdov (Thrush)… he impressed the KGB with his eagerness, discretion and lively, forthcoming manner…from 1958 he was an active agent, using the KGB as a career ladder… to speed up the ladder he married to avoid the army, was ordained a deacon 4 days later, became the bishop of Tallin at 32, and in the same year rose rapidly within the WCC. He had a KGB officer whom he met with regularly in clandestine locations and who interrogated him. Agents Drozdov and Peresvyet traveled to England as part of the delegation to the Conference of European Churches.
Drozdov was the only one of the churchmen in the KGB’s service to be officially honored with an award for outstanding intelligence services.
"

Dear Stanley,

I haven't been able to do more than skim the article because of two visitors this evening.   Does Dolskaya suggest the possibility that the young priest who eventually became patriarch was subjected to brain surgery to produce idiocy?   

The attachment is a photo of young Fr Ridiger.
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #154 on: June 12, 2009, 07:40:14 AM »

Used in psychological hospitals or “psikhushki” to this day, what does that treatment consist of?

Brain surgery, as developed in Russia, should be practiced by the psychopolitical operative in training to give him full confidence in 1) the crudeness with which it can be done, 2) the certainty of erasure of the stimulus response mechanism itself, 3) the production of imbecility, idiocy, and dis-coordination on the part of the patient and 4) the small amount of comment which casualties in brain surgery occasion. Using criminals and prisoners, the psychopolitical operative in training should experiment with duress in the absence of privation, administering electric shocks, beatings, and terror-inducing tactics, employed in hypnotism, and watch the conduct of the person when no longer under duress...
I am somewhat surprised at this brain surgery technique being used today in Russia. How many people in Russia have had their brains operated on in order to produce imbecility?

In a figurative sense?
It seems like it says that this treatment of brain surgery to produce idiocy is being used today in Russia? Who exactly in Russia would be using this technique of brain surgery to produce idiocy ? Who are the patients or the victims of this surgery?
"Used in psychological hospitals or “psikhushki” to this day, what does that treatment consist of ?

Brain surgery, as developed in Russia, should be practiced by the psychopolitical operative in training to give him full confidence in 1) the crudeness with which it can be done, 2) the certainty of erasure of the stimulus response mechanism itself, 3) the production of imbecility, idiocy,..."

I am not aware of any psychiatric hospitals in present-day Russia using any sort of treatment of patients aimed at their behavior modification the way it was practiced in the former USSR. However, a kind of "brain surgery" is being constantly performed in the Russian media, particularly on the Internet. There exist hundreds of extremely chauvnistic Web sites that talk about the revival of Russia, of her imperial grandeur. In parallel, the idea that other Slavic states have no raison-d'etre is being propagated. Just recently, the biggest Russian Orthodox Web site published a provocative article titled, "The Historical Truth and the Ukrainophile Propaganda," where it is said that Ukrainians as people do not exist (along the line of the official Russian imperial doctrine articulated in the infamous Ems statement of 1876). Here is the link to the Russian original, http://www.wco.ru/biblio/books/volkon/Main.htm

The official position of high hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate on issues of politics has been in recent years extremely "pro-State," and utterly hostile to the newly independent post-Soviet states. During the August 2008 Russo-Georgian war, the head of the department of foreign affairs of the Moscow Patriarch's consistory called the Ukrainian President Victor Yushchenko and other post-Soviet leaders "stinking yapping little dogs" ("mos'ki i shavki"), who "will soon have their rotten teeth crushed by the mighty Russian fist." High-positioned Russian Orthodox hierarchs publicly sanctify ballistic missiles and other weapons of mass destruction during specially prepared televised shows of force.

All this, most definitely, works as the "brain surgery" for millions of ordinary Russians.

This post is just a reply to Stanley123's question - not intended to be a start of a political debate, for which there is no room on this particular OC.net forum.

Logged

Love never fails.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #155 on: June 12, 2009, 07:59:33 AM »


High-positioned Russian Orthodox hierarchs publicly sanctify ballistic missiles and other weapons of mass destruction during specially prepared televised shows of force.

I think that such things have always been part of our religious practices.  As Alveus noted recently:

"Well, it shouldn't be that big of a shock.  This sort of thing is inevitable, and is no different than asking the Theotokos for victory in battle (i.e. "help us to kill more people than they do"), or having the priests pray over troops for victory against enemies before they rode off into battle, or painting the Chi Rho on shields, hearing the voice of Christ himself.  "In this sign, conquer!"  Basically: "Put my initials on your weaponry, and I will assist you in your warfare!"

"Such a thing is simply the same logic taken into the modern/industrial world.  I'm not saying it is right, I am just saying that it has been happening for a long time, and it's not like any other religious group is exempt from the same sort of behavior.  Zen Buddhist priests in Japan during WWII, Protestant ministers during the US Civil War, the Thirty Years' War; the mantra is the same: Protect your holy people and holy lands from enemies, Lord!"
« Last Edit: June 12, 2009, 08:00:20 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #156 on: June 12, 2009, 08:47:51 AM »

... There exist hundreds of extremely chauvnistic Web sites that talk about the revival of Russia, of her imperial grandeur. In parallel, the idea that other Slavic states have no raison-d'etre is being propagated. Just recently, the biggest Russian Orthodox Web site published a provocative article titled, "The Historical Truth and the Ukrainophile Propaganda," where it is said that Ukrainians as people do not exist (along the line of the official Russian imperial doctrine articulated in the infamous Ems statement of 1876). Here is the link to the Russian original, http://www.wco.ru/biblio/books/volkon/Main.htm

While it sounds unpleasant to devoted to "the Ukrainian cause", two questions beg the answer:

1) What does "hundreds of web sites" have with regard to the apostasy of ROCOR, which is the subject of this thread?

2) Since certain Ukrainian groups organized some bodies, claiming to be churches, among which at least one in US officially proclaims "ukrainianism" to be the foundation if their faith, while you, yourself, are periodically asking on these boards everyone else when we will cease treating them like they deserve, why are you bringing much more mild attitude of certain web sites in Russia in relation to ROCOR, and as an accusation against her?

The official position of high hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate on issues of politics has been in recent years extremely "pro-State," and utterly hostile to the newly independent post-Soviet states.

I am not aware MP has "official position" on politics. Could you quote your sources?

During the August 2008 Russo-Georgian war, the head of the department of foreign affairs of the Moscow Patriarch's consistory called the Ukrainian President Victor Yushchenko and other post-Soviet leaders "stinking yapping little dogs" ("mos'ki i shavki"), who "will soon have their rotten teeth crushed by the mighty Russian fist."

Which other "post-Soviet leaders" were called "moshki i chavki"? Moreover, is it a feature of apostasy to call someone a stinking doggy? BTW, one suffering inferiority complex of not being "European" enough, as explained here
Quote
As a former Austrian minister once said (and like many others think so without saying it): Europe ends where Orthodoxy begins
and the feature of inferiority complex here
Quote
The Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church "certainly plays an important role as a powerful basis of our national identity and bearer of our inseparable connection with Europe," Yuschenko said on Monday at a meeting with students and seminarians of the St. Josaphat Ukrainian Papal Collegium in the Vatican.
might not deserve to be called a doggy, but some people may feel he deserves to be called stinking. Are they all apostates? Would the same criterion be applied to those calling some other group "pathetic for being expelled from their own country by bolsheviks"?
High-positioned Russian Orthodox hierarchs publicly sanctify ballistic missiles and other weapons of mass destruction during specially prepared televised shows of force.

Did he mention his wish the missils are to prevent the spawns of Satan to do to Russia what they did to Iraq, to Lebanon and to my country, based on the very same accusations that are proven false subsequently? (And we do know who is the Father of all lies, don't we?)

All this, most definitely, works as the "brain surgery" for millions of ordinary Russians.

Thank God it's limited to Russia and there is no such "surgeries" elsewhere, eh?

This post is just a reply to Stanley123's question - not intended to be a start of a political debate, for which there is no room on this particular OC.net forum.

Me neither - not intendet to start a political debate. Unless it's a proof of apostasy. Is it?
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #157 on: June 12, 2009, 09:45:15 AM »

^^Dear OL, like I said before, I am NOT taking sides in this thread and I did not mean my post to be a proof of ROCOR's or ROC-MP's apostasy. Again, I was merely answering the question of one of the posters in this thread.
Logged

Love never fails.
IPC
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: RZC
Posts: 308


« Reply #158 on: June 12, 2009, 12:28:07 PM »

"High Treason: The Luring of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad to the Moscow Patriarchate" By Professor Olga A. Dolskaya, plublished in the newspaper FIDELITY № 54 - June 2006.

Ecumenism

Although a discussion of ecumenism is outside the scope of the present work, it is crucial for every Orthodox to become acquainted with its perilous consequences. As to the WCC, here is a small window into its relationship with the MP:

Author: Why did they [the MP] join the WCC?

*Well, they joined to snoop around, to look for potential gains. Don’t forget that the the ROC was very actively used to promote the cause of Peace- to unite peace loving people against the US, as the no. 1 potential aggressor. So ROC tried to influence these church officials, through the WCC, that Soviet Union foreign policies were very peaceful [sic!], aimed at Universal Peace and nothing else. It was the US and NATO allies who undermined the world stability. So in their own subtle way, they tried to simply spread Soviet propaganda - it was a tool of Soviet propaganda inside the WCC. That was their mission, and also, to look for some weak spots among individual priests, Protestant and Catholic - were not alien to communist ideology. In fact in Italy some Catholics were voting Communist! Also ROC looked for potential friends among other denominations, trying to take them over to their side. “Let’s work together for World Peace” thus softening, of course, the resistance towards communism.

An appeal, entitled “Orthodox Anti-Globalists Think RPTs (MP) Accomplice of Antichrist” has been recently enacted to challenge globalization, ecumenism’s closest associate. It states:

“The leadership of the MP actually supports dragging Russia into the system of the new world order and traditional ecumenical contacts of MP with the World Council of Churches and Congress of European Churches are openly being transformed into participation in the work of global inter-religious unification operating under the aegis of a world government. The appeal expresses serious doubt that genuine national and church regeneration is taking place in Russia. Russia’s participation in the process of globalization will inevitably lead to a loss of national sovereignty over the maintenance of its appearance and can become the last stage in state degradation.”

The process of unification through deceitful convergence is indeed, and very obviously so, well under way.

...The terms schismatic and sect have been used by various ecumenical, world Orthodoxy and MP writers and spokespeople to denigrate the Church Abroad and to gradually instill in its flock that it has no right to exist. This tactic, typical of communist and ecumenical brainwashing techniques...

...In addition, the term sect has also been used by the Putin regime to enact and enforce its “law of no tolerance” with regards to sects, for the purpose of especially targeting the Russian Church Abroad which it considers a sect...*

Note: Christian and non christian religious denominations that are involved in the ecumenical movement, and those who represent a majority in powerful nations, are not labeled as sects, and according to the new law, those who are not sects, are free to operate, and have temples for public worship.

In this way, while anglicans, protestants, moslem, jews and other religions are protected by the new law, the ROCOR is still persecuted, "according to law".

One of the preconditions for the capitulation of ROCOR to the MP was that ecumenism will not be even mentioned, and as Patriarch Alexis II insolently said "they have to come to their senses, and see the importance of ecumenical and inter-religious activities."

The anathema against ecumenism, the heresy of heresies, done by ROCOR, is considered one of the worst "schismatic activities" of ROCOR by the MP and World Orthodoxy, this anathema has not been removed nor canceled.


There won't be any talk and discussion about ecumenism in this thread, this was just a short cross reference, to illustrate how the communist utopia is still carried on, how ecumenism is a tool for the accomplishment of the "internationala" (global unification dictated by socialism, materialism, liberalism and other revolutionary goals), and the leading role of the Moscow Patriarchate in this process.
Logged

THIS USER USED THE SCREEN NAME PRAVOSLAV09 BEFORE.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,470


« Reply #159 on: June 12, 2009, 12:33:38 PM »

Note: Christian and non christian religious denominations that are involved in the ecumenical movement,

Ecumenism is a movement to restore the unity of Christians. Many of the journalists use the word and have completely no idea what does it mean. Jews had talks with RCs - it's called an ecumenical meeting; RC's had meeting with Greek-Caths - again "ecumenical meeting"; consultations in Geneva - "inter-Orthodox ecumenism".

Use dictionaries, folks!
« Last Edit: June 12, 2009, 12:36:00 PM by mike » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,898


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #160 on: June 12, 2009, 01:40:51 PM »

Would you be able to supply the documents which Dolskaya references?  This is Forum policy although I can appreciate that it is not always possible.
Irish Hermit, I suspect you may be misrepresenting Forum policy with this statement, since I'm only aware that Pravoslav09 must credit the documents that he himself has referenced, which he has done quite consistently on this thread.  I'm not aware of any policy that requires him to supply the documents that the authors of his sources have referenced.  I'm currently reviewing Forum rules on this, but in the meantime, if you are intentionally misrepresenting Forum policy, you need to stop now.  If you want to discuss this with me, please do so via private message.
After clarifying this point of policy further with Fr. Chris, the rule of source documentation is merely that Pravoslav09 (as well as Irish Hermit) must credit his sources, which he has done.  This policy does not extend to the sources his sources have used, so he bears no requirement to supply any documents that the authors of his sources have referenced.  To ask him to do this therefore goes beyond the scope of Forum policy on this matter.
Logged
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #161 on: June 12, 2009, 03:20:03 PM »

Would you be able to supply the documents which Dolskaya references?  This is Forum policy although I can appreciate that it is not always possible.
Irish Hermit, I suspect you may be misrepresenting Forum policy with this statement, since I'm only aware that Pravoslav09 must credit the documents that he himself has referenced, which he has done quite consistently on this thread.  I'm not aware of any policy that requires him to supply the documents that the authors of his sources have referenced.  I'm currently reviewing Forum rules on this, but in the meantime, if you are intentionally misrepresenting Forum policy, you need to stop now.  If you want to discuss this with me, please do so via private message.
After clarifying this point of policy further with Fr. Chris, the rule of source documentation is merely that Pravoslav09 (as well as Irish Hermit) must credit his sources, which he has done.  This policy does not extend to the sources his sources have used, so he bears no requirement to supply any documents that the authors of his sources have referenced.  To ask him to do this therefore goes beyond the scope of Forum policy on this matter.

I am so grateful for such a principled moderation that I posted on two old threads with the reference to this moderation, to be able to continue debate there in compliance with the clarified rules of moderation regarding crediting sources.

here and here
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
orthodoxlurker
Supporter & Defender of Fr Ambrose (Irish Hermit) - banned
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian - NOT a phanariote
Jurisdiction: Serbian Patriarchate under siege
Posts: 1,372


al-Saabir yaraa al-Hurriyah


« Reply #162 on: June 12, 2009, 04:31:37 PM »


The anathema against ecumenism, the heresy of heresies, done by ROCOR, is considered one of the worst "schismatic activities" of ROCOR by the MP and World Orthodoxy, this anathema has not been removed nor canceled.


There won't be any talk and discussion about ecumenism in this thread, this was just a short cross reference, to illustrate how the communist utopia is still carried on, how ecumenism is a tool for the accomplishment of the "internationala" (global unification dictated by socialism, materialism, liberalism and other revolutionary goals), and the leading role of the Moscow Patriarchate in this process.


If you could just clarify if the author considers communism as a tool of ecumenism, or  ecumenism as a tool of communism, please?
Logged

Curse the Pope, for he is the root and cause of these disasters! - St. Nektarios of Aegina

You don't get to circumvent your post moderation by calling out the moderators in your signature. ~Veniamin, Global Moderator
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #163 on: June 12, 2009, 05:43:16 PM »

If you could just clarify if the author considers communism as a tool of ecumenism, or  ecumenism as a tool of communism, please?
It would be nice to have a definition of ecumenism, so we can know what are the specific objections. If ecumenism with reference to Catholicism means to have collaboration of the two Churches in defense of Christian values, then I don't see the objection to it.
On February 1, 2009, Pope Benedict XVI sent a delegation and a message  on the occasion of Orthodox Patriarch Kirill’s “enthronement as the new Patriarch of Moscow and all of Russia.”
“To His Holiness Kirill Patriarch of Moscow and of All Russia: “I greet Your Holiness with joy as you undertake the great responsibility of shepherding the venerable Russian Orthodox Church.  I readily recall the good will which characterized our meetings at the time of your service as President of the Department of Eternal Church Relations.  On the occasion of your enthronement I wish, therefore, to reaffirm my esteem and my spiritual closeness.  I pray that our heavenly Father will grant you the abundant gifts of the Holy Spirit in your ministry and enable you to guide the Church in the love and peace of Christ.  You are now the successor of our beloved brother of revered memory, His Holiness Alexy II, who left his people a deep and abiding inheritance of ecclesial renewal and development, as he led the Russian Orthodox Church out of the long and difficult period of suffering under the totalitarian and atheistic system to a new, active presence and service in today’s society.  Patriarch Alexy II worked assiduously for the unity of the Russian Orthodox Church and for communion with the other Orthodox Churches.  He likewise maintained a spirit of openness and cooperation with other Christians, and with the Catholic Church in particular, for the defense of Christian values in Europe and in the world.  I am certain that Your Holiness will continue to build on this solid foundation, for the good of your people and for the benefit of Christians everywhere….

            “Conscious of the enormous responsibilities which accompany the spiritual and pastoral ministry to which the Holy Spirit has called you, I renew to Your Holiness the assurance of my prayers and fraternal good will.  I ask Almighty God to bless you with his love, to watch over the beloved Russian Church, and to sustain the Bishops, priests and all the faithful in the unfailing hope which is ours in Christ Jesus.”
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #164 on: June 12, 2009, 07:04:54 PM »

If you could just clarify if the author considers communism as a tool of ecumenism, or  ecumenism as a tool of communism, please?
It would be nice to have a definition of ecumenism, so we can know what are the specific objections.

Dear Stanley,

I doubt if Pravoslav09 will supply a definition of ecumenism.  I have asked for a definition of "apostasy" so that we have an idea what the purpose of this thread is and so that we may discuss it.

But there is no reply.   In fact it sees to me that Pravoslav09 has not shown any desire to use this Forum for what it is meant to be, a discussion group.  Instead, so it seems to me, he is using it as an Internet platform where he as a member of the Russian Zarist Church can post negative articles attacking the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.   No attempt on his part to discuss them with Forum members.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2009, 07:09:09 PM by Irish Hermit » Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #165 on: June 12, 2009, 07:29:59 PM »

There won't be any talk and discussion about ecumenism in this thread, this was just a short cross reference, to illustrate how the communist utopia is still carried on, how ecumenism is a tool for the accomplishment of the "internationala" (global unification dictated by socialism, materialism, liberalism and other revolutionary goals), and the leading role of the Moscow Patriarchate in this process.

Do I read you correctly?  After posting an article attacking the Russian Church and ecumenism you then try to forbid us to discuss it.   May I remind you that this is a discussion forum and forum members may comment on and discuss whatever you post.   But you do not seem willing to engage in a discussion with us.   You seem to be using the forum as a vehicle to propagate your viewpoint and as a platform to attack Orthodox Churches.... and those who may desire to respond are told not to discuss it !!?? 
 Huh Roll Eyes
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,431


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #166 on: June 12, 2009, 07:50:25 PM »

Perhaps it is now time for the moderators to show some spine and either call Pravoslav09 to account, or close this ridiculous thread. It seems to me that certain folks can get away with a lot, yet others on this forum are "ridden hard" over quite slight, or even non-existent infractions.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #167 on: June 12, 2009, 07:52:49 PM »

"High Treason: The Luring of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad to the Moscow Patriarchate" By Professor Olga A. Dolskaya, plublished in the newspaper FIDELITY № 54 - June 2006.

Ecumenism

We would do well to look to Saint Mark of Ephesus as our holy model for our engagement with non-Orthodox Churches.

Was he against isolationism -  Yes!     Saint Mark made the difficult journey of thousands of miles to attend a great  "ecumenical" council of Roman
Catholics, Byzantine Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox and Ethiopian Orthodox which had been convened in Italy by the Pope of Rome.  He did not isolate himself
and refuse to go into the lion's den and discuss disputed theology.  These days he would be anathematized for his attendance at Florence by many of the parallel Churches.

Was he against confessional mix and confusion:  Yes!     Saint Mark of Ephesus refused to accept that the Church could exist as a confessional mix of all the Churches present at the Council he attended in Florence Italy.  The Church could not be a mix of Catholics under the Pope, the Byzantine Orthodox in communion with Constantinople, the Coptic Orthodox, the Ethiopian Orthodox and the other Churches at Florence.


Let us look to Saint Mark as an example and model of how we ourselves should act in a modern "ecumenical" situation - on the one hand, willing to talk so
that the desire of Christ to have those who love Him in old sheepfold is alive