Topic: Resolutions of the Synod of ROCOR Concerning the Election of the P.M. in 2009

[IPC]

RESOLUTIONS OF THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS OF ROCOR (RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH OUTSIDE RUSSIA) CONCERNING THE ELECTION OF THE NEW PATRIARCH OF MOSCOW.

SEPTEMBER 22/OCTOBER 5 2009

The Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, after analyzing and discussing the meeting of the self proclaimed "Synod of the positional Russian Orthodox Church" that took place in Moscow on January14/22 2009, and the appointment by this meeting of "metropolitan" Cyril (Gundyaev) to the patriarchal throne, it has been determined:

1.- The election of Metropolitan Cyril as Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia is not only an uncanonical act, but also antiecclesiastical political act. All the elections of the patriarchs of Moscow, since 1943, are ineffective, on the basis 30th apostolic canon and 3rd canon of the seventh Ecumenical Council.

2. The declaration of metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodski) of 1927, which is an oath of loyalty to the Soviet regime marked the beginning of separation of the Moscow Patriarchate from the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia and abroad. After taking this new path, the Moscow Patriarchate became completely dependent on the godless authority. Its hierarchy became the obedient instruments of the persecutors of Church.

3. In 2004, the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthoox Church Outside Russia carried out the following solemn proclamation: "To the Christians who in full conscience worship the godless authority, allegedly by the command of God, and serve it not out of fear, but in full conscience, blessing all its lawlessness and justifying the persecutions of the True Church of Christ by the theomachists, thinking that by this they serve god, but in reality are the ones who continue  the heresy of the disgraceful metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodskiy), and to all his followers - ANATHEMA!”.

Taking into account all the above mentioned, the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia Resolved the following:

Based on facts given at the present resolution, the election of Cyril (Gundyaev) as Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia, is recognized as uncanonical and void, and all its acts,  resolutions, and orders remain without authority and force.


Source : http://www.roca-sobor.org/ru/node/391 (In Russian)

[ozgeorge]

Which of the many ROCORs is this?

[Fr. George]

Did your cufflinks work out well?

[ozgeorge]

I lost one. Which is a sign of a very good party.

[ialmisry]

...but the caravan moves on....

[Alpo]

So are they electing some kind of diaspora-Patriarch or do they act within Russia? Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia inside Russia?

[Asteriktos]

Which of the many ROCORs is this?

Not the right one. 

[Fr. George]

...but the caravan moves on....

"Sallah, I said no camels! That's five camels; can't you count?"

[arimethea]

I went to their website to see which group this is and something I don't understand, with the ability of of purchasing any Orthodox liturgical item on the web for decent prices, why do all these groups look like the are playing dress up with mismatched vestments? They just don't look legit.

[LBK]

Hmmmm. An uncanonical group denouncing the enthronement of a canonical Patriarch. Sigh. 

[mike]

Which of the many ROCORs is this?

Under Bishop Vladimir of San Francisco and Western America, whoever he is.

[Irish Hermit]

Hmmmm. An uncanonical group denouncing the enthronement of a canonical Patriarch. Sigh. 

Is outrage!

Merry Christmas!
or Happy Hermanmas!
 

[Andrew21091]

Why should we care what this bishop says? Who is he? What makes this guy any different than the other ROCOR groups around who claim to be the true ROCOR? What do you think the current Patriarch of Moscow (I am talking about Kyril) should do about this?

[ialmisry]

Why should we care what this bishop says? Who is he? What makes this guy any different than the other ROCOR groups around who claim to be the true ROCOR? What do you think the current Patriarch of Moscow (I am talking about Kyril) should do about this?

Is it printed on thin paper?

He doesn't have to do a thing.

[Andrew21091]

Why should we care what this bishop says? Who is he? What makes this guy any different than the other ROCOR groups around who claim to be the true ROCOR? What do you think the current Patriarch of Moscow (I am talking about Kyril) should do about this?

Is it printed on thin paper?

He doesn't have to do a thing.

I agree that he doesn't have to do a thing about it but I'm interested in what the original poster thinks should happen.

[IPC]

Which of the many ROCORs is this?

ROCOR-V V Stands for Metropolitan Vitaly. This is the sole canonical and legitimate ROCOR as its confession of faith, ecclesiology, and traditions witness.

After the repose of Met. Vitaly of thrice blessed memory, ROCOR is temporarily presided by Ab. Vladimir, until the election of a new Metropolitan.

I understand your confusion ozgeorge and I sympathize with you, after the creation of all those pernicious, impostor, uncanonical and heterodox groups usurping the name of ROCOR, such as the Moscow Patriarchate runned "ROCOR" managed by Metropolitan Hilarion, the danger of being confused and fooled by them, increases greatly.

If you want more information about ROCOR, and the origin of the impostor groups usurping Her name, you can visit the archives at http://www.rocor-v.com/rocor/index.html, there are official documents in english and russian. This link http://www.listok.com/ has information mostly in russian, with a few things in english. If you need anything else, feel free to contact me anytime.



 

[ialmisry]

Why should we care what this bishop says? Who is he? What makes this guy any different than the other ROCOR groups around who claim to be the true ROCOR? What do you think the current Patriarch of Moscow (I am talking about Kyril) should do about this?

Is it printed on thin paper?

He doesn't have to do a thing.

I agree that he doesn't have to do a thing about it but I'm interested in what the original poster thinks should happen.

Ah, that might prove interesting.  Well what about it, IPC?

[ialmisry]

Which of the many ROCORs is this?

ROCOR-V V Stands for Metropolitan Vitaly. This is the sole canonical and legitimate ROCOR as its confession of faith, ecclesiology, and traditions witness.

After the repose of Met. Vitaly of thrice blessed memory, ROCOR is temporarily presided by Ab. Vladimir, until the election of a new Metropolitan.

I understand your confusion ozgeorge and I sympathize with you, after the creation of all those pernicious, impostor, uncanonical and heterodox groups usurping the name of ROCOR, such as the Moscow Patriarchate runned "ROCOR" managed by Metropolitan Hilarion, the danger of being confused and fooled by them, increases greatly.

If you want more information about ROCOR, and the origin of the impostor groups usurping Her name, you can visit the archives at http://www.rocor-v.com/rocor/index.html, there are official documents in english and russian. This link http://www.listok.com/ has information mostly in russian, with a few things in english. If you need anything else, feel free to contact me anytime.

You claim exclusive canonical jurisdiction for a territory that your own name says you are outside of, and we've confused?

[Alveus Lacuna]

ROCOR-V V Stands for Metropolitan Vitaly. This is the sole canonical and legitimate ROCOR as its confession of faith, ecclesiology, and traditions witness.

:yawn:

[LBK]

ROCOR-V V Stands for Metropolitan Vitaly. This is the sole canonical and legitimate ROCOR as its confession of faith, ecclesiology, and traditions witness.

:yawn:

My sentiments exactly. This post is a complete irrelevance. IPC is looking for attention. My advice is to ignore him. He has brought nothing but strife on this forum, and, in this Nativity fast season, that's not what we need. 

[Irish Hermit]

Which of the many ROCORs is this?

ROCOR-V V Stands for Metropolitan Vitaly. This is the sole canonical and legitimate ROCOR as its confession of faith, ecclesiology, and traditions witness....

If you need anything else, feel free to contact me anytime.

Thank you. Could you offer documentation from the Russian Zarist Church to support this claim or is it just a private opinion?  

[ozgeorge]

Which of the many ROCORs is this?

ROCOR-V V Stands for Metropolitan Vitaly. This is the sole canonical and legitimate ROCOR as its confession of faith, ecclesiology, and traditions witness.

After the repose of Met. Vitaly of thrice blessed memory, ROCOR is temporarily presided by Ab. Vladimir, until the election of a new Metropolitan.

I understand your confusion ozgeorge and I sympathize with you, after the creation of all those pernicious, impostor, uncanonical and heterodox groups usurping the name of ROCOR, such as the Moscow Patriarchate runned "ROCOR" managed by Metropolitan Hilarion, the danger of being confused and fooled by them, increases greatly.

If you want more information about ROCOR, and the origin of the impostor groups usurping Her name, you can visit the archives at http://www.rocor-v.com/rocor/index.html, there are official documents in english and russian. This link http://www.listok.com/ has information mostly in russian, with a few things in english. If you need anything else, feel free to contact me anytime.

Thanks IPC. I don't read Russian, so I can't use the links you provided, but I know a little about the history of Metropolitan Vitaly.
These are confusing times indeed for many from what I see on forums such as this. Everything seems to be up for question, whether it is the definition of "Canonical" or "Orthodox" or "Tradition" or "Genuine" or "True". I think it is a noble mark of young people today that they are seeking what is genuine and authentic, but I also think that there are many wolves in "authentic" sheep's clothing, so I would hate to have to be young again and having to sort through it all.

[Andrew21091]

Seriously, I cannot give much attention to stuff like this. There are too many "true", "genuine", "exile", etc. groups out there who all claim to be the true church. How can we know which one is true? Is it the Russian Church is Exile, the ROCOR PSCA, Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece, True Orthodox Church of Bulgaria, HOCNA, Russian Zarist Church, Synod in Resistence or maybe its the Old Believers. There are so many groups that have formed when one bishop decided to break away and form his own group. Since there are so many groups out there that claim the truth and hold what they call "world" Orthodoxy in heresy. How do we know that these so called "true" groups truly aren't the one's of world Orthodoxy? I know the anti-Christ wants to make one universal religion but to create a hundred different "Orthodox" groups in the world who hate everyone around them doesn't make sense. I don't know what to think. I could go ahead and join the GOC but I'll have the Russians in exile calling me a heretic or vis versa. I think most of it has to do with pride than holding the truth.

[Irish Hermit]

Dear IPC,

Could I ask you to look at the question in Message #20 and make a reply please.

[IPC]

If  ROCOR was not canonical, and did not preach the Truth, and all Her members were just as some of you say, then the Moscow Patriarchate and others wouldn't be putting so much effort and hard work to exterminate Her and bring us all under its control.

Andrew I understand your confusion, you are not alone. Many persons both from World Orthodoxy, and from other religions are also confused. There are the many denominations claiming to the the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, calling themselves Church of Christ, Orthodox Church, Restored, Renewed, etc. In addition to this, the names put on our Church by Her enemies, such as the ones you mentioned. For example, the term "zarist" was used by the soviets, who were instilling in people the classical monarchphobia, and by applying that term to the Russian True-Orthodox Church, they tried to scare people away from us. We take pride of being the continuation of the pre-revolutionary Church, and our fidely to the Zar, and we use this term with pride, but it is not our official name.


One day when I was listening to a sermon in an oriental orthodox church in India, the priest in his sermon refered to his church, not as malankara, but as the One Catholic Church. They insist that we left the Church and accepted the "innovations" of Chalcedon, and modernity. I, as a christian, can see the truth, but the unenlightened, like you, can be easily confused and deceived.

My piece of advice, repent, and sincerely seek God, and He will surely enlighten you and then, you will see. This is goes to all of you.

[ialmisry]

If  ROCOR was not canonical, and did not preach the Truth, and all Her members were just as some of you say, then the Moscow Patriarchate and others wouldn't be putting so much effort and hard work to exterminate Her and bring us all under its control.

What effort and hard work are you talking about.  Flies are a minor annoyance, but you still swat them.

Andrew I understand your confusion, you are not alone. Many persons both from World Orthodoxy, and from other religions are also confused. There are the many denominations claiming to the the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, calling themselves Church of Christ, Orthodox Church, Restored, Renewed, etc. In addition to this, the names put on our Church by Her enemies, such as the ones you mentioned. For example, the term "zarist" was used by the soviets, who were instilling in people the classical monarchphobia, and by applying that term to the Russian True-Orthodox Church, they tried to scare people away from us. We take pride of being the continuation of the pre-revolutionary Church, and our fidely to the Zar, and we use this term with pride, but it is not our official name.

Which would be what then?

One day when I was listening to a sermon in an oriental

ECUMENIST!

orthodox church in India, the priest in his sermon refered to his church, not as malankara, but as the One Catholic Church. They insist that we left the Church and accepted the "innovations" of Chalcedon, and modernity. I, as a christian, can see the truth, but the unenlightened, like you, can be easily confused and deceived.

Let him who thinks he stands take heed, lest he fall.

My piece of advice, repent, and sincerely seek God, and He will surely enlighten you and then, you will see. This is goes to all of you.

Physician, heal thyself.

[ialmisry]

RESOLUTIONS OF THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS OF ROCOR (RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH OUTSIDE RUSSIA) CONCERNING THE ELECTION OF THE NEW PATRIARCH OF MOSCOW.

SEPTEMBER 22/OCTOBER 5 2009

The Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, after analyzing and discussing the meeting of the self proclaimed "Synod of the positional Russian Orthodox Church" that took place in Moscow on January14/22 2009, and the appointment by this meeting of "metropolitan" Cyril (Gundyaev) to the patriarchal throne, it has been determined:

1.- The election of Metropolitan Cyril as Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia is not only an uncanonical act, but also antiecclesiastical political act. All the elections of the patriarchs of Moscow, since 1943, are ineffective, on the basis 30th apostolic canon and 3rd canon of the seventh Ecumenical Council.

Oh, then you have a problem: the Czar (or do you say Zar) directly appointed each and every bishop before the fall of the empire.  That means, accdording to your interpretation of the 3rd canon cited:

Canon III.

That it does not pertain to princes to choose a Bishop.

Let every election of a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, made by princes stand null, according to the canon which says:  If any bishop making use of the secular powers shall by their means obtain jurisdiction over any church, he shall be deposed, and also excommunicated, together with all who remain in communion with him.  For he who is raised to the episcopate must be chosen by bishops, as was decreed by the holy fathers of Nice in the canon which says:  It is most fitting that a bishop be ordained by all the bishops in the province; but if this is difficult to arrange, either on account of urgent necessity, or because of the length of the journey, three bishops at least having met together and given their votes, those also who are absent having signified their assent by letters, the ordination shall take place.  The confirmation of what is thus done, shall in each province be given by the metropolitan thereof.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvi.xiv.iii.html

you have no bishops with grace.

As to Apostolic canon 30:

30. If any bishop obtains that dignity by money, or even a presbyter or deacon, let him and the person that ordained him be deprived; and let him be entirely cut off from communion, as Simon Magus was by me Peter.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.ix.ix.vi.html?highlight=canon#highlight

Since Patriarch didn't buy his cathedra, it doesn't apply.

[Shanghaiski]

I went to their website to see which group this is and something I don't understand, with the ability of of purchasing any Orthodox liturgical item on the web for decent prices, why do all these groups look like the are playing dress up with mismatched vestments? They just don't look legit.

Dude! I've been wondering this, too. Reminds me of the "Are You Being Served?" episode where one of them has to dress up like a Greek bishop using draperies and spraypainting a cardboard tube for the hat. The trick ends up fooling the people it needs to, though.

[Shanghaiski]

If all the True, Genuine, Actual, For Real Orthodox Churches could actually unite and stay on message, then I might actually pay attention. But, as it is, they are neo-Donatists who cannot agree on anything. They jumped ship too early just like so many others throughout history.

It should be noted, especially for those of them that say the churches on the new calendar lack grace, that their bishops all used to be or used to commune with new calendarist bishops, since the new calendar was instituted in the 1920s, and bishops did not come over until the 1930s to form old calendarist churches separate from those following the new calendar. But, you go ahead and make up some sort of weird story how your interpretation of fidelity to tradition could circumvent all that. It will make for interesting reading.

[Anastasios]

If all the True, Genuine, Actual, For Real Orthodox Churches could actually unite and stay on message, then I might actually pay attention. But, as it is, they are neo-Donatists who cannot agree on anything. They jumped ship too early just like so many others throughout history.

How are we Donatists?

It should be noted, especially for those of them that say the churches on the new calendar lack grace, that their bishops all used to be or used to commune with new calendarist bishops, since the new calendar was instituted in the 1920s, and bishops did not come over until the 1930s to form old calendarist churches separate from those following the new calendar. But, you go ahead and make up some sort of weird story how your interpretation of fidelity to tradition could circumvent all that. It will make for interesting reading.

We're not interested in entertaining you. 

In Christ,

Fr Anastasios

[PeterTheAleut]

In the interest of not allowing my ongoing discussion with Irish Hermit to derail this thread, I have moved the side discussion to Free-For-All > Religious Topics.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25235.0.html

[ozgeorge]

If  ROCOR was not canonical, and did not preach the Truth, and all Her members were just as some of you say, then the Moscow Patriarchate and others wouldn't be putting so much effort and hard work to exterminate Her and bring us all under its control.

What effort and hard work are you talking about.  Flies are a minor annoyance, but you still swat them.

I don't swat flies. When Eldress Gavrielia was a child, she once swatted a fly. Her elder sister asked her: "Can you create a fly?" to which she replied "No". Her sister then said "You should not kill what you cannot create." From that day onward, Eldress Gavrielia never killed anything again, and wouldn't even step on ants. I can't create a schismatic, therefore I will not swat him.

[Orthodox11]

I can't create a schismatic, therefore I will not swat him.

I think needlessly swatting people is a good way to create schismatics.

[ozgeorge]

I can't create a schismatic, therefore I will not swat him.

I think needlessly swatting people is a good way to create schismatics.

And history has borne that out.

[podkarpatska]

For many of us it's Christmas Eve. How about a little peace on earth?

[Irish Hermit]

If  ROCOR was not canonical, and did not preach the Truth, and all Her members were just as some of you say, then the Moscow Patriarchate and others wouldn't be putting so much effort and hard work to exterminate Her and bring us all under its control.

What effort and hard work are you talking about.  Flies are a minor annoyance, but you still swat them.

I don't swat flies. When Eldress Gavrielia was a child, she once swatted a fly. Her elder sister asked her: "Can you create a fly?" to which she replied "No". Her sister then said "You should not kill what you cannot create." From that day onward, Eldress Gavrielia never killed anything again, and wouldn't even step on ants. I can't create a schismatic, therefore I will not swat him.

Strange!   Was this comment from her time in India?   I mean she presumably ate fish as do monks and nuns.   Refusing to share what is offered to the brotherhood in the refectory (trapeza) will get a monk or nun an epitimia.   In those parts of the world, fish are often brought home alive to the monastery where the nun thwacks them over the head with a stout cudgel to kill them.    Not many nuns I know can create a fish though.   

[ozgeorge]

If  ROCOR was not canonical, and did not preach the Truth, and all Her members were just as some of you say, then the Moscow Patriarchate and others wouldn't be putting so much effort and hard work to exterminate Her and bring us all under its control.

What effort and hard work are you talking about.  Flies are a minor annoyance, but you still swat them.

I don't swat flies. When Eldress Gavrielia was a child, she once swatted a fly. Her elder sister asked her: "Can you create a fly?" to which she replied "No". Her sister then said "You should not kill what you cannot create." From that day onward, Eldress Gavrielia never killed anything again, and wouldn't even step on ants. I can't create a schismatic, therefore I will not swat him.

Strange!   Was this comment from her time in India?   I mean she presumably ate fish as do monks and nuns.   Refusing to share what is offered to the brotherhood in the refectory (trapeza) will get a monk or nun an epitimia.   In those parts of the world, fish are often brought home alive to the monastery where the nun thwacks them over the head with a stout cudgel to kill them.    Not many nuns I know can create a fish though.   

No, it was not from her time in India, it was in her childhood in Constantinople. Its simply a recollection of her own practice. She would not kill anything. I don't know where you got the idea that fish were brought live to monasteries- must be a Serbian thing. This is simply a fact recorded about her by one of her nuns. It comes from The Ascetic of Love- a bigraphy and collection of Apophthegmata of Eldress Gavrielia. A true monastic.

[Irish Hermit]

[I don't know where you got the idea that fish were brought live to monasteries- must be a Serbian thing.

It was my obedience to drive the Combi to the market and bring home to the monastery big plastic bags with water and live fish - in Serbia.  The nuns kill them by banging them on the head.  Same on Athos, where I have seen the fish killed by monks in the kitchen.

[ialmisry]

I did explain in public the use of the term zarist. The revolutionary authorities started calling the Russian True Orthodox Church, and ROCOR, as zarist.

They called the Patriarchate of Moscow Czarist too.  No difference.

Btw, the Catholicos of Georgia is on the Old Calendar (Christ is Born! everyone) and not in the World Council of Churches.  So, do you want to suppress him, an ancient autocephalous Orthodox Church, like the "Zarist" Church did?  He regained his independence during the revolution but not from the revolutionaries, but the Synod of Georgia.  So is he and his flock "True Orthodox?"

It is not our official title.

So what is your "official" title?

We can't conduct an accurate detective work to track down an individual on the internet, unless we have the knowledge and the equipment to do so. There are ways for anonymous surfing, in which a specific software can be used to "bounce" the signal, create a "mask" of your IP address, and connect you to several servers worldwide.

That's some paranoia you got.  And megalomania.

There is persecution in the free world too, ROCOR has been persecuted severely in the west. The Moscow Patriarchate infiltrated people, and created splinter groups that take with them relics, churches, money, etc.  

You mean the ones that realized that the Bolsheviks had fallen and the Romanovs were not coming back?

So you are saying that the gates of Hell have prevailed?  Can't be the True Church then.

For instance, in 2001, the MP created in the USA its own ROCOR, formed by infiltrated individuals, like Met. Laurus, Met Hilarion and others, who with the unlimited resources provided by the russian government, left ROCOR taking with them Churches, relics, money, and everything they could.

Care to back these groundless accusations with some documented (as in, not from your choir) facts?

So is Russia's anti-Zarist-church budget larger than the defense budget of Russia?  Are they spending more on the ROCOR campaign than on Chechnia?

The violence of the new ROCOR expanded like fire, to France, USA, Canada, Belgium, South America, Australia, and even inside the former USSR.

Yeah, I hear about the ROCOR suicide bombers all the time.

Why would the Boshelviks need ROCOR to be violent inside the former ("former?" you sound like you think it is still with us) USSR?  Can't they do it themselves?

The attitude of Irish Hermit is typical of the new ROCOR under the Moscow Patriarchate, you can see how they try by all means to annihilate the True Russian Orthodox Christians, that bare witness of their unchristian deeds and teachings.

I've only seen Irish Hermit call you on your slander and bearing of false witness.

I would think that there would be a more pressing need to infiltrate ROCOR when the Soviet Union existed. Now would seem quite pointless.

And you say there is no persecution?

Your whinny tone reveals that your "church" wouldn't last a day under real persecution as the Patriarchate of Moscow suffered.  You would have been annihilated.

Try being in Church with 20 Irish Hermits, be at the trapeza with them, yelling how "good" it is the MP and that we must join it.

No, unlike your role models

you are quite free to go into schism.

I'd take Irish Hermit's "yelling" the considerable merits of the Patriarchate of Moscow over the whinning of cowardly, anonymous detractors anyday.

Try saying no to them. Try living in the same area with them, having them as work peers, try enjoying a ball with them causing all sort of problems. Have moslems and others done anything to you? Have you been forced to deal with them 24/7?

Actually yes.  THAT's persecusion.

[ozgeorge]

THAT's persecusion.

AAAARRRRGGGHHHHH!!!!!!
That is the THIRD time you've spelled it that way! It's "persecution"!

[ialmisry]

THAT's persecusion.

AAAARRRRGGGHHHHH!!!!!!
That is the THIRD time you've spelled it that way! It's "persecution"!

Are we feeling persecuted?

[ozgeorge]

Are we feeling persecuted?

No. But on the subject of persecution, I'm having difficulty understanding this point you try to make:

No, unlike your role models

you are quite free to go into schism.

You do realise this painting depicts an Old Believer woman being arrested in Russia during the persecution of the Old Believers don't you. You also realise that the "Great Synod of Moscow" which introduced the Nikonian reforms that sparked the Old Believer persecutions also deposed Patriarch Nikon whose very reforms it adopted and that this deposing of the Patriarch was later posthumously reversed (whoops, we made a mistake), and that the Raskol is one of the saddest events in Russian history? You also realise that in 1971, the Patriarchcate of Moscow lifted the anathemas against the Old Believers (whoops we made another mistake), and in 1974, ROCOR asked forgiveness from the Old Believers for the wrongs done to them (whoops, we made a mistake).
I really don't think suggesting IPC's Church is like the Old Believer actually supports your argument that his Church is not being persecuted. Nor does it support your idea that "swatting the flies" is a good way to go as far as dealing with dissent.

[Irish Hermit]

Are we feeling persecuted?

No. But on the subject of persecution, I'm having difficulty understanding this point you try to make:

No, unlike your role models

you are quite free to go into schism.

You do realise this painting depicts an Old Believer woman being arrested in Russia during the persecution of the Old Believers don't you. You also realise that the "Great Synod of Moscow" which introduced the Nikonian reforms that sparked the Old Believer persecutions also deposed Patriarch Nikon whose very reforms it adopted and that this deposing of the Patriarch was later posthumously reversed (whoops, we made a mistake), and that the Raskol is one of the saddest events in Russian history? You also realise that in 1971, the Patriarchcate of Moscow lifted the anathemas against the Old Believers (whoops we made another mistake), and in 1974, ROCOR asked forgiveness from the Old Believers for the wrongs done to them (whoops, we made a mistake).
I really don't think suggesting IPC's Church is like the Old Believer actually supports your argument that his Church is not being persecuted. Nor does it support your idea that "swatting the flies" is a good way to go as far as dealing with dissent.

It seems to have worked quite well for the Mother Church in Constantinople which used the secular powers to swat the flies.  Not to be wondered at that the daughter Church in Russia emulated the succesful methods of Constantinople.

[ialmisry]

Are we feeling persecuted?

No. But on the subject of persecution, I'm having difficulty understanding this point you try to make:

No, unlike your role models

you are quite free to go into schism.

You do realise this painting depicts an Old Believer woman being arrested in Russia during the persecution of the Old Believers don't you. You also realise that the "Great Synod of Moscow" which introduced the Nikonian reforms that sparked the Old Believer persecutions also deposed Patriarch Nikon whose very reforms it adopted and that this deposing of the Patriarch was later posthumously reversed (whoops, we made a mistake), and that the Raskol is one of the saddest events in Russian history? You also realise that in 1971, the Patriarchcate of Moscow lifted the anathemas against the Old Believers (whoops we made another mistake), and in 1974, ROCOR asked forgiveness from the Old Believers for the wrongs done to them (whoops, we made a mistake).

Facts that I am, as my posts on these matters have shown, I am well aware.  God save the Yedionverie!

I would seem that the "Zarist" church wants to claim all these mistakes as their own.

I really don't think suggesting IPC's Church is like the Old Believer actually supports your argument that his Church is not being persecuted.

It supports that, and my argument that his neo-donatism comes as close as we ever had to Protestantism in the East.  It would seem the "Zarist" church resembles the Old Believers' persecusion, except that the "Zarist" church never had much of a presence in Russia to persecute, and probably has not gotten past parasite status on the Russian communiities, as the Old Believer independent communities have.

Nor does it support your idea that "swatting the flies" is a good way to go as far as dealing with dissent.

I've had fish in monasteries.  It was dead, so someone killed it.

It seems to have worked quite well for the Mother Church in Constantinople which used the secular powers to swat the flies.  Not to be wondered at that the daughter Church in Russia emulated the succesful methods of Constantinople.

Constantinople won't talk to canonical Churches, let alone amorphous schismatic ones.

[ozgeorge]

Nor does it support your idea that "swatting the flies" is a good way to go as far as dealing with dissent.

I've had fish in monasteries.  It was dead, so someone killed it.

Okay. Whatever that means.

Constantinople won't talk to canonical Churches, let alone amorphous schismatic ones.

Not quite true. She does, and is quite successful:
http://www.stirene.org/

Old Believers' persecusion, except that the "Zarist" church never had much of a presence in Russia to persecute, and probably has not gotten past parasite status

Did you just say "gotten"?

Clealry, you and Irish Hermit have no interest in discussing the topic at hand but want to go on one of your EP bashing escapades, so I'll leave you to your thoughts.