OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 22, 2014, 01:55:35 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   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: MP and ROCOR agree on Act of the Restoration of Canonical Unity  (Read 2374 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,346


metron ariston


« on: June 30, 2006, 03:02:07 PM »

Commissions of Moscow Patriarchate and Russian Church Outside Russia agree upon all points of Act of Restoration of Canonical Unity  

Moscow, June 29, Interfax — The negotiation commissions of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Church Outside Russia have agreed upon all the questions involved in the Act of the Restoration of Canonical Unity, which is to define the basic points of a new status of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) as a self-governed part of the one Russian Church.

The secretary of the Moscow Patriarchate commission, Archpriest Nikolay Balashov, has reported this to Interfax as the outcome of a three-day meeting of the commissions, which completed their work on Wednesday in Moscow.

‘The commission considered steps to be taken next towards the restoration of church unity’ the priest said.

He also said the commissions studied the proposals of the ROCOR Bishops’ Synod concerning the finalizing of the draft Act on Canonical Unity, which was approved by the Synod on the whole.

‘Common decisions have been negotiated and adopted by the commissions to be then submitted to the Synods’, the agency’s interlocutor has reported.

The final approval of the Act by the Synods in Moscow and New York will signify the restoration of canonical unity and Eucharistic communion between the Church in Russia and the part of the Russian Diaspora which separated from it eight decades ago.

The session of the Russian Orthodox Church Holy Synod is expected to consider the revised draft in July, and the Synod of the Church Outside Russia will probably meet in September in New York.

Father Nikolay did not exclude the need for the commissions to meet again in order to discuss details before the final adoption of the Act, but at the same time said, ‘I have got an impression that the dialogue with the Church Outside Russia is approaching the happy end. The main part of the road has been already traversed’.
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,828



WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 30, 2006, 03:26:54 PM »

‘I have got an impression that the dialogue with the Church Outside Russia is approaching the happy end. The main part of the road has been already traversed’.

God be praised.

Lord, have mercy.
Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
DavidH
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 531



WWW
« Reply #2 on: June 30, 2006, 05:48:07 PM »

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Rd. David (ROCOR)
Logged
aserb
asinner
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Self Ruled Antiochian Archdiocese
Posts: 1,188


« Reply #3 on: June 30, 2006, 09:30:56 PM »

Slava Isusu Christu!
Logged

Save us o' Son of God, who art risen from the dead, as we sing to thee Alleluia!
Landon77
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA (Antiochian Western Orthodox in exile)
Posts: 308


« Reply #4 on: June 30, 2006, 10:00:37 PM »

Glory be to God!
« Last Edit: June 30, 2006, 10:01:10 PM by Landon77 » Logged

"How stands your mighty god? My God is stronger than he."  -St. Boniface
Myrrh
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 98


« Reply #5 on: July 13, 2006, 06:24:18 AM »

Eugenia Richard
Paul Richard


Overview of the Sobor and its Aftermath


+ Lord Have Mercy on US ALL!

Our Holy Church √ a beacon of light and truth to the world, what will
become of You? The light has dimmed, we are cast into utter darkness, into
a web of deceipt and dark despondency. Has the light been extinguished and
replaced with a false light? Has it been placed under a bushel? Your fate
is unknown to us, your children. All the true details, negotiations and
plans are being kept secret from us, perhaps so that we should grow tired
and fall away from our Mother, and our faith, and our God. We had strength
and ammunition prior to the IV Pan-Diaspora Sobor, while we were quoting
the Holy Fathers, the Scriptures and the Holy Canons of the Orthodox
Church, forewarning our brethren in Christ to not be overcome with the
rush-to-unite tidal wave which was looming over us. We could still quote
our beloved Metropolitan Philaret, who is a beacon in this age of apostasy,
who single-handedly led the church on a narrow path resisting contemporary
apostasy, a path which earned the Russian Church Abroad the respect of the
entire world. But now, after the Sobor, our battle lies with secrecy and
wilfull distortion of the Truth in the matter of our own Church!

We know that the agenda behind the Sobor was well thought-out, planned,
making sure that program speeches, written information and press releases
were geared toward unification with Moscow. Unlike the 3rd Sobor, where
there was a system of secret ballots with sealed envelopes, allowing the
delegates to vote their consciences with peace of mind, this Sobor forced a
system of open voting, under the gaze and scrutiny of the Sobor organizers
who positioned themselves strategically in order to have full view of the
voters. All communications devices were prohibited during the meetings, as
well as any recording of notes. Every effort was made to confiscate the
original draft of the ⌠Resolution■, when it became evident that it would
not be ratified. This confiscation was performed even to the point of
searches of delegates' materials during break periods! It is reported by
the media that there were no credentialed western press representatives
reporting throughout the course of the Sobor, and only 3 Russian News
Agencies received daily releases, which were widely reported in Russia as
⌠pro-unia victory■. We have now learned that even the major documents
(particularly the Resolution) were penned in advance to Moscow's fiddle.

How is it that the ecumenical Metropolitan Amphilochius of Montenegro was
the star of the show, concelebrating at the first liturgy of the Sobor? He
revealed his close ties to Moscow after the Sobor, when he delivered the
consolation gift of the precious hand of the Holy Forerunner to the Moscow
Patriarchate, just one week ago. (Interfax reports that ROCOR Bishop
Michael Donskov was on the special flight from Montenegro to Moscow as a
member of the esteemed entourage.) Time was permitted in the Sobor schedule
to open with greetings from the leading world Orthodox ecumenists
(Catholicos of Georgia, Patriarch Maximos of Bulgaria, Exarch of the
Ecumenical Patriarch, Optina Pustin, which provided the icon of the 7
Ecumenical Councils √ and blessed it). Yet, only reluctantly was the plea
to the Sobor from the Lesna Convent and nuns in the holy land finally read
after much protest, followed by a sheepish apology on their behalf for
un-monastic conduct. Time was not permitted for the plea from South
America, or the Metropolitan Anthony Society, or for the hundreds of
letters which begged to be heard at the Sobor, which had been written over
the last several months to our First Hierarch, the Synod, the Hierarchs and
to the IV Pan-Abroad Sobor. Fr. Viktor Dobrov had to break up his address
into rigid increments of 4 minutes (after which the microphone was
unceremoniously turned off) to get the word out on the WCC and the MP.
Likewise, Subdeacon John Qualls, was denied public presentation of his
remarks and was forced to deliver them in writing to the assembled
hierarchs. Other âŒÂ opponentsâ–  of the union were rudely interrupted, and
their miserable 4 minutes were absorbed by heckling and interruption.
Observers from the 3rd Pan-Abroad Sobor note the stark contrast in the area
of freedom of expression. At the 3rd Sobor, there were no time limits. Each
delegate spoke to his heart's content; all aspects of every issue were
brought to light, in a true spirit of brotherly love and conciliarity for
the sake of the well-being of the Church and the flock. Were such crude,
obvious maneouvers deployed at the IV Pan-Abroad Sobor sanctioned as
Christian behavior?

Metropolitan Laurus recently gave an interview to Itar-Tass, (the official
state propaganda vehicle of the USSR) on the status of the unification (see
ROCOR official website), with which he says ⌠I am pleased■. But thousands
of ROCOR sheep are on the edges of their seats, particularly on the
territory of the former Soviet Union, starving for information on exactly
what is happening, what is the truth in this confused situation, wondering,
what do the Resolution and the Epistle really imply? From the many
interpretations of the intent of the Resolution, we believe that the words
âŒÂ in obedience to our Archpastor, Christâ– , âŒÂ in the appropriate time,â–  ÃƒÆ’¢Å’ upon
the foundation of the Truth of Christ■, ⌠the participation of the ROC MP in
the WCC evokes confusion.. we ask the hierarchy of the ROC MP ...to
expediently remove this temptation.■, and finally that ⌠the forthcoming
Local Council of One Russian Church will settle remaining unresolved church
problems.â–Â  (i.e. Sergianism, the uncanonical status of the MP and its
hierarchy) are assurances that the rush to unite has been soberly tempered
with prudence and piety. Yet we also know that the Resolution was voted on
paragraph by paragraph, thereby avoiding the sum of its parts √ a direct
yes or no vote on rushing into union. Regarding the ⌠Act on Canonical
Communionâ– , in an excerpt from Bishop Gabriel's interview to Pavel Korobov
of âŒÂ Commercantâ–  for âŒÂ Gazeti.Ruâ–  he responded to the question, âŒÂ Are there
problems with the Act?■, saying, ⌠You know that at the Pan-Abroad Sobor
diverse opinions were expressed on the issue of unification and possible
eucharistic intercommunion. The main problem is the membership of the
Moscow Patriarchate in the World Council of Churches. In this matter the
blade hits a rock. Some feel that we could enter communion in prayer
without Moscow first withdrawing from the WCC, but others say that we
cannot. According to the latter, Moscow must demonstrate its good will and
desire to withdraw from the WCC, thereby laying a foundation for full
intercommunion. Now much depends namely on the Moscow Patriarchate.
Everything is in its hands.. the ball is in their court.â– Yet according to
the interview given by Protopriest Viktor Potapov to the journal ⌠We in
Russia and the Abroadâ–  dated June 14, he states, âŒÂ Yes, unconditionally (the
Sobor) achieved its objective...We are not stipulating an immediate
withdrawal from the WCC as a condition for unification, although we would
wish that it would occur in time..â–Â  Also he states, much to general
bewilderment that ⌠The IV All-Diaspora Sobor was consultative in character
and did not have the right to decide anything; its delegates expressed
their views and opinions and formulated resolutions which state
unambiguously that we look toward eucharistic communion with the Church in
the native land... The issue has been decided in principle, and we have
only to wait patiently for full eucharistic communion will be finally
re-established.â–Â  (ital-trans). The question of timeframe was key in the
aforementioned interview of Metropolitan Laurus. Will we be commemorating
Alexii tomorrow, the next day, within 6 months, and on what terms? But
instead of assuaging the anxiety of the flock, the First Hierarch confirms
that ⌠the Russian Church Abroad is prepared to the best of its abilities to
cooperate in improving world opinion of contemporary Russiaâ– ! (see ROCOR
website.) Does this mean we have accepted the role of sergianism? Naturally
the evasiveness and obscurity in addressing these vital matters brings to
mind yet again the same treatment the flock had received prior to the Sobor
when thousands of letters over the fate of the church went unanswered and
unacknowledged.

The anticipated instantaneous unification (as Priest Nikolai Balashov had
assured would occur after the Nyack meeting of the Joint Commissions in
February) obviously did not occur in San Francisco, no matter how strong an
attempt was made to push it through with resolutions, epistles and the
notoriously secretive ⌠Act■, again ⌠author unknown■, which spelled out the
specifics of the unification. Our very Church history prior to 2002 and
legacy have been expunged from the official ROCOR website. The
controversial ROCOR/MP ⌠pre-Sobor information website, Let us Confess With
One Mindâ–Â  was so pro-unia slanted that it was bombarded with complaints of
bias. It brazenly responded by saying that the opposition had nothing of
value to contribute, therefore none of its materials were posted!

Retribution and silencing tactics were employed over the last four years,
forging the pro-union plan at any cost. An evident shift in the world-view
of our Church has been implemented. Metropolitan Laurus himself said ⌠fear
not the ecumenists, but the zealotsâ– . We, the spiritual sheep of
Metropolitans Anastassy, Anthony and especially Metropolitan Philaret whose
incorrupt relics lie unglorified, feel that we have been abandoned and
betrayed. The REMNANT OF CHRIST'S CHURCH which trod the narrow path ⌠not of
this worldâ–Â  have been treated like non-entities. Archbishop Alypy, when
asked about the proposed Pomestny Sobor, dejectedly announced that it will
most likely only occur when ⌠none of us are around any longer■. Sources say
that he was directely threatened with a âŒÂ monastic-style retirementâ–  if he
voted against union at the Sobor. Is this the ⌠How good it is for brethren
to dwell in unityâ–  (Psalm 132:1), applied to the âŒÂ spirit of unionâ–  at the
Sobor. We know from the very limited information leaking out after the
Sobor (this is the ultimate outrage, when delegates were supposed to
represent the laios and every sobor of the Church has been with the full
knowledge and participation of the laios), that we are being kept mostly in
the dark with innuendo, speculation and uncertaintly colouring the
aftermath of this Sobor. It is clear and evident that this particular
âŒÂ Soborâ–  was an attempt to disrupt and de-rail the traditional course and
established practice of church management and decision-making, specifically
designed to achieve the âŒÂ instantaneous unificationâ–  with the MP, NOT THE
MOTHER CHURCH, but the Stalin-instituted apparatus, devoid of canonicity
and grace, the servant of the Soviet and post-soviet state, still lingering
as an entity which has not been validated by a Supreme Church Authority,
which, were it to truly REPENT would retire its hierarchy and allow an
untarnished, new hierarchy to be elected canonically to make way for the
purification and resurrection of the church in Russia and Russia as a
whole. What was witnessed at the Sobor was not a genuine intention guided
by the Holy Spirit, for when the Holy Spirit manifested His affect on the
Sobor, it dawned on the delegates that the Resolultion placed before them
for signature was in dire need of correction, as well as the outrageous
⌠Act on Canonical Communion■. If the Sobor organizers were truly seeking
guidance from the Holy Spirit, they would have put the âŒÂ Actâ–  up for a vote,
right there and then. The outcome would have been clear and final.

In this mad delusion to rush into union with the ⌠Russian Church■, we have
sadly lost sight of our faith, our Orthodoxy, which while being Russian
secondarily, was primarily of Christ in nature. We, who have spent our
entire adult lives striving for the truth, have somehow succumbed to the
persistent brainwashing and submitted to signing endless promises of
allegiance in a dark time when we did not know the extent of the
conspiracy. Now we see √ the pro-union faction displayed its Soviet-learned
behavior at the Sobor. We know that the âŒÂ resolutionâ–  was modified to at
least include our groveling eleventh hour attempt to include some mention
at least of making an issue of the MPâ–“s ecumenical involvement. As the MPâ–“s
ecumenical involvement escalates and broadens in scope, (the MP will host
the Summit of All World Religious Leaders in the near future in Moscow), do
we honestly believe that the MP cares about our obsequious, weak âŒÂ demandâ–  
(request) that they âŒÂ please remove the temptationâ–  of their ecumenical
involvements? The information we had, unfortunately from the shot-gun
Moscow press, that the unification had occurred, that division was
overcome, and all the other premature victorious reports serve to make us
realize the degree of confidence the MP had, that this was a fait accompli!
Yet, after the notorious âŒÂ Actâ–  elicited a strong reaction at the sobor, it
was passed on to the bishops in the hopes that the hierarchical sobor could
be manouevered more easily, yet we know that Bishop Agafangel (who by
virtue of residence has a clear picture of the MP), as well as Bishop
Daniel of Erie, Bishop Alyppy and Bishop Gabriel refused the entire notion
of âŒÂ instantaneous unionâ–  as was depicted in the âŒÂ Act on Canonical
Communionâ– . Indeed, Bishop Agafangel courageously revealed that there was
no such thing as a ⌠vote on approval in principle of the Act on Canonical
Communionâ–Â  as had been erroneously reported by Itar Tass, the latter
leading many of our flock into confusion, and a sense of hopelessness and
being betrayed. Yet Bishop Agafangel is outrightly accused by Father Viktor
Potapov of contributing to the spread of disinformation because of his
particularly staunch position. Bishops Daniel, Gabriel and Agafangel were
opposed to the Act, and not only did not sign it but disagreed with it in
principal. Yet our official Church sources provide the information that the
âŒÂ Actâ–  will be âŒÂ reworked by the joint commissionsâ–  - How can anything be
reworked by a small group of people who were âŒÂ appointedâ–  to merely work out
the preliminary materials which were to be either adopted or rejected by
the general sobor? How can they now hold the fate of the entire church in
their hands? And confidently, the swift-unification proponents are saying
that now this âŒÂ new Actâ–  will deserve a special ceremony, or as they call it
a new âŒÂ riteâ–  of signing, in order to legitimatize this rash unification,
despite all of the voices of reason which have spoken out against this
forced, immediate unification, citing the outstanding issues of Sergianism,
ecumenism and the broadening neo-soviet heavy hand on the world arena.

Archbishop Mark is now officially acting within the ranks of the DECR of
the MP in regulating the situation in the Sourozh diocese. Indeed, that
diocese has now been accepted by the Patriarchate of Constantinople, as
have other former MP jurisdictions √ the logic is that ⌠better with
Constantinople than with pseudo-Orthodoxy Moscow!â–Â  Bishop Evtikhy upon
boarding his flight from Ishim had assured his flock, that he was headed to
San Francisco to resist the union, but Portal-Credo Ru reports that he
stopped in Moscow for a visit reportedly with Prot. Nikolai Balashov
(dialogue commissions mastermind), after which he was overcome with a
âŒÂ pseudo mystical enlightenmentâ–  which inspired him to dash back into the
MPâ–“s lap!

The last 5 years have been characterized by bewilderment and outrage at the
manner in which the ideology of ROCOR has been persistently eroded and
distorted (see Nun Vassaâ–“s rendition of our Churchâ–“s history on the ROCOR
website, calling Metropolitan Philaret an ⌠isolationist■) On ROCOR's
website, all of the history prior to 2002 has been expunged and the
âŒÂ legacyâ–  presented there is carefully selective in its content. Has this
happened without the knowledge and blessing of its First Hierarch? Despite
the active slander campaign after Metropolitan Vitaly âŒÂ was leftâ–  (as the
Russians say) it cannot be denied that he firmly resisted even talk of
rapprochement with the MP, yet the succeeding Metropolitan has been
discovered to have received an award in 2002 and again in 2004 in Moscow
for meritorious service to Russia, particularly in the area of the
unification of the ROCOR and MP.

http://www.nagradanaroda.ru/gallery-lavr.html and
http://www.nagradanaroda.ru/laureat-blago.html

What are the faithful to make of this? The pro-union faction includes
Archbishop Mark, who had acted unilaterally in the 1990â–“s entering into
dialogue with the MP, despite being censured by the Synod for these
dialogues with the MP, as a bishop of
our church; Fr. Viktor Potapov, who was reproached by Metropolitan Philaret
for his involvements with Russia and the MP, then in 1993 wrote ⌠Truth is
betrayed by Silenceâ– , exposing the KGB essense of the MP; Fr. Peter
Perekriostov who in his church publication âŒÂ Russian Pastorâ–  condemned the
MP severely and in 1998 wrote ⌠I simply cannot imagine how our hierarchs
could sit at the same table with members of the 'Holy Synod' of the Moscow
Patriarchate.■; Fr. George Larin, who had called the MP clergy ⌠Chekists in
riassaâ–“sâ– at the press conference given by former Russian presidential
hopeful General Lebed; Fr. A. Lebedev, who had written his well-known book
âŒÂ Evil Fruitâ–  in 1994, condemning the MP. Prominent church figures, such as
Peter Budzilovich have asked the unanswered question: WHEN DID THE MP CEASE
TO BE A SOVIET APPARATUS AND BECAME THE MOTHER CHURCH? Yet now we have heard
the ardent statements from the clergy who are urging an instant unification
with the Moscow Patriarchate. This sudden change in perception
and the deviation from the traditional course of the Church are disturbing.
In attempting to understand the modus operandum, the flock unwittingly
asks, ⌠have they become ⌠of this world■, as a result of contact with the MP
behind the scenes, news of which only filters down to us in a most
alarming, distorted, bewildering form, so far from the truth?â–Â  But clearly
evident is the fact that they have taken our Church, our very faith in
Christ into their own human hands and have devised a plan to make us reject
what we believe and follow them in their ambitious alliance with the MP,
which, incidentally, since the âŒÂ fall of the Soviet Unionâ–  (Putin still
proudly retains his Communist membership card) remains the same apparatus,
with the same key players, leading the country in the new neo-soviet
political orthodoxy. One can only fear for the souls of those who have been
lured by the glitz, glare and glory of the MP into collaboration with
Moscow's ambitious world agenda, foresaking the narrow path of Our Savior
and the gospel, having chosen to ignore the 2,000 years of struggle and
martyrdoms for the purity of the faith. The big fish became tired of
swimming in a small pond. ⌠Let us swim in the ocean with the big fish and
we will inherit the earth,â–Â  they thought. But we, the faithful children of
our precious ROCOR will cherish our pond. It may be small, aging and poor,
but it is TRUE and TRUTH, as is Our Lord and Savior Who promised the flock
would be small, yet told us not to fear.

The trend of the last few years to attempt to recruit St. John Maximovich's
tacit approval for the pro-union agenda was made clear by the choice of
venue for the Sobor. Yet, from St. John's own ⌠Talk on the Dread
Judgementâ– , in his own words, which cannot be refuted or distorted, he
says: ⌠The Antichrist.... will have a personal hatred for Christ. He will
live by this hatred and will rejoice at seeing men apostatize from Christ
and the Church. There will be a mass falling away from the faith; even many
bishops will betray the faith, justifying themselves by pointing to the
splendid position of the Church. A search for compromise will be the
characteristic disposition of men. Straightforwardness of confession will
vanish. Men will cleverly justify their fall and an endearing evil will
support such a general disposition. Men will grow accustomed to apostasy
from the truth and to the sweetness of compromise and sin. Antichrist will
allow men everything, if only they âŒÂ fall down and worship him.â–  This is not
something new...they martyred Christians only because they professed:
⌠Worship God Alone and serve Him Alone.■When Archbishop John was made head
of the Palestine committee by the Synod of Bishops, he clearly spoke about
the MP: ⌠The Patriarchate is striving to subjugate and spread its influence
to all nations.. To this end, the Soviet government, an enemy of the Church
and religion.. is positioning itself in the Near East as their protector,
and is trying by all means to establish the influence of the Moscow
Patriarch, who is under their control. If there is no opposition to this
activity, it could be very successful, and places dear to the entire
Christian world might well become bases for anti-Christian influence. Aware
of the submission of the Moscow church authority to the Soviet government,
and knowing that the Moscow Patriarch is not a free servant of God and His
Church but rather a puppet of the godless authorities, those holy
communities and institutions refused to recognize his authority and have
remained in submission to the authority of the free part of the Russian
Church √ to the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church abroad,
although such recognition would have brought great advantage materially.â–Â  (
From St. John's address âŒÂ Appeal for Help to the Holy Landâ–  Man of God
Saint
John of Shanghai & San Francisco,Nicodemos Orthodox Society).

We know that the common laity within the MP has pleaded for a Pomestny
Sobor to be held in Russia for 15 years, but to no avail. The MP structure
is not interested in accepting any blame (Nuremburg style) for the
repercussions of its collaboration with the atheist regime. In fact, the
unification of ROCOR would de facto exonerate the MP of all its misdeeds
during those treacherous years, allowing them to avoid revealing the
spiritual and physical damage caused by Sergianism, and most importantly it
would invalidate the issue of forcing the resignation (true repentance) of
all KGB hierarchs. This is not ancient history. On June 15th, Radio Freedom
reported from London on the Sourozh Diocese events, that ⌠Now, when the
church (in Russia) has gained freedom, it voluntarily became a slave of the
state. It submits to the demands of the state. It has become a state
church. This is felt very strongly here in the West. This is what prevents,
to a large degree, the return of the Russian churches in France. They don't
want to return to Moscow. We sense the same thing here... Russian Orthodox
tradition will not submit to Russia's state pressure on our churchâ– .

Many voices have spoken about the supposed gain of unification √ there
appears to be not a single benefit, only sheer loss for us and for the
common faithful in Russia. Many have stated that as an ideological mirror
of conscience, if we permit ourselves to unite with Moscow, particularly in
eucharist, then we are freeing them from the responsibility to change.
There will no longer be any voice of conscience reproaching them for having
been a tool of the soviet government and continuing to do so under the new
regime. If they truly want a resurrected, new Russia, they must not merely
pay lip service to our requests; they must rush to cleanse themselves of
Sergianism, ecumenism, and step aside to allow a pure generation,
undefiled, without blood on their hands, to take up the leadership of the
church in Russia. This is an echo of Bishop Gabriel's statement to the
press after the Hierarchical Sobor, ⌠the MP hierarchy needs to repent■as
well as his observation that they did not even show good will by returning
a single church property which they had seized from ROCOR.

When those who seek world recognition, acclaim and fame have left the
ROCOR, a small remnant will remain, but St. Archbishop John of San
Francisco foretold that the ROCOR would become very small but pure as
crystal. Some say they agree that there should be union with the MP,
however insist that the MP meet the conditions (withdrawing from the WCC,
ecumenism and renounce sergianism). But what if the MP is unable to meet
those terms? Do we unite anyway? Will we accept the newly formulated ⌠Act
of Canonical Communionâ–Â  which will strike a tone of inescapable, convincing
compromise and appease our consciences? The test has come √ do we stand
firmly and hold what we have as Metropolitan Philaret commanded in his last
testament, or will we allow ourselves to be deluded and persuaded into
taking the broad path which leads to perdition?

Had this intention to unify with Moscow precipitated in a genuine natural
fashion based on a truly renewed church structure in Russia, which was
demonstrating its integrity and true desire to be a pure Orthodox church,
not a single voice would have been raised against such a union. But the
more words and justifications are heaped onto the pile, the more suspicion
is aroused as to what is hidden beneath. Already more than one third of our
Church has fallen away because of ideological and ecclesiastical opposition
to this premature and unnecessary union, and the resistance continues. If
only our loving Archpastors would have mercy on the flock which is quickly
scattering and remove this exercise in temptation from our midst. Is it too
late to turn back now or has too much been invested in this process? Is
there any way to salvage our Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and admit that
we were hasty in rushing into this union venture? Can we write off the IV
Pan-Abroad Sobor as the greatest mistake in the history of our Church? Or
are we to sit and wait for whoever it is whose court the ball is in? AND
THEN WHAT?Huh

2/14 June, 2006
St. Nicephorus

Eugenia Richard
Paul Richard
Logged
The young fogey
Moderated
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,645


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 13, 2006, 07:22:36 AM »

The Russian Church was untrustworthy in Soviet times, practically compromised, but never stopped being the church with real bishops, etc., according to the Orthodox POV. ROCOR never declared itself a patriarchate-in-exile for example.

As one can see from the return of Bishop Varnava in Cannes, the few Russians who, because they were still understandably afraid of the Communists, joined the Mansonville, Quebec schism* are going back to ROCOR.

*Attempted by the minders of retired ROCOR Metropolitan Vitaly.
Logged

ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #7 on: July 13, 2006, 08:40:26 AM »

O THE GOD OF OUR FATHERS, BLESSED ARE YOU!

Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
         For brethren to dwell together in unity!
                                                              It is like the precious oil upon the head,
                                                                                         Running down on the beard,
                                                                                                        The beard of Aaron,
                                                                                                                  Running down on the edge of his garments.
                                                                                                                                                     It is like the dew of Hermon,
                                                                                                                                                Descending upon the mountains of Zion;
                                                                                                       For there the LORD commanded the blessing—                                                Life forevermore..



Who is so Great a God as our God?                                                                                                                   Thou art the God Who workest wonders!
« Last Edit: July 13, 2006, 08:54:11 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #8 on: July 13, 2006, 08:48:21 AM »

Parts read like an OCL statement decrying the last GOAA Clergy-Laity meeting, doesn't it?
« Last Edit: July 13, 2006, 08:48:56 AM by ΑριστÎÂà » Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,411


« Reply #9 on: July 13, 2006, 11:20:05 AM »

[quote author=Αριστοκλής link=topic=9396.msg127723#msg127723 date=1152794901]
Parts read like an OCL statement decrying the last GOAA Clergy-Laity meeting, doesn't it?
[/quote]

I don't have a lot of experience reading those, but what I read of the statement sounds like it is probably worse!

Thou (they) dost protest too much. Roll Eyes
Logged
Myrrh
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 98


« Reply #10 on: July 13, 2006, 01:35:17 PM »

There can't be a canonical union according to Bishop Agathangel, no such creature.

http://www.ipc.od.ua/_jizn_tcervi_txt_060523.html

Notice to the flock of the Odessa and Zaporozh'ye Dioceses of ROCOR
regarding the conclusions of the IV All-Diaspora Council and Council
of Bishops

By the will of God, the IV All-Diaspora Council of the Russian
Orthodox Church Outside of Russia was conducted in the spirit of
unanimity and sobornost'. Regarding the union with the Moscow
Patriarchate, practically all those who spoke said that this union
was desired, but in our Church there are different understandings of
when and under what conditions such a union can take place.

The resolution of the IV All-Diaspora Council, accepted practically
unanimously (with but a few abstaining or voting against), states
that such a union is possible in the future, after the elimination
of the differences between us of a fundamental nature (ecumenism was
mentioned), and that this union can become final only at the Local
Council of the entire Russian Church, with the participation of
clergy and laity.

There is some evidence that the thrust of this document was inspired
by St. John. Maximovich, on whose relics were laid the preliminary
draft of the resolution while a moleben was served. Personally, the
invisible presence and influence of St. John on the work of the
Council are obvious to me.

Such was the divinely-inspired determination of the IV All-Diaspora
Council.

The Council of Bishops which took place afterwards confirmed this
determination of the All-Diaspora Council. The principal discussion
at the Council of Bishops concerned the Act of Canonical Communion √
a completely confidential document, developed by the commissions for
discussion, the consideration of which had not been provided for
even among all the bishops of ROCOR and the reading of which was not
initially proposed even at the All-Diaspora Council. In view of its
questionable nature, references to this Act were intentionally
excluded both from the resolution of the IV All-Diaspora Council and
from the Epistle of the Council of Bishops.

At the Council of Bishops I gave a separate opinion about this Act.
In it is said:

"I consider the appearance itself of this Act of Canonical Communion
and, all the more, its consideration, to be premature, since the
differences of a fundamental nature between our sides - questions
about ecumenism and sergianism √ have not yet been resolved.

Furthermore, we recognize that according to the decision of the
Local Council of 1918, the supreme authority in the Church belongs
to the Local Council with the participation of bishops, clergy and
laity. Only such a Council is empowered to select a church
administration which may act in the inter-conciliar period. The
fullness of the Russian Church has awaited and waits for namely this
Council since the time of the repose of Patriarch Tikhon and, since
such a Council has not been convened, we do not have the right to
arbitrarily establish a Supreme Church Authority, or ourselves
determine our canonical status. We only can temporarily, until the
convocation of the Local Council, mutually recognize or not
recognize the canonicity of the existence of various parts of the
Church with their existing authority, with the condition of the
acknowledgement of the absence to this day of a legitimately chosen
Supreme Church Authority.

The Act, however, without basis places one part of the Church above
the other and actually makes the authority of one of the parts of
the ROC the Supreme Church Authority (commemoration of the head of
one part of the Church by the other part, obtaining of Holy Myrrh,
the confirmation of hierarchs, etc.,), which is illegitimate.

Upon reaching unanimity on the questions of ecumenism and
sergianism, and mutual recognition of the authority in the ROC of
the coming Local council, we can establish eucharistic communion
without creating in this case, naturally, a common supreme authority.

In light of what has been presented, I consider it necessary to put
off the examination of the aforementioned Act, bearing as it does a
threat to the existence itself of ROCOR, until an agreement in
principle is reached on all the questions which divide us."(text
based on a draft of this document).

This separate opinion was appended to the protocols of the Council
of Bishops.

The document was supported also by their Graces Daniel and Gabriel.
There was no vote on adoption of the Act and therefore I am not
completely clear on the provenance of the assertion that the
Act "was adopted and approved in principle." Neither does the
communication correspond to reality when it says that "final
confirmation of the text of the Act, as well as details as to its
ceremonial signing, was conferred upon the Synod of Bishops." The
question of the "final confirmation of the text of the Act by the
Synod of Bishops" was in fact raised (without reference to
the "details as to its ceremonial signing" √ I read this word
combination for the first time on the Internet), but because of the
presence of different opinions it was postponed without a final
decision of the Council. Voting on this question also was not
conducted. Therefore the communiquИ about the conclusion of the
Council of Bishops of ROCOR of May 19, 2006, placed on the official
site of our Synod, causes, at the least, bewilderment - indeed,
besides the above- mentioned, it actually contradicts the resolution
taken and affirmed by the IV All-Diaspora Council.

I believe that some time will be needed in order to comprehend all
that which occurred at the All-Diaspora and Bishops' Councils and
henceforth, until there has been a complete and final explanation of
Conciliar opinion, it will be necessary to abstain from various
categorical statements which contradict the spirit and letter of
both Councils of our Church. So far it can only be said definitively
that the Councils undertook no "revolutionary" changes in the life
of ROCOR, and it remains for us to live the same life as always.
There can only be a question about which direction (in relations
with the MP) this church life is given.

Glory be to our God!

+ Bishop Agathangel

Odessa, May 23, 2006

Logged
StephenG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 229


« Reply #11 on: July 13, 2006, 07:43:44 PM »

I must confess to reservations. Russia is a sham democracy with a cowed press, a youth organisation linked to the Kremlin - Nashi, which has put skinheads among others in uniform and which promotes unprotected sex among its members with a view to encouraging procreation, all perhaps too remeniscent of Germany in the 1930s. Some argue President Putin is pro-church. But in what sense. Because the church might be a useful tool, a totem for Russian nationalism and confidence re-building? Or because it represents Truth? The speaker of the Duma has said openly that the Duma is not a place for democratic discussion, only later to say that this remark was a slip of the tongue? A very odd slip from someone so central to conducting a proper democratic assembly, surely?

Only time will show whether this development produces good fruit, but to simply rush to applaud may be premature.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #12 on: July 14, 2006, 08:00:21 AM »

I must confess to reservations. Russia is a sham democracy with a cowed press
To object to ROCOR - MP unity on the basis that one thinks that Russia's government is corrupt is a strange notion indeed. If what happens in the State should determine how the Church should operate, then the Church should probably not exist anywhere. Exactly who is using the Church for political purposes? Is it those who seek to re-establish ties in the Church, or those who insist that the Church remain painfully and scandalously divided until another nation's government is run the way they like it to be run?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Myrrh
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 98


« Reply #13 on: July 15, 2006, 02:13:17 PM »

To object to ROCOR - MP unity on the basis that one thinks that Russia's government is corrupt is a strange notion indeed. If what happens in the State should determine how the Church should operate, then the Church should probably not exist anywhere. Exactly who is using the Church for political purposes? Is it those who seek to re-establish ties in the Church, or those who insist that the Church remain painfully and scandalously divided until another nation's government is run the way they like it to be run?

The Russian Church is divided because the MP is still the Church which Lenin established, Stalin organised and Krushev refined. Archbishop Kirill has changed the RF Constitution and freedom of conscience is no longer an option. This isn't even Christianity.

Myrrh
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #14 on: July 15, 2006, 03:33:55 PM »

The Russian Orthodox Church is in the beautiful process of healing itself. My prayers for all Orthodox Christians - including ALL the Rus.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
StephenG
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 229


« Reply #15 on: July 15, 2006, 05:16:45 PM »

I am not concerned because Putin's government is corrupt, the Russian Federation a sham democracy or that the actions of youth groups strongly linked at the highest level at the Kremlim - namely Nashi - appear to behave in ways not dissimilar to the 1930s German National Socialist party; and suspect ozgeorge already knows that is not the prime cause of my reserve.

The prime concern stems from the historic link of manipulation, use of agents and use of the MP throughout its existence during the Soviet era. And is the Russian Federation, and the successor to the Cheka/NKVD/KGB, the FSB still pulling the strings?

That President Putin appears to be pro-church might raise, given the rest of the evidence of his and his governments probity, a not unreasonable question as to whether his attachment is to a purely secular and unworthy one or something else - more laudable.

Like Bishop Agathangel I think it might be best to wait and see. Remembering that the Soviets were experts at manipulating well meaning 'useful fools' (their term and not mine), and I do not want out of some natural wish for the best to be a 'useful fool' for some unworthy cause. Nevertheless I sincerly and prayerfully hope these fears turn out to be misplaced.

Clear now, ozgeorge?
Logged
Benjaminw1
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: English Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 6


WWW
« Reply #16 on: July 20, 2006, 03:40:47 AM »

The Russian Church is divided because the MP is still the Church which Lenin established, Stalin organised and Krushev refined. Archbishop Kirill has changed the RF Constitution and freedom of conscience is no longer an option. This isn't even Christianity.

Myrrh

So St Tikhon was a Bolshevik?

Still hiding your allegiance Myrrh
Logged

Arma Pacis Fulcra
Myrrh
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 98


« Reply #17 on: July 20, 2006, 03:27:51 PM »

So St Tikhon was a Bolshevik?

Still hiding your allegiance Myrrh


Oh please. The Boshevik's were anathematised by the Russian Church under Patriarch Tikhon and Bishop Peter his locum tenens- it's Sergius who belonged to Lenin's Church, which Stalin took over the running, who came crawling back, begging to be readmitted to the True Russian Church - and then he worked from the inside to destroy it. Exactly as ROCOR has been taken over by them now.

Good background article.
http://www.geocities.com/kitezhgrad/roce/high-treason.html

Myrrh



 
Logged
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,411


« Reply #18 on: July 20, 2006, 04:07:30 PM »

[insert yawning emoticon here]
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #19 on: July 20, 2006, 04:15:13 PM »

[insert yawning emoticon here]

Wake me up when it's over...
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Νεκτάριος
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #20 on: July 20, 2006, 06:33:41 PM »

ahh.. geocities that is the mark of a website of true distinction and scholarship. 
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.202 seconds with 48 queries.