Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

12254Re: It Is Time to Know Our History

Expand Messages
  • vkozyreff
    Sep 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Father Stefan, bless.

      You write: "Father Alexander quotes (here and in other statements)
      the words of the official proclamations of our Church Abroad that
      clearly show that it is part of the understanding of our Church,
      concerning itself, that it must seek the unity of the LOCAL RUSSIAN
      CHURCH (Pomestnaya Rossiskaya Tserkov)".

      VK: For a pomestnaya tserkov to be a pomestnaya tserkov, it should be
      a tserkov to start with.

      You write: "The parts Father Alexander quotes are in context with the
      OVERALL understanding of the position of the Church Abroad vis-a-vis
      the other parts of the Russian Church."

      VK: I think Vl Agafangel's quotations are as good as Father
      Alexander's for that matter, and more complete.

      You write: "A bishop of our Orthodox Church is duty bound to speak
      his mind and defend his personal position at the SYNOD COUNCILS, once
      the BISHOPS in Council decide for the Church what its actions will
      be, a Bishop of that Council is honor and duty bound to support the
      Churches actions or at least not do anything that can potentially
      undermine those actions.

      VK: When Vl Agafangel quotes ROCOR documents and explores ROCOR
      history, as Father Alexander encourages us to do, he does not express
      personal opinions, but the position of the Church.

      The position of the Church was expressed also in Vl Kyrill of Seattle
      and in Father Alexander's previous position. What I fail to
      understand, is why we are told that we cannot quote the latter any
      longer. Even if an author has changed his mind, his published works
      are public and thus quotable. It is a historical fact that the author
      changed his mind if he did. It would be normal even to change one's
      mind if the object of the position has changed. The problem is that
      we cannot see that the MP renounced sergianism or ecumenism.

      Father Alexander says that we have no right to demand that the MP
      repent. We do not demand this, God does. If I claim that lies can
      save the Church, or that pure souls can sacrifice their purity and
      accept to get corrupt to save the Church, then I am out of God. I am
      in sin, bareheadedly and overtly.

      If I am in sin, I must repent. It has nothing to do with any demands
      that I would or would not have.

      In God,

      Vladimir Kozyreff


      --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Archpriest Stefan Pavlenko"
      <StefanVPavlenko@n...> wrote:
      > "vkozyreff" <vladimir.kozyreff@s...> wrote:>
      > > Father Alexander writes in a very authoritarian way about the
      > > necessity to join the MP, and about what he considers to be the
      > > traditional ROCOR position.
      > ________________________________________________
      >
      > This post begins with a red herring: "Father Alexander writes in a
      > very authoritarian way about the necessity to join the MP..."
      >
      > In fact Father Alexander quotes (here and in other statements) the
      > words of the official proclamations of our Church Abroad that
      clearly
      > show that it is part of the understanding of our Church, concerning
      > itself, that it must seek the unity of the LOCAL RUSSIAN CHURCH
      > (Pomestnaya Rossiskaya Tserkov).
      >
      > The parts Father Alexander quotes are in context with the OVERALL
      > understanding of the position of the Church Abroad vis-à-vis
      the other=
      >
      > parts of the Russian Church.
      >
      > Archbishop Agafangel's quotations incorporate the position of the
      > Church Abroad to specific >>>events and conditions that existed
      during
      > the period that the document was formulated<<<, and had a necessary
      > and appropriate strictness to the chosen wording.
      >
      > Time has passed, conditions have changed, and an >>>ATTEMPT<<< at
      > normalization has been BLESSED by the Synod of Bishops which has
      > commenced.
      >
      > A bishop of our Orthodox Church is duty bound to speak his mind and
      > defend his personal position at the SYNOD COUNCILS, once the BISHOPS
      > in Council decide for the Church what its actions will be, a Bishop
      of
      > that Council is honor and duty bound to support the Churches actions
      > or at least not do anything that can potentially undermine those
      actions.
      >
      > Archpriest Stefan Pavlenko
      >
      > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "vkozyreff"
      > <vladimir.kozyreff@s...> wrote:
      > > Dear List,
      > >
      > > Father Alexander writes in a very authoritarian way about the
      > > necessity to join the MP, and about what he considers to be the
      > > traditional ROCOR position. I think however that all of his
      > > arguments are clearly refuted by Vl Agafangel. For instance, in
      the
      > > excerpt below (my poor translation).
      > >
      > > In more than one case, Vl Agafangel shows that a complete (not a
      > > biased, selective and partial) quotation of texts referred to by
      > > Father Alexander mean in fact the opposite of what Father
      Alexander
      > > wanted to demonstrate.
      > >
      > > I think it should be made clear that the enthusiasm to join the
      MP
      > > is not the conciliary position even of ROCOR (L).
      > >
      > > I recommend very warmly the reading of Vl Agafangel's reply. To
      > > claim that he is wrong (as all ex-MP clergy, according to Father
      > > John Shaw) because he has a personal quarrel with the MP or
      because
      > > he is "disgrunted" would be absurd. In Vl Agafangel's reply, the
      > > knowledge about the ROCOR history does not seem to be smaller
      than
      > > in Father Alexander's text.
      > >
      > > In God,
      > >
      > > Vladimir Kozyreff
      > >
      > > "From the above, Father Alexander concludes that "the ROCOR
      > > considered the fall of the God-fighting regime as a criterion for
      > > the restoration of a "normal" social and Church life ". Again,
      this
      > > does not mean in any way that the restoration of a "normal"
      public
      > > and church life must translate into an immediate association with
      > > the MP.
      > >
      > > In the quote given, as well as in the disposition of the ROCOR,
      > > nothing is said or implied about the direction of the soviet-
      > > submitted MP. There is a discussion about this direction
      elsewhere
      > > in the Message, where the bishops cautiously, but clearly express
      > > their position:
      > >
      > > " Can one justify the existing organisation of the church
      direction
      > > even of the orthodox or of the so-called Tikhonite Church, from
      the
      > > point of view of the canons and definitions of the All-Russia
      Church
      > > Sobor of 1917-1918? Are not righteous objections being expressed
      > > there about the legitimacy of the present Synod, which has been
      > > confiscated by metropolitan Sergii under his personal discretion
      (at
      > > least in the person of its most influential members) and is the
      > > canonical mandate of the present deputy to the Vicar of the
      > > Patriarchal Throne not suspect? "…
      > >
      > > Vl Agafangel
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "goossir"
      > > <irene.goossens@c...> wrote:
      > > > Dear Father Alexander,
      > > >
      > > > Fervour is holy if it is directed to the Truth. If the fervour
      > > that
      > > > we can see in Russia expresses faith in a Church that was
      rescued
      > > by
      > > > lies, then that fervour expresses faith in a false Church and
      is
      > > > diabolic.
      > > >
      > > > If that fervour is an expression of faith in the true Church of
      > > the
      > > > martyrs who stood fast and never used lies to defend the
      Church,
      > > then
      > > > the faith that we see is not directed to the MP who stubbornly
      > > keeps
      > > > claiming that sergianism was a bold step that saved the Church.
      > > The
      > > > faith is directed to the true Russian Orthodox Church, of whom
      the
      > > > ROCOR is the only canonical representative left.
      > > >
      > > > If the ROCOR has lost faith in herself and in the Truth, if she
      > > has
      > > > indeed nothing to offer to Russia, then her fruits are bad, and
      we
      > > > should leave her.
      > > >
      > > > If the ROCOR has kept the true orthodox faith and is able to
      > > witness
      > > > about the Truth it in spite of "isolation" and persecution, if
      she
      > > > still considers herself as being called to return to Russia,
      than
      > > the
      > > > ROCOR is the Church in which the people of Russia believes, she
      is
      > > > the true Russian orthodox Church, and we must stay with her.
      > > >
      > > > But who represents the true ROCOR?
      > > >
      > > > In Christ,
      > > >
      > > > Irina Pahlen
    • Show all 14 messages in this topic