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

12256Re: It Is Time to Know Our History

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

      What you say amounts to consider that the bishop does not exist, but
      that only the synod does; that the bishop does not have the right to
      teach, except what the synod allows him to teach.

      If a majority in the Synod should vote that 2+2=5, then the bishop,
      according to you, must acknowledge publicly that 2+2=5. This theory
      of the subjugation of the bishop (and necessarily also of the lay
      people) to the Synod, having precedence on the obedience owed to the
      Gospel and to the ecumenical Councils reminds of the Soviet "polls",
      which were always unanimous. Today Vl. Agafangel has dared express
      his point of view. He immediately gets ostracized and is accused.
      Accused of what? Of having dared.

      This concept of the relationship between bishops and the Synod is
      foreign to orthodoxy. Less diplomatically said, it is a heresy. This
      is the mechanism by which a schism degenerates into a heresy. To
      justify itself, it must resort to quibbles, and quibbles lead to a
      fallacious proposition.

      Of course, the Synod, as an executive structure needs a majority rule
      to implement its administrative mission. It is however a fallacious
      extrapolation to conclude that the majority rule can be used to
      establish the truth.

      Obviously, a vote could not be an adequate instrument to establish
      the spiritual truth. Even more, it cannot be a way of establishing
      the factual truth. This however does not stop the apologists of
      the "desired rapprochement" to claim that "the ROCOR has never denied
      that the MP had grace and conversely". They stick to their position
      even if their proposal is infirmed by the facts. For some in ROCOR
      (L) a proclamation weighs heavier than facts.

      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