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

12259Re: [orthodox-synod] Re: It Is Time to Know Our History

Expand Messages
  • byakimov@csc.com.au
    Sep 1, 2004
      Father Stefan

      Some conditions have changed but not all of them - the Cheskisti aka
      Drozodov & others are ruling the MP.
      It seems white washing & sweeping under the rug began with chekist
      "Drosdov" & now has moved over t o some in
      ROCA, Ask one of the MP metropolitans in the Baltic states if chekist
      Drosdov & others who were Judases in the soviet times
      have somehow changed & are no longer working in their previous posts.
      Perhaps you can ask chekist Putin & he should say to you, if he is honest,
      as he has said recently ..........a KGB agent never changes he is always a
      KGB agent.

      Forgive me Father Stefan but you need not to be blind to see the hypocrisy
      of the whole thing. Father Alexander is an excellent
      adapter, a chameleon & his quotes are out of context we all know that & we
      all know this from seminarian days that's how Father Alexander
      works....... I would not want to be on a sinking ship with Father
      Alexander at the HELM.

      Asking for your prayers & blessing.

      unworthy protodeacon Basil from Canberra

      "Archpriest Stefan Pavlenko" <StefanVPavlenko@...> on 01/09/2004
      04:02:43 PM

      Please respond to orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com

      To: orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [orthodox-synod] Re: It Is Time to Know Our History

      "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

      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