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

13068Re: [orthodox-synod]Advocating secession!?  Was: A bout the  MP

Expand Messages
  • Rev. Sergei Overt
    Nov 30, 2004
      Holy Patriarch TIkhon did not EVER anathematize
      the MP (Moscow Patriarchate).
      This is totally untrue.

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "michael nikitin" <nikitinmike@...>
      To: <orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com>
      Cc: <dimitradd@...>
      Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2004 10:18 AM
      Subject: Re: [orthodox-synod]Advocating secession!? Was: About the MP


      >
      >
      > New Martyrs were martyrs because they refused to recognize
      > Metr. Sergius and MP as a Church.
      > We know that Patr. Tikhon anathematized the MP.
      > St. Joseph of Petrograd is the new martyr who was not
      > canonized as Saint by MP because
      > he organized the Catacomb Church and Anathematized the MP.
      >
      > Michael N
      >
      >
      > ddd <dimitradd@...> wrote: Dear Vladimir,
      > Of course, I did not have to read between any lines--it was
      perfectly obvious you were trying to use one person's words against another.
      I could easily do the same with the anti-rapprochement camp. As a matter of
      fact, according to St. Kyrill of Kazan -- a NEW MARTYR -- there were as many
      opinions about what to do about the Soviets and Metr. Sergius as there were
      clergy and people. He himself, for example, refused to call the Moscow
      Patriarchate's mysteries "graceless," even saying "God forbid" that one
      should say that, while other hierarchs, also Martyrs like St. Kyrill, came
      out and categorically did so.
      > You didn't read between *my* lines--I was attempting to show that
      differences of opinion or expression between individuals is precisely why we
      have *committees* -- on both sides -- working on this, and not just this
      individual or that individual. In turn, the committees present their work
      to yet another group, the respective Synods and/or Sobors. That is why I
      consider trying to pit one individual's words against another to be not of a
      conciliar spirit.
      >
      > I am in the process right now of trying to restore everything to a
      new system in the aftermath of a dead laptop, so I cannot respond right away
      to all of your points right now, much as I would like. But just to your one
      point below, for example. The Moscow Patriarchate did *officially, in
      sobor* say that people must choose confession of the Faith over the State if
      the State were to try to force them to go against their Faith. That is
      renunciation of "sergianism." Now, is it officially, in Sobor, glorifying
      Metr. Sergius? If not, then you are comparing apples and oranges. If the
      Russian hierarchs of the early 20th century could not agree on Metr.
      Sergius, do you really expect ones coming a whole century after them to be
      more in agreement? But it is what the whole committee, the whole synod, the
      whole sobor decides that is what counts.
      >
      > As to your statement:
      >
      > >The new version of
      > > the facts which is being prepared for us is that "**some** of the
      > > new martyrs were against Met Sergius". Is this not a preparation to
      > > have us accept sergianism?
      >
      > There is nothing *new* about the *fact* that some of the New Martyrs, even
      those on our Jordanville icon, did not break with Metr. Sergius. Fr.
      Alexander Lebedev pointed this out once. I think the *new* line is the
      idea that in order to be a new martyr, you had also to break with Metr.
      Sergius. That would mean that Metr. Philaret of blessed memory and the
      Sobor of 1974 was wrong in calling the MP chalice the "Body and Blood of
      Christ." see below, a quote from Fr. Alexander Lebedev.
      >
      > "From the Official Epistle of the Hierarchical Sobor, dated June 4/17,
      > 1964, signed by Metropolitan Philaret and all of the bishops of the Church
      > Abroad, which clearly demonstrates that grace and the Holy Mysteries abide
      > in the Moscow Patriarchate:
      >
      > "They [the god-opposing Communists] have contrived a new, truly diabolical
      > plan in their war against the faithful: it is now forbidden by the godless
      > government of the USSR for children and young men and women from the ages
      > of 3 to 18 to be allowed into God's churches and to be communed with the
      > Body and Blood of Christ. And in order to mock the Church even more, this
      > directive by the authorities has to be enforced by the clergymen
      themselves
      > -- they are the ones who must prohibit youth from approaching the Chalice
      > of Christ and demand the removal of children and youth from the churches".
      >
      > __________
      > When I was first examining the whole issue myself, these words clearly
      meant to me that Metr. Philaret and the Sobor of '74 viewed the Moscow
      Patriarchate as part of the Russian Church -- "God's churches"! And the
      priests were called "clergyment" and not just today's "agents in riassas."
      Obviously they (Metr. Philaret and 1974 Sobor) had the ability to not "throw
      the baby out with the bath water," as the old New England expression says.
      Old as that expression is, I think it contains an incredible amount of
      wisdom.
      >
      > Well, I have already spent WAY too much time on this post. Please don't
      get more going till I've had time to finish answering the rest of the post,
      which might not be till later in the week. If other people want to take
      this on, fine. It just gets never-ending and I find that very
      time-consuming and frustrating.
      >
      > Which was the WHOLE POINT of my last post -- the needlessness and
      counterproductivity of these debates when our clergy and hierarchs are
      working very hard on the issues, and WITH OUR CONCERNS IN MIND. Vladimir,
      don't you consider God's hierarchs to be "the people of God," too?
      >
      > --Dimitra
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > > Subject: Re: Advocating secession!? Was: About the MP
      > >
      > >
      > > Dear Dimitra,
      > >
      > > I thought you would be able to read between my lines. I just drew
      > > the List's attention to the innumerable contradictions in the camp
      > > of the union supporters.
      > >
      > > Father Lebedeff says that the MP has renounced sergianism, but
      > > there are talks about canonising Met Sergius. The new version of
      > > the facts which is being prepared for us is that "**some** of the
      > > new martyrs were against Met Sergius". Is this not a preparation to
      > > have us accept sergianism?
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ---------------------------------
      > Do you Yahoo!?
      > Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Show all 3 messages in this topic