14427Re: Associated Press Reports on Documents
- Jul 1, 2005Dear List,
One of Father Alexander's favorite arguments, when confronted with a
text that does not suit him, is to claim that the text is not
Another one is to say: "He could not have written it because I know
him". This is what he said about Vl Alypy of Chicago.
Father Alexander says that he "ghost wrote" documents for Vl
Philaret. So, he must know better than Vl Philaret what the latter
About Vl Vitaly's unwanted letters however, Father Alexander claims
that they were not authored by Vl Vitaly, but by a ghost writer (a
bad one), so they are not valid.
Of course, the sorrowful epistles and the anathema against ecumenism
too where authored by a ghost, again a bad one.
How many bad ghosts in ROCOR!
Sometimes the ghost writer knows better than te author what the
latter means. In other cases, the ghost writer is an impostor. All
depends on whether you like the document or not.
Managing tricky situations: see message 13633:
o If a bishop says something you do not like, just say: "It is
his personal opinion".
o If an anathema by the Church does not suit you, just say: "It
was written originally in English" (which means that the alleged
official author could not have authored it; moreover, the proposal
was allegedly not voted as it should have been, etc).
o If a sorrowful epistle does not suit you, just say: "It was
not authored by Vl Philaret, but by Vl Gregory.
o If Vl Alipy or Vl Vitaly says something you do not like,
say: "They took advantage of his condition. He could not have said
it, somebody has probably had him sign this text".
o If a message from the MP does not suit you, say: "Pat. Alexi
did not mean it. The text of the declaration was slipped by a priest
who is against the union".
The above arguments are clever, but not always convincing.
"But a schism nonetheless occurred. The minority, accepting the
declaration, formed a central administration, the so-called "Moscow
Patriarchate," which, while being supposedly officially recognized by
the authorities, in actual fact received no legal rights whatever
from them; for they continued, now without hindrance, a most cruel
persecution of the Church.
In the words of Joseph, Metropolitan of Petrograd, Metr. Sergy,
having proclaimed the declaration, entered upon the path
of "monstrous arbitrariness, flattery, and betrayal of the Church to
the interests of atheism and the destruction of the Church."
(Epistle of Metropolitan Philaret to Orthodox Bishops and All Who
Hold Dear the Fate of the Russian Church, 1965)
"It is completely absurd for the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of
Russia, founded in 1920 in accordance with Holy Patriarch Tikhon's
Ukase, to consider the Moscow Patriarchate its Mother Church. The
Moscow Patriarchate was unlawfully founded an entire seven years
later in 1927 after the usurpation of the lawful Church Authority by
Metropolitan Sergius, the Deputy to the Locum Tenens to the
At that time he issued the infamous "Declaration" of the Church's
complete loyalty to the godless Soviet State.
The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia has always refused to
consider the new church structure created by Metropolitan Sergius to
be lawful and canonical; it refuses this to this very day.
How can our Church consider the hierarchal structure created by
Metropolitan Sergius to be canonical, when a number of the Moscow
Patriarchate's best church historians themselves refer to
Metropolitan Sergius' authority as "non-canonical" (see the Acts of
Holy Patriarch Tikhon published by the Saint Tikhon Theological
Institute in Moscow)?
For the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia the Mother Church
always was and always will be the historical Local Russian Orthodox
Church in Her fullness".
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Fr. Alexander Lebedeff"
> Gene073 wrote:pipe in on
> >with your permission, gentlemen, I will let Metropolita Philret
> >this discussionSoviet
> >Exerpts from St.Metr.Philaret's letter ...... What then is the
> >church? Archimandrite Constantine has often and insistently statedthat
> >the most horrible thing that the God-hating regime has done inRussia is
> >the creation of the Soviet Church, which the Bolsheviks presentedto the
> >people as the true Church, having driven the genuine OrthodoxChurch into
> >the catacombs or into the concentration camps.Patriarch
> >This pseudo-church has been twice anathematized. His Holiness
> >Tikhon and the All-Russian Church Sobor anathematized theCommunists and
> >all their collaborators. This dread anathema has not been liftedtill this
> >day and remains in force, since it can be lifted only by a similarauthority.
> >All-Russian Church Sobor, as the canonical supreme ecclesiastical
> A might schizophrenic Metropolitan Philaret you are presenting
> these quotes are actually written by him. Just because a letter hasbeen
> circulating on the internet for quite some time does not mean thatit is
> Do you have proof positive that this was actually written by
> Now, assuming for a moment that this was actually written by him--
> this would mean that Metropolitan Philaret, who was a clergyman of
> Moscow Patriarchate for 17 years (1945-1962), during that entiretime was a
> clergyman of a "twice-anathematized pseudo-church." Since a pseudo-church
> cannot have grace or true mysteries, this would mean that all ofthe
> liturgies and other mysteries that he served during these 17 yearswere
> graceless and invalid.bishops were
> Do you think that he believed that?
> At the time of his election to be the First Hierarch, Metropolitan
> Philaret, in his acceptance speech, expressed his awe that the
> able to choose him, notwithstanding the fact that he had justrecently left
> the Moscow Patriarchate, which he called simple an "unfortunatefrom a
> jurisdiction"--not a pseudo church.
> Now--contrast the statements quoted above (which are purportedly
> private letter to an individual priest and so, not meant forpublication,
> and devoid of any official status)--with the Statements ofMetropolitan
> Philaret that were from official Epistles.parts of
> In one, he states that the Moscow Patriarchate is one of the three
> the Russian Church, in addition to the Catacomb Church and theChurch
> Abroad. In this official document he does not say that the RussianChurch
> is composed of two parts: the Catacomb and the Church Abroad, andthat
> there exists a third entity--a twice-anathematized pseudo churchcalling
> itself the Moscow Patriarchate. No he writes: 'in addition to theCatacomb
> Church and the Moscow Patriarchate, which have no communion withone
> another, there exists a third part of the Russian Church--theRussian
> Church Abroad." Clearly he is calling the Moscow Patriarchate oneof the
> three parts of the Russian Church.the
> Also, in another official Epistle, Metropolitan Philaret dedicated
> entire Epistle to a condemnation of a recent ruling by the Soviethe speaks
> government forbidding children to attend Church. In this Epistle,
> about how terrible it is for the Soviet government to deny childrenthe
> opportunity to go to Church and receive the Holy Mysteries--i.e.Holy
> Communion, as he said "in the few churches permitted to be open."Clearly
> he is not talking about the Catacomb Church, because none of them,the
> obviously, were "permitted." He was talking about the churches of
> Moscow Patriarchate. And what does this mean? It means thatMetropolitan
> Philaret considered the churches of the Moscow Patriarchate to havevalid
> Mysteries. If he considered the Moscow Patriarchate to be a pseudograceless
> church--he would have to believe that all of its mysteries were
> and invalid--and so, would have expressed no concern about childrenbeing
> denied Holy Communion in such churches.1966, just
> Believe me--I was the cell-attendant of Metropolitan Philaret in
> a couple of years after his enthronization. Later, when I becameSecretary
> of the Eastern American Diocese, I also served as his personalsecretary
> (1976-1982) and had countless discussions with him and even "ghost-wrote" a
> number of his epistles. Never in all this time did he express thethought
> that the Moscow Patriarchate was graceless.about
> During that time he penned a very positive foreward to an article
> Moscow Patriarchate Elder Tavrion, which was published in "OrthodoxWord."
> Not a word of condemnation for Elder Tavrion for being in theMoscow
> Patriarchate, and not a word about the Moscow Patriarchate being aarrested,
> Also, in 1980, when Moscow Patriarchate Priest Dimitry Dudko was
> Metropolitan Philaret directed that all parishes hold specialprayer
> services for him and commemorate him at the prokomedia.of a
> Would he have done this if he considered Fr. Dimitry to be a member
> graceless pseudo-church?
> With love in Christ,
> Prot. Alexander Lebedeff
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>