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

14427Re: Associated Press Reports on Documents

Expand Messages
  • vkozyreff
    Jul 1, 2005
      Dear 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.

      In God,

      Vladimir Kozyreff

      "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
      Patriarchal Throne.

      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 orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. Alexander Lebedeff"
      <lebedeff@w...> wrote:
      > Gene073 wrote:
      > >with your permission, gentlemen, I will let Metropolita Philret
      pipe in on
      > >this discussion
      > >
      > >
      > >Exerpts from St.Metr.Philaret's letter ...... What then is the
      > >church? Archimandrite Constantine has often and insistently stated
      > >the most horrible thing that the God-hating regime has done in
      Russia is
      > >the creation of the Soviet Church, which the Bolsheviks presented
      to the
      > >people as the true Church, having driven the genuine Orthodox
      Church into
      > >the catacombs or into the concentration camps.
      > >
      > >This pseudo-church has been twice anathematized. His Holiness
      > >Tikhon and the All-Russian Church Sobor anathematized the
      Communists and
      > >all their collaborators. This dread anathema has not been lifted
      till this
      > >day and remains in force, since it can be lifted only by a similar
      > >All-Russian Church Sobor, as the canonical supreme ecclesiastical
      > A might schizophrenic Metropolitan Philaret you are presenting
      here, if
      > these quotes are actually written by him. Just because a letter has
      > circulating on the internet for quite some time does not mean that
      it is
      > authentic.
      > Do you have proof positive that this was actually written by
      > Philaret?
      > 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 entire
      time was a
      > clergyman of a "twice-anathematized pseudo-church." Since a pseudo-
      > cannot have grace or true mysteries, this would mean that all of
      > liturgies and other mysteries that he served during these 17 years
      > graceless and invalid.
      > 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
      bishops were
      > able to choose him, notwithstanding the fact that he had just
      recently left
      > the Moscow Patriarchate, which he called simple an "unfortunate
      > jurisdiction"--not a pseudo church.
      > Now--contrast the statements quoted above (which are purportedly
      from a
      > private letter to an individual priest and so, not meant for
      > and devoid of any official status)--with the Statements of
      > Philaret that were from official Epistles.
      > In one, he states that the Moscow Patriarchate is one of the three
      parts of
      > the Russian Church, in addition to the Catacomb Church and the
      > Abroad. In this official document he does not say that the Russian
      > is composed of two parts: the Catacomb and the Church Abroad, and
      > there exists a third entity--a twice-anathematized pseudo church
      > itself the Moscow Patriarchate. No he writes: 'in addition to the
      > Church and the Moscow Patriarchate, which have no communion with
      > another, there exists a third part of the Russian Church--the
      > Church Abroad." Clearly he is calling the Moscow Patriarchate one
      of the
      > three parts of the Russian Church.
      > Also, in another official Epistle, Metropolitan Philaret dedicated
      > entire Epistle to a condemnation of a recent ruling by the Soviet
      > government forbidding children to attend Church. In this Epistle,
      he speaks
      > about how terrible it is for the Soviet government to deny children
      > opportunity to go to Church and receive the Holy Mysteries--i.e.
      > Communion, as he said "in the few churches permitted to be open."
      > he is not talking about the Catacomb Church, because none of them,
      > obviously, were "permitted." He was talking about the churches of
      > Moscow Patriarchate. And what does this mean? It means that
      > Philaret considered the churches of the Moscow Patriarchate to have
      > Mysteries. If he considered the Moscow Patriarchate to be a pseudo
      > church--he would have to believe that all of its mysteries were
      > and invalid--and so, would have expressed no concern about children
      > denied Holy Communion in such churches.
      > Believe me--I was the cell-attendant of Metropolitan Philaret in
      1966, just
      > a couple of years after his enthronization. Later, when I became
      > of the Eastern American Diocese, I also served as his personal
      > (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 the
      > that the Moscow Patriarchate was graceless.
      > During that time he penned a very positive foreward to an article
      > Moscow Patriarchate Elder Tavrion, which was published in "Orthodox
      > Not a word of condemnation for Elder Tavrion for being in the
      > Patriarchate, and not a word about the Moscow Patriarchate being a
      > pseudo-Church.
      > Also, in 1980, when Moscow Patriarchate Priest Dimitry Dudko was
      > Metropolitan Philaret directed that all parishes hold special
      > services for him and commemorate him at the prokomedia.
      > Would he have done this if he considered Fr. Dimitry to be a member
      of a
      > graceless pseudo-church?
      > With love in Christ,
      > Prot. Alexander Lebedeff
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 16 messages in this topic