16481Re: canonical obstacles
- May 1, 2006Christ is Risen,
Mr. Nikitin starts his e-mail with a very strong statement, which he
then attempts to support with his own opinions, while failing to
provide any reference or support in the linked document.
Mr. Nikitin wrote: Joining a heretical institution and following it's
rules is agreeing with it's heresy.
He further makes a statement that in my opinion contradicts his own
Mr. Nikitin wrote: All the bishops from MP or OCA who came to ROCOR
had to repent.
If all they had to do was repent to be accepted in to ROCOR, and they
did not have to be re- baptized (or would that be baptized for the
first time), they did not have to go to a ROCOR seminary or pass
a "clergy entrance exam" to start or better yet continue there
calling, then a logical conclusion would be that they did not come
from a heretical sect.
Mr.Nikitin please note that the same document you refer us to
(written by wiser men then us is very specific in its conclusion. The
last paragraph reads;
"Taking into consideration all the above mentioned reasons, the
Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia,
as the representative of the free part of the Russian Church,
determines: The election of Pimen (Izvekov) as Patriarch of Moscow
and All Russia at the gathering calling itself an All-Russian Church
Council in Moscow the 2nd of June of this year, on the authority of
the 3rd Canon of the 7th Ecumenical Council and other reasons set
forth in this decision, is to be regarded as unlawful and void, and
all of his acts and directions as having no strength."
This appears to be a statement about the freedom - or more the lack
of freedom the church had (Vova's comment: and may still have) than
about it not having grace. To me the statement is very specific as
to Patriarch Pimen and all of his acts and directions. It also has
an interesting statement, "calling itself an All-Russian Church
Council in Moscow." Please lets remember that for 200 years before
Patriarch Tikhon the Orthodox Church of Russia did not have a
Patriarch. Mr. Nikitin is on a very slippery slope with his thesis.
Having said that I wish to return to a point (question) that a number
of folks have brought up or posed on this list and as of yet the
clergy (who we look to for guidance) have not responded and yes in
some cases have taken off on tangents. That is; How can we (ROCOR)
consider the reconciliation process to be proper if we are now
compromising our position about repentance now? Can one of the clergy
please tell me if I am correct Did the Patriarch of Bulgaria along
with the entire Episcopate ask for forgiveness from the Bulgarian
people for "working with the communist government?
Inquiring minds want to know. It would be nice to hear from Fathers
Alexander Lebedeff, John Shaw, and Stephan Pavlenko about acts of
repentance or confession.
Boba or Vova (Still not Vova H)
--- In email@example.com, michael nikitin
>agreeing with it's heresy. It is a tacit denial of the unique truth
> Joining a heretical institution and following it's rules is
of the Orthodox Church.
> All who join the WCC sign it's heretical stipulations, thereforeagreeing with them.
>the Historic Russian Church. When speaking of our Historic Russian
> All our previous hierarchs of ROCOR did not believe the MP to be
Church under St.Tikhon they always called it our persecuted church.
When the Moscow Patriarch was mentioned, it was always in a negative
way and not the Historic Russian Church. B.Averky called the MP a
harlot for praying with everyone. Our previous hierarch's would
> never call their Mother Church, the historic Russian Church ofSt.Tikhon, a harlot.
>ROCOR believed. We can see this by the Synod's declaration of 1971
> It is sufficient to say what our hierarchs believed is what our
which states the election of the Patriarch of MP is unlawful and
void and his acts as being void. Therefore all ordinations from him
are null and void. We see by this that the personal opinions of our
> previouis hierarch's are the opnion of our Synod.Fr.John is not being sincere.
> All the bishops from MP or OCA who came to ROCOR had to repent.
> Please read the official proclamation of our Synod of 1971:
> 4. All of the elections of Patriarchs in Moscow, beginning in 1943,
> invalid on the basis of the 30th Canon of the Holy Apostles and the3rd
> Canon of the 7th Ecumenical Council, according to which, "if anybishop,
> having made use of secular rulers, should receive through themEpiscopal
> authority in the Church, let him be defrocked and excommunicatedalong with
> all those in communion with him". The significance that the Fathersof the
> 7th Council gave to such an offense is obvious from the very factof a
> double punishment for it, that is, not only deposition butexcommunication
> as well, something unusual for ecclesiastical law.Council of
> Taking into consideration all the above mentioned reasons, the
> Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, as thedetermines: The
> representative of the free part of the Russian Church,
> election of Pimen (Izvekov) as Patriarch of Moscow and All Russiaat the
> gathering calling itself an All-Russian Church Council in Moscowthe 2nd of
> June of this year, on the authority of the 3rd Canon of the 7thEcumenical
> Council and other reasons set forth in this decision, is to beregarded as
> unlawful and void, and all of his acts and directions as having nostrength.
> Michael N
> "Fr. John R. Shaw" <vrevjrs@...> wrote:
> XPICTOC BOCKPECE!
> Peter Bushunow wrote:
> > Father Alexander Lebedeff admitted very openly at our Diocesan
> > in Lakewood that the question of whether Patriarch Alexei andother
> > Hierarchs of the MP are canonical bishops was never broughtup. These
> > issues were just not discussed, not resolved.there had been, it would have been an issue long ago. MP clergy were
> JRS: But there never was any question about that for ROCOR. If
always received "in statu quo", and it could be shown who the
bishops were that consecrated the Patriarch, and, if need be, who
consecrated all the other MP bishops.
>no doubt about their being canonical bishops.
> I think the reason it was "never brought up", is that there was
> > One of the main heretical activities of the MP is their active
> > participation in the WCC and other ecumenical organizations.
> > repeating that the MP is only an observer at the WCC.Patriarch Alexei
> > has been, and continues to be an active participant (read hisbiography
> > at http://mospat.ru/index.php?mid=99&lng=1 "Metropolitan Alexytook an
> > active part in the work of international and national peacepublic
> > organizations.") in fact, he is on the board of multipleorganizations
> > including the 'Rodina' (Motherland) Society,ecumenism".
> JRS: But none of that is what we mean by "the heresy of
>in international and national peace public organizations.
> There is no "heresy" in going to meetings, taking an active part
>the Orthodox faith. That is what we call a heresy.
> The "heresy of ecumenism" lies in a denial of the unique truth of
> > Father John, you and other current writers keep repeating that
> > hierarchs have never proclaimed that the MP is lacking Grace.On the
> > contrary, there are numerous writings arguing exactly thatpoint.
> JRS: But they are not proclamations by ROCOR: they are simply
>opinions of even the great Saints.
> You might be surprised what you could find among the personal
> > No, there is A LOT to talk about. Bringing these issues to
> > in the open, with emotional talk about the "podvig ofreconciliation"
> > will let us see ourselves and the ROCOR church more clearly,and, God
> > willing, will bring those in Russia more closer to repentance.talk". People can be quite irrational when they become emotional.
> JRS: Why "emotional talk"? I would prefer to speak of "sincere
Emotions do not solve anything.
> In Christ
> Fr. John R. Shaw
> Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on Yahoo!
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>