16512Re: [orthodox-synod] Members of the Anti Rabbit League are still in search of answers.
- May 3 6:15 PMXPICTOC BOCKPECE!!!
> Vova: Actually they [the USSR] already had three votes representing the Union ofJRS: There was also no "Russian communist party": but only parties for all the other republics and ethnic groups. They seemed to be afraid of Russian nationalism...
> Soviet Socialist Republics. (USSR, BSSR, and UkSSR) Please note that
> the "Russians" were once again not represented.
> Now back to a real question. Yes I have read PatriarchJRS: That in itself is a significant point. As you may have noticed, Peter Bushunow does not believe that such a statement ever existed. You are thus a witness to it, and have said so twice.
> Alexy's "repentance statement," but the wording was that of a
> true "wordsmith" (note: I did not call him any other names).
Thank you for supporting my point on that.
> I also think it may be an indicatorJRS: Either we are in communion, or we are not. If we are, then in theory any clergy of ROCOR and the MP could concelebrate, if they so chose.
> that with him holding the position "Patriarch, the Churches should
> continue to talk and may be allow concelebrating of priests but not
> of/or with Bishops at this time.
After the ordination of a deacon for ROCOR by an MP bishop, in practice there has already been a concelebration with a bishop of the MP.
> I am also of the opinion that untilJRS: For what it's worth, I have commemorated the Patriarch of Moscow (as did St. John Maximovitch) at the Proskomedia, ever since I have been a priest (30 years and more now, starting back in NJ).
> such time that the current Patriarch (or any future one that was
> directly associated with the country's security and intelligence
> services) sets an example by confessing to his/their direct
> association we should not consider commemorating him.
When, in 1990, Patriarch Pimen died, I intoned "Vechmaya pamyat" for him at the end of a Sunday Liturgy in our Chicago cathedral. The choir sang "Vechnaya pamyat", and there were no complaints that I ever heard of, then or afterward.
> These are my opinions and as I stated earlier I hope that you willJRS: I didn't really restrict it, but I have no direct knowledge of anything else.
> provide me with your thoughts/guidance as part of our ongoing
> Father John: That [removing delegates for their views] has not been the case in this Diocese.
> Vova: I am glad to hear you say that. I am also glad to see that you
> restricted it to only the Diocese you serve in.
> However, it appearsJRS: As I understood it, the idea was that an American ambassador would have a conflict of interests. But in the end, they decided to let it go.
> that at least one such attempt was made at the highest levels of our
> My answer to thatJRS: There are a slew of questions that I would prefer to answer in the same words. However, we have had complaints about "non-answers", so I refrain from saying that.
> absurd question/comment was and is, "Who cares!!!???"
> I am left wondering if theJRS: There have been a lot of false accusations going around, including false accusations of making false accusations, on several sides. My advice: don't hold your breath waiting...
> persons that made false accusations will ask for forgiveness from the
> victims of those false insinuations and accusations?
> Father John please except my apology for placing so manyJRS: There will be plenty of questions/issues on the trip, too. They never end, at least in this life.
> questions/issues before your trip.
Fr. John R. Shaw
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic