17666Re: The MP, the ROCOR and ecumenism
- Aug 12, 2006Dear Rev. Fr. Victor,
By stating the circumstances of appointment to the Commission, the job
called for, and your view of the writings of Father Alexander, it does
not refute the position that he has been an advocate for the Moscow
Patriarchate. It suggests that he is following orders, and that you
believe that the MP's positions on lifting the suspension on
communion are sound. Many in the Church do not share that view.
Fr. Alexander has chastised persons in the ROCOR for opposing the
Moscow Patriarchate's agenda in his writings. And the MP's agenda is
consistently portrayed as a simple desire for loving reconciliation
while its actions (fruits) do not comply with that. This current MP,
possessing the legitimacy of the ROCOR's communion under its power,
will be able to set the tone for MP's to come and will also insure
that the political interests supporting it will more easily
consolidate their hold on power in Russia.
If your position is that it is impossible for clergy to be misled then
laymen might as well just cease to speak and act at all.
And yet, isn't this what the entire MP (Soviet and post-Soviet)
problem is? That it says one thing to some clergy and laypersons
(ROCOR), and another to other clergy and laypersons, on the basis of
political advantage and posturing but no one can question it because
it comes from higher ranks of clergy. Is that what the MP the ROCOR
should legitimize in the eyes of the Russian people? Authority
without repentance to make it humbly held authority?
It has often been argued that those opposing the lift on the
suspension of communion under this MP's influence, are like broken
records. Do you know why? It is because those who would gloss over
the MP's lack of fulfillment of the conditions keep up with the same
denials and platitudes which sound very much like the MP's official
The presumption that reconciliation means reconciliation on this MP's
terms (that is, now, under this MP) is the essence of Father
Alexander's recent writings. The motive is unclear, but the reality
is, Fr. Alexander has been an advocate for the MP's desires.
--- In email@example.com, frvictor@... wrote:
> Dear Father Basil,
> With all due respect, I think it is rather a cheap shot to call
Father Alexander "an advocate for the post Soviet MP." That the Sobor
of Bishops assigned Father Alexander as the Secretary of our
Commission is true, and that the purpose of the Commission is to see
if the divisions of the Russian Church came be overcome, particularly
the issues with seemed to concern our Church, the actions of
Metropolitan Sergius, and Eccumenism. That it is the desire for the
division to end, is the position of the Russian Church Abroad. Father
Alexander is an advocate of the Russian Church Abroad, and is a
faithful servant of his ruling bishop, Archbishop Kyrill, and a
faithful servant of our First Hierarch, Metropolitan Laurus, I think
this is beyond question. I think it would be fair the Father Alexander
is an advocate in healing the wounds of the Russian Church and ending
> Father Alexander accepted his assignment as Secretary out of
obedience, and in the process of diolog, clearly understands to
situation of the Russian Church in Russia much better than many of us
do, and much better than I suppose he understood at any earlier time,
just as Archimandrite Luke, for example admitted that his views on the
Moscow Patriarchate changed after going to Russia.
> It is good that Father Alexander's article was translated, and is
circulating. Like most of what he writes, it is very solid. It would
be fair as well, however, to have asked Father Alexander if he would
like for it to be posted, if he wishes to edit any parts, especially
given his experience over the past five years on this and other subjects.
> I am left with the impression, given your introductory remarks, that
what is really going on here is the old "got ya." Father Alexander
wrote " ...To make withdrawal from the WCC an absolute condition for
establishing or restoring eucharistic union between the Russian
Orthodox Church Abroad with any Local Church." It is fair to ask if
Father Alexander still holds such a rigid view given his expanded
knowledge and recent experience. Bishop Evtikhi seems to have changed
his views after Sobor --isn't this normal for someone who ultimately
trusts the will of the Church, and not his own opinions? Are we going
to keep on posting articles and sermons of his when he held a
different view? Our Church is blessed to have such faithful servants
such as the members of the Commission, which includes the V. Rev.
Alexander Lebedev. Because, in part, of their efforts, there is real
hope that our division with the Church in Russia may soon be over.
None of them should be labeled "advocates of the
> post Soviet M.P."
> Again, the article is an excellent read, it is good it is posted.
Let's just be fair.
> In Christ,
> Priest Victor Boldewskul
> p.s. I admit that my continual hammering at the point that you serve
with the Serbian Church, including with the Patriarchate, even though
they are members of the WCC, may be a cheap shot as well. This will be
the last time I'll do it ...(:
> \-------------- Original message --------------
> From: Basil Yakimov <byakimov@...>
> > Dear ALL,
> > See below the attachment in Russian - Father Alexander wrote
> > bacame an advocate for the post soviet MP... Indeed it is very
> > reading , to say the least... it has now been translated...
> > S Bogom!
> > protodeacon Basil from Canberra
> > Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>