5931Re: [orthodox-synod] Communion with the Serbian Church
- Jun 18, 2002The Anathema Against Ecumenism was the ukaze issued.
All the Bishops of ROCOR sighned it.
From: Hristofor <hristofor@...>
Subject: [orthodox-synod] Communion with the Serbian Church
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 22:03:21 -0400
Received: from n10.grp.scd.yahoo.com ([184.108.40.206]) by hotmail.com with
Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Tue, 18 Jun 2002 20:29:51 -0700
Received: from [220.127.116.11] by n10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 19 Jun
2002 03:32:02 -0000
Received: (qmail 55383 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2002 03:31:54 -0000
Received: from unknown (18.104.22.168) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP;
19 Jun 2002 03:31:54 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO n15.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (22.214.171.124) by
mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Jun 2002 03:31:55 -0000
Received: from [126.96.36.199] by n15.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 19 Jun
2002 03:31:55 -0000
Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_2); 19 Jun 2002 02:03:31 -0000
Received: (qmail 64011 invoked from network); 19 Jun 2002 02:03:31 -0000
Received: from unknown (188.8.131.52) by m2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP;
19 Jun 2002 02:03:31 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mx5.mail.ru) (184.108.40.206) by
mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Jun 2002 02:03:31 -0000
Received: from [220.127.116.11] (helo=VALUED-A67B5FF3.mail.ru)by mx5.mail.ru
with esmtp (Exim SMTP.5)id 17KUoj-0005Jz-00for
email@example.com; Wed, 19 Jun 2002 06:03:29 +0400
X-eGroups-Approved-By: frmarkg <fr.mark@...> via web; 19 Jun 2002
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Mailing-List: list firstname.lastname@example.org; contact
Delivered-To: mailing list email@example.com
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2002 03:29:51.0854 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, I do not belive the Synod ever formally issued
a "we are no longer in communion with Serbia" ukase (If someone knows to
the contrary, pls inform). Obviously, up until the communist takeover, we
were in communion with the Serbian Church. I belive that the policy under
Metropolitans Anastassy and Philaret was that there was no definitive break
with the SC and that it fell on the bishops to use ekonomia.
At 10:24 PM 6/17/2002, you wrote:
>Forgive me, I agree with you a great deal on the MP, et cetera, but_________________________________________________________________
>here I have to disagree. Vl Mark is not the sole participant in
>communion with the Serbs-- the Synod in general acknowledges such
>communion, and in the documents following the 2000 Sobor, they
>clearly state why. Nor is this something underhanded as people
>claim; when I was first a catechumen in 1998, this concelebration was
>something I knew about, when I asked who we were in communion
>To boot, the 12 priests in question *were* disobeying, since a new
>Bishop had been chosen by the Synod. Whether the Bishop himself was
>doing wrong is another matter-- but I wouldn't put the
>word 'disobedience' in quotes.
>Are the Serbs ecumenist? I don't know. I am not inclined to think
>so, however. Not with the 'proof' I have been given.
>--- In orthodox-synod@y..., "vladimir kozyreff"
> > I am glad to see that all those who speak about Vl Mark describe a
> > knowledgeable and respected person.
> > I do not have the honour of knowing him, but I insist that he looks
> > atypical. Below is one more apparent contradiction about his
> > In the "Bulletin" of the German Diocese of Russian Orthodox Church
> > February, 2001, an article entitled " Visit to Serbia " describes a
> > visit of Serbia by Vl Mark, from February, 4/17 till February,
> > report tells about his visiting a few monasteries in which he co-
> > with Serbian priests.
> > The Serbian orthodox church is a member of the World Council of
> > The ecumenical movement was anathematised by our church in1983. How
> > reconcliate the anathema of our Church with Vl Mark's communion
> > Serbian Church? Again, I cannot understand Vl Mark's position
> > our Church's.
> > Do we not expect bishops to act, think and teach following the line
> > Church? Is this co-celebration not a clear disobedience to the
> > committed in difficult times by a bishop that incidently teaches
> > to his flock? Does this not add to the confusion of an already
> > Is he anathema for communed with an anatematised movement? Or not?
> > why? Is this a acceptable question to put?
> > Please explain this to me. I am puzzled. In the meantime, 12
> > Western Europe were suspended for "disobeying", without having been
> > the Synod and without any explanation to the believers, except that
> > not obey.
> > In Christ,
> > Vladimir Kozyreff
>Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>