6034The two minds of the ROCOR irreconcilable? No!
- Jul 16 7:27 AMThe whole debate on the list concerning the issue of grace in the MP
and grace in the New Calendar Churches is the work, in my opinion, of
provocateurs who wish to transform the whole debate of the MP into a
larger one of "true" and "false" Orthodoxy.
I personally respect and admire both the positions of Rdr John and Fr
Alexander on different issues. I personally believe that Rdr John is
correct concerning the MP, but that Fr Alexander is correct
concerning the New Calendarists. However, I will say the attempt to
link them together, and manipulate public opinion to that effect, is
the product of a propaganda campaign; there is sufficient evidence
for me, and I will show it.
The attempts of some to create a sort of 'world-polemic' is, in my
opinion, the creation of what I call the 'world-shifters' in
Traditional Orthodoxy (I will demonstrate this in a later posting):
people who are attempting to shape True Orthodoxy into their mold, a
mold which is based on the destroying the God-blessed history of the
ROCOR-- and involves destroying the ROCOR itself, which must preserve
until the restoration of Russia, no matter how small she may
be...they wish to bring about the end of the world for the sake of
their demented vision, a "zeal not according to knowledge"!
We must be careful to remember that even in the Catacomb Church, the
True Orthodox Church of Russia, our true-sister Church, opinions
concerning the Sergianist Patriarchate varied. Yet no judgments were
called upon the Churches outside the Patriarchate of Russia, and few
can say that ANYTHING happened between them until the anathema
against Ecumenism. THESE OPINIONS ARE, AND HAVE ALWAYS BEEN, VARIED
AND AS OLD AS THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH OUTSIDE RUSSIA.
REMEMBER that the majority of those who are currently the most vocal
proponents of an active, or *proper* enforcement of the anathema
against ecumenism were either not members of the Church Abroad when
it was promulgated, nor did they become members; or they left soon
after when it was not interpreted in the mind of the 'world-
Believe me when I say we must preserve all the traditions of
Orthodoxy until the end! From the glorification of St Joseph
(Petrovykh) to the God the Father icon to the toll-houses, we must
remain untouched the traditions of the Church. We are not in a
position to judge!
Again, opinions vary on the Moscow Patriarchate, but none of us
commune with it. And yet, such a careful effort was made to destroy
the ROCOR's unity, we have forced the Archbishop of Berlin to meet
with World Orthodox in an effort to retain his sanity, and believe
our BRETHREN in the Catacombs do not still exist! We have lost our
blessed First-Hierarch, and many good and pious people in this last
schism. Can it not be resolved? Have those 'in their midst' so
convinced them that schism is better than unity? Was not Bp Varnava,
the enemy of all these True Orthodox as ROCOR's Bishop in Russia,
suddenly their hero? No brothers! MORE IS GOING ON THAN WE GIVE
CREDIT FOR! I beg we do not blame the brethren who have left, in a
painful schism tearing apart yet more family from family: blame those
who led them down that path. We must repent of our sins...we allowed
this to happen...it is we who were not watchful, as enemies of the
Church we thought of as brothers now pick away at the weaker ones.
Believe me when I say that too many labelled "True Orthodox" see us
as worthy of destruction. To this I say: ROCOR is the free part of
the Russian Church! Try! The Church Abroad was given her Sacred
Exile by Christ our God, to chastise us and to give the saving power
of the Church to a fallen Diaspora!
But to you, my dear brothers in heart, as one awaiting return from
movements that came from our ROCOR: DO NOT BE CAUGHT UNAWARE!
A poor sinner who fears for the future, less than an Orthodox
--- In orthodox-synod@y..., "Fr. Alexander Lebedeff" <lebedeff@w...>
> >Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:
> >I am a simple believer. I know in part at least the content of the
> >accusation. Many do. The accusation concerns apparent repeated
> >of communion with heretics.all
> >The accusations seem to be serious to many who know them. If the
> >Synod believes the accusations are unfounded, should it not explain
> >why it is so to the believers? We are all ready to listen and we
> >beg our pastors to respond. Why this silence? We need theconclusion
> >of the judgement, not to condemn priests, but to show to us,as valid
> >believers, why their position is erroneous.
> >I think that even those who did not separate from the Synod should
> >know why those disturbing repeated cases of apparent communion with
> >heretics are considered as insignificant.
> Thank you for stating this so clearly.
> This makes the answer so simple as to be obvious to anyone.
> The reason that the Synod of the Church Abroad would not consider
> any accusations made against a bishop or other clergyman of theROCOR for
> serving with Serbians or New Calendarists based on the premise thatthey
> are heretics--is simply because the Synod of the Church Abroad doesnot
> consider the Serbians or New Calendarists to be heretics, and neverhas.
> The premise is false, so the accusation has no merit and must be
> See the following Statement by Metropolitan Vitaly, back in 1986,
> there were no doubts about his being subject to undue influencebecause of
> his frailty:wounded by
> "At the present time the majority of Local Orthodox Churches are
> two terrible blows: the new calendar and ecumenism. However,the Lord
> notwithstanding their calamitous predicament we dare not, and may
> forbid us from doing so, declare them void of God's grace (emphasis1986,
> supplied)." (Nativity Epistle of Metropolitan Vitaly, Church Life,
> #11-12, p. 199)
> Now, that is the historical position of the Church Abroad.
> With love in Christ,
> Prot. Alexander Lebedeff
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>