Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

7285Re: [orthodox-synod] Re: TELLING THE TRUTH IS DANGEROUS...

Expand Messages
  • VladMoss@aol.com
    Jan 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 01/01/03 15:20:29 GMT Standard Time, vrevjrs@...

      > JRS: This endless, but vague, talk of a "new path in the ROCOR" may
      > seem very convenient to justify doing what one pleases. But when,
      > exactly, did the "new path" take effect? Vladimir Moss began making
      > this accusation over two decades ago; he particularly singled out the
      > late Archbishop Anthony of Geneva as a culprit, but Archbishop Anthony
      > of Geneva was responsible for the [initially secret] consecrations of
      > Varnava and Lazarus. It seems to me the very fact that these
      > accusations, brought forth by various "interested parties" at various
      > times since at least 1980 or 1981, if not earlier, belie that there has
      > been any change.

      A new path in ecclesiology does not immediately become apparent to all, and
      it takes time to gather speed.

      It began with Archbishop Anthony, who, contrary to the public promises of the
      ROCOR Synod to the Old Calendarist Greeks, entered into communion with the
      Greek new calendarists. When I protested, Metropolitan Philaret told me to my
      face that I was right, but that he had no power to stop Anthony. However, the
      1983 anathema against ecumenism put at least a partial stop to the process of
      concelebrating with ecumenists.

      But it started again in 1986, with the partial disavowal of the 1983 anathema
      and Archbishop Anthony's instructing his clergy to serve with the new
      calendarists when in Greece, which led to the departure of the ROCOR's Paris
      mission to the OCs. Further activities of this sort also led to HOCNA's
      departure - although I do not deny that in that case there were also personal
      motives involved.

      In the 1990s the "new path" gathered momentum with ambiguous statements about
      the MP and more or less continuous and official communion with the Serbs,
      which greatly troubled especially the new members (and bishops) of the ROCOR
      inside Russia. This process reached its climax with the ROCOR Sobor's
      official letter to the Serbian Patriarch (only a few months after that
      patriarch called the ROCOR "schismatical") asking him to help in restoring
      communion with the Soviet church.

      So the path is not that new, but its adoption by the whole of the ROCOR Synod
      (excluding Metropolitan Vitaly and Archbishop Barnabas, of course) is new.

      Vladimir Moss

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Show all 21 messages in this topic