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

ROCA-ROCOR members in Moscow

Expand Messages
  • Hristofor
    ... Could you clarify the strange part in Fr Peter s short reply in the Radio Mayak interview? Most of his statements were simply facts about the
    Message 1 of 5 , Feb 5, 2004
      vkozyreff wrote:

      >Faher P. Holodny represented the ROCOR at this meeting. His interview,
      >published on the site below conveys a rather strange message from the ROCOR.
      >
      >http://www.radiomayak.ru/society/04/02/04/27709.html
      Could you clarify the "strange" part in Fr Peter's short reply in the Radio
      Mayak interview? Most of his statements were simply facts about the
      difficulties in trying to unite. I can't believe that even the most diehard
      anti-discussion with the MP could find fault with those words.


      > At the last moment, her participation was cancelled with no reason
      >given. She then asked the president of the Russian Union of Writers
      >why she could not attend. The official reason was that she had been
      >once close to "Natsionalniy Patriotichesky Soyuz", which has a very
      >bad press now. The real but unofficial reason however was that she
      >had never been a member of the communist party.
      >
      >Father Holodny was apparently in good company (Birds of a feather flock
      >together).

      This is another most curious statement, which probably (hopefully) has more
      to do with mistaken English usage then anything else. My reading of the
      above 2 paragraphs would lead me to believe that all attendees/speakers
      were/are members of the communist party and therefor [as a communist] Fr
      Peter was in good company!?! I can assure you that if that is indeed what
      you meant, Fr Peter in NOT a communist!

      It seems that no stone will be left unturned by the "ROCOR friends" on this
      left to find some mud, any mud, to sling at our Church and her clergy.

      Hristofor

      PS Interesting links:
      On the myhrstreaming icon of Tsar-Martyr Nicholas
      http://www.pr.ru/emmaus/samples/Nicholas.pdf

      Perhaps some of the anti-MP anger could be re-channelled to the folks at
      these sites:
      http://www.church.rostov.ru
      http://preobra.chat.ru/

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • vkozyreff
      Dear Father John, Bless. This is also a reply to Hristofor last posting. Regarding Father Peters s message, the article entitled The Third Rome as a project
      Message 2 of 5 , Feb 5, 2004
        Dear Father John, Bless.

        This is also a reply to Hristofor last posting.

        Regarding Father Peters's message, the article entitled "The Third
        Rome as a 'project for alternative globalisation'" mentions
        favourably Bulgakov, Frank, etc. These "religious" philosophers were
        excommunicated by ROCOR. Lenin and Zinoviev had given them a free
        one-way ticket to the West, not for nothing. Their long-term scheme
        is bearing fruits. I hope that someone in ROCOR (L) notices what is
        really happening here, it is so crystal clear.

        Ïîðòàë-Credo.Ru
        04-02-2004 14:58

        Ïîðòàë-Credo.Ru
        04-02-2004 22:13

        In Message 9643, I mentioned the spiritual contradictions that the
        ongoing union will reveal, in the future of the ROCOR parishes,
        bishops and clergy in Russia. The problems of the ongoing union for
        the ROCOR in Russia have been predicted by all those who think a
        little about the spiritual significance and the internal
        contradictions of the ROCOR's move.

        She decides that it is time to unite, and at the same time claims
        that she does not change path, but that she had nevertheless to
        apologise for her past harsh words uttered in defence of the truth.
        Moreover, she agrees not to speak any longer about what might impede
        the union.

        Do not ignore the facts or try to conceal them. Lenin would have
        said that they are stubborn. A physician would say that it is absurd
        not to consider the problems of incompatibility or infection before
        administering a blood transfusion or making an organ transplant. A
        skipper would be irresponsible to sail to a new destination without
        considering first the dangers of a chosen unknown, not recommended
        and innovative route.

        Regarding Hristofor's remark that (his) " reading of the above 2
        paragraphs would leads...to believe that all attendees/speakers
        were/are members of the communist party and therefore [as a
        communist] Fr Peter was in good company!?! I can assure you that if
        that is indeed what you meant, Fr Peter in NOT a communist!", I
        would say the following.

        I know that Father Peter is a banker, and I suppose that this is why
        his external appearance is so little like that of a usual orthodox
        priest. To have been a member of the communist party is not being a
        communist. A friend of mine who fled to the West from Rumania told
        me that he had met sincere or real (and thus stupid) communists only
        in the West.

        Having been a member of the communist party means having accepted to
        take part in a monstrous deception in order to make a career and was
        indispensable to be part of the nomenklatura. The latter, as we all
        know, is still a reality in Russia and is still reiging there. In
        the US, career-oriented criminal conformism exists as everywhere,
        but did not translate into membership in the communist party.

        In Message 7826, I mentioned the classical affinities and
        solidarities between bankers and Bolsheviks. Moreover, the
        suggestion that the MP, the Russian government and the KGB are part
        of one fraternity is not mine.

        In God,

        Vladimir Kozyreff



        --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, Hristofor <hristofor@m...>
        wrote:
        > vkozyreff wrote:
        >
        > >Faher P. Holodny represented the ROCOR at this meeting. His
        interview,
        > >published on the site below conveys a rather strange message from
        the ROCOR.
        > >
        > >http://www.radiomayak.ru/society/04/02/04/27709.html
        > Could you clarify the "strange" part in Fr Peter's short reply in
        the Radio
        > Mayak interview? Most of his statements were simply facts about
        the
        > difficulties in trying to unite. I can't believe that even the
        most diehard
        > anti-discussion with the MP could find fault with those words.
        >
        >
        > > At the last moment, her participation was cancelled with no
        reason
        > >given. She then asked the president of the Russian Union of
        Writers
        > >why she could not attend. The official reason was that she had
        been
        > >once close to "Natsionalniy Patriotichesky Soyuz", which has a
        very
        > >bad press now. The real but unofficial reason however was that she
        > >had never been a member of the communist party.
        > >
        > >Father Holodny was apparently in good company (Birds of a feather
        flock
        > >together).
        >
        > This is another most curious statement, which probably (hopefully)
        has more
        > to do with mistaken English usage then anything else. My reading
        of the
        > above 2 paragraphs would lead me to believe that all
        attendees/speakers
        > were/are members of the communist party and therefor [as a
        communist] Fr
        > Peter was in good company!?! I can assure you that if that is
        indeed what
        > you meant, Fr Peter in NOT a communist!
        >
        > It seems that no stone will be left unturned by the "ROCOR
        friends" on this
        > left to find some mud, any mud, to sling at our Church and her
        clergy.
        >
        > Hristofor
        >
        > PS Interesting links:
        > On the myhrstreaming icon of Tsar-Martyr Nicholas
        > http://www.pr.ru/emmaus/samples/Nicholas.pdf
        >
        > Perhaps some of the anti-MP anger could be re-channelled to the
        folks at
        > these sites:
        > http://www.church.rostov.ru
        > http://preobra.chat.ru/
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Fr. John R. Shaw
        ... JRS: The article was written by some journalist, not by Fr. Peter. He was merely asked one question (that was published in the article I saw). Therefore he
        Message 3 of 5 , Feb 6, 2004
          Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:

          > Regarding Father Peters's message, the article entitled "The Third
          > Rome as a 'project for alternative globalisation'" mentions
          > favourably Bulgakov, Frank, etc.

          JRS: The article was written by some journalist, not by Fr. Peter. He
          was merely asked one question (that was published in the article I saw).
          Therefore he is not guilty of what the reporter wrote!

          In Christ
          Fr. John R. Shaw
        • vkozyreff
          Dear Father John, bless. You are certainly right in saying that Father Peter was not responsible for the journalist s favourable mentions of Bulgakov, Frank
          Message 4 of 5 , Feb 10, 2004
            Dear Father John, bless.

            You are certainly right in saying that Father Peter was not
            responsible for the journalist's favourable mentions of Bulgakov,
            Frank etc.

            Met. Cyril of the MP was, however. This can be seen in the document
            below. The latter clearly shows the acceptance by the MP of the
            heretical theses of some of the philosophers in question, who were
            once excommunicated by the traditional ROCOR.

            This will certainly be among the theological obstacles to the union,
            but no mention of it should be made, according to the gentlemen's
            agreement between the MP and the ROCOR (L).

            In God,

            Vladimir Kozyreff


            Presentation by the chairman of the external relation department of
            the MP, metropolitan Cyril, at the 8th World Russian national
            convention "Russia and the orthodox world" .

            "And at the same time, in historical and cultural terms, one can
            speak about an original path for Russia. For the first time this
            theme was proposed by Russian religious thinkers in the first half of
            the XIXth century. That was the time of the religious and
            philosophical awakening of Russia...Oustanding Russian philosophers
            discussed this subject: I.V.Kireyevsky, A.S.Khomyakov, V.S.Solovyov,
            N.J.Danilyevsky, K.N.Leontyev, father Sergy Bulgakov, S.L. Frank,
            father Paul Florensky, N.A.Berdyaev. They wanted to present a
            complete orthodox model for a personal and social life. This
            multivariate model is comparable in scope to the vital categories of
            the western concept of democracy".

            Ïîðòàë-Credo.Ru
            03-02-2004 19:00

            --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John R. Shaw"
            <vrevjrs@e...> wrote:
            > Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:
            >
            > > Regarding Father Peters's message, the article entitled "The
            Third
            > > Rome as a 'project for alternative globalisation'" mentions
            > > favourably Bulgakov, Frank, etc.
            >
            > JRS: The article was written by some journalist, not by Fr. Peter.
            He
            > was merely asked one question (that was published in the article I
            saw).
            > Therefore he is not guilty of what the reporter wrote!
            >
            > In Christ
            > Fr. John R. Shaw
          • Archpriest Stefan Pavlenko
            The below statement made by Met. Cyril (Sic!) and quoted by Vladimir Kozyreff in a critical way, seems in fact to be a BROAD OVERVIEW of the religious and
            Message 5 of 5 , Feb 12, 2004
              The below statement made by Met. Cyril (Sic!) and quoted by Vladimir
              Kozyreff in a critical way, seems in fact to be a BROAD OVERVIEW of
              the "religious and philosophical awakening of Russia" "in the first
              half of the XIXth century" and names VARIOUS people of that time, some
              having opposing opinions and positions as far as their religious and
              philosophical thesis; and there fore DOES NOT show "the acceptance by
              the MP of the heretical theses of some of the philosophers in
              question, who were once excommunicated by the traditional ROCOR."
              Archpriest Stefan Pavlenko







              --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "vkozyreff" <C@s...> wrote:

              > Met. Cyril of the MP was, however. This can be seen in the document
              > below. The latter clearly shows the acceptance by the MP of the
              > heretical theses of some of the philosophers in question, who were
              > once excommunicated by the traditional ROCOR.
              >
              > This will certainly be among the theological obstacles to the union,
              > but no mention of it should be made, according to the gentlemen's
              > agreement between the MP and the ROCOR (L).
              >
              > In God,
              >
              > Vladimir Kozyreff
              >
              >
              > Presentation by the chairman of the external relation department of
              > the MP, metropolitan Cyril, at the 8th World Russian national
              > convention "Russia and the orthodox world" .
              >
              > "And at the same time, in historical and cultural terms, one can
              > speak about an original path for Russia. For the first time this
              > theme was proposed by Russian religious thinkers in the first half of
              > the XIXth century. That was the time of the religious and
              > philosophical awakening of Russia...Oustanding Russian philosophers
              > discussed this subject: I.V.Kireyevsky, A.S.Khomyakov, V.S.Solovyov,
              > N.J.Danilyevsky, K.N.Leontyev, father Sergy Bulgakov, S.L. Frank,
              > father Paul Florensky, N.A.Berdyaev. They wanted to present a
              > complete orthodox model for a personal and social life. This
              > multivariate model is comparable in scope to the vital categories of
              > the western concept of democracy".
              >
              > Ïîðòàë-Credo.Ru
              > 03-02-2004 19:00
              >
              > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John R. Shaw"
              > <vrevjrs@e...> wrote:
              > > Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:
              > >
              > > > Regarding Father Peters's message, the article entitled "The
              > Third
              > > > Rome as a 'project for alternative globalisation'" mentions
              > > > favourably Bulgakov, Frank, etc.
              > >
              > > JRS: The article was written by some journalist, not by Fr. Peter.
              > He
              > > was merely asked one question (that was published in the article I
              > saw).
              > > Therefore he is not guilty of what the reporter wrote!
              > >
              > > In Christ
              > > Fr. John R. Shaw
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.