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

Re: [orthodox-synod] Digest Number 1279

Expand Messages
  • DDD
    All the ones I can think of left ROCOR of their own accord. Even in the case of France (where they voluntarily chose not to go to the meeting of bishops) and
    Message 1 of 6 , Jun 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      All the ones I can think of left ROCOR of their own accord. Even in the case of France (where they voluntarily chose not to go to the meeting of bishops) and the Russian ROCOR bishops, wasn't it suspension and then later defrocking? That is something different from excommunication. What "mass excommunication" do you have in mind here, and does anyone from ROCOR care to comment?

      --Dimitra

      On 2 Jun 2004 01:36:35 -0000, orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com wrote:
      It is the anti-MP "extremists" who have been
      subjected to mass excommunication.
    • DDD
      I could be wrong, but it seems that any ROCOR parish that is actively doing missionary work would not suspend it while awaiting news of union or no union.
      Message 2 of 6 , Jun 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        I could be wrong, but it seems that any ROCOR parish that is actively doing "missionary work" would not suspend it while awaiting news of union or no union. The nearby English-speaking ROCOR parish to us, for example, I don't think is doing anything at all differently than it always has.
        Or do you mean, will English missions get lost *after* a union with MP? Don't know, but looks like MP is pretty successfully missionizing in English-speaking England!
        Your questions are one reason I am very interested in knowing more about St. Tikhon's work in America before the Revolution.

        --Dimitra

        On 2 Jun 2004 01:36:35 -0000, orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com wrote:
        In all this haste for
        unification (if that turns out to be "Orthodoxly" appropriate), does
        the mission of historic Orthodoxy -- and in North America of the
        Russian Church in particular -- to bring the Faith to the non-Orthodox
        risk getting lost? (See also my response to Anna Voellmecke for further
        remarks.)
      • DDD
        Metr. Lavr: But we do not prevent our flock to express their opinions on these events. Yet we hope that in time they will become convinced in these
        Message 3 of 6 , Jun 1, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Metr. Lavr:

          " But we do not prevent our flock to express their opinions on these events. Yet we hope that in time they will become convinced in these fundamental changes and will remember that repentance can heal all old wounds."

          --DD


          Mother Agapia wrote: orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com wrote:
               < It is certainly justifiable that at such a significant juncture in the
               < life
               < of the Russian Church all involved, both clergy and laity, be allowed to
               < offer critical commentary on the events now unfolding.
        • DDD
          Anna, I m just wondering what your question really is? Are you afraid that, if reconciliation occurs, American converts will be expected to pack up and go to
          Message 4 of 6 , Jun 1, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Anna, I'm just wondering what your question really is? Are you afraid that, if reconciliation occurs, American converts will be expected to pack up and go to Russia? From what I've seen written so far, the Church Abroad seems pretty intent on keeping some kind of status quo or autonomy, and, maybe I just haven't seen it, but MP doesn't seem against that.
            Besides, before the Revolution the Russian (very Russian, non-diaspora) Orthodox Church was doing active missionary work in America under St. Patriarch (then Abp.) Tikhon. So why shouldn't it continue that?
            All these comments are only on the convert situation, not for or against union with MP.

            --Dimitra

            On 2 Jun 2004 01:36:35 -0000, orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com wrote:
            No other "ethnic" Church has done what ROCOR has in its outreach to
            converts.Very few parishioners of ROCOR churches intend to go to Russia.
            "Diaspora" in our situation means "spread all over" or "outside Russia,"
            *not* "the place we go home to."

            Anna V.
          • Anna Voellmecke
            ... I guess you have not followed this thread. I had no question at all. I was responding to Paul Bartlett, reminding him that the rapproachment between the MP
            Message 5 of 6 , Jun 2, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              At 01:50 AM 6/2/2004, you wrote:
              > Anna, I'm just wondering what your question really is?

              I guess you have not followed this thread. I had no question at all. I was
              responding to Paul Bartlett, reminding him that the rapproachment between
              the MP and the ROCOR is important to all those in the Russian Church, both
              converts and Russian ethnics, as well as to Orthodoxy as a whole.

              Anna V.
            • vkozyreff
              Dear Dimitra, You write : All the ones I can think of left ROCOR of their own accord. Even in the case of France (where they voluntarily chose not to go to
              Message 6 of 6 , Jun 2, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear Dimitra,

                You write : " All the ones I can think of left ROCOR of their own
                accord. Even in the case of France (where they voluntarily chose not
                to go to the meeting of bishops) and the Russian ROCOR bishops,
                wasn't it suspension and then later defrocking? That is something
                different from excommunication. What "mass excommunication" do you
                have in mind here, and does anyone from ROCOR care to comment?".

                VK:

                Can you think of me? I did not leave, I did not leave of my own
                accord, and I have constantly advocated reconciliation on this forum.
                This has been discussed many times on this forum. We know that we
                have different views, and I am convinced of your good faith. Please
                give me credit for my good faith as well. Just repeating again and
                again the same statements is useless, we return constantly to square
                1 of the discussion.

                Again, last Sunday, some of us met with our ROCOR(L) friends at the
                occasion of a marriage. Our ROCOR(L) friends repeated stubbornly that
                we were wrong because we "did not obey the bishop".

                Again and again, nobody disputes the principle, the question is about
                exceptions, when the bishop and the conscience come in opposition.
                The canons do provide for exceptions. What is astonishing, is that
                our ROCOR(L) friends did not even know this, and that personal
                enmities do play an awful role. Many of our ROCOR(L) friends are
                still convinced that there will be no union with the MP, and know
                nothing about the latest events.

                In God,

                Vladimir Kozyreff


                See, for instance: Message 8448

                The New Russian Martyr Metropolitan Cyril of Kazan wrote in
                1929: "church discipline can remain valid only as long as it is an
                actual reflection of the hierarchical conscience of the conciliar
                Church; discipline can never itself replace this conscience...

                The Church is not the hierarchs. The Church is the assembly of
                hierarchs, priests and believers. To appoint bishops without taking
                conciliarity into account or proceeding to mass excommunications is
                not conciliarity and is contrary to Church discipline. Believers are
                nothing without their bishops, bishops are nothing without the
                believers. The Orthodox Church is not a papist organisation.

                Message 7329

                … the synod has judged, condemned and proceeded to a mass exclusion
                that is a mutilation of our dear Church. I think that it might have
                been avoided and that it comes from the fact that the question has
                been managed as a purely disciplinary one.

                Message 8430

                As was already discussed, they had been summoned to Munich (at very
                short notice), but had not been advised that they would appear before
                an ecclesial tribunal to be judged. They had not been informed about
                the composition of a court that would judge them. If a regular
                judgement had taken place, the accused clerics might have use their
                right to challenge the judges («11.) The accused bishop or cleric
                has, at all judicial levels, the right to challenge the judges, of
                which he must inform the President no later than two weeks after
                receiving the summons to court»).



                --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, DDD <dimitradd@v...> wrote:
                > All the ones I can think of left ROCOR of their own accord. Even
                in the case of France (where they voluntarily chose not to go to the
                meeting of bishops) and the Russian ROCOR bishops, wasn't it
                suspension and then later defrocking? That is something different
                from excommunication. What "mass excommunication" do you have in
                mind here, and does anyone from ROCOR care to comment?
                >
                > --Dimitra
                >
                > On 2 Jun 2004 01:36:35 -0000, orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com wrote:
                > It is the anti-MP "extremists" who have been
                > subjected to mass excommunication.
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.