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

Re: It Is Time to Know Our History

Expand Messages
  • vkozyreff
    Dear Father Stefan, bless. You write: Father Alexander quotes (here and in other statements) the words of the official proclamations of our Church Abroad that
    Message 1 of 14 , Sep 1, 2004
      Dear Father Stefan, bless.

      You write: "Father Alexander quotes (here and in other statements)
      the words of the official proclamations of our Church Abroad that
      clearly show that it is part of the understanding of our Church,
      concerning itself, that it must seek the unity of the LOCAL RUSSIAN
      CHURCH (Pomestnaya Rossiskaya Tserkov)".

      VK: For a pomestnaya tserkov to be a pomestnaya tserkov, it should be
      a tserkov to start with.

      You write: "The parts Father Alexander quotes are in context with the
      OVERALL understanding of the position of the Church Abroad vis-a-vis
      the other parts of the Russian Church."

      VK: I think Vl Agafangel's quotations are as good as Father
      Alexander's for that matter, and more complete.

      You write: "A bishop of our Orthodox Church is duty bound to speak
      his mind and defend his personal position at the SYNOD COUNCILS, once
      the BISHOPS in Council decide for the Church what its actions will
      be, a Bishop of that Council is honor and duty bound to support the
      Churches actions or at least not do anything that can potentially
      undermine those actions.

      VK: When Vl Agafangel quotes ROCOR documents and explores ROCOR
      history, as Father Alexander encourages us to do, he does not express
      personal opinions, but the position of the Church.

      The position of the Church was expressed also in Vl Kyrill of Seattle
      and in Father Alexander's previous position. What I fail to
      understand, is why we are told that we cannot quote the latter any
      longer. Even if an author has changed his mind, his published works
      are public and thus quotable. It is a historical fact that the author
      changed his mind if he did. It would be normal even to change one's
      mind if the object of the position has changed. The problem is that
      we cannot see that the MP renounced sergianism or ecumenism.

      Father Alexander says that we have no right to demand that the MP
      repent. We do not demand this, God does. If I claim that lies can
      save the Church, or that pure souls can sacrifice their purity and
      accept to get corrupt to save the Church, then I am out of God. I am
      in sin, bareheadedly and overtly.

      If I am in sin, I must repent. It has nothing to do with any demands
      that I would or would not have.

      In God,

      Vladimir Kozyreff


      --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Archpriest Stefan Pavlenko"
      <StefanVPavlenko@n...> wrote:
      > "vkozyreff" <vladimir.kozyreff@s...> wrote:>
      > > Father Alexander writes in a very authoritarian way about the
      > > necessity to join the MP, and about what he considers to be the
      > > traditional ROCOR position.
      > ________________________________________________
      >
      > This post begins with a red herring: "Father Alexander writes in a
      > very authoritarian way about the necessity to join the MP..."
      >
      > In fact Father Alexander quotes (here and in other statements) the
      > words of the official proclamations of our Church Abroad that
      clearly
      > show that it is part of the understanding of our Church, concerning
      > itself, that it must seek the unity of the LOCAL RUSSIAN CHURCH
      > (Pomestnaya Rossiskaya Tserkov).
      >
      > The parts Father Alexander quotes are in context with the OVERALL
      > understanding of the position of the Church Abroad vis-à-vis
      the other=
      >
      > parts of the Russian Church.
      >
      > Archbishop Agafangel's quotations incorporate the position of the
      > Church Abroad to specific >>>events and conditions that existed
      during
      > the period that the document was formulated<<<, and had a necessary
      > and appropriate strictness to the chosen wording.
      >
      > Time has passed, conditions have changed, and an >>>ATTEMPT<<< at
      > normalization has been BLESSED by the Synod of Bishops which has
      > commenced.
      >
      > A bishop of our Orthodox Church is duty bound to speak his mind and
      > defend his personal position at the SYNOD COUNCILS, once the BISHOPS
      > in Council decide for the Church what its actions will be, a Bishop
      of
      > that Council is honor and duty bound to support the Churches actions
      > or at least not do anything that can potentially undermine those
      actions.
      >
      > Archpriest Stefan Pavlenko
      >
      > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "vkozyreff"
      > <vladimir.kozyreff@s...> wrote:
      > > Dear List,
      > >
      > > Father Alexander writes in a very authoritarian way about the
      > > necessity to join the MP, and about what he considers to be the
      > > traditional ROCOR position. I think however that all of his
      > > arguments are clearly refuted by Vl Agafangel. For instance, in
      the
      > > excerpt below (my poor translation).
      > >
      > > In more than one case, Vl Agafangel shows that a complete (not a
      > > biased, selective and partial) quotation of texts referred to by
      > > Father Alexander mean in fact the opposite of what Father
      Alexander
      > > wanted to demonstrate.
      > >
      > > I think it should be made clear that the enthusiasm to join the
      MP
      > > is not the conciliary position even of ROCOR (L).
      > >
      > > I recommend very warmly the reading of Vl Agafangel's reply. To
      > > claim that he is wrong (as all ex-MP clergy, according to Father
      > > John Shaw) because he has a personal quarrel with the MP or
      because
      > > he is "disgrunted" would be absurd. In Vl Agafangel's reply, the
      > > knowledge about the ROCOR history does not seem to be smaller
      than
      > > in Father Alexander's text.
      > >
      > > In God,
      > >
      > > Vladimir Kozyreff
      > >
      > > "From the above, Father Alexander concludes that "the ROCOR
      > > considered the fall of the God-fighting regime as a criterion for
      > > the restoration of a "normal" social and Church life ". Again,
      this
      > > does not mean in any way that the restoration of a "normal"
      public
      > > and church life must translate into an immediate association with
      > > the MP.
      > >
      > > In the quote given, as well as in the disposition of the ROCOR,
      > > nothing is said or implied about the direction of the soviet-
      > > submitted MP. There is a discussion about this direction
      elsewhere
      > > in the Message, where the bishops cautiously, but clearly express
      > > their position:
      > >
      > > " Can one justify the existing organisation of the church
      direction
      > > even of the orthodox or of the so-called Tikhonite Church, from
      the
      > > point of view of the canons and definitions of the All-Russia
      Church
      > > Sobor of 1917-1918? Are not righteous objections being expressed
      > > there about the legitimacy of the present Synod, which has been
      > > confiscated by metropolitan Sergii under his personal discretion
      (at
      > > least in the person of its most influential members) and is the
      > > canonical mandate of the present deputy to the Vicar of the
      > > Patriarchal Throne not suspect? "…
      > >
      > > Vl Agafangel
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "goossir"
      > > <irene.goossens@c...> wrote:
      > > > Dear Father Alexander,
      > > >
      > > > Fervour is holy if it is directed to the Truth. If the fervour
      > > that
      > > > we can see in Russia expresses faith in a Church that was
      rescued
      > > by
      > > > lies, then that fervour expresses faith in a false Church and
      is
      > > > diabolic.
      > > >
      > > > If that fervour is an expression of faith in the true Church of
      > > the
      > > > martyrs who stood fast and never used lies to defend the
      Church,
      > > then
      > > > the faith that we see is not directed to the MP who stubbornly
      > > keeps
      > > > claiming that sergianism was a bold step that saved the Church.
      > > The
      > > > faith is directed to the true Russian Orthodox Church, of whom
      the
      > > > ROCOR is the only canonical representative left.
      > > >
      > > > If the ROCOR has lost faith in herself and in the Truth, if she
      > > has
      > > > indeed nothing to offer to Russia, then her fruits are bad, and
      we
      > > > should leave her.
      > > >
      > > > If the ROCOR has kept the true orthodox faith and is able to
      > > witness
      > > > about the Truth it in spite of "isolation" and persecution, if
      she
      > > > still considers herself as being called to return to Russia,
      than
      > > the
      > > > ROCOR is the Church in which the people of Russia believes, she
      is
      > > > the true Russian orthodox Church, and we must stay with her.
      > > >
      > > > But who represents the true ROCOR?
      > > >
      > > > In Christ,
      > > >
      > > > Irina Pahlen
    • vkozyreff
      Dear Father Stefan, bless. What you say amounts to consider that the bishop does not exist, but that only the synod does; that the bishop does not have the
      Message 2 of 14 , Sep 1, 2004
        Dear Father Stefan, bless.

        What you say amounts to consider that the bishop does not exist, but
        that only the synod does; that the bishop does not have the right to
        teach, except what the synod allows him to teach.

        If a majority in the Synod should vote that 2+2=5, then the bishop,
        according to you, must acknowledge publicly that 2+2=5. This theory
        of the subjugation of the bishop (and necessarily also of the lay
        people) to the Synod, having precedence on the obedience owed to the
        Gospel and to the ecumenical Councils reminds of the Soviet "polls",
        which were always unanimous. Today Vl. Agafangel has dared express
        his point of view. He immediately gets ostracized and is accused.
        Accused of what? Of having dared.

        This concept of the relationship between bishops and the Synod is
        foreign to orthodoxy. Less diplomatically said, it is a heresy. This
        is the mechanism by which a schism degenerates into a heresy. To
        justify itself, it must resort to quibbles, and quibbles lead to a
        fallacious proposition.

        Of course, the Synod, as an executive structure needs a majority rule
        to implement its administrative mission. It is however a fallacious
        extrapolation to conclude that the majority rule can be used to
        establish the truth.

        Obviously, a vote could not be an adequate instrument to establish
        the spiritual truth. Even more, it cannot be a way of establishing
        the factual truth. This however does not stop the apologists of
        the "desired rapprochement" to claim that "the ROCOR has never denied
        that the MP had grace and conversely". They stick to their position
        even if their proposal is infirmed by the facts. For some in ROCOR
        (L) a proclamation weighs heavier than facts.

        In God,

        Vladimir Kozyreff


        --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Archpriest Stefan Pavlenko"
        <StefanVPavlenko@n...> wrote:
        > "vkozyreff" <vladimir.kozyreff@s...> wrote:>
        > > Father Alexander writes in a very authoritarian way about the
        > > necessity to join the MP, and about what he considers to be the
        > > traditional ROCOR position.
        > ________________________________________________
        >
        > This post begins with a red herring: "Father Alexander writes in a
        > very authoritarian way about the necessity to join the MP..."
        >
        > In fact Father Alexander quotes (here and in other statements) the
        > words of the official proclamations of our Church Abroad that
        clearly
        > show that it is part of the understanding of our Church, concerning
        > itself, that it must seek the unity of the LOCAL RUSSIAN CHURCH
        > (Pomestnaya Rossiskaya Tserkov).
        >
        > The parts Father Alexander quotes are in context with the OVERALL
        > understanding of the position of the Church Abroad vis-à-vis
        the other=
        >
        > parts of the Russian Church.
        >
        > Archbishop Agafangel's quotations incorporate the position of the
        > Church Abroad to specific >>>events and conditions that existed
        during
        > the period that the document was formulated<<<, and had a necessary
        > and appropriate strictness to the chosen wording.
        >
        > Time has passed, conditions have changed, and an >>>ATTEMPT<<< at
        > normalization has been BLESSED by the Synod of Bishops which has
        > commenced.
        >
        > A bishop of our Orthodox Church is duty bound to speak his mind and
        > defend his personal position at the SYNOD COUNCILS, once the BISHOPS
        > in Council decide for the Church what its actions will be, a Bishop
        of
        > that Council is honor and duty bound to support the Churches actions
        > or at least not do anything that can potentially undermine those
        actions.
        >
        > Archpriest Stefan Pavlenko
        >
        > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "vkozyreff"
        > <vladimir.kozyreff@s...> wrote:
        > > Dear List,
        > >
        > > Father Alexander writes in a very authoritarian way about the
        > > necessity to join the MP, and about what he considers to be the
        > > traditional ROCOR position. I think however that all of his
        > > arguments are clearly refuted by Vl Agafangel. For instance, in
        the
        > > excerpt below (my poor translation).
        > >
        > > In more than one case, Vl Agafangel shows that a complete (not a
        > > biased, selective and partial) quotation of texts referred to by
        > > Father Alexander mean in fact the opposite of what Father
        Alexander
        > > wanted to demonstrate.
        > >
        > > I think it should be made clear that the enthusiasm to join the
        MP
        > > is not the conciliary position even of ROCOR (L).
        > >
        > > I recommend very warmly the reading of Vl Agafangel's reply. To
        > > claim that he is wrong (as all ex-MP clergy, according to Father
        > > John Shaw) because he has a personal quarrel with the MP or
        because
        > > he is "disgrunted" would be absurd. In Vl Agafangel's reply, the
        > > knowledge about the ROCOR history does not seem to be smaller
        than
        > > in Father Alexander's text.
        > >
        > > In God,
        > >
        > > Vladimir Kozyreff
        > >
        > > "From the above, Father Alexander concludes that "the ROCOR
        > > considered the fall of the God-fighting regime as a criterion for
        > > the restoration of a "normal" social and Church life ". Again,
        this
        > > does not mean in any way that the restoration of a "normal"
        public
        > > and church life must translate into an immediate association with
        > > the MP.
        > >
        > > In the quote given, as well as in the disposition of the ROCOR,
        > > nothing is said or implied about the direction of the soviet-
        > > submitted MP. There is a discussion about this direction
        elsewhere
        > > in the Message, where the bishops cautiously, but clearly express
        > > their position:
        > >
        > > " Can one justify the existing organisation of the church
        direction
        > > even of the orthodox or of the so-called Tikhonite Church, from
        the
        > > point of view of the canons and definitions of the All-Russia
        Church
        > > Sobor of 1917-1918? Are not righteous objections being expressed
        > > there about the legitimacy of the present Synod, which has been
        > > confiscated by metropolitan Sergii under his personal discretion
        (at
        > > least in the person of its most influential members) and is the
        > > canonical mandate of the present deputy to the Vicar of the
        > > Patriarchal Throne not suspect? "…
        > >
        > > Vl Agafangel
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "goossir"
        > > <irene.goossens@c...> wrote:
        > > > Dear Father Alexander,
        > > >
        > > > Fervour is holy if it is directed to the Truth. If the fervour
        > > that
        > > > we can see in Russia expresses faith in a Church that was
        rescued
        > > by
        > > > lies, then that fervour expresses faith in a false Church and
        is
        > > > diabolic.
        > > >
        > > > If that fervour is an expression of faith in the true Church of
        > > the
        > > > martyrs who stood fast and never used lies to defend the
        Church,
        > > then
        > > > the faith that we see is not directed to the MP who stubbornly
        > > keeps
        > > > claiming that sergianism was a bold step that saved the Church.
        > > The
        > > > faith is directed to the true Russian Orthodox Church, of whom
        the
        > > > ROCOR is the only canonical representative left.
        > > >
        > > > If the ROCOR has lost faith in herself and in the Truth, if she
        > > has
        > > > indeed nothing to offer to Russia, then her fruits are bad, and
        we
        > > > should leave her.
        > > >
        > > > If the ROCOR has kept the true orthodox faith and is able to
        > > witness
        > > > about the Truth it in spite of "isolation" and persecution, if
        she
        > > > still considers herself as being called to return to Russia,
        than
        > > the
        > > > ROCOR is the Church in which the people of Russia believes, she
        is
        > > > the true Russian orthodox Church, and we must stay with her.
        > > >
        > > > But who represents the true ROCOR?
        > > >
        > > > In Christ,
        > > >
        > > > Irina Pahlen
      • byakimov@csc.com.au
        Father Stefan Some conditions have changed but not all of them - the Cheskisti aka Drozodov & others are ruling the MP. It seems white washing & sweeping
        Message 3 of 14 , Sep 1, 2004
          Father Stefan


          Some conditions have changed but not all of them - the Cheskisti aka
          Drozodov & others are ruling the MP.
          It seems white washing & sweeping under the rug began with chekist
          "Drosdov" & now has moved over t o some in
          ROCA, Ask one of the MP metropolitans in the Baltic states if chekist
          Drosdov & others who were Judases in the soviet times
          have somehow changed & are no longer working in their previous posts.
          Perhaps you can ask chekist Putin & he should say to you, if he is honest,
          as he has said recently ..........a KGB agent never changes he is always a
          KGB agent.

          Forgive me Father Stefan but you need not to be blind to see the hypocrisy
          of the whole thing. Father Alexander is an excellent
          adapter, a chameleon & his quotes are out of context we all know that & we
          all know this from seminarian days that's how Father Alexander
          works....... I would not want to be on a sinking ship with Father
          Alexander at the HELM.

          Asking for your prayers & blessing.

          unworthy protodeacon Basil from Canberra




          "Archpriest Stefan Pavlenko" <StefanVPavlenko@...> on 01/09/2004
          04:02:43 PM

          Please respond to orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com

          To: orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com
          cc:
          Subject: [orthodox-synod] Re: It Is Time to Know Our History



          "vkozyreff" <vladimir.kozyreff@s...> wrote:>
          > Father Alexander writes in a very authoritarian way about the
          > necessity to join the MP, and about what he considers to be the
          > traditional ROCOR position.
          ________________________________________________

          This post begins with a red herring: "Father Alexander writes in a
          very authoritarian way about the necessity to join the MP..."

          In fact Father Alexander quotes (here and in other statements) the
          words of the official proclamations of our Church Abroad that clearly
          show that it is part of the understanding of our Church, concerning
          itself, that it must seek the unity of the LOCAL RUSSIAN CHURCH
          (Pomestnaya Rossiskaya Tserkov).

          The parts Father Alexander quotes are in context with the OVERALL
          understanding of the position of the Church Abroad vis-à-vis the other
          =

          parts of the Russian Church.

          Archbishop Agafangel's quotations incorporate the position of the
          Church Abroad to specific >>>events and conditions that existed during
          the period that the document was formulated<<<, and had a necessary
          and appropriate strictness to the chosen wording.

          Time has passed, conditions have changed, and an >>>ATTEMPT<<< at
          normalization has been BLESSED by the Synod of Bishops which has
          commenced.

          A bishop of our Orthodox Church is duty bound to speak his mind and
          defend his personal position at the SYNOD COUNCILS, once the BISHOPS
          in Council decide for the Church what its actions will be, a Bishop of
          that Council is honor and duty bound to support the Churches actions
          or at least not do anything that can potentially undermine those actions.

          Archpriest Stefan Pavlenko

          --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "vkozyreff"
          <vladimir.kozyreff@s...> wrote:
          > Dear List,
          >
          > Father Alexander writes in a very authoritarian way about the
          > necessity to join the MP, and about what he considers to be the
          > traditional ROCOR position. I think however that all of his
          > arguments are clearly refuted by Vl Agafangel. For instance, in the
          > excerpt below (my poor translation).
          >
          > In more than one case, Vl Agafangel shows that a complete (not a
          > biased, selective and partial) quotation of texts referred to by
          > Father Alexander mean in fact the opposite of what Father Alexander
          > wanted to demonstrate.
          >
          > I think it should be made clear that the enthusiasm to join the MP
          > is not the conciliary position even of ROCOR (L).
          >
          > I recommend very warmly the reading of Vl Agafangel's reply. To
          > claim that he is wrong (as all ex-MP clergy, according to Father
          > John Shaw) because he has a personal quarrel with the MP or because
          > he is "disgrunted" would be absurd. In Vl Agafangel's reply, the
          > knowledge about the ROCOR history does not seem to be smaller than
          > in Father Alexander's text.
          >
          > In God,
          >
          > Vladimir Kozyreff
          >
          > "From the above, Father Alexander concludes that "the ROCOR
          > considered the fall of the God-fighting regime as a criterion for
          > the restoration of a "normal" social and Church life ". Again, this
          > does not mean in any way that the restoration of a "normal" public
          > and church life must translate into an immediate association with
          > the MP.
          >
          > In the quote given, as well as in the disposition of the ROCOR,
          > nothing is said or implied about the direction of the soviet-
          > submitted MP. There is a discussion about this direction elsewhere
          > in the Message, where the bishops cautiously, but clearly express
          > their position:
          >
          > " Can one justify the existing organisation of the church direction
          > even of the orthodox or of the so-called Tikhonite Church, from the
          > point of view of the canons and definitions of the All-Russia Church
          > Sobor of 1917-1918? Are not righteous objections being expressed
          > there about the legitimacy of the present Synod, which has been
          > confiscated by metropolitan Sergii under his personal discretion (at
          > least in the person of its most influential members) and is the
          > canonical mandate of the present deputy to the Vicar of the
          > Patriarchal Throne not suspect? "?
          >
          > Vl Agafangel
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "goossir"
          > <irene.goossens@c...> wrote:
          > > Dear Father Alexander,
          > >
          > > Fervour is holy if it is directed to the Truth. If the fervour
          > that
          > > we can see in Russia expresses faith in a Church that was rescued
          > by
          > > lies, then that fervour expresses faith in a false Church and is
          > > diabolic.
          > >
          > > If that fervour is an expression of faith in the true Church of
          > the
          > > martyrs who stood fast and never used lies to defend the Church,
          > then
          > > the faith that we see is not directed to the MP who stubbornly
          > keeps
          > > claiming that sergianism was a bold step that saved the Church.
          > The
          > > faith is directed to the true Russian Orthodox Church, of whom the
          > > ROCOR is the only canonical representative left.
          > >
          > > If the ROCOR has lost faith in herself and in the Truth, if she
          > has
          > > indeed nothing to offer to Russia, then her fruits are bad, and we
          > > should leave her.
          > >
          > > If the ROCOR has kept the true orthodox faith and is able to
          > witness
          > > about the Truth it in spite of "isolation" and persecution, if she
          > > still considers herself as being called to return to Russia, than
          > the
          > > ROCOR is the Church in which the people of Russia believes, she is
          > > the true Russian orthodox Church, and we must stay with her.
          > >
          > > But who represents the true ROCOR?
          > >
          > > In Christ,
          > >
          > > Irina Pahlen



          -
        • Fr. John R. Shaw
          ... JRS: First of all, I don t know how you were brought up, but I was told the following, long ago, by a very devout Russian lady whose father had been a
          Message 4 of 14 , Sep 2, 2004
            Dcn. BAsil Yakimov wrote:

            > - the Cheskisti aka
            > Drozodov & others are ruling the MP.

            JRS: First of all, I don't know how you were brought up, but I was told
            the following, long ago, by a very devout Russian lady whose father had
            been a priest who battled and kept his village church open during the
            worst of the Soviet persecution:

            "Why should we not attack priests or call them names?

            Because you do not know what he is doing at this moment. He may be
            carrying the Holy Gifts, or he may be celebrating the Divine Liturgy,
            or reading the Gospel. And how could one, at that moment, be calling
            him a scoundrel or using some such term of abuse?

            > Father Alexander is an excellent
            > adapter, a chameleon & his quotes are out of context we all know
            that & we
            > all know this from seminarian days that's how Father Alexander
            > works....... I would not want to be on a sinking ship with Father
            > Alexander at the HELM.

            JRS: This is simply character assassination.

            It is true that Fr. Alexander was gifted by God with a brilliant mind.
            That was no doing of his own, it was part of God's plan for him.

            And there are always people who envy those who have different gifts
            than they themselves.

            When Fr. Alexander was a seminarian, some of the others played a prank
            on him -- "ustroili temnoe". But he took it in a Christian way.

            Once when he was visiting Chicago, after the Divine Liturgy, a lady in
            the choir came out of church to find she had a flat tire. Fr.
            Alexander, who had just concelebrated with me, changed the tire for her
            at once, in his podriasnik.

            The fact that someone does not agree with you is no excuse to try
            and "demonize" them.

            In Christ
            Fr. John R. Shaw
          • DDD
            Deacon Basil of Canberra: Your below post publicly badmouthing Fr. Alexander, your fellow clergyman and senior-to-you priest, is utterly out of line. --Dimitra
            Message 5 of 14 , Sep 2, 2004
              Deacon Basil of Canberra:

              Your below post publicly badmouthing Fr. Alexander, your fellow clergyman and senior-to-you priest, is utterly out of line.


              --Dimitra Dwelley



              On 2 Sep 2004 08:32:12 -0000, orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com wrote:
              From: byakimov@...
              Subject: Re: Re: It Is Time to Know Our History

              Father Stefan


              Some conditions have changed but not all of them - the Cheskisti aka
              Drozodov & others are ruling the MP.
              It seems white washing & sweeping under the rug began with chekist
              "Drosdov" & now has moved over t o some in
              ROCA, Ask one of the MP metropolitans in the Baltic states if chekist
              Drosdov & others who were Judases in the soviet times
              have somehow changed & are no longer working in their previous posts.
              Perhaps you can ask chekist Putin & he should say to you, if he is honest,
              as he has said recently ..........a KGB agent never changes he is always a
              KGB agent.

              Forgive me Father Stefan but you need not to be blind to see the hypocrisy
              of the whole thing. Father Alexander is an excellent
              adapter, a chameleon & his quotes are out of context we all know that & we
              all know this from seminarian days that's how Father Alexander
              works....... I would not want to be on a sinking ship with Father
              Alexander at the HELM.

              Asking for your prayers & blessing.

              unworthy protodeacon Basil from Canberra
            • maestro_vg
              no comment... this not-so-subtle outburst speaks for itself... dVG ... aka ... chekist ... posts. ... honest, ... always a ... hypocrisy ... that & we ...
              Message 6 of 14 , Sep 3, 2004
                no comment... this not-so-subtle outburst speaks for itself...
                dVG

                --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, byakimov@c... wrote:
                > Father Stefan
                >
                >
                > Some conditions have changed but not all of them - the Cheskisti
                aka
                > Drozodov & others are ruling the MP.
                > It seems white washing & sweeping under the rug began with chekist
                > "Drosdov" & now has moved over t o some in
                > ROCA, Ask one of the MP metropolitans in the Baltic states if
                chekist
                > Drosdov & others who were Judases in the soviet times
                > have somehow changed & are no longer working in their previous
                posts.
                > Perhaps you can ask chekist Putin & he should say to you, if he is
                honest,
                > as he has said recently ..........a KGB agent never changes he is
                always a
                > KGB agent.
                >
                > Forgive me Father Stefan but you need not to be blind to see the
                hypocrisy
                > of the whole thing. Father Alexander is an excellent
                > adapter, a chameleon & his quotes are out of context we all know
                that & we
                > all know this from seminarian days that's how Father Alexander
                > works....... I would not want to be on a sinking ship with Father
                > Alexander at the HELM.
                >
                > Asking for your prayers & blessing.
                >
                > unworthy protodeacon Basil from Canberra
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > "Archpriest Stefan Pavlenko" <StefanVPavlenko@n...> on 01/09/2004
                > 04:02:43 PM
                >
                > Please respond to orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com
                >
                > To: orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com
                > cc:
                > Subject: [orthodox-synod] Re: It Is Time to Know Our History
                >
                >
                >
                > "vkozyreff" <vladimir.kozyreff@s...> wrote:>
                > > Father Alexander writes in a very authoritarian way about the
                > > necessity to join the MP, and about what he considers to be the
                > > traditional ROCOR position.
                > ________________________________________________
                >
                > This post begins with a red herring: "Father Alexander writes in a
                > very authoritarian way about the necessity to join the MP..."
                >
                > In fact Father Alexander quotes (here and in other statements) the
                > words of the official proclamations of our Church Abroad that
                clearly
                > show that it is part of the understanding of our Church, concerning
                > itself, that it must seek the unity of the LOCAL RUSSIAN CHURCH
                > (Pomestnaya Rossiskaya Tserkov).
                >
                > The parts Father Alexander quotes are in context with the OVERALL
                > understanding of the position of the Church Abroad vis-à-vis
                the other
                > =
                >
                > parts of the Russian Church.
                >
                > Archbishop Agafangel's quotations incorporate the position of the
                > Church Abroad to specific >>>events and conditions that existed
                during
                > the period that the document was formulated<<<, and had a necessary
                > and appropriate strictness to the chosen wording.
                >
                > Time has passed, conditions have changed, and an >>>ATTEMPT<<< at
                > normalization has been BLESSED by the Synod of Bishops which has
                > commenced.
                >
                > A bishop of our Orthodox Church is duty bound to speak his mind and
                > defend his personal position at the SYNOD COUNCILS, once the BISHOPS
                > in Council decide for the Church what its actions will be, a Bishop
                of
                > that Council is honor and duty bound to support the Churches actions
                > or at least not do anything that can potentially undermine those
                actions.
                >
                > Archpriest Stefan Pavlenko
                >
                > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "vkozyreff"
                > <vladimir.kozyreff@s...> wrote:
                > > Dear List,
                > >
                > > Father Alexander writes in a very authoritarian way about the
                > > necessity to join the MP, and about what he considers to be the
                > > traditional ROCOR position. I think however that all of his
                > > arguments are clearly refuted by Vl Agafangel. For instance, in
                the
                > > excerpt below (my poor translation).
                > >
                > > In more than one case, Vl Agafangel shows that a complete (not a
                > > biased, selective and partial) quotation of texts referred to by
                > > Father Alexander mean in fact the opposite of what Father
                Alexander
                > > wanted to demonstrate.
                > >
                > > I think it should be made clear that the enthusiasm to join the MP
                > > is not the conciliary position even of ROCOR (L).
                > >
                > > I recommend very warmly the reading of Vl Agafangel's reply. To
                > > claim that he is wrong (as all ex-MP clergy, according to Father
                > > John Shaw) because he has a personal quarrel with the MP or
                because
                > > he is "disgrunted" would be absurd. In Vl Agafangel's reply, the
                > > knowledge about the ROCOR history does not seem to be smaller than
                > > in Father Alexander's text.
                > >
                > > In God,
                > >
                > > Vladimir Kozyreff
                > >
                > > "From the above, Father Alexander concludes that "the ROCOR
                > > considered the fall of the God-fighting regime as a criterion for
                > > the restoration of a "normal" social and Church life ". Again,
                this
                > > does not mean in any way that the restoration of a "normal" public
                > > and church life must translate into an immediate association with
                > > the MP.
                > >
                > > In the quote given, as well as in the disposition of the ROCOR,
                > > nothing is said or implied about the direction of the soviet-
                > > submitted MP. There is a discussion about this direction elsewhere
                > > in the Message, where the bishops cautiously, but clearly express
                > > their position:
                > >
                > > " Can one justify the existing organisation of the church
                direction
                > > even of the orthodox or of the so-called Tikhonite Church, from
                the
                > > point of view of the canons and definitions of the All-Russia
                Church
                > > Sobor of 1917-1918? Are not righteous objections being expressed
                > > there about the legitimacy of the present Synod, which has been
                > > confiscated by metropolitan Sergii under his personal discretion
                (at
                > > least in the person of its most influential members) and is the
                > > canonical mandate of the present deputy to the Vicar of the
                > > Patriarchal Throne not suspect? "?
                > >
                > > Vl Agafangel
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > >
                > > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "goossir"
                > > <irene.goossens@c...> wrote:
                > > > Dear Father Alexander,
                > > >
                > > > Fervour is holy if it is directed to the Truth. If the fervour
                > > that
                > > > we can see in Russia expresses faith in a Church that was
                rescued
                > > by
                > > > lies, then that fervour expresses faith in a false Church and is
                > > > diabolic.
                > > >
                > > > If that fervour is an expression of faith in the true Church of
                > > the
                > > > martyrs who stood fast and never used lies to defend the Church,
                > > then
                > > > the faith that we see is not directed to the MP who stubbornly
                > > keeps
                > > > claiming that sergianism was a bold step that saved the Church.
                > > The
                > > > faith is directed to the true Russian Orthodox Church, of whom
                the
                > > > ROCOR is the only canonical representative left.
                > > >
                > > > If the ROCOR has lost faith in herself and in the Truth, if she
                > > has
                > > > indeed nothing to offer to Russia, then her fruits are bad, and
                we
                > > > should leave her.
                > > >
                > > > If the ROCOR has kept the true orthodox faith and is able to
                > > witness
                > > > about the Truth it in spite of "isolation" and persecution, if
                she
                > > > still considers herself as being called to return to Russia,
                than
                > > the
                > > > ROCOR is the Church in which the people of Russia believes, she
                is
                > > > the true Russian orthodox Church, and we must stay with her.
                > > >
                > > > But who represents the true ROCOR?
                > > >
                > > > In Christ,
                > > >
                > > > Irina Pahlen
                >
                >
                >
                > -
              • Fr. Alexander Lebedeff
                ... Here is what Metropolitan Vitaly wrote on the question of grace in the ... Our Russian Orthodox Church never stated that the Moscow Patriarchate in its
                Message 7 of 14 , Sep 4, 2004
                  Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:

                  >Obviously, a vote could not be an adequate instrument to establish
                  >the spiritual truth. Even more, it cannot be a way of establishing
                  >the factual truth. This however does not stop the apologists of
                  >the "desired rapprochement" to claim that "the ROCOR has never denied
                  >that the MP had grace and conversely". They stick to their position
                  >even if their proposal is infirmed by the facts. For some in ROCOR
                  >(L) a proclamation weighs heavier than facts.

                  Here is what Metropolitan Vitaly wrote on the question of grace in the
                  Moscow Patriarchate on May 13/26, 1990:

                  >"Íàøà Ðóññêàÿ Ïðàâîñëàâíàÿ Çàðóáåæíàÿ Öåðêîâü íèêîãäà íå çàÿâëÿëà î òîì,
                  >÷òî Ìîñêîâñêàÿ Ïàòðèàðõèÿ â ñâîåé ñîâîêóïíîñòè áåçáëàãîäàòíàÿ, èáî åñëè
                  >ýòî áûëî áû òàê, òî âñå åÿ òàèíñòâà áûëè áû ëèøåíû áëàãîäàòè Ñâàòàãî Äóõà.
                  >Äðóãèìè ñëîâàìè âåñü ðóññêèé íàðîä êðåùåííûé áûë áû íå êðåùåííûé, íå
                  >âåí÷àííûé, íå ïðèîáùåííûé ê Ñâÿòûì Òàéíàì Õðèñòîâûì. Çäåñü â ýìèãðàöèè
                  >ñðàçó æå ïîñëå Âòîðîé Ìèðîâîé Âîéíû, êîãäà ñîòíè òûñÿ÷ü ðóññêèõ íå
                  >âåðíóëèñü íà ðîäèíó è âîøëè âñå â íàøè ïðèõîäû, òî èç èõ íåäð âûøëî öåëîå
                  >òå÷åíèå ìûñëè ÷òî âîîáùå Ìîñê. Ïàòðèàðõèÿ íå ìîæåò íèêàê áûòü áëàãîäàòíîé.
                  >Ñ ïîìîùèþ Áîæèåé íàì óäàëîñü ñïðàâèòñÿ ñ ýòèì íåïðàâîìûñëèåì è òåïåðü
                  >î÷åíü ðåäêî âñòðå÷àåøü åùå ïðåäñòàâèòåëåé ýòîãî òå÷åíèÿ."
                  >
                  >Ìèòðîïîëèò Âèòàëèé, 26-13 ìàÿ 1990 ã.


                  "Our Russian Orthodox Church never stated that the Moscow Patriarchate in
                  its entirety is graceless, for if this had been so, then all of her
                  mysteries would have been devoid of the grace of the Holy Spirit. In other
                  words all of the baptized Russian people would have been unbaptized,
                  unwedded, un-communicated to the Holy Mysteries of Christ. Here in the
                  emigration right after the Second World War, when hundreds of thousands of
                  Russians did not return to their Motherland and joined all of our parishes,
                  form their interior came forward a whole current of thought that the Moscow
                  Patriarchate can not at all in any way be grace-filled. With the help of
                  God we were able to deal with such incorrect thought and now one very
                  rarely still comes across a representative of this current.

                  Metropolitan Vitaly, 13/26 May, 1990"


                  Vladimir, was Metropolitan Vitaly lying when he stated that our Church
                  Abroad has never declared the Moscow Patriarchate in its entirety to be
                  graceless?

                  Do you believe differently from Metropolitan Vitaly on this issue?



                  With love in Christ,

                  Prot. Alexander Lebedeff


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.