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

Re: It Is Time to Know Our History

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 14 , Sep 1, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 14 , Sep 1, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 14 , Sep 2, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 14 , Sep 2, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 14 , Sep 3, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 14 , Sep 4, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                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.