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

Re: It Is Time to Know Our History

Expand Messages
  • maestro_vg
    no comment... this not-so-subtle outburst speaks for itself... dVG ... aka ... chekist ... posts. ... honest, ... always a ... hypocrisy ... that & we ...
    Message 1 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 2 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.