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

Re: [orthodox-synod] Re: Sviatitel' Sergij

Expand Messages
  • frvboldewskul@aol.com
    In no way did Fr.John besmirch the memory of Metropolitan Philaret. One can be a righteous man and make a mistake or mistakes. The reception of Fr.
    Message 1 of 23 , Oct 1 6:39 AM
      In no way did Fr.John "besmirch" the memory of Metropolitan Philaret. One
      can be a righteous man and make a mistake or mistakes. The reception of Fr.
      Pantalemon was a mistake. That is obvious to all. The handling of the Holy Land as
      well vis-a-vis the Head of the Mission. These were the two most serious
      issues Metropolitan Vitaly had to deal with immediately after becoming First
      Hierarch. To his credit, he handled them well in 1986.

      Fr. John's rhetorical question "does fanaticism ever change" is not implying
      anyone is a fanatic, just like I am sure Fr. Alexius was not calling anyone a
      liberal.

      Priest Victor Boldewskul



      In a message dated 10/1/04 5:54:26 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
      7848@... writes:

      > Are you calling me a fanatic dear father?
      >
      > And how dare you besmirch the memory of Vladika Philaret of
      > blessed memory. You do it every chance you get. Any one else
      > you would wish to defame? Interesting how we can do a "snow
      > job" on Met Sergius and his followers and at the same time
      > drag our own saintly hierarchs through the mud shamelessly.
      > We bend over backwards to appease the MP and at the same
      > time befoul the memory of those whose incorrupt relics bear
      > witness to their holiness.
      >
      > There is no "modern Orthodoxy"? Look at the new calendar
      > jurisdictions where they openly profess ecumenism and all
      > dallies into modernism. Look the abrogation of fasting. Look
      > at the almost complete erasure of confession in some
      > locales. Look at the simplistic attitudes that mark a
      > debased humanism that permeates the modernists.
      >
      > The world is turned upside down. Black has become white and
      > white, black. I shake my head.
      >
      >



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Fr. John R. Shaw
      ... JRS: If you have to ask, then obviously I am not. ... JRS: In no way did I besmirch his memory . I said that the greatest mistakes, in my view, took place
      Message 2 of 23 , Oct 1 9:05 AM
        Fr. Alexis Duncan wrote:

        > Are you calling me a fanatic dear father?

        JRS: If you have to ask, then obviously I am not.

        > And how dare you besmirch the memory of Vladika Philaret of
        > blessed memory.

        JRS: In no way did I "besmirch his memory". I said that the greatest
        mistakes, in my view, took place during his time: but I did not say
        that he was the one who made them.

        Vl. Philaret never wanted to be Metropolitan at all: and he had only
        been a bishop (of Brisbane, Australia) for one month when he was
        elected Metropolitan.

        There had been a 50-50 division among the bishops as to whether they
        should choose St. John Maximovich or Vl. Nikon. There was a danger of a
        division: so both candidates withdrew, in favor of the bishop with the
        *least* seniority -- that is, Bishop Philaret of Brisbane.

        Vl. Philaret did not wish to be an administrator, and indeed had no
        experience in church administration. Therefore he began leaving all
        important decisions up to Fr. George Grabbe. Why Fr. George was so
        impressed by the Panteleimonites, I have never understood. But that was
        how it all happened.

        > You do it every chance you get.

        JRS: No, I don't. But the same issues keep being raised by certain
        circles, and the only way to reply to them is by telling the truth as I
        remember it from my own experience.

        > Any one else
        > you would wish to defame? Interesting how we can do a "snow
        > job" on Met Sergius and his followers and at the same time
        > drag our own saintly hierarchs through the mud shamelessly.

        JRS: How have I dragged anyone through the mud?

        > There is no "modern Orthodoxy"?

        JRS: No, there isn't, and never can be. There is only Orthodoxy.

        > Look at the new calendar
        > jurisdictions where they openly profess ecumenism and all
        > dallies into modernism.

        JRS: Actually, they don't. None of them have made any
        official "professions of ecumenism" -- but several individual hierarchs
        have greeted non-Orthodox in a way that has attracted criticism.

        > Look the abrogation of fasting.

        JRS: The abrogation, or merely the neglect? If one were to do
        a "scientific poll" about fasting among our own people, I'm not so sure
        we would be happy with what we found out.

        > Look
        > at the almost complete erasure of confession in some
        > locales.

        JRS: Notably Cyprus, but that is nothing new.

        > Look at the simplistic attitudes that mark a
        > debased humanism that permeates the modernists.

        JRS: Since you give no examples, I can't respond to that.

        > The world is turned upside down. Black has become white and
        > white, black. I shake my head.

        JRS: There are many things to shake one's head about, but there always
        have been. The main thing is not to shake it to the point of losing
        one's equilibrium.

        In Christ
        Fr. John R. Shaw
      • michael nikitin
        B.Gregory Grabbe was of like mind with those in HOCNA who were against ecumenism. Because they held steadfast to Orthodoxy is why B.Gregory Grabbe was
        Message 3 of 23 , Oct 4 7:37 AM
          B.Gregory Grabbe was of like mind with those in HOCNA who were against ecumenism. Because they held steadfast to Orthodoxy is why B.Gregory Grabbe was impressed by them. As I understand some of the priests left large parishes with good payments.He saw they were good for the Russian Church Abroad. If he and St.Metr.Philaret thought otherwise they would not have been so eager to have them. Many Greeks,Russians and converts joined ROCOR. Fr.John himself joined ROCOR. I am perplexed why, since he is not what ROCOR stood for under under our previous hierarch's. He should have joined the MP or OCA. His ecclesiology is more in form with theirs. He only knows what some circles tell him, because he did not live in ROCOR under Metr.Anastassy, although he speaks as an authority and says ,"but that is how it all happened".

          During the tenure of St.Metr.Philaret and B.Gregory Grabbe, ROCOR was doing well. The property in Jerusalem was still in our hands. This was because B.Anthony Grabbe is very educated and an excellent administrator as was his father, B.Gregory Grabbe. After St.Metr.Philaret's "Sorrowful Epistles" people were literally running to join ROCOR. ROCOR did not break up into little pieces as it did after St.Metr.Philaret's repose. Why do some then say he did not administer well? Everyone in ROCOR can attest it was the Golden Years, except of course a certain few.

          It was Metr.Anastassy who told St.Metr.Philaret to keep B.Gregory Grabbe in his administration as secretary. A good choice, but not for those who wanted to concelebrate with ecumenists and have union with MP. The unionists do not like B.Gregory Grabbe, St.Metr.Philaret and those with like mind. They are viewed by them as being backward because they kept the faith.

          In contrast the MP and ecumenists are being portrayed as being progressive and open minded. What many don't understand is the Church was always open minded to the situation at hand. That is why the "Anathema Against Ecumenism" was proclaimed which the bishops signed, but is now being ignored.

          I have yet to know a sincere bishop who wanted to be Metropolitan. I'm sure there are some.
          I have yet to meet a sincere celibate priest who didn't go to a monastery to live like a monk, and NOT want to be bishop.

          Michael N


          "Fr. John R. Shaw" <vrevjrs@...> wrote:
          Fr. Alexis Duncan wrote:

          > Are you calling me a fanatic dear father?

          JRS: If you have to ask, then obviously I am not.

          > And how dare you besmirch the memory of Vladika Philaret of
          > blessed memory.

          JRS: In no way did I "besmirch his memory". I said that the greatest
          mistakes, in my view, took place during his time: but I did not say
          that he was the one who made them.

          Vl. Philaret never wanted to be Metropolitan at all: and he had only
          been a bishop (of Brisbane, Australia) for one month when he was
          elected Metropolitan.

          There had been a 50-50 division among the bishops as to whether they
          should choose St. John Maximovich or Vl. Nikon. There was a danger of a
          division: so both candidates withdrew, in favor of the bishop with the
          *least* seniority -- that is, Bishop Philaret of Brisbane.

          Vl. Philaret did not wish to be an administrator, and indeed had no
          experience in church administration. Therefore he began leaving all
          important decisions up to Fr. George Grabbe. Why Fr. George was so
          impressed by the Panteleimonites, I have never understood. But that was
          how it all happened.

          > You do it every chance you get.

          JRS: No, I don't. But the same issues keep being raised by certain
          circles, and the only way to reply to them is by telling the truth as I
          remember it from my own experience.

          > Any one else
          > you would wish to defame? Interesting how we can do a "snow
          > job" on Met Sergius and his followers and at the same time
          > drag our own saintly hierarchs through the mud shamelessly.

          JRS: How have I dragged anyone through the mud?

          > There is no "modern Orthodoxy"?

          JRS: No, there isn't, and never can be. There is only Orthodoxy.

          > Look at the new calendar
          > jurisdictions where they openly profess ecumenism and all
          > dallies into modernism.

          JRS: Actually, they don't. None of them have made any
          official "professions of ecumenism" -- but several individual hierarchs
          have greeted non-Orthodox in a way that has attracted criticism.

          > Look the abrogation of fasting.

          JRS: The abrogation, or merely the neglect? If one were to do
          a "scientific poll" about fasting among our own people, I'm not so sure
          we would be happy with what we found out.

          > Look
          > at the almost complete erasure of confession in some
          > locales.

          JRS: Notably Cyprus, but that is nothing new.

          > Look at the simplistic attitudes that mark a
          > debased humanism that permeates the modernists.

          JRS: Since you give no examples, I can't respond to that.

          > The world is turned upside down. Black has become white and
          > white, black. I shake my head.

          JRS: There are many things to shake one's head about, but there always
          have been. The main thing is not to shake it to the point of losing
          one's equilibrium.

          In Christ
          Fr. John R. Shaw



          ---------------------------------
          Do you Yahoo!?
          Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Fr. Alexis Duncan
          I have to disagree here. I remember Vladika Gregory quite well and have a fond remembrance of him. I highly respect him. He was one of the brightest and most
          Message 4 of 23 , Oct 5 4:37 AM
            I have to disagree here. I remember Vladika Gregory quite
            well and have a fond remembrance of him. I highly respect
            him. He was one of the brightest and most erudite bishops we
            have had. He wasn't taken in by Boston. He saw their faults.
            I know this from personal experience. Vladika Philaret
            likewise was not a dupe of anyone. He delegated things to
            others, as everyone does. I feel they would never have
            defended the errors of the Bosotonites.

            As to Anthony Grabbe, it is a sad history. But it was dealt
            with years ago and it is over for us. Let us not bring up
            his name since he has nothing to do with our current
            situation. You are right however, in that Vladika Philaret's
            courage and steadfast stance brought many to the Church
            Abroad, including myself. Those indeed were the golden
            years.






            Fr. Alexis Duncan
            Joy of All Who Sorrow Russian Orthodox Church
            Atlanta, GA
            www.orthodoxinfo.biz



            -----Original Message-----
            From: michael nikitin [mailto:nikitinmike@...]
            Sent: Monday, October 04, 2004 10:37 AM
            To: orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: RE: [orthodox-synod] Re: Sviatitel' Sergij





            B.Gregory Grabbe was of like mind with those in HOCNA who
            were against ecumenism. Because they held steadfast to
            Orthodoxy is why B.Gregory Grabbe was impressed by them. As
            I understand some of the priests left large parishes with
            good payments.He saw they were good for the Russian Church
            Abroad. If he and St.Metr.Philaret thought otherwise they
            would not have been so eager to have them. Many
            Greeks,Russians and converts joined ROCOR. Fr.John himself
            joined ROCOR. I am perplexed why, since he is not what ROCOR
            stood for under under our previous hierarch's. He should
            have joined the MP or OCA. His ecclesiology is more in form
            with theirs. He only knows what some circles tell him,
            because he did not live in ROCOR under Metr.Anastassy,
            although he speaks as an authority and says ,"but that is
            how it all happened".

            During the tenure of St.Metr.Philaret and B.Gregory Grabbe,
            ROCOR was doing well. The property in Jerusalem was still in
            our hands. This was because B.Anthony Grabbe is very
            educated and an excellent administrator as was his father,
            B.Gregory Grabbe. After St.Metr.Philaret's "Sorrowful
            Epistles" people were literally running to join ROCOR. ROCOR
            did not break up into little pieces as it did after
            St.Metr.Philaret's repose. Why do some then say he did not
            administer well? Everyone in ROCOR can attest it was the
            Golden Years, except of course a certain few.

            It was Metr.Anastassy who told St.Metr.Philaret to keep
            B.Gregory Grabbe in his administration as secretary. A good
            choice, but not for those who wanted to concelebrate with
            ecumenists and have union with MP. The unionists do not like
            B.Gregory Grabbe, St.Metr.Philaret and those with like mind.
            They are viewed by them as being backward because they kept
            the faith.

            In contrast the MP and ecumenists are being portrayed as
            being progressive and open minded. What many don't
            understand is the Church was always open minded to the
            situation at hand. That is why the "Anathema Against
            Ecumenism" was proclaimed which the bishops signed, but is
            now being ignored.

            I have yet to know a sincere bishop who wanted to be
            Metropolitan. I'm sure there are some.
            I have yet to meet a sincere celibate priest who didn't go
            to a monastery to live like a monk, and NOT want to be
            bishop.

            Michael N


            "Fr. John R. Shaw" <vrevjrs@...> wrote:
            Fr. Alexis Duncan wrote:

            > Are you calling me a fanatic dear father?

            JRS: If you have to ask, then obviously I am not.

            > And how dare you besmirch the memory of Vladika Philaret
            of
            > blessed memory.

            JRS: In no way did I "besmirch his memory". I said that the
            greatest
            mistakes, in my view, took place during his time: but I did
            not say
            that he was the one who made them.

            Vl. Philaret never wanted to be Metropolitan at all: and he
            had only
            been a bishop (of Brisbane, Australia) for one month when he
            was
            elected Metropolitan.

            There had been a 50-50 division among the bishops as to
            whether they
            should choose St. John Maximovich or Vl. Nikon. There was a
            danger of a
            division: so both candidates withdrew, in favor of the
            bishop with the
            *least* seniority -- that is, Bishop Philaret of Brisbane.

            Vl. Philaret did not wish to be an administrator, and indeed
            had no
            experience in church administration. Therefore he began
            leaving all
            important decisions up to Fr. George Grabbe. Why Fr. George
            was so
            impressed by the Panteleimonites, I have never understood.
            But that was
            how it all happened.

            > You do it every chance you get.

            JRS: No, I don't. But the same issues keep being raised by
            certain
            circles, and the only way to reply to them is by telling the
            truth as I
            remember it from my own experience.

            > Any one else
            > you would wish to defame? Interesting how we can do a
            "snow
            > job" on Met Sergius and his followers and at the same time
            > drag our own saintly hierarchs through the mud
            shamelessly.

            JRS: How have I dragged anyone through the mud?

            > There is no "modern Orthodoxy"?

            JRS: No, there isn't, and never can be. There is only
            Orthodoxy.

            > Look at the new calendar
            > jurisdictions where they openly profess ecumenism and all
            > dallies into modernism.

            JRS: Actually, they don't. None of them have made any
            official "professions of ecumenism" -- but several
            individual hierarchs
            have greeted non-Orthodox in a way that has attracted
            criticism.

            > Look the abrogation of fasting.

            JRS: The abrogation, or merely the neglect? If one were to
            do
            a "scientific poll" about fasting among our own people, I'm
            not so sure
            we would be happy with what we found out.

            > Look
            > at the almost complete erasure of confession in some
            > locales.

            JRS: Notably Cyprus, but that is nothing new.

            > Look at the simplistic attitudes that mark a
            > debased humanism that permeates the modernists.

            JRS: Since you give no examples, I can't respond to that.

            > The world is turned upside down. Black has become white
            and
            > white, black. I shake my head.

            JRS: There are many things to shake one's head about, but
            there always
            have been. The main thing is not to shake it to the point of
            losing
            one's equilibrium.

            In Christ
            Fr. John R. Shaw



            ---------------------------------
            Do you Yahoo!?
            Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






            ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
            Sponsor --------------------~-->
            Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
            Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
            http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/m.VolB/TM
            ------------------------------------------------------------
            --------~->

            Archives located at
            http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod


            Yahoo! Groups Links
          • michael nikitin
            HOCNA was in ROCOR for over 20 years if I remember correctly. If they had errors Bishop Gregory Grabbe certainly would have spoken out about them and St.Metr.
            Message 5 of 23 , Oct 6 8:29 AM
              HOCNA was in ROCOR for over 20 years if I remember correctly. If they had errors Bishop Gregory Grabbe certainly would have spoken out about them and St.Metr. Philaret never said anything to anyone about HOCNA, except praise(see excerpt from letter below).

              In fact, Fr. John Shaw writes that HOCNA was the one who wrote the Anathema against Ecumenism in 1983 which all of our bishops signed. Now if HOCNA was not respected by Metr. Philaret and Bishop Gregory I would imagine they would not have accepted their Anathema of 1983. If Fr. John will write that the bishops did not sign it in 1983, all of the bishops certainly signed it again in Mansonvile in 1998 when the Anathema of 1998 was reaffirmed.

              Metr. Philaret did speak and write against Archbishop Anthony of Geneva and
              others who were straying(see below, etc...).

              Bishop Gregory spoke up against Bishop Cyprian of Fili( "The Dubious
              Orthodoxy of Metropolitan Cyprian's Group" written in 1994, etc...).


              Lets be fair.

              Michael N
              Exerpts from St.Metr. Philaret's Letters:
              First of all, I pointed out that we really do have a place where we have a flock in common with other ministers of the Orthodox Church. And that is Boston. We have our parishes there, and the monastery of Archimandrite Panteleimon is located there too. And it has
              Greek practices and Typicon. All the faithful there attend both one and the other equally, since that monastery is of our jurisdiction, is absolutely Orthodox, and has our Orthodox "spirit", despite the difference in Typicon and practices.

              "In precisely the same manner, in receiving the Soviet clergy, we apply the principle of economia. And we receive the clergymen from Moscow not as ones possessing grace, but as ones receiving it by the very act of union. But to recognize the church of the evil-doers as the bearer and repository of grace, that we cannot do, of course. For outside of Orthodoxy there is no grace; and the Soviet church has deprived itself of grace."

              An Excerpt from a Letter of Saint Philaret to Archbishop Anthony of Geneva:

              November 16/29, 1977

              �I consider it my duty to point out to you, Vladyka, that your assertion
              that we must thank the Serbian Church for her treatment of us, I fully
              accept, but only as regards her past � the glorious past of the Serbian
              Church. Yes, of course, we must hold the names of their Holinesses
              Patriarchs Demetrius and Barnabas in grateful memory for their precious
              support of the Church Abroad at that time when she �had no place to lay her
              head��
              There is no denying that a certain honor is due the Serbian Church for her
              refusing to condemn our Church Abroad at the parasynagogue in Moscow in
              1971, and also on later occasions when Moscow again raised the matter. But
              then, on the other hand, she did participate in the aforementioned
              parasynagogue, when it elected Pimen, and the Serbian hierarchs did not
              protest against this absolutely anti-canonical �election�, when he who had
              already been chosen and appointed by the God-hating regime was elected. Our
              Sobor of 1971 did not, and could not, recognize Pimen, whereas the Serbian
              Patriarchate recognized and does recognize him, addressing him as
              Patriarch, and is in full communion with him. And thus she opposes us
              directly, for we attempt at all times to explain to the �Free World� that
              the Soviet Patriarchate is not the genuine representative and head of the
              much-suffering Russian Church. But the Serbian Church recognizes her as
              such, and by so doing commits a grave sin against the Russian Church and
              the Russian Orthodox people�
              How can there be any talk here of a special gratitude to her? Oh, if the
              Serbian Church would, while recognizing our righteousness, likewise
              directly and openly, boldly recognize the unrighteousness of the Soviets!
              Well � then there would truly be something for us to thank her for! But
              now � as it is, while extending one hand to us, she extends her other hand
              to our opponents and the enemies of God and the Church. If it pleases you �
              having shut your eyes to this sad reality � to thank the Serbs for
              such �podvigs� of theirs, then that is your affair, but I am not a
              participant in this _expression of gratitude.
              How dangerous are compromises in matters of principle! They render people
              powerless in defense of the Truth. Why is it that the Serbian Patriarchate
              cannot resolve to sever communion with the Soviet hierarchy? Because she
              herself is travelling along the same gloomy and dangerous path of
              compromise with the God-hating Communists. True, she has not progressed
              along that path to the extent that the Soviet hierarchy has, and she
              attempts to preach and defend the faith, but if the shades and nuances here
              are quite different, yet, in principle, the matter stands on one and the
              same level��

              + Metropolitan Philaret



              "Fr. Alexis Duncan" <7848@...> wrote:
              I have to disagree here. I remember Vladika Gregory quite
              well and have a fond remembrance of him. I highly respect
              him. He was one of the brightest and most erudite bishops we
              have had. He wasn't taken in by Boston. He saw their faults.
              I know this from personal experience. Vladika Philaret
              likewise was not a dupe of anyone. He delegated things to
              others, as everyone does. I feel they would never have
              defended the errors of the Bosotonites.

              As to Anthony Grabbe, it is a sad history. But it was dealt
              with years ago and it is over for us. Let us not bring up
              his name since he has nothing to do with our current
              situation. You are right however, in that Vladika Philaret's
              courage and steadfast stance brought many to the Church
              Abroad, including myself. Those indeed were the golden
              years.







              ---------------------------------
              Do you Yahoo!?
              vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Fr. Alexis Duncan
              I try to be fair. I knew Vladika Gregory and he had mentioned some odd things in Boston. He even used the word heresy when describing a couple of teachings.
              Message 6 of 23 , Oct 7 6:01 AM
                I try to be fair. I knew Vladika Gregory and he had
                mentioned some odd things in Boston. He even used the word
                "heresy" when describing a couple of teachings. He saw them
                although he did not publicly voice them perhaps. He
                certainly would not have been sitting on the internet like
                you and me!

                HOCNA did not write much of anything other than their own
                materials. They did not write the anathema. That is fantasy.

                I don't know if you were around then, but I was and I had
                friends influenced by the Bostonites. I wasn't since I
                couldn't stand the moaning and screeching of their chant. I
                unabashedly do not like the stuff. These friends were
                terribly mixed up. They were the stereotypical "converts"
                who wore prayer ropes, long dresses to the floor and six
                head coverings. That was the rather cultish mentality that
                really turned me off. Their devotion to the "elder" was a
                true turning point for me away from such things. I was
                fortunate to have guides that were more to my taste from
                Jordanville and New York.

                But all that aside, Vladika Philaret reposed before the
                schism, so I don't think we can use his witness in what
                eventually happened. It is understood that he had respect
                for the Boston monastery. But then again, he never saw the
                seedy underside of the beast. Had he known the accusations
                of supposed moral misconduct, he would have immediately
                taken notice.

                The quotes you mention from Vladika Philaret doesn't seem to
                have much to do with this topic.






                Fr. Alexis Duncan
                Joy of All Who Sorrow Russian Orthodox Church
                Atlanta, GA
                www.orthodoxinfo.biz



                -----Original Message-----
                From: michael nikitin [mailto:nikitinmike@...]
                Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2004 11:29 AM
                To: orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: RE: [orthodox-synod] Re: Sviatitel' Sergij




                HOCNA was in ROCOR for over 20 years if I remember
                correctly. If they had errors Bishop Gregory Grabbe
                certainly would have spoken out about them and St.Metr.
                Philaret never said anything to anyone about HOCNA, except
                praise(see excerpt from letter below).

                In fact, Fr. John Shaw writes that HOCNA was the one who
                wrote the Anathema against Ecumenism in 1983 which all of
                our bishops signed. Now if HOCNA was not respected by
                Metr. Philaret and Bishop Gregory I would imagine they would
                not have accepted their Anathema of 1983. If Fr. John will
                write that the bishops did not sign it in 1983, all of the
                bishops certainly signed it again in Mansonvile in 1998 when
                the Anathema of 1998 was reaffirmed.

                Metr. Philaret did speak and write against Archbishop
                Anthony of Geneva and
                others who were straying(see below, etc...).

                Bishop Gregory spoke up against Bishop Cyprian of Fili( "The
                Dubious
                Orthodoxy of Metropolitan Cyprian's Group" written in 1994,
                etc...).


                Lets be fair.

                Michael N
                Exerpts from St.Metr. Philaret's Letters:
                First of all, I pointed out that we really do have a place
                where we have a flock in common with other ministers of the
                Orthodox Church. And that is Boston. We have our parishes
                there, and the monastery of Archimandrite Panteleimon is
                located there too. And it has
                Greek practices and Typicon. All the faithful there attend
                both one and the other equally, since that monastery is of
                our jurisdiction, is absolutely Orthodox, and has our
                Orthodox "spirit", despite the difference in Typicon and
                practices.

                "In precisely the same manner, in receiving the Soviet
                clergy, we apply the principle of economia. And we receive
                the clergymen from Moscow not as ones possessing grace, but
                as ones receiving it by the very act of union. But to
                recognize the church of the evil-doers as the bearer and
                repository of grace, that we cannot do, of course. For
                outside of Orthodoxy there is no grace; and the Soviet
                church has deprived itself of grace."

                An Excerpt from a Letter of Saint Philaret to Archbishop
                Anthony of Geneva:

                November 16/29, 1977

                …I consider it my duty to point out to you, Vladyka, that
                your assertion
                that we must thank the Serbian Church for her treatment of
                us, I fully
                accept, but only as regards her past — the glorious past of
                the Serbian
                Church. Yes, of course, we must hold the names of their
                Holinesses
                Patriarchs Demetrius and Barnabas in grateful memory for
                their precious
                support of the Church Abroad at that time when she “had no
                place to lay her
                head”…
                There is no denying that a certain honor is due the Serbian
                Church for her
                refusing to condemn our Church Abroad at the parasynagogue
                in Moscow in
                1971, and also on later occasions when Moscow again raised
                the matter. But
                then, on the other hand, she did participate in the
                aforementioned
                parasynagogue, when it elected Pimen, and the Serbian
                hierarchs did not
                protest against this absolutely anti-canonical “election”,
                when he who had
                already been chosen and appointed by the God-hating regime
                was elected. Our
                Sobor of 1971 did not, and could not, recognize Pimen,
                whereas the Serbian
                Patriarchate recognized and does recognize him, addressing
                him as
                Patriarch, and is in full communion with him. And thus she
                opposes us
                directly, for we attempt at all times to explain to the
                “Free World” that
                the Soviet Patriarchate is not the genuine representative
                and head of the
                much-suffering Russian Church. But the Serbian Church
                recognizes her as
                such, and by so doing commits a grave sin against the
                Russian Church and
                the Russian Orthodox people…
                How can there be any talk here of a special gratitude to
                her? Oh, if the
                Serbian Church would, while recognizing our righteousness,
                likewise
                directly and openly, boldly recognize the unrighteousness of
                the Soviets!
                Well — then there would truly be something for us to thank
                her for! But
                now — as it is, while extending one hand to us, she extends
                her other hand
                to our opponents and the enemies of God and the Church. If
                it pleases you —
                having shut your eyes to this sad reality — to thank the
                Serbs for
                such “podvigs” of theirs, then that is your affair, but I am
                not a
                participant in this _expression of gratitude.
                How dangerous are compromises in matters of principle! They
                render people
                powerless in defense of the Truth. Why is it that the
                Serbian Patriarchate
                cannot resolve to sever communion with the Soviet hierarchy?
                Because she
                herself is travelling along the same gloomy and dangerous
                path of
                compromise with the God-hating Communists. True, she has not
                progressed
                along that path to the extent that the Soviet hierarchy has,
                and she
                attempts to preach and defend the faith, but if the shades
                and nuances here
                are quite different, yet, in principle, the matter stands on
                one and the
                same level…”

                + Metropolitan Philaret



                "Fr. Alexis Duncan" <7848@...> wrote:
                I have to disagree here. I remember Vladika Gregory quite
                well and have a fond remembrance of him. I highly respect
                him. He was one of the brightest and most erudite bishops we
                have had. He wasn't taken in by Boston. He saw their faults.
                I know this from personal experience. Vladika Philaret
                likewise was not a dupe of anyone. He delegated things to
                others, as everyone does. I feel they would never have
                defended the errors of the Bosotonites.

                As to Anthony Grabbe, it is a sad history. But it was dealt
                with years ago and it is over for us. Let us not bring up
                his name since he has nothing to do with our current
                situation. You are right however, in that Vladika Philaret's
                courage and steadfast stance brought many to the Church
                Abroad, including myself. Those indeed were the golden
                years.







                ---------------------------------
                Do you Yahoo!?
                vote.yahoo.com - Register online to vote today!

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






                ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
                Sponsor --------------------~-->
                $9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
                http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/m.VolB/TM
                ------------------------------------------------------------
                --------~->

                Archives located at
                http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod


                Yahoo! Groups Links
              • Paul O. BARTLETT
                ... No accounting for taste, I guess. :) Having experieneced both, I like both Russian and Greek modes of chant. My favorite modes of Orthodox chant, though,
                Message 7 of 23 , Oct 7 3:14 PM
                  On Thu, 7 Oct 2004, Fr. Alexis Duncan wrote (excerpted):

                  > I don't know if you were around then, but I was and I had
                  > friends influenced by the Bostonites. I wasn't since I
                  > couldn't stand the moaning and screeching of their chant. I
                  > unabashedly do not like the stuff.

                  No accounting for taste, I guess. :) Having experieneced both,
                  I like both Russian and Greek modes of chant. My favorite modes of
                  Orthodox chant, though, are Gregorian and Ambrosian (after all, my
                  religious heritage is Latin Orthodox).

                  > That was the rather cultish mentality that
                  > really turned me off.

                  I had both "Panteleimonite" and "Platinite" connections when I was
                  in ROCOR in the 1970s, and I would say that there was a danger not just
                  among the "Panteleimonites," although I grant that I could see a
                  tendency among them.

                  > Their devotion to the "elder" was a
                  > true turning point for me away from such things.

                  I admit I did have a bit of trouble with that, as well.
                  However.....

                  > I was
                  > fortunate to have guides that were more to my taste from
                  > Jordanville and New York.

                  .....is spititual guidance always a matter of personal taste? Is
                  spiritual guidance a cafeteria? (There is, admittedly, a problem for
                  those who do not have much choice at all, even if choice is legitimate,
                  when any sort of spiritual guidance, apart from letters, is hard to
                  come by.)

                  --
                  Paul Bartlett
                  PGP key info in message headers
                • michael nikitin
                  Fr. John Shaw more then once stated that Anathema of 1983 WAS written by Holy Transfiguration Monastery. In fact the same HOCNA s anathema was reaffirmed in
                  Message 8 of 23 , Oct 8 6:10 AM
                    Fr. John Shaw more then once stated that Anathema of 1983 WAS written by Holy Transfiguration Monastery. In fact the same HOCNA's anathema was reaffirmed in 1998 and signed by all of our bishops in Mansonville. Of course these Greeks would not stay in ROCOR after we began to serve with Serbian Church which is in Ecumenism after their Anathema was not obeyed. If anyone will write that Serbian Church is not really in Ecumenism, then some of our priests should not protest against union with MP because of Ecumenism.

                    Fr.John Shaw writes a lot of things but has no one to collaborate it when he writes about Boston. We cannot ask the dead, but we do have their writings and they say just the opposite of what you and Fr. John write.


                    The quotes of St.Metr.Philaret mentioned are relevant to the topic. They simply show how much of a turmoil ROCOR was in. If there was any hint of heresy in Boston the bishops would have written something about it, but in the letters below and in many more letters and statements we don't see anything as heresy was ever mentioned. You received your information from hear-say - unless you consider Metr. Anthony Khrapovitsky's Dogma of Redemption a heresy.

                    What you say just doesn't hold up. It sounds like you have something personal to this negativity towards Boston. Singing? I also don't care for Byzantine chants and Valaam chants. Too boring and too monotonous. But, each to his own.

                    I go to Holy Trinity Monastery often and see stereotypical "converts" and Russians who wear prayer ropes, long dresses and six head coverings. Matushka Drobot ( a very pious woman) and her daughters are stereotypical by your definition. What about our Old Believers in Pennsylvania? I have been to Russia and saw the same. Just because we don't care for the head coverings and like mini-skirts doesn't mean we should stereotype people who do not wear them.

                    Metr.Philaret sent B.Gregory Grabbe to investigate the supposedly moral misconduct in Boston. B.Gregory spent some time at the Monastery and found nothing and wrote so.

                    When St.Metr.Philaret reposed the moral misconduct was brought up again with the help of a priest, about who B.Gregory Grabbe states, who had an enmity to HTM. But this time no one spent any time at the Monastery for investigation, to speak to the monks in the monastery, but we were all quick to believe hear-say. In other words, our bishops and each one of us, judged them guilty without investigating the whole situation. It looks like our Bishops wanted them to leave ROCOR, it was convenient for our Bishops that they would leave ROCOR and after waiting patiently for a whole year they, to the delight of many, finally left.

                    Interestingly that one accuser ran off with a woman. B.Gregory of Colorado (should I say any more?) when he left the monastery, praised them in the beginning but when was offered a priesthood by B. Alippy suddenly changed his story. In other words, he wasn't even involved. Bishop Gregory Grabbe stated categoricly, by canon law all of the accusers who ran away in the night and stole monastery's property are not fit to be accusers. Why didn't they go to Bishop Constantine who was living in the monastery at the time right away? Why didn't they go to the police?

                    If Fr. Alexis knew B.Gregory Grabbe and respected him then he would have no problem agreeing with his letters below in which he comes to the defense of Boston.

                    Michael N


                    11/24 March 1987

                    Dear Vasily Ivanovich,

                    Thank-you for your letter of March 16.
                    Concerning those who left us, you are mistaken. Fist of all, it is not
                    only Greeks, but also Russian and Americans. I always found it easy to work
                    with them. They departed from us because our hierarchs hounded them out.
                    This is the fruit of the work of enemy agents, and of chauvinism on our part
                    (of several of our bishops), and of the banishment of love as the guiding
                    principle of administration. For you see, they condemned Fr. Panteleimon
                    without an investigation. Not a single investigator came to the monastery,
                    just as the Metropolitan never visited even once. None of the exonerating
                    evidence, which I submitted while still an active member, was taken into
                    consideration; the accusation was founded upon the testimonies of people
                    who, according to the canons, cannot be witnesses against a priest. It is
                    significant that the entire brotherhood remained with Fr. Panteleimon. The
                    mode of operation of the chief investigator, Archbishop Antony of Los
                    Angeles, consists of of driving a person to despair by means of injustice,
                    impelling him in such a state to depart, and then defrocking him for doing
                    so. A simplified method, but not Christian. That this method had been
                    employed in the cases of Fr. Antony (Grabbe) and of Fr. Panteleimon was
                    admitted by the Metropolitan in a conversation with a delegation of clergy.
                    I was removed because I was forever reminding everyone concerning the
                    canons. With me taking part it would not have been possible to pass lawless
                    resolutions. Partly it is a matter of personal feeling (against Fr.
                    Panteleimon/me), but I cannot rule out the influence of agents.
                    Incidentally, my correspondence from Russian expresses his perplexity at
                    some of the broadcasts of Fr. V. Potapov, an active participant in brewing
                    this mess who has a certain sympathy for part of the moscow Patriarchate.
                    Incidentally, in the past Fr. Panteleimon always spoke out against us
                    having a Greek made a bishop. He left only after they (the ROCA) had first
                    approved the newly-elected abbot, and then a few days later had accused him
                    without a trial, and had entrusted the superiorship to Archbishop Antony of
                    Los Angeles, who manifestly acted like a battering ram in order to destroy
                    the monastery, which possesses a great and valuable property gathered by Fr.
                    Panteleimon.
                    Of course, I write this in strict confidence, only for your information.
                    Of course all this is quite complicated, and it is difficult to point the
                    finger at anyone in particular, especially in writing..
                    I hope that your flu soon passes. Concerning the Conference, my
                    participation will depend on the state of my health. At present I would not
                    be able to endure it.
                    In the love of Christ,...

                    and

                    Most-reverend Vladykas and Fellow Hierarchs.
                    For fifty-five years I, at the bidding of the Most-blessed Metropolit
                    Anthony, and then under his two successors, have served the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.
                    I was always thankful to God for this, especially during these last
                    years, because the Lord has preordained Her to be, most likely, the last
                    bulwark of truth in the face of the triumphantly increasing "Mystery of
                    Iniquity". Is it not for this reason that
                    non-Russians have been drawn into her bosom, and have also become our
                    spiritual children? And thus, in addition to our Russian flock, the
                    responsibility for them before God has been laid upon us.
                    The three Hierarchs indicated above, by means of love, built up the
                    Russian Church Abroad, which, while preaching and witnessing to the Truth, and at the same time maintaining condescension towards human weaknesses, did not
                    allow sinful manifestations to pull down Her edifice. On account of this
                    she attracted new spiritual children of the Truth. Our First-Hierarchs
                    always remembered that only Truth, united with love, attracts people to the
                    Church and unites them to Her. A policy lacking this principle, and based
                    solely on the divulging of sins and a striving after vengeance for them, does not help matters: here even proper zeal becomes, according to the apostle, not only a "sounding brass", but even a ferment for temptations and speedy
                    demoralization.
                    Our departed First-Hierarchs found ways, without unnecessary noise and
                    general scandal, but rather with love and discretion, to overcome sinful
                    manifestations, capturing the hearts of the faithful not by punitive zeal,
                    but by love and discretion, always being guided by Canon 102 - now-forgotten
                    by us - of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which I ardently beg you to read
                    right now, in order to understand me correctly.
                    At present we are experiencing demoralization in many places, especially
                    among the newer spiritual children of our Church who had been drawn to Her
                    by our confession of the Truth, but who are now alienated by our punitive
                    administration lacking in love.
                    Permit me to speak my mind regarding the latest decision concerning Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Boston, which has brought about the defection
                    from us of the two wee-ordered monasteries, and which may have a colossal
                    and most grievous impact on our dioceses in North America, affecting forty
                    parishes.
                    Metropolitans Anthony and Anastasy taught me that the benefit or harm
                    for the flock of punitive decisions depends to a great degree on whether or not
                    their equity and necessity are indisputably perceived by those accused and
                    by the broad circle of the faithful affected by these decisions. Whereas
                    here the resolution concerning Fr. Panteleimon and Fr. Isaac is felt to be
                    unjust by the vast majority of our flock, especially among the Greek flock in the Boston area; and in the majority of people it evokes consternation and indignation.
                    Such also is the reaction of all the clergy by the area (approximately ten
                    men). In that regard it must be kept in mind that all the parishes of that
                    region - except for Holy Epiphany, whose pastor has been at enmity with Holy
                    Transfiguration Monastery - are quite attached to it and respect Fr.
                    Panteleimon.
                    One detail must also be borne in mind: the property of Holy
                    Transfiguration Monastery, which has been gathered by Fr. Panteleimon, starting with nothing, is now worth millions. The removal of its founder and the
                    appointment of the investigator, Archbishop Anthony, as Abbot, even if only
                    temporarily, could easily evoke among the Greeks the suspicion that this
                    case was instigated from mercenary motives on our part. For many who are
                    well-informed concerning the
                    condition of church life in the Boston area, it remains a question whether
                    or not the Synod knew all these details when it reached its decision.
                    We are now faced with great spiritual wound and a temptation for many
                    people, And they shall criticize and judge the First-Hierarch and all the
                    Hierarchs. As one who knows this flock - inasmuch as the past few years
                    Metropolitan Philaret was unable to travel there and sent me - my heart
                    breaks at the thought of the temptation it is undergoing and of the possible
                    consequences. I therefore implore all the Reverend Members of the Sobor to consider urgent measures for the healing of this serious malady which
                    has come upon the faithful, so that they might sense that the Russian
                    Orthodox Church Abroad is for them not an evil step-mother, but a loving
                    mother.
                    Your Graces, the Boston affair is one of such magnitude, that not only
                    the
                    Diocesan hierarch shall answer for it before God, but all the members of the
                    Sobor, since the decision, unfortunately, was not made by him personally,
                    but in council. all the members shall answer for the monks, nuns, and
                    faithful who shall leave us, not having endured the trial. How shall we
                    feel, when at the Terrible Judgment we behold them on the left side because
                    of us?
                    I ask forgiveness that, although having been retired, in this instance I
                    break silence and sound the alarm.

                    September 1986


                    "Fr. Alexis Duncan" <7848@...> wrote:
                    I try to be fair. I knew Vladika Gregory and he had
                    mentioned some odd things in Boston. He even used the word
                    "heresy" when describing a couple of teachings. He saw them
                    although he did not publicly voice them perhaps. He
                    certainly would not have been sitting on the internet like
                    you and me!

                    HOCNA did not write much of anything other than their own
                    materials. They did not write the anathema. That is fantasy.

                    I don't know if you were around then, but I was and I had
                    friends influenced by the Bostonites. I wasn't since I
                    couldn't stand the moaning and screeching of their chant. I
                    unabashedly do not like the stuff. These friends were
                    terribly mixed up. They were the stereotypical "converts"
                    who wore prayer ropes, long dresses to the floor and six
                    head coverings. That was the rather cultish mentality that
                    really turned me off. Their devotion to the "elder" was a
                    true turning point for me away from such things. I was
                    fortunate to have guides that were more to my taste from
                    Jordanville and New York.

                    But all that aside, Vladika Philaret reposed before the
                    schism, so I don't think we can use his witness in what
                    eventually happened. It is understood that he had respect
                    for the Boston monastery. But then again, he never saw the
                    seedy underside of the beast. Had he known the accusations
                    of supposed moral misconduct, he would have immediately
                    taken notice.

                    The quotes you mention from Vladika Philaret doesn't seem to
                    have much to do with this topic.





                    ---------------------------------
                    Do you Yahoo!?
                    Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Fr. John R. Shaw
                    ... by Holy Transfiguration Monastery. In fact the same HOCNA s anathema was reaffirmed in 1998 and signed by all of our bishops in Mansonville. JRS: It was
                    Message 9 of 23 , Oct 8 8:18 AM
                      Michael Nikitin wrote:

                      > Fr. John Shaw more then once stated that Anathema of 1983 WAS written
                      by Holy Transfiguration Monastery. In fact the same HOCNA's anathema
                      was reaffirmed in 1998 and signed by all of our bishops in Mansonville.

                      JRS: It was *not* signed by the bishops. You simply repeat this claim
                      over and over.

                      > Fr.John Shaw writes a lot of things but has no one to collaborate
                      it when he writes about Boston.

                      JRS: You write "collaborate", but I think you mean "corroborate".

                      It's curious that people who make glib enough claims themselves, and
                      offer no "corroboration" -- turn around and demand "absolute,
                      incontrovertible proof" from others!

                      "Neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead" (Luke
                      16:31).

                      In Christ
                      Fr. John R. Shaw
                    • michael nikitin
                      The Synod s reaffirming of HOCNA s anathema of 1983 in 1998 was signed by the bishops in Mansonville. Fr.John posted: Neither will they be persuaded, though
                      Message 10 of 23 , Oct 8 9:42 AM
                        The Synod's reaffirming of HOCNA's anathema of 1983 in 1998 was signed by the bishops in Mansonville.

                        Fr.John posted:
                        "Neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead" (Luke 16:31).

                        Fr.John, you are no Apostle Luke!

                        I have written letters of B.Gregory Grabbe and St.Metr.Philaret as my corroborations.

                        Fr.John's corroborations are all dead.

                        Michael N

                        "Fr. John R. Shaw" <vrevjrs@...> wrote:
                        Michael Nikitin wrote:

                        > Fr. John Shaw more then once stated that Anathema of 1983 WAS written
                        by Holy Transfiguration Monastery. In fact the same HOCNA's anathema
                        was reaffirmed in 1998 and signed by all of our bishops in Mansonville.

                        JRS: It was *not* signed by the bishops. You simply repeat this claim
                        over and over.

                        > Fr.John Shaw writes a lot of things but has no one to collaborate
                        it when he writes about Boston.

                        JRS: You write "collaborate", but I think you mean "corroborate".

                        It's curious that people who make glib enough claims themselves, and
                        offer no "corroboration" -- turn around and demand "absolute,
                        incontrovertible proof" from others!

                        "Neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead" (Luke
                        16:31).

                        In Christ
                        Fr. John R. Shaw


                        __________________________________________________
                        Do You Yahoo!?
                        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                        http://mail.yahoo.com

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • (matushka) Ann Lardas
                        Dear Michael, About the investigation of Holy Transfiguration, culminating in their departure the week that Frs. Panteleimon and Isaac were suspended by ...
                        Message 11 of 23 , Oct 9 3:20 PM
                          Dear Michael,

                          About the investigation of Holy Transfiguration, culminating in their
                          departure the week that Frs. Panteleimon and Isaac were suspended by
                          Synod, you wrote:

                          >When St.Metr.Philaret reposed the moral misconduct was brought up
                          again with the help of a priest, about who B.Gregory Grabbe states,
                          who had an enmity to HTM.
                          But this time no one spent any time at the Monastery for
                          investigation, to speak to the monks in the monastery, but we were
                          all quick to believe hear-say. <

                          This is a misrepresentation. The bishops did not stay at the
                          monastery during the time of their investigation, but they spoke to
                          EVERYONE concerned. The bishops who investigated made several trips
                          to Boston to interview both the witnesses and the accused. In fact,
                          the monastery complains, in some of the letters from that time, that
                          the bishops refused to stay at or interview witnesses and accused at
                          the monastery (several rooms of which had been wired for sound for an
                          intercom system by the former Father Eugene, and so conversations
                          could have been heard by those for whom they were not intended) but
                          rather did their investigations at the hotel (back then called the
                          Swisse Chalet, now operating under another name). Letters by
                          defenders of our bishops outline how two monks were caught sitting on
                          the floor outside the bishop's room listening to another monk's
                          testimony. It's true that the bishops who investigated did not stay
                          at the monastery itself, but not that they didn't investigate.

                          There were fourteen witnesses in all, not just one priest "who had an
                          emnity." Several of the accusers had mailed their complaints to the
                          late Metropolitan during his lifetime, but their letters were found
                          only after His Eminence's repose. Others came forward once the
                          initial investigation began. Then, when Fr. Panteleimon came back to
                          the monastery from Liturgy in Worcester with Met. Vitaly on
                          Radonitsa, 1986, and announced that all charges would soon be
                          dropped, three monks who had been recipients of undesired attention
                          but were still living at the monastery met with each other and
                          decided each to go to one of the investigating bishops to report
                          first hand what had happened to each of them.

                          I had long wondered where the ugly rumor that our bishops hoped
                          somehow to profit from the sale of the monastery property had come
                          from, and I was deeply grieved to learn, through the letter you
                          posted, that it had been repeated by if it did not originally stem
                          from a retired ROCOR bishop himself. But it's just ugly speculation,
                          having nothing to do with fact. The monastery property remained,
                          during the whole time they were with us and throughout their various
                          sojourns since, not in the bishops' names as church property should
                          be but rather under the name of the corporation which the monks
                          formed, first their original corporation, later under one structured
                          with a more openly congregational constitution, after the lawsuits
                          that netted HOCNA, however briefly, the Worcester and Ipswich
                          parishes. (The Blanco monastery had a similar
                          arrangement, "Ecumenical Monks, Incorporated.") No such sale could
                          have taken place, then, no matter what Vladyka Anthony (chosen by our
                          bishops because he had been respected by the monks before) had
                          desired or even attempted.

                          Even more evil was a rumor, already 17 years old, that there was
                          a "plot" in place to make a gift of the monastery to the Moscow
                          Patriarchate to hasten the process of union with the MP, which
                          detractors of our bishops have rumored would take place at the next
                          Christmas, Pascha or Sobor every year since. Such rumors would have
                          taken on a humorous cast (a few years ago when such a rumor,
                          about "Reunion by Pascha!!!" was hot, a reader snorted, "Oh, puh-
                          lease. We'll be lucky if by Pascha we've all received the Nativity
                          encyclical.") were it not for the fact that they a) invite people to
                          mistrust and judge our bishops, believing those who accuse them over
                          our bishops themselves, and b) they depict union with the Moscow
                          Patriarchate to be the result of an evil decision on the part of our
                          bishops rather than the result of healing changes wrought by nothing
                          less than the Holy Spirit in Russia.

                          This is a quintessential error, one that mistakes the very purpose of
                          our Church.

                          It assumes that the Moscow Patriarchate had somehow changed in such a
                          way as to be beyond God's redemption, and that ROCOR, rather than
                          being regent for a captive prince, rather than being the voice of the
                          speechless, the free part of a Church that is wounded and captive but
                          still alive, still in need of our prayers and love, had somehow
                          metamorphosed into the Only Vestige of Orthodoxy Left on Earth. What
                          a thought!

                          The Church of Constantinople was captive, but God led Her to freedom.
                          The Russian Orthodox under the Tartar Yoke were captive, but God
                          didn't leave them to rot. The Church suffered under emperors and even
                          Patriarchs who, for a season, fell prey to one heresy or another in
                          one place or another -- iconoclasm, Arianism, Manichiean heresy, you
                          name it -- but God didn't let the Church stay in such circumstances.

                          Union, reunion, recognition, whatever verb you choose, will only take
                          place when our bishops and the MP bishops believe and practice the
                          same things, because the work of our church in exile, to preserve the
                          texts and teachings and practices of the Church and share them with
                          our captive bretheren and encourage them in our brother Orthodox in
                          Russia once they are free -- will have come to full fruition. Since
                          1992, throughout Russia they have been using, printing, teaching
                          from, praying from, the books which Jordanville saved and printed and
                          preserved and mailed and even smuggled back into Russia during the
                          dark days. If reading these books can make Roman Catholics from
                          Boston and Protestants from the midwest and Buddhists in California
                          see and believe and choose to find and follow and live the Orthodox
                          faith, why can they not have had the same effect upon Russian souls?
                          Why should they not have turned souls, stiffled under atheistic
                          teachings, turn toward God as plants lean toward the sun, and find
                          nurture and solace, and blossom and grow?

                          After each of the heresies that plagued the Church, when an
                          ecumenical council solved the problem, those who had fallen into
                          false believe were received back simply by believing and teaching the
                          lie no longer. You can read about it here:

                          http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/resistance/roca_lardas.htm

                          Why could not the healing after years of Sergianism and the
                          corruptive influence of ecumenism be so simple?

                          The Church was founded on Pentacost through the descent of the Holy
                          Spirit. And it is God Himself who reaches out and snatches us all out
                          of darkness and leads us to Her. To doubt the healing and salvific
                          powers of the Church is to doubt the ability of the Holy Spirit, to
                          not believe in the power and might of God to fix what is broken, to
                          restore what has been sullied, to liberate the captives, to set
                          aright the fallen. It is inconsistent to think that God can save us
                          but that somehow Patriarch Alexis is beyond His reach.

                          We prayed for this miracle. We beg for it in the prayer for Russia at
                          every Liturgy. Our spiritual forefathers longed for it. Why would one
                          think that it could never happen? Or that it would be betrayal for
                          our bishops to recognize such a miracle when it occurs? Only the
                          enemy of our salvation would want to turn what should be so joyous
                          into something unpleasant, something that makes otherwise dutiful and
                          righteous sons of the Church turn into the older brother from the
                          parable of the Prodigal Son.

                          But there are those who, having cast aside the lawful authority of
                          our bishops, WHOM THEY THEMSELVES SOUGHT OUT for protection and
                          instruction, now will not be satisfied until we hold our hierarchy in
                          the same disregard that they do. Rebellion wishes to take for its own
                          or at the very least curtail the authority which the bishops rightly
                          have from God, through the Holy Spirit, through their ordination, for
                          those who have rejected the bishops' God-given authority do not
                          respect it, and they wish for us to disrespect both it and our
                          hierarchs themselves.

                          This is sin.
                          May God protect us from it.
                          It cannot lead to salvation.

                          Your original complaint, then, about the HTM investigation would seem
                          to be a small thing, but it is a gateway through which all kinds of
                          evil things can come in. Our bishops conducted the investigation of
                          Holy Transfiguration Monastery with all due dilligence and
                          discretion, respecting the canons and having no regard for persons,
                          not valuing the testimony of one over another despite years of
                          friendship with the monastery on the part of several of the
                          investigators. They concluded that the situation warrented further
                          attention. The monastery did not want such attention, and fled. The
                          rest is history; your account of it is not.

                          In Christ,
                          Matushka Ann Lardas,
                          baptized at HTM under ROCOR in 1974.
                        • German Ciuba
                          Dear Matushka, Thank-you for an exceptionally well-written message, combining solid argumentation and spiritual fervour with factual support. Would that your
                          Message 12 of 23 , Oct 11 11:03 AM
                            Dear Matushka,
                            Thank-you for an exceptionally well-written message, combining solid
                            argumentation and spiritual fervour with factual support. Would that
                            your voice were heard by some of those who frequently post messages to
                            this list!
                            Hieromonk German Ciuba

                            (matushka) Ann Lardas wrote:

                            >
                            > Dear Michael,
                            >
                            > About the investigation of Holy Transfiguration, culminating in their
                            > departure the week that Frs. Panteleimon and Isaac were suspended by
                            > Synod, you wrote:
                            >
                            > >When St.Metr.Philaret reposed the moral misconduct was brought up
                            > again with the help of a priest, about who B.Gregory Grabbe states,
                            > who had an enmity to HTM.
                            > But this time no one spent any time at the Monastery for
                            > investigation, to speak to the monks in the monastery, but we were
                            > all quick to believe hear-say. <
                            >
                            > This is a misrepresentation. The bishops did not stay at the
                            > monastery during the time of their investigation, but they spoke to
                            > EVERYONE concerned. The bishops who investigated made several trips
                            > to Boston to interview both the witnesses and the accused. In fact,
                            > the monastery complains, in some of the letters from that time, that
                            > the bishops refused to stay at or interview witnesses and accused at
                            > the monastery (several rooms of which had been wired for sound for an
                            > intercom system by the former Father Eugene, and so conversations
                            > could have been heard by those for whom they were not intended) but
                            > rather did their investigations at the hotel (back then called the
                            > Swisse Chalet, now operating under another name). Letters by
                            > defenders of our bishops outline how two monks were caught sitting on
                            > the floor outside the bishop's room listening to another monk's
                            > testimony. It's true that the bishops who investigated did not stay
                            > at the monastery itself, but not that they didn't investigate.
                            >
                            > There were fourteen witnesses in all, not just one priest "who had an
                            > emnity." Several of the accusers had mailed their complaints to the
                            > late Metropolitan during his lifetime, but their letters were found
                            > only after His Eminence's repose. Others came forward once the
                            > initial investigation began. Then, when Fr. Panteleimon came back to
                            > the monastery from Liturgy in Worcester with Met. Vitaly on
                            > Radonitsa, 1986, and announced that all charges would soon be
                            > dropped, three monks who had been recipients of undesired attention
                            > but were still living at the monastery met with each other and
                            > decided each to go to one of the investigating bishops to report
                            > first hand what had happened to each of them.
                            >
                            > I had long wondered where the ugly rumor that our bishops hoped
                            > somehow to profit from the sale of the monastery property had come
                            > from, and I was deeply grieved to learn, through the letter you
                            > posted, that it had been repeated by if it did not originally stem
                            > from a retired ROCOR bishop himself. But it's just ugly speculation,
                            > having nothing to do with fact. The monastery property remained,
                            > during the whole time they were with us and throughout their various
                            > sojourns since, not in the bishops' names as church property should
                            > be but rather under the name of the corporation which the monks
                            > formed, first their original corporation, later under one structured
                            > with a more openly congregational constitution, after the lawsuits
                            > that netted HOCNA, however briefly, the Worcester and Ipswich
                            > parishes. (The Blanco monastery had a similar
                            > arrangement, "Ecumenical Monks, Incorporated.") No such sale could
                            > have taken place, then, no matter what Vladyka Anthony (chosen by our
                            > bishops because he had been respected by the monks before) had
                            > desired or even attempted.
                            >
                            > Even more evil was a rumor, already 17 years old, that there was
                            > a "plot" in place to make a gift of the monastery to the Moscow
                            > Patriarchate to hasten the process of union with the MP, which
                            > detractors of our bishops have rumored would take place at the next
                            > Christmas, Pascha or Sobor every year since. Such rumors would have
                            > taken on a humorous cast (a few years ago when such a rumor,
                            > about "Reunion by Pascha!!!" was hot, a reader snorted, "Oh, puh-
                            > lease. We'll be lucky if by Pascha we've all received the Nativity
                            > encyclical.") were it not for the fact that they a) invite people to
                            > mistrust and judge our bishops, believing those who accuse them over
                            > our bishops themselves, and b) they depict union with the Moscow
                            > Patriarchate to be the result of an evil decision on the part of our
                            > bishops rather than the result of healing changes wrought by nothing
                            > less than the Holy Spirit in Russia.
                            >
                            > This is a quintessential error, one that mistakes the very purpose of
                            > our Church.
                            >
                            > It assumes that the Moscow Patriarchate had somehow changed in such a
                            > way as to be beyond God's redemption, and that ROCOR, rather than
                            > being regent for a captive prince, rather than being the voice of the
                            > speechless, the free part of a Church that is wounded and captive but
                            > still alive, still in need of our prayers and love, had somehow
                            > metamorphosed into the Only Vestige of Orthodoxy Left on Earth. What
                            > a thought!
                            >
                            > The Church of Constantinople was captive, but God led Her to freedom.
                            > The Russian Orthodox under the Tartar Yoke were captive, but God
                            > didn't leave them to rot. The Church suffered under emperors and even
                            > Patriarchs who, for a season, fell prey to one heresy or another in
                            > one place or another -- iconoclasm, Arianism, Manichiean heresy, you
                            > name it -- but God didn't let the Church stay in such circumstances.
                            >
                            > Union, reunion, recognition, whatever verb you choose, will only take
                            > place when our bishops and the MP bishops believe and practice the
                            > same things, because the work of our church in exile, to preserve the
                            > texts and teachings and practices of the Church and share them with
                            > our captive bretheren and encourage them in our brother Orthodox in
                            > Russia once they are free -- will have come to full fruition. Since
                            > 1992, throughout Russia they have been using, printing, teaching
                            > from, praying from, the books which Jordanville saved and printed and
                            > preserved and mailed and even smuggled back into Russia during the
                            > dark days. If reading these books can make Roman Catholics from
                            > Boston and Protestants from the midwest and Buddhists in California
                            > see and believe and choose to find and follow and live the Orthodox
                            > faith, why can they not have had the same effect upon Russian souls?
                            > Why should they not have turned souls, stiffled under atheistic
                            > teachings, turn toward God as plants lean toward the sun, and find
                            > nurture and solace, and blossom and grow?
                            >
                            > After each of the heresies that plagued the Church, when an
                            > ecumenical council solved the problem, those who had fallen into
                            > false believe were received back simply by believing and teaching the
                            > lie no longer. You can read about it here:
                            >
                            > http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/resistance/roca_lardas.htm
                            >
                            > Why could not the healing after years of Sergianism and the
                            > corruptive influence of ecumenism be so simple?
                            >
                            > The Church was founded on Pentacost through the descent of the Holy
                            > Spirit. And it is God Himself who reaches out and snatches us all out
                            > of darkness and leads us to Her. To doubt the healing and salvific
                            > powers of the Church is to doubt the ability of the Holy Spirit, to
                            > not believe in the power and might of God to fix what is broken, to
                            > restore what has been sullied, to liberate the captives, to set
                            > aright the fallen. It is inconsistent to think that God can save us
                            > but that somehow Patriarch Alexis is beyond His reach.
                            >
                            > We prayed for this miracle. We beg for it in the prayer for Russia at
                            > every Liturgy. Our spiritual forefathers longed for it. Why would one
                            > think that it could never happen? Or that it would be betrayal for
                            > our bishops to recognize such a miracle when it occurs? Only the
                            > enemy of our salvation would want to turn what should be so joyous
                            > into something unpleasant, something that makes otherwise dutiful and
                            > righteous sons of the Church turn into the older brother from the
                            > parable of the Prodigal Son.
                            >
                            > But there are those who, having cast aside the lawful authority of
                            > our bishops, WHOM THEY THEMSELVES SOUGHT OUT for protection and
                            > instruction, now will not be satisfied until we hold our hierarchy in
                            > the same disregard that they do. Rebellion wishes to take for its own
                            > or at the very least curtail the authority which the bishops rightly
                            > have from God, through the Holy Spirit, through their ordination, for
                            > those who have rejected the bishops' God-given authority do not
                            > respect it, and they wish for us to disrespect both it and our
                            > hierarchs themselves.
                            >
                            > This is sin.
                            > May God protect us from it.
                            > It cannot lead to salvation.
                            >
                            > Your original complaint, then, about the HTM investigation would seem
                            > to be a small thing, but it is a gateway through which all kinds of
                            > evil things can come in. Our bishops conducted the investigation of
                            > Holy Transfiguration Monastery with all due dilligence and
                            > discretion, respecting the canons and having no regard for persons,
                            > not valuing the testimony of one over another despite years of
                            > friendship with the monastery on the part of several of the
                            > investigators. They concluded that the situation warrented further
                            > attention. The monastery did not want such attention, and fled. The
                            > rest is history; your account of it is not.
                            >
                            > In Christ,
                            > Matushka Ann Lardas,
                            > baptized at HTM under ROCOR in 1974.
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > *Yahoo! Groups Sponsor*
                            > ADVERTISEMENT
                            > <http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=129k20u7q/M=315388.5455587.6541274.2152211/D=groups/S=1705074598:HM/EXP=1097446821/A=2372352/R=0/SIG=12i7vpj02/*https://www.orchardbank.com/hcs/hcsapplication?pf=PLApply&media=EMYHNL40FF1004SS>
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            > *Yahoo! Groups Links*
                            >
                            > * To visit your group on the web, go to:
                            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orthodox-synod/
                            >
                            > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            > orthodox-synod-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            > <mailto:orthodox-synod-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
                            >
                            > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
                            > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
                            >
                            >



                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • michael nikitin
                            (matushka) Ann Lardas wrote: The rest is history; your account of it is not. Matushka Ann Lardas, you are in disagreement with
                            Message 13 of 23 , Oct 13 6:08 AM
                              "(matushka) Ann Lardas" <matanna@...> wrote:
                              "The rest is history; your account of it is not."


                              Matushka Ann Lardas, you are in disagreement with St.Metr.Philaret and Archbishop Gregory Grabbe. Your issue is with them.

                              B.Gregory Grabbe wrote:
                              For you see, they condemned Fr. Panteleimon
                              without an investigation. Not a single investigator came to the monastery,
                              just as the Metropolitan never visited even once. None of the exonerating
                              evidence, which I submitted while still an active member, was taken into
                              consideration; the accusation was founded upon the testimonies of people
                              who, according to the canons, cannot be witnesses against a priest. It is
                              significant that the entire brotherhood remained with Fr. Panteleimon."

                              also:

                              "In that regard it must be kept in mind that all the parishes of that
                              region - except for Holy Epiphany, whose pastor has been at enmity with Holy
                              Transfiguration Monastery - are quite attached to it and respect Fr.
                              Panteleimon."

                              Guess who I believe.

                              Michael N

                              P.S. Please read below:

                              A LETTER FROM METROPOLITAN PHILARET (VOZNESENSKY) TO A PRIEST OF
                              THE CHURCH ABROAD CONCERNING FATHER DIMITRY DUDKO AND THE
                              MOSCOW PATRIARCHATE

                              Exerpts from St.Metr.Philaret's letter:

                              Now a few words on the tragedy of poor Father Dimitry Dudko.
                              From the very beginning of his activities, when his name was being mentioned more and more often as a pillar of Orthodoxy, and moreover, the members of the Synod, the hierarchs, were joining their voices to this; I, however, the author of these lines, immediately kept out of it and forewarned my fellow hierarchs that a disaster might happen here. How so? Because in the USSR, according to the premise of Archimandrite Constantine, there is now a satan-ocracy. There rules he whom the Saviour called a liar and the father of lies. This lie reigns there. Therefore one cannot trust anything that occurs there. Any seemingly spiritually encouraging fact may turn out to be a falsification, a forgery, a deception, or a provocation...
                              Why did this calamity befall Father Dimitry Dudko? Let's assume the best, not suspecting him of conscious collaboration with the KGB and betrayal of his convictions, but simply noting the sad fact that he did not endure, but was broken; he capitulated before the enemies of the Church. Why? It would seem that he did display courage and daring; and then suddenly, such an inglorious end. Why?! Because his activity took place outside of the true Church...
                              What then is the Soviet church? Archimandrite Constantine has often and
                              insistently stated that the most horrible thing that the God-hating regime has done in Russia is the creation of the Soviet Church, which the Bolsheviks presented to the people as the true Church, having driven the genuine Orthodox Church into the catacombs or into the concentration camps.
                              This pseudo-church has been twice anathematized. His Holiness Patriarch
                              Tikhon and the All-Russian Church Sobor anathematized the Communists and all their collaborators. This dread anathema has not been lifted till this day and remains in force, since it can be lifted only by a similar All-Russian Church Sobor, as the canonical supreme ecclesiastical authority. And a terrifying thing happened in 1927, when the head of the Church, Metropolitan Sergius, by his infamous and
                              apostate Declaration, subjected the Russian Church to the Bolsheviks and proclaimed collaboration with them. And thus in a most exact sense was fulfilled the _expression in the prayer at the beginning of Confession: having fallen under their own anathema! For in
                              1918 the Church anathematized all the confederates of Communism, while in 1927 she herself joined the camp of these collaborators and began to laud the red, God-having regime to laud the red beast spoken of in the Apocalypse.
                              As if that is not enough. When Metropolitan Sergius promulgated his criminal Declaration, then the faithful children of the Church immediately separated themselves from the Soviet church, and thus
                              the Catacomb Church was formed. And she, in her turn, has anathematized the official church for its betrayal of Christ. And it was within this very church of evil-doers that the activities of Father Dimitry Dudko occurred, who has frankly declared in the press that he is not going to break with the Soviet church but will remain in her. Has his spiritual eyes been open, and had he seen the true nature of the official church, he might have found within himself the courage to say: I have hated the congregation of evil-doers, and with the ungodly will I not sit I am breaking off with the company
                              of the enemies of God, and I am withdrawing from the Soviet church. Why, then for us he would have become one of our own his courage would have destroyed the barrier which irrevocably stands between us by virtue of the fact that the Sobor adopted as its guiding principle the Testament of Metropolitan Anastasy. For in this Testament it is ordered that we must not have any communion whatsoever with the Soviets, not only no communion in prayer, but not even ordinary contact in daily life. But as long as Father Dimitry would have refused to remain in the Soviet pseudo-church, and would have withdrawn from membership in her the barrier would no longer have applied to him..........
                              The hierarch Theophan the Recluse in his own day warned that a terrible time was approaching when people would behold before their eyes all the appearance of church grandeur solemn services, church order, and such while on the inside there would be total betrayal of the Spirit of Christ. Is this not what we see in the Soviet church? Patriarchs, Metropolitans, all the priestly and monastic orders and at the very same time, an alliance with the God-haters, that is, a manifest betrayal of Christ.
                              To this company belongs also Father Dimitry Dudko. Of course, his sincere religious feelings compelled him to preach concerning God and not to condone many of the disgraceful happenings in the lives of Russian people. But for him, Pimen was, and likely still is, his spiritual head, the head of the Soviet hierarchy; while for us, it is not at all so. For our Sobor in 1971 passed a resolution: on the basis of such and such canons to consider the election of Pimen as unlawful and invalid, and to consider all his acts and decrees as having no force or significance.
                              How difficult is Father Dimitry Dudko's position now! What is he to do?
                              Continue his pastoral work? And what can he say to the faithful? Say the same thing that he said before his repentance? But then, he has already renounced this! Say the opposite? Why, they believed him before when he preached that which won for him the trust and respect of the faithful and now, how will he look them in the face? One girl correctly said that there is one way out for him: make a genuine repentance in atonement for the one he just now made. But in order to do
                              that he must depart from the church of the evil-doers for the true Church, and there make his repentance. However, in return, the red church will undoubtedly deal with him with particular malice and cruelty. Of course, by crossing over to the true Church, he will pass over into the realm of Divine grace and strength, which can fortify him just as it fortified those catacomb nuns. God grant that he find the true and saving path.
                              I should also like to note the following. The Catacomb Church in Russia
                              relates to the Church Abroad with love and total confidence. However, one thing is incomprehensible to the Catacomb Christians: they can't understand why our Church, which realizes beyond a doubt that the Soviet hierarchy has betrayed Christ and is no longer a bearer of grace, nevertheless receives clergy of the Soviet church in their existing orders, not re-ordaining them, as ones already having grace. For the clergy and flock receive grace from the hierarchy, and if it [the hierarchy] has betrayed the Truth and deprived itself of grace, from where then does the clergy have grace? It is along these
                              lines that the Catacomb Christians pose the question.
                              The answer to this is simple. The Church has the authority in certain cases to employ the principle of economia condescension. The hierarch Saint Basil the Great said that, in order not to drive many away from the Church, it is necessary sometimes to permit condescension and not apply the church canons in all their severity. When our Church accepted Roman Catholic clergy in their orders, without ordaining them, she acted according to this principle. And Metropolitan Anthony
                              [Khrapovitsky], elucidating this issue, pointed out that the outward form successive ordination from Apostolic times that the Roman Catholics do have; whereas the grace, which the Roman Catholic church has lost, is received by those uniting [themselves to the Church] from the plenitude of grace present in the Orthodox Church, at the very moment of their joining. The form is filled with content, said Vladyka Anthony.
                              In precisely the same manner, in receiving the Soviet clergy, we apply the principle of economia. And we receive the clergymen from Moscow not as ones possessing grace, but as ones receiving it by the very act of union. But to recognize the church of the evil-doers as the bearer and
                              repository of grace, that we cannot do, of course. For outside of Orthodoxy there is no grace; and the Soviet church has deprived itself of grace.
                              In concluding my lengthy letter, I should like to point several things out to you, Father. The Bishops' Sobor resolved to be guided by and to fulfill the Testament of Metropolitan Anastasy, in which the late First Hierarch bade us not to have any communion with the Soviet church
                              whatsoever, not only no prayerful communion, but not even ordinary contact. On what basis then have you and other clergymen had direct relations with Father Dudko? And have written him letters, etc.? No matter how sincere a man you may have considered him to be, nevertheless, can your private opinion annul a ruling adopted by the Church? Now, had Father Dudko said: I am breaking with the official church and leaving her then you could have entered into lively contact with him. But in the absence of that, your actions constitute a violation of ecclesiastical discipline. Dudko wrote to me personally, but I did not answer him although I could have said much. By the way, on what basis did you, even before this, take into your head to commemorate an archbishop of the Soviet church during the Great Entrance? Who gave you the right to do that, which hierarch who, how, where, when?.. Be more careful, my dear, zealous, but, ah, too impetuous fellow minister!





                              ---------------------------------
                              Do you Yahoo!?
                              Yahoo! Mail � CNET Editors' Choice 2004. Tell them what you think. a

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