- Dear Vladimir and List, May the Birth of Christ bring joy to everyone! I too would like this schism resolved. How can this dialogue between the Synod and thoseMessage 1 of 37 , Jan 6, 2005View SourceDear Vladimir and List,
May the Birth of Christ bring joy to everyone!
I too would like this schism resolved. How can this dialogue between
the Synod and those in Europe begin? Should a proposal be written to the Synod
and the faithful of this List, initiating dialogue on the matters which were not
handled correctly? This would at least show the faithful of ROCOR who
is sincere in their quest for reunion. The Synod should not brush this
chance at reconciliation. It would not be in the best interest of Orthodoxy if they did not
want dialogue for reconciliation. No time was wasted in our dialogue with MP and none
should be with our brethren in Christ.
What better time than the Birth of Christ to initiate reconciliation. Christ came to us
in Peace and Love.The ROCOR clergy of all countries would be waiting with Love to embrace this dialogue.
I ask our Synod of bishops to embrace this chance to bring our brethren in Christ
back to our fold. If our bishops brush this chance aside they will be taking a grave sin
upon themselves. Schism is a terrible sin and time will tell who is at fault if no attempt at reconciliation is reciprocated. Let's not be the ones at fault. Let us have this dialogue.
We faithful should petition our bishops for dailogue to reconcile with our brethren,
who because of some misunderstandment are no longer part of us.
The misunderstandment as I recall stems from some of the clergy not being able to
take time off from their jobs at such short notice, to attend a meeting which was held
some distance from them. They were then forbidden to serve. Shouldn't the date been
changed to accomodate these clergy? It was with haste that the Synod condemned these clergy. No attempt at reconciliation will be seen as a sign of no Love in Christ.
Lord have Mercy!
vkozyreff <vladimir.kozyreff@...> wrote:
I am sad to see that some know so little about the tragedy of our
separation, in spite of it having been discussed so many times on
this forum. Please see just, for instance, recent messages 13259,
11135, 10822. There are dozens of others, relating our disagreement
with Vl Ambrose, with Vl Mark, the condemnation of Vl Varnava, etc.
There have been hot debates with Father Alexander Lebedeff on this
I am sad because schism is a sin that is so horrible that even the
blood of the martyrs cannot redeem it. Some look at it so calmly and
do not know what happened.
How can you imagine that Christians "left the Church due to their own
free will"? Do you really believe that we just simply walked out?
Our priests were condemned and excluded without being heard for
having opinions "not in line with the actual position of ROCOR".
How come we do not, all of us, pray God every day to have this schism
resolved? It is the most horrible event in the history of ROCOR, at
the eve of its union with the MP.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- I didn t realize B. Nikon assisted himself, doing his own laundry, choirs, etc. The usual English expression might be private secretary , but in RussianMessage 37 of 37 , Jan 17, 2005View SourceI didn't realize B. Nikon assisted himself, doing his own laundry, choirs, etc.
The usual English expression might be "private secretary", but in Russian someone who assists a Bishop is called a Kileinik. And it is an honor to assist a bishop as a server.
It was stated by Fr. John's post below to Irina that the parishes in Russia which left MP to go under ROCOR did so for similar reasons as stavropigialny Churches in ROCOR. I stated it was not so. The Churches in Russia left the MP for heretical reasons of Sergianism and Ecumenism. These reasons cannot be considered as reasons to be called stavropigialny because these parishes came to ROCOR from completely different jurisdictions - the Anathematized MP Church.
It is good that now we know the difference between our stavropigialny parishes in ROCOR and the parishes that left MP to go under ROCOR because of heresy.
Irina Pahlen wrote:
> Regarding the parish in France, the reason why it is directly under"JRS: Precisely my point.
> Metr Laurus is well known.
> after some negotiation ... and the promise that he
> (Fr de Castelbajac) would not be obliged to commemorate Vl Ambroise,
> he returned to ROCOR.
Most of the clergy and communities that left the Moscow Patriarchate in Russia and joined ROCOR, did so for similar reasons: because there was some sort of conflict or dissatisfaction.
In the case of the churches in and around Los Angeles that I mentioned, as well as in the above case, the same situation was involved."
"Fr. John R. Shaw" <vrevjrs@...> wrote:
"Michael Nikitin" wrote:
> Fr. John, if your title was secretary to Vl.Nikon, what was the titleof Bishop Paul when he took care of Vl. Lavr?
JRS: I think you mean Bishop Peter (Loukianoff), of Cleveland, vicar
bishop of the Chicago-Detroit Diocese. There was also a Bishop (later
Archbishop) Paul, who reposed some years ago.
Before taking monastic vows, then-Bro. Paul did not "take care" of Vl.
Lavr, but assisted him, mostly as a chauffeur and server. I am not
aware that he ever had any official title.
I was known as Vl. Nikon's secretary, partly because I translated
letters into English for him when he corresponded with English-
speakers, and Vladyka specified that I was to be called his "personal
secretary" -- I suppose "private secretary" would be the usual English
__expression, since I was not the secretary of the Diocese.
> The MP is not one with ROCOR, therefore the parishes can not qualifyto be stavropigialny, Fr.John. The communities in Russia that turned to
ROCOR from the MP did so because of heresy of Sergianism and
Ecumenism. It has nothing to do with being stavropigialny. You are
mixing apples with oranges.
JRS: I never said the ROCOR groups in Russia were "stavropigialny" --
you were the one who said that.
But neither were the parishes that I referred to outside of Russia.
These parishes were not under the local bishops, because there was some
sort of difficulty or problem between them and what should have been
their diocese; and they were taken directly under the Metropolitan, as
a solution, to avoid their leaving ROCOR.
St. Vladimir Memorial Church in New Jersey, on the other hand, is an
example of a real "stavropigialny" church.
Fr. John R. Shaw
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]