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

Re: [orthodox-synod] Re: Apostolic Succession [was: Reflections]

Expand Messages
  • Fr. John R. Shaw
    ... review the canonical legality of some bishops in ROCOR spliter groups. There seem to be a bishop hiding under every rock these days, all claiming ROCOR
    Message 1 of 9 , Nov 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Gene T wrote:

      > In light of your very straight forward explanation of apostolic sucession could you please
      review the canonical legality of some "bishops" in ROCOR spliter groups. There seem to be a
      "bishop" hiding under every rock these days, all claiming ROCOR lineage. In particular
      >
      > 1. 7 or 8 bishops supposedly created by retired Mp. Vitaly and/or Bsp. Varnava
      > 2. Mp. Valentin of Suzdal and his "bishops"
      > 3. Brothers Alferov and catacomb church

      JRS: Apostolic succession is still not the same thing as Grace.

      As for the first two you mention (ROCiE and ROAC), a good case coould be made for their
      being "graceless", since they were founded by clergy who had been defrocked by ROCOR.

      To be honest, I don't know much about the Alferov brothers, and there are many catacomb
      churches, each of which would have to be studied as a separate case.

      In Christ
      Fr. John R. Shaw
    • michael nikitin
      Holy Metr.Philaret wrote: In precisely the same manner, in receiving the Soviet clergy, we apply the principle of economia. And we receive the clergymen from
      Message 2 of 9 , Nov 2, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Holy Metr.Philaret wrote:

        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.


        We are told the MP, "the church of the evil-doers", we in ROCOR cannot
        recognize as having grace.

        Michael N


        "Fr. John R. Shaw" <vrevjrs@...> wrote:
        Gene T wrote:

        > In light of your very straight forward explanation of apostolic sucession could you please
        review the canonical legality of some "bishops" in ROCOR spliter groups. There seem to be a
        "bishop" hiding under every rock these days, all claiming ROCOR lineage. In particular
        >
        > 1. 7 or 8 bishops supposedly created by retired Mp. Vitaly and/or Bsp. Varnava
        > 2. Mp. Valentin of Suzdal and his "bishops"
        > 3. Brothers Alferov and catacomb church

        JRS: Apostolic succession is still not the same thing as Grace.

        As for the first two you mention (ROCiE and ROAC), a good case coould be made for their
        being "graceless", since they were founded by clergy who had been defrocked by ROCOR.

        To be honest, I don't know much about the Alferov brothers, and there are many catacomb
        churches, each of which would have to be studied as a separate case.

        In Christ
        Fr. John R. Shaw



        ---------------------------------
        Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • vkozyreff
        Dear Father John, bless. You write: ...Vladimir Kozyreff...seems to have a different understanding of the expression Apostolic succession than the rest of
        Message 3 of 9 , Nov 3, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Father John, bless.

          You write: "...Vladimir Kozyreff...seems to have a different
          understanding of the expression "Apostolic succession" than the rest
          of us do". And you go on, defining apostolic succession as a formal
          and mechanical thing.

          Your understanding of apostolic succession is an oversimplification.
          This oversimplification is needed to those who claim the MP has
          apostolic succession.

          Please see comments below. I suppose you will appreciate their origin.

          In God,

          Vladimir Kozyreff

          The Church understands Apostolic succession not merely as an external
          mechanical transfer of the very act of ordination but also the faith
          connected with this act namely the preservation of the Apostolic
          teaching on the grace of priesthood within a given group.

          This doesn't tie in too well with the view being analyzed. To receive
          an empty form lacking in grace, and at the same time to believe, in
          accordance with the Apostolic teaching, that one is receiving Divine
          grace, and to experience with this the appropriate thoughts and
          feelings, would be a self-delusion or, in theological language, a
          novelty.

          Novelties are not to be indulged in but should be fought with all
          available means. It would appear that in this case the Church somehow
          is attempting to keep the person undisturbed in his novelty, as if it
          is afraid to disturb the person's false convictions that he received
          effective grace in his heterodox ordination. Leaving aside the need
          for an Orthodox ordination the Church invents a special order for
          reception, that through the Mystery of repentance to convey
          implicite, and imperceptibly to the recipient, the grace of
          priesthood.

          Thus it would be closer to the truth and to the teaching of the
          Church to assume that where, outside the Church, the Apostolic
          succession, i.e. the Apostolic form of ordination and the Apostolic
          teaching about the grace of the priesthood has been preserved, there
          in the mind of the Church, ordination is not simply a form without
          grace and thus is not repeated in receiving such clerics into the
          Orthodox priesthood.

          http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/succession-1.html


          --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John R. Shaw"
          <vrevjrs@e...> wrote:
          >
          >
          >
          > > Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:
          >
          > > >Who would believe that the day before democracy "arrived" in
          Russia,
          > > >the MP was not the Church, and we did not have to unite with it,
          and
          > > >since "democracy arrived", the MP all of a sudden got an
          apostolic
          > > >sucession which did not exist before?
          >
          > Fr. Alexander Lebedeff replied:
          >
          > > When exactly do you feel did the MP lose apostolic succession?
          >
          > > Every bishop of the MP has apostolic succession from Patriarch
          > > Sergius (Stragorodsky) or Patriarch Alexei I (Simanskiy) --both
          > > consecrated to the episcopate before the Russian Revolution (the
          > > first in 1901, and the latter in 1913).
          >
          > JRS: The difficulty here in debating with Vladimir Kozyreff is that
          he seems to have a different
          > understanding of the expression "Apostolic succession" than the
          rest of us do.
          >
          > As taught universally by the Church, "Apostolic succession" means
          that a given bishop was
          > consecrated (ordained) by other bishops, who in turn had been
          consecrated by bishops
          > before them, ultimately going back to the Apostles.
          >
          > The Apostles consecrated their successors, by the laying on of
          hands.
          >
          > Each new bishop since that time has received the laying on of hands
          that goes back, in
          > unbroken succession, to the Apostles.
          >
          > That is why at least two bishops are supposed to consecrate any
          given candidate: to make
          > doubly certain that the succession of laying on of hands was
          maintained.
          >
          > But Vladimir Kozyreff, at least in earlier debates with me, has
          indicated that to him,
          > "Apostolic succession" means something entirely different.
          >
          > Mr Kozyreff appears to view "Apostolic succession" as meaning
          someone is a worthy (i.e.
          > approved) spiritual heir of the Apostles, not that he has an
          unbroken sequence of ordination
          > from the Apostles.
          >
          > But the Church does not view hierarchs in such terms at all. Who is
          to judge what is in
          > another's heart?
          >
          > Not liking someone (perhaps without really knowing anything about
          them) cannot deprive
          > them of Apostolic succession.
          >
          > In Christ
          > Fr. John R. Shaw
          >
        • orthodoxchurch_sg
          ... anything, unless it s corrected. ... it the other way around? ... Patriarch s uncanonical, without force, etc...or did they not sign it? Evlogeite! The
          Message 4 of 9 , Nov 6, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, michael nikitin
            <nikitinmike@y...> wrote:
            >
            > This Apostolic succession is just a formality. Doesn't mean
            anything, unless it's corrected.
            >
            > When are we going to correct all the ordinations of the MP? Or is
            it the other way around?
            >
            > Don't forget our Synod's 1971 resolution finding the MP's
            Patriarch's uncanonical, without force, etc...or did they not sign
            it?

            Evlogeite!
            The ROCOR Synod said that the Election was uncanonical. All
            jurisdictions - as far as I am aware - have done things which are
            uncanonical, but this doesnt deprive them of Grace automatically.
            There are canonical ages for ordination to priesthood and episcopacy,
            for example. The Greek Old Calendar jurisdictions have in most cases
            ordained men below this canonical age. When I was a member of ROCOR
            in the 1980s one of the clergy used to arrive in church in blazer and
            boater and change for the services; the services were truncated
            horribly; the services were in a language hardly anybody understood;
            people paid for Confession. All of these things are uncanonical, are
            they not?
            Canonically we are forbidden to marry our godparents yet I know of at
            least one Traditional Orthodox who has done this. Canonically we are
            excommunicated if we do not attend Church for three weeks. When was
            the last time this actually occured? Retired Bishops are not allowed
            to have jurisdiction, yet ROCiE's Ruling Hierarch is retired.
            Yes, the election of the Patriarch in 1971 was uncanonical - there
            was secular interference, as there was with the election of every
            Metropolitan between the reigns of Peter the Great and S. Nicolas II.
            Was the taking of S. John of Shanghai to court canonical?
            Even in Texas they dont give the death penalty for every crime.
            God bless / Fr Daniel
          • michael nikitin
            orthodoxchurch_sg wrote: Even in Texas they dont give the death penalty for every crime. God bless / Fr Daniel Exactly
            Message 5 of 9 , Nov 7, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              orthodoxchurch_sg <orthodoxchurch_sg@...> wrote:
              "Even in Texas they dont give the death penalty for every crime."
              God bless / Fr Daniel

              Exactly Fr.Daniel. There are different canons. Some are more strictly followed
              than others. You're trying to justify something you are not familiar with. Whoever told you that doesn't understand the canons well either.

              The Synod proclaimed the Resolution of 1971. Fr. John claims one has to be taken
              to court and judged...well, the MP were and were found guilty. The sentence was that the hierarch's are uncanonical and have no force. If they have no force, they
              cannot bestow grace upon anything they do. They are nothing but laypeople posing as hierarch's. The Church cannot have any dialogue with this kind.

              Michael N




              ---------------------------------
              Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.

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