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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.