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

Re: [orthodox-synod] Re: Apostolic Succession

Expand Messages
  • Fr. John R. Shaw
    ... JRS: And Vladimir Kozyreff goes on to present a text from the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, from 1961. Three points: 1) ROCOR has never denied that
    Message 1 of 25 , Nov 3, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:

      > 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.

      JRS: And Vladimir Kozyreff goes on to present a text from the Journal of the Moscow
      Patriarchate, from 1961.

      Three points:

      1) ROCOR has never denied that the MP has Apostolic succession. If the MP really were
      without Apostolic succession, then its clergy could not be received "in statu quo" by ROCOR.

      2) The Acts of the Ecumenical Councils clearly show that even where not only grace, but also
      the teaching of the Church, is absent, an outward form still is to be accepted.

      That is why the Arians, who denied the divinity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity, were
      still accepted by chrismation, and not by baptism: because they had a correct outward form
      of baptism, despite the fact that Arianism was "the heresy of heresies".

      3) Someone is a heretic, not because another person tries to prove them to be such, but
      because they themselves clearly and openly preach heresy, and say that the teachings of the
      Orthodox Church are wrong.

      Therefore, there is no basis for claiming that the Moscow Patriarchate "lacks Apostolic
      succession".

      But, alas, among the catacomb church groups, there are indeed those who lack Apostolic
      succession, since their ordinations do not go back in an unbroken sequence to the Apostles.

      For example, I was told of the case of a catacomb "priest" who had not been ordained by any
      living bishop. As a layman, he had made a prostration before the tomb of a long-deceased
      Orthodox bishop, and arose from the prostration feeling that he was now in Holy Orders, so
      he began celebrating the Divine Liturgy and other services, as a priest would.

      What he had done was certainly not in the tradition of the Church; but there was also no
      formal, outward, even "empty" passing on, of the laying on of hands in succession from the
      Apostles.

      In Christ
      Fr. John R. Shaw
    • vkozyreff
      Dear Father John, bless. You write: And Vladimir Kozyreff goes on to present a text from the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, from 1961 . No, dear father
      Message 2 of 25 , Nov 3, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Father John, bless.

        You write: "And Vladimir Kozyreff goes on to present a text from the
        Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, from 1961".

        No, dear father John, this is not just "a text of the Moscow
        Patriarchate, from 1961", it is an essay written by Metropolitan,
        later Patriarch, Sergii (Stragorodsky) and first published in the JMP
        in 1935 (No. 23-24).

        At least, we agree (the three of us), that apostolic succession is
        not what you said, but that "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".

        The problem is thus not in VK's private understanding of the
        term "Apostolic succession". If you believe in the MP's apostolic
        succession, you want to demonstrate that the MP does meet the
        requirements for preserving the Apostolic teaching.

        Nothing is more dubious than sergianism being apostolic teaching. St
        John of Shanghai considered that Met Sergius was "broken". If the
        teaching, policy and position of the MP was the result of this
        hierarch being "broken", they cannot be orthodox or apostolic. What
        was apostolic was the resistance to those teaching, policy and
        position. The present MP hierarchy is not the successor of those who
        resisted sergianism, but of those who applied it. Where is apostolic
        succesion in them?

        In God,

        Vladimir Kozyreff


        --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John R. Shaw"
        <vrevjrs@e...> wrote:
        >
        > Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:
        >
        > > 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.
        >
        > JRS: And Vladimir Kozyreff goes on to present a text from the
        Journal of the Moscow
        > Patriarchate, from 1961.
        >
        > Three points:
        >
        > 1) ROCOR has never denied that the MP has Apostolic succession. If
        the MP really were
        > without Apostolic succession, then its clergy could not be
        received "in statu quo" by ROCOR.
        >
        > 2) The Acts of the Ecumenical Councils clearly show that even where
        not only grace, but also
        > the teaching of the Church, is absent, an outward form still is to
        be accepted.
        >
        > That is why the Arians, who denied the divinity of Christ and the
        doctrine of the Trinity, were
        > still accepted by chrismation, and not by baptism: because they had
        a correct outward form
        > of baptism, despite the fact that Arianism was "the heresy of
        heresies".
        >
        > 3) Someone is a heretic, not because another person tries to prove
        them to be such, but
        > because they themselves clearly and openly preach heresy, and say
        that the teachings of the
        > Orthodox Church are wrong.
        >
        > Therefore, there is no basis for claiming that the Moscow
        Patriarchate "lacks Apostolic
        > succession".
        >
        > But, alas, among the catacomb church groups, there are indeed those
        who lack Apostolic
        > succession, since their ordinations do not go back in an unbroken
        sequence to the Apostles.
        >
        > For example, I was told of the case of a catacomb "priest" who had
        not been ordained by any
        > living bishop. As a layman, he had made a prostration before the
        tomb of a long-deceased
        > Orthodox bishop, and arose from the prostration feeling that he was
        now in Holy Orders, so
        > he began celebrating the Divine Liturgy and other services, as a
        priest would.
        >
        > What he had done was certainly not in the tradition of the Church;
        but there was also no
        > formal, outward, even "empty" passing on, of the laying on of hands
        in succession from the
        > Apostles.
        >
        > In Christ
        > Fr. John R. Shaw
        >
      • Fr. John R. Shaw
        ... JRS: It has been demonstrated that St. John of Shanghai issued directives in 1945, ordering the commemoration of the Patriarch of Moscow at all church
        Message 3 of 25 , Nov 4, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:

          > Nothing is more dubious than sergianism being apostolic teaching. St
          > John of Shanghai considered that Met Sergius was "broken". If the
          > teaching, policy and position of the MP was the result of this
          > hierarch being "broken", they cannot be orthodox or apostolic. What
          > was apostolic was the resistance to those teaching, policy and
          > position. The present MP hierarchy is not the successor of those who
          > resisted sergianism, but of those who applied it. Where is apostolic
          > succesion in them?

          JRS: It has been demonstrated that St. John of Shanghai issued directives in 1945, ordering
          the commemoration of the Patriarch of Moscow at all church services, and detailing the
          forms to be used.

          Therefore he did not believe that the Moscow Patriarchate "lacked Apostolic succession".

          Furthermore, in what you have written above, you again confuse "Apostolic succession" with
          "Apostolic resistance" to some error.

          That is not the teaching of the Orthodox Church.

          In Christ
          Fr. John R. Shaw
        • vkozyreff
          Dear Father John, bless. You claim that apostolic succession has nothing to do with the teaching, and that it is just a formal, juridical succession.
          Message 4 of 25 , Nov 4, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Father John, bless.

            You claim that apostolic succession has nothing to do with the
            teaching, and that it is just a formal, juridical succession.

            "Orthodox... believe that ... their teachings today is the same as or
            is in harmony with the teaching of the first apostles...

            This form of the doctrine was first formulated by Irenaeus of Lyons
            in the second century, in response to certain Gnostics. The Gnostics
            claimed that Christ or the Apostles passed on some teachings
            secretly, or that there were some secret apostles, and that they (the
            Gnostics) were passing on these teachings. Irenaeus responded that
            the identity of the original Apostles was well known, as was the main
            content of their teaching and the identity of the apostles'
            successors.

            Therefore, anyone teaching something contrary to what was known to be
            apostolic teaching was not a successor to the Apostles or to Christ".

            http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Apostolic_succession

            The argument of St. John of Shanghai issuing directives in 1945,
            ordering the commemoration of the Patriarch of Moscow at all church
            services, and detailing the forms to be used has already been refuted.

            See message n° 9964 "St. John was of the opinion that there were no
            deviations in matters of Faith sufficiently serious to make the
            official Church in Russia illegitimate. A clear witness to this is
            his Explanatory Address to the Flock of Shanghai dated August 2,
            1946... on August 24, 1945 (he) published his Ukaz 650 concerning the
            commemoration of the name of Patriarch Alexis (Simansky) at the
            divine services. .. Then St. John restored the commemoration of his
            legitimate church authority in the person of Metropolitan Anastassy...

            ... he realized that he had made a hasty decision in submitting to
            Patriarch Alexis. In his Explanatory Address to the Flock of
            Shanghai, Archbishop John clearly explains his reason for first
            commemorating the name of Patriarch Alexis at the divine services and
            then for restoring commemoration of his own hierarchy".

            You write : "Therefore he did not believe that the Moscow
            Patriarchate "lacked Apostolic succession". St John was speaking out
            of compassion for those hierarchs who had been compelled by torture
            to accept the 1927 declaration or that had refused it, not of those
            who did or would willingly support it or fight for it. St John did
            not consider that the declaration of a "broken bishop" was the
            teaching of the orthodox Church.

            You write: "You again confuse "Apostolic succession" with "Apostolic
            resistance" to some error. That is not the teaching of the Orthodox
            Church".

            You cannot keep apostolic succession by not resisting false teaching,
            even less so by contributing to damaging the Church by promoting it.
            I am not confusing anything, I am quoting Met Sergius. Twist things
            as you like, dear Father John. Sergianism is not the teaching of the
            orthodox Church, but the teaching of pseudo churches and pseudo
            bishops.

            Please read again below Met Sergius (Stragorodsky) about "the basic
            fallacy about apostolic succession", which is not "a piece of
            merchandise":

            (Some think that ) as long as there is Apostolic succession in the
            given organization, the ordinations will be valid. The one who is so
            ordained will in his turn, be a personal carrier of grace which he
            can exercise at his discretion, with no concern about the teaching or
            the wishes of those who ordained him .

            The basic fallacy of such a distorted concept of grace, priesthood
            and spiritual life in general is clearly exposed by those extreme,
            distorted conclusions reached by those straightforward and
            unceremonious seekers of ordination having Apostolic succession. If
            the grace of the priesthood consists of some unconscious thing
            indifferent to its fate (as if a piece of merchandise), then there
            should be no reason why anyone who has the desire could not take
            advantage of it no matter by what means.

            In God,

            Vladimir Kozyreff






            --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John R. Shaw"
            <vrevjrs@e...> wrote:
            >
            > Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:
            >
            > > Nothing is more dubious than sergianism being apostolic teaching.
            St
            > > John of Shanghai considered that Met Sergius was "broken". If the
            > > teaching, policy and position of the MP was the result of this
            > > hierarch being "broken", they cannot be orthodox or apostolic.
            What
            > > was apostolic was the resistance to those teaching, policy and
            > > position. The present MP hierarchy is not the successor of those
            who
            > > resisted sergianism, but of those who applied it. Where is
            apostolic
            > > succesion in them?
            >
            > JRS: It has been demonstrated that St. John of Shanghai issued
            directives in 1945, ordering
            > the commemoration of the Patriarch of Moscow at all church
            services, and detailing the
            > forms to be used.
            >
            > Therefore he did not believe that the Moscow Patriarchate "lacked
            Apostolic succession".
            >
            > Furthermore, in what you have written above, you again
            confuse "Apostolic succession" with
            > "Apostolic resistance" to some error.
            >
            > That is not the teaching of the Orthodox Church.
            >
            > In Christ
            > Fr. John R. Shaw
            >
          • Fr. John R. Shaw
            ... JRS: That is not what I said. When we speak of Apostolic succession , in the Orthodox Church, this refers to an unbroken line of succession of the Bishops
            Message 5 of 25 , Nov 4, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:

              > You claim that apostolic succession has nothing to do with the
              > teaching, and that it is just a formal, juridical succession.

              JRS: That is not what I said.

              When we speak of "Apostolic succession", in the Orthodox Church, this refers to an unbroken
              line of succession of the Bishops from the Apostles.

              The same thing applies to Baptism.

              If a person is baptized in the Orthodox Church, they are not baptized again, even if they
              apostasize from the Faith and then return.

              > This form of the doctrine was first formulated by Irenaeus of Lyons
              > in the second century, in response to certain Gnostics. The Gnostics
              > claimed that Christ or the Apostles passed on some teachings
              > secretly, or that there were some secret apostles, and that they (the
              > Gnostics) were passing on these teachings. Irenaeus responded that
              > the identity of the original Apostles was well known, as was the main
              > content of their teaching and the identity of the apostles'
              > successors.

              JRS: Once again, we must not confuse "Apostolic succession" with "Apostolic tradition". The
              two go together, but they are not the same thing.

              > Therefore, anyone teaching something contrary to what was known to be
              > apostolic teaching was not a successor to the Apostles or to Christ".

              JRS: That is, a heretic.

              But the Moscow Patriarchate is not heretical; at least, ROCOR has never believed it to be.

              > You cannot keep apostolic succession by not resisting false teaching,
              > even less so by contributing to damaging the Church by promoting it.

              JRS: There are different kinds of false teaching.

              There are false teachings about the faith; there are false (rather, disputed) teachings about
              the relationship of Church and State.

              St. Peter wrote, "Fear God, Honour the king. Servants, be subject to your masters with all
              fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward" (I Peter 2:17).

              St. Paul wrote, "I exhort therefore that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intecessions, and
              giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may
              lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty" (I Timothy 2:1).

              When St. Paul wrote those words, the head of state was Nero, the great persecutor of
              Christians.

              > I am not confusing anything, I am quoting Met Sergius. Twist things
              > as you like, dear Father John. Sergianism is not the teaching of the
              > orthodox Church, but the teaching of pseudo churches and pseudo
              > bishops.

              JRS: Indeed, I would go further than that: Sergianism is not a doctrine at all.

              Sergianism has not been clearly enough defined, perhaps, but in general what we call
              "Sergianism" is the way the leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate claimed that there was no
              persecution in Russia, when it was obvious to all that this was a lie.

              Sergianism is not being preached today by anyone. The persecution in Russia has long since
              ended, and today the Moscow Patriarchate speaks of it in the same way as the Church Abroad
              did during the decades when it was a reality.

              In Christ
              Fr. John R. Shaw
            • vkozyreff
              Dear Father John, bless. Apostolic succession is broken, whatever the formal succession, if the bishop fails to teach apostolic truth. This is what Met Sergius
              Message 6 of 25 , Nov 4, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear Father John, bless.

                Apostolic succession is broken, whatever the formal succession, if
                the bishop fails to teach apostolic truth. This is what Met Sergius
                himself says. Apostolic succession is not a kind of magic that you
                received once for ever and can use and keep the way you like without
                spiritual link to the apostolic mission or against the latter.

                You say: "the Moscow Patriarchate is not heretical; at least, ROCOR
                has never believed it to be".

                In saying so, the ROCOR did not speak about the MP hierarchs that
                collaborated in the war against God. Any bishop that fights God with
                enemies of God whose goal is to destroy the Church is a heretic and
                loses whatever apostolic succession he might have initially. He also
                becomes unable to transmit any apostolic succession to whatever
                successor.

                The confusion comes from the fact that ROCOR treats now with the
                successors of the persecutors and of those who fought God (who cannot
                be the Church) and not with the successors of the persecuted ones and
                of those who witnessed Christ.

                You know that the even MP has now offically acknowledged that
                submitting to the communists under the pretext that "all power comes
                from God" was a wrong interpretation of the apostle and the essence
                of sergianism. In the "Sotsialniy Kontsept", "The MP is shown to be
                quoting out of context Paul's letter to the Romans, in relation to
                what seems to be a central core teaching on Christian church-state
                relationships".

                Was it not wrong to collaborate with Hitler in exterminating Jews?
                Did Hitler's power not come from God? Why not collaborate with Saddam
                Hussein in exterminating Kurds and Shiites? Was his power not coming
                from God? Why would it be unacceptable in the eyes of God to
                exterminate Jews but acceptable to persecute the Russian orthodox
                Church?

                You say: "Sergianism is not a doctrine at all".

                Call it the way you want, it does not make the sergianism's or the
                MP's case better. Teaching that sergianism is right or implementing
                it is fundamentally against the apostolic mission and breaks
                apostolic succession. Whatever the Church does, her way of being is
                her main way of teaching. She teaches mainly by the example of what
                she does, not by sermons. Many sermons of NKVD KGB pseudo-priests
                were excellent.

                You say: "Sergianism is not being preached today by anyone. The
                persecution in Russia has long since ended, and today the Moscow
                Patriarchate speaks of it in the same way as the Church Abroad did
                during the decades when it was a reality".

                First, the traditional ROCOR is being persecuted in Russia now.

                Second, nobody says that sergianism is being taught in Russia
                nowadays. The question is that all post 1943 MP bishops, if formally
                successors of the apostles, broke that succession by collaborating in
                the fight against God. If a bishop was consecrated by arianist
                bishops, he has no apostolic succession, even if he does not preach
                arianism any longer.

                The meaning of apostolic succession is that it is breakable. That is
                why it is so precious. Once it has been broken, it cannot be glued
                back together. It is just lost.

                In God,

                Vladimir Kozyreff


                --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John R. Shaw"
                <vrevjrs@e...> wrote:
                >
                > Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:
                >
                > > You claim that apostolic succession has nothing to do with the
                > > teaching, and that it is just a formal, juridical succession.
                >
                > JRS: That is not what I said.
                >
                > When we speak of "Apostolic succession", in the Orthodox Church,
                this refers to an unbroken
                > line of succession of the Bishops from the Apostles.
                >
                > The same thing applies to Baptism.
                >
                > If a person is baptized in the Orthodox Church, they are not
                baptized again, even if they
                > apostasize from the Faith and then return.
                >
                > > This form of the doctrine was first formulated by Irenaeus of
                Lyons
                > > in the second century, in response to certain Gnostics. The
                Gnostics
                > > claimed that Christ or the Apostles passed on some teachings
                > > secretly, or that there were some secret apostles, and that they
                (the
                > > Gnostics) were passing on these teachings. Irenaeus responded that
                > > the identity of the original Apostles was well known, as was the
                main
                > > content of their teaching and the identity of the apostles'
                > > successors.
                >
                > JRS: Once again, we must not confuse "Apostolic succession"
                with "Apostolic tradition". The
                > two go together, but they are not the same thing.
                >
                > > Therefore, anyone teaching something contrary to what was known
                to be
                > > apostolic teaching was not a successor to the Apostles or to
                Christ".
                >
                > JRS: That is, a heretic.
                >
                > But the Moscow Patriarchate is not heretical; at least, ROCOR has
                never believed it to be.
                >
                > > You cannot keep apostolic succession by not resisting false
                teaching,
                > > even less so by contributing to damaging the Church by promoting
                it.
                >
                > JRS: There are different kinds of false teaching.
                >
                > There are false teachings about the faith; there are false (rather,
                disputed) teachings about
                > the relationship of Church and State.
                >
                > St. Peter wrote, "Fear God, Honour the king. Servants, be subject
                to your masters with all
                > fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward" (I
                Peter 2:17).
                >
                > St. Paul wrote, "I exhort therefore that, first of all,
                supplications, prayers, intecessions, and
                > giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that
                are in authority; that we may
                > lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty" (I
                Timothy 2:1).
                >
                > When St. Paul wrote those words, the head of state was Nero, the
                great persecutor of
                > Christians.
                >
                > > I am not confusing anything, I am quoting Met Sergius. Twist
                things
                > > as you like, dear Father John. Sergianism is not the teaching of
                the
                > > orthodox Church, but the teaching of pseudo churches and pseudo
                > > bishops.
                >
                > JRS: Indeed, I would go further than that: Sergianism is not a
                doctrine at all.
                >
                > Sergianism has not been clearly enough defined, perhaps, but in
                general what we call
                > "Sergianism" is the way the leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate
                claimed that there was no
                > persecution in Russia, when it was obvious to all that this was a
                lie.
                >
                > Sergianism is not being preached today by anyone. The persecution
                in Russia has long since
                > ended, and today the Moscow Patriarchate speaks of it in the same
                way as the Church Abroad
                > did during the decades when it was a reality.
                >
                > In Christ
                > Fr. John R. Shaw
                >
              • Fr. John R. Shaw
                ... JRS: That is not the tradition of the Orthodox Church. If a bishop fell into heresy, but was not defrocked and repented of his error, he would not be
                Message 7 of 25 , Nov 6, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:

                  > Apostolic succession is broken, whatever the formal succession, if
                  > the bishop fails to teach apostolic truth.

                  JRS: That is not the tradition of the Orthodox Church. If a bishop fell into heresy, but was not
                  defrocked and repented of his error, he would not be re-consecrated.

                  However, "Apostolic truth" is not the same thing as "whatever opinions I agree with".

                  The Apostles did not preach a political doctrine at all: they did not attack the Roman
                  emperors or urge people to resist the pagan civil authorities; quite the opposite.

                  > First, the traditional ROCOR is being persecuted in Russia now.

                  JRS: There is no "traditional ROCOR" in Russia. There are only groups from the Moscow
                  Patriarchate that were dissatisfied and joined ROCOR, but that is not the same thing.

                  > Second, nobody says that sergianism is being taught in Russia
                  > nowadays. The question is that all post 1943 MP bishops, if formally
                  > successors of the apostles, broke that succession by collaborating in
                  > the fight against God. If a bishop was consecrated by arianist
                  > bishops, he has no apostolic succession, even if he does not preach
                  > arianism any longer.

                  JRS: The MP bishops did not preach Arianism or any other heresy. And ROCOR has always
                  accepted MP clergy "in statu quo", which would not be possible if they did not have Apostolic
                  succession.

                  > The meaning of apostolic succession is that it is breakable. That is
                  > why it is so precious. Once it has been broken, it cannot be glued
                  > back together. It is just lost.

                  JRS: That is your own view, but it is not the teaching of the Orthodox Church.

                  In Christ
                  Fr. John R. Shaw
                • Miller
                  Fr John says that is not the teaching of the Orthodox Church, and misses a great chance to say what IS the teaching of the Orthodox Church. Myself, I don t
                  Message 8 of 25 , Nov 6, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Fr John says 'that is not the teaching of the Orthodox Church,'
                    and misses a great chance to say what IS the teaching of the
                    Orthodox Church. Myself, I don't quite see what's wrong with Dr
                    Kozyreff's statement here. For me, Fr John gags on gnats but has
                    already swallowed a camel or two. But then . . .

                    I'm about to have a rainy trip to Pt Townsend.

                    FrJM

                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: "Fr. John R. Shaw" <vrevjrs@...>
                    To: <orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com>;
                    <orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com>
                    Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 5:43 AM
                    Subject: Re: [orthodox-synod] Re: Apostolic Succession


                    > Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:
                    >
                    >> Apostolic succession is broken, whatever the formal
                    >> succession, if
                    >> the bishop fails to teach apostolic truth.
                    >
                    > JRS: That is not the tradition of the Orthodox Church. If a
                    > bishop fell into heresy, but was not
                    > defrocked and repented of his error, he would not be
                    > re-consecrated.
                    >
                    > However, "Apostolic truth" is not the same thing as "whatever
                    > opinions I agree with".
                    >
                    > The Apostles did not preach a political doctrine at all: they
                    > did not attack the Roman
                    > emperors or urge people to resist the pagan civil authorities;
                    > quite the opposite.
                    >
                    > > First, the traditional ROCOR is being persecuted in Russia
                    > > now.
                    >
                    > JRS: There is no "traditional ROCOR" in Russia. There are only
                    > groups from the Moscow
                    > Patriarchate that were dissatisfied and joined ROCOR, but that
                    > is not the same thing.
                    >
                    >> Second, nobody says that sergianism is being taught in Russia
                    >> nowadays. The question is that all post 1943 MP bishops, if
                    >> formally
                    >> successors of the apostles, broke that succession by
                    >> collaborating in
                    >> the fight against God. If a bishop was consecrated by arianist
                    >> bishops, he has no apostolic succession, even if he does not
                    >> preach
                    >> arianism any longer.
                    >
                    > JRS: The MP bishops did not preach Arianism or any other
                    > heresy. And ROCOR has always
                    > accepted MP clergy "in statu quo", which would not be possible
                    > if they did not have Apostolic
                    > succession.
                    >
                    >> The meaning of apostolic succession is that it is breakable.
                    >> That is
                    >> why it is so precious. Once it has been broken, it cannot be
                    >> glued
                    >> back together. It is just lost.
                    >
                    > JRS: That is your own view, but it is not the teaching of the
                    > Orthodox Church.
                    >
                    > In Christ
                    > Fr. John R. Shaw
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
                    >
                    > Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
                    >
                    >
                    > Yahoo! Groups Links
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                  • Miller
                    Forgive this, forgive me. This was intended for a private friend, not the List. ... From: Miller To: Sent:
                    Message 9 of 25 , Nov 6, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Forgive this, forgive me. This was intended for a private
                      friend, not the List.

                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "Miller" <rsjmil@...>
                      To: <orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com>
                      Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 6:12 AM
                      Subject: Re: [orthodox-synod] Re: Apostolic Succession


                      > Fr John says 'that is not the teaching of the Orthodox Church,'
                      > and misses a great chance to say what IS the teaching of the
                      > Orthodox Church. Myself, I don't quite see what's wrong with
                      > Dr
                      > Kozyreff's statement here. For me, Fr John gags on gnats but
                      > has
                      > already swallowed a camel or two. But then . . .
                      >
                      > I'm about to have a rainy trip to Pt Townsend.
                      >
                      > FrJM
                      >
                      > ----- Original Message -----
                      > From: "Fr. John R. Shaw" <vrevjrs@...>
                      > To: <orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com>;
                      > <orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com>
                      > Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 5:43 AM
                      > Subject: Re: [orthodox-synod] Re: Apostolic Succession
                      >
                      >
                      >> Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:
                      >>
                      >>> Apostolic succession is broken, whatever the formal
                      >>> succession, if
                      >>> the bishop fails to teach apostolic truth.
                      >>
                      >> JRS: That is not the tradition of the Orthodox Church. If a
                      >> bishop fell into heresy, but was not
                      >> defrocked and repented of his error, he would not be
                      >> re-consecrated.
                      >>
                      >> However, "Apostolic truth" is not the same thing as "whatever
                      >> opinions I agree with".
                      >>
                      >> The Apostles did not preach a political doctrine at all: they
                      >> did not attack the Roman
                      >> emperors or urge people to resist the pagan civil authorities;
                      >> quite the opposite.
                      >>
                      >> > First, the traditional ROCOR is being persecuted in Russia
                      >> > now.
                      >>
                      >> JRS: There is no "traditional ROCOR" in Russia. There are only
                      >> groups from the Moscow
                      >> Patriarchate that were dissatisfied and joined ROCOR, but that
                      >> is not the same thing.
                      >>
                      >>> Second, nobody says that sergianism is being taught in Russia
                      >>> nowadays. The question is that all post 1943 MP bishops, if
                      >>> formally
                      >>> successors of the apostles, broke that succession by
                      >>> collaborating in
                      >>> the fight against God. If a bishop was consecrated by
                      >>> arianist
                      >>> bishops, he has no apostolic succession, even if he does not
                      >>> preach
                      >>> arianism any longer.
                      >>
                      >> JRS: The MP bishops did not preach Arianism or any other
                      >> heresy. And ROCOR has always
                      >> accepted MP clergy "in statu quo", which would not be possible
                      >> if they did not have Apostolic
                      >> succession.
                      >>
                      >>> The meaning of apostolic succession is that it is breakable.
                      >>> That is
                      >>> why it is so precious. Once it has been broken, it cannot be
                      >>> glued
                      >>> back together. It is just lost.
                      >>
                      >> JRS: That is your own view, but it is not the teaching of the
                      >> Orthodox Church.
                      >>
                      >> In Christ
                      >> Fr. John R. Shaw
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
                      >>
                      >> Archives located at
                      >> http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
                      >>
                      >>
                      >> Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >>
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups
                      >
                      > Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
                      >
                      >
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    • vkozyreff
                      Dear Father John, bless. You write: JRS: That is not the tradition of the Orthodox Church. If a bishop fell into heresy, but was not defrocked and repented of
                      Message 10 of 25 , Nov 6, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Dear Father John, bless.

                        You write: "JRS: That is not the tradition of the Orthodox Church. If
                        a bishop fell into heresy, but was not defrocked and repented of his
                        error"...

                        Who in the MP could depose those bishops, and before whom could they
                        repent, since they all are false bishops? Who of them did repent? On
                        the contrary, they forbade ROCOR or any one to mention the
                        term "sergianism", and the ROCOR(L) agreed. This is a heretical
                        approach of sin and repentance.

                        You write: "The Apostles did not preach a political doctrine at all:
                        they did not attack the Roman emperors or urge people to resist the
                        pagan civil authorities; quite the opposite".

                        The MP did preach a political doctrine (see chapter "On which side
                        are you, pop?" in "Father Arseny 1893-1973: Priest, Prisoner,
                        Spiritual Father ".

                        The MP bishops were not expected to challenge electrification or
                        public education. They were expected not to join the political fight
                        of the communist party against the Church. They did. That was the
                        condition for them to be bishops in the MP. Only armchair dreamers
                        can believe that they failed to fight the Church, being under close
                        communist party control.

                        As you know, the way they defend the MP now is by saying that all of
                        the present MP bishops, or about all have been consecrated recently.
                        The question is: do they have apostolic succession?

                        They were consecrated by the former generation of bishops, those of
                        Stalin or Khruschev. The former genration of bishops had lost
                        apostolic succesion, because they were nominated by the enemies of
                        God to destroy the Church and because they were not faithful to the
                        apostolic mission. Their mission, set by the communist party which
                        selected them, was to take part in the fight against God.

                        That is to say that the present bishops have no apostolic succession,
                        since they were consecrated by bishops that, at that moment had not
                        repented, had not been forgiven, and had lost their apostolic
                        succession.

                        Regareding heresy (doctrine or conduct that contradicts the Church
                        teaching), it is imortant to know that "Error.. is never set forth
                        in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once
                        be detected. But it is craftily decked out in on attractive dress, so
                        as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced
                        (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than truth itself."
                        Irenaeus Against Heresies 1.2

                        The word "heresy" comes from the Greek αιρεσις, hairesis (from
                        αιρεομαι, haireomai, "choose"), which means either a choice of
                        beliefs or a faction of dissident believers. It was given wide
                        currency by Irenaeus of Lyons in his tract Contra Haereses (Against
                        Heresies) to describe and discredit his opponents in the early
                        Christian Church. He described his own position as orthodox (from
                        ortho- "straight" + doxa "thinking") and his position eventually
                        evolved into the position of the early Christian Church.

                        http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Heresy

                        We have heresy when people mix with the doctrine of the faith
                        opinions contrary to divine truth. Schism is willful departure from
                        the unity of divine worship, and from the Orthodox Catholic Church of
                        God.

                        http://tserkovnost.org/catechism_filaret/catechism_filaret-4.html

                        Heresy and schism are almost synonymous. Heresy means "a cessation of
                        communion with the Church and is alien to the Heavens," St.
                        Athanasios the Great, Patrologia Græca, Vol. XXV, col. 689A (Epistle
                        toSerapion); Bibliotheke ton Ellenon Pateron kai Ekklesiastikon
                        Syngrapheon, Vol. XXXIII, p. 178, ll. 38-39.

                        "Eucharistic communion permits only one kind of exclusion: the
                        exclusion of exclusion: all those things that involve rejection and
                        division, which in principle distort Trinitarian faith. Heresy
                        involves a distorted faith that has inevitable practical consequences
                        concerning communion and otherness. Schism is also an act of
                        exclusion; when schism occurs, the eucharistic community becomes
                        exclusive. In the case of both heresy and schism, we cannot pretend
                        that we have communion with the other when in fact we have not".

                        http://paradosis.blogspot.com/2005_05_01_paradosis_archive.html

                        Sergianism is a heresy because it implies that, when persecution
                        becomes too great (see armchair dreamers opinion) Christ is not able
                        to save the Church any longer, and Christians have to resort to lying
                        to help God save His Church. Sergianism is also claiming that the
                        collaboration is what allowed the Church to survive. This is being
                        claimed now by the MP, and this is heretical too.

                        Since the MP is schismatic, ands since schism is always accompanied
                        by heresy, the MP is necessarily heretic (not to mention the MP
                        membership in the ecumenical (heretical) movement).

                        A heresy is not a heresy because it was declared to be one. A heresy
                        is a heresy because it contradicts fundamentally the doctrine of the
                        Church in essential matters and because it is stubbornly proclaimed
                        as being nevertheless right by its authors or followers, in spite of
                        repeated warnings from the true Church. The MP bishops that
                        consecrated the younger generation meet all of the criteria.

                        You say that the MP bishops did not preach a heresy. They do when
                        confirming that sergianism did save the Church. In addition, rgarding
                        the MP old guard, I said that a cleric teaches mainly by what he
                        does, much less by what he says, especially if there is a
                        contradiction between those two things, especially in an environment
                        of lies, which is the essence of sergianism and of communism. NKVD-
                        KGB false priests made wonderful sermons, but stabbed Christ in their
                        deeds. Our deeds are our real teaching.

                        In God,

                        Vladimir Kozyreff



                        --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John R. Shaw"
                        <vrevjrs@e...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:
                        >
                        > > Apostolic succession is broken, whatever the formal succession,
                        if
                        > > the bishop fails to teach apostolic truth.
                        >
                        > JRS: That is not the tradition of the Orthodox Church. If a bishop
                        fell into heresy, but was not
                        > defrocked and repented of his error, he would not be re-consecrated.
                        >
                        > However, "Apostolic truth" is not the same thing as "whatever
                        opinions I agree with".
                        >
                        > The Apostles did not preach a political doctrine at all: they did
                        not attack the Roman
                        > emperors or urge people to resist the pagan civil authorities;
                        quite the opposite.
                        >
                        > > First, the traditional ROCOR is being persecuted in Russia now.
                        >
                        > JRS: There is no "traditional ROCOR" in Russia. There are only
                        groups from the Moscow
                        > Patriarchate that were dissatisfied and joined ROCOR, but that is
                        not the same thing.
                        >
                        > > Second, nobody says that sergianism is being taught in Russia
                        > > nowadays. The question is that all post 1943 MP bishops, if
                        formally
                        > > successors of the apostles, broke that succession by
                        collaborating in
                        > > the fight against God. If a bishop was consecrated by arianist
                        > > bishops, he has no apostolic succession, even if he does not
                        preach
                        > > arianism any longer.
                        >
                        > JRS: The MP bishops did not preach Arianism or any other heresy.
                        And ROCOR has always
                        > accepted MP clergy "in statu quo", which would not be possible if
                        they did not have Apostolic
                        > succession.
                        >
                        > > The meaning of apostolic succession is that it is breakable. That
                        is
                        > > why it is so precious. Once it has been broken, it cannot be
                        glued
                        > > back together. It is just lost.
                        >
                        > JRS: That is your own view, but it is not the teaching of the
                        Orthodox Church.
                        >
                        > In Christ
                        > Fr. John R. Shaw
                        >
                      • Fr. John R. Shaw
                        ... JRS: I wonder what you base that claim on. In fact, the statement of the 2000 Moscow Sobor on relations between the Church and State was generally praised
                        Message 11 of 25 , Nov 6, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:

                          > Who in the MP could depose those bishops, and before whom could they
                          > repent, since they all are false bishops? Who of them did repent? On
                          > the contrary, they forbade ROCOR or any one to mention the
                          > term "sergianism", and the ROCOR(L) agreed. This is a heretical
                          > approach of sin and repentance.

                          JRS: I wonder what you base that claim on.

                          In fact, the statement of the 2000 Moscow Sobor on relations between the Church and State
                          was generally praised in ROCOR and seen as a clear renunciation of Sergianism.

                          > As you know, the way they defend the MP now is by saying that all of
                          > the present MP bishops, or about all have been consecrated recently.
                          > The question is: do they have apostolic succession?

                          JRS: The answer: Yes, they do.

                          > They were consecrated by the former generation of bishops, those of
                          > Stalin or Khruschev. The former genration of bishops had lost
                          > apostolic succesion, because they were nominated by the enemies of
                          > God to destroy the Church and because they were not faithful to the
                          > apostolic mission. Their mission, set by the communist party which
                          > selected them, was to take part in the fight against God.

                          JRS: They did not "lose Apostolic succession".

                          They could onlyhave "lost Apostolic succession" if they were not consecrated by bishops who,
                          in turn, were consecrated by bishops in succession from the Apostles.

                          > That is to say that the present bishops have no apostolic succession,
                          > since they were consecrated by bishops that, at that moment had not
                          > repented, had not been forgiven, and had lost their apostolic
                          > succession.

                          JRS: What do you base this claim on? There is nothing in the Canons or the tradition of the
                          Orthodox Church to that effect.

                          > Regareding heresy (doctrine or conduct that contradicts the Church
                          > teaching), it is imortant to know that "Error.. is never set forth
                          > in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once
                          > be detected. But it is craftily decked out in on attractive dress, so
                          > as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced
                          > (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than truth itself."
                          > Irenaeus Against Heresies 1.2

                          JRS: One could use the same argument against those that have "cut themselves off" from
                          ROCOR.

                          In Christ
                          Fr. John R. Shaw
                        • Alexandre de Bonnefoi
                          Father John, Every time V Kozyreff gives you a solid argument, you go away by rough arguments. By wich way could you demonstrate something strong about
                          Message 12 of 25 , Nov 7, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Father John,

                            Every time V Kozyreff gives you a solid argument, you go away by rough arguments.

                            By wich way could you demonstrate something strong about apostolic succession if you haven't any deep view about it?

                            I thing the demonstrations of V Kozyreff or M Nikitin are enough eloquent. What do you want to ad to its?
                            Everybody wants the things good and pleasant for himself are right. But it is not the correct evaluation.


                            A de Bonnefoi

                            "Fr. John R. Shaw" <vrevjrs@...> a écrit :
                            Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:

                            > Who in the MP could depose those bishops, and before whom could they
                            > repent, since they all are false bishops? Who of them did repent? On
                            > the contrary, they forbade ROCOR or any one to mention the
                            > term "sergianism", and the ROCOR(L) agreed. This is a heretical
                            > approach of sin and repentance.

                            JRS: I wonder what you base that claim on.

                            In fact, the statement of the 2000 Moscow Sobor on relations between the Church and State
                            was generally praised in ROCOR and seen as a clear renunciation of Sergianism.

                            > As you know, the way they defend the MP now is by saying that all of
                            > the present MP bishops, or about all have been consecrated recently.
                            > The question is: do they have apostolic succession?

                            JRS: The answer: Yes, they do.

                            > They were consecrated by the former generation of bishops, those of
                            > Stalin or Khruschev. The former genration of bishops had lost
                            > apostolic succesion, because they were nominated by the enemies of
                            > God to destroy the Church and because they were not faithful to the
                            > apostolic mission. Their mission, set by the communist party which
                            > selected them, was to take part in the fight against God.

                            JRS: They did not "lose Apostolic succession".

                            They could onlyhave "lost Apostolic succession" if they were not consecrated by bishops who,
                            in turn, were consecrated by bishops in succession from the Apostles.

                            > That is to say that the present bishops have no apostolic succession,
                            > since they were consecrated by bishops that, at that moment had not
                            > repented, had not been forgiven, and had lost their apostolic
                            > succession.

                            JRS: What do you base this claim on? There is nothing in the Canons or the tradition of the
                            Orthodox Church to that effect.

                            > Regareding heresy (doctrine or conduct that contradicts the Church
                            > teaching), it is imortant to know that "Error.. is never set forth
                            > in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once
                            > be detected. But it is craftily decked out in on attractive dress, so
                            > as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced
                            > (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than truth itself."
                            > Irenaeus Against Heresies 1.2

                            JRS: One could use the same argument against those that have "cut themselves off" from
                            ROCOR.

                            In Christ
                            Fr. John R. Shaw



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





                            SPONSORED LINKS
                            Jewish orthodox

                            ---------------------------------
                            YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


                            Visit your group "orthodox-synod" on the web.

                            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            orthodox-synod-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                            ---------------------------------




                            ---------------------------------
                            Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger
                            Téléchargez le ici !

                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          • vkozyreff
                            Dear Father John, bless. You write: I wonder what you base that claim on (that it is heretical for bishops to forbid talking about their collaborating in the
                            Message 13 of 25 , Nov 7, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Dear Father John, bless.

                              You write: "I wonder what you base that claim on (that it is
                              heretical for bishops to forbid talking about their collaborating in
                              the war against God instead of repenting for it) .

                              Fighting God with the Antichist is a grave sin. I indeed claim that
                              it is totally opposed to the teaching of te apostles for bishops that
                              are guilty of that sin, to use their authority to deny it and to
                              cover it up. This is just plain common sense.

                              You write: "In fact, the statement of the 2000 Moscow Sobor on
                              relations between the Church and State was generally praised in ROCOR
                              and seen as a clear renunciation of Sergianism".

                              When I was a child, my mother used to tell me, if I had been naughty
                              and said: "I know that I have been bad", that my sin was twice as
                              grave, because I knew it and did not repent.

                              The MP however failed to consider sergianism as a sin that deprived
                              them from apostolic succession. They try to minimise the gravity of
                              fighting God with the Antechirst. Imagine bishops having collaborated
                              with the Nazi to exterminate Jews and getting away with it by just
                              saying that this was not their policy any longer. Would you praise
                              this as a renunciation to collaborate with crime? Imagine that they
                              would add that nobody can mention this fact any longer. Imagine that
                              they moreover would claim that this is consistent with the teaching
                              of the Church, and that Christians are thus expected to behave in
                              that way. Would that not be heretical?

                              The MP attempts to recover its virginity by conceding that sergianism
                              was not right and is no longer the position of the Church, but it
                              never repented for it. On the contrary, Met Alexi said that that sin
                              saved the Church, that it would have to be made again if the
                              circumstances reappeared. In addition, ROCOR prominent clerics such
                              as Father Alexander Lebedeff even approve Met Sergius calling the
                              opponents to sergianism "armchair dreamers".

                              Is collaborating with the Antichrist good or evil? Let your yes be
                              yes and your no be no. All beyond that is from the evil one.

                              You write: "(the MP bishops) did not "lose Apostolic succession", (in
                              spite of their losing all spiritual content of said apostolic
                              succession, having been appointed by the communists to fight God and
                              having indeed fought God).

                              You come back to your previous claim that the apostolic succession is
                              purely formal and without spiritual content, and that bishops keep it
                              whatever their treason of the apostles. I have already shown that
                              this is wrong, and that even Met Sergius Stragorodsky says that it is
                              wrong.

                              You write "There is nothing in the Canons or the tradition of the
                              Orthodox Church to (the effect that bishops should be consecrated by
                              true bishops, not by bishops that have lost their apostolic
                              succession because of their being appointed by communists to fight
                              God with them).

                              The core of the orthodox Church is her apostolic succession. See even
                              the birth of the very term "orthodox" and its association with the
                              concept of "appostolic succession" with St Iraeneus of Lyons.

                              You write: "One could use the same argument against those that
                              have "cut themselves off" from ROCOR.

                              This has been debated a lot on this forum. You fail here, in your
                              assertion, to reply to the arguments of the bishops that "walled
                              themselves off". As you know, there are situations where bishops must
                              act in this way, according to the canons. The discussion would be to
                              know whether this was or not such a case. Just repeating that it was
                              not the case does not help in the discussion.

                              Nobody will dispute the fact that we must follow our bishops in
                              principle. The question is about identifying true bishops from pseudo-
                              bishops. The Church and Christ teach us that false bishops do exist
                              and that the orthodox must not obey them or listen to them.If you
                              want, we may discuss this again.

                              Anyway, your argument has no value, being an "ad Hominem Tu Quoque
                              Fallacy". (See below).

                              In God,

                              Vladimir Kozyreff

                              This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim
                              is false because

                              1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or
                              2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type
                              of "argument" has the following form:

                              1. Person A makes claim X.
                              2. Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent
                              with the truth of claim X.
                              3. Therefore X is false.

                              The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any
                              particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent
                              claims only one can be true - but both can be false). Also, the fact
                              that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might
                              indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his
                              claims are false.




                              --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John R. Shaw"
                              <vrevjrs@e...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:
                              >
                              > > Who in the MP could depose those bishops, and before whom could
                              they
                              > > repent, since they all are false bishops? Who of them did repent?
                              On
                              > > the contrary, they forbade ROCOR or any one to mention the
                              > > term "sergianism", and the ROCOR(L) agreed. This is a heretical
                              > > approach of sin and repentance.
                              >
                              > JRS: I wonder what you base that claim on.
                              >
                              > In fact, the statement of the 2000 Moscow Sobor on relations
                              between the Church and State
                              > was generally praised in ROCOR and seen as a clear renunciation of
                              Sergianism.
                              >
                              > > As you know, the way they defend the MP now is by saying that all
                              of
                              > > the present MP bishops, or about all have been consecrated
                              recently.
                              > > The question is: do they have apostolic succession?
                              >
                              > JRS: The answer: Yes, they do.
                              >
                              > > They were consecrated by the former generation of bishops, those
                              of
                              > > Stalin or Khruschev. The former genration of bishops had lost
                              > > apostolic succesion, because they were nominated by the enemies of
                              > > God to destroy the Church and because they were not faithful to
                              the
                              > > apostolic mission. Their mission, set by the communist party which
                              > > selected them, was to take part in the fight against God.
                              >
                              > JRS: They did not "lose Apostolic succession".
                              >
                              > They could onlyhave "lost Apostolic succession" if they were not
                              consecrated by bishops who,
                              > in turn, were consecrated by bishops in succession from the
                              Apostles.
                              >
                              > > That is to say that the present bishops have no apostolic
                              succession,
                              > > since they were consecrated by bishops that, at that moment had
                              not
                              > > repented, had not been forgiven, and had lost their apostolic
                              > > succession.
                              >
                              > JRS: What do you base this claim on? There is nothing in the Canons
                              or the tradition of the
                              > Orthodox Church to that effect.
                              >
                              > > Regareding heresy (doctrine or conduct that contradicts the Church
                              > > teaching), it is imortant to know that "Error.. is never set
                              forth
                              > > in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at
                              once
                              > > be detected. But it is craftily decked out in on attractive
                              dress, so
                              > > as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced
                              > > (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than truth
                              itself."
                              > > Irenaeus Against Heresies 1.2
                              >
                              > JRS: One could use the same argument against those that have "cut
                              themselves off" from
                              > ROCOR.
                              >
                              > In Christ
                              > Fr. John R. Shaw
                              >
                            • vkozyreff
                              Dear Father John, bless. In the course of our discussion, you have tried at all cost to hold that there is no spiritual element in the orthodox concept of
                              Message 14 of 25 , Nov 7, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Dear Father John, bless.

                                In the course of our discussion, you have tried at all cost to hold
                                that there is no spiritual element in the orthodox concept of
                                apostolic succession. I showed you that St Iraeneus and even Met
                                Sergius say that the spiritual element is esential in the concept of
                                apostolic succession.

                                You did not reply, but after a while, you implied again that
                                apostolic succession has no spiritual element in its definition. You
                                ignored St Iraeneus and Met Stragorodsky's position. Above all, you
                                showed that you need absolutely the concept of apostolic succession
                                to be purely formal to be able defend the MP.

                                But this is not the teaching of the Church.

                                In God,

                                Vladimir Kozyreff




                                --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John R. Shaw"
                                <vrevjrs@e...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:
                                >
                                > > Who in the MP could depose those bishops, and before whom could
                                they
                                > > repent, since they all are false bishops? Who of them did repent?
                                On
                                > > the contrary, they forbade ROCOR or any one to mention the
                                > > term "sergianism", and the ROCOR(L) agreed. This is a heretical
                                > > approach of sin and repentance.
                                >
                                > JRS: I wonder what you base that claim on.
                                >
                                > In fact, the statement of the 2000 Moscow Sobor on relations
                                between the Church and State
                                > was generally praised in ROCOR and seen as a clear renunciation of
                                Sergianism.
                                >
                                > > As you know, the way they defend the MP now is by saying that all
                                of
                                > > the present MP bishops, or about all have been consecrated
                                recently.
                                > > The question is: do they have apostolic succession?
                                >
                                > JRS: The answer: Yes, they do.
                                >
                                > > They were consecrated by the former generation of bishops, those
                                of
                                > > Stalin or Khruschev. The former genration of bishops had lost
                                > > apostolic succesion, because they were nominated by the enemies of
                                > > God to destroy the Church and because they were not faithful to
                                the
                                > > apostolic mission. Their mission, set by the communist party which
                                > > selected them, was to take part in the fight against God.
                                >
                                > JRS: They did not "lose Apostolic succession".
                                >
                                > They could onlyhave "lost Apostolic succession" if they were not
                                consecrated by bishops who,
                                > in turn, were consecrated by bishops in succession from the
                                Apostles.
                                >
                                > > That is to say that the present bishops have no apostolic
                                succession,
                                > > since they were consecrated by bishops that, at that moment had
                                not
                                > > repented, had not been forgiven, and had lost their apostolic
                                > > succession.
                                >
                                > JRS: What do you base this claim on? There is nothing in the Canons
                                or the tradition of the
                                > Orthodox Church to that effect.
                                >
                                > > Regareding heresy (doctrine or conduct that contradicts the Church
                                > > teaching), it is imortant to know that "Error.. is never set
                                forth
                                > > in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at
                                once
                                > > be detected. But it is craftily decked out in on attractive
                                dress, so
                                > > as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced
                                > > (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than truth
                                itself."
                                > > Irenaeus Against Heresies 1.2
                                >
                                > JRS: One could use the same argument against those that have "cut
                                themselves off" from
                                > ROCOR.
                                >
                                > In Christ
                                > Fr. John R. Shaw
                                >
                              • Fr. John R. Shaw
                                ... JRS: I never said that there is no spiritual element in the Orthodox concept of Apostolic succession . That is merely your own interpretation of my words.
                                Message 15 of 25 , Nov 7, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:

                                  > In the course of our discussion, you have tried at all cost to hold
                                  > that there is no spiritual element in the orthodox concept of
                                  > apostolic succession. I showed you that St Iraeneus and even Met
                                  > Sergius say that the spiritual element is esential in the concept of
                                  > apostolic succession.

                                  JRS: I never said that "there is no spiritual element in the Orthodox concept of Apostolic
                                  succession".

                                  That is merely your own interpretation of my words.

                                  What I have tried, so many times, to get you to accept, is that "Apostolic succession" and
                                  "Apostolic witness" are not one and the same thing.

                                  Baptism, Chrismation, the Eucharist, Matrimony, all consist of spiritual grace, but with an
                                  outward sign or form.

                                  One can argue that "something was wrong spiritually", but the fact (or the mere suspicion by
                                  some third party) that the bride and groom did not have the right spiritual attitude, does not
                                  negate the fact that they were married in the Church, and are now man and wife.

                                  If someone approached the Chalice in the wrong spiritual state, or if the clergyman was
                                  suspected by some third party of not having the right disposition, that does not mean that
                                  there was no Eucharist: only that (if the suspicions or accusations should be true) some
                                  people sinned while participating in the Eucharist.

                                  If the priest who baptized a child or adult was "not worthy", or if the child did not understand
                                  the ceremony of baptism, is the child still baptized?

                                  Surely you would not deny that the child still received Holy Baptism.

                                  The same holds true of Holy Orders, or Apostolic succession.

                                  If a cleric is criticized, rightly or falsely, by some lay person, that cannot deprive them of
                                  Apostolic succession.

                                  A clergyman can sin against the Apostolic orders imparted to him, but that is not the same
                                  thing as denying the presence of Apostolic succession.

                                  Indeed, it is those who deny the presence of grace, or of Apostolic succession, who are in the
                                  most danger of sinning against the Holy Spirit.

                                  In Christ
                                  Fr. John R. Shaw
                                • V. Boitchenko
                                  Dear Vladimir: I wonder if you could answer my questions applying your own logic about Apostolic succession. 1) There were patriarchs (of all Eastern Seas) who
                                  Message 16 of 25 , Nov 7, 2005
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Dear Vladimir:

                                    I wonder if you could answer my questions applying your own logic about Apostolic succession.

                                    1) There were patriarchs (of all Eastern Seas) who were later condemned as heretics by the Ecumenical Councils. Since they were heretics, does that mean that Apostolic Succession is broken in all Orthodox patriarchates?

                                    2) St. Cyril of Jerusalem was consecrated by Arian bishops. Dose that mean his succession was invalid?

                                    Sincerely,

                                    Slava


                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                    From: vkozyreff
                                    To: orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com
                                    Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 11:40 AM
                                    Subject: [orthodox-synod] Re: Apostolic Succession


                                    Dear Father John, bless.

                                    In the course of our discussion, you have tried at all cost to hold
                                    that there is no spiritual element in the orthodox concept of
                                    apostolic succession. I showed you that St Iraeneus and even Met
                                    Sergius say that the spiritual element is esential in the concept of
                                    apostolic succession.

                                    You did not reply, but after a while, you implied again that
                                    apostolic succession has no spiritual element in its definition. You
                                    ignored St Iraeneus and Met Stragorodsky's position. Above all, you
                                    showed that you need absolutely the concept of apostolic succession
                                    to be purely formal to be able defend the MP.

                                    But this is not the teaching of the Church.

                                    In God,

                                    Vladimir Kozyreff




                                    --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John R. Shaw"
                                    <vrevjrs@e...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:
                                    >
                                    > > Who in the MP could depose those bishops, and before whom could
                                    they
                                    > > repent, since they all are false bishops? Who of them did repent?
                                    On
                                    > > the contrary, they forbade ROCOR or any one to mention the
                                    > > term "sergianism", and the ROCOR(L) agreed. This is a heretical
                                    > > approach of sin and repentance.
                                    >
                                    > JRS: I wonder what you base that claim on.
                                    >
                                    > In fact, the statement of the 2000 Moscow Sobor on relations
                                    between the Church and State
                                    > was generally praised in ROCOR and seen as a clear renunciation of
                                    Sergianism.
                                    >
                                    > > As you know, the way they defend the MP now is by saying that all
                                    of
                                    > > the present MP bishops, or about all have been consecrated
                                    recently.
                                    > > The question is: do they have apostolic succession?
                                    >
                                    > JRS: The answer: Yes, they do.
                                    >
                                    > > They were consecrated by the former generation of bishops, those
                                    of
                                    > > Stalin or Khruschev. The former genration of bishops had lost
                                    > > apostolic succesion, because they were nominated by the enemies of
                                    > > God to destroy the Church and because they were not faithful to
                                    the
                                    > > apostolic mission. Their mission, set by the communist party which
                                    > > selected them, was to take part in the fight against God.
                                    >
                                    > JRS: They did not "lose Apostolic succession".
                                    >
                                    > They could onlyhave "lost Apostolic succession" if they were not
                                    consecrated by bishops who,
                                    > in turn, were consecrated by bishops in succession from the
                                    Apostles.
                                    >
                                    > > That is to say that the present bishops have no apostolic
                                    succession,
                                    > > since they were consecrated by bishops that, at that moment had
                                    not
                                    > > repented, had not been forgiven, and had lost their apostolic
                                    > > succession.
                                    >
                                    > JRS: What do you base this claim on? There is nothing in the Canons
                                    or the tradition of the
                                    > Orthodox Church to that effect.
                                    >
                                    > > Regareding heresy (doctrine or conduct that contradicts the Church
                                    > > teaching), it is imortant to know that "Error.. is never set
                                    forth
                                    > > in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at
                                    once
                                    > > be detected. But it is craftily decked out in on attractive
                                    dress, so
                                    > > as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced
                                    > > (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than truth
                                    itself."
                                    > > Irenaeus Against Heresies 1.2
                                    >
                                    > JRS: One could use the same argument against those that have "cut
                                    themselves off" from
                                    > ROCOR.
                                    >
                                    > In Christ
                                    > Fr. John R. Shaw
                                    >









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





                                    SPONSORED LINKS Jewish orthodox


                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

                                    a.. Visit your group "orthodox-synod" on the web.

                                    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                    orthodox-synod-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                                    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Alexandre de Bonnefoi
                                    VK dixit : The MP attempts to recover its virginity by conceding that sergianism was not right Mr Kozyreff, this is not even true. Indeed the bilateral
                                    Message 17 of 25 , Nov 7, 2005
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      VK dixit : "The MP attempts to recover its virginity by conceding that sergianism was not right "



                                      Mr Kozyreff, this is not even true. Indeed the bilateral commission just stated that :



                                      « The [1927 Met. Sergius declaration] attempts to show that which the Church has taught since its very first centuries, since the apostles and apologists : the Christians are not enemies of the state »



                                      How could "that which the Church has taught since its very first centuries, since the apostles and apologists" be "not right" ?





                                      A de Bonnefoi



                                      ---------------------------------
                                      Appel audio GRATUIT partout dans le monde avec le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger
                                      Téléchargez le ici !

                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • orthodoxchurch_sg
                                      ... Dear Fr John: bifd the blessing! Thank you very much for explaining this very important point so clearly. He who has ears let him hear. ~ unworthy brother
                                      Message 18 of 25 , Nov 7, 2005
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John R. Shaw"
                                        <vrevjrs@e...> wrote:
                                        >

                                        Dear Fr John: bifd the blessing!
                                        Thank you very much for explaining this very important point so
                                        clearly. He who has ears let him hear.
                                        ~ unworthy brother in Christ / presbyter Daniel

                                        > JRS: I never said that "there is no spiritual element in the
                                        Orthodox concept of Apostolic
                                        > succession".
                                        >
                                        > That is merely your own interpretation of my words.
                                        >
                                        > What I have tried, so many times, to get you to accept, is
                                        that "Apostolic succession" and
                                        > "Apostolic witness" are not one and the same thing.
                                        >
                                        > Baptism, Chrismation, the Eucharist, Matrimony, all consist of
                                        spiritual grace, but with an
                                        > outward sign or form.
                                        >
                                        > One can argue that "something was wrong spiritually", but the fact
                                        (or the mere suspicion by
                                        > some third party) that the bride and groom did not have the right
                                        spiritual attitude, does not
                                        > negate the fact that they were married in the Church, and are now
                                        man and wife.
                                        >
                                        > If someone approached the Chalice in the wrong spiritual state, or
                                        if the clergyman was
                                        > suspected by some third party of not having the right disposition,
                                        that does not mean that
                                        > there was no Eucharist: only that (if the suspicions or accusations
                                        should be true) some
                                        > people sinned while participating in the Eucharist.
                                        >
                                        > If the priest who baptized a child or adult was "not worthy", or if
                                        the child did not understand
                                        > the ceremony of baptism, is the child still baptized?
                                        >
                                        > Surely you would not deny that the child still received Holy
                                        Baptism.
                                        >
                                        > The same holds true of Holy Orders, or Apostolic succession.
                                        >
                                        > If a cleric is criticized, rightly or falsely, by some lay person,
                                        that cannot deprive them of
                                        > Apostolic succession.
                                        >
                                        > A clergyman can sin against the Apostolic orders imparted to him,
                                        but that is not the same
                                        > thing as denying the presence of Apostolic succession.
                                        >
                                        > Indeed, it is those who deny the presence of grace, or of Apostolic
                                        succession, who are in the
                                        > most danger of sinning against the Holy Spirit.
                                        >
                                        > In Christ
                                        > Fr. John R. Shaw
                                        >
                                      • vkozyreff
                                        Dear Slava, At the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople, Eastern bishops accepted the Nicene Creed. This was the end of the dispute about the Trinity
                                        Message 19 of 25 , Nov 8, 2005
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Dear Slava,

                                          At the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople, Eastern bishops
                                          accepted the Nicene Creed. This was the end of the dispute about the
                                          Trinity and the end of Arianism among the Roman, non-Germanic nations.

                                          Whatever apostolic succession true bishop have, they received it from
                                          the true bishops, that is from non heretical bishops. If a bishop
                                          failed and lost apostolic succession, he may have received it again
                                          from the Church, by repenting, renouncing heresy and by joining again
                                          communion with the Church.

                                          Sergianism is a heresy because it is alien to the apostolic
                                          witness."The 1927 Declaration does not limit itself to lying, alone.
                                          The falsehood contained in it pales before the appeal to the Orthodox
                                          to regard the soviet regime as would the most-zealous adherents of
                                          Orthodoxy, for whom it is as precious as truth and life, with all its
                                          dogmas and traditions, with its entire canonical and divine-service
                                          structure.

                                          This means that the Christian is being called upon to serve the
                                          Antichrist, in the exact same manner as he served Christ — with all
                                          his heart, with all his soul, with all his thoughts, with all his
                                          senses.

                                          Thus, the Declaration contains within itself not only betrayal and
                                          falsehood, but also a definite substitution of anti-Christianity for
                                          [true] Christianity and of an anti-church for the [true] Church".

                                          (from the reports read at the 2004 ROCA Sobor of Bishops)

                                          The MP does not repent before the true Church. It stubbornly holds to
                                          sergianism, whatever its attempts to dress their heresy and their
                                          obstination. As A. de Bonnefoi rightly specifies, even the ROCOR
                                          subscribed to their defence of their sin, by jointly declaring with
                                          them that the "Church was not the enemy of the State", as though
                                          sergianism was about enmity between Church and State.

                                          If we were to follow Father John we would say: Why does the ROCOR not
                                          recognise Vl Valentin of Suzdal? Who knows, maybe he repented? The
                                          fact that he was criticised does not allow us to condemn him without
                                          fear of sinning against the Holy Ghost.

                                          No. Repentance implies necessarily reparation, by the repentent
                                          sinner, of the damages caused by his sin and asking forgiveness to
                                          those whom he offended, deceived, wounded, killed, etc. The MP cannot
                                          repent in secret, without our knowing it or without asking
                                          forgiveness to the Church, to Russia and to all of us. We forgive it,
                                          but this is for the salvation of our souls. Our forgiving does not
                                          entail God's pardon.

                                          In God,

                                          Vladimir Kozyreff


                                          --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "V. Boitchenko"
                                          <tompkins440@v...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          > Dear Vladimir:
                                          >
                                          > I wonder if you could answer my questions applying your own logic
                                          about Apostolic succession.
                                          >
                                          > 1) There were patriarchs (of all Eastern Seas) who were later
                                          condemned as heretics by the Ecumenical Councils. Since they were
                                          heretics, does that mean that Apostolic Succession is broken in all
                                          Orthodox patriarchates?
                                          >
                                          > 2) St. Cyril of Jerusalem was consecrated by Arian bishops. Dose
                                          that mean his succession was invalid?
                                          >
                                          > Sincerely,
                                          >
                                          > Slava
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > ----- Original Message -----
                                          > From: vkozyreff
                                          > To: orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com
                                          > Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 11:40 AM
                                          > Subject: [orthodox-synod] Re: Apostolic Succession
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Dear Father John, bless.
                                          >
                                          > In the course of our discussion, you have tried at all cost to
                                          hold
                                          > that there is no spiritual element in the orthodox concept of
                                          > apostolic succession. I showed you that St Iraeneus and even Met
                                          > Sergius say that the spiritual element is esential in the concept
                                          of
                                          > apostolic succession.
                                          >
                                          > You did not reply, but after a while, you implied again that
                                          > apostolic succession has no spiritual element in its definition.
                                          You
                                          > ignored St Iraeneus and Met Stragorodsky's position. Above all,
                                          you
                                          > showed that you need absolutely the concept of apostolic
                                          succession
                                          > to be purely formal to be able defend the MP.
                                          >
                                          > But this is not the teaching of the Church.
                                          >
                                          > In God,
                                          >
                                          > Vladimir Kozyreff
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John R. Shaw"
                                          > <vrevjrs@e...> wrote:
                                          > >
                                          > > Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:
                                          > >
                                          > > > Who in the MP could depose those bishops, and before whom
                                          could
                                          > they
                                          > > > repent, since they all are false bishops? Who of them did
                                          repent?
                                          > On
                                          > > > the contrary, they forbade ROCOR or any one to mention the
                                          > > > term "sergianism", and the ROCOR(L) agreed. This is a
                                          heretical
                                          > > > approach of sin and repentance.
                                          > >
                                          > > JRS: I wonder what you base that claim on.
                                          > >
                                          > > In fact, the statement of the 2000 Moscow Sobor on relations
                                          > between the Church and State
                                          > > was generally praised in ROCOR and seen as a clear renunciation
                                          of
                                          > Sergianism.
                                          > >
                                          > > > As you know, the way they defend the MP now is by saying that
                                          all
                                          > of
                                          > > > the present MP bishops, or about all have been consecrated
                                          > recently.
                                          > > > The question is: do they have apostolic succession?
                                          > >
                                          > > JRS: The answer: Yes, they do.
                                          > >
                                          > > > They were consecrated by the former generation of bishops,
                                          those
                                          > of
                                          > > > Stalin or Khruschev. The former genration of bishops had lost
                                          > > > apostolic succesion, because they were nominated by the
                                          enemies of
                                          > > > God to destroy the Church and because they were not faithful
                                          to
                                          > the
                                          > > > apostolic mission. Their mission, set by the communist party
                                          which
                                          > > > selected them, was to take part in the fight against God.
                                          > >
                                          > > JRS: They did not "lose Apostolic succession".
                                          > >
                                          > > They could onlyhave "lost Apostolic succession" if they were
                                          not
                                          > consecrated by bishops who,
                                          > > in turn, were consecrated by bishops in succession from the
                                          > Apostles.
                                          > >
                                          > > > That is to say that the present bishops have no apostolic
                                          > succession,
                                          > > > since they were consecrated by bishops that, at that moment
                                          had
                                          > not
                                          > > > repented, had not been forgiven, and had lost their apostolic
                                          > > > succession.
                                          > >
                                          > > JRS: What do you base this claim on? There is nothing in the
                                          Canons
                                          > or the tradition of the
                                          > > Orthodox Church to that effect.
                                          > >
                                          > > > Regareding heresy (doctrine or conduct that contradicts the
                                          Church
                                          > > > teaching), it is imortant to know that "Error.. is never set
                                          > forth
                                          > > > in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should
                                          at
                                          > once
                                          > > > be detected. But it is craftily decked out in on attractive
                                          > dress, so
                                          > > > as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the
                                          inexperienced
                                          > > > (ridiculous as the expression may seem) more true than truth
                                          > itself."
                                          > > > Irenaeus Against Heresies 1.2
                                          > >
                                          > > JRS: One could use the same argument against those that
                                          have "cut
                                          > themselves off" from
                                          > > ROCOR.
                                          > >
                                          > > In Christ
                                          > > Fr. John R. Shaw
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > SPONSORED LINKS Jewish orthodox
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          ----------
                                          > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
                                          >
                                          > a.. Visit your group "orthodox-synod" on the web.
                                          >
                                          > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                          > orthodox-synod-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                          >
                                          > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms
                                          of Service.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          ----------
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          >
                                        • V. Boitchenko
                                          ... It does not really answer my question. There were heresies other than the Arian, and there were bishops and even Patriarchs who had been condemned (long
                                          Message 20 of 25 , Nov 8, 2005
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Dear Vladimir:

                                            >At the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople, Eastern bishops
                                            >accepted the Nicene Creed. This was the end of the dispute about the
                                            >Trinity and the end of Arianism among the Roman, non-Germanic nations.

                                            It does not really answer my question. There were heresies other than the Arian, and there were bishops and even Patriarchs who had been condemned (long after the 1st and 2nd Councils) as heretics and never repented. I asked you if their heresy somehow compromised sucession of Orthodox bishops thereafter.

                                            >Whatever apostolic succession true bishop have, they received it from
                                            >the true bishops, that is from non heretical bishops. If a bishop
                                            >failed and lost apostolic succession, he may have received it again
                                            >from the Church, by repenting, renouncing heresy and by joining again
                                            >communion with the Church.

                                            St. Cyril of Jerusalem was consecrated by bishops who were Arians (Acacios of Caesarea and Patrophilos of Scyphopolis). Those bishops never repented, St. Cyril was never reconsecrated and being strictly Orthodox he had nothing to renounce. Was his succession invalid?

                                            >Sergianism is a heresy because it is alien to the apostolic witness.

                                            Whatever you mean by word "Sergianism" may in fact be some sort of a heresy. However, I do not know of any such teaching or doctrine being confessed or taught by the Church in Russia, and I do not know of any specific Church defenition of such heresy.

                                            >As A. de Bonnefoi rightly specifies, even the ROCOR
                                            >subscribed to their defence of their sin,

                                            Is A. de Bonefoi and you the same person by any chance?

                                            >If we were to follow Father John we would say: Why does the ROCOR not
                                            >recognise Vl Valentin of Suzdal? Who knows, maybe he repented?

                                            Valentin (of Suzdal) received his hirotonia from the ROCOR bishops. Therefore his sucession as bishop is valid. However, he is in schism with ROCOR. A schism is not a heresy and could be healed. In order for him to be reconciled with the Russian Church he would have to be reconciled with one of its parts (i.e. ROCOR or MP). Repentance alone would not do it. Until then he will remain a schismatic. In the case of ROCiE, one they argue that they receive their sucession from Met. Vitaly and Bp. Varnava, however, since there is a problem with canonicity of those consecrations the succession of everyone other than Met. Vitaly and Bp. Varnava is very questionable. Regardless of their sucession they are also in schism with the ROCOR Synod.

                                            >Repentance implies necessarily reparation...

                                            Where does this come from? "Eye for an Eye?"

                                            >asking forgiveness to
                                            >those whom he offended, deceived, wounded, killed, etc.

                                            If I may ask for forgiveness from you on behalf of all my compatriots who suffered under the Soviets, I do so. Please forgive us.

                                            >The MP cannot repent in secret, without our knowing it or without asking
                                            >forgiveness to the Church, to Russia and to all of us.

                                            Repentance is a necessary element of spiritual life of Orthodox Christians. MP and the Patriarch have issued numerous statements of repentance and awknowledment of guilt. However, there will always be those for whom it will never be enough no matter what they do or say. One who has forgiven does not need extra apologies.


                                            Slava






                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          • vkozyreff
                                            Dear Slava, In reply to my saying Repentance implies necessarily reparation... , you write: Where does this come from? Eye for an Eye? Eye for eye concerns
                                            Message 21 of 25 , Nov 10, 2005
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Dear Slava,

                                              In reply to my saying "Repentance implies necessarily reparation...",
                                              you write: Where does this come from? "Eye for an Eye?"

                                              Eye for eye concerns the punishment of an offence. I am talking about
                                              pardon.

                                              The rule is:

                                              - If they offend me, I must pardon instantaneously, even before they
                                              ask my pardon and even before the stone that they throw at me hits
                                              me. My pardoning is mandatory if I call myself a Christian. This is
                                              for the salvation of my soul. It does not save my aggressor's soul,
                                              but it may help him repenting.

                                              - I can pardon only those offences that I have received, not those
                                              inflicted to others.

                                              - If I have offended somebody, I must repent as soon as I can. I
                                              cannot repent without repairing or trying to repair the damage that I
                                              have caused. I cannot repent without asking the pardon from the
                                              person that I have offended, if that person is available. Doing
                                              otherwise is incompatible with regretting my sin and loving the
                                              person whom I have offended. Doing otherwise shows absence of
                                              metanoia and is thus incompatible with hoping God's pardon. If I have
                                              stolen somebody, I must return what I have stolen. If I have deceived
                                              a person or a group of people, I must go to these people and ask
                                              their forgiveness before I can even ask God's pardon.

                                              If somebody has offended me, supposing even that I have pardoned him
                                              (which is my duty as a Christian), God will not pardon him before he
                                              has asked my pardon if I am available. So my offender cannot repent
                                              without my knowing it. He cannot repent secretely and be forgiven by
                                              God for offending me if, supposing that I am available for
                                              communication with him, he has not asked my pardon or attempted to
                                              repair the damage that he has caused to me.

                                              My pardon is not conditional to my offenders asking for it. It must
                                              be immediate and unconditional. However, if I want to obtain God's
                                              pardon, I must necessarily and as soon as possible ask the pardon of
                                              the person that I have offended and attempt to repair the damage that
                                              I have caused to him.

                                              In God,

                                              Vladimir Kozyreff


                                              And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
                                              Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
                                              Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. Exodus 21:
                                              23-25

                                              You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for
                                              a tooth." But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever
                                              slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone
                                              wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.
                                              Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who
                                              asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from
                                              you". Matthew 5: 38-41.


                                              --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "V. Boitchenko"
                                              <tompkins440@v...> wrote:
                                              >
                                              > Dear Vladimir:
                                              >
                                              > >At the Second Ecumenical Council in Constantinople, Eastern
                                              bishops
                                              > >accepted the Nicene Creed. This was the end of the dispute about
                                              the
                                              > >Trinity and the end of Arianism among the Roman, non-Germanic
                                              nations.
                                              >
                                              > It does not really answer my question. There were heresies other
                                              than the Arian, and there were bishops and even Patriarchs who had
                                              been condemned (long after the 1st and 2nd Councils) as heretics and
                                              never repented. I asked you if their heresy somehow compromised
                                              sucession of Orthodox bishops thereafter.
                                              >
                                              > >Whatever apostolic succession true bishop have, they received it
                                              from
                                              > >the true bishops, that is from non heretical bishops. If a bishop
                                              > >failed and lost apostolic succession, he may have received it
                                              again
                                              > >from the Church, by repenting, renouncing heresy and by joining
                                              again
                                              > >communion with the Church.
                                              >
                                              > St. Cyril of Jerusalem was consecrated by bishops who were Arians
                                              (Acacios of Caesarea and Patrophilos of Scyphopolis). Those bishops
                                              never repented, St. Cyril was never reconsecrated and being strictly
                                              Orthodox he had nothing to renounce. Was his succession invalid?
                                              >
                                              > >Sergianism is a heresy because it is alien to the apostolic
                                              witness.
                                              >
                                              > Whatever you mean by word "Sergianism" may in fact be some sort of
                                              a heresy. However, I do not know of any such teaching or doctrine
                                              being confessed or taught by the Church in Russia, and I do not know
                                              of any specific Church defenition of such heresy.
                                              >
                                              > >As A. de Bonnefoi rightly specifies, even the ROCOR
                                              > >subscribed to their defence of their sin,
                                              >
                                              > Is A. de Bonefoi and you the same person by any chance?
                                              >
                                              > >If we were to follow Father John we would say: Why does the ROCOR
                                              not
                                              > >recognise Vl Valentin of Suzdal? Who knows, maybe he repented?
                                              >
                                              > Valentin (of Suzdal) received his hirotonia from the ROCOR bishops.
                                              Therefore his sucession as bishop is valid. However, he is in schism
                                              with ROCOR. A schism is not a heresy and could be healed. In order
                                              for him to be reconciled with the Russian Church he would have to be
                                              reconciled with one of its parts (i.e. ROCOR or MP). Repentance alone
                                              would not do it. Until then he will remain a schismatic. In the case
                                              of ROCiE, one they argue that they receive their sucession from Met.
                                              Vitaly and Bp. Varnava, however, since there is a problem with
                                              canonicity of those consecrations the succession of everyone other
                                              than Met. Vitaly and Bp. Varnava is very questionable. Regardless of
                                              their sucession they are also in schism with the ROCOR Synod.
                                              >
                                              > >Repentance implies necessarily reparation...
                                              >
                                              > Where does this come from? "Eye for an Eye?"
                                              >
                                              > >asking forgiveness to
                                              > >those whom he offended, deceived, wounded, killed, etc.
                                              >
                                              > If I may ask for forgiveness from you on behalf of all my
                                              compatriots who suffered under the Soviets, I do so. Please forgive
                                              us.
                                              >
                                              > >The MP cannot repent in secret, without our knowing it or without
                                              asking
                                              > >forgiveness to the Church, to Russia and to all of us.
                                              >
                                              > Repentance is a necessary element of spiritual life of Orthodox
                                              Christians. MP and the Patriarch have issued numerous statements of
                                              repentance and awknowledment of guilt. However, there will always be
                                              those for whom it will never be enough no matter what they do or say.
                                              One who has forgiven does not need extra apologies.
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > Slava
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              >
                                            • V. Boitchenko
                                              Dear Vladimir: 1) Russian Church (of the Moscow Patriarchate) is made of clergy and people, most whom had been persecuted by the Soviet government. There are
                                              Message 22 of 25 , Nov 14, 2005
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                Dear Vladimir:

                                                1) Russian Church (of the Moscow Patriarchate) is made of clergy and people, most whom had been persecuted by the Soviet government. There are many believers in the MP, who are directly related to the New Martyrs and Russian Saints. Knowing personal stories of clergy of the MP and what they had to go through witnessing their Orthodoxy in the USSR, and knowing what believers had to endure under the communists, there is no question in my mind that Moscow Patriarchate represents the suffering and persecuted Russian Church of the Martyrs. To say otherwise would be to persecute them further. One who thinks that MP is made of a bunch of KGB agents in riasas and millions of fools has been seriously misinformed (to put in mildly) about the Russian Church.

                                                "Commemorating" or "Non-Commemorating" (Metropolitan Sergius), as St. Cyril of Kazan wrote in his letter to Met. Sergius, was a matter of principle and not a matter of doctrine (as it has become for some nowadays). Christians were persecuted because of their faith in God and not because of who they "commemorated."

                                                2) On the other hand, ROCOR is made of descendants of Russian post-revolutionary emigrees, WWII DPs (i.e. people who did not necessarily personally experience the persecutions) and also a great number of non-Russian converts as well as new (late Soviet and post-Soviet) immigrants from Russia, who have never been persecuted. ROCOR represents the Church of the Martyrs only by virtue of the fact that it was a free part of the Russian Church sharing joys and sorrows of the persecuted Orthodox brothers in the homeland and venerating the podvig of the New Martyrs.

                                                3) MP represents the offended and the persecuted, and by no means does it represent the offenders and the persecutors. Your accusations are groundless and slanderous.

                                                >VK wrote: If I have offended somebody, I must repent as soon as I can.

                                                Vladimir, your comments are very offensive to the memory of New Martyrs of Russia.

                                                4) According to the rabbinical interpretation "eye for an eye" means that there must be an adequate compensation of any damage. The Sadducees interpreted it differently but there are no Saducees living any more and it is irrelevant to us. Your rhethoric reads as if it comes straight from the rabbinical guide for atonement of sins even with the reservations like "...which is my duty as a Christian..., or ...I must repent immediately..."

                                                Even if the communists wanted to repent and apologize they would have to apologize to the Orthodox Christians in Russia for persecuting them for 70 years. However, no one in their right mind in the MP would even think about going around demanding apologies from anyone. As to the Russian society in general, the return of the remains of the emigrees to Russia, monuments to Kolchak, returned statues of the Czars, and general interest in the faith of the fathers are only few of the many signs that even secular Russians have reevaluated their past.

                                                Sincerely,

                                                Slava



                                                ----- Original Message -----
                                                From: vkozyreff
                                                To: orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com
                                                Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 1:43 PM
                                                Subject: [orthodox-synod] Re: Apostolic Succession


                                                Dear Slava,

                                                In reply to my saying "Repentance implies necessarily reparation...",
                                                you write: Where does this come from? "Eye for an Eye?"

                                                Eye for eye concerns the punishment of an offence. I am talking about
                                                pardon.

                                                The rule is:

                                                - If they offend me, I must pardon instantaneously, even before they
                                                ask my pardon and even before the stone that they throw at me hits
                                                me. My pardoning is mandatory if I call myself a Christian. This is
                                                for the salvation of my soul. It does not save my aggressor's soul,
                                                but it may help him repenting.

                                                - I can pardon only those offences that I have received, not those
                                                inflicted to others.

                                                - If I have offended somebody, I must repent as soon as I can. I
                                                cannot repent without repairing or trying to repair the damage that I
                                                have caused. I cannot repent without asking the pardon from the
                                                person that I have offended, if that person is available. Doing
                                                otherwise is incompatible with regretting my sin and loving the
                                                person whom I have offended. Doing otherwise shows absence of
                                                metanoia and is thus incompatible with hoping God's pardon. If I have
                                                stolen somebody, I must return what I have stolen. If I have deceived
                                                a person or a group of people, I must go to these people and ask
                                                their forgiveness before I can even ask God's pardon.

                                                If somebody has offended me, supposing even that I have pardoned him
                                                (which is my duty as a Christian), God will not pardon him before he
                                                has asked my pardon if I am available. So my offender cannot repent
                                                without my knowing it. He cannot repent secretely and be forgiven by
                                                God for offending me if, supposing that I am available for
                                                communication with him, he has not asked my pardon or attempted to
                                                repair the damage that he has caused to me.

                                                My pardon is not conditional to my offenders asking for it. It must
                                                be immediate and unconditional. However, if I want to obtain God's
                                                pardon, I must necessarily and as soon as possible ask the pardon of
                                                the person that I have offended and attempt to repair the damage that
                                                I have caused to him.

                                                In God,

                                                Vladimir Kozyreff


                                                And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
                                                Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
                                                Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. Exodus 21:
                                                23-25

                                                You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for
                                                a tooth." But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever
                                                slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone
                                                wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also.
                                                Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who
                                                asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from
                                                you". Matthew 5: 38-41.



                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              • vkozyreff
                                                Dear Viacheslav, I call MP the hierarchy, who are successors of the sergianists bishops, with which the ROCOR negotiates. The believers are our brothers and
                                                Message 23 of 25 , Nov 16, 2005
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Dear Viacheslav,

                                                  I call "MP" the hierarchy, who are successors of the sergianists
                                                  bishops, with which the ROCOR negotiates. The believers are our
                                                  brothers and sisters in the faith, they are the orthodox Church of
                                                  Russia, of which we are part too.

                                                  I say that the MP hierarchy are successors of the persecutors because
                                                  they defend sergianism, and not those who refused it, even though
                                                  they are not under threat any more. They refuse to speak about it,
                                                  they make it a forbiden term and manifest their stubborn loyalty to
                                                  Met Sergius. It is a "free" decision.

                                                  You say very rightly that persecutors and persecuted are hard to
                                                  distinguish in the Soviet system.

                                                  Let me offer to the List what I suggested to you privately earlier:

                                                  The very diabolic tactic of the communists was to involve somehow all
                                                  members of society in persecutions and take advantage of their
                                                  subsequent "cognitive dissonance", to make allies from their victims.

                                                  Those who were associated somehow to persecution by a criminal state
                                                  (or sergianism) will change atitude towards that persecution
                                                  (sergianism) i.e. they will claim that it was right, justified or not
                                                  important (no excuses needed) to neutralise their conscience or their
                                                  unbearable remorse. This is "cognitive dissonance".

                                                  The work of "decommunismation" involves recovering the ability to
                                                  distinguish between the 2 situations (persecuted and persecutor),
                                                  even if they were both present in one individual. The 1927
                                                  declaration is persecutor by its content because it was a declaration
                                                  of war against God, persecuted by its origin because it was extorted
                                                  from Christians by force.

                                                  It should be eradicated, even if the process is painful. It implies
                                                  acknowledging by the subject of his mistake, and acknowledging that
                                                  his mind was distorted. It is difficult for people to acknowledge
                                                  that their minds were distorted, even if they know that the system
                                                  was responsible, and that few could resist.

                                                  You know the typical reply of Russians, when one suggests them to
                                                  destroy Lenin's monuments: "This is part of our history". It would be
                                                  like Jews refusing to destroy monuments to Hitler. That is why I
                                                  think that the persecutions in Russia were more destructive to the
                                                  souls than the persecutions of the Jews.

                                                  Inability or unwillingness to dissociate oneself from sergianism (or
                                                  communism) is an example of corrupt mind, unrepented mind, cognitive
                                                  disssonance and or Stockholm syndrome. The therapist (the Church)
                                                  should help the Russians understand that sergianism (communism) is in
                                                  fact alien to them, that they must identify it as such and expell it
                                                  from their own self as a malignant tumour.

                                                  It is important to note that a martyr is a person who was killed for
                                                  being orthodox. If one assumes that sergianism (serving in the war
                                                  against God) is heretical, sergianists cannot be martyrs even if they
                                                  were persecuted. Beria too was persecuted.

                                                  In Christ,

                                                  Vladimir Kozyreff

                                                  According to cognitive dissonance theory, there is a tendency for
                                                  individuals to seek consistency among their cognitions (i.e.,
                                                  beliefs, opinions). When there is an inconsistency between attitudes
                                                  or behaviors (dissonance), something must change to eliminate the
                                                  dissonance. In the case of a discrepancy between attitudes and
                                                  behavior, it is most likely that the attitude will change to
                                                  accommodate the behavior. Cognitive Dissonance (L. Festinger)

                                                  The Stockholm syndrome is a psychological response of a hostage, or
                                                  an individual in a hostage-like situation (e.g. dependent child,
                                                  battered wife, etc) in which the more powerful person (a) has the
                                                  power to put the individual's life in danger or at least the power to
                                                  worsen the individual's prospects for the future life, and (b)
                                                  occasionally exercises this power in order to show that he or she is
                                                  able to use it, if the victim will not conform to the more powerful
                                                  person's will. The main symptom of the syndrome is the individual's
                                                  seeming loyalty to the more powerful person in spite of the danger
                                                  (or at least risk) in which they are placed, due to this loyalty.

                                                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome


                                                  --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "V. Boitchenko"
                                                  <tompkins440@v...> wrote:
                                                  >
                                                  > Dear Vladimir:
                                                  >
                                                  > 1) Russian Church (of the Moscow Patriarchate) is made of clergy
                                                  and people, most whom had been persecuted by the Soviet government.
                                                  There are many believers in the MP, who are directly related to the
                                                  New Martyrs and Russian Saints. Knowing personal stories of clergy of
                                                  the MP and what they had to go through witnessing their Orthodoxy in
                                                  the USSR, and knowing what believers had to endure under the
                                                  communists, there is no question in my mind that Moscow Patriarchate
                                                  represents the suffering and persecuted Russian Church of the
                                                  Martyrs. To say otherwise would be to persecute them further. One who
                                                  thinks that MP is made of a bunch of KGB agents in riasas and
                                                  millions of fools has been seriously misinformed (to put in mildly)
                                                  about the Russian Church.
                                                  >
                                                  > "Commemorating" or "Non-Commemorating" (Metropolitan Sergius), as
                                                  St. Cyril of Kazan wrote in his letter to Met. Sergius, was a matter
                                                  of principle and not a matter of doctrine (as it has become for some
                                                  nowadays). Christians were persecuted because of their faith in God
                                                  and not because of who they "commemorated."
                                                  >
                                                  > 2) On the other hand, ROCOR is made of descendants of Russian post-
                                                  revolutionary emigrees, WWII DPs (i.e. people who did not necessarily
                                                  personally experience the persecutions) and also a great number of
                                                  non-Russian converts as well as new (late Soviet and post-Soviet)
                                                  immigrants from Russia, who have never been persecuted. ROCOR
                                                  represents the Church of the Martyrs only by virtue of the fact that
                                                  it was a free part of the Russian Church sharing joys and sorrows of
                                                  the persecuted Orthodox brothers in the homeland and venerating the
                                                  podvig of the New Martyrs.
                                                  >
                                                  > 3) MP represents the offended and the persecuted, and by no means
                                                  does it represent the offenders and the persecutors. Your accusations
                                                  are groundless and slanderous.
                                                  >
                                                  > >VK wrote: If I have offended somebody, I must repent as soon as I
                                                  can.
                                                  >
                                                  > Vladimir, your comments are very offensive to the memory of New
                                                  Martyrs of Russia.
                                                  >
                                                  > 4) According to the rabbinical interpretation "eye for an eye"
                                                  means that there must be an adequate compensation of any damage. The
                                                  Sadducees interpreted it differently but there are no Saducees living
                                                  any more and it is irrelevant to us. Your rhethoric reads as if it
                                                  comes straight from the rabbinical guide for atonement of sins even
                                                  with the reservations like "...which is my duty as a Christian...,
                                                  or ...I must repent immediately..."
                                                  >
                                                  > Even if the communists wanted to repent and apologize they would
                                                  have to apologize to the Orthodox Christians in Russia for
                                                  persecuting them for 70 years. However, no one in their right mind in
                                                  the MP would even think about going around demanding apologies from
                                                  anyone. As to the Russian society in general, the return of the
                                                  remains of the emigrees to Russia, monuments to Kolchak, returned
                                                  statues of the Czars, and general interest in the faith of the
                                                  fathers are only few of the many signs that even secular Russians
                                                  have reevaluated their past.
                                                  >
                                                  > Sincerely,
                                                  >
                                                  > Slava
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > ----- Original Message -----
                                                  > From: vkozyreff
                                                  > To: orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com
                                                  > Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 1:43 PM
                                                  > Subject: [orthodox-synod] Re: Apostolic Succession
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > Dear Slava,
                                                  >
                                                  > In reply to my saying "Repentance implies necessarily
                                                  reparation...",
                                                  > you write: Where does this come from? "Eye for an Eye?"
                                                  >
                                                  > Eye for eye concerns the punishment of an offence. I am talking
                                                  about
                                                  > pardon.
                                                  >
                                                  > The rule is:
                                                  >
                                                  > - If they offend me, I must pardon instantaneously, even before
                                                  they
                                                  > ask my pardon and even before the stone that they throw at me
                                                  hits
                                                  > me. My pardoning is mandatory if I call myself a Christian. This
                                                  is
                                                  > for the salvation of my soul. It does not save my aggressor's
                                                  soul,
                                                  > but it may help him repenting.
                                                  >
                                                  > - I can pardon only those offences that I have received, not
                                                  those
                                                  > inflicted to others.
                                                  >
                                                  > - If I have offended somebody, I must repent as soon as I can. I
                                                  > cannot repent without repairing or trying to repair the damage
                                                  that I
                                                  > have caused. I cannot repent without asking the pardon from the
                                                  > person that I have offended, if that person is available. Doing
                                                  > otherwise is incompatible with regretting my sin and loving the
                                                  > person whom I have offended. Doing otherwise shows absence of
                                                  > metanoia and is thus incompatible with hoping God's pardon. If I
                                                  have
                                                  > stolen somebody, I must return what I have stolen. If I have
                                                  deceived
                                                  > a person or a group of people, I must go to these people and ask
                                                  > their forgiveness before I can even ask God's pardon.
                                                  >
                                                  > If somebody has offended me, supposing even that I have pardoned
                                                  him
                                                  > (which is my duty as a Christian), God will not pardon him before
                                                  he
                                                  > has asked my pardon if I am available. So my offender cannot
                                                  repent
                                                  > without my knowing it. He cannot repent secretely and be forgiven
                                                  by
                                                  > God for offending me if, supposing that I am available for
                                                  > communication with him, he has not asked my pardon or attempted
                                                  to
                                                  > repair the damage that he has caused to me.
                                                  >
                                                  > My pardon is not conditional to my offenders asking for it. It
                                                  must
                                                  > be immediate and unconditional. However, if I want to obtain
                                                  God's
                                                  > pardon, I must necessarily and as soon as possible ask the pardon
                                                  of
                                                  > the person that I have offended and attempt to repair the damage
                                                  that
                                                  > I have caused to him.
                                                  >
                                                  > In God,
                                                  >
                                                  > Vladimir Kozyreff
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
                                                  > Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
                                                  > Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. Exodus
                                                  21:
                                                  > 23-25
                                                  >
                                                  > You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth
                                                  for
                                                  > a tooth." But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but
                                                  whoever
                                                  > slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If
                                                  anyone
                                                  > wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat
                                                  also.
                                                  > Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him
                                                  who
                                                  > asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow
                                                  from
                                                  > you". Matthew 5: 38-41.
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                  >
                                                • vkozyreff
                                                  Dear Viacheslav, You write: The Russian Church (of the Moscow Patriarchate) is made of clergy and people, most whom had been persecuted by the Soviet
                                                  Message 24 of 25 , Nov 17, 2005
                                                  • 0 Attachment
                                                    Dear Viacheslav,

                                                    You write: "The Russian Church (of the Moscow Patriarchate) is made
                                                    of clergy and people, most whom had been persecuted by the Soviet
                                                    government".

                                                    All were persecuted in the USSR, not only the orthodox. Having been
                                                    persecuted is not a sign that the person was orthodox. The question
                                                    is not "who was part of the MP?" What I call the "MP" is the
                                                    organisation with which the ROCOR is now holding talks aimed at
                                                    uniting with it. What I am saying is that the people with whom the
                                                    ROCOR is talking are not the successors of the persecuted Church, but
                                                    the sucessors of the persecuting Stalin-made pseudo church. Nobody
                                                    will deny that Stalin was an enemy of the Church, and that he founded
                                                    the present "MP" for his own purposes, not to glorify God. Since
                                                    1991, it became obvious that the organisation survived, and that it
                                                    continues with some success, unfortunately, to pose as the Church.

                                                    You write: There are many believers in the MP, who are directly
                                                    related to the New Martyrs and Russian Saints.

                                                    One can be related to an orthodox and not be one. Lenin's father was
                                                    a good orthodox, who helped the Church a lot. I am not speaking about
                                                    the persecuted orthodox believers. They are our fellow Christians and
                                                    examples for us all. I say that the present "MP" organisation is
                                                    something else, a disguise which has nothing to do with them.

                                                    You write: Knowing personal stories of clergy of the MP and what they
                                                    had to go through witnessing their Orthodoxy in the USSR, and knowing
                                                    what believers had to endure under the communists, there is no
                                                    question in my mind that Moscow Patriarchate represents the suffering
                                                    and persecuted Russian Church of the Martyrs.

                                                    An organisation that refuses to unschackle itself from the 1927
                                                    declaration and claims that it saved the Church is a successor of
                                                    those who dictated it. Those who dictated it are the enemies of God
                                                    and mankind. Your error is to think that the organisation founded by
                                                    Stalin to persecute orthodox people is the Church. The MP is not the
                                                    believers who witnessed Christ, but the organisation that waged a war
                                                    against them and against God.

                                                    You write: To say otherwise would be to persecute them further. One
                                                    who thinks that MP is made of a bunch of KGB agents in riasas and
                                                    millions of fools has been seriously misinformed (to put in mildly)
                                                    about the Russian Church.

                                                    Denouncing the 1927 declaration and its supporters as unorthodox is
                                                    not persecuting its victims, on the contrary. Praising the
                                                    declaration, on the contrary, is persecuting the victims a second
                                                    time. Allowing the declaration to be praised and uniting with those
                                                    who praise it shows a loss of orthodoxy.

                                                    The real successor of the real Moscow Patriarchate is the ROCOR, in
                                                    union with those who witnessed Christ in the USSR. The present "MP"
                                                    (the organisation with which the ROCOR is negotiating) is an
                                                    impostor, not a successor of the apostles. It is a creature of the
                                                    communist anti God regime. It is still loyal to its founders, not to
                                                    orthodoxy.

                                                    Father Seraphim Rose explains how false it is to take an organisation
                                                    (as the MP) for the Church, and to take apostolic succession for
                                                    granted:

                                                    "The heart of Sergianism is bound up with the common problem of all
                                                    the Orthodox Churches today-the losing of the savor of Orthodoxy,
                                                    taking the Church for granted, taking the 'organisation' for the Body
                                                    of Christ, trusting that Grace and the Mysteries are
                                                    somehow 'automatic.' (Not of This World, Platina 1994)

                                                    In Christ,

                                                    Vladimir Kozyreff



                                                    Dear Father Alexander, bless.

                                                    Are we on the verge of agreeing with one another, at last?

                                                    As I said many times before, if an orthodox hierarch makes a
                                                    statement that has been dictated under threat by the enemies of God,
                                                    it must necessarily be a heresy. If force was used, that means that
                                                    the hierarch resisted, and therefore, that the statement was not
                                                    orthodox.

                                                    That is why I said many times that those who, in a way or another,
                                                    support, praise ("smyeliy shag", "bold step") or minimise the
                                                    antiorthodox nature of this statement are successors of those who
                                                    dictated it and threatened the hierarch (the persecutors), and not
                                                    successors of the threatened hierach (the persecuted).

                                                    While the MP was under threat, we did not know whether its hierarchs
                                                    associated themselves with the persecurors or with the persecuted
                                                    ones. As soon as it became "free", however, it all became clear. Far
                                                    from repudiating the declaration, they proclaimed it to have been a
                                                    bold step that saved the Church. They said that it would be repeated
                                                    again when needed, even if it is not their present policy any longer,
                                                    as they are not under threat any more. That is why I said that the MP
                                                    failed the freedom test.


                                                    In Christ,

                                                    Vladimir Kozyreff

                                                    --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "V. Boitchenko"
                                                    <tompkins440@v...> wrote:
                                                    >
                                                    > Dear Vladimir:
                                                    >
                                                    > 1) Russian Church (of the Moscow Patriarchate) is made of clergy
                                                    and people, most whom had been persecuted by the Soviet government.
                                                    There are many believers in the MP, who are directly related to the
                                                    New Martyrs and Russian Saints. Knowing personal stories of clergy of
                                                    the MP and what they had to go through witnessing their Orthodoxy in
                                                    the USSR, and knowing what believers had to endure under the
                                                    communists, there is no question in my mind that Moscow Patriarchate
                                                    represents the suffering and persecuted Russian Church of the
                                                    Martyrs. To say otherwise would be to persecute them further. One who
                                                    thinks that MP is made of a bunch of KGB agents in riasas and
                                                    millions of fools has been seriously misinformed (to put in mildly)
                                                    about the Russian Church.
                                                    >
                                                    > "Commemorating" or "Non-Commemorating" (Metropolitan Sergius), as
                                                    St. Cyril of Kazan wrote in his letter to Met. Sergius, was a matter
                                                    of principle and not a matter of doctrine (as it has become for some
                                                    nowadays). Christians were persecuted because of their faith in God
                                                    and not because of who they "commemorated."
                                                    >
                                                    > 2) On the other hand, ROCOR is made of descendants of Russian post-
                                                    revolutionary emigrees, WWII DPs (i.e. people who did not necessarily
                                                    personally experience the persecutions) and also a great number of
                                                    non-Russian converts as well as new (late Soviet and post-Soviet)
                                                    immigrants from Russia, who have never been persecuted. ROCOR
                                                    represents the Church of the Martyrs only by virtue of the fact that
                                                    it was a free part of the Russian Church sharing joys and sorrows of
                                                    the persecuted Orthodox brothers in the homeland and venerating the
                                                    podvig of the New Martyrs.
                                                    >
                                                    > 3) MP represents the offended and the persecuted, and by no means
                                                    does it represent the offenders and the persecutors. Your accusations
                                                    are groundless and slanderous.
                                                    >
                                                    > >VK wrote: If I have offended somebody, I must repent as soon as I
                                                    can.
                                                    >
                                                    > Vladimir, your comments are very offensive to the memory of New
                                                    Martyrs of Russia.
                                                    >
                                                    > 4) According to the rabbinical interpretation "eye for an eye"
                                                    means that there must be an adequate compensation of any damage. The
                                                    Sadducees interpreted it differently but there are no Saducees living
                                                    any more and it is irrelevant to us. Your rhethoric reads as if it
                                                    comes straight from the rabbinical guide for atonement of sins even
                                                    with the reservations like "...which is my duty as a Christian...,
                                                    or ...I must repent immediately..."
                                                    >
                                                    > Even if the communists wanted to repent and apologize they would
                                                    have to apologize to the Orthodox Christians in Russia for
                                                    persecuting them for 70 years. However, no one in their right mind in
                                                    the MP would even think about going around demanding apologies from
                                                    anyone. As to the Russian society in general, the return of the
                                                    remains of the emigrees to Russia, monuments to Kolchak, returned
                                                    statues of the Czars, and general interest in the faith of the
                                                    fathers are only few of the many signs that even secular Russians
                                                    have reevaluated their past.
                                                    >
                                                    > Sincerely,
                                                    >
                                                    > Slava
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > ----- Original Message -----
                                                    > From: vkozyreff
                                                    > To: orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com
                                                    > Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 1:43 PM
                                                    > Subject: [orthodox-synod] Re: Apostolic Succession
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > Dear Slava,
                                                    >
                                                    > In reply to my saying "Repentance implies necessarily
                                                    reparation...",
                                                    > you write: Where does this come from? "Eye for an Eye?"
                                                    >
                                                    > Eye for eye concerns the punishment of an offence. I am talking
                                                    about
                                                    > pardon.
                                                    >
                                                    > The rule is:
                                                    >
                                                    > - If they offend me, I must pardon instantaneously, even before
                                                    they
                                                    > ask my pardon and even before the stone that they throw at me
                                                    hits
                                                    > me. My pardoning is mandatory if I call myself a Christian. This
                                                    is
                                                    > for the salvation of my soul. It does not save my aggressor's
                                                    soul,
                                                    > but it may help him repenting.
                                                    >
                                                    > - I can pardon only those offences that I have received, not
                                                    those
                                                    > inflicted to others.
                                                    >
                                                    > - If I have offended somebody, I must repent as soon as I can. I
                                                    > cannot repent without repairing or trying to repair the damage
                                                    that I
                                                    > have caused. I cannot repent without asking the pardon from the
                                                    > person that I have offended, if that person is available. Doing
                                                    > otherwise is incompatible with regretting my sin and loving the
                                                    > person whom I have offended. Doing otherwise shows absence of
                                                    > metanoia and is thus incompatible with hoping God's pardon. If I
                                                    have
                                                    > stolen somebody, I must return what I have stolen. If I have
                                                    deceived
                                                    > a person or a group of people, I must go to these people and ask
                                                    > their forgiveness before I can even ask God's pardon.
                                                    >
                                                    > If somebody has offended me, supposing even that I have pardoned
                                                    him
                                                    > (which is my duty as a Christian), God will not pardon him before
                                                    he
                                                    > has asked my pardon if I am available. So my offender cannot
                                                    repent
                                                    > without my knowing it. He cannot repent secretely and be forgiven
                                                    by
                                                    > God for offending me if, supposing that I am available for
                                                    > communication with him, he has not asked my pardon or attempted
                                                    to
                                                    > repair the damage that he has caused to me.
                                                    >
                                                    > My pardon is not conditional to my offenders asking for it. It
                                                    must
                                                    > be immediate and unconditional. However, if I want to obtain
                                                    God's
                                                    > pardon, I must necessarily and as soon as possible ask the pardon
                                                    of
                                                    > the person that I have offended and attempt to repair the damage
                                                    that
                                                    > I have caused to him.
                                                    >
                                                    > In God,
                                                    >
                                                    > Vladimir Kozyreff
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
                                                    > Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
                                                    > Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. Exodus
                                                    21:
                                                    > 23-25
                                                    >
                                                    > You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth
                                                    for
                                                    > a tooth." But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but
                                                    whoever
                                                    > slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If
                                                    anyone
                                                    > wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat
                                                    also.
                                                    > Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him
                                                    who
                                                    > asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow
                                                    from
                                                    > you". Matthew 5: 38-41.
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    >
                                                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                    >
                                                  • vkozyreff
                                                    Dear Father John, bless. You write: The Apostles did not preach a political doctrine at all: they did not attack the Roman emperors or urge people to resist
                                                    Message 25 of 25 , Nov 22, 2005
                                                    • 0 Attachment
                                                      Dear Father John, bless.

                                                      You write:

                                                      " The Apostles did not preach a political doctrine at all: they did
                                                      not attack the Roman emperors or urge people to resist the pagan
                                                      civil authorities; quite the opposite".

                                                      Pat Alexi II (as a sergianist) likes to refer to the words of Apostle
                                                      Paul in the Epistle to the Romans: « there is no authority but from
                                                      God ».

                                                      Archb Seraphim (Dulgov)says:

                                                      "But we must read further. It is clear that the Apostle has in mind
                                                      authority that leads people to good deeds, instead of malicious ones
                                                      (as was the case with the bolsheviks). In fact « authority from God »
                                                      is entrusted to encourage virtue and to punish mistakes. God entrusts
                                                      authorities with a moral mission of high importance.

                                                      Clearly, the Apostle does not refer to the bolshevik authority doing
                                                      just the opposite. St. Isidore of Pelusium explains that villains too
                                                      can have power. Imagine that pirates take over a small island and
                                                      oppress the inhabitants. Authority can be usurped by a gang of
                                                      terrorists that took hostages.

                                                      Vl. Soloukhin compared Russia taken by the bolsheviks to a house
                                                      grasped by robbers. They settle in the best rooms, and allow the
                                                      owners to huddle somewhere in a cellar, and to live there in awful
                                                      conditions.

                                                      And St Isidore says that in such a case, there is no « authority from
                                                      God » to speak about. It is then a trial sent by God to mankind".

                                                      You write, about ROCOR parishes in Russia: There are only groups from
                                                      the Moscow Patriarchate that were dissatisfied and joined ROCOR, but
                                                      that is not the same thing.

                                                      I claim that ROCOR is the right Church, that the MP is not, and that
                                                      being dissatisfied by the false church is right.

                                                      Who are we to judge that the MP people who joined ROCOR are wrong,
                                                      while claiming that the ROCOR people that join the MP are right? Who
                                                      among those two groups, are ROCOR friends?

                                                      In Christ,

                                                      Vladimir Kozyreff


                                                      --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John R. Shaw"
                                                      <vrevjrs@e...> wrote:
                                                      >
                                                      > Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:
                                                      >
                                                      > > Apostolic succession is broken, whatever the formal succession,
                                                      if
                                                      > > the bishop fails to teach apostolic truth.
                                                      >
                                                      > JRS: That is not the tradition of the Orthodox Church. If a bishop
                                                      fell into heresy, but was not
                                                      > defrocked and repented of his error, he would not be re-consecrated.
                                                      >
                                                      > However, "Apostolic truth" is not the same thing as "whatever
                                                      opinions I agree with".
                                                      >
                                                      > The Apostles did not preach a political doctrine at all: they did
                                                      not attack the Roman
                                                      > emperors or urge people to resist the pagan civil authorities;
                                                      quite the opposite.
                                                      >
                                                      > > First, the traditional ROCOR is being persecuted in Russia now.
                                                      >
                                                      > JRS: There is no "traditional ROCOR" in Russia. There are only
                                                      groups from the Moscow
                                                      > Patriarchate that were dissatisfied and joined ROCOR, but that is
                                                      not the same thing.
                                                      >
                                                      > > Second, nobody says that sergianism is being taught in Russia
                                                      > > nowadays. The question is that all post 1943 MP bishops, if
                                                      formally
                                                      > > successors of the apostles, broke that succession by
                                                      collaborating in
                                                      > > the fight against God. If a bishop was consecrated by arianist
                                                      > > bishops, he has no apostolic succession, even if he does not
                                                      preach
                                                      > > arianism any longer.
                                                      >
                                                      > JRS: The MP bishops did not preach Arianism or any other heresy.
                                                      And ROCOR has always
                                                      > accepted MP clergy "in statu quo", which would not be possible if
                                                      they did not have Apostolic
                                                      > succession.
                                                      >
                                                      > > The meaning of apostolic succession is that it is breakable. That
                                                      is
                                                      > > why it is so precious. Once it has been broken, it cannot be
                                                      glued
                                                      > > back together. It is just lost.
                                                      >
                                                      > JRS: That is your own view, but it is not the teaching of the
                                                      Orthodox Church.
                                                      >
                                                      > In Christ
                                                      > Fr. John R. Shaw
                                                      >
                                                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.