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

Re: Apostolic Succession [and the Sobor of 2000]

Expand Messages
  • vkozyreff
    Dear Father John, bless. Thank you for your comments about unworthy priests. How do you reconcile them with the text below? You say that the MP does not know
    Message 1 of 2 , Nov 7, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Father John, bless.

      Thank you for your comments about unworthy priests.

      How do you reconcile them with the text below?

      You say that the MP does not know before whom to repent. It should
      simply ask forgiveness to the real pure Russian Orthodox Church. The
      ROCOR was supposed to be that.

      You say: "How do you know whether they repented?" There is no
      repentance without reparation of the sin. We have seen none. We have
      seen only denial. We have heard only confirmation that sergianism was
      a "bold step" (smyeliy shag). They freely chose to be successors of
      the persecutors, not of the persecuted.

      You say that the present MP hierarchy is not responsible for Met
      Sergius's declaration. Indeed, they are not, but they condone it
      instead of condemning it, and this without being threatened by
      anyone. As we have seen, their sin is greater than the sin of those
      who collaborated under threat.

      I mentioned the extermination of Jews because all agree that it was
      an abomination, and nobody would dare say that Hitler's power came
      from God. You say that the Nazi exterminated more Russians than Jews,
      but the Soviet exterminated more Russians than the Nazi did, and this
      with the blessing of the MP, under the pretext that their power came
      from God. And you too say that Stalin's power came from God. You
      suggest that the apostles teach not to resist Stalin.

      Vlasov did not collaborate with the Nazi. As soon as he got his
      weapons and equipment, he turned against the Nazi to liberate Prague.
      Churchill said at the end of the war: "we have chosen the wrong pig".

      In God,

      Vladimir Kozyreff

      "In the affair of laying waste the Church, in addition to his
      betrayal, Metropolitan Sergius also uttered an onerous blasphemy
      against the Holy Spirit, which according to the true word of Christ
      will never be forgiven him, either in this life or in the next...

      Having kneaded into one in the great and most-holy mystery of the
      Eucharist, in opposition to the word of God, "the faithful with the
      unfaithful" (2 Cor. 6, 14-18), the Holy Church — and her enemies,
      waging a war against her to the death, the Metropolitan, by this, his
      blasphemy, violates the prayerful sense of the great mystery and
      destroys its grace-endowing significance for the eternal salvation of
      the souls of Orthodox believers.

      Hence, the divine service also becomes not only devoid of grace on
      account of the gracelessness of the worker of the sacred rite, but it
      also becomes an abomination in the eyes of God, wherefore both the
      one performing it and the one participating in it are subject to
      particular condemnation"

      (Holy New Martyr Bishop Viktor [Ostrovidov] of Glazov and Votkina).



      --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John R. Shaw"
      <vrevjrs@e...> wrote:
      >
      > Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:
      >
      > > You [JRS] 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.
      >
      > JRS: But how do you know who has repented, and who has not?
      >
      > If you will not accept a formal, "Sobor" renunciation of
      Sergianism, what would you consider,
      > specifically, to be acceptable proof of "repentance"?
      >
      > And then, those who were born after the time of Patriarch Sergius
      (in some cases, long after
      > his death) cannot be held "guilty" of his declaration, since they
      had no hand in it, and no
      > control over it.
      >
      > How can they "repent" of what they did not do?
      >
      > Besides that, *who* has to repent in the Moscow Patriarchate
      (meaning "the Church of Russia,
      > with tens of millions of members")?
      >
      > Can the Patriarch ask repentance in the name of the whole Church
      (which he did in 1991), or
      > must every lay person, everyone who lights candles in a church
      under the MP, profess
      > repentance?
      >
      > And if they did, would it be enough to satisfy you?
      >
      > > 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.
      >
      > JRS: The Nazis exterminated more Russian Orthodox people than Jews.
      Some 20 million
      > Russians are said to have lost their lives in W.W. II, as opposed
      to "6 million Jews" (the
      > number may not have been as great as 6 million).
      >
      > So, although I realize that is not the point of your comparison, it
      still is a comparison that I
      > would have preferred to avoid.
      >
      > Be that as it may, ROCOR clergy and bishops did collaborate with
      the Nazis (or with the
      > German army, as they would have said), in the hope of liberating
      Russia. There has never
      > been any act of repentance: the matter simply was buried and
      forgotten for decades.
      >
      > > 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?
      >
      > JRS: No, I don't think so. "Heretical" implies a rejection of the
      basic doctrinal teachings of the
      > Orthodox Church.
      >
      > > 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.
      >
      > JRS: My Yea is indeed Yea, and my Nay is Nay; but we disagree as to
      what the questions are.
      >
      > In Christ
      > Fr. John R. Shaw
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.