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

REQuestions

Expand Messages
  • Fr. George Primak
    Dear Fr. David, I wish to make some comments in response to your message November the 11th related to my questions to Fr. Alexander concerning MP and Patriarch
    Message 1 of 31 , Nov 17, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Fr. David,
      I wish to make some comments in response to your message November the 11th related to my questions to Fr. Alexander concerning MP and Patriarch Alexis. I am sorry but I have no choice but to contradict your writings in order to clarify this matter. I never asked such question or essentially the same one at the pastoral meeting. How could I ask question addressed to Fr. Alexander knowingly that he was not present at the meeting? I was not entirely satisfied with the answers to my questions but I remained silent in order to not extend the discussion period because of little time I had for my questions.Couple of questions I was not able to ask because I was told that there was no more time for it.
      With regards to the comments of Fr. Trophon that the Patriarch Alexis acted completely differently when he saw him the second time: Fr. David can you be really 100% sure that the action of Patriarch Alexis, seen second time by Fr. Triphon, was honest and hearty and not only a superficial one, because of the changes in the political situation, which made him to appear in front of the people with different face? I would like to believe what you wrote but there are still doubts in my mind and the congratulation of the Vietnamese leader and rewording the Muslim leader increased my doubts.
      With love in Christ,
      Fr. George.



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • vkozyreff
      Dear List, The same speach by Vl Ambrose ( The accomplishment of our Church s calling , an explanaotory text on the rapprochement between the MP and the
      Message 31 of 31 , Dec 5, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear List,

        The same speach by Vl Ambrose ("The accomplishment of our Church's
        calling", an explanaotory text on the rapprochement between
        the MP and the ROCOR", October 2005) contains a wealth of additional
        contradictions. For instance, Vl Ambrose (who very soon and in secret
        had made contacts with the MP before the ROCOR ever spoke of the
        presently ongoing unia,) says now that he goes to the MP against his
        heart. This means that his heart (his conscience) is in contradiction
        with the path that he has chosen to follow.

        This admission might be his most significant statement, because it
        comes directly from his heart. This speaks so much more than all
        disputes about canonicity, which might have been inspired by Vl Mark.

        I pray that Vl Ambrose be judged more for his heart than for his
        deeds.

        Does real politik have a place in orthodoxy?

        In Christ,

        Vladimir Kozyreff

        PS. Concerning my previous message, please read, in the quote of Vl
        Ambrose, translated from the French: "by a patient sapping work, it
        (the MP) made our canonical situation progressively worse".

        --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "vkozyreff"
        <vladimir.kozyreff@s...> wrote:
        >
        > Dear List,
        >
        > Those who left bishop Ambrose were declared uncanonical
        (schismatic)
        > for doing so.
        >
        > Bishop Ambrose however says that the ROCOR is not really canonical,
        > and that those who did not accept him as their canonical bishop
        were
        > legitimately (canonically) excluded from ROCOR by a him, a
        canonical
        > bishop of an uncanonical Church for claiming on the contrary, that
        > ROCOR was canonical, when in fact, he the canonical bishop of that
        > Church claims canonically that the latter is not canonical.
        >
        > Moreover, bishop Ambrose too holds the "ludicrous" view that the
        > 1943 "MP" was created from scratch by the Soviet Government.
        >
        > It is interesting, once more to see that people who doubt that the
        > ROCOR is canonical are considered as being her friends or even
        their
        > canonical bishops.
        >
        > It is interesting also to see that, according to the canonical
        bishop
        > of an uncanonical Church, the actions orf the Soviet government
        could
        > have an effect on ROCOR's canonicity.
        >
        > I still hold that the orthodox Church is a monument of consistency,
        > and that inconsistencies are foreign to the true Church.
        >
        > In Christ,
        >
        > Vladimir Kozyreff
        >
        > "One must say this very clearly, our present canonical situation is
        > of disputable strength. Indeed, it was very strong in the years
        1920-
        > 1930, so that the orthodox world accepted us in general, with some
        > nuances, however.
        >
        > After WW II however, the soviet govrenment understood that the MP,
        > which it had created from scratch ("de toutes pi├Ęces" in French) in
        > 1943 could help it in its propaganda work. Since that momnet, by a
        > patient work of sape, it made our canonical situation progressively
        > worse.
        >
        > Bishop Ambrose, Vevey, October 2005, "The accomplishment of our
        > Church's calling", an explanaotory text on the rapprochement
        between
        > the MP and the ROCOR".
        >
        >
        > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "vkozyreff"
        > <vladimir.kozyreff@s...> wrote:
        > >
        > > Dear Father Daniel, bless.
        > >
        > > You write that it is "ludicrous" to say that the MP was founded
        by
        > > Stalin.
        > >
        > > Was Met Anthony of Geneva's understanding (see below) "ludicrous"
        > as
        > > well? ("Having split from the apparition of the Church created by
        > the
        > > Soviet state").
        > >
        > > In Christ,
        > >
        > > Vladimir Kozyreff
        > >
        > > "Metropolitan Anthony broke with the Moscow Patriarchate only
        after
        > > the well-known declaration of Metropolitan Sergius, since from
        this
        > > moment on, the Moscow Patriarchate ceased to represent the
        Russian
        > > Church. Having split from the apparition of the Church created by
        > the
        > > Soviet state, he wisely undercut the Communist deception and
        warned
        > > the heads of all the local Churches. The deception was not
        > completely
        > > successful.
        > >
        > > Archbishop ANTHONY of Geneva and Western Europe, Our Church in
        the
        > > Modern World, (Report for the III Pan-Diaspora Council of 1974)
        > >
        > >
        >
        http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/english/pages/articles/churchinwor
        > > ld.html
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "orthodoxchurch_sg"
        > > <orthodoxchurch_sg@y...> wrote:
        > > >
        > > > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "vkozyreff"
        > > > <vladimir.kozyreff@s...> wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > > Dear List,
        > > > >
        > > > > Judging that the head of an organisation founded by Stalin
        > > >
        > > > Would you argue that the pre-Revolutionary Russian Orthodox
        > Church
        > > was
        > > > founded by Peter the Great? There is as much reason to claim
        that
        > > as
        > > > your ludicrous assumption.
        > > >
        > > > God bless / Fr Daniel
        > > >
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.