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

Re: Answers

Expand Messages
  • vkozyreff
    Dear List, Those who left bishop Ambrose were declared uncanonical (schismatic) for doing so. Bishop Ambrose however says that the ROCOR is not really
    Message 1 of 31 , Dec 3, 2005
      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 pièces" 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
      > >
      >
    • 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
        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 pièces" 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.