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

Blesings

Expand Messages
  • goossir
    Dear List, May I submit these two lines, understanding that Patr. Bartholomeus of Constantinople is considered by all as Eucumenist, which is for us,
    Message 1 of 13 , Dec 8, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear List,

      May I submit these two lines, understanding that Patr. Bartholomeus
      of Constantinople is considered by all as Eucumenist, which is for
      us, traditional Orthodox, an heresy.

      How then does this fit:

      "That one must not accept the blessings of heretics, which are rather
      misfortunes than blessings." Canon 32 of the Council of Laodicea.

      and

      A Pilgrimage of the Russian Church Abroad Visits the Holy Sites of
      Old Constantinople
      http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/01newstucture/pagesen/news05/const
      pilgr.htm

      A group of pilgrims (Fr A. Lebedev, Fr V. Potapov and Fr. S. Gan)
      from the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia left Paris (see
      previous report) for a trip to visit the old city of Constantinople.
      Here they visited ....... the Patriarchal Cathedral of Holy Martyr
      George the Victorious in Phanar, where the pilgrims were received by
      His All-Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I. The
      Patriarch blessed them to venerate the holy sites of Constantinople
      and the Holy Mountain.

      Can someone explain?

      Irina Pahlen
    • Fr. Anthony Nelson
      ... snip ... Sure. No one has declared the Ecumenical Patriarch to be a heretic. At least...no one who has the competence to do so. Fr. Anthony * * * * * * * *
      Message 2 of 13 , Dec 9, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        irene.goossens@... wrote:

        >May I submit these two lines, understanding that Patr. Bartholomeus
        >of Constantinople is considered by all as Eucumenist, which is for
        >us, traditional Orthodox, an heresy.

        snip

        >Can someone explain?

        Sure. No one has declared the Ecumenical Patriarch to be a heretic.
        At least...no one who has the competence to do so.

        Fr. Anthony


        * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
        Fr. Anthony Nelson * Emergency Cell Phone Email:
        St. Benedict Russian Orthodox Church * Up to 160 characters maximum
        Oklahoma City, OK USA 405-672-1441 * total allowed including return
        mailto:fr.anthony@... * address and Subject headers.
        http://www.orthodox.org/stbenedict/ * mailto:fra-mobile@...
      • vkozyreff
        Dear Father Anthony, bless. You write: No one has declared the Ecumenical Patriarch to be a heretic. At least...no one who has the competence to do so .
        Message 3 of 13 , Dec 9, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Father Anthony, bless.

          You write: "No one has declared the Ecumenical Patriarch to be a
          heretic. At least...no one who has the competence to do so".

          Please let me disagree with you. Any Christian with common sense can
          declare that a bishop who professes a heresy like ecumenism is a
          heretic. Stating that a person who professes a heresy is not a
          heretic would be like saying that a person who confesses orthodoxy is
          not orthodox. If so, anything can be anything.

          A heresy is not a heresy because it has been declared to be one, but
          because it is one. Some heresies have been declared to be heresies,
          other have not, but are nevertheless heresies.

          Let me ask it another way: would you declare that ecumenism is not a
          heresy, or that the Ecumenical patriarch is not heretical? In spite
          of the 1983 anathema? Or can we say that nobody knows and nobody can
          know? In other words, that nobody knows what is orthodox and what is
          not?

          Who would be competent, according to you, to declare the patriarch
          heretical? If nobody is, can we infer that he can say anything he
          likes without being heretical, like for instance that the Dalai Lama
          is a reincarnation of Christ, or that he is the infallible pope of
          the orthodox?

          In Christ,

          Vladimir Kozyreff

          --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. Anthony Nelson"
          <fr.anthony@o...> wrote:
          >
          > irene.goossens@c... wrote:
          >
          > >May I submit these two lines, understanding that Patr. Bartholomeus
          > >of Constantinople is considered by all as Eucumenist, which is for
          > >us, traditional Orthodox, an heresy.
          >
          > snip
          >
          > >Can someone explain?
          >
          > Sure. No one has declared the Ecumenical Patriarch to be a heretic.
          > At least...no one who has the competence to do so.
          >
          > Fr. Anthony
          >
          >
          > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
          *
          > Fr. Anthony Nelson * Emergency Cell Phone Email:
          > St. Benedict Russian Orthodox Church * Up to 160 characters maximum
          > Oklahoma City, OK USA 405-672-1441 * total allowed including
          return
          > mailto:fr.anthony@o... * address and Subject headers.
          > http://www.orthodox.org/stbenedict/ * mailto:fra-mobile@o...
          >
        • vkozyreff
          Dear Father Anthony, dear List, dear priests of this List and all who know anything about orthodoxy, Since I am puzzled by what I was told on this subject, may
          Message 4 of 13 , Dec 10, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Father Anthony, dear List, dear priests of this List and all who
            know anything about orthodoxy,

            Since I am puzzled by what I was told on this subject, may I ask
            these simple questions:

            May I profess ecumenism?
            If I do, shall I be a hertetic?
            May I promote ecumenism?
            May I ask the blessing of an ecumenist priest?
            May I, as an orthodox, attend and participate in the Latino-catholic
            rites, mass, etc.?
            Does the 1983 anathema has any force at all?

            In Christ,

            Vladimir Kozyreff

            --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. Anthony Nelson"
            <fr.anthony@o...> wrote:
            >
            > irene.goossens@c... wrote:
            >
            > >May I submit these two lines, understanding that Patr. Bartholomeus
            > >of Constantinople is considered by all as Eucumenist, which is for
            > >us, traditional Orthodox, an heresy.
            >
            > snip
            >
            > >Can someone explain?
            >
            > Sure. No one has declared the Ecumenical Patriarch to be a heretic.
            > At least...no one who has the competence to do so.
            >
            > Fr. Anthony
            >
            >
            > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
            *
            > Fr. Anthony Nelson * Emergency Cell Phone Email:
            > St. Benedict Russian Orthodox Church * Up to 160 characters maximum
            > Oklahoma City, OK USA 405-672-1441 * total allowed including
            return
            > mailto:fr.anthony@o... * address and Subject headers.
            > http://www.orthodox.org/stbenedict/ * mailto:fra-mobile@o...
            >
          • Richard
            ... is not a ... spite ... nobody can ... what is ... Which member of the EP participated in that local council? There s been a misreading of that council.
            Message 5 of 13 , Dec 11, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "vkozyreff" <vladimir.

              > Let me ask it another way: would you declare that ecumenism
              is not a
              > heresy, or that the Ecumenical patriarch is not heretical? In
              spite
              > of the 1983 anathema? Or can we say that nobody knows and
              nobody can
              > know? In other words, that nobody knows what is orthodox and
              what is
              > not?


              Which member of the EP participated in that local council?
              There's been a misreading of that council. One jurisidiction isn't
              entitled authority beyond its own boundaries, meaning they
              couldn't unilaterally declare its own local council as ecumenical
              and thusly anathemize members of other jurisdictions.
              Moreover, the limits of that council were recognized at the time....

              Excerpt from http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/
              ecum_anath.aspx:

              After restating the text of the 1983 Anathema, John Hudanish
              [starosta of Our Lady of Kursk Chapel in Woodburn, Oregon]
              writes:

              "This is an eloquent condemnation of ecumenism and a clear
              statement of our Synod's rejection of it. What's not so clear,
              however, is the fact that this anathema is legislative in nature,
              rather than judicial, i.e., it is a codification of a theological
              principle into law, but not a verdict—much less a sentence. In
              other words, it identifies a specific phenomenon (ecumenism)
              as a heresy, and prescribes the penalty (Anathema!) for those
              who embrace and defend it, or "knowingly have communion"
              with those who do*, but it excommunicates no one! It is
              legislation. It is not judgment. And this is borne out by
              Metropolitan Vitaly in an article he wrote for "Orthodox Life" (No.
              4, 1984, p. 32) while he was still Archbishop of Montreal and
              Canada. He wrote:

              "Time will tell whether or not the other local Churches will adopt
              our resolution on ecumenism as the acts of the Ten Local
              Councils were, in their time, entered into the Books of the
              Canons of the Holy Apostles, the Sacred Ecumenical Councils
              and the Holy Fathers of the Universal Church."

              "It is important to understand that since the 1983 anathema was
              promulgated by our Synod of Bishops, we now have a canonical
              basis for dealing with ecumenism and its adherents within our
              midst. But as with all other laws, the penalty prescribed by the
              1983 anathema cannot be meted out to anyone without due
              process. Stated otherwise, before anyone can be
              excommunicated, there must be a determination of guilt in a
              canonical trial or synodical investigation….

              "Therefore, strictly speaking, neither the Patriarch of
              Constantinople nor the Patriarch of Jerusalem has been
              excommunicated by the anathema of 1983... Furthermore, the
              Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad has
              not subsequently convened to investigate allegations against
              either patriarch, nor to anathematize them under the 1983
              resolution.

              "Why not?! Why hasn't the Synod excommunicated the
              Patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem for their
              transgressions? Well, for one thing, it's a matter of jurisdiction.
              As Metropolitan Vitaly had written in the aforementioned article:

              "The anathema we have proclaimed is de jure a manifestation
              of a purely local character of the Russian Church Abroad…."

              "No Orthodox body outside the Russian Church Abroad is bound
              by it, just as the anathema against the three-fingered sign of the
              cross proclaimed by the Council of the One Hundred Chapters
              (Moscow 1552) was not binding on the Greeks at that time.
              About all our Russian Church Abroad can do is to refrain from
              concelebrating with or admitting to the Holy Mysteries the clergy
              and laity of those Orthodox jurisdictions which appear to be
              involved in the ecumenist heresy. Our bishops have no authority
              to discipline any but their own." (pp. 8-9)

              Metropolitan Vitaly confirmed this as the official view of the
              Church on the 1983 Anathema in his recent Nativity Epistle.



              In Christ,
              Richard.
            • orthodoxchurch_sg
              ... wrote: Evlogeite! ROCOR does not consider the Oecumenical Patriarch to be a heretic. He is the ruling Hierarch of the area visited by
              Message 6 of 13 , Dec 11, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "goossir"
                <irene.goossens@c...> wrote:

                Evlogeite!
                ROCOR does not consider the Oecumenical Patriarch to be a heretic. He
                is the ruling Hierarch of the area visited by the ROCOR clergy and so
                it would have been highly unusual (and highly un-Orthodox) if they
                had not paid a courtesy call and asked a blessing for their
                pilgrimage to the Holy Places within his jurisdiction.
                God bless / Fr Daniel

                >
                > Dear List,
                >
                > May I submit these two lines, understanding that Patr. Bartholomeus
                > of Constantinople is considered by all as Eucumenist, which is for
                > us, traditional Orthodox, an heresy.
                >
                > How then does this fit:
                >
                > "That one must not accept the blessings of heretics, which are
                rather
                > misfortunes than blessings." Canon 32 of the Council of Laodicea.
                >
                > and
                >
                > A Pilgrimage of the Russian Church Abroad Visits the Holy Sites of
                > Old Constantinople
                >
                http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/01newstucture/pagesen/news05/const
                > pilgr.htm
                >
                > A group of pilgrims (Fr A. Lebedev, Fr V. Potapov and Fr. S. Gan)
                > from the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia left Paris (see
                > previous report) for a trip to visit the old city of
                Constantinople.
                > Here they visited ....... the Patriarchal Cathedral of Holy Martyr
                > George the Victorious in Phanar, where the pilgrims were received
                by
                > His All-Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I. The
                > Patriarch blessed them to venerate the holy sites of Constantinople
                > and the Holy Mountain.
                >
                > Can someone explain?
                >
                > Irina Pahlen
                >
              • Rebecca M
                ... . Stating that a person who professes a heresy is not a ... is ... But it seems to me that you do the latter with considerable regularity -- the great
                Message 7 of 13 , Dec 12, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "vkozyreff"
                  <vladimir.kozyreff@s...> wrote:
                  >
                  . Stating that a person who professes a heresy is not a
                  > heretic would be like saying that a person who confesses orthodoxy
                  is
                  > not orthodox.

                  But it seems to me that you do the latter with considerable
                  regularity -- the great majority of the Orthodox in the world today
                  are condemned as not Orthodox, in spite of the fact that they confess
                  the Creed, celebrate the divine services in full accordance with
                  tradition, preach the Gospel, etc. etc. And yet a few errors,
                  personal misjudgments or differences of opinon about matters outside
                  the core of the faith poisson all in the view that you commonly
                  espouse.

                  Mighty strange,
                  Rebecca Matovic
                • larry most
                  GLORY TO JESUS CHRIST GLORY TO HIM FOREVER Dear Vladimir, Would you please defing ecumenisim for me? I think that we may have different definitions. Love in
                  Message 8 of 13 , Dec 12, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    GLORY TO JESUS CHRIST GLORY TO HIM FOREVER
                    Dear Vladimir,
                    Would you please defing "ecumenisim" for me? I think
                    that we may have different definitions.
                    Love in Christ,
                    Sub-deacon Lawrence Most

                    --- vkozyreff <vladimir.kozyreff@...> wrote:

                    > Dear Father Anthony, dear List, dear priests of this
                    > List and all who
                    > know anything about orthodoxy,
                    >
                    > Since I am puzzled by what I was told on this
                    > subject, may I ask
                    > these simple questions:
                    >
                    > May I profess ecumenism?
                    > If I do, shall I be a hertetic?
                    > May I promote ecumenism?
                    > May I ask the blessing of an ecumenist priest?
                    > May I, as an orthodox, attend and participate in the
                    > Latino-catholic
                    > rites, mass, etc.?
                    > Does the 1983 anathema has any force at all?
                    >
                    > In Christ,
                    >
                    > Vladimir Kozyreff
                    >
                    > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. Anthony
                    > Nelson"
                    > <fr.anthony@o...> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > irene.goossens@c... wrote:
                    > >
                    > > >May I submit these two lines, understanding that
                    > Patr. Bartholomeus
                    > > >of Constantinople is considered by all as
                    > Eucumenist, which is for
                    > > >us, traditional Orthodox, an heresy.
                    > >
                    > > snip
                    > >
                    > > >Can someone explain?
                    > >
                    > > Sure. No one has declared the Ecumenical Patriarch
                    > to be a heretic.
                    > > At least...no one who has the competence to do so.
                    > >
                    > > Fr. Anthony
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
                    > * * * * * * * * *
                    > *
                    > > Fr. Anthony Nelson * Emergency
                    > Cell Phone Email:
                    > > St. Benedict Russian Orthodox Church * Up to 160
                    > characters maximum
                    > > Oklahoma City, OK USA 405-672-1441 * total
                    > allowed including
                    > return
                    > > mailto:fr.anthony@o... * address and
                    > Subject headers.
                    > > http://www.orthodox.org/stbenedict/ *
                    > mailto:fra-mobile@o...
                    > >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    >


                    __________________________________________________
                    Do You Yahoo!?
                    Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                    http://mail.yahoo.com
                  • vkozyreff
                    Dear Lawrence, Thank you for your question. It means that there are different kinds of ecumenism according to you, at least one of them being orthodox and at
                    Message 9 of 13 , Dec 12, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dear Lawrence,

                      Thank you for your question. It means that there are different kinds
                      of ecumenism according to you, at least one of them being orthodox
                      and at least one of them not being orthodox.

                      Please let me know which is which, according to you.

                      What I would call ecumenism is defined below, and it is clearly not
                      orthodox for me. It seems to be professed by many who claim
                      nevertheless that they profess the correct kind of ecumenism (if
                      there is one).

                      It seems to me that the heresy is defending itself as a devil in holy
                      water, claiming to come under two varieties, one of them being
                      orthodox, but that the so called orthodox variety is just the same,
                      especially because its promotors and supporters ignore the
                      prescription to turn and run before apostasy, not negotiate. The
                      result is confusion and seduction, I believe.

                      It is interesting that only two priests replied to my question so
                      far, one from ROCOR and another from the EP. None could give a clear
                      reply ("I do not know about the EP ecumenism" and "the 1983 anathema
                      did not distinguish between different kinds of ecumenism, one of them
                      is all right. Implication: the 1983 anathema is improperly phrased
                      and thus impossible to apply").

                      In Christ,

                      Vladimir Kozyreff

                      "the syncretistic movement seeking intercommunion between all
                      Christian denominations, despite doctrinal differences. Under the
                      false pretenses of "love" and "peace," the Ecumenists even promote
                      the union of Christianity with non-Christian religions.

                      As a gesture of "love" the Ecumenists have forsaken the truth of
                      Christ, forgetting that love without truth is false love. The
                      fundamental belief of Ecumenism is that the whole truth does not
                      exist in any single denomination or religion, but that all sects and
                      cults contain a portion of the truth, and that the whole truth can
                      only be found when all denominations, cults, sects and even religions
                      unite.

                      Since external unity cannot be achieved due to the sense of power
                      each religion desires to retain, the Ecumenists have sought to form a
                      union of all religions through compromising matters of the faith.
                      Thereby all religions may keep their individual doctrines and
                      traditions, but all should unite under the banner of a common belief
                      in a divine power, whether this be God, Buddha or the numerous
                      deities of Hinduism and other pagan faiths".

                      http://www.orthodoxfaith.com/index.html

                      --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, larry most
                      <larrymost2002@y...> wrote:
                      >
                      > GLORY TO JESUS CHRIST GLORY TO HIM FOREVER
                      > Dear Vladimir,
                      > Would you please defing "ecumenisim" for me? I think
                      > that we may have different definitions.
                      > Love in Christ,
                      > Sub-deacon Lawrence Most
                      >
                      > --- vkozyreff <vladimir.kozyreff@s...> wrote:
                      >
                      > > Dear Father Anthony, dear List, dear priests of this
                      > > List and all who
                      > > know anything about orthodoxy,
                      > >
                      > > Since I am puzzled by what I was told on this
                      > > subject, may I ask
                      > > these simple questions:
                      > >
                      > > May I profess ecumenism?
                      > > If I do, shall I be a hertetic?
                      > > May I promote ecumenism?
                      > > May I ask the blessing of an ecumenist priest?
                      > > May I, as an orthodox, attend and participate in the
                      > > Latino-catholic
                      > > rites, mass, etc.?
                      > > Does the 1983 anathema has any force at all?
                      > >
                      > > In Christ,
                      > >
                      > > Vladimir Kozyreff
                      > >
                      > > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. Anthony
                      > > Nelson"
                      > > <fr.anthony@o...> wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > irene.goossens@c... wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > >May I submit these two lines, understanding that
                      > > Patr. Bartholomeus
                      > > > >of Constantinople is considered by all as
                      > > Eucumenist, which is for
                      > > > >us, traditional Orthodox, an heresy.
                      > > >
                      > > > snip
                      > > >
                      > > > >Can someone explain?
                      > > >
                      > > > Sure. No one has declared the Ecumenical Patriarch
                      > > to be a heretic.
                      > > > At least...no one who has the competence to do so.
                      > > >
                      > > > Fr. Anthony
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
                      > > * * * * * * * * *
                      > > *
                      > > > Fr. Anthony Nelson * Emergency
                      > > Cell Phone Email:
                      > > > St. Benedict Russian Orthodox Church * Up to 160
                      > > characters maximum
                      > > > Oklahoma City, OK USA 405-672-1441 * total
                      > > allowed including
                      > > return
                      > > > mailto:fr.anthony@o... * address and
                      > > Subject headers.
                      > > > http://www.orthodox.org/stbenedict/ *
                      > > mailto:fra-mobile@o...
                      > > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      >
                      >
                      > __________________________________________________
                      > Do You Yahoo!?
                      > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                      > http://mail.yahoo.com
                      >
                    • vkozyreff
                      Dear Rebecca, Thank you for your message. Your argument is an ad hominem tu quoque fallacy (see below). Being orthodox is not only what you say (confess the
                      Message 10 of 13 , Dec 12, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Dear Rebecca,

                        Thank you for your message.

                        Your argument is an "ad hominem tu quoque fallacy" (see below).

                        Being orthodox is not only what you say (confess the Creed, celebrate
                        the divine services in full accordance with tradition, preach the
                        Gospel), but is also in what you did not say ( etc. etc. ).

                        According to you, an ecumenist in the sense of the definition of
                        ecumenism that I gave is orthodox. In fact, neither the ecumensit nor
                        the sergianist is orthodox, because their mistakes or misconceptions,
                        by what they imply, are fundamentally opposed to orthodoxy.

                        As far a sergianism, for instance, the concept of "necessary
                        sin", "sacrificing one's own purity", the idea that confessing sins
                        of comsic dimensions is not necessary, and getting away with it,
                        saving the truth by lying, etc.

                        As far as ecumenism, scrificing faith for love, uniting with
                        unrepenting and stubborn sergianists out of "love", considered as
                        more important than rectitude of faith, etc.

                        There is nothing strange in the above, this is just consistency,
                        which is essential to orthodoxy.

                        In Christ,

                        Vladimir Kozyreff


                        Ad hominem tu quoque (literally, "at the person, you too") could be
                        called the "hypocrisy" argument. It occurs when a person's claim is
                        dismissed or concluded as false either because the claim is about
                        actions the claimant or another individual has engaged in too, or
                        because the claim is inconsistent with other claims that the person
                        has made.

                        The tu quoque fallacy mimics the legitimate use of the principle of
                        ethical symmetry. The error is that while expressing "fair play"
                        sentiments, what the argument is actually advocating is "equal rights
                        for foul play." In "fair play", if one reasoner is not entitled to
                        use a particular appeal, then no other reasoner may use it either. It
                        does not entitle reasoners to use illegitimate appeals because other
                        reasoners have used, possibly without challenge, similar illegitimate
                        appeals. That the illegitimate appeal has been used before does not
                        make it legitimate.

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

                        --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Rebecca M" <rmatovic@s...>
                        wrote:
                        >
                        > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "vkozyreff"
                        > <vladimir.kozyreff@s...> wrote:
                        > >
                        > . Stating that a person who professes a heresy is not a
                        > > heretic would be like saying that a person who confesses
                        orthodoxy
                        > is
                        > > not orthodox.
                        >
                        > But it seems to me that you do the latter with considerable
                        > regularity -- the great majority of the Orthodox in the world today
                        > are condemned as not Orthodox, in spite of the fact that they
                        confess
                        > the Creed, celebrate the divine services in full accordance with
                        > tradition, preach the Gospel, etc. etc. And yet a few errors,
                        > personal misjudgments or differences of opinon about matters
                        outside
                        > the core of the faith poisson all in the view that you commonly
                        > espouse.
                        >
                        > Mighty strange,
                        > Rebecca Matovic
                        >
                      • orthodoxchurch_sg
                        ... Please tell me what was unclear about my reply and I will try and explain. What is absolutely clear is that the Church does not declare a label heretical
                        Message 11 of 13 , Dec 14, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "vkozyreff"
                          <vladimir.kozyreff@s...> wrote:

                          >

                          > It is interesting that only two priests replied to my question so
                          > far, one from ROCOR and another from the EP. None could give a clear
                          > reply

                          Please tell me what was unclear about my reply and I will try and
                          explain.
                          What is absolutely clear is that the Church does not declare a label
                          heretical and then leave people like you (and me) to define it
                          according to our individual presuppositions or conveniences.
                          To say 'ecumenism is a heresy' and leave it at that is not wrong or
                          right; it is meaningless.

                          God bless/ Fr Daniel
                        • cantor71
                          Vladimir, I cannot contain myself after the way you insulted Rebecca. Despite the falsely polite tone of your posts, your true, haughty attitude is there to be
                          Message 12 of 13 , Dec 14, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Vladimir,

                            I cannot contain myself after the way you insulted Rebecca. Despite
                            the falsely polite tone of your posts, your true, haughty attitude
                            is there to be seen, so I warn you: this is purely ad hominem.

                            Being Orthodox is not only what you do or don't say, but also what
                            you do. If you are physically able, do you do what is essential to
                            Orthodoxy:

                            Do you try to attend every Vigil and Liturgy available to you in
                            your city (and not just in ROCiE)?
                            Do you try to receive communion as frequently as possible?
                            Do you try to say your morning and evening prayers daily?
                            Do you give alms, as a mimimum, every time the opportunity presents
                            itself?
                            Do you tithe?
                            Do you visit the needy and the imprisoned?
                            Do you spend as much time doing these things as you spend writing on
                            the internet?

                            If you do, and I am wrong, forgive me.

                            But if there are more than a few "nos" here, then, based solely on
                            your own judgmental attitude, how can you call yourself Orthodox?

                            Also, let me address your writing style. It is hard to imagine how
                            you are able to write academic papers. Once you have put your
                            signature down, the only text that follows should be references or
                            footnotes. If it's important enough for a sufferer of hypergraphia
                            such as yourself to include, put it in the body of the letter.
                            Whatever is below your signature is just extra fluff - and most of
                            your posts use such a structure. I don't know what the rest of the
                            people here do when reading your posts, but I just move on (assuming
                            I've made it that far).


                            George Skok
                            Toronto

                            Definition of Hypergraphia

                            Hypergraphia: The driving compulsion to write; the overwhelming urge
                            to write. Hypergraphia may compel someone to keep a voluminous
                            journal, to jot off frequent letters to the editor, to write on
                            toilet paper if nothing else is available, and perhaps even to
                            compile a dictionary. Hypergraphia is the opposite of writer's
                            block.

                            Temporal lobe epilepsy is associated with hypergraphia. This
                            association has been known at least as early as 1974 (Waxman SG,
                            Geschwind N. Hypergraphia in temporal lobe epilepsy. Neurology.
                            1974;24:629-36). A number of prolific writer may have had temporal
                            lobe epilepsy, including Byron, Dante, Dostoevsky, Molière,
                            Petrarch, Poe, and Tennyson.

                            Hypergraphia has also been called the midnight disease.

                            http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=26483

                            --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "vkozyreff"
                            <vladimir.kozyreff@s...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Dear Rebecca,
                            >
                            > Thank you for your message.
                            >
                            > Your argument is an "ad hominem tu quoque fallacy" (see below).
                            >
                            > Being orthodox is not only what you say (confess the Creed,
                            celebrate
                            > the divine services in full accordance with tradition, preach the
                            > Gospel), but is also in what you did not say ( etc. etc. ).
                            >
                            > According to you, an ecumenist in the sense of the definition of
                            > ecumenism that I gave is orthodox. In fact, neither the ecumensit
                            nor
                            > the sergianist is orthodox, because their mistakes or
                            misconceptions,
                            > by what they imply, are fundamentally opposed to orthodoxy.
                            >
                            > As far a sergianism, for instance, the concept of "necessary
                            > sin", "sacrificing one's own purity", the idea that confessing
                            sins
                            > of comsic dimensions is not necessary, and getting away with it,
                            > saving the truth by lying, etc.
                            >
                            > As far as ecumenism, scrificing faith for love, uniting with
                            > unrepenting and stubborn sergianists out of "love", considered as
                            > more important than rectitude of faith, etc.
                            >
                            > There is nothing strange in the above, this is just consistency,
                            > which is essential to orthodoxy.
                            >
                            > In Christ,
                            >
                            > Vladimir Kozyreff
                            >
                            >
                            > Ad hominem tu quoque (literally, "at the person, you too") could
                            be
                            > called the "hypocrisy" argument. It occurs when a person's claim
                            is
                            > dismissed or concluded as false either because the claim is about
                            > actions the claimant or another individual has engaged in too, or
                            > because the claim is inconsistent with other claims that the
                            person
                            > has made.
                            >
                            > The tu quoque fallacy mimics the legitimate use of the principle
                            of
                            > ethical symmetry. The error is that while expressing "fair play"
                            > sentiments, what the argument is actually advocating is "equal
                            rights
                            > for foul play." In "fair play", if one reasoner is not entitled to
                            > use a particular appeal, then no other reasoner may use it either.
                            It
                            > does not entitle reasoners to use illegitimate appeals because
                            other
                            > reasoners have used, possibly without challenge, similar
                            illegitimate
                            > appeals. That the illegitimate appeal has been used before does
                            not
                            > make it legitimate.
                            >
                            > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
                            >
                            > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Rebecca M" <rmatovic@s...>
                            > wrote:
                            > >
                            > > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "vkozyreff"
                            > > <vladimir.kozyreff@s...> wrote:
                            > > >
                            > > . Stating that a person who professes a heresy is not a
                            > > > heretic would be like saying that a person who confesses
                            > orthodoxy
                            > > is
                            > > > not orthodox.
                            > >
                            > > But it seems to me that you do the latter with considerable
                            > > regularity -- the great majority of the Orthodox in the world
                            today
                            > > are condemned as not Orthodox, in spite of the fact that they
                            > confess
                            > > the Creed, celebrate the divine services in full accordance with
                            > > tradition, preach the Gospel, etc. etc. And yet a few errors,
                            > > personal misjudgments or differences of opinon about matters
                            > outside
                            > > the core of the faith poisson all in the view that you commonly
                            > > espouse.
                            > >
                            > > Mighty strange,
                            > > Rebecca Matovic
                            > >
                            >
                          • vkozyreff
                            Dear George, I welcome your remarks and pray God to bless you. Criticism helps us in our fight against pride. I am indeed a sinner and a poor writer. I will
                            Message 13 of 13 , Dec 15, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Dear George,

                              I welcome your remarks and pray God to bless you. Criticism helps us
                              in our fight against pride. I am indeed a sinner and a poor writer. I
                              will try to improve myself, but do not expect too quick results: I
                              have a long way to go.

                              Let me kindly suggest however that even if I am not orthodox and
                              suffer from hypergraphism, if a person who can reply positively to
                              all items of your checklist, believes nevertheless that sergianism or
                              ecumenism is right, that person is not orthodox, because both
                              sergianism and ecumenism contradict orthodoxy, are heresies and
                              causes of schism.

                              Personal piety is capital, but is another matter. Many Latino-
                              catholics are very pious but not orthodox. Many of those who rightly
                              call themselves sinners not out of false humility but because they
                              are recurrent sinners are orthodox.

                              Dear Rebecca, please forgive for offending you.

                              This being said, thank you again for your message. I will try to
                              remember Vl Averky's words and try to avoid false zeal:

                              "And there is likewise a false, lying zeal, behind the mask of which
                              is concealed the foaming of ordinary human passions—most frequently
                              pride, love of power and honor, and the interests of a party politics
                              like that which plays the leading role in political struggles, and
                              for which there can be no place in spiritual life, in public church
                              life, but which unfortunately is often to be encountered in our time
                              and is a chief instigator of every imaginable quarrel and disturbance
                              in the Church, the managers and instigators of which often hide
                              themselves behind some kind of supposed idealism but in reality
                              pursue only their own personal aims, striving to please not God but
                              their own self-concern, and being zealous not for God's glory but for
                              their own glory and the glory of the colleagues and partisans of
                              their party".

                              In Christ,

                              Vladimir Kozyreff



                              --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "cantor71" <gskok@r...> wrote:
                              >
                              > Vladimir,
                              >
                              > I cannot contain myself after the way you insulted Rebecca. Despite
                              > the falsely polite tone of your posts, your true, haughty attitude
                              > is there to be seen, so I warn you: this is purely ad hominem.
                              >
                              > Being Orthodox is not only what you do or don't say, but also what
                              > you do. If you are physically able, do you do what is essential to
                              > Orthodoxy:
                              >
                              > Do you try to attend every Vigil and Liturgy available to you in
                              > your city (and not just in ROCiE)?
                              > Do you try to receive communion as frequently as possible?
                              > Do you try to say your morning and evening prayers daily?
                              > Do you give alms, as a mimimum, every time the opportunity presents
                              > itself?
                              > Do you tithe?
                              > Do you visit the needy and the imprisoned?
                              > Do you spend as much time doing these things as you spend writing
                              on
                              > the internet?
                              >
                              > If you do, and I am wrong, forgive me.
                              >
                              > But if there are more than a few "nos" here, then, based solely on
                              > your own judgmental attitude, how can you call yourself Orthodox?
                              >
                              > Also, let me address your writing style. It is hard to imagine how
                              > you are able to write academic papers. Once you have put your
                              > signature down, the only text that follows should be references or
                              > footnotes. If it's important enough for a sufferer of hypergraphia
                              > such as yourself to include, put it in the body of the letter.
                              > Whatever is below your signature is just extra fluff - and most of
                              > your posts use such a structure. I don't know what the rest of the
                              > people here do when reading your posts, but I just move on
                              (assuming
                              > I've made it that far).
                              >
                              >
                              > George Skok
                              > Toronto
                              >
                              > Definition of Hypergraphia
                              >
                              > Hypergraphia: The driving compulsion to write; the overwhelming
                              urge
                              > to write. Hypergraphia may compel someone to keep a voluminous
                              > journal, to jot off frequent letters to the editor, to write on
                              > toilet paper if nothing else is available, and perhaps even to
                              > compile a dictionary. Hypergraphia is the opposite of writer's
                              > block.
                              >
                              > Temporal lobe epilepsy is associated with hypergraphia. This
                              > association has been known at least as early as 1974 (Waxman SG,
                              > Geschwind N. Hypergraphia in temporal lobe epilepsy. Neurology.
                              > 1974;24:629-36). A number of prolific writer may have had temporal
                              > lobe epilepsy, including Byron, Dante, Dostoevsky, Molière,
                              > Petrarch, Poe, and Tennyson.
                              >
                              > Hypergraphia has also been called the midnight disease.
                              >
                              > http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=26483
                              >
                              > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "vkozyreff"
                              > <vladimir.kozyreff@s...> wrote:
                              > >
                              > > Dear Rebecca,
                              > >
                              > > Thank you for your message.
                              > >
                              > > Your argument is an "ad hominem tu quoque fallacy" (see below).
                              > >
                              > > Being orthodox is not only what you say (confess the Creed,
                              > celebrate
                              > > the divine services in full accordance with tradition, preach the
                              > > Gospel), but is also in what you did not say ( etc. etc. ).
                              > >
                              > > According to you, an ecumenist in the sense of the definition of
                              > > ecumenism that I gave is orthodox. In fact, neither the ecumensit
                              > nor
                              > > the sergianist is orthodox, because their mistakes or
                              > misconceptions,
                              > > by what they imply, are fundamentally opposed to orthodoxy.
                              > >
                              > > As far a sergianism, for instance, the concept of "necessary
                              > > sin", "sacrificing one's own purity", the idea that confessing
                              > sins
                              > > of comsic dimensions is not necessary, and getting away with it,
                              > > saving the truth by lying, etc.
                              > >
                              > > As far as ecumenism, scrificing faith for love, uniting with
                              > > unrepenting and stubborn sergianists out of "love", considered as
                              > > more important than rectitude of faith, etc.
                              > >
                              > > There is nothing strange in the above, this is just consistency,
                              > > which is essential to orthodoxy.
                              > >
                              > > In Christ,
                              > >
                              > > Vladimir Kozyreff
                              > >
                              > >
                              > > Ad hominem tu quoque (literally, "at the person, you too") could
                              > be
                              > > called the "hypocrisy" argument. It occurs when a person's claim
                              > is
                              > > dismissed or concluded as false either because the claim is about
                              > > actions the claimant or another individual has engaged in too, or
                              > > because the claim is inconsistent with other claims that the
                              > person
                              > > has made.
                              > >
                              > > The tu quoque fallacy mimics the legitimate use of the principle
                              > of
                              > > ethical symmetry. The error is that while expressing "fair play"
                              > > sentiments, what the argument is actually advocating is "equal
                              > rights
                              > > for foul play." In "fair play", if one reasoner is not entitled
                              to
                              > > use a particular appeal, then no other reasoner may use it
                              either.
                              > It
                              > > does not entitle reasoners to use illegitimate appeals because
                              > other
                              > > reasoners have used, possibly without challenge, similar
                              > illegitimate
                              > > appeals. That the illegitimate appeal has been used before does
                              > not
                              > > make it legitimate.
                              > >
                              > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
                              > >
                              > > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Rebecca M"
                              <rmatovic@s...>
                              > > wrote:
                              > > >
                              > > > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "vkozyreff"
                              > > > <vladimir.kozyreff@s...> wrote:
                              > > > >
                              > > > . Stating that a person who professes a heresy is not a
                              > > > > heretic would be like saying that a person who confesses
                              > > orthodoxy
                              > > > is
                              > > > > not orthodox.
                              > > >
                              > > > But it seems to me that you do the latter with considerable
                              > > > regularity -- the great majority of the Orthodox in the world
                              > today
                              > > > are condemned as not Orthodox, in spite of the fact that they
                              > > confess
                              > > > the Creed, celebrate the divine services in full accordance
                              with
                              > > > tradition, preach the Gospel, etc. etc. And yet a few errors,
                              > > > personal misjudgments or differences of opinon about matters
                              > > outside
                              > > > the core of the faith poisson all in the view that you commonly
                              > > > espouse.
                              > > >
                              > > > Mighty strange,
                              > > > Rebecca Matovic
                              > > >
                              > >
                              >
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.