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

Re: The Problem with Having an Idee Fixe

Expand Messages
  • vkozyreff
    Dear Father Alexander, We have read this from you a couple of times already, and already replied to all of your arguments and questions, for instance about the
    Message 1 of 4 , Feb 2, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Father Alexander,

      We have read this from you a couple of times already, and already
      replied to all of your arguments and questions, for instance about
      the date when the "MP ceased to be the Church". The archives of the
      two lists (ROCOR synod and orthodox tradition) are full with replies
      to your questions.

      Usually, after a certain silence, you come again with all that had
      been refuted. You tried to discredit me by mentioning my idée fixe,
      and I acknowledge your brave effort. I do not see myself as the
      champion against the unia, however. I am not that important a target,
      and the idea of opposing the MP is not mine, as you know. I just took
      it up from my ROCOR. So, it is not hubris but humble obedience to the
      Church that has educated me in this matter.

      In an environment of "treason, cowardice and deceit", we have to
      choose between bishops and priests who oppose one another. Shall I
      chose you? Do I believe in you? The problem with you is that you
      appear as a defector (to say the least), in our eyes of simple
      mortals. Defectors are handicapped in terms of credibility.

      In my English language adventure, you are the one who exposed me for
      the first time to the word "rescind", about Abp Kyrill. In addition,
      Father John Shaw has revealed to us the weakness of the ROCOR
      bishops, so quick to follow directives of influential behind the
      scene actors. If they rescinded their anathema on ecumenism, why
      should we believe in those bishops today?

      For so long, you stated that canon 15 of the 1st and 2d was not
      applicable to sergianism and ecumenism, but we know they do, and you
      know it, given your deep knowledge of ecclesial matters . Why should
      we believe you?

      You are taken away by your enthusiasm and make gross logical errors.
      You know that I am not "excommunicating" anybody. If I judge that you
      are uniting with an evil organisation and leading the faithful to
      perdition, my judgement is only an appreciation. It will have no
      consequence on anybody's salvation. God will judge you. My opinion is
      just a prognostic.

      If the rhythm of these exchanges is not too fast, I shall see whether
      I can again reply to some of your specific arguments. By the way, why
      do you say that nobody seriously disputed the canonicity-legitimacy
      of Met Sergius taking the post of patriarch, knowing that you did
      dispute this yourself? Again, why should we believe you? You are the
      teacher, I am not. In the course of these few last years, I have lost
      faith in so many New ROCOR clerics.

      Please read again message 15536 on "orthodox synod".

      On November of 1994 you and Fr. George Larin wrote a letter to the
      Bishops' Council of our Church criticizing the message of 8 lay
      members of our Church who in their address to the Council demanded
      the unification with Moscow Patriarchy. You and Fr. Larin
      wrote: "Significantly is that the authors of the address call "Mother
      Church" not the Church to which the say they belong, but the Moscow
      Patriarchy "remaining under "Pervosvjatitelskim" omophorion of His
      Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia". The fact that the
      Moscow Patriarchy is really the creature of the atheistic communist
      regime by some reason has escaped from their acknowledgement. Any
      person even with little knowledge (and specially the ones who dare to
      give instructions to the Bishops' Council) must know that "His
      Holiness" is a straight appointee of the Soviet rulers who was their
      zealous collaborator during all his career".
      Read again "The canonical and legal position of the MP" by Vl George
      Grabbe, published in 1971 by the Russian ecclesiatical mission in
      Jerusalem.

      In Christ,

      Vladimir Kozyreff



      --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. Alexander Lebedeff"
      <lebedeff@...> wrote:
      >
      > There is a real difficulty in having an intelligent dialog with
      > someone who position is based entirely on an idee fixe.
      >
      > Vladimir Kozyreff is in that position.
      >
      > His idee fixe is that the Moscow Patriarch is a false church -- or,
      > put otherwise, --not the Church. He states that it lost apostolic
      succession.
      >
      > But when and how it stopped being the Church--that escapes him.
      >
      > And, most importantly, he, although maintaining that he is being
      true
      > to the traditional positions of the Church Abroad, cannot find a
      > single official document of the ROCOR that would support his
      > contention--and this in the face of any number of documents that
      > prove otherwise.
      >
      > That is the problem with having an idee fixe.
      >
      > It makes one stubbornly hold to that which is unsupported by
      evidence.
      >
      > Did the Moscow Patriarchate lose grace and stop being the Church in
      > 1927, when Metropolitan Sergius issued the Epistle commonly called
      > the "Declaration"?
      >
      > How then could the Sobor of Bishops of the ROCOR not say anything
      > about this in its 25-page Conciliar Epistle of 1933, specifically
      > written to express the ROCOR position vis-a-vis Metropolitan
      Sergius
      > and the path expressed in the 1927 Declaration?
      >
      > Would the ROCOR not have had the responsibility, in 1933, six years
      > after the publication of the Declaration, to pronounce that
      > Metropolitan Sergius and his Church Administration were outside the
      > Church and graceless, if it were so?
      >
      > How then could the Sobor of Bishops of the ROCOR in 1938 declare
      that
      > there were no impediments for clergy of the ROCOR to concelebrate
      > with clergy of Metropolitan Sergius, quoting (and ratifying) the
      > words of Metropolitan Kirill, that the sin of Metropolitan Sergius
      > does not extend to his subordinate clergy. Here is the Sobor
      > Resolution of 1938.
      >
      >
      > "DISCUSSED: concelebration with the clergymen of the jurisdiction
      of
      > Metropolitan Sergius and his Synod.
      >
      > METROPOLITAN ANASTASSY points out that clergymen arriving from
      Russia
      > from this jurisdiction are immediately admitted into prayerful
      > communion, and refers to the opinion of Metropolitan Kirill of
      Kazan
      > in his epistle, published in Tserkovnaya Zhizn' [Church Life], that
      > Metropolitan Sergius' sin does not extend to the clergymen under
      him.
      >
      > DECREED: To recognize that there are no obstacles to prayerful
      > communion and concelebration with clergymen of Metropolitan
      Sergius."
      >
      > Now, Vladimir, is this the Old ROCOR speaking , or the "New ROCOR"?
      >
      > Do you agree with this authoritative decision of the Sobor of
      Bishops
      > of the ROCOR, 11 years after the Declaration of Metropolitan
      Sergius?
      >
      > If the Sobor of Bishops of the ROCOR, in 1938, had considered
      > Metropolitan Sergius and his clergy to be "not the Church"--would
      > they have issued such a Resolution?
      >
      > In such a case, they would have had to issue a Resolution that
      said:
      > "Metropolitan Sergius and his Synod are outside the Church and have
      > lost apostolic succession--so it is absolutley forbidden to
      > concelebrate with any of their clergy."
      >
      > But-- they didn't do that.
      >
      > Did the Moscow Patriarchate become "not a Church" and lose
      apostolic
      > succession and grace in 1943, when Stalin allowed it to resume
      > functioning and begin reopening churches and allowed the election
      of
      > a Patriarch?
      >
      > Then how could Metropolitan Anastassy, at the the Sobor of Bishops
      of
      > 1953, say the folowing:
      >
      > They say that Patriarch Alexy sinned more than his predecessor.
      > Whether he sinned more or less, we cannot deny his ordination. Much
      > is said of their apostasy. But we must be cautious. We can hardly
      > make an outright accusation of apostasy. In no place do they affirm
      > atheism. In their published sermons they attempt to hold to the
      > Orthodox line. They took and continue to take very strict measures
      > with regard to the obnovlentsy, and did not tear their ties with
      > Patriarch Tikhon. The false policy belongs to the church authority
      > and the responsibility for it falls on its leaders. Only heresy
      > adopted by the whole Church tarnishes the whole Church. In this
      case,
      > the people are not responsible for the behavior of the leaders, and
      > the Church, as such, remains unblemished."
      >
      > Vladimir, was this the Old ROCOR speaking, or the "New ROCOR"?
      >
      > Read what he said at the Sobor of Bishops in 1953:
      >
      > "Whether he [Patriarch Alexei I] sinned more or less than his
      > predecessor, **WE CANNOT DENY HIS ORDINATION"
      >
      > (This means, Vladimir, that we cannot deny that he has Apostolic
      Succession).
      >
      > And Metropolitan Anastassy said: "Only heresy adopted by the whole
      > Church tarnishes the whole Church. In this case, the people are not
      > responsible for the behavior of the leaders, and the Church, as
      such,
      > remains unblemished."
      >
      > Do you hear that, Vladimir?
      >
      > The Church itself (here he is talking about the Church of Patriarch
      > Alexei I) remains "unblemished."
      >
      > If it remains unblemished, how can it be a false Church, or "not
      the Church"?
      >
      > Even the Sobor Document of 1971 regarding the election Patriarch
      > Pimen, which some have tried to use to prove the "gracelessness" of
      > the Moscow Patriarchate, in reality proves exactly the opposite.
      >
      > If the Sobor of Bishops of the ROCOR, in 1971, considered the
      Moscow
      > Patriarchate to be "not the church" or having lost Apostolic
      > succession or graceless, there would have been no need for a three
      > page Epistle, going on into minute details concerning the process
      of
      > the election of the Patriarch in 1917.
      >
      > All that would have been needed was one sentence that would have
      > said, "we reject the election of Pimen as Patriarch because the
      > Moscow Patriarchate is a false church and graceless."
      >
      > But that's not what happened.
      >
      > The same could be said of the Epistle of Metropolitan Philaret in
      > 1965, where he says that there are three parts of the Russian
      > Church-- and that the Moscow Patriarchate is one of them (in
      addition
      > to the Church Abroad and the Catacomb Church). If he considered the
      > Moscow Patriarchate to have lost apostolic succession and graceless
      > and not a Church, he would have written: "There are two parts of
      the
      > Russian Church; the Church Abroad and the Catacomb Church. There is
      > also a false Church calling itself the Moscow Patriarchate, which
      is
      > graceless and not a church."
      >
      > But that's not what he wrote.
      >
      > Also, in another long Epistle in 1965, Metropolitan Philaret
      directs
      > his attention to the news that the Soviet government issued new
      > restrictions against bringing children to Church. He wrote how
      > terrible it was to deny children the great joy of receiving the
      Holy
      > Mysteries (clearly talking about the "few churches remaining open
      in
      > the Soviet Union, i.e. churches of the Moscow Patriarchate). If he
      > thought that the Moscow Patriarchate was graceless, he would not
      have
      > issued that Epistle, because it wouldn't matter if children
      received
      > Communion in churches of a false church or not, since these false
      > churches have no real Mysteries.
      >
      > To wind up.
      >
      > The discussions regarding the pending rapprochement with the Moscow
      > Patriarchate have been going along for some fifteen years now.
      >
      > There have been many rabid opponents of the process of
      reconciliation
      > speaking out at length on this issue.
      >
      > If the official position of the "Old ROCOR" had truly been that the
      > Moscow Patriarchate had lost apostolic succession and was not the
      > Church, but an apostate false church and its mysteries were invalid
      > and graceless--don't you think that in all of this time, the
      > opponents would have come up with at least a single official
      document
      > of the ROCOR that said so?
      >
      > Sadly, Vladimir, your position is not in keeping with that of
      > Metropolitan Anastassy (see above) and the historical ROCOR.
      >
      > And you do not understand the consequences of your idee fixe--that
      > the Moscow Patriarchate is not the Church.
      >
      > If that were so, then tens of millions of people in Russia are not
      > being baptized, married, having their sins remitted, or receiving
      the
      > Holy Mysteries.
      >
      > You, with the stroke of a pen (or the press of a key), have the
      > audacity to "excommunicate" tens of millions of people, based
      solely
      > on your own opinion--an opinion that is shared by none of the local
      > Orthodox Churches, by the way.
      >
      > 300 million Orthodox Christians in the whole world consider the
      > Moscow Patriarchate to be the valid, canonical Church of Russia.
      >
      > And Vladimir Kozyreff thinks that **his** opinion is more correct
      than theirs.
      >
      > What incredible hubris.
      >
      > With love in Christ, and sincere prayer that you overcome your
      > extraordinary stubbornness and see the light.
      >
      > Prot. Alexander Lebedeff
      >
    • Vladimir Kozyreff
      Dear Father Alexander, Below is a quotation from Met Anastasy (whom you accuse of sergianism with Hitler). In Christ, Vladimir Kozyreff And we must not only
      Message 2 of 4 , Feb 7, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Father Alexander,

        Below is a quotation from Met Anastasy (whom you accuse of sergianism with
        Hitler).

        In Christ,

        Vladimir Kozyreff
        "And we must not only teach others, but ourselves also fulfill, following
        the examples of the Moscow saints, whom we have commemorated today. They
        stand before us as Orthodox Zealots, and we must follow their example,
        turning aside completely from the dishonesty of those who have now occupied
        their throne. Oh if they could but arise; they not only would not recognize
        any of their successions, but rather would have turned against them with
        severe condemnation."


        Metropolitan Anastasy (Gribanovsky) Address to the Sobor of Bishops, 1959

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Fr. Alexander Lebedeff" <lebedeff@...>
        To: <orthodox-tradition@yahoogroups.com>; <orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 8:50 PM
        Subject: [orthodox-synod] The Problem with Having an Idee Fixe


        > There is a real difficulty in having an intelligent dialog with
        > someone who position is based entirely on an idee fixe.
        >
        > Vladimir Kozyreff is in that position.
        >
        > His idee fixe is that the Moscow Patriarch is a false church -- or,
        > put otherwise, --not the Church. He states that it lost apostolic
        > succession.
        >
        > But when and how it stopped being the Church--that escapes him.
        >
        > And, most importantly, he, although maintaining that he is being true
        > to the traditional positions of the Church Abroad, cannot find a
        > single official document of the ROCOR that would support his
        > contention--and this in the face of any number of documents that
        > prove otherwise.
        >
        > That is the problem with having an idee fixe.
        >
        > It makes one stubbornly hold to that which is unsupported by evidence.
        >
        > Did the Moscow Patriarchate lose grace and stop being the Church in
        > 1927, when Metropolitan Sergius issued the Epistle commonly called
        > the "Declaration"?
        >
        > How then could the Sobor of Bishops of the ROCOR not say anything
        > about this in its 25-page Conciliar Epistle of 1933, specifically
        > written to express the ROCOR position vis-a-vis Metropolitan Sergius
        > and the path expressed in the 1927 Declaration?
        >
        > Would the ROCOR not have had the responsibility, in 1933, six years
        > after the publication of the Declaration, to pronounce that
        > Metropolitan Sergius and his Church Administration were outside the
        > Church and graceless, if it were so?
        >
        > How then could the Sobor of Bishops of the ROCOR in 1938 declare that
        > there were no impediments for clergy of the ROCOR to concelebrate
        > with clergy of Metropolitan Sergius, quoting (and ratifying) the
        > words of Metropolitan Kirill, that the sin of Metropolitan Sergius
        > does not extend to his subordinate clergy. Here is the Sobor
        > Resolution of 1938.
        >
        >
        > "DISCUSSED: concelebration with the clergymen of the jurisdiction of
        > Metropolitan Sergius and his Synod.
        >
        > METROPOLITAN ANASTASSY points out that clergymen arriving from Russia
        > from this jurisdiction are immediately admitted into prayerful
        > communion, and refers to the opinion of Metropolitan Kirill of Kazan
        > in his epistle, published in Tserkovnaya Zhizn' [Church Life], that
        > Metropolitan Sergius' sin does not extend to the clergymen under him.
        >
        > DECREED: To recognize that there are no obstacles to prayerful
        > communion and concelebration with clergymen of Metropolitan Sergius."
        >
        > Now, Vladimir, is this the Old ROCOR speaking , or the "New ROCOR"?
        >
        > Do you agree with this authoritative decision of the Sobor of Bishops
        > of the ROCOR, 11 years after the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius?
        >
        > If the Sobor of Bishops of the ROCOR, in 1938, had considered
        > Metropolitan Sergius and his clergy to be "not the Church"--would
        > they have issued such a Resolution?
        >
        > In such a case, they would have had to issue a Resolution that said:
        > "Metropolitan Sergius and his Synod are outside the Church and have
        > lost apostolic succession--so it is absolutley forbidden to
        > concelebrate with any of their clergy."
        >
        > But-- they didn't do that.
        >
        > Did the Moscow Patriarchate become "not a Church" and lose apostolic
        > succession and grace in 1943, when Stalin allowed it to resume
        > functioning and begin reopening churches and allowed the election of
        > a Patriarch?
        >
        > Then how could Metropolitan Anastassy, at the the Sobor of Bishops of
        > 1953, say the folowing:
        >
        > They say that Patriarch Alexy sinned more than his predecessor.
        > Whether he sinned more or less, we cannot deny his ordination. Much
        > is said of their apostasy. But we must be cautious. We can hardly
        > make an outright accusation of apostasy. In no place do they affirm
        > atheism. In their published sermons they attempt to hold to the
        > Orthodox line. They took and continue to take very strict measures
        > with regard to the obnovlentsy, and did not tear their ties with
        > Patriarch Tikhon. The false policy belongs to the church authority
        > and the responsibility for it falls on its leaders. Only heresy
        > adopted by the whole Church tarnishes the whole Church. In this case,
        > the people are not responsible for the behavior of the leaders, and
        > the Church, as such, remains unblemished."
        >
        > Vladimir, was this the Old ROCOR speaking, or the "New ROCOR"?
        >
        > Read what he said at the Sobor of Bishops in 1953:
        >
        > "Whether he [Patriarch Alexei I] sinned more or less than his
        > predecessor, **WE CANNOT DENY HIS ORDINATION"
        >
        > (This means, Vladimir, that we cannot deny that he has Apostolic
        > Succession).
        >
        > And Metropolitan Anastassy said: "Only heresy adopted by the whole
        > Church tarnishes the whole Church. In this case, the people are not
        > responsible for the behavior of the leaders, and the Church, as such,
        > remains unblemished."
        >
        > Do you hear that, Vladimir?
        >
        > The Church itself (here he is talking about the Church of Patriarch
        > Alexei I) remains "unblemished."
        >
        > If it remains unblemished, how can it be a false Church, or "not the
        > Church"?
        >
        > Even the Sobor Document of 1971 regarding the election Patriarch
        > Pimen, which some have tried to use to prove the "gracelessness" of
        > the Moscow Patriarchate, in reality proves exactly the opposite.
        >
        > If the Sobor of Bishops of the ROCOR, in 1971, considered the Moscow
        > Patriarchate to be "not the church" or having lost Apostolic
        > succession or graceless, there would have been no need for a three
        > page Epistle, going on into minute details concerning the process of
        > the election of the Patriarch in 1917.
        >
        > All that would have been needed was one sentence that would have
        > said, "we reject the election of Pimen as Patriarch because the
        > Moscow Patriarchate is a false church and graceless."
        >
        > But that's not what happened.
        >
        > The same could be said of the Epistle of Metropolitan Philaret in
        > 1965, where he says that there are three parts of the Russian
        > Church-- and that the Moscow Patriarchate is one of them (in addition
        > to the Church Abroad and the Catacomb Church). If he considered the
        > Moscow Patriarchate to have lost apostolic succession and graceless
        > and not a Church, he would have written: "There are two parts of the
        > Russian Church; the Church Abroad and the Catacomb Church. There is
        > also a false Church calling itself the Moscow Patriarchate, which is
        > graceless and not a church."
        >
        > But that's not what he wrote.
        >
        > Also, in another long Epistle in 1965, Metropolitan Philaret directs
        > his attention to the news that the Soviet government issued new
        > restrictions against bringing children to Church. He wrote how
        > terrible it was to deny children the great joy of receiving the Holy
        > Mysteries (clearly talking about the "few churches remaining open in
        > the Soviet Union, i.e. churches of the Moscow Patriarchate). If he
        > thought that the Moscow Patriarchate was graceless, he would not have
        > issued that Epistle, because it wouldn't matter if children received
        > Communion in churches of a false church or not, since these false
        > churches have no real Mysteries.
        >
        > To wind up.
        >
        > The discussions regarding the pending rapprochement with the Moscow
        > Patriarchate have been going along for some fifteen years now.
        >
        > There have been many rabid opponents of the process of reconciliation
        > speaking out at length on this issue.
        >
        > If the official position of the "Old ROCOR" had truly been that the
        > Moscow Patriarchate had lost apostolic succession and was not the
        > Church, but an apostate false church and its mysteries were invalid
        > and graceless--don't you think that in all of this time, the
        > opponents would have come up with at least a single official document
        > of the ROCOR that said so?
        >
        > Sadly, Vladimir, your position is not in keeping with that of
        > Metropolitan Anastassy (see above) and the historical ROCOR.
        >
        > And you do not understand the consequences of your idee fixe--that
        > the Moscow Patriarchate is not the Church.
        >
        > If that were so, then tens of millions of people in Russia are not
        > being baptized, married, having their sins remitted, or receiving the
        > Holy Mysteries.
        >
        > You, with the stroke of a pen (or the press of a key), have the
        > audacity to "excommunicate" tens of millions of people, based solely
        > on your own opinion--an opinion that is shared by none of the local
        > Orthodox Churches, by the way.
        >
        > 300 million Orthodox Christians in the whole world consider the
        > Moscow Patriarchate to be the valid, canonical Church of Russia.
        >
        > And Vladimir Kozyreff thinks that **his** opinion is more correct than
        > theirs.
        >
        > What incredible hubris.
        >
        > With love in Christ, and sincere prayer that you overcome your
        > extraordinary stubbornness and see the light.
        >
        > Prot. Alexander Lebedeff
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.