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

canonical obstacles

Expand Messages
  • Bushunow, Peter
    ... questions. ... considers the Moscow ... Patriarchate. One can go ... ROCOR and the ... issues. ... communion from ... canonical obstacles ... break that
    Message 1 of 11 , Apr 28, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Father John Shaw writes:
      >In this case, it seems to me that people are posing the wrong
      questions.

      >One can argue endlessly about how guilty or how compromised one
      considers the Moscow
      >Patriarchate, or about whether or not one trusts the clergy of the
      Patriarchate. One can go
      >on arguing about what happened (or did not happen) in the past.

      >But if the issue is whether or not communion should be restored between
      ROCOR and the
      >Moscow Patriarchate, the only relevant issues are the canonical, church
      issues.

      >There cannot be ecclesiastical communion (concelebration of services,
      communion from
      >the same cup) IF one side is preaching a heresy, or where there are
      canonical obstacles
      >(such as clergy having been defrocked, or not ordained correctly).

      >In the case of ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate, the reason for the
      break that occurred
      >was purely practical: the Patriarchate was not free to act, the
      Patriarchal bishops (and in
      >the late '30's there were only about 2-3 bishops not in prison at any
      given time) could not
      >do what they thought was right.

      >So the only pertinent issues for restoration of Church unity are these:
      Is the Moscow
      >Patriarchate confessing the Orthodox faith? Are the clergy of the
      Moscow Patriarchate
      >correctly ordained and free of canonical impediments? Is the Moscow
      Patriarchate able to
      >act freely and according to conscience?

      >The rest of the dispute may be emotionally compelling, but whether or
      not you trust
      >someone, whether or not you like someone (or think you would, if you
      knew them) -- all
      >of that is really beside the point.

      >Either ROCOR can, canonically, reunite with the Moscow Patriarchate
      (and if we can, then
      >we must) -- or else we cannot. And if we cannot, there is nothing to
      talk about.

      >In Christ
      >Fr. John R. Shaw

      Yes Father,
      What I and others are trying to point out, is that there ARE
      impediments, canonical and ecclesiastical impediments to communion.
      Father Alexander Lebedeff admitted very openly at our Diocesan meeting
      in Lakewood that the question of whether Patriarch Alexei and other
      Hierarchs of the MP are canonical bishops was never brought up. These
      issues were just not discussed, not resolved.

      One of the main heretical activities of the MP is their active
      participation in the WCC and other ecumenical organizations. You keep
      repeating that the MP is only an observer at the WCC. Patriarch Alexei
      has been, and continues to be an active participant (read his biography
      at http://mospat.ru/index.php?mid=99&lng=1 "Metropolitan Alexy took an
      active part in the work of international and national peace public
      organizations.") in fact, he is on the board of multiple organizations
      including the 'Rodina' (Motherland) Society,
      These actions do not condemn a man to eternal perdition -- that is not
      the point -- but before I accept him as my spiritual leader, I want to
      see clear, unequivocal discussion of this and repentance.
      Father John, you and other current writers keep repeating that ROCOR
      hierarchs have never proclaimed that the MP is lacking Grace. On the
      contrary, there are numerous writings arguing exactly that point. Many
      of the Holy New Martyrs very clearly accused Metropolitan Sergei and
      others with him of heresy and loss of canonical succession.

      You write
      >Either ROCOR can, canonically, reunite with the Moscow Patriarchate
      (and if we can, then
      >we must) -- or else we cannot. And if we cannot, there is nothing to
      talk about.

      No, there is A LOT to talk about. Bringing these issues to the table,
      in the open, with emotional talk about the "podvig of reconciliation"
      will let us see ourselves and the ROCOR church more clearly, and, God
      willing, will bring those in Russia more closer to repentance.

      Peter


      **********************************************************************
      This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
      intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
      are addressed. If you have received this email in error please delete it from your system.

      This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for
      the presence of computer viruses.

      Thank You,
      Viahealth
      **********************************************************************


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • gene703
      Bushunow, Peter wrote: No, there is A LOT to talk about. Bringing these issues to the table, in the open, with emotional talk about the podvig of
      Message 2 of 11 , Apr 28, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Bushunow, Peter wrote: No, there is A LOT to talk about. Bringing these issues to the table, in the open, with emotional talk about the "podvig of reconciliation" will let us see ourselves and the ROCOR church more clearly, and, God willing, will bring those in Russia more closer to repentance.

        Gene T: I think what you refer as "emotional talk about the podvig of reconciliation" should actually be classified under malicious psychological manipulation PSYOPS style, definitely not a therapeutic thing


        "Bushunow, Peter" <peter.bushunow@...> wrote:
        Father John Shaw writes:
        >In this case, it seems to me that people are posing the wrong
        questions.

        >One can argue endlessly about how guilty or how compromised one
        considers the Moscow
        >Patriarchate, or about whether or not one trusts the clergy of the
        Patriarchate. One can go
        >on arguing about what happened (or did not happen) in the past.

        >But if the issue is whether or not communion should be restored between
        ROCOR and the
        >Moscow Patriarchate, the only relevant issues are the canonical, church
        issues.

        >There cannot be ecclesiastical communion (concelebration of services,
        communion from
        >the same cup) IF one side is preaching a heresy, or where there are
        canonical obstacles
        >(such as clergy having been defrocked, or not ordained correctly).

        >In the case of ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate, the reason for the
        break that occurred
        >was purely practical: the Patriarchate was not free to act, the
        Patriarchal bishops (and in
        >the late '30's there were only about 2-3 bishops not in prison at any
        given time) could not
        >do what they thought was right.

        >So the only pertinent issues for restoration of Church unity are these:
        Is the Moscow
        >Patriarchate confessing the Orthodox faith? Are the clergy of the
        Moscow Patriarchate
        >correctly ordained and free of canonical impediments? Is the Moscow
        Patriarchate able to
        >act freely and according to conscience?

        >The rest of the dispute may be emotionally compelling, but whether or
        not you trust
        >someone, whether or not you like someone (or think you would, if you
        knew them) -- all
        >of that is really beside the point.

        >Either ROCOR can, canonically, reunite with the Moscow Patriarchate
        (and if we can, then
        >we must) -- or else we cannot. And if we cannot, there is nothing to
        talk about.

        >In Christ
        >Fr. John R. Shaw

        Yes Father,
        What I and others are trying to point out, is that there ARE
        impediments, canonical and ecclesiastical impediments to communion.
        Father Alexander Lebedeff admitted very openly at our Diocesan meeting
        in Lakewood that the question of whether Patriarch Alexei and other
        Hierarchs of the MP are canonical bishops was never brought up. These
        issues were just not discussed, not resolved.

        One of the main heretical activities of the MP is their active
        participation in the WCC and other ecumenical organizations. You keep
        repeating that the MP is only an observer at the WCC. Patriarch Alexei
        has been, and continues to be an active participant (read his biography
        at http://mospat.ru/index.php?mid=99&lng=1 "Metropolitan Alexy took an
        active part in the work of international and national peace public
        organizations.") in fact, he is on the board of multiple organizations
        including the 'Rodina' (Motherland) Society,
        These actions do not condemn a man to eternal perdition -- that is not
        the point -- but before I accept him as my spiritual leader, I want to
        see clear, unequivocal discussion of this and repentance.
        Father John, you and other current writers keep repeating that ROCOR
        hierarchs have never proclaimed that the MP is lacking Grace. On the
        contrary, there are numerous writings arguing exactly that point. Many
        of the Holy New Martyrs very clearly accused Metropolitan Sergei and
        others with him of heresy and loss of canonical succession.

        You write
        >Either ROCOR can, canonically, reunite with the Moscow Patriarchate
        (and if we can, then
        >we must) -- or else we cannot. And if we cannot, there is nothing to
        talk about.

        No, there is A LOT to talk about. Bringing these issues to the table,
        in the open, with emotional talk about the "podvig of reconciliation"
        will let us see ourselves and the ROCOR church more clearly, and, God
        willing, will bring those in Russia more closer to repentance.

        Peter


        **********************************************************************
        This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
        intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
        are addressed. If you have received this email in error please delete it from your system.

        This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for
        the presence of computer viruses.

        Thank You,
        Viahealth
        **********************************************************************


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



        Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod





        SPONSORED LINKS
        Jewish orthodox Orthodox Orthodox church Greek orthodox church Sect of judaism

        ---------------------------------
        YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


        Visit your group "orthodox-synod" on the web.

        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        orthodox-synod-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


        ---------------------------------





        ---------------------------------
        Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. PC-to-Phone calls for ridiculously low rates.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Fr. John R. Shaw
        XPICTOC BOCKPECE! ... JRS: But there never was any question about that for ROCOR. If there had been, it would have been an issue long ago. MP clergy were
        Message 3 of 11 , Apr 28, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          XPICTOC BOCKPECE!

          Peter Bushunow wrote:

          > Father Alexander Lebedeff admitted very openly at our Diocesan meeting
          > in Lakewood that the question of whether Patriarch Alexei and other
          > Hierarchs of the MP are canonical bishops was never brought up. These
          > issues were just not discussed, not resolved.

          JRS: But there never was any question about that for ROCOR. If there had been, it would have been an issue long ago. MP clergy were always received "in statu quo", and it could be shown who the bishops were that consecrated the Patriarch, and, if need be, who consecrated all the other MP bishops.

          I think the reason it was "never brought up", is that there was no doubt about their being canonical bishops.

          > One of the main heretical activities of the MP is their active
          > participation in the WCC and other ecumenical organizations. You keep
          > repeating that the MP is only an observer at the WCC. Patriarch Alexei
          > has been, and continues to be an active participant (read his biography
          > at http://mospat.ru/index.php?mid=99&lng=1 "Metropolitan Alexy took an
          > active part in the work of international and national peace public
          > organizations.") in fact, he is on the board of multiple organizations
          > including the 'Rodina' (Motherland) Society,

          JRS: But none of that is what we mean by "the heresy of ecumenism".

          There is no "heresy" in going to meetings, taking an active part in international and national peace public organizations.

          The "heresy of ecumenism" lies in a denial of the unique truth of the Orthodox faith. That is what we call a heresy.

          > Father John, you and other current writers keep repeating that ROCOR
          > hierarchs have never proclaimed that the MP is lacking Grace. On the
          > contrary, there are numerous writings arguing exactly that point.

          JRS: But they are not proclamations by ROCOR: they are simply personal opinions.

          You might be surprised what you could find among the personal opinions of even the great Saints.

          > No, there is A LOT to talk about. Bringing these issues to the table,
          > in the open, with emotional talk about the "podvig of reconciliation"
          > will let us see ourselves and the ROCOR church more clearly, and, God
          > willing, will bring those in Russia more closer to repentance.

          JRS: Why "emotional talk"? I would prefer to speak of "sincere talk". People can be quite irrational when they become emotional. Emotions do not solve anything.

          In Christ
          Fr. John R. Shaw
          --
          CoreComm Webmail.
          http://home.core.com

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • michael nikitin
          Joining a heretical institution and following it s rules is agreeing with it s heresy. It is a tacit denial of the unique truth of the Orthodox Church. All
          Message 4 of 11 , Apr 30, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Joining a heretical institution and following it's rules is agreeing with it's heresy. It is a tacit denial of the unique truth of the Orthodox Church.
            All who join the WCC sign it's heretical stipulations, therefore agreeing with them.

            All our previous hierarchs of ROCOR did not believe the MP to be the Historic Russian Church. When speaking of our Historic Russian Church under St.Tikhon they always called it our persecuted church. When the Moscow Patriarch was mentioned, it was always in a negative way and not the Historic Russian Church. B.Averky called the MP a harlot for praying with everyone. Our previous hierarch's would
            never call their Mother Church, the historic Russian Church of St.Tikhon, a harlot.

            It is sufficient to say what our hierarchs believed is what our ROCOR believed. We can see this by the Synod's declaration of 1971 which states the election of the Patriarch of MP is unlawful and void and his acts as being void. Therefore all ordinations from him are null and void. We see by this that the personal opinions of our
            previouis hierarch's are the opnion of our Synod.

            All the bishops from MP or OCA who came to ROCOR had to repent. Fr.John is not being sincere.

            Please read the official proclamation of our Synod of 1971:

            http://www.stvladimirs.ca/library/concerning-patriarch-pimen.html
            ...
            4. All of the elections of Patriarchs in Moscow, beginning in 1943, are
            invalid on the basis of the 30th Canon of the Holy Apostles and the 3rd
            Canon of the 7th Ecumenical Council, according to which, "if any bishop,
            having made use of secular rulers, should receive through them Episcopal
            authority in the Church, let him be defrocked and excommunicated along with
            all those in communion with him". The significance that the Fathers of the
            7th Council gave to such an offense is obvious from the very fact of a
            double punishment for it, that is, not only deposition but excommunication
            as well, something unusual for ecclesiastical law.
            ...
            Taking into consideration all the above mentioned reasons, the Council of
            Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, as the
            representative of the free part of the Russian Church, determines: The
            election of Pimen (Izvekov) as Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia at the
            gathering calling itself an All-Russian Church Council in Moscow the 2nd of
            June of this year, on the authority of the 3rd Canon of the 7th Ecumenical
            Council and other reasons set forth in this decision, is to be regarded as
            unlawful and void, and all of his acts and directions as having no strength.

            Michael N

            "Fr. John R. Shaw" <vrevjrs@...> wrote:
            XPICTOC BOCKPECE!

            Peter Bushunow wrote:

            > Father Alexander Lebedeff admitted very openly at our Diocesan meeting
            > in Lakewood that the question of whether Patriarch Alexei and other
            > Hierarchs of the MP are canonical bishops was never brought up. These
            > issues were just not discussed, not resolved.

            JRS: But there never was any question about that for ROCOR. If there had been, it would have been an issue long ago. MP clergy were always received "in statu quo", and it could be shown who the bishops were that consecrated the Patriarch, and, if need be, who consecrated all the other MP bishops.

            I think the reason it was "never brought up", is that there was no doubt about their being canonical bishops.

            > One of the main heretical activities of the MP is their active
            > participation in the WCC and other ecumenical organizations. You keep
            > repeating that the MP is only an observer at the WCC. Patriarch Alexei
            > has been, and continues to be an active participant (read his biography
            > at http://mospat.ru/index.php?mid=99&lng=1 "Metropolitan Alexy took an
            > active part in the work of international and national peace public
            > organizations.") in fact, he is on the board of multiple organizations
            > including the 'Rodina' (Motherland) Society,

            JRS: But none of that is what we mean by "the heresy of ecumenism".

            There is no "heresy" in going to meetings, taking an active part in international and national peace public organizations.

            The "heresy of ecumenism" lies in a denial of the unique truth of the Orthodox faith. That is what we call a heresy.

            > Father John, you and other current writers keep repeating that ROCOR
            > hierarchs have never proclaimed that the MP is lacking Grace. On the
            > contrary, there are numerous writings arguing exactly that point.

            JRS: But they are not proclamations by ROCOR: they are simply personal opinions.

            You might be surprised what you could find among the personal opinions of even the great Saints.

            > No, there is A LOT to talk about. Bringing these issues to the table,
            > in the open, with emotional talk about the "podvig of reconciliation"
            > will let us see ourselves and the ROCOR church more clearly, and, God
            > willing, will bring those in Russia more closer to repentance.

            JRS: Why "emotional talk"? I would prefer to speak of "sincere talk". People can be quite irrational when they become emotional. Emotions do not solve anything.

            In Christ
            Fr. John R. Shaw

            ---------------------------------
            Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on Yahoo! FareChase

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • vlutchenkov
            Christ is Risen, Mr. Nikitin starts his e-mail with a very strong statement, which he then attempts to support with his own opinions, while failing to provide
            Message 5 of 11 , May 1, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Christ is Risen,

              Mr. Nikitin starts his e-mail with a very strong statement, which he
              then attempts to support with his own opinions, while failing to
              provide any reference or support in the linked document.

              Mr. Nikitin wrote: Joining a heretical institution and following it's
              rules is agreeing with it's heresy.

              He further makes a statement that in my opinion contradicts his own
              thesis.

              Mr. Nikitin wrote: All the bishops from MP or OCA who came to ROCOR
              had to repent.

              If all they had to do was repent to be accepted in to ROCOR, and they
              did not have to be re- baptized (or would that be baptized for the
              first time), they did not have to go to a ROCOR seminary or pass
              a "clergy entrance exam" to start or better yet continue there
              calling, then a logical conclusion would be that they did not come
              from a heretical sect.

              Mr.Nikitin please note that the same document you refer us to
              (written by wiser men then us is very specific in its conclusion. The
              last paragraph reads;

              "Taking into consideration all the above mentioned reasons, the
              Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia,
              as the representative of the free part of the Russian Church,
              determines: The election of Pimen (Izvekov) as Patriarch of Moscow
              and All Russia at the gathering calling itself an All-Russian Church
              Council in Moscow the 2nd of June of this year, on the authority of
              the 3rd Canon of the 7th Ecumenical Council and other reasons set
              forth in this decision, is to be regarded as unlawful and void, and
              all of his acts and directions as having no strength."

              This appears to be a statement about the freedom - or more the lack
              of freedom the church had (Vova's comment: and may still have) than
              about it not having grace. To me the statement is very specific as
              to Patriarch Pimen and all of his acts and directions. It also has
              an interesting statement, "calling itself an All-Russian Church
              Council in Moscow." Please lets remember that for 200 years before
              Patriarch Tikhon the Orthodox Church of Russia did not have a
              Patriarch. Mr. Nikitin is on a very slippery slope with his thesis.

              Having said that I wish to return to a point (question) that a number
              of folks have brought up or posed on this list and as of yet the
              clergy (who we look to for guidance) have not responded and yes in
              some cases have taken off on tangents. That is; How can we (ROCOR)
              consider the reconciliation process to be proper if we are now
              compromising our position about repentance now? Can one of the clergy
              please tell me if I am correct – Did the Patriarch of Bulgaria along
              with the entire Episcopate ask for forgiveness from the Bulgarian
              people for "working with the communist government?

              Inquiring minds want to know. It would be nice to hear from Fathers
              Alexander Lebedeff, John Shaw, and Stephan Pavlenko about acts of
              repentance or confession.

              Boba or Vova (Still not Vova H)
              --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, michael nikitin
              <nikitinmike@...> wrote:
              >
              > Joining a heretical institution and following it's rules is
              agreeing with it's heresy. It is a tacit denial of the unique truth
              of the Orthodox Church.
              > All who join the WCC sign it's heretical stipulations, therefore
              agreeing with them.
              >
              > All our previous hierarchs of ROCOR did not believe the MP to be
              the Historic Russian Church. When speaking of our Historic Russian
              Church under St.Tikhon they always called it our persecuted church.
              When the Moscow Patriarch was mentioned, it was always in a negative
              way and not the Historic Russian Church. B.Averky called the MP a
              harlot for praying with everyone. Our previous hierarch's would
              > never call their Mother Church, the historic Russian Church of
              St.Tikhon, a harlot.
              >
              > It is sufficient to say what our hierarchs believed is what our
              ROCOR believed. We can see this by the Synod's declaration of 1971
              which states the election of the Patriarch of MP is unlawful and
              void and his acts as being void. Therefore all ordinations from him
              are null and void. We see by this that the personal opinions of our
              > previouis hierarch's are the opnion of our Synod.
              >
              > All the bishops from MP or OCA who came to ROCOR had to repent.
              Fr.John is not being sincere.
              >
              > Please read the official proclamation of our Synod of 1971:
              >
              > http://www.stvladimirs.ca/library/concerning-patriarch-pimen.html
              > ...
              > 4. All of the elections of Patriarchs in Moscow, beginning in 1943,
              are
              > invalid on the basis of the 30th Canon of the Holy Apostles and the
              3rd
              > Canon of the 7th Ecumenical Council, according to which, "if any
              bishop,
              > having made use of secular rulers, should receive through them
              Episcopal
              > authority in the Church, let him be defrocked and excommunicated
              along with
              > all those in communion with him". The significance that the Fathers
              of the
              > 7th Council gave to such an offense is obvious from the very fact
              of a
              > double punishment for it, that is, not only deposition but
              excommunication
              > as well, something unusual for ecclesiastical law.
              > ...
              > Taking into consideration all the above mentioned reasons, the
              Council of
              > Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, as the
              > representative of the free part of the Russian Church,
              determines: The
              > election of Pimen (Izvekov) as Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia
              at the
              > gathering calling itself an All-Russian Church Council in Moscow
              the 2nd of
              > June of this year, on the authority of the 3rd Canon of the 7th
              Ecumenical
              > Council and other reasons set forth in this decision, is to be
              regarded as
              > unlawful and void, and all of his acts and directions as having no
              strength.
              >
              > Michael N
              >
              > "Fr. John R. Shaw" <vrevjrs@...> wrote:
              > XPICTOC BOCKPECE!
              >
              > Peter Bushunow wrote:
              >
              > > Father Alexander Lebedeff admitted very openly at our Diocesan
              meeting
              > > in Lakewood that the question of whether Patriarch Alexei and
              other
              > > Hierarchs of the MP are canonical bishops was never brought
              up. These
              > > issues were just not discussed, not resolved.
              >
              > JRS: But there never was any question about that for ROCOR. If
              there had been, it would have been an issue long ago. MP clergy were
              always received "in statu quo", and it could be shown who the
              bishops were that consecrated the Patriarch, and, if need be, who
              consecrated all the other MP bishops.
              >
              > I think the reason it was "never brought up", is that there was
              no doubt about their being canonical bishops.
              >
              > > One of the main heretical activities of the MP is their active
              > > participation in the WCC and other ecumenical organizations.
              You keep
              > > repeating that the MP is only an observer at the WCC.
              Patriarch Alexei
              > > has been, and continues to be an active participant (read his
              biography
              > > at http://mospat.ru/index.php?mid=99&lng=1 "Metropolitan Alexy
              took an
              > > active part in the work of international and national peace
              public
              > > organizations.") in fact, he is on the board of multiple
              organizations
              > > including the 'Rodina' (Motherland) Society,
              >
              > JRS: But none of that is what we mean by "the heresy of
              ecumenism".
              >
              > There is no "heresy" in going to meetings, taking an active part
              in international and national peace public organizations.
              >
              > The "heresy of ecumenism" lies in a denial of the unique truth of
              the Orthodox faith. That is what we call a heresy.
              >
              > > Father John, you and other current writers keep repeating that
              ROCOR
              > > hierarchs have never proclaimed that the MP is lacking Grace.
              On the
              > > contrary, there are numerous writings arguing exactly that
              point.
              >
              > JRS: But they are not proclamations by ROCOR: they are simply
              personal opinions.
              >
              > You might be surprised what you could find among the personal
              opinions of even the great Saints.
              >
              > > No, there is A LOT to talk about. Bringing these issues to
              the table,
              > > in the open, with emotional talk about the "podvig of
              reconciliation"
              > > will let us see ourselves and the ROCOR church more clearly,
              and, God
              > > willing, will bring those in Russia more closer to repentance.
              >
              > JRS: Why "emotional talk"? I would prefer to speak of "sincere
              talk". People can be quite irrational when they become emotional.
              Emotions do not solve anything.
              >
              > In Christ
              > Fr. John R. Shaw
              >
              > ---------------------------------
              > Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on Yahoo!
              FareChase
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
            • michael nikitin
              So I wouldn t be understood, I am including a letter from our previous first hierarch, Holy Metr.Philaret, to make what some may not understand clearer. I also
              Message 6 of 11 , May 1, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                So I wouldn't be understood, I am including a letter from our previous first hierarch, Holy Metr.Philaret, to make what some may not understand clearer.

                I also stated joining ROCOR, who has stayed on the true path, not for ROCOR to join the uncanonical, schismatic creation of Stalin as the Western Dioscese called the MP.

                Hope the letter below helps:

                Michael N

                A LETTER FROM METROPOLITAN PHILARET (VOZNESENSKY) TO A PRIEST OF
                THE CHURCH ABROAD CONCERNING FATHER DIMITRY DUDKO AND THE
                MOSCOW PATRIARCHATE

                Exerpts from St.Metr.Philaret's letter:
                Now a few words on the tragedy of poor Father Dimitry Dudko.

                From the very beginning of his activities, when his name was being mentioned
                more and more often as a pillar of Orthodoxy, and moreover, the members of
                the Synod, the hierarchs, were joining
                their voices to this; I, however, the author of these lines, immediately
                kept out of it and forewarned my fellow hierarchs that a disaster might
                happen here. How so? Because in the USSR, according
                to the premise of Archimandrite Constantine, there is now a satan-ocracy.
                There rules he whom the Saviour called a liar and the father of lies. This
                lie reigns there. Therefore one cannot trust
                anything that occurs there. Any seemingly spiritually encouraging fact may
                turn out to be a falsification, a forgery, a deception, or a provocation...

                Why did this calamity befall Father Dimitry Dudko? Let's assume the best,
                not suspecting him of conscious collaboration with the KGB and betrayal of
                his convictions, but simply noting the sad
                fact that he did not endure, but was broken; he capitulated before the
                enemies of the Church. Why? It would seem that he did display courage and
                daring; and then suddenly, such an inglorious end. Why?! Because his
                activity took place outside of the true Church...

                What then is the Soviet church? Archimandrite Constantine has often and
                insistently stated that the most horrible thing that the God-hating regime
                has done in Russia is the creation of the Soviet
                Church, which the Bolsheviks presented to the people as the true Church,
                having driven the genuine Orthodox Church into the catacombs or into the
                concentration camps.

                This pseudo-church has been twice anathematized. His Holiness Patriarch
                Tikhon and the All-Russian Church Sobor anathematized the Communists and all
                their collaborators. This dread anathema has not been lifted till this day
                and remains in force, since it can be lifted only by a similar All-Russian
                Church Sobor, as the canonical supreme ecclesiastical authority. And a
                terrifying thing happened in 1927, when the head of the Church, Metropolitan
                Sergius, by his infamous and
                apostate Declaration, subjected the Russian Church to the Bolsheviks and
                proclaimed collaboration with them. And thus in a most exact sense was
                fulfilled the expression in the prayer at the beginning of Confession:
                having fallen under their own anathema! For in
                1918 the Church anathematized all the confederates of Communism, while in
                1927 she herself joined the camp of these collaborators and began to laud
                the red, God-having regime to laud the red beast spoken of
                in the Apocalypse.

                As if that is not enough. When Metropolitan Sergius promulgated his criminal
                Declaration, then the faithful children of the Church immediately separated
                themselves from the Soviet church, and thus
                the Catacomb Church was formed. And she, in her turn, has anathematized the
                official church for its betrayal of Christ.

                And it was within this very church of evil-doers that the activities of
                Father Dimitry Dudko occurred, who has frankly declared in the press that he
                is not going to break with the Soviet church but will remain in her. Has his
                spiritual eyes been open, and had he seen the true nature of the official
                church, he might have found within himself the courage to say: I have hated
                the congregation of evil-doers, and with the ungodly will I not sit I am
                breaking off with the company
                of the enemies of God, and I am withdrawing from the Soviet church. Why,
                then for us he would have become one of our own his courage would have
                destroyed the barrier which irrevocably stands between us by virtue of the
                fact that the Sobor adopted as its guiding principle the Testament of
                Metropolitan Anastasy. For in this Testament it is ordered that we must not
                have any communion whatsoever with the Soviets, not only no communion in
                prayer, but not even ordinary
                contact in daily life. But as long as Father Dimitry would have refused to
                remain in the Soviet pseudo-church, and would have withdrawn from membership
                in her the barrier would no longer
                have applied to him..........

                The hierarch Theophan the Recluse in his own day warned that a terrible time
                was approaching when people would behold before their eyes all the
                appearance of church grandeur solemn services, church order, and such while
                on the inside there would be total betrayal of the Spirit of
                Christ. Is this not what we see in the Soviet church? Patriarchs,
                Metropolitans, all the priestly and monastic orders and at the very same
                time, an alliance with the God-haters, that is, a manifest
                betrayal of Christ.

                To this company belongs also Father Dimitry Dudko. Of course, his sincere
                religious feelings compelled him to preach concerning God and not to condone
                many of the disgraceful happenings in the lives of Russian people. But for
                him, Pimen was, and likely still is,
                his spiritual head, the head of the Soviet hierarchy; while for us, it is
                not at all so. For our Sobor in 1971 passed a resolution:
                on the basis of such and such canons to consider the election of Pimen as
                unlawful and invalid, and to consider all his acts and decrees as having no
                force or significance.

                How difficult is Father Dimitry Dudko's position now! What is he to do?
                Continue his pastoral work? And what can he say to the faithful? Say the
                same thing that he said before his repentance? But then, he has already
                renounced this! Say the opposite? Why, they believed him before when he
                preached that which won for him the trust and respect of the faithful and
                now, how will he look them in the face? One girl correctly said that there
                is one way out for him: make a genuine repentance in atonement for the one
                he just now made. But in order to do
                that he must depart from the church of the evil-doers for the true Church,
                and there make his repentance. However, in return, the red church will
                undoubtedly deal with him with particular malice
                and cruelty. Of course, by crossing over to the true Church, he will pass
                over into the realm of Divine grace and strength, which can fortify him just
                as it fortified those catacomb nuns. God grant
                that he find the true and saving path.

                I should also like to note the following. The Catacomb Church in Russia
                relates to the Church Abroad with love and total confidence. However, one
                thing is incomprehensible to the Catacomb Christians: they can't understand
                why our Church, which realizes beyond a doubt that the Soviet hierarchy has
                betrayed Christ and is no longer a bearer of grace, nevertheless receives
                clergy of the Soviet church in their existing orders, not re-ordaining them,
                as ones already having grace. For the clergy and flock receive grace from
                the hierarchy, and if it [the hierarchy] has betrayed the Truth and deprived
                itself of grace, from where then does the clergy have grace? It is along
                these
                lines that the Catacomb Christians pose the question.

                The answer to this is simple. The Church has the authority in certain cases
                to employ the principle of economia condescension. The hierarch Saint Basil
                the Great said that, in order not to drive many away from the Church, it is
                necessary sometimes to permit condescension and not apply the church canons
                in all their severity. When our Church accepted Roman Catholic clergy in
                their orders, without ordaining them, she acted according to this principle.
                And Metropolitan Anthony
                [Khrapovitsky], elucidating this issue, pointed out that the outward form
                successive ordination from Apostolic times that the Roman Catholics do have;
                whereas the grace, which the Roman Catholic church has lost, is received by
                those uniting [themselves to the
                Church] from the plenitude of grace present in the Orthodox Church, at the
                very moment of their joining. The form is filled with content, said Vladyka
                Anthony.

                In precisely the same manner, in receiving the Soviet clergy, we apply the
                principle of economia. And we receive the clergymen from Moscow not as ones
                possessing grace, but as ones receiving it by the very act of union. But to
                recognize the church of the evil-doers as the bearer and
                repository of grace, that we cannot do, of course. For outside of Orthodoxy
                there is no grace; and the Soviet church has deprived itself of grace.

                In concluding my lengthy letter, I should like to point several things out
                to you, Father. The Bishops' Sobor resolved to be guided by and to fulfill
                the Testament of Metropolitan Anastasy, in which the late First Hierarch
                bade us not to have any communion with the Soviet church
                whatsoever, not only no prayerful communion, but not even ordinary contact.
                On what basis then have you and other clergymen had direct relations with
                Father Dudko? And have written him letters, etc.? No matter how sincere a
                man you may have considered him to be, nevertheless, can your private
                opinion annul a ruling adopted by the Church? Now, had Father Dudko said: I
                am breaking with the official church and leaving her then you could have
                entered into lively contact
                with him. But in the absence of that, your actions constitute a violation of
                ecclesiastical discipline. Dudko wrote to me personally, but I did not
                answer him although I could have said much. By the
                way, on what basis did you, even before this, take into your head to
                commemorate an archbishop of the Soviet church during the Great Entrance?
                Who gave you the right to do that, which hierarch
                who, how, where, when?.. Be more careful, my dear, zealous, but, ah, too
                impetuous fellow minister!



                vlutchenkov <vlutchenkov@

                If all they had to do was repent to be accepted in to ROCOR, and they
                did not have to be re- baptized (or would that be baptized for the
                first time), they did not have to go to a ROCOR seminary or pass
                a "clergy entrance exam" to start or better yet continue there
                calling, then a logical conclusion would be that they did not come
                from a heretical sect.
                ...


                ---------------------------------
                Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Kenneth Doll
                How is this any different from the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem who from 1453 onwards (at the very least, as several of
                Message 7 of 11 , May 1, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  How is this any different from the patriarchs of Constantinople,
                  Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem who from 1453 onwards (at the very
                  least, as several of these were under Muslim authority for a long time
                  prior to this) almost always had to "make use of secular rulers" to
                  acquire their episcopate?
                  Kenneth

                  --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, michael nikitin
                  <nikitinmike@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Please read the official proclamation of our Synod of 1971:
                  >
                  > http://www.stvladimirs.ca/library/concerning-patriarch-pimen.html
                  > ...
                  > 4. All of the elections of Patriarchs in Moscow, beginning in 1943,
                  > are invalid on the basis of the 30th Canon of the Holy Apostles and
                  > the 3rd Canon of the 7th Ecumenical Council, according to which,
                  > "if any bishop, having made use of secular rulers, should receive
                  > through them Episcopal authority in the Church, let him be
                  > defrocked and excommunicated along with all those in communion with
                  > him".
                • Fr. John R. Shaw
                  XPICTOC BOCKPECE! ... JRS: And that is a key issue. ROCOR refused to submit to the authority of the Moscow Patriarchate, not because the latter was in
                  Message 8 of 11 , May 1, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    XPICTOC BOCKPECE!

                    Vova Lutchenkov wrote:

                    > If all they [MP clergy who joined ROCOR] had to do was repent to be accepted..., then a logical conclusion would be that they did not come
                    > from a heretical sect.

                    JRS: And that is a key issue.

                    ROCOR refused to submit to the authority of the Moscow Patriarchate, not because the latter was "in heresy", but because the Patriarch and the Holy Synod could not do what they thought was right: they were prisoners of one of the most tyrannical regimes in history.

                    > It also has
                    > an interesting statement, "calling itself an All-Russian Church
                    > Council in Moscow." Please lets remember that for 200 years before
                    > Patriarch Tikhon the Orthodox Church of Russia did not have a
                    > Patriarch.

                    JRS: And for the same period, there was also no Church Council [Sobor] in Russia.

                    There used to be a special set of prayers for a Council of Bishops. It was removed from the official service books of the Russian Church, because of course Peter the Great and his successors did not want people even to have that reminder that there could be a "church council" in the Russian Empire.

                    Those prayers were used, so far as I know, for the first time since Peter the Great, at the Sobor that elected Metropolitan Laurus as First Hierarch of the Church Abroad.

                    On all previous occasions, they had been replaced by the "Moleben at the Beginning of Any Good Work".

                    > Can one of the clergy
                    > please tell me if I am correct – Did the Patriarch of Bulgaria along
                    > with the entire Episcopate ask for forgiveness from the Bulgarian
                    > people for "working with the communist government?
                    >
                    > Inquiring minds want to know. It would be nice to hear from Fathers
                    > Alexander Lebedeff, John Shaw, and Stephan Pavlenko about acts of
                    > repentance or confession.

                    JRS: In 1991, Patriarch Alexy II did ask publicly for forgiveness, and said he took responsibility for all the wrong that was done in the name of the Church during the years of Soviet oppression.

                    In fact, he did this twice in 1991. The specifics were posted [at least] twice on the Paradosis list, and for a while I kept it in my mailbox for possible re-posting. But I do not have time now to try and locate it again.

                    I am not aware whether or not the Patriarch of Bulgaria, or any other Orthodox hierarch who had lived under communist rule, did anything of the kind.

                    In Christ
                    Fr. John R. Shaw
                    --
                    CoreComm Webmail.
                    http://home.core.com

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • vlutchenkov
                    Voistinu Voskrese!! Father Bless, New subject but the discussion continues. Father John: And that is a key issue. Vova: And I do not think we will get a
                    Message 9 of 11 , May 1, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Voistinu Voskrese!!

                      Father Bless,

                      New subject but the discussion continues.


                      Father John: And that is a key issue.
                      Vova: And I do not think we will get a response from Mr. Nikitin. He
                      may have slipped on that slope.

                      Father John:
                      > Vova: It also has an interesting statement, "calling itself an All-
                      Russian Church Council in Moscow." Please lets remember that for
                      200 years before Patriarch Tikhon the Orthodox Church of Russia did
                      not have a Patriarch.
                      JRS: And for the same period, there was also no Church Council
                      [Sobor] in Russia.

                      Vova: Yes Father I agree. I think I wrote that portion rather
                      poorly. What I was trying to say was that once again men wiser than
                      us (or at least me) knew exactly what they were writing. I
                      understood the comment "calling itself an All-Russian Church Council
                      in Moscow" to be (dare I say) an accusation of the lack of freedom
                      in the Soviet Union and that in fact it could not be "all-Russian"
                      if the Diaspora was not part of it. Again the writers when they had
                      the chance did not state that the Orthodox Church of Russia (or all
                      the people that were partaking in its sacraments) lacked grace, they
                      just question the patriarchal power of a man.

                      Father John: In 1991, Patriarch Alexy II did ask publicly for
                      forgiveness, and said he took responsibility for all the wrong that
                      was done in the name of the Church during the years of Soviet
                      oppression.
                      Vova: Again Father thank you for a direct answer. But, as you are
                      well aware, judging by your writing style, words are important. So,
                      yes I have read Patriarch Alexy's statement a number of times and
                      felt it a bit - well disingenuous. In Russian I would say it was a
                      bit of some great kluchkotvorstvo (I like that concept/word in
                      Russian than in English - though in English it is rarely and just
                      does not sound as great.)

                      I will now pose a question in simple layperson's words and
                      thoughts. The question is hypothetical. If anyone reads more into
                      it so be it, but the question and answer can stand on their own
                      without commentary or as they say on TV programs "Any resemblance to
                      person living or dead is purely a coincidence."

                      So here is the question. If I came to you for confession and told
                      you that I belonged to a group that was in the past responsible for
                      and in some cases enjoyed torturing little rabbits.
                      Can I go to communion?

                      (More questions may follow.)


                      In Christ,
                      Boba

                      --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John R. Shaw"
                      <vrevjrs@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > XPICTOC BOCKPECE!
                      >
                      > Vova Lutchenkov wrote:
                      >
                      > > If all they [MP clergy who joined ROCOR] had to do was repent to
                      be accepted..., then a logical conclusion would be that they did not
                      come
                      > > from a heretical sect.
                      >
                      > JRS: And that is a key issue.
                      >
                      > ROCOR refused to submit to the authority of the Moscow
                      Patriarchate, not because the latter was "in heresy", but because
                      the Patriarch and the Holy Synod could not do what they thought was
                      right: they were prisoners of one of the most tyrannical regimes in
                      history.
                      >
                      > > It also has
                      > > an interesting statement, "calling itself an All-Russian Church
                      > > Council in Moscow." Please lets remember that for 200 years
                      before
                      > > Patriarch Tikhon the Orthodox Church of Russia did not have a
                      > > Patriarch.
                      >
                      > JRS: And for the same period, there was also no Church Council
                      [Sobor] in Russia.
                      >
                      > There used to be a special set of prayers for a Council of
                      Bishops. It was removed from the official service books of the
                      Russian Church, because of course Peter the Great and his successors
                      did not want people even to have that reminder that there could be
                      a "church council" in the Russian Empire.
                      >
                      > Those prayers were used, so far as I know, for the first time
                      since Peter the Great, at the Sobor that elected Metropolitan Laurus
                      as First Hierarch of the Church Abroad.
                      >
                      > On all previous occasions, they had been replaced by the "Moleben
                      at the Beginning of Any Good Work".
                      >
                      > > Can one of the clergy
                      > > please tell me if I am correct – Did the Patriarch of Bulgaria
                      along
                      > > with the entire Episcopate ask for forgiveness from the
                      Bulgarian
                      > > people for "working with the communist government?
                      > >
                      > > Inquiring minds want to know. It would be nice to hear from
                      Fathers
                      > > Alexander Lebedeff, John Shaw, and Stephan Pavlenko about acts
                      of
                      > > repentance or confession.
                      >
                      > JRS: In 1991, Patriarch Alexy II did ask publicly for forgiveness,
                      and said he took responsibility for all the wrong that was done in
                      the name of the Church during the years of Soviet oppression.
                      >
                      > In fact, he did this twice in 1991. The specifics were posted [at
                      least] twice on the Paradosis list, and for a while I kept it in my
                      mailbox for possible re-posting. But I do not have time now to try
                      and locate it again.
                      >
                      > I am not aware whether or not the Patriarch of Bulgaria, or any
                      other Orthodox hierarch who had lived under communist rule, did
                      anything of the kind.
                      >
                      > In Christ
                      > Fr. John R. Shaw
                      > --
                      > CoreComm Webmail.
                      > http://home.core.com
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                    • Gilbert Gamboa
                      vlutchenkov wrote: Voistinu Voskrese!! Father Bless, New subject but the discussion continues. Father John: And that is a key issue.
                      Message 10 of 11 , May 2, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        vlutchenkov <vlutchenkov@...> wrote: Voistinu Voskrese!!

                        Father Bless,

                        New subject but the discussion continues.


                        Father John: And that is a key issue.
                        Vova: And I do not think we will get a response from Mr. Nikitin. He
                        may have slipped on that slope.

                        Father John:
                        > Vova: It also has an interesting statement, "calling itself an All-
                        Russian Church Council in Moscow." Please lets remember that for
                        200 years before Patriarch Tikhon the Orthodox Church of Russia did
                        not have a Patriarch.
                        JRS: And for the same period, there was also no Church Council
                        [Sobor] in Russia.

                        Vova: Yes Father I agree. I think I wrote that portion rather
                        poorly. What I was trying to say was that once again men wiser than
                        us (or at least me) knew exactly what they were writing. I
                        understood the comment "calling itself an All-Russian Church Council
                        in Moscow" to be (dare I say) an accusation of the lack of freedom
                        in the Soviet Union and that in fact it could not be "all-Russian"
                        if the Diaspora was not part of it. Again the writers when they had
                        the chance did not state that the Orthodox Church of Russia (or all
                        the people that were partaking in its sacraments) lacked grace, they
                        just question the patriarchal power of a man.

                        Father John: In 1991, Patriarch Alexy II did ask publicly for
                        forgiveness, and said he took responsibility for all the wrong that
                        was done in the name of the Church during the years of Soviet
                        oppression.
                        Vova: Again Father thank you for a direct answer. But, as you are
                        well aware, judging by your writing style, words are important. So,
                        yes I have read Patriarch Alexy's statement a number of times and
                        felt it a bit - well disingenuous. In Russian I would say it was a
                        bit of some great kluchkotvorstvo (I like that concept/word in
                        Russian than in English - though in English it is rarely and just
                        does not sound as great.)

                        I will now pose a question in simple layperson's words and
                        thoughts. The question is hypothetical. If anyone reads more into
                        it so be it, but the question and answer can stand on their own
                        without commentary or as they say on TV programs "Any resemblance to
                        person living or dead is purely a coincidence."

                        So here is the question. If I came to you for confession and told
                        you that I belonged to a group that was in the past responsible for
                        and in some cases enjoyed torturing little rabbits.
                        Can I go to communion?

                        (More questions may follow.)


                        In Christ,
                        Boba

                        --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John R. Shaw"
                        <vrevjrs@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > XPICTOC BOCKPECE!
                        >
                        > Vova Lutchenkov wrote:
                        >
                        > > If all they [MP clergy who joined ROCOR] had to do was repent to
                        be accepted..., then a logical conclusion would be that they did not
                        come
                        > > from a heretical sect.
                        >
                        > JRS: And that is a key issue.
                        >
                        > ROCOR refused to submit to the authority of the Moscow
                        Patriarchate, not because the latter was "in heresy", but because
                        the Patriarch and the Holy Synod could not do what they thought was
                        right: they were prisoners of one of the most tyrannical regimes in
                        history.
                        >
                        > > It also has
                        > > an interesting statement, "calling itself an All-Russian Church
                        > > Council in Moscow." Please lets remember that for 200 years
                        before
                        > > Patriarch Tikhon the Orthodox Church of Russia did not have a
                        > > Patriarch.
                        >
                        > JRS: And for the same period, there was also no Church Council
                        [Sobor] in Russia.
                        >
                        > There used to be a special set of prayers for a Council of
                        Bishops. It was removed from the official service books of the
                        Russian Church, because of course Peter the Great and his successors
                        did not want people even to have that reminder that there could be
                        a "church council" in the Russian Empire.
                        >
                        > Those prayers were used, so far as I know, for the first time
                        since Peter the Great, at the Sobor that elected Metropolitan Laurus
                        as First Hierarch of the Church Abroad.
                        >
                        > On all previous occasions, they had been replaced by the "Moleben
                        at the Beginning of Any Good Work".
                        >
                        > > Can one of the clergy
                        > > please tell me if I am correct – Did the Patriarch of Bulgaria
                        along
                        > > with the entire Episcopate ask for forgiveness from the
                        Bulgarian
                        > > people for "working with the communist government?
                        > >
                        > > Inquiring minds want to know. It would be nice to hear from
                        Fathers
                        > > Alexander Lebedeff, John Shaw, and Stephan Pavlenko about acts
                        of
                        > > repentance or confession.
                        >
                        > JRS: In 1991, Patriarch Alexy II did ask publicly for forgiveness,
                        and said he took responsibility for all the wrong that was done in
                        the name of the Church during the years of Soviet oppression.
                        >
                        > In fact, he did this twice in 1991. The specifics were posted [at
                        least] twice on the Paradosis list, and for a while I kept it in my
                        mailbox for possible re-posting. But I do not have time now to try
                        and locate it again.
                        >
                        > I am not aware whether or not the Patriarch of Bulgaria, or any
                        other Orthodox hierarch who had lived under communist rule, did
                        anything of the kind.
                        >
                        > In Christ
                        > Fr. John R. Shaw
                        > --
                        > CoreComm Webmail.
                        > http://home.core.com
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >









                        Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod





                        SPONSORED LINKS
                        Jewish orthodox Orthodox Orthodox church Greek orthodox church Sect of judaism

                        ---------------------------------
                        YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


                        Visit your group "orthodox-synod" on the web.

                        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        orthodox-synod-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                        ---------------------------------





                        ---------------------------------
                        How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • vlutchenkov
                        XPICTOC BOCKPECE!!!! Ahh Mr.Nikitin replied. (My apology for think he would not.) Mr. Nikitin: Hope the letter below helps: Vova: Yes it did. Especially
                        Message 11 of 11 , May 2, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          XPICTOC BOCKPECE!!!!

                          Ahh Mr.Nikitin replied. (My apology for think he would not.)

                          Mr. Nikitin: "Hope the letter below helps:"
                          Vova: Yes it did. Especially the following portion of the letter.

                          "The answer to this is simple. The Church has the authority in
                          certain cases to employ the principle of economia condescension. The
                          hierarch Saint Basil the Great said that, in order not to drive many
                          away from the Church, it is necessary sometimes to permit
                          condescension and not apply the church canons in all their severity."

                          Vova: Mr. Nikitin, please remember that a Metropolitan is like the
                          Chairman of the Board. He is of course free to express and write his
                          opinions. However, when it comes time to vote he gets ONE vote.
                          Decisions of the Council of Bishops are voted on and majority rules.
                          In addition, if I am not mistaken the letter you offered
                          as "evidence" was written to a priest within the Diocese of the
                          writer. That is also important as far as the Church is structured.

                          In Christ,
                          Vova



                          --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, michael nikitin
                          <nikitinmike@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > So I wouldn't be understood, I am including a letter from our
                          previous first hierarch, Holy Metr.Philaret, to make what some may
                          not understand clearer.
                          >
                          > I also stated joining ROCOR, who has stayed on the true path, not
                          for ROCOR to join the uncanonical, schismatic creation of Stalin as
                          the Western Dioscese called the MP.
                          >
                          > Hope the letter below helps:
                          >
                          > Michael N
                          >
                          > A LETTER FROM METROPOLITAN PHILARET (VOZNESENSKY) TO A PRIEST OF
                          > THE CHURCH ABROAD CONCERNING FATHER DIMITRY DUDKO AND THE
                          > MOSCOW PATRIARCHATE
                          >
                          > Exerpts from St.Metr.Philaret's letter:
                          > Now a few words on the tragedy of poor Father Dimitry Dudko.
                          >
                          > From the very beginning of his activities, when his name was being
                          mentioned
                          > more and more often as a pillar of Orthodoxy, and moreover, the
                          members of
                          > the Synod, the hierarchs, were joining
                          > their voices to this; I, however, the author of these lines,
                          immediately
                          > kept out of it and forewarned my fellow hierarchs that a disaster
                          might
                          > happen here. How so? Because in the USSR, according
                          > to the premise of Archimandrite Constantine, there is now a satan-
                          ocracy.
                          > There rules he whom the Saviour called a liar and the father of
                          lies. This
                          > lie reigns there. Therefore one cannot trust
                          > anything that occurs there. Any seemingly spiritually encouraging
                          fact may
                          > turn out to be a falsification, a forgery, a deception, or a
                          provocation...
                          >
                          > Why did this calamity befall Father Dimitry Dudko? Let's assume the
                          best,
                          > not suspecting him of conscious collaboration with the KGB and
                          betrayal of
                          > his convictions, but simply noting the sad
                          > fact that he did not endure, but was broken; he capitulated before
                          the
                          > enemies of the Church. Why? It would seem that he did display
                          courage and
                          > daring; and then suddenly, such an inglorious end. Why?! Because
                          his
                          > activity took place outside of the true Church...
                          >
                          > What then is the Soviet church? Archimandrite Constantine has often
                          and
                          > insistently stated that the most horrible thing that the God-hating
                          regime
                          > has done in Russia is the creation of the Soviet
                          > Church, which the Bolsheviks presented to the people as the true
                          Church,
                          > having driven the genuine Orthodox Church into the catacombs or
                          into the
                          > concentration camps.
                          >
                          > This pseudo-church has been twice anathematized. His Holiness
                          Patriarch
                          > Tikhon and the All-Russian Church Sobor anathematized the
                          Communists and all
                          > their collaborators. This dread anathema has not been lifted till
                          this day
                          > and remains in force, since it can be lifted only by a similar All-
                          Russian
                          > Church Sobor, as the canonical supreme ecclesiastical authority.
                          And a
                          > terrifying thing happened in 1927, when the head of the Church,
                          Metropolitan
                          > Sergius, by his infamous and
                          > apostate Declaration, subjected the Russian Church to the
                          Bolsheviks and
                          > proclaimed collaboration with them. And thus in a most exact sense
                          was
                          > fulfilled the expression in the prayer at the beginning of
                          Confession:
                          > having fallen under their own anathema! For in
                          > 1918 the Church anathematized all the confederates of Communism,
                          while in
                          > 1927 she herself joined the camp of these collaborators and began
                          to laud
                          > the red, God-having regime to laud the red beast spoken of
                          > in the Apocalypse.
                          >
                          > As if that is not enough. When Metropolitan Sergius promulgated his
                          criminal
                          > Declaration, then the faithful children of the Church immediately
                          separated
                          > themselves from the Soviet church, and thus
                          > the Catacomb Church was formed. And she, in her turn, has
                          anathematized the
                          > official church for its betrayal of Christ.
                          >
                          > And it was within this very church of evil-doers that the
                          activities of
                          > Father Dimitry Dudko occurred, who has frankly declared in the
                          press that he
                          > is not going to break with the Soviet church but will remain in
                          her. Has his
                          > spiritual eyes been open, and had he seen the true nature of the
                          official
                          > church, he might have found within himself the courage to say: I
                          have hated
                          > the congregation of evil-doers, and with the ungodly will I not sit
                          I am
                          > breaking off with the company
                          > of the enemies of God, and I am withdrawing from the Soviet church.
                          Why,
                          > then for us he would have become one of our own his courage would
                          have
                          > destroyed the barrier which irrevocably stands between us by virtue
                          of the
                          > fact that the Sobor adopted as its guiding principle the Testament
                          of
                          > Metropolitan Anastasy. For in this Testament it is ordered that we
                          must not
                          > have any communion whatsoever with the Soviets, not only no
                          communion in
                          > prayer, but not even ordinary
                          > contact in daily life. But as long as Father Dimitry would have
                          refused to
                          > remain in the Soviet pseudo-church, and would have withdrawn from
                          membership
                          > in her the barrier would no longer
                          > have applied to him..........
                          >
                          > The hierarch Theophan the Recluse in his own day warned that a
                          terrible time
                          > was approaching when people would behold before their eyes all the
                          > appearance of church grandeur solemn services, church order, and
                          such while
                          > on the inside there would be total betrayal of the Spirit of
                          > Christ. Is this not what we see in the Soviet church? Patriarchs,
                          > Metropolitans, all the priestly and monastic orders and at the very
                          same
                          > time, an alliance with the God-haters, that is, a manifest
                          > betrayal of Christ.
                          >
                          > To this company belongs also Father Dimitry Dudko. Of course, his
                          sincere
                          > religious feelings compelled him to preach concerning God and not
                          to condone
                          > many of the disgraceful happenings in the lives of Russian people.
                          But for
                          > him, Pimen was, and likely still is,
                          > his spiritual head, the head of the Soviet hierarchy; while for us,
                          it is
                          > not at all so. For our Sobor in 1971 passed a resolution:
                          > on the basis of such and such canons to consider the election of
                          Pimen as
                          > unlawful and invalid, and to consider all his acts and decrees as
                          having no
                          > force or significance.
                          >
                          > How difficult is Father Dimitry Dudko's position now! What is he to
                          do?
                          > Continue his pastoral work? And what can he say to the faithful?
                          Say the
                          > same thing that he said before his repentance? But then, he has
                          already
                          > renounced this! Say the opposite? Why, they believed him before
                          when he
                          > preached that which won for him the trust and respect of the
                          faithful and
                          > now, how will he look them in the face? One girl correctly said
                          that there
                          > is one way out for him: make a genuine repentance in atonement for
                          the one
                          > he just now made. But in order to do
                          > that he must depart from the church of the evil-doers for the true
                          Church,
                          > and there make his repentance. However, in return, the red church
                          will
                          > undoubtedly deal with him with particular malice
                          > and cruelty. Of course, by crossing over to the true Church, he
                          will pass
                          > over into the realm of Divine grace and strength, which can fortify
                          him just
                          > as it fortified those catacomb nuns. God grant
                          > that he find the true and saving path.
                          >
                          > I should also like to note the following. The Catacomb Church in
                          Russia
                          > relates to the Church Abroad with love and total confidence.
                          However, one
                          > thing is incomprehensible to the Catacomb Christians: they can't
                          understand
                          > why our Church, which realizes beyond a doubt that the Soviet
                          hierarchy has
                          > betrayed Christ and is no longer a bearer of grace, nevertheless
                          receives
                          > clergy of the Soviet church in their existing orders, not re-
                          ordaining them,
                          > as ones already having grace. For the clergy and flock receive
                          grace from
                          > the hierarchy, and if it [the hierarchy] has betrayed the Truth and
                          deprived
                          > itself of grace, from where then does the clergy have grace? It is
                          along
                          > these
                          > lines that the Catacomb Christians pose the question.
                          >
                          > The answer to this is simple. The Church has the authority in
                          certain cases
                          > to employ the principle of economia condescension. The hierarch
                          Saint Basil
                          > the Great said that, in order not to drive many away from the
                          Church, it is
                          > necessary sometimes to permit condescension and not apply the
                          church canons
                          > in all their severity. When our Church accepted Roman Catholic
                          clergy in
                          > their orders, without ordaining them, she acted according to this
                          principle.
                          > And Metropolitan Anthony
                          > [Khrapovitsky], elucidating this issue, pointed out that the
                          outward form
                          > successive ordination from Apostolic times that the Roman Catholics
                          do have;
                          > whereas the grace, which the Roman Catholic church has lost, is
                          received by
                          > those uniting [themselves to the
                          > Church] from the plenitude of grace present in the Orthodox Church,
                          at the
                          > very moment of their joining. The form is filled with content, said
                          Vladyka
                          > Anthony.
                          >
                          > In precisely the same manner, in receiving the Soviet clergy, we
                          apply the
                          > principle of economia. And we receive the clergymen from Moscow not
                          as ones
                          > possessing grace, but as ones receiving it by the very act of
                          union. But to
                          > recognize the church of the evil-doers as the bearer and
                          > repository of grace, that we cannot do, of course. For outside of
                          Orthodoxy
                          > there is no grace; and the Soviet church has deprived itself of
                          grace.
                          >
                          > In concluding my lengthy letter, I should like to point several
                          things out
                          > to you, Father. The Bishops' Sobor resolved to be guided by and to
                          fulfill
                          > the Testament of Metropolitan Anastasy, in which the late First
                          Hierarch
                          > bade us not to have any communion with the Soviet church
                          > whatsoever, not only no prayerful communion, but not even ordinary
                          contact.
                          > On what basis then have you and other clergymen had direct
                          relations with
                          > Father Dudko? And have written him letters, etc.? No matter how
                          sincere a
                          > man you may have considered him to be, nevertheless, can your
                          private
                          > opinion annul a ruling adopted by the Church? Now, had Father Dudko
                          said: I
                          > am breaking with the official church and leaving her then you could
                          have
                          > entered into lively contact
                          > with him. But in the absence of that, your actions constitute a
                          violation of
                          > ecclesiastical discipline. Dudko wrote to me personally, but I did
                          not
                          > answer him although I could have said much. By the
                          > way, on what basis did you, even before this, take into your head to
                          > commemorate an archbishop of the Soviet church during the Great
                          Entrance?
                          > Who gave you the right to do that, which hierarch
                          > who, how, where, when?.. Be more careful, my dear, zealous, but,
                          ah, too
                          > impetuous fellow minister!
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > vlutchenkov <vlutchenkov@
                          >
                          > If all they had to do was repent to be accepted in to ROCOR, and
                          they
                          > did not have to be re- baptized (or would that be baptized for the
                          > first time), they did not have to go to a ROCOR seminary or pass
                          > a "clergy entrance exam" to start or better yet continue there
                          > calling, then a logical conclusion would be that they did not come
                          > from a heretical sect.
                          > ...
                          >
                          >
                          > ---------------------------------
                          > Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for
                          just 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.