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

Re: canonical obstacles

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 11 , May 1 3:24 PM
    • 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 2 of 11 , May 2 7:10 AM
      • 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 3 of 11 , May 2 8:51 AM
        • 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.