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

Re: Still looking for answers

Expand Messages
  • Mitin, Stiva
    ... In response to the recent posting regarding re: Soviet Active Measures in the Post-Cold War Era 1988-199 and after the WMD debacle, forgive me for
    Message 1 of 7 , May 2, 2006
      On 5/2/06, vlutchenkov <vlutchenkov@...> wrote:
      > The article is titled: Russian Federation Hypocrisy & Aggressive
      > Clandestine Activity
      > It can be viewed at; http://www.tpmcafe.com/node/28551
      > Here is one paragraph from the article.
      > "The Moscow Patriarchate organization, not the plurality of the laity
      > and parish priests in Russia, is itself an instrument of the Russian
      > state as evidenced by its many comments in line with Russian state
      > expectations about the ROCOR's resistance to reunification, while
      > saying kinder, gentler things to the ROCOR. The ROCOR, having found
      > safe haven all of these years in the US, Europe and other lands,
      > would do well to block any re-unification of the Moscow Patriarch
      > with the ROCOR until the former KGB and current FSB running the
      > Patriarchate repent of it, die, or resign, and until the Russian
      > Federation has halted its new authoritarian experiment and become an
      > open society. Those authoritarian experiments of Russia's past have
      > not worked out so very well, have they?"

      In response to the recent posting regarding re: Soviet Active Measures in
      the "Post-Cold War" Era 1988-199 and after the WMD debacle, forgive me for
      scepticism for reports from various security agencies... and despite the
      fact that they have the imprimatur of having appeared on the Net. No matter
      where you stand on the issue, no one can deny that the ROC has enemies all
      over the world who would stop at nothing to prevent unity of the ROC.

      I found the TPM blogsite to be of some interest. The poster of the article,
      a Michael Woodson, has only been posting for 2 months and mostly about the
      war in Iraq. Lo and behold is an article on Russia. The posting is called
      "RF Hypocrisy & Aggressive Clandestine Activity," though after 2 paragraphs,
      Mr Woodson goes off on this tangent about the ROC and ROCOR.

      If I had to guess, I would assume that he is not Orthodox, since he doesn't
      capitalize the word Church as most Orthodox would. Continuing on the
      assumption that he is not Orthodox, he seems to know a lot about ROCOR and
      even writes: "Of some concern also, is that some members of the ROCOR are
      also employees of the US government." Exactly what does he mean here? Is he
      pesonally concerned? Are old and new Russian emigres concerned?

      Ask 10 heterodox colleagues, friends, relatives who may or may not know that
      you go to some Russian parish but that is about it. Ask them if they know
      what ROCOR/ROCA is. I would be stunned if even one person knew what ROCA is
      (and wouldn't say "Oh, you mean that clothing label for teens?")

      I also don't see how ROCOR fits into the picture of the RF's so-called
      "nostalgia for the USSR" that Mr Woodson writes of. ROCOR is 180 degrees
      opposite from the USSR, so that is certainly a non starter.

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Fr. John R. Shaw
      XPICTOC BOCKPECE!!! ... JRS: There was also no Russian communist party : but only parties for all the other republics and ethnic groups. They seemed to be
      Message 2 of 7 , May 3, 2006

        > Vova: Actually they [the USSR] already had three votes representing the Union of
        > Soviet Socialist Republics. (USSR, BSSR, and UkSSR) Please note that
        > the "Russians" were once again not represented.

        JRS: There was also no "Russian communist party": but only parties for all the other republics and ethnic groups. They seemed to be afraid of Russian nationalism...

        > Now back to a real question. Yes I have read Patriarch
        > Alexy's "repentance statement," but the wording was that of a
        > true "wordsmith" (note: I did not call him any other names).

        JRS: That in itself is a significant point. As you may have noticed, Peter Bushunow does not believe that such a statement ever existed. You are thus a witness to it, and have said so twice.

        Thank you for supporting my point on that.

        > I also think it may be an indicator
        > that with him holding the position "Patriarch, the Churches should
        > continue to talk and may be allow concelebrating of priests but not
        > of/or with Bishops at this time.

        JRS: Either we are in communion, or we are not. If we are, then in theory any clergy of ROCOR and the MP could concelebrate, if they so chose.

        After the ordination of a deacon for ROCOR by an MP bishop, in practice there has already been a concelebration with a bishop of the MP.

        > I am also of the opinion that until
        > such time that the current Patriarch (or any future one that was
        > directly associated with the country's security and intelligence
        > services) sets an example by confessing to his/their direct
        > association we should not consider commemorating him.

        JRS: For what it's worth, I have commemorated the Patriarch of Moscow (as did St. John Maximovitch) at the Proskomedia, ever since I have been a priest (30 years and more now, starting back in NJ).

        When, in 1990, Patriarch Pimen died, I intoned "Vechmaya pamyat" for him at the end of a Sunday Liturgy in our Chicago cathedral. The choir sang "Vechnaya pamyat", and there were no complaints that I ever heard of, then or afterward.

        > These are my opinions and as I stated earlier I hope that you will
        > provide me with your thoughts/guidance as part of our ongoing
        > discussion.

        > Father John: That [removing delegates for their views] has not been the case in this Diocese.

        > Vova: I am glad to hear you say that. I am also glad to see that you
        > restricted it to only the Diocese you serve in.

        JRS: I didn't really restrict it, but I have no direct knowledge of anything else.

        > However, it appears
        > that at least one such attempt was made at the highest levels of our
        > Church.

        JRS: As I understood it, the idea was that an American ambassador would have a conflict of interests. But in the end, they decided to let it go.

        > My answer to that
        > absurd question/comment was and is, "Who cares!!!???"

        JRS: There are a slew of questions that I would prefer to answer in the same words. However, we have had complaints about "non-answers", so I refrain from saying that.

        > I am left wondering if the
        > persons that made false accusations will ask for forgiveness from the
        > victims of those false insinuations and accusations?

        JRS: There have been a lot of false accusations going around, including false accusations of making false accusations, on several sides. My advice: don't hold your breath waiting...

        > Father John please except my apology for placing so many
        > questions/issues before your trip.

        JRS: There will be plenty of questions/issues on the trip, too. They never end, at least in this life.

        In Christ
        Fr. John R. Shaw
        CoreComm Webmail.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.