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

Re: In 1981, the ROCOR Glorified Five Members of Metropolitan

Expand Messages
  • Bushunow, Peter
    Dimitra posts an excerpt from Fr. David ... Old Calendar Greek monastery of Holy Transfiguration. That group of monastics had a significant impact on ROCOR
    Message 1 of 10 , Aug 31, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Dimitra posts an excerpt from Fr. David
      >"Various personalities were mentioned and of particular note is the
      Old Calendar Greek monastery of Holy Transfiguration. >That group of
      monastics had a significant impact on ROCOR from the time they were
      accepted into our Church (back in the >60's or early 70's) until the
      time they went into schism to avoid the eccelsiastical trial of their
      "elder" Fr >>Panteleimon. Almost all of the rigorist and exclusivist
      attitudes present in ROCOR today can be traced to that influence
      >(either direct or through the heirarchs that they influenced.)"

      It is absurd to impugn that the monastics of HTM pushed ROCOR into an
      exclusivist attitude. Those who fled the atheistic persecutions of
      communism, whether they emigrated or remained in Russia, held to these
      truths far before anyone heard of HTM, and continue to hold to them
      today, regardless of what the monastics of HTM think. Those of us who
      pray that our Lord will lead the hierarchs of the MP to repentance base
      our opinions on a firm foundation.
      "Our Russian Church Outside of Russia is established upon a firm and
      immovable canonical foundation: the decree of His Holiness, Patriarch
      Tikhon dated 7/20 November 1920, #362. This historic decree is one of
      the very last--we shall say, more prophetic--acts of the FREE Church of
      Russia, which has not lost its meaning even to the present day, in view
      of the fact that the Patriarchate of Moscow is hitherto not free and is
      enslaved to the atheists." Address of the Synod of Bishops, Nov. 7/20,
      1987
      http://www.roca.org/OA/74/74a.htm

      This is an article worth re-reading.
      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]
    • Anna Voellmecke
      ... On the contrary, it is absolutely accurate. Before HTM s influence, ROCOR bishops were far more open to the heterodox and to other Orthodox. After our
      Message 2 of 10 , Aug 31, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        At 04:28 PM 8/31/2006, you wrote:

        >It is absurd to impugn that the monastics of HTM pushed ROCOR into an
        >exclusivist attitude.

        On the contrary, it is absolutely accurate. Before HTM's influence,
        ROCOR bishops were far more open to the heterodox and to other
        Orthodox. After our bishops received that monastery, they were a
        church-within-a-church and went about spreading the ecclesiology of
        the former priestmonk Panteleimon. To have been in ROCOR and not to
        have been aware of this, one must have been deeply embedded in a
        Russian ghetto, indeed.

        The Russian rank-and-file emigres just hated communism. Their
        identity was primarily "We Aren't the Moscow Patriarchate." Few had
        any notion of spreading Orthodoxy. They were keeping their own
        spiritual and cultural world alive. They didn't give a hoot about the
        heterodox or other Orthodox.

        Anna V.
      • V. Boitchenko
        It is not as absurd as someone might think. Before accepting HTM, it seemed that ROCOR s had an issue only with the MP. After accepting HTM, it was not just MP
        Message 3 of 10 , Sep 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          It is not as absurd as someone might think. Before accepting HTM, it seemed that ROCOR's had an issue only with the MP. After accepting HTM, it was not just MP but also new calendar Greeks, Bulgarians and essentially all of the Orthodox. As a matter of fact, the term "World Orthodoxy" with negative connotation came from old calendar Greeks and became widely used in ROCOR only after accepting HTM.

          viatcheslav

          >It is absurd to impugn that the monastics of HTM pushed ROCOR into an
          >exclusivist attitude.
          >Peter



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • michael nikitin
          The Greeks joined ROCOR after Holy Metr.Philaret wrote his three Sorrowful Epistles to Patr.Athenagoras who lifted the anathema of 1054 against the Roman
          Message 4 of 10 , Sep 1, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            The Greeks joined ROCOR after Holy Metr.Philaret wrote
            his three "Sorrowful Epistles" to Patr.Athenagoras who lifted the
            anathema of 1054 against the Roman Catholic Church in 1965.

            The lifting of the anathema of 1054 was the reason ROCOR stopped
            having any relationship with the New Calendarist Greeks and those
            with them.

            http://nektarios.home.comcast.net/1465.html

            http://nektarios.home.comcast.net/1537.html

            Michael N

            "V. Boitchenko" <tompkins440@...> wrote:
            It is not as absurd as someone might think. Before accepting HTM, it seemed that ROCOR's had an issue only with the MP. After accepting HTM, it was not just MP but also new calendar Greeks, Bulgarians and essentially all of the Orthodox. As a matter of fact, the term "World Orthodoxy" with negative connotation came from old calendar Greeks and became widely used in ROCOR only after accepting HTM.

            viatcheslav

            >It is absurd to impugn that the monastics of HTM pushed ROCOR into an
            >exclusivist attitude.
            >Peter

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






            ---------------------------------
            Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Fr. Alexander Lebedeff
            ... Actually, it is absolutely correct. Prior to the creation of the HTM church within the church and its influence, the Church Abroad was far broader in
            Message 5 of 10 , Sep 1, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Peter Bushunow wrote:

              >It is absurd to impugn that the monastics of HTM pushed ROCOR into an
              >exclusivist attitude.


              Actually, it is absolutely correct.

              Prior to the creation of the HTM "church within the church" and its
              influence, the Church Abroad was far "broader" in its views with
              regards to the official Local Churches. Concelebrations were frequent.

              We just recalled how Bishop Damian of the Ecumenical Patriarchate
              participated in the Service of Nomination at the time of the
              consecration of Archimandrite Philaret to be Bishop of Brisbane in 1963.

              In 1965, Archbishop Iakovos came to the Synod building on 93rd st. to
              serve a Trisagion before the remains of Metropolitan Anastassy.

              These things would become unthinkable a few years later, under the
              influence of HTM.

              It should be remembered tha Metropolitans Anthony and Anastassy
              **always** considered the Church Abroad to be a very real part of the
              whole of the Orthodox Church--no matter what the calendar.
              Metropolitan Anthony participated in the enthroniztion of Patriarch
              Myron of Romania (new calendar), for example. Metropolitan Anastassy
              assisted Patriarch Damian of Jerusalem in restoring the hierarchy of
              the Jerusalem Patriarchate.

              Throughout the term of Metropolitan Anastassy, all commemorations of
              bishops at litanies and at the Great Entrance began with the words
              "The Holy Orthodox Patriarchs."

              HTM was the instigator of the Decision of the Sobor of Bishops of the
              ROCOR (1971) changing the method of reception of converts from the
              time-honored practice of the Church of Russia and HTM was the author
              of the Anathema against Ecumenism of 1983.

              HTM instigated contacts of ROCOR with the various Old Calendar Greek
              jurisdictions in the 1970s --which Metropolitan Anastassy would never
              have permitted, as he was always concerned about having good
              relations with the official Local Orthodox Churches.

              So--it is perfectly clear that the "monastics of HTM" did a great
              deal in pushing the ROCOR into a more exclusivist ttitude.

              with love in Christ,

              Prot. Alexander Lebedeff

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • michael nikitin
              Those who are in HOCNA joined ROCOR after Holy Metr.Philaret wrote his three Sorrowful Epistles in 1965, after Patr.Athenagoras of the EP lifted the anathema
              Message 6 of 10 , Sep 1, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Those who are in HOCNA joined ROCOR after Holy Metr.Philaret wrote
                his three "Sorrowful Epistles" in 1965, after Patr.Athenagoras of the EP
                lifted the anathema of 1054 against the Roman Catholic Church. All
                relations with the New Calendar Greeks were severed. The Old Calendar
                Greeks or HTM had nothiing to do with this.

                After the Anathema of 1983 we could not pray with any of those who
                are in WCC and ecumenism. And that means those local Churches who
                are in WCC and ecumenism and call themselves official.

                That HTM had an Orthodox Spirit as did ROCOR under Holy Metr.Philaret
                is not surprising. All orthodox, whether Greeks, Romanians,Georgians,Russians,
                etc...are of the same spirit.

                If HTM was the author of the Anathema of 1983 and I wouldn't doubt that Holy Metr.Philaret would give them the honor to author it, why did all the bishops sign
                it in 1983 AND reaffirm it in 1998 when HTM was no longer with us?

                Michael N


                "Fr. Alexander Lebedeff" <lebedeff@...> wrote:
                Peter Bushunow wrote:

                >It is absurd to impugn that the monastics of HTM pushed ROCOR into an
                >exclusivist attitude.

                Actually, it is absolutely correct.

                Prior to the creation of the HTM "church within the church" and its
                influence, the Church Abroad was far "broader" in its views with
                regards to the official Local Churches. Concelebrations were frequent.

                We just recalled how Bishop Damian of the Ecumenical Patriarchate
                participated in the Service of Nomination at the time of the
                consecration of Archimandrite Philaret to be Bishop of Brisbane in 1963.

                In 1965, Archbishop Iakovos came to the Synod building on 93rd st. to
                serve a Trisagion before the remains of Metropolitan Anastassy.

                These things would become unthinkable a few years later, under the
                influence of HTM.

                It should be remembered tha Metropolitans Anthony and Anastassy
                **always** considered the Church Abroad to be a very real part of the
                whole of the Orthodox Church--no matter what the calendar.
                Metropolitan Anthony participated in the enthroniztion of Patriarch
                Myron of Romania (new calendar), for example. Metropolitan Anastassy
                assisted Patriarch Damian of Jerusalem in restoring the hierarchy of
                the Jerusalem Patriarchate.

                Throughout the term of Metropolitan Anastassy, all commemorations of
                bishops at litanies and at the Great Entrance began with the words
                "The Holy Orthodox Patriarchs."

                HTM was the instigator of the Decision of the Sobor of Bishops of the
                ROCOR (1971) changing the method of reception of converts from the
                time-honored practice of the Church of Russia and HTM was the author
                of the Anathema against Ecumenism of 1983.

                HTM instigated contacts of ROCOR with the various Old Calendar Greek
                jurisdictions in the 1970s --which Metropolitan Anastassy would never
                have permitted, as he was always concerned about having good
                relations with the official Local Orthodox Churches.

                So--it is perfectly clear that the "monastics of HTM" did a great
                deal in pushing the ROCOR into a more exclusivist ttitude.

                with love in Christ,

                Prot. Alexander Lebedeff

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






                ---------------------------------
                Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Fr. John R. Shaw
                ... JRS: In fact, the bishops did not sign the anathema in 1983. As Fr. Alexander showed, the bishops were not even aware that the matter had been resolved ,
                Message 7 of 10 , Sep 1, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, michael nikitin <nikitinmike@...> wrote:

                  > If HTM was the author of the Anathema of 1983 ... why did all the bishops sign
                  > it in 1983 AND reaffirm it in 1998 when HTM was no longer with us?

                  JRS: In fact, the bishops did not sign the anathema in 1983.

                  As Fr. Alexander showed, the bishops were not even aware that the matter had been
                  "resolved", but Bishop Gregory wrote it into the minutes.

                  In 1998, the bishops reaffirmed their position on ecumenism, because they had, by then,
                  been accused for 12 years of having reversed it.

                  In Christ
                  Fr. John R. Shaw
                • michael nikitin
                  Fr.John I don t recall Fr.Alexander showing us anything? The bishops reaffirmed the anathema of 1983. If they didn t sign it in 1983 they did when they
                  Message 8 of 10 , Sep 4, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Fr.John I don't recall Fr.Alexander showing us anything? The bishops reaffirmed the anathema of 1983. If they didn't sign it in 1983 they did when they reaffirmed it in 1998. I never heard of any bishop complaining that they didn't sign the
                    anathema of 1983 and reaffirming it in 1998 is agreeing with it.

                    If the bishops reaffirmed it only because they were accused by the faithful of having reversed it, did they do this to deceit the faithful or do they truly
                    believe it? If they believe it, what's the problem ,Fr.John?

                    We should not pray with the MP and Serbs who are in WCC and ecumenism as this is the reason for the faithful believing it was reversed and the bishops quick reaffirming the anathema of 1983 in 1998.

                    What exactly is Fr.John trying to tell us?

                    Michael N

                    "Fr. John R. Shaw" <vrevjrs@...> wrote: --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, michael nikitin <nikitinmike@...> wrote:

                    > If HTM was the author of the Anathema of 1983 ... why did all the bishops sign
                    > it in 1983 AND reaffirm it in 1998 when HTM was no longer with us?

                    JRS: In fact, the bishops did not sign the anathema in 1983.

                    As Fr. Alexander showed, the bishops were not even aware that the matter had been
                    "resolved", but Bishop Gregory wrote it into the minutes.

                    In 1998, the bishops reaffirmed their position on ecumenism, because they had, by then,
                    been accused for 12 years of having reversed it.

                    In Christ
                    Fr. John R. Shaw






                    ---------------------------------
                    Want to be your own boss? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Fr. John R. Shaw
                    ... JRS: I m sure you don t recall . That s why we keep repeating the same exchanges ad infinitum. ... JRS: So far as I know, they never signed it at all.
                    Message 9 of 10 , Sep 5, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, michael nikitin <nikitinmike@...> wrote:

                      > Fr.John I don't recall Fr.Alexander showing us anything?

                      JRS: I'm sure you don't "recall". That's why we keep repeating the same exchanges ad
                      infinitum.

                      > The bishops reaffirmed the anathema of 1983. If they didn't sign it in 1983 they did
                      >when they reaffirmed it in 1998.

                      JRS: So far as I know, they never signed it at all. There was a Synodal decision reaffirming
                      ROCOR's opposition to ecumenism, in response to the endless, false accusations against
                      our Church.

                      > We should not pray with the MP and Serbs who are in WCC and ecumenism as this is
                      >the reason for the faithful believing it was reversed and the bishops quick reaffirming
                      >the anathema of 1983 in 1998.

                      JRS: Actually, few of the faithful are critical of, or even interested in, the "external policies"
                      of ROCOR. However, some of them have been confused by the self-serving attacks on
                      ROCOR, made by HOCNA, ROAC, ROCiE and other groups.
                      >
                      > What exactly is Fr.John trying to tell us?

                      JRS: Fr. John is trying to tell us that we should listen to what our Metropolitan and Synod
                      have to say about ROCOR: and ignore the disinformation spread by ROCOR's enemies.

                      In Christ
                      Fr. John R. Shaw
                    • Mike Woodson
                      Dear Rev. Fr. Alexander: Exclusivist attitudes are neither good or bad of themselves. It depends what is being excluded. If what is being excluded pleases
                      Message 10 of 10 , Sep 5, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Dear Rev. Fr. Alexander:

                        Exclusivist attitudes are neither good or bad of themselves. It
                        depends what is being excluded. If what is being excluded pleases God
                        to exclude, exclusivity is good.

                        In the New Testament, the Lord Jesus Christ taught His own to separate
                        themselves from the practices of His own, yet all were Jews. He
                        taught His own not to adopt the leaven of His own. How He had
                        stretched His arms out to Jerusalem, but it would not come to Him.
                        And so rather than compromise and join the majority who would not come
                        to Him, He chose to die +exclusively uncompromised+ for them all
                        before the Heavenly Father and Holy Spirit, His co-eternal Persons and
                        One God, and the entirety of existence knew God did this.

                        > We just recalled how Bishop Damian of the Ecumenical Patriarchate
                        > participated in the Service of Nomination at the time of the
                        > consecration of Archimandrite Philaret to be Bishop of Brisbane in 1963.
                        >
                        > In 1965, Archbishop Iakovos came to the Synod building on 93rd st. to
                        > serve a Trisagion before the remains of Metropolitan Anastassy.
                        >
                        > These things would become unthinkable a few years later, under the
                        > influence of HTM.


                        The things that the Ecumenical Patriarchate had conceded had also
                        become unthinkable for the keeping of Orthodox Christian traditions,
                        hadn't they? Also, hadn't the Soviets, in part through the MP sought
                        to incite and influence the other jurisdictions against the ROCOR?

                        It is the doctors who are the worst patients it is said, who, upon
                        *feeling* better leave the hospital prematurely while still contagious
                        and risk the spread of disease among patients. Such is the MP. The
                        erosion of the holy traditions (EP and MP at present) by example would
                        include the failure to follow one's own Church's previously subscribed
                        medical advice for *fully* treating illnesses of the soul. And the
                        most fearful thing is a spiritual contagion on the hands of those who
                        purport to heal, for when the real healer is available, the people do
                        not trust.

                        > It should be remembered tha Metropolitans Anthony and Anastassy
                        > **always** considered the Church Abroad to be a very real part of the
                        > whole of the Orthodox Church--no matter what the calendar.

                        And an organ of the whole body with immune cell responsibilities may
                        make the rest of the body *feel* bad even while "instigating"
                        conditions designed to the kill the viruses circulating through that
                        ailing body, and making entrance into the immune organ conditional on
                        cleansing. That's a good instigation in the Church militant, isn't
                        it? And spiritual physicians may even institute quarantines via
                        communion suspensions to heal other parts of the body not out of
                        haughtiness, but out of love and wisdom.

                        > Metropolitan Anthony participated in the enthroniztion of Patriarch
                        > Myron of Romania (new calendar), for example. Metropolitan Anastassy
                        > assisted Patriarch Damian of Jerusalem in restoring the hierarchy of
                        > the Jerusalem Patriarchate.

                        Consider that as spiritual physicians, hierarchs of the ROCOR with
                        their counterparts who were spiritual in any jurisdiction, were able
                        to exercise judgment in what medicine and healing they would involve
                        themselves in. They were there, we weren't. Did they turn the ROCOR
                        over to the EP? You write as if they would have or should have. Is
                        this supposed to imply a precedent for the lifting of the communion
                        suspension with the current MP, and so release all barriers to the
                        MP's canonical power to rule ROCA?

                        And yet no Metropolitan of the ROCOR ever turned their flock over to
                        the Ecumencial Patriarch or the Moscow Patriarchate for spiritual
                        leadership while these others continued twisting the faith under
                        external influences. However, you would imply, it seems, that turning
                        the ROCOR over to the inevitable canonical control of the Moscow
                        Patriarchate now, by a lifting the suspension of communion is
                        analogical to what the ROCOR's Metropolitans would have done in their
                        relations to the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

                        The suspension of Holy Communion was never about suspension of Holy
                        Communion for the sake of interrupting communion among jurisdictions.
                        It was adopted as a method of healing for some jurisdictional
                        leaderships that have been led their flocks into the erosion of
                        Orthodox Christian traditions.

                        > Throughout the term of Metropolitan Anastassy, all commemorations of
                        > bishops at litanies and at the Great Entrance began with the words
                        > "The Holy Orthodox Patriarchs."

                        Commemoration is prayer for them. And yet we do not pray for the only
                        Holy One, God, as if He needed our prayers. And so if the Patriarchs
                        need prayers, it suggests that they are subject to ailing when doing
                        other than administering communion. If outside of administering
                        communion, leaders of the flock are exemplifying or teaching
                        incomplete repentance, then communion becomes a dangerous thing to
                        those following an example of ill-preparation for receiving the
                        Eucharist. St. Paul warned against this.

                        > HTM was the instigator of the Decision of the Sobor of Bishops of the
                        > ROCOR (1971) changing the method of reception of converts from the
                        > time-honored practice of the Church of Russia and HTM was the author
                        > of the Anathema against Ecumenism of 1983.

                        Time honored things change when dishonorable circumstances over time
                        require it to make them God honored instead of time honored. However,
                        even at the first Council of the Church recounted in Acts of the
                        Apostles, variances in fasting rules were made for various convert
                        peoples according to their spiritual condition. Isn't that the case
                        with the changes in reception alluded to above?

                        > HTM instigated contacts of ROCOR with the various Old Calendar Greek
                        > jurisdictions in the 1970s --which Metropolitan Anastassy would never
                        > have permitted, as he was always concerned about having good
                        > relations with the official Local Orthodox Churches.

                        When you speak for Metropolitan Anastassy, you claim the ability to
                        say what the holy hierarch would have judged to be right in times
                        after his blessed repose? You say what he would "never," do and choose
                        some brothers over other brothers, implying a permanance of division
                        between the OC Greek believers and the NC believers, and so go way
                        beyond those now opposing the lifting of the communion suspension
                        under this MP leadership lineup. The criticism of the OC Greeks also
                        comes at a time when discredting the OC Greeks has become important
                        for the MP to get what it wants from the ROCOR, again reasserting its
                        old leadership style of "divide and conquer."

                        After long periods of engaging in institutional sins of power by
                        participation and or consent, it makes sense for repentance to include
                        giving up power by the Soviet era MP hierarchy and its disciples. How
                        otherwise is repentance exemplified from the top? And how else can we
                        be more certain that those serving are serving in answer to the call
                        of Christ and not the devil?

                        > So--it is perfectly clear that the "monastics of HTM" did a great
                        > deal in pushing the ROCOR into a more exclusivist ttitude.
                        >
                        > with love in Christ,
                        >
                        > Prot. Alexander Lebedeff
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


                        deferring to the love of Christ,
                        a sinner,
                        Michael
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.