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

Re: [orthodox-synod] Re: In 1981, the ROCOR Glorified Five Members of Metropolitan

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 10 , Aug 31 3:55 PM
    • 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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.