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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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.