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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.