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

Re: Acronyms and You

Expand Messages
  • Mike Woodson
    Dear Aleksandr, First, I didn t write what you ascribed to me below. You should go back and research the original post from which that language came and then
    Message 1 of 29 , Oct 19, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Aleksandr,

      First, I didn't write what you ascribed to me below. You should go
      back and research the original post from which that language came and
      then address that person rather than manually truncate a message, put
      my name with something someone else wrote, and then proceed on that
      false basis. Let's not cross examine the wrong witness, Mr. Prosecutor
      (You'll make a good one someday, a just one I'm sure). Please correct
      that at your earliest.

      --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, Aleksandr Andreev
      <aleksandr.andreev@...> wrote:
      >
      > Mike Woodson wrote:
      > >> is the document below from Patr.Alexey II deceitful and a lie?


      No, I did not write the above.


      > I think, to be logical, Mr. Woodson should be the first supporting
      the current
      > process of reconciliation with the Moscow Patriarchate. Why? Because
      he and
      > like-minded individuals love to quote from documents of the Moscow
      > Patriarchate.

      Aleks, it is a logical fallacy to argue that if someone quotes from
      one source or another, that means that they must support the views and
      passions of the quoted source, rather than quoting them for some other
      purpose or to illustrate something observed about their communications
      and content.

      Another logical error we must try to avoid is the straw man fallacy.
      When I leave all of your comments in context by using the reply button
      and not truncating your comments, and then respond to each of your
      arguments in context, I find it helps to avoid the "straw man"
      fallacy, and to avoid falsely quoting you or quoting you out of
      context. This helps to avoid making arguments based on the false
      assumptions implied by the partial or out-of-context quotes.

      As for your assertion that I "love to quote from documents of the
      Moscow Patriarchate," please find examples enough to support that
      argument in my posts. As I recall writing my posts, I have quoted what
      the MP has said, stated and released (and has not corrected) in the
      government dominated presses of Russia versus what their
      representatives have stated to our clergy by clergy report, written
      statement etc., the "forked tongue" phenomena of the hydra, so to speak.

      >But here's something interesting: do we see them quoting
      > from the
      > "Basic Social Concept of the Russian Church"? No. Do we see them
      >quoting from
      > the "Attitude of the Russian Church to the Heterodox"? No. Do wee
      see them
      > quoting from the latest MP documents about dialog with the Roman
      > Catholics? No.

      Aleks, for me to quote from these sources, there would have to be a
      reason considering what I write in the next para. Why don't you quote
      from them to support the propositions that you think they support, and
      we can discuss that here on the forum.

      I have found it more relevant to quote sources that deal directly with
      the behavior of the MP, and the RF government, during their courtship
      of the ROCOR. By annexing the credibility of the Russian Orthodox
      Church Abroad and Outside Russia, the MP hopes to camouflage the
      reality of its desire to bury the Mystery of Repentance.

      Again and again, we hear what the MP has said, written or declared.
      But it is more important to watch what it does and does not do. It
      does not renounce nationalism, but embraces it. Fr. Justin Popovich
      wrote: "It is now high time--the twelfth hour--time for our Church
      representatives to cease being nothing but the servants of nationalism
      and for them to become bishops and priests of the One, Holy, Catholic,
      and Apostolic Church."

      What happens? Patriarch Alexei II gave as his chief reason why the
      "reconciliation" must occur now: the Russians outside of Russia and
      their Church were losing their "Russianness." Nothing could be more
      nationalistic than that call to nationalism as the purpose for
      "reconciliation." This was consistent with Vladimir Putin's purpose
      when he told us that Russia could not be united as a nation until the
      Church "united." "Reconciliation" or "unification" are and were false
      terms of propagandistic art that presupposed that the Church had been
      divided (prevailed against) and mischaracterized the communion
      suspension as a division rather than a prescription for healing the
      wound that the MP was and is on the One Church without its officials'
      full Repentance. At least offer to resign; even Don Rumsfeld has done
      that.

      From the MP perspective, "uniting" means severance of the Mystery of
      Repentance from the Holy Mysteries (Communion) and the attempted
      joining of Russian nationalism to the Holy Mysteries of Communion in
      its place.

      And Russian nationalism demands that genuine and unmitigated humility,
      the hallmark of Repentance and Queen of Virtues, be glossed over so
      that national unity may contain its strongest glue: National Pride.

      So what we have is Pride telling the Church what to do. The Mystery of
      Repentance belongs to Christ, and Vladimir Putin, nor any Churchman on
      his behalf has no right under God to persuade or order the ROCOR to
      turn it over to the MP and to the RF itself for the economy of
      nationalism. Would you join God with mammon? No. So why this?


      > Surely they know about the existence of these documents, since they
      are so
      > versed in MP (and KGB!) archival data. Then why are they not willing to
      > discuss
      > *them*, as opposed to Cold-War Era documents, which, both sides have
      > agreed, are
      > *no longer in force*.

      Documents do nothing if honesty is lacking. You see, a law doesn't
      keep a government from arranging the death of a journalist, or from
      coercing journalists into failing to report grave crimes in Russia
      that might humble Russian nationalism as it is now using Western sins
      to justify it's commandeering the One Russian Orthodox Church, and
      killing journalists who point out Russian nationalist sins.

      >
      > They also like to quote Metropolitan Sergius. But why not quote from his
      > dissertation "The Orthodox Teaching on Salvation" or from his paper
      "Does
      > Christ have a vicar on the Earth?" or other documents as opposed to
      pounding
      > into the ground the "Declaration", which, once again, is *no longer
      in force*?
      > The "Declaration" may be interesting for historians, but this is not
      a list
      > about Russian Church History.

      Aleksandr, be advised: Metropolitan Sergius spoke for the Soviet
      spirit at one time, and I certainly do not say that he always did
      speak for that spirit. What I do say is that once that spirit had the
      dagger point to his carotid-artery, he could make them look good with
      all manner of spiritualized writings, which would also cause him to
      feel a sense of personal relief that he could write those things,
      because of the successive druggings and guilt-counter-guilt that was
      imposed by his handlers and interrogators.

      The regime wanted to be able to claim that here was the Metropolitan,
      producing writings that did his USSR proud, not lacking in the "social
      consciousness" of the Soviet "Socialist" Republic, and making it seem
      tolerant of religions at once. Well, it had already subjugated the
      religious life of all who labored under the USSR's iron yoke, and it
      sculpted the modern MP from the bone and blood of the martyrs, so that
      when the angel of light spoke over the peaceful subjugation, all
      appeared calm, tranquil and resolved for a long time in the USSR
      before its collapse. I don't see that as a holy calm, but one caused
      by killing that many Russians did not know the extent or impact thereof.

      Today, former USSR officials pretend to lead the One Russian Church in
      a spiritual renewal to save their own official skins and re-acquire
      power, their two chief concerns. Chief among the tasks the MP is
      charged with is eliminating the ROCOR for the legitimacy of the
      Russian Federation government of Vladimir Putin at home, and of his
      powerbase's selected successors.

      If the ROCOR were allowed to remain separate, it might again become a
      voice of Holy Spiritual conscience against the regime's actions and
      plans for Russia in the world. If it is defeated by this regime and
      MP, it will cease to be a threat to the world, the flesh and the devil.


      >
      > Perhaps they would care to engage in a discussion of current MP
      documents ...
      > unless, of course, they have not read them, in which case I defer to the
      > opinion of those who have, like our bishops.

      Documents-schmokuments. It doesn't matter what amendatory things are
      said or written; it matters what is done and not done in concert with
      Holy scriptures and examples and teachings of the saints and holy
      fathers that counts in the repentant stories that are published in the
      Book of Life, or else the Church is now an institution of legalism; or
      worse, magic, in which what is said or invoked justifies. God forbid.
      What pleases God according to the prayer book we read? Faithful
      actions consistent with the honoring of the Commandments and the Body
      and Bride of the Lord Jesus Christ on which every spiritual Mystery
      benefits people instead of harming them. What is the cornerstone of
      our prayers? Repentance. What is that which the MP wishes to bury?
      Repentance.

      It doesn't matter what you say, or how many times you partake of the
      Holy Mysteries: if you partake of them unto non-repentance and the
      attempt to justify sinful passions such as nationalism, then what will
      happen to you and that nation by the Fire of the Holy Mysteries? Are
      high-flying nationalist emotions worth that?


      > --
      > Aleksandr A Andreev
      > Duke University
      > aleksandr.andreev@...
      > http://www.duke.edu/~aa63/
      >

      Michael
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.