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

Re: [orthodox-synod] "Canonical Consequences", by Fr. Alexander Lebedeff

Expand Messages
  • Theodora Wright
    To Point 13, I have asked before and so have a few others, what is the history and where does the Holy Myrrh come from? Considering the history of Russia one
    Message 1 of 23 , Nov 3 8:38 AM
      To Point 13, I have asked before and so have a few others, what is the history and where does the Holy Myrrh come from? Considering the history of Russia one wonders if it was hidden? or if "new" was produced. It is a long procedure, I have been told, to produce Holy Myrrh. Could you please review this step by step. I will then post it to those asking me. I am not so educated on these things.

      Thank you

      Theodora in The Mountains



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Fr. John R. Shaw
      ... JRS: Prior to 1953, ROCOR used Chrism provided by the Serbian Orthodox Church. In 1953, there was a consecration of Chrism in Jordanville, but Metropolitan
      Message 2 of 23 , Nov 3 2:25 PM
        --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Theodora Wright" <theomtn@...> wrote:

        > To Point 13, I have asked before and so have a few others, what is the history and where
        >does the Holy Myrrh come from? Considering the history of Russia one wonders if it
        >was hidden? or if "new" was produced. It is a long procedure, I have been told, to
        >produce Holy Myrrh. Could you please review this step by step. I will then post it to
        >those asking me. I am not so educated on these things.

        JRS: Prior to 1953, ROCOR used Chrism provided by the Serbian Orthodox Church.

        In 1953, there was a consecration of Chrism in Jordanville, but Metropolitan Anastassy
        opposed it, on the grounds that ROCOR did not have the right to consecrate its own
        Chrism, being only a part of the Russian Church.

        Since 1953, no more Chrism has been consecrated in ROCOR.

        What is still left from that consecration over 50 years ago, is rapidly being used up.

        In Christ
        Fr. John R. Shaw
      • Theodora Wright
        Thank you I knew about ROCOR. The question asked of me what about MP s. Holy Myrrh. Do you know that history to present? Theodora in The Mountains ... JRS:
        Message 3 of 23 , Nov 3 2:47 PM
          Thank you I knew about ROCOR. The question asked of me what about MP's. Holy Myrrh. Do you know that history to present?

          Theodora in The Mountains





          --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Theodora Wright" <theomtn@...> wrote:

          > To Point 13, I have asked before and so have a few others, what is the history and where
          >does the Holy Myrrh come from? Considering the history of Russia one wonders if it
          >was hidden? or if "new" was produced. It is a long procedure, I have been told, to
          >produce Holy Myrrh. Could you please review this step by step. I will then post it to
          >those asking me. I am not so educated on these things.

          JRS: Prior to 1953, ROCOR used Chrism provided by the Serbian Orthodox Church.

          In 1953, there was a consecration of Chrism in Jordanville, but Metropolitan Anastassy
          opposed it, on the grounds that ROCOR did not have the right to consecrate its own
          Chrism, being only a part of the Russian Church.

          Since 1953, no more Chrism has been consecrated in ROCOR.

          What is still left from that consecration over 50 years ago, is rapidly being used up.

          In Christ
          Fr. John R. Shaw





          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Mike Woodson
          This entire explanation is predicated on the assumption that the Moscow Patriarch Alexei II and many of his would-be successors, legitimately FILL the
          Message 4 of 23 , Nov 3 3:09 PM
            This entire explanation is predicated on the assumption that the
            Moscow Patriarch Alexei II and many of his would-be successors,
            legitimately FILL the canonical office of the Patriarch of Moscow and
            of All Russias.

            The Office is canonical and certainly autocephalous and legitimate.
            However, the officer, if grafted into that office by an atheist
            abomination, is not canonical, autocephalous or legitimate.

            If the office is not truly filled, then the Office is empty, and
            someone qualified needs to be named.

            Michael


            --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John R. Shaw"
            <vrevjrs@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > Canonical Assessment of the "Act of Canonical Communion"
            > (Lecture at the IV All-Diaspora Council)
            >
            > Protopriest Alexander Lebedeff
            >
            > The published "Act of Canonical Communion" is based on canonical
            principles and
            > concepts which are not at all commonly known. It is therefore
            necessary to clarify in detail
            > several aspects of canonical terminology.
            >
            > Firstly, one must stress the canonical definition of the concept of
            an "autocephalous
            > Church." The Church teaches that an autocephalous Church is
            completely independent in
            > its administration. The very term "autocephalous" means that such a
            Church has the right
            > to elect her own Primate with complete, without the need for
            confirmation by any other
            > authority.
            >
            > Also, no Church can declare itself autocephalous. This status must
            be bestowed by a
            > universally-accepted autocephalous Church through the granting of a
            special formal
            > document called a "Tomos."
            >
            > If the declaration of autocephaly is accepted by all the other
            autocephalous Churches, the
            > name of the Primate of the new autocephalous Church is entered by
            the Patriarch of
            > Constantinople into the so-called "Dyptich," that is, the official
            roster of Primates of
            > autocephalous Churches, commemorated during a certain rite at divine
            services.
            >
            > In accordance with a centuries-old tradition, which has become the
            rule, only the Primate
            > of an autocephalous Church has the right to consecrate Holy Myrrh.
            >
            > The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia never considered
            itself to be
            > autocephalous, but, as it is stated in its founding documents, is
            but "an indissoluble part
            > of the Local Russian Orthodox Church, and for the time until the
            extermination in Russia
            > of the atheist government, is self-governing on conciliar
            principles" ( Regulations of the
            > Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia , par. 1).
            >
            > This is stated in the Encyclical Epistle of the Council of Bishops
            of the Russian Orthodox
            > Church Outside of Russia of 1933:
            >
            > "[T]he organs of the Ecclesiastical Administration Abroad have in
            nowise striven to
            > appropriate the rights of autocephaly for itself, as Metropolitan
            Sergius accuses us. To the
            > present day the entire Church organization abroad has considered and
            still considers itself
            > an extraordinary and temporary institution, which must be abolished
            without delay after
            > the restoration of normal social and ecclesiastical life in Russia."
            >
            > Therefore, point 4 of the Act—on the necessity of the confirmation
            of the election of the
            > First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia by
            the Primate of the
            > Local Russian Church, of which she always considered herself to be
            an indissoluble part,
            > that is, the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and his Holy
            Synod—is a canonical
            > requirement.
            >
            > It must be remembered that the historical Russian Church, for
            hundreds of years after the
            > Baptism of Rus' (from 988 until 1448), was not autocephalous, and
            her First Hierarch was
            > confirmed, on canonical foundations, by the Patriarch of Constantinople.
            >
            > In accordance with the proposed Act, the canonical confirmation of
            new bishops of the
            > Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia by the Patriarch of Moscow
            and the Holy
            > Synod (point 7), and also the preceding point 6, on the confirmation
            or liquidation of
            > dioceses, are connected with point 8, according to which "the
            bishops of the Russian
            > Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are members of the Local Council
            and Council of
            > Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church and also participate in the
            meetings of the Holy
            > Synod in the prescribed order." If all the bishops of the Russian
            Church Abroad become
            > members of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church of
            the Moscow
            > Patriarchate, then the election of new bishops, who become members
            of this Council,
            > must be confirmed by the head of this Council on a canonical basis.
            There is no other
            > procedure in the Orthodox Church.
            >
            > Point 13 of the Act, on receiving Holy Myrrh from the Patriarch of
            Moscow, is a canonical
            > necessity, stemming naturally from the fact that the Russian
            Orthodox Church Outside of
            > Russia does not claim autocephaly.
            >
            > All these canonical stipulations must be viewed not as a sign of
            subjugation; they are the
            > normal and necessary elements of the relationship between any
            self-governing part of a
            > Local Church and her Primate. If in the past, their observance was
            impossible for the
            > Russian Church Abroad due to exceptional circumstances, now their
            observance becomes
            > possible, and for this reason, in light of the reestablishment of
            normal relations with the
            > Church in Russia, ecclesiastically necessary.
            >
            > The same should be said of point 5, on the commemoration of the
            Primate of the Russian
            > Orthodox Church; that is, the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia
            before the
            > commemoration of the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church
            Outside of Russia.
            > Prayerful commemoration of the Primate of a Local Church—the
            Patriarch—is a direct
            > requirement of the Holy Canons of the Orthodox Church.
            >
            > Canons 13, 14 and 15 of the First-and-Second Council clearly spell
            out the need for all
            > clergymen to commemorate their Patriarch. They thereby attest to
            their ecclesiastical
            > communion with him. Refusing to commemorate the Patriarch, according
            to Canon 15 of
            > the First-and-Second Council, is equated with introducing schism
            into the Church, and
            > such a cleric is subject to defrockment.
            >
            > Specifically, Canon 15 states:
            >
            > "[I]n case any presbyter, bishop or metropolitan dare to secede or
            apostatize from
            > communion of his own Patriarch, and fails to mention the latter's
            name in accordance with
            > custom duly fixed and ordained, in the divine Mystagogy, but, before
            a conciliar verdict
            > has been pronounced and has passed judgment against him, creates a
            schism, the holy
            > Council has decreed that this person shall be held an alien to every
            priestly function, if
            > only he be convicted of having committed this transgression of the law."
            >
            > Point 11 of the Act, on the right to appeal to the Patriarch as the
            highest instance of
            > appeal, is also based on commonly-accepted canonical law.
            >
            > Therefore, the Act of Canonical Communion contains only points which
            are stipulated by
            > concise canonical requirements.
            >
            > The Canonical Consequences of Adopting the Act of Canonical Communion
            >
            > The acceptance of the Act of Canonical Communion by the Council of
            Bishops of the
            > Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia places the Russian Church
            Abroad on a solid
            > canonical foundation, making clear that she is a living and active
            part of the pleroma , or
            > the fullness of the entire Orthodox Church. This is related to the
            recognition of her as
            > lawful and canonical by all the autocephalous Orthodox Churches, as
            provided by this
            > regularization.
            >
            > The signing of this Act will fulfill the self-definition of the
            Russian Church Abroad as an
            > indissoluble part of the Local Russian Orthodox Church,
            "self-governing on conciliar
            > principles until the extermination in Russia of the atheist
            government," and must now
            > change her temporary status to a permanent one, with consideration
            of its historical path.
            >
            > The execution of the Act will not lead to the abolishment of the
            Russian Church Abroad,
            > but to her complete preservation, with her own First Hierarch, her
            own Council of Bishops,
            > her Synod of Bishops, along with full self-government, while yet
            observing the given
            > requirements of the canons of the Orthodox Church.
            >
            > The signing of the Act opens the opportunity for bishops and
            clergymen of the Russian
            > Orthodox Church Outside of Russia not only to serve in all churches,
            monasteries and holy
            > places in our homeland, Russia, but also at the Sepulcher of the
            Lord and all the churches
            > in the Holy Land, and on Holy Mount Athos.
            >
            > The adoption of the Act allows us, specifically, to speak openly on
            the danger of
            > participating in the World Council of Churches, and to be heard.
            >
            > The adoption of the Act will serve to end the sorrowful division of
            the Russian Orthodox
            > people. The participation of our clergymen and faithful in the work
            of the spiritual rebirth
            > of the Russian people will rise to an entirely new level.
            >
            > The Canonical Consequences of Rejecting the Act of Canonical Communion
            >
            > The rejection of the Act under the present historical opportunities
            would mean the total
            > break of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia with all the
            Local Orthodox
            > Churches, which will then have every reason to deem us schismatic.
            >
            > The Serbian Orthodox Church, our last link with the fullness of
            canonical Orthodoxy, will
            > doubtless refuse communion with us.
            >
            > The rejection of the Act may in a very real sense persuade the
            Church of Jerusalem to
            > deem us schismatic, withdraw the existing blessing for our bishops
            and priests to serve in
            > the Holy Land, and retrieve the antimensia upon which we now serve.
            It threatens the total
            > loss of our Holy Sites.
            >
            > Rejecting the Act would make us, in the eyes of the Russian Orthodox
            Church,
            > schismatics, like the followers of Valentin Rusantsov, and will
            exclude the possibility of
            > participating in the church life of our homeland. At present, our
            voice is being heard, and
            > we are invited to participate in ecclesiastical and historical
            conferences. Rejecting the Act
            > would end such activity.
            >
            > Regarding the possible timeline of adopting the Act, that is, of
            reestablishing unity, as a
            > participant of the negotiating process, I can say the following:
            >
            > If the Act is not signed, the opportunity we have been given would
            quickly disappear. Not
            > only the Moscow Patriarchate, but the entire Orthodox world would
            thereby be convinced
            > that cannot be dealt with seriously, that we ourselves prefer to be
            essentially sectarians,
            > torn from the fullness of universal Orthodoxy, and do not wish to be
            united with our
            > much-suffering Church in the Fatherland and with canonical Orthodoxy.
            >
            > If this occurs, and if once again we were to desire to hold talks
            with the Russian Church in
            > the Fatherland, then—even if they agree to speak to us—it would be
            an entirely different
            > conversation. We will never again be given the opportunity to
            preserve the entire Church
            > Abroad as a completely self-governing Church. The best we could hope
            for would be that
            > the unconditional demand is made that we merge into the Moscow
            Patriarchate, which will
            > then indeed fully control our church matters—they will appoint and
            transfer bishops and
            > clergymen, etc.
            >
            > We now have the opportunity, through signing the Act of Canonical
            Communion, to ensure
            > the future of our dear Russian Church Abroad , specifically, by
            governing ourselves, and to
            > place her on a sound canonical foundation—this is necessary, since
            our right to fully
            > independent existence, which was only temporarily afforded on the
            basis of Ukase No. 362
            > by Patriarch Tikhon, cannot be canonically justified at all under
            the present circumstances.
            >
          • Theodora Wright
            I reckon no one on this list knows the history of MP s Holy Myrrh. sigh or maybe I am in the out house LOL but really, I can not tell someone what I
            Message 5 of 23 , Nov 4 7:47 AM
              I reckon no one on this list knows the history of MP's Holy Myrrh. sigh or maybe I am "in the out house" LOL but really, I can not tell someone what I don't know and that is the only reason I posted this question. As Point 13 in the Act says we will use MP's Holy Myrrh I thought the question a reasonable one. Perhaps they also use another's as ROCOR did?

              Theodora in The Mountains

              snip






              Thank you I knew about ROCOR. The question asked of me what about MP's. Holy Myrrh. Do you know that history to present?

              Theodora in The Mountains

              --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Theodora Wright" <theomtn@...> wrote:

              > To Point 13, I have asked before and so have a few others, what is the history and where
              >does the Holy Myrrh come from? Considering the history of Russia one wonders if it
              >was hidden? or if "new" was produced. It is a long procedure, I have been told, to
              >produce Holy Myrrh. Could you please review this step by step. I will then post it to
              >those asking me. I am not so educated on these things.

              JRS: Prior to 1953, ROCOR used Chrism provided by the Serbian Orthodox Church.

              In 1953, there was a consecration of Chrism in Jordanville, but Metropolitan Anastassy
              opposed it, on the grounds that ROCOR did not have the right to consecrate its own
              Chrism, being only a part of the Russian Church.

              Since 1953, no more Chrism has been consecrated in ROCOR.

              What is still left from that consecration over 50 years ago, is rapidly being used up.

              In Christ
              Fr. John R. Shaw

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





              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • George Edward Green III
              While touring the Kremlin we visited a room where Oil and Myrrh had been produced, it did mention where it is produced now but I didn t pay attention and have
              Message 6 of 23 , Nov 4 8:15 AM
                While touring the Kremlin we visited a room where Oil and Myrrh had
                been produced, it did mention where it is produced now but I didn't
                pay attention and have forgotten.

                I would imagine today it is consecrated at the Danilov Monastary,
                though I don't know as of when.

                I honestly suspect that during the Soviet period little was produced
                and the need for it was overlooked, though I'd love to know otherwise.

                George

                On Nov 4, 2006, at 10:47 AM, Theodora Wright wrote:

                > I reckon no one on this list knows the history of MP's Holy Myrrh.
                > sigh or maybe I am "in the out house" LOL but really, I can not
                > tell someone what I don't know and that is the only reason I posted
                > this question. As Point 13 in the Act says we will use MP's Holy
                > Myrrh I thought the question a reasonable one. Perhaps they also
                > use another's as ROCOR did?
                >
                > Theodora in The Mountains
                >
                > snip
                >
                > Thank you I knew about ROCOR. The question asked of me what about
                > MP's. Holy Myrrh. Do you know that history to present?
                >
                > Theodora in The Mountains
                >
                > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Theodora Wright"
                > <theomtn@...> wrote:
                >
                > > To Point 13, I have asked before and so have a few others, what
                > is the history and where
                > >does the Holy Myrrh come from? Considering the history of Russia
                > one wonders if it
                > >was hidden? or if "new" was produced. It is a long procedure, I
                > have been told, to
                > >produce Holy Myrrh. Could you please review this step by step. I
                > will then post it to
                > >those asking me. I am not so educated on these things.
                >
                > JRS: Prior to 1953, ROCOR used Chrism provided by the Serbian
                > Orthodox Church.
                >
                > In 1953, there was a consecration of Chrism in Jordanville, but
                > Metropolitan Anastassy
                > opposed it, on the grounds that ROCOR did not have the right to
                > consecrate its own
                > Chrism, being only a part of the Russian Church.
                >
                > Since 1953, no more Chrism has been consecrated in ROCOR.
                >
                > What is still left from that consecration over 50 years ago, is
                > rapidly being used up.
                >
                > In Christ
                > Fr. John R. Shaw
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >
                >



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • spiridon
                Sorry Theodora, I guess no one knows, but I did find some pictures of what it looks like when it is being made http://ocaphoto.oca.org/PhotoViewer.asp?EID=186
                Message 7 of 23 , Nov 4 10:47 AM
                  Sorry Theodora, I guess no one knows, but I did find some pictures of what it looks like when it is being made
                  http://ocaphoto.oca.org/PhotoViewer.asp?EID=186

                  in the autocephaly of the OCA, they were allowed to keep and continue that Same Holy Chrism that had been made from the Russian Orthodox church even before St.Tikhon...But the Rocor has the same Chrism from then aswell...my understanding is that Rocor has enough Chrism to last over 50 years, what will happen to all that Chrism is that it will probally be mixed as it always had been with the new(please correct me if Im wrong-Im a simple lay person)
                  at this point the Chrism of the Rocor will become as Gold, and soon it will be replaced by that of Mp`s, and like other things in Mp the origins of there Chrism is top secret, even to those from the Rocor,whom are a part of the Rocor-Mp council...
                  I wonder if this subject ever came up with the Bishops, or did it even matter , or was being able to visit and serve in there Homeland the only importance?
                  in Christ,
                  spiridon

                  below is the Oca article and letter D has the info on Chrism
                  Article II
                  Definition of Autocephaly

                  http://www.oca.org/DOCautocephaly.asp?SID=12&ID=64
                  The parties agree that by the “autocephaly” to be declared they intend that the Metropolia shall be independent and self-governing, in that it shall
                  (a) elect its head, and all of its bishops, without the approval, and without being subject to the veto, of any other church, organization or individual, whether of the Eastern Orthodox faith or any other faith,

                  (b) be governed in accordance with its own statutes, as adopted and as amended from time to time by its own highest legislative and executive body,

                  (c) conduct its relations directly with all other autocephalous organizations, whether of the Eastern Orthodox faith or any other faith, and

                  (d) possess all the rights, powers and privileges usually associated with autocephaly under the Canonical Tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church, including the right to prepare the Holy Chrism.




                  Theodora Wright <theomtn@...> wrote:
                  I reckon no one on this list knows the history of MP's Holy Myrrh. sigh or maybe I am "in the out house" LOL but really, I can not tell someone what I don't know and that is the only reason I posted this question. As Point 13 in the Act says we will use MP's Holy Myrrh I thought the question a reasonable one. Perhaps they also use another's as ROCOR did?

                  Theodora in The Mountains

                  snip

                  Thank you I knew about ROCOR. The question asked of me what about MP's. Holy Myrrh. Do you know that history to present?

                  Theodora in The Mountains

                  --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Theodora Wright" <theomtn@...> wrote:

                  > To Point 13, I have asked before and so have a few others, what is the history and where
                  >does the Holy Myrrh come from? Considering the history of Russia one wonders if it
                  >was hidden? or if "new" was produced. It is a long procedure, I have been told, to
                  >produce Holy Myrrh. Could you please review this step by step. I will then post it to
                  >those asking me. I am not so educated on these things.

                  JRS: Prior to 1953, ROCOR used Chrism provided by the Serbian Orthodox Church.

                  In 1953, there was a consecration of Chrism in Jordanville, but Metropolitan Anastassy
                  opposed it, on the grounds that ROCOR did not have the right to consecrate its own
                  Chrism, being only a part of the Russian Church.

                  Since 1953, no more Chrism has been consecrated in ROCOR.

                  What is still left from that consecration over 50 years ago, is rapidly being used up.

                  In Christ
                  Fr. John R. Shaw

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

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





                  __________________________________________________
                  Do You Yahoo!?
                  Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                  http://mail.yahoo.com

                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Theodora Wright
                  Yes, this goes along with what I was told and that when Stalin opened up the church there was no line of Holy Myrrh left. The questioned I was asked was where
                  Message 8 of 23 , Nov 4 12:45 PM
                    Yes, this goes along with what I was told and that when Stalin opened up the church there was no line of Holy Myrrh left. The questioned I was asked was where did the line of Holy Myrrh that is used today in the MP come from? I tried to explain how Holy Myrrh is made (most people here understand how to make sourdough bread with a started passed down from generation to generation) but the sticking point was the "break in the line". So the question. Will the MP now use ROCOR's Holy Myrrh as "started" since it can be traced? I don't know the answer to these questions. But if the last one has merit then I would ask, how then would the Holy Myrrh having been used by MP all these years be valid? I am not trolling and not wanting to start bad thread. Just trying to understand and know . As I said, I will pass on what I get to those asking. To this person the Holy Myrrh is very important as they said to me...one doesn't want one's head and hands blessed and sealed with unholy myrrh. Never thought about that until these questions were put to me. Thank you for any help you can give.

                    Theodora in The Mountains


                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: George Edward Green III
                    To: orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 11:15 AM
                    Subject: Re: [orthodox-synod] Re: "Canonical Consequences", by Fr. Alexander Lebedeff


                    While touring the Kremlin we visited a room where Oil and Myrrh had
                    been produced, it did mention where it is produced now but I didn't
                    pay attention and have forgotten.

                    I would imagine today it is consecrated at the Danilov Monastary,
                    though I don't know as of when.

                    I honestly suspect that during the Soviet period little was produced
                    and the need for it was overlooked, though I'd love to know otherwise.

                    George

                    On Nov 4, 2006, at 10:47 AM, Theodora Wright wrote:

                    > I reckon no one on this list knows the history of MP's Holy Myrrh.
                    > sigh or maybe I am "in the out house" LOL but really, I can not
                    > tell someone what I don't know and that is the only reason I posted
                    > this question. As Point 13 in the Act says we will use MP's Holy
                    > Myrrh I thought the question a reasonable one. Perhaps they also
                    > use another's as ROCOR did?
                    >
                    > Theodora in The Mountains
                    >
                    > snip
                    >
                    > Thank you I knew about ROCOR. The question asked of me what about
                    > MP's. Holy Myrrh. Do you know that history to present?
                    >
                    > Theodora in The Mountains
                    >
                    > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Theodora Wright"
                    > <theomtn@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > > To Point 13, I have asked before and so have a few others, what
                    > is the history and where
                    > >does the Holy Myrrh come from? Considering the history of Russia
                    > one wonders if it
                    > >was hidden? or if "new" was produced. It is a long procedure, I
                    > have been told, to
                    > >produce Holy Myrrh. Could you please review this step by step. I
                    > will then post it to
                    > >those asking me. I am not so educated on these things.
                    >
                    > JRS: Prior to 1953, ROCOR used Chrism provided by the Serbian
                    > Orthodox Church.
                    >
                    > In 1953, there was a consecration of Chrism in Jordanville, but
                    > Metropolitan Anastassy
                    > opposed it, on the grounds that ROCOR did not have the right to
                    > consecrate its own
                    > Chrism, being only a part of the Russian Church.
                    >
                    > Since 1953, no more Chrism has been consecrated in ROCOR.
                    >
                    > What is still left from that consecration over 50 years ago, is
                    > rapidly being used up.
                    >
                    > In Christ
                    > Fr. John R. Shaw
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    >
                    >

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





                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Fr. John R. Shaw
                    ... JRS: There was, nevertheless, a certain amount left from before the revolution and used in the next consecration; it doesn t matter that the actual
                    Message 9 of 23 , Nov 4 1:36 PM
                      --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Theodora Wright" <theomtn@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Yes, this goes along with what I was told and that when Stalin opened up the church
                      >there was no line of Holy Myrrh left. The questioned I was asked was where did the line
                      >of Holy Myrrh that is used today in the MP come from? I tried to explain how Holy Myrrh
                      >is made (most people here understand how to make sourdough bread with a started
                      >passed down from generation to generation) but the sticking point was the "break in the
                      >line". So the question. Will the MP now use ROCOR's Holy Myrrh as "started" since it can
                      >be traced? I don't know the answer to these questions. But if the last one has merit then
                      >I would ask, how then would the Holy Myrrh having been used by MP all these years be
                      >valid?

                      JRS: There was, nevertheless, a certain amount left from before the revolution and used in
                      the next consecration; it doesn't matter that the actual ceremony did not take place in the
                      same room.

                      In 1972 I heard an account of this from a priest who, as a deacon, had taken part in the
                      preparation of the Chrism in Moscow in the 1920's.

                      The Old Believers maintained a certain amount of Chrism ("Chrism" is the usual term in
                      English, not "Myrrh") from before Patriarch Nikon's reforms in the 17th century.

                      Unfortunately, it is ROCOR, rather than the MP, that does not have the "continuity" of
                      Chrism from before the revolution: when the 1953 consecration took place, the "old
                      leaven" was from the Serbian Church, not from the Russian Church.

                      This was discussed, in passing, at the San Francisco Sobor in May.

                      In Christ
                      Fr. John R. Shaw
                    • Theodora Wright
                      Father, the Serbian Church is Orthodox is it not? Rocor and Serbian are in comunion are they not? I don t follow then that our ROCOR has a problem. The
                      Message 10 of 23 , Nov 4 1:52 PM
                        Father, the Serbian Church is Orthodox is it not? Rocor and Serbian are in comunion are they not? I don't follow then that our ROCOR has a problem. The leaven is leaven is it not? Seems this goes round in circles. Are you saying ROCOR's is doubtful but MP not? That all these years ROCOR has be in a problem? And I used the word Myrrh because it was used. Yes, I know Chism is normal in Rocor.

                        Can you make this clearer?

                        Theodora in The Mountains


                        ----- Original Message -----
                        From: Fr. John R. Shaw
                        To: orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 4:36 PM
                        Subject: [orthodox-synod] Re: Chrism [was:"Canonical Consequences"]


                        --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Theodora Wright" <theomtn@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > Yes, this goes along with what I was told and that when Stalin opened up the church
                        >there was no line of Holy Myrrh left. The questioned I was asked was where did the line
                        >of Holy Myrrh that is used today in the MP come from? I tried to explain how Holy Myrrh
                        >is made (most people here understand how to make sourdough bread with a started
                        >passed down from generation to generation) but the sticking point was the "break in the
                        >line". So the question. Will the MP now use ROCOR's Holy Myrrh as "started" since it can
                        >be traced? I don't know the answer to these questions. But if the last one has merit then
                        >I would ask, how then would the Holy Myrrh having been used by MP all these years be
                        >valid?

                        JRS: There was, nevertheless, a certain amount left from before the revolution and used in
                        the next consecration; it doesn't matter that the actual ceremony did not take place in the
                        same room.

                        In 1972 I heard an account of this from a priest who, as a deacon, had taken part in the
                        preparation of the Chrism in Moscow in the 1920's.

                        The Old Believers maintained a certain amount of Chrism ("Chrism" is the usual term in
                        English, not "Myrrh") from before Patriarch Nikon's reforms in the 17th century.

                        Unfortunately, it is ROCOR, rather than the MP, that does not have the "continuity" of
                        Chrism from before the revolution: when the 1953 consecration took place, the "old
                        leaven" was from the Serbian Church, not from the Russian Church.

                        This was discussed, in passing, at the San Francisco Sobor in May.

                        In Christ
                        Fr. John R. Shaw





                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Theodora Wright
                        Excuse but I forgot to ask....MP got their s from Old Believers????? This has caused a little raised eyebrows.....can you explain considering the problems of
                        Message 11 of 23 , Nov 4 2:11 PM
                          Excuse but I forgot to ask....MP got their's from Old Believers????? This has caused a little raised eyebrows.....can you explain considering the problems of MP and the Old Believers?

                          Theodora in The Mountains

                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: Theodora Wright
                          To: orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 4:52 PM
                          Subject: Re: [orthodox-synod] Re: Chrism [was:"Canonical Consequences"]


                          Father, the Serbian Church is Orthodox is it not? Rocor and Serbian are in comunion are they not? I don't follow then that our ROCOR has a problem. The leaven is leaven is it not? Seems this goes round in circles. Are you saying ROCOR's is doubtful but MP not? That all these years ROCOR has be in a problem? And I used the word Myrrh because it was used. Yes, I know Chism is normal in Rocor.

                          Can you make this clearer?

                          Theodora in The Mountains

                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: Fr. John R. Shaw
                          To: orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2006 4:36 PM
                          Subject: [orthodox-synod] Re: Chrism [was:"Canonical Consequences"]

                          --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Theodora Wright" <theomtn@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Yes, this goes along with what I was told and that when Stalin opened up the church
                          >there was no line of Holy Myrrh left. The questioned I was asked was where did the line
                          >of Holy Myrrh that is used today in the MP come from? I tried to explain how Holy Myrrh
                          >is made (most people here understand how to make sourdough bread with a started
                          >passed down from generation to generation) but the sticking point was the "break in the
                          >line". So the question. Will the MP now use ROCOR's Holy Myrrh as "started" since it can
                          >be traced? I don't know the answer to these questions. But if the last one has merit then
                          >I would ask, how then would the Holy Myrrh having been used by MP all these years be
                          >valid?

                          JRS: There was, nevertheless, a certain amount left from before the revolution and used in
                          the next consecration; it doesn't matter that the actual ceremony did not take place in the
                          same room.

                          In 1972 I heard an account of this from a priest who, as a deacon, had taken part in the
                          preparation of the Chrism in Moscow in the 1920's.

                          The Old Believers maintained a certain amount of Chrism ("Chrism" is the usual term in
                          English, not "Myrrh") from before Patriarch Nikon's reforms in the 17th century.

                          Unfortunately, it is ROCOR, rather than the MP, that does not have the "continuity" of
                          Chrism from before the revolution: when the 1953 consecration took place, the "old
                          leaven" was from the Serbian Church, not from the Russian Church.

                          This was discussed, in passing, at the San Francisco Sobor in May.

                          In Christ
                          Fr. John R. Shaw

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





                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Fr. John R. Shaw
                          ... JRS: The Moscow Patriarchate did not receive Chrism from the Old Believers. It maintained its own Chrism from previous consecrations of Chrism. I only
                          Message 12 of 23 , Nov 4 2:39 PM
                            --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Theodora Wright" <theomtn@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > Excuse but I forgot to ask....MP got their's from Old Believers????? This has caused a
                            >little raised eyebrows.....can you explain considering the problems of MP and the Old
                            >Believers?

                            JRS: The Moscow Patriarchate did not receive Chrism from the Old Believers. It maintained
                            its own Chrism from previous consecrations of Chrism.

                            I only mentioned the Old Believers to show that Chrism can be saved for long periods of
                            time, as in their case (in other words, I mentioned the Old Believers as an example of the
                            preservation of Chrism, and nothing more).

                            As for ROCOR's receiving Chrism from the Serbian Church, of course the Serbian Church is
                            Orthodox.

                            But the point is, that our Chrism does not have the "succession" from the Russian Church
                            that you speak of: we lost that "leaven of Chrism", whereas the Patriarchate was able to
                            retain it.

                            That is why, when we begin to receive a new supply of Chrism from Moscow, we will be
                            receiving the Chrism that has the "continuity" of the Russian Church.

                            The Serbian "continuity" or "succession" is of course also Orthodox, as is the Greek,
                            Bulgarian, and others. But we belong to the Russian Church.

                            I hope that answers your questions.

                            In Christ
                            Fr. John R. Shaw
                          • Mike Woodson
                            Dear Fr. John, So you ve been in touch with Moscow Patriarchate priests since at least 1972. During the Brezhnev era, you communicated with MP priests, took
                            Message 13 of 23 , Nov 4 8:38 PM
                              Dear Fr. John,

                              So you've been in touch with Moscow Patriarchate priests since at
                              least 1972. During the Brezhnev era, you communicated with MP priests,
                              took what they told you, and then passed the information on to people
                              here as truth, even to this day. That is very enlightening about your
                              role throughout the years.

                              --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John R. Shaw"
                              <vrevjrs@...> wrote:
                              > JRS: There was, nevertheless, a certain amount left from before the
                              > revolution and used in the next consecration; it doesn't matter that
                              > the actual ceremony did not take place in the same room.
                              > In 1972 I heard an account of this from a priest who, as a deacon,
                              > had taken part in the preparation of the Chrism in Moscow in the
                              > 1920's.

                              How do you know this? From the testimony of a priest of the MP who
                              told you in 1972? You are still passing on old disinformation from the
                              MP during the height of the Cold War to people on this forum.
                              Fascinating admission.

                              > The Old Believers maintained a certain amount of Chrism ("Chrism" is
                              > the usual term in English, not "Myrrh") from before Patriarch
                              > Nikon's reforms in the 17th century.

                              Just curious: did the Old Believers from whom the Myrrh was taken
                              survive that episode? Or did they just turn it over, happily bowing
                              before the Soviet government visitors?

                              > Unfortunately, it is ROCOR, rather than the MP, that does not have
                              > the "continuity" of Chrism from before the revolution: when the 1953
                              > consecration took place, the "old leaven" was from the Serbian
                              > Church, not from the Russian Church.

                              Did the Serbs have continuity? Or are you implying that Chrism, that
                              being of the Holy Spirit, is different for Russians versus Serbians
                              versus Greeks, etc.? Do I detect a new heretical doctrine implied
                              here? That the Chrism is ethnically or nationally continuous or it is
                              not continuous?

                              > This was discussed, in passing, at the San Francisco Sobor in May.
                              >
                              > In Christ
                              > Fr. John R. Shaw

                              Michael
                            • Mike Woodson
                              I believe we are getting the picture of your neo-theology, your heresy, the teaching that Chrism is differentiated by ethnicity rather than simply Chrism. It
                              Message 14 of 23 , Nov 4 8:45 PM
                                I believe we are getting the picture of your neo-theology, your
                                heresy, the teaching that Chrism is differentiated by ethnicity rather
                                than simply Chrism.

                                It is as if in your world, the Holy Spirit's dispensation in the Acts
                                of the Apostles did not unify all ethnicities in the Chrism, but
                                divided them. I sure hope you can clear this up.

                                If that is your doctrine, then you are saying that the Holy Spirit is
                                the Spirit of division. Tell me that's not what you mean. And if it's
                                not what you mean, what do you mean?

                                What is the significance of all of this talk of Russian continuity of
                                the Chrism versus Serbian continuity etc. etc.? And if it's not
                                significant, why are you discussing it other than to foment
                                nationalism as a divider of the brotherhood?

                                Fr. John, you never cease to amaze me.

                                Michael



                                --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John R. Shaw"
                                <vrevjrs@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Theodora Wright" <theomtn@>
                                wrote:
                                > >
                                > > Excuse but I forgot to ask....MP got their's from Old
                                Believers????? This has caused a
                                > >little raised eyebrows.....can you explain considering the problems
                                of MP and the Old
                                > >Believers?
                                >
                                > JRS: The Moscow Patriarchate did not receive Chrism from the Old
                                Believers. It maintained
                                > its own Chrism from previous consecrations of Chrism.
                                >
                                > I only mentioned the Old Believers to show that Chrism can be saved
                                for long periods of
                                > time, as in their case (in other words, I mentioned the Old
                                Believers as an example of the
                                > preservation of Chrism, and nothing more).
                                >
                                > As for ROCOR's receiving Chrism from the Serbian Church, of course
                                the Serbian Church is
                                > Orthodox.
                                >
                                > But the point is, that our Chrism does not have the "succession"
                                from the Russian Church
                                > that you speak of: we lost that "leaven of Chrism", whereas the
                                Patriarchate was able to
                                > retain it.
                                >
                                > That is why, when we begin to receive a new supply of Chrism from
                                Moscow, we will be
                                > receiving the Chrism that has the "continuity" of the Russian Church.
                                >
                                > The Serbian "continuity" or "succession" is of course also Orthodox,
                                as is the Greek,
                                > Bulgarian, and others. But we belong to the Russian Church.
                                >
                                > I hope that answers your questions.
                                >
                                > In Christ
                                > Fr. John R. Shaw
                                >
                              • Basil Yakimov
                                Father John, gubbage as usual - you are pro post soviet MP, during the period of no patriarchs in Russia where did we (Russia) get Chrism - as smart as
                                Message 15 of 23 , Nov 4 11:07 PM
                                  Father John, gubbage as usual - you are pro post soviet MP, during the period of no patriarchs in Russia where did we (Russia) get Chrism - as smart as you know your stuff you are pro post soveit MP no doubt about it and should not be trusted... your contribution to any debate when the majority of us in ROCA who do not accept the current version of the "ACT" does not help - we know you have been pro soviet MP for a long time.

                                  Here are voices that many in Austraia and elsewhere share .... we hope our Mepropolitan has "years" to hear then your voice will be as compared to "ROCA(V)" as just a tea cup in a STORM as yet to come!

                                  "Dorogoi o. Vasily!
                                  So what are we to do?
                                  What is the mood in Austrailia?
                                  Among the clergy?
                                  The Bishop?
                                  Is the attached something that many clergy would sign, or is it too harsh?
                                  ....




                                  “…the remaining issues to be dealt with are the MP's participation in the World Council of Churches, and the MP's "sergianist" way of conducting itself. But alas! The "bully" post soviet MP is demanding a resolution to our ROCOR parishes in Russian territories! Now just what is the "canonical procedures" that those who left the MP and others to join the ROCOR did not observe? Did they fail to read the "small print?" God forbid!...” .. “definitely no return of the monastery and other properties that the "bully" post soviet MP forcibly stole from ROCA in Palestine…. Read here more about how we in ROCA capitulated to the post soviet MP and other material concerning the MP …” (the following is in Russian only)…

                                  http://sobor2006.livejournal.com/173780.html

                                  http://www.portal-credo.ru/site/?act=news&id=48807&topic=470
                                  http://karlovtchanin.com//index.php?module=pages&act=page&pid=217
                                  http://www.ipc.od.ua/_jizn_tcervi_txt_061012-3.html
                                  http://www.russia-talk.com/otkliki/ot-517.htm"

                                  http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/2006/11bgposlaniye.html

                                  http://portal-credo.ru/site/print.php?act=fresh&id=526
                                  protodeacon Basil form Canberra

                                  "Fr. John R. Shaw" <vrevjrs@...> wrote: --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Theodora Wright" <theomtn@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Excuse but I forgot to ask....MP got their's from Old Believers????? This has caused a
                                  >little raised eyebrows.....can you explain considering the problems of MP and the Old
                                  >Believers?

                                  JRS: The Moscow Patriarchate did not receive Chrism from the Old Believers. It maintained
                                  its own Chrism from previous consecrations of Chrism.

                                  I only mentioned the Old Believers to show that Chrism can be saved for long periods of
                                  time, as in their case (in other words, I mentioned the Old Believers as an example of the
                                  preservation of Chrism, and nothing more).

                                  As for ROCOR's receiving Chrism from the Serbian Church, of course the Serbian Church is
                                  Orthodox.

                                  But the point is, that our Chrism does not have the "succession" from the Russian Church
                                  that you speak of: we lost that "leaven of Chrism", whereas the Patriarchate was able to
                                  retain it.

                                  That is why, when we begin to receive a new supply of Chrism from Moscow, we will be
                                  receiving the Chrism that has the "continuity" of the Russian Church.

                                  The Serbian "continuity" or "succession" is of course also Orthodox, as is the Greek,
                                  Bulgarian, and others. But we belong to the Russian Church.

                                  I hope that answers your questions.

                                  In Christ
                                  Fr. John R. Shaw






                                  ---------------------------------
                                  Low, Low, Low Rates! Check out Yahoo! Messenger's cheap PC-to-Phone call rates.

                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • Fr. John R. Shaw
                                  ... JRS: I m not up on Aussie English, if that s what gubbage is. The only words like it I could find, were gubbertush , which means one who has projecting
                                  Message 16 of 23 , Nov 5 5:34 AM
                                    --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, Basil Yakimov <byakimov@...> wrote:

                                    > Father John, gubbage as usual -

                                    JRS: I'm not up on Aussie English, if that's what "gubbage" is.

                                    The only words like it I could find, were "gubbertush", which means "one who has
                                    projecting teeth", and "gubbins", which means "fragments, fish parings, or refuse".

                                    At any case, your contempt does come through.

                                    >you are pro post soviet MP, during the period of no patriarchs in Russia where did we
                                    >(Russia) get Chrism - as smart as you know your stuff you are pro post soveit MP no
                                    >doubt about it and should not be trusted... your contribution to any debate when the
                                    >majority of us in ROCA who do not accept the current version of the "ACT" does not help
                                    >- we know you have been pro soviet MP for a long time.

                                    JRS: I think what you mean is that I am "pro-ROCOR".

                                    The majority of us are loyal to Metropolitan Laurus and to our Synod, as shown by more
                                    than a thousand signatures collected in Pennsylvania last week.

                                    In Christ
                                    Fr. John R. Shaw
                                  • Archpriest Stefan Pavlenko
                                    Father Basil most likely just meant plain English Garbage or GAWbadge or however they pronounce the word in Australia. HE IS WRONG and he is stubborn and I AM
                                    Message 17 of 23 , Nov 5 2:29 PM
                                      Father Basil most likely just meant plain English Garbage or GAWbadge
                                      or however they pronounce the word in Australia. HE IS WRONG and he
                                      is stubborn and I AM SORRY TO SAY, instead of working to heal the
                                      wounds of the Church he continues to pure salt and not oil and wine
                                      on Her Wounds. This is the time for us to unite around our Synod of
                                      Bishops.

                                      Trust our Bishops, Trust in God and all will be well with us.

                                      Metropolitan Lavr is our Moses leading us to the Promised Land of
                                      Church Unity and along the way there are those who are going to be
                                      the grumblers and the nay sayers...

                                      Archpriest Stefan Pavlenko



                                      -- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John R. Shaw"
                                      <vrevjrs@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, Basil Yakimov <byakimov@>
                                      wrote:
                                      >
                                      > > Father John, gubbage as usual -
                                      >
                                      > JRS: I'm not up on Aussie English, if that's what "gubbage" is.
                                      >
                                      > The only words like it I could find, were "gubbertush", which
                                      means "one who has
                                      > projecting teeth", and "gubbins", which means "fragments, fish
                                      parings, or refuse".
                                      >
                                      > At any case, your contempt does come through.
                                      >
                                      > >you are pro post soviet MP, during the period of no patriarchs
                                      in Russia where did we
                                      > >(Russia) get Chrism - as smart as you know your stuff you are
                                      pro post soveit MP no
                                      > >doubt about it and should not be trusted... your contribution to
                                      any debate when the
                                      > >majority of us in ROCA who do not accept the current version of
                                      the "ACT" does not help
                                      > >- we know you have been pro soviet MP for a long time.
                                      >
                                      > JRS: I think what you mean is that I am "pro-ROCOR".
                                      >
                                      > The majority of us are loyal to Metropolitan Laurus and to our
                                      Synod, as shown by more
                                      > than a thousand signatures collected in Pennsylvania last week.
                                      >
                                      > In Christ
                                      > Fr. John R. Shaw
                                      >
                                    • Fr. John R. Shaw
                                      ... JRS: I merely said that it s *appropriate* to return to the Chrism of the Russian Church: no doctrine in that. Of course we recognize the Chrism of other
                                      Message 18 of 23 , Nov 5 4:41 PM
                                        --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Woodson" <singingmountains@...>
                                        wrote:

                                        > I believe we are getting the picture of your neo-theology, your
                                        > heresy, the teaching that Chrism is differentiated by ethnicity rather
                                        > than simply Chris (&c., &c., &c.).

                                        JRS: I merely said that it's *appropriate* to return to the Chrism of the Russian Church: no
                                        doctrine in that.

                                        Of course we recognize the Chrism of other Local Churches.

                                        > Fr. John, you never cease to amaze me.

                                        JRS: I really can't say that you still surprise me much, though.

                                        In Christ
                                        Fr. John R. Shaw
                                      • morechoff@aol.com
                                        I dont think all MP clergy were bad during the communist era. Mike Orechoff ... From: singingmountains@yahoo.com To: orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com Sent:
                                        Message 19 of 23 , Nov 5 4:50 PM
                                          I dont think all MP clergy were "bad" during the communist era.

                                          Mike Orechoff

                                          -----Original Message-----
                                          From: singingmountains@...
                                          To: orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com
                                          Sent: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 8:38 PM
                                          Subject: [orthodox-synod] Re: Chrism [was:"Canonical Consequences"]


                                          Dear Fr. John,

                                          So you've been in touch with Moscow Patriarchate priests since at
                                          least 1972. During the Brezhnev era, you communicated with MP priests,
                                          took what they told you, and then passed the information on to people
                                          here as truth, even to this day. That is very enlightening about your
                                          role throughout the years.

                                          --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John R. Shaw"
                                          <vrevjrs@...> wrote:
                                          > JRS: There was, nevertheless, a certain amount left from before the
                                          > revolution and used in the next consecration; it doesn't matter that
                                          > the actual ceremony did not take place in the same room.
                                          > In 1972 I heard an account of this from a priest who, as a deacon,
                                          > had taken part in the preparation of the Chrism in Moscow in the
                                          > 1920's.

                                          How do you know this? From the testimony of a priest of the MP who
                                          told you in 1972? You are still passing on old disinformation from the
                                          MP during the height of the Cold War to people on this forum.
                                          Fascinating admission.

                                          > The Old Believers maintained a certain amount of Chrism ("Chrism" is
                                          > the usual term in English, not "Myrrh") from before Patriarch
                                          > Nikon's reforms in the 17th century.

                                          Just curious: did the Old Believers from whom the Myrrh was taken
                                          survive that episode? Or did they just turn it over, happily bowing
                                          before the Soviet government visitors?

                                          > Unfortunately, it is ROCOR, rather than the MP, that does not have
                                          > the "continuity" of Chrism from before the revolution: when the 1953
                                          > consecration took place, the "old leaven" was from the Serbian
                                          > Church, not from the Russian Church.

                                          Did the Serbs have continuity? Or are you implying that Chrism, that
                                          being of the Holy Spirit, is different for Russians versus Serbians
                                          versus Greeks, etc.? Do I detect a new heretical doctrine implied
                                          here? That the Chrism is ethnically or nationally continuous or it is
                                          not continuous?

                                          > This was discussed, in passing, at the San Francisco Sobor in May.
                                          >
                                          > In Christ
                                          > Fr. John R. Shaw

                                          Michael



                                          ________________________________________________________________________
                                          Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.


                                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        • Mike Woodson
                                          Dear Fr. John: Really, I hate to disagree with everything you say. But I must. I agree with individual words you write, that is, if you separate them from all
                                          Message 20 of 23 , Nov 5 9:11 PM
                                            Dear Fr. John:

                                            Really, I hate to disagree with everything you say. But I must. I
                                            agree with individual words you write, that is, if you separate them
                                            from all of the other ones and sort of neutralize them from that
                                            problem they have when they string everyone along.

                                            You did not say "appropriate." You said that the ROCOR had lost the
                                            "succession" and the "continuity" of Chrism, and that we lost that
                                            "leaven of Chrism."

                                            You say that Chrism has different "leavening," when the Holy Spirit is
                                            One in the Holy Trinity. You say that Chrism has different
                                            "continuity," when it is of the same Holy Spirit. You say that Chrism
                                            has different "successions," when the Church is one. You walk in the
                                            stead of those who say I follow Paul, I follow Apollos and I follow .
                                            . . . whoever. But the Blessed Apostle Paul said otherwise:

                                            1 Corinthians 3 KJV
                                            1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as
                                            unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.

                                            2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were
                                            not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

                                            3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and
                                            strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

                                            4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are
                                            ye not carnal?

                                            5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye
                                            believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?

                                            6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

                                            7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that
                                            watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

                                            8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man
                                            shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.

                                            9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye
                                            are God's building.

                                            10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise
                                            masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth
                                            thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

                                            11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is
                                            Jesus Christ.

                                            12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious
                                            stones, wood, hay, stubble;

                                            13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare
                                            it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every
                                            man's work of what sort it is.

                                            14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall
                                            receive a reward.

                                            15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he
                                            himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

                                            16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of
                                            God dwelleth in you?

                                            17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the
                                            temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

                                            18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise
                                            in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.

                                            19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is
                                            written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

                                            20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are
                                            vain.

                                            21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are your's;

                                            22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or
                                            death, or things present, or things to come; all are your's;

                                            23 And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.

                                            God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. How are there different
                                            Chrisms unless someone is teaching a doctrine of man? Indeed, we know
                                            the purpose of your going into this: to create the false necessity for
                                            the ROCOR to come crawling to the illegitimate Moscow Patriarch
                                            because he has taken the Chrism hostage. It doesn't matter what Chrism
                                            he has, if he hasn't repented and humbled himself by giving it freely
                                            to the ROCOR without condition, then it will burn him.

                                            What you imply is that the Russians need a different Holy Spirit than
                                            the Greeks or Serbians or Bulgarians. Maybe you can clear this up,
                                            because it's not making any sense.

                                            See below, where I've pasted exactly what you wrote.

                                            Michael


                                            --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John R. Shaw"
                                            <vrevjrs@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            > JRS: I merely said that it's *appropriate* to return to the Chrism
                                            > of the Russian Church: no doctrine in that.

                                            "But the point is, that our Chrism does not have the "succession"
                                            from the Russian Church that you speak of: we lost that "leaven of
                                            Chrism", whereas the Patriarchate was able to retain it.

                                            That is why, when we begin to receive a new supply of Chrism from
                                            Moscow, we will be receiving the Chrism that has the "continuity" of
                                            the Russian Church.

                                            The Serbian "continuity" or "succession" is of course also Orthodox,
                                            as is the Greek, Bulgarian, and others. But we belong to the Russian
                                            Church."


                                            > Of course we recognize the Chrism of other Local Churches.
                                            >
                                            > > Fr. John, you never cease to amaze me.
                                            >
                                            > JRS: I really can't say that you still surprise me much, though.
                                            >
                                            > In Christ
                                            > Fr. John R. Shaw
                                            >
                                          • Fr. John R. Shaw
                                            ... JRS: What actually happened, is that Theodora In The Mountains wrote a series of questioning messages about the Chrism, its history in ROCOR and the MP. I
                                            Message 21 of 23 , Nov 7 2:06 PM
                                              --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Woodson" <singingmountains@...>
                                              wrote:

                                              > You did not say "appropriate." You said that the ROCOR had lost the
                                              > "succession" and the "continuity" of Chrism, and that we lost that
                                              > "leaven of Chrism."

                                              JRS: What actually happened, is that Theodora In The Mountains wrote a series of
                                              questioning messages about the Chrism, its history in ROCOR and the MP.

                                              I tried my best to answer her questions, in particular why it is that ROCOR will begin
                                              receiving new Chrism (for the first time since 1953).

                                              You have ignored the questions I was answering, and then tried to "make hay" out of my
                                              answers.

                                              Theodora was seeking information: you are not.

                                              > 2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were
                                              > not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

                                              JRS: Thanks be to God that it is Christ, and not some of those who attack His Church on
                                              these lists, that is feeding us.

                                              They are not trying to feed us anything nice...

                                              In Christ
                                              Fr. John R. Shaw
                                            • Basil Yakimov
                                              Rubbish Father the majority of our good people, including the good clergy are not permitted on any ROCA sites as such to be published but the opposite
                                              Message 22 of 23 , Nov 10 8:43 AM
                                                Rubbish Father the majority of our good people, including the good clergy are not permitted on any ROCA sites as such to be published but the opposite propaganda is, sometimes instigated by some ROCA Bishops or without their blessing. Farther Michael Protopopov you speak RUBBISH or with a false tongue. I ask you why would then the majority of our monastics in Australia have written top his Eminence Laurus that they are against this forced "UNIASM".

                                                Father Michael with respect the majority of your parishioners in Dandenong are against UNIASM - am I or are you really in the true picture!

                                                unworthy as I as am read this Father M... please....

                                                http://portal-credo.ru/site/?act=fresh&id=526 (MP priest's view on
                                                MP/ROCAUnification in Russian)
                                                http://www.portal-credo.ru/site/?act=fresh&id=529


                                                "Fr. John R. Shaw" <vrevjrs@...> wrote: --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, Basil Yakimov <byakimov@...> wrote:

                                                > Father John, gubbage as usual -

                                                JRS: I'm not up on Aussie English, if that's what "gubbage" is.

                                                The only words like it I could find, were "gubbertush", which means "one who has
                                                projecting teeth", and "gubbins", which means "fragments, fish parings, or refuse".

                                                At any case, your contempt does come through.

                                                >you are pro post soviet MP, during the period of no patriarchs in Russia where did we
                                                >(Russia) get Chrism - as smart as you know your stuff you are pro post soveit MP no
                                                >doubt about it and should not be trusted... your contribution to any debate when the
                                                >majority of us in ROCA who do not accept the current version of the "ACT" does not help
                                                >- we know you have been pro soviet MP for a long time.

                                                JRS: I think what you mean is that I am "pro-ROCOR".

                                                The majority of us are loyal to Metropolitan Laurus and to our Synod, as shown by more
                                                than a thousand signatures collected in Pennsylvania last week.

                                                In Christ
                                                Fr. John R. Shaw






                                                ---------------------------------
                                                Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.

                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.