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

Re: This document ...

Expand Messages
  • David-Constantine Wright
    ... Excpet that s not what the document says. The Act makes it clear that: 1) Election of the First Hierarch must be *approved* by the MP. 2) Election of all
    Message 1 of 9 , Nov 3, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John R. Shaw"
      <vrevjrs@...> wrote:
      >
      > However, the central authority of the Church of Russia remains as
      > a "court of appeal" in disputed matters.

      Excpet that's not what the document says. The Act makes it clear that:

      1) Election of the First Hierarch must be *approved* by the MP.
      2) Election of all bishops must be *approved* by the MP.
      3) All decisions of the Bishops' Sobor must be *approved* by the MP.
      4) All decisions of the MP are *binding* on ROCOR.

      That's not a court of appeal. That's being under the MP.

      Fr. Anthony Nelson's comment concerning the Self-Ruled Anticohian
      Orthodox Archdiocese of North America comes to mind. Fr. Anthony
      wrote: "If the Patriarchate of which the so-called "self-ruled"
      Antiochian Archdiocese is a part (not "self-ruled" at all, as a
      matter of fact...just more tweaking of the language to satisfy a
      powerful - and wealthy - party within the Archdiocese) of a Local
      Church..."

      These Acts are just "tweaking of the language" to make it seem as if
      ROCOR is independednt. I guess you're happy with that. But no one
      should *ever* be in doubt as to what this will actually mean.

      In the Joy of the Fleshed Lord Jesus,
      Rd. David-C

      +-------------------------------------------------------------+
      | Reader David-Constantine Wright constantinewright@... |
      | Personal Website: http://constans_wright.tripod.com |
      | "God became Human so that humans could become gods." |
      | St. Athanasius the Great, *On the Incarnation* |
      +-------------------------------------------------------------+
    • gene703
      This has been said many times but I would like to repeat it one more time and get a responce from clergy familiar with canon law who post on this list
      Message 2 of 9 , Nov 3, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        This has been said many times but I would like to repeat it one more time and get a responce from clergy familiar with canon law who post on this list

        According to orthodox cannons a bishop that gains his appointement from civil authorities is not really a bishop, right ?

        Alexey Ridiger was appointed an MP Bishop of Tallinn in 1961 when communists were fully in charge on MP personell, right ?

        Is therefore current MP Patrairch Alexey II (Ridiger) a real orthodox clergyman or an impostor according to orthodox cannon law ?

        thank you



        "Bushunow, Peter" <peter.bushunow@...> wrote:
        The Act of Canonical Communion has been published.

        So is the Russian Church "indissoluble" or is ROCOR "independent?"
        Article 3 directly contradicts article 9 : Article 3 The supreme ecclesiastical, legislative, administrative, judicial and controlling authority in the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is her Council of Bishops Article 9 The supreme instances of ecclesiastical authority for the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are the Local Council and the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church.
        (In Russian, there is a distinction between the "supreme" authority of the Council of Bishops of ROCOR and the "outstandingly supreme instances" ?Ӕϑ݅ʠɎӔ?ÉŊ" authority of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church i.e. Moscow. )

        So we have control over our church life except the Patriarch has to approve what we decide.

        The one thing that is clear from this Act is that the bishops of ROCOR are acknowledging the Patriarch of Moscow as our spiritual leader.

        The double speak is there to allow the administrative free-for-all that got us into this mess to continue -- Whatever anyone wants to do can be justified by reference either to Moscow or to "independence." If you start with P and notP you can prove anything.

        And so, with a clause that did not even deserve its own number, we are shrugging off this 90 year old tragedy and the sacrifices of the Holy New Martyrs as "invalid or obsolete."

        This document should be sent back to committee to wait until circumstances really and truly change, so that true spiritual communion can take place.

        Peter

        **********************************************************************
        This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
        intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
        are addressed. If you have received this email in error please delete it from your system.

        This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for
        the presence of computer viruses.

        Thank You,
        Viahealth
        **********************************************************************


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



        Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod


        Yahoo! Groups Links







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

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Bushunow, Peter
        ... ROCOR are ... that it is only ... which is supposed to ... the Russian ... trouble is, that ... permanent. ... Here s the irreconcilable difference:
        Message 3 of 9 , Nov 3, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          >> The one thing that is clear from this Act is that the bishops of
          ROCOR are
          >>acknowledging the Patriarch of Moscow as our spiritual leader.

          >JRS: How could it be otherwise?

          >ROCOR does not claim to be "autocephalous", but has always maintained
          that it is only
          >ONE PART of the Russian Church.

          >The Patriarch is the spiritual leader of the entire Russian Church,
          which is supposed to
          >include ROCOR.

          >If the Patriarch were not over ROCOR, then ROCOR would not be part of
          the Russian
          >Church at all.

          >ROCOR's isolated status has always been considered "temporary". The
          trouble is, that
          >temporary status lasted too long, and some have assumed it was
          permanent.

          >In Christ
          >Fr. John R. Shaw

          Here's the irreconcilable difference: until our revisionist historians
          seized power of our Synod, ROCOR claimed to be the true Russian church.
          It was separated by the communist persecution from the rest of the
          Russian church which was in the catacombs.
          The current patriarch is the spiritual heir of that group of bishops who
          betrayed their faith and asked the communist government for authority.
          They became the MP.
          Father John asks "How could it be otherwise?"
          Simple: ROCOR could remain steadfast, and wait for the Patriarch and
          his followers to repent, and rejoin the church
          Re read http://www.homb.org/Archived_Docs_HTM/ROCORinRussia.pdf
          In Christ,
          Reader Peter



          **********************************************************************
          This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
          intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
          are addressed. If you have received this email in error please delete it from your system.

          This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for
          the presence of computer viruses.

          Thank You,
          Viahealth
          **********************************************************************


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • George
          ... There are certainly many times in the history of the Orthodox church where bishops were aledged to be imposters and aledged to have been installed by civil
          Message 4 of 9 , Nov 3, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            On Friday, November 03, 2006, at 02:20PM, "gene703" <gene703@...> wrote:
            >This has been said many times but I would like to repeat it one more time and get a responce from clergy familiar with canon law who post on this list
            >
            > According to orthodox cannons a bishop that gains his appointement from civil authorities is not really a bishop, right ?
            >
            > Alexey Ridiger was appointed an MP Bishop of Tallinn in 1961 when communists were fully in charge on MP personell, right ?
            >
            > Is therefore current MP Patrairch Alexey II (Ridiger) a real orthodox clergyman or an impostor according to orthodox cannon law ?
            >
            > thank you

            There are certainly many times in the history of the Orthodox church where bishops were aledged to be imposters and aledged to have been installed by civil authorities. I don't know that there is a uniform yes or no as to whether they are now regarded as imposters.

            I don't know that I would neccessarily compare the situation with Patriarch Alexy II to the situation with of St Photius the Great, but I would note that to this day that many (most?) Roman Catholics, consider St Photius the Great to be an ilegitimate Bishop who was appointed by a civil authority.

            George
          • Fr. John R. Shaw
            ... JRS: Wrong. A bishop who obtains his office by using secular authorities is subject to be deposed; but even if he is actually guilty of this, he does not
            Message 5 of 9 , Nov 3, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, gene703 <gene703@...> wrote:

              > According to orthodox cannons a bishop that gains his appointement from civil
              >authorities is not really a bishop, right ?

              JRS: Wrong.

              A bishop who obtains his office by using secular authorities is subject to be deposed; but
              even if he is actually guilty of this, he does not automatically cease to be a bishop.

              The canons (and the anathemas) do not take on a life of their own: they are church laws,
              to be applied by the hierarchy.

              But this canon does not apply to situations where the secular authorities themselves
              interfere with church life.

              If it did, then all of the bishops of the Russian Church before the revolution would "not
              have been bishops", because their appointment was always determined by the Tsar,
              subject to his approval.

              > Alexey Ridiger was appointed an MP Bishop of Tallinn in 1961 when communists were
              > fully in charge on MP personell, right ?

              JRS: The communists were not absolutely in charge of all MP clergy: but they did interfere
              in everything they could.

              > Is therefore current MP Patrairch Alexey II (Ridiger) a real orthodox clergyman or an
              >impostor according to orthodox cannon law ?

              JRS: He is a "real Orthodox clergyman".

              In Christ
              Fr. John R. Shaw
            • gene703
              Fr. John R. Shaw If it did, then all of the bishops of the Russian Church before the revolution would not have been bishops , because their appointment was
              Message 6 of 9 , Nov 3, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Fr. John R. Shaw>> If it did, then all of the bishops of the Russian Church before the revolution would "not have been bishops", because their appointment was always determined by the Tsar, subject to his approval.

                Gene T >> Wasn't the Tsar a God annointed head of State and Church ? Isn't it a little different from Communists appointing their chosen collaborators Bishops to "limit the reactionary influence of religion on masses" and wasn't Alexei II mentioned as the one who did this "limiting" particularly well ?


                "Fr. John R. Shaw" <vrevjrs@...> wrote:
                --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, gene703 <gene703@...> wrote:

                > According to orthodox cannons a bishop that gains his appointement from civil
                >authorities is not really a bishop, right ?

                JRS: Wrong.

                A bishop who obtains his office by using secular authorities is subject to be deposed; but
                even if he is actually guilty of this, he does not automatically cease to be a bishop.

                The canons (and the anathemas) do not take on a life of their own: they are church laws,
                to be applied by the hierarchy.

                But this canon does not apply to situations where the secular authorities themselves
                interfere with church life.

                If it did, then all of the bishops of the Russian Church before the revolution would "not
                have been bishops", because their appointment was always determined by the Tsar,
                subject to his approval.

                > Alexey Ridiger was appointed an MP Bishop of Tallinn in 1961 when communists were
                > fully in charge on MP personell, right ?

                JRS: The communists were not absolutely in charge of all MP clergy: but they did interfere
                in everything they could.

                > Is therefore current MP Patrairch Alexey II (Ridiger) a real orthodox clergyman or an
                >impostor according to orthodox cannon law ?

                JRS: He is a "real Orthodox clergyman".

                In Christ
                Fr. John R. Shaw






                ---------------------------------
                We have the perfect Group for you. Check out the handy changes to Yahoo! Groups.

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • michael nikitin
                The communists(KGB) were in absolute complete charge of all MP clergy. They interfered in what they felt needed to be interfered with. The Soviets controlled
                Message 7 of 9 , Nov 3, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  The communists(KGB) were in absolute complete charge of all
                  MP clergy. They interfered in what they felt needed to be
                  interfered with.

                  The Soviets controlled Russia. They sent to the gulags and
                  murdered all the hierarchs who didn't join MP, who they created.
                  They got rid of all who didn't agree with them.

                  It is hard to understand this living in comfortable America..

                  Michael N

                  --- "Fr. John R. Shaw" <vrevjrs@...> wrote:

                  > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, gene703 <gene703@...>
                  > wrote:
                  >
                  > > According to orthodox cannons a bishop that gains his
                  > appointement from civil
                  > >authorities is not really a bishop, right ?
                  >
                  > JRS: Wrong.
                  >
                  > A bishop who obtains his office by using secular authorities is
                  > subject to be deposed; but
                  > even if he is actually guilty of this, he does not
                  > automatically cease to be a bishop.
                  >
                  > The canons (and the anathemas) do not take on a life of their
                  > own: they are church laws,
                  > to be applied by the hierarchy.
                  >
                  > But this canon does not apply to situations where the secular
                  > authorities themselves
                  > interfere with church life.
                  >
                  > If it did, then all of the bishops of the Russian Church before
                  > the revolution would "not
                  > have been bishops", because their appointment was always
                  > determined by the Tsar,
                  > subject to his approval.
                  >
                  > > Alexey Ridiger was appointed an MP Bishop of Tallinn in
                  > 1961 when communists were
                  > > fully in charge on MP personell, right ?
                  >
                  > JRS: The communists were not absolutely in charge of all MP
                  > clergy: but they did interfere
                  > in everything they could.
                  >
                  > > Is therefore current MP Patrairch Alexey II (Ridiger) a
                  > real orthodox clergyman or an
                  > >impostor according to orthodox cannon law ?
                  >
                  > JRS: He is a "real Orthodox clergyman".
                  >
                  > In Christ
                  > Fr. John R. Shaw




                  ____________________________________________________________________________________
                  Cheap Talk? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates
                  (http://voice.yahoo.com)
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.