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

Re: [orthodox-synod] Re:Chrism

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 23 , Nov 4, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      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
      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 2 of 23 , Nov 4, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 23 , Nov 4, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 23 , Nov 4, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            --- 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 5 of 23 , Nov 4, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 23 , Nov 4, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 23 , Nov 4, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 23 , Nov 5, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- 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 9 of 23 , Nov 5, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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 10 of 23 , Nov 5, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- 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 11 of 23 , Nov 5, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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 12 of 23 , Nov 5, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            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 13 of 23 , Nov 7, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- 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 14 of 23 , Nov 10, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                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.