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

2nd Request--ROCOR Clergy: I Would Like to Know...

Expand Messages
  • Athanasios Jayne
    XB! Dear Group members, I have so far received no substantive response to my previous inquiry, so I thought I should try again: The Moscow Patriarchate and
    Message 1 of 22 , May 2, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      XB!

      Dear Group members,

      I have so far received no substantive response to my
      previous inquiry, so I thought I should try again:

      The Moscow Patriarchate and Church in Russia, to this
      day, has not ceased Eucharistic fellowship with the
      now heretical Local Churches of Antioch and Alexandria.
      I am not aware of *any* instance in which the MP has lodged
      even a verbal protest against the actions of these Churches
      relative to the heretical Syrians and Copts--not *one* word
      (though I welcome correction if I am mistaken).

      We have heard a lot about the MP's anti-Ecumenist
      document. However, unless it is *acted* upon, what is it
      really worth? The public actions of these two ancient Sees
      are unmistakably Ecumenist--they are a clear and concrete
      manifestation of the "Branch Theory" Ecclesiology which
      our own Synod--just a few weeks ago--solemnly Anathematized.
      Antioch and Alexandria are now recognizing, as Orthodox,
      schisms which *refuse* to confess the dogmatic faith of the
      Church. Antioch and Alexandria are saying that these
      schismatics are, and always have been, *part* of the
      Orthodox Church--but as "invisible" branches (it would seem),
      since there was no discernible connection to the Orthodox
      Church in either Faith or Sacrament. Have we only now, 1,500
      years later, been blessed with the sanctity and wisdom to
      see beyond the errors of the holy Fathers, and even of the
      Ecumenical Councils themselves--and to correct them?

      The only question that remains, is to understand what this
      means for us in ROCOR on May 17th. If, as I understand it,
      ROCOR will, on that day, again become an integral and
      constituent part of the Moscow Patriarchate and Church in
      Russia--not only in origin, identity, and in spirit, but
      also in One Body by One Eucharistic Communion, and by our
      Commemoration of the Patriarch in all our Divine Liturgies,
      then it seems to me that though we retain the name ROCOR,
      and a degree of administrative independence, we are, in
      reality, becoming PART of the MP, or rather, we will BE
      the MP--the "MP Abroad" (so to speak), as we were the
      "MP Abroad" prior to the Communist Revolution. The real
      change is that now ROCOR will have a greater degree of
      administrative independence than was the case prior to
      the Revolution.

      If this is correct, if we are not only "reconciling" with
      the MP, not only "entering into Communion" with the MP,
      but rather, UNITING with the MP, and becoming *part* of the
      MP, then ROCOR will be fully part of the Local Church of
      Russia. It follows, then, that if ROCOR is fully part of
      the Local Church of Russia, under her Patriarch, then ROCOR
      will and *must* be in Communion with whatever Local Churches
      the MP is in Communion with, is this not so? How can one part
      of a Local Church refuse, on grounds of *heresy,* to be in
      Communion with any Local Church which is in Communion with
      our Patriarch and Holy Synod of Russia? Surely this would
      cause a rift within the Local Church of Russia, such that
      all who acted in defiance of, or condemned, the Patriarch
      and Holy Synod of Russia, would very likely be deposed by
      them.

      So, how can ROCOR maintain the integrity of her Orthodox
      faith and confession under these circumstances? How can she
      unite with a Local Church which is in Communion with heretics
      (Antioch and Alexandria), without thereby being in Communion
      with heretics herself, and thus compromising her glory,
      her Orthodoxy? How can our Hierarchs remain silent in this
      matter? This is *far* worse than simply praying with heretics
      in the WCC, or being a member of it. This is actual
      *Communion* with heretics, a betrayal of the Body and Blood
      of Christ, and of the most sacred gift and trust of the
      Priesthood.

      I ask Fr. John Whiteford, who was instrumental in my
      conversion to holy Orthodoxy,

      I ask Fr. Alexander Lebedeff, who made me a Catechumen
      and gave me my name,

      I ask Fr. John McCuen, who Baptized me, and anointed me
      with Holy Chrism,

      and I ask Fr. John R. Shaw, who taught me a balanced
      understanding of the holy Canons and their Anathemas
      --knowledge that is most needful in these times, as a
      shield against schism.

      I ask you, and all the Clergy of ROCOR who might read
      these words, I ask from the heart: If ROCOR, as she is now,
      is true and God-pleasing, without any spot or wrinkle, and
      with a pure Communion, why should we--why should *I*--unite
      with a Local Church which is in Communion with heretics?
      What is my duty toward God and the Church and my soul
      in this matter?

      When I became Orthodox, I chose ROCOR for a reason.
      I chose ROCOR because her Orthodoxy was pure and
      uncompromising. I chose ROCOR because her Clergy
      and people were willing to suffer for the faith,
      to keep it, to grow it, and to pass it on to their
      children as an inheritance unimpaired, and a priceless
      treasure. Its cost was the very Blood of God. What shall
      we say on that Day, if that Blood is required at our
      hands, because we betrayed it into the hands of
      heretics?

      What shall we say?

      From the second Open Letter recently published by the
      faithful monks of holy Mt. Athos:

      "In essence, all those who commemorate the name of the
      Patriarch, express the same faith with him, according to
      the teachings of the Holy Fathers and the Tradition of the
      Church. We do remind you here of the words of the Martyrs
      of the Holy Mountain, whom you say that you deeply respect
      and honor, to the latin-lover emperor Michael the 8th:
      "The Orthodox Church is from above; the commemoration of
      the name of the High Priest in the altar indicates complete
      agreement with him. Because it is mentioned in the comments
      about the Divine Liturgy that the priest commemorates the
      name of the high priest, indicating thus his obedience to
      the higher authority, that he is in complete communion with
      him and that he considers himself his successor in the Faith
      and in the holy Sacraments".

      ___________________________

      Athanasios Jayne
      (ROCOR)
    • antiquariu@aol.com
      In a message dated 5/2/2007 8:08:28 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, athanasiosj@juno.com writes: XB! Dear Group members, I have so far received no substantive
      Message 2 of 22 , May 2, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        In a message dated 5/2/2007 8:08:28 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
        athanasiosj@... writes:

        XB!

        Dear Group members,

        I have so far received no substantive response to my
        previous inquiry, so I thought I should try again:

        The Moscow Patriarchate and Church in Russia, to this
        day, has not ceased Eucharistic fellowship with the
        now heretical Local Churches of Antioch and Alexandria.



        Dear Athanasios!

        Whereas I appreciate your concern, I must have missed the ecumenical council
        which condemned these two Local Churches. Could you tell me when this
        happened, and what was said? Or are we back to everyman his own ecumenical
        council?
        Seriously,

        In Christ,

        Vova H.



        ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • George
        I know I ve asked this before and had no response but I ll give it another shot. The folks who feel communion with the MP represents all these aweful things.
        Message 3 of 22 , May 2, 2007
        • 0 Attachment
          I know I've asked this before and had no response but I'll give it another shot.

          The folks who feel communion with the MP represents all these aweful things. Can you please explain what the Only Holy Apostolic Orthodox Church is. What are the boundries, how many or few are the beleivers?

          George Green

          On Wednesday, May 02, 2007, at 08:07PM, "Athanasios Jayne" <athanasiosj@...> wrote:
          >XB!
          >
          >Dear Group members,
          >
          >I have so far received no substantive response to my
          >previous inquiry, so I thought I should try again:
          >
          >The Moscow Patriarchate and Church in Russia, to this
          >day, has not ceased Eucharistic fellowship with the
          >now heretical Local Churches of Antioch and Alexandria.
          >I am not aware of *any* instance in which the MP has lodged
          >even a verbal protest against the actions of these Churches
          >relative to the heretical Syrians and Copts--not *one* word
          >(though I welcome correction if I am mistaken).
          >
          >We have heard a lot about the MP's anti-Ecumenist
          >document. However, unless it is *acted* upon, what is it
          >really worth? The public actions of these two ancient Sees
          >are unmistakably Ecumenist--they are a clear and concrete
          >manifestation of the "Branch Theory" Ecclesiology which
          >our own Synod--just a few weeks ago--solemnly Anathematized.
          >Antioch and Alexandria are now recognizing, as Orthodox,
          >schisms which *refuse* to confess the dogmatic faith of the
          >Church. Antioch and Alexandria are saying that these
          >schismatics are, and always have been, *part* of the
          >Orthodox Church--but as "invisible" branches (it would seem),
          >since there was no discernible connection to the Orthodox
          >Church in either Faith or Sacrament. Have we only now, 1,500
          >years later, been blessed with the sanctity and wisdom to
          >see beyond the errors of the holy Fathers, and even of the
          >Ecumenical Councils themselves--and to correct them?
          >
          >The only question that remains, is to understand what this
          >means for us in ROCOR on May 17th. If, as I understand it,
          >ROCOR will, on that day, again become an integral and
          >constituent part of the Moscow Patriarchate and Church in
          >Russia--not only in origin, identity, and in spirit, but
          >also in One Body by One Eucharistic Communion, and by our
          >Commemoration of the Patriarch in all our Divine Liturgies,
          >then it seems to me that though we retain the name ROCOR,
          >and a degree of administrative independence, we are, in
          >reality, becoming PART of the MP, or rather, we will BE
          >the MP--the "MP Abroad" (so to speak), as we were the
          >"MP Abroad" prior to the Communist Revolution. The real
          >change is that now ROCOR will have a greater degree of
          >administrative independence than was the case prior to
          >the Revolution.
          >
          >If this is correct, if we are not only "reconciling" with
          >the MP, not only "entering into Communion" with the MP,
          >but rather, UNITING with the MP, and becoming *part* of the
          >MP, then ROCOR will be fully part of the Local Church of
          >Russia. It follows, then, that if ROCOR is fully part of
          >the Local Church of Russia, under her Patriarch, then ROCOR
          >will and *must* be in Communion with whatever Local Churches
          >the MP is in Communion with, is this not so? How can one part
          >of a Local Church refuse, on grounds of *heresy,* to be in
          >Communion with any Local Church which is in Communion with
          >our Patriarch and Holy Synod of Russia? Surely this would
          >cause a rift within the Local Church of Russia, such that
          >all who acted in defiance of, or condemned, the Patriarch
          >and Holy Synod of Russia, would very likely be deposed by
          >them.
          >
          >So, how can ROCOR maintain the integrity of her Orthodox
          >faith and confession under these circumstances? How can she
          >unite with a Local Church which is in Communion with heretics
          >(Antioch and Alexandria), without thereby being in Communion
          >with heretics herself, and thus compromising her glory,
          >her Orthodoxy? How can our Hierarchs remain silent in this
          >matter? This is *far* worse than simply praying with heretics
          >in the WCC, or being a member of it. This is actual
          >*Communion* with heretics, a betrayal of the Body and Blood
          >of Christ, and of the most sacred gift and trust of the
          >Priesthood.
          >
          >I ask Fr. John Whiteford, who was instrumental in my
          >conversion to holy Orthodoxy,
          >
          >I ask Fr. Alexander Lebedeff, who made me a Catechumen
          >and gave me my name,
          >
          >I ask Fr. John McCuen, who Baptized me, and anointed me
          >with Holy Chrism,
          >
          >and I ask Fr. John R. Shaw, who taught me a balanced
          >understanding of the holy Canons and their Anathemas
          >--knowledge that is most needful in these times, as a
          >shield against schism.
          >
          >I ask you, and all the Clergy of ROCOR who might read
          >these words, I ask from the heart: If ROCOR, as she is now,
          >is true and God-pleasing, without any spot or wrinkle, and
          >with a pure Communion, why should we--why should *I*--unite
          >with a Local Church which is in Communion with heretics?
          >What is my duty toward God and the Church and my soul
          >in this matter?
          >
          >When I became Orthodox, I chose ROCOR for a reason.
          >I chose ROCOR because her Orthodoxy was pure and
          >uncompromising. I chose ROCOR because her Clergy
          >and people were willing to suffer for the faith,
          >to keep it, to grow it, and to pass it on to their
          >children as an inheritance unimpaired, and a priceless
          >treasure. Its cost was the very Blood of God. What shall
          >we say on that Day, if that Blood is required at our
          >hands, because we betrayed it into the hands of
          >heretics?
          >
          >What shall we say?
          >
          >From the second Open Letter recently published by the
          >faithful monks of holy Mt. Athos:
          >
          >"In essence, all those who commemorate the name of the
          >Patriarch, express the same faith with him, according to
          >the teachings of the Holy Fathers and the Tradition of the
          >Church. We do remind you here of the words of the Martyrs
          >of the Holy Mountain, whom you say that you deeply respect
          >and honor, to the latin-lover emperor Michael the 8th:
          >"The Orthodox Church is from above; the commemoration of
          >the name of the High Priest in the altar indicates complete
          >agreement with him. Because it is mentioned in the comments
          >about the Divine Liturgy that the priest commemorates the
          >name of the high priest, indicating thus his obedience to
          >the higher authority, that he is in complete communion with
          >him and that he considers himself his successor in the Faith
          >and in the holy Sacraments".
          >
          >___________________________
          >
          >Athanasios Jayne
          >(ROCOR)
          >
          >
        • Athanasios Jayne
          ... the ecumenical council which condemned these two Local Churches. Could you tell me when this happened, and what was said? Or are we back to everyman his
          Message 4 of 22 , May 2, 2007
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, antiquariu@... wrote:
            >
            > Whereas I appreciate your concern, I must have missed
            the ecumenical council which condemned these two Local
            Churches. Could you tell me when this happened, and what
            was said? Or are we back to everyman his own ecumenical
            council?

            > Seriously, <<

            Dear Vova,

            It is my belief, based firmly upon the teaching of
            the Orthodox Church and Holy Fathers, that the
            Hierarchs of the Churches of Antioch and Alexandria
            have made heretical decrees, and on that basis,
            I have called them heretical. Was Iconoclasm a heresy
            only *after* it was condemned by the Seventh Ecumenical
            Council? Was Arianism a heresy only *after* it was
            condemned by the First? Is it your contention that
            the Iconoclasts and Arians were Orthodox before their
            canonical and synodal condemnation, and that no one
            should have called them heretics before then? Is it
            your contention that all who called them heretics
            before their canonical and synodal condemnation,
            sinned in doing so? What Ecumenical Council has
            said that the Pope of Rome is a heretic? None, and
            yet, he *is* a heretic--and no Orthodox Christian
            would say otherwise. Vova, would you agree with me
            that the Pope of Rome is a heretic? Please tell me
            what Ecumenical Council entitles you to do so, or
            tell us openly that you do not believe that the Pope
            of Rome is a heretic. What Ecumenical Council
            condemned the Monothelites as heretical before
            St. Maximus the Confessor (who was never Ordained)
            decided that they were, and refused Communion with
            them, and at the same time condemning their decrees?
            Was St. Maximus the Confessor wrong, in your opinion?

            You are free to disagree with me concerning Antioch
            and Alexandria. However, as I say, my conclusions
            concerning them rest upon the teachings of the Orthodox
            Church and Holy Fathers--and you are not free to
            disagree with *them.* If you do not regard the decrees
            of Antioch and Alexandria concerning the Monophysite
            Syrians and Copts as heretical, then you have indeed
            "missed the Ecumenical Councils," by which their heresies
            are clearly revealed and condemned.

            It is for the holy Hierarchs to put Conciliar judgments
            into effect, and I fully realize that. But for a
            layman to recognize heresy, and to say so, is not a
            usurpation of the prerogatives of the Clergy, who alone
            have the power and right to apply the canonical
            *consequences* of heresy when it is necessary--including
            excommunication, deposition, and anathema. The most
            a layman can do, is to bear witness to the truth as he
            is able, to the best of his ability, and to live in
            accordance with it himself. May the Lord grant you and
            I the grace and the strength to do so.

            Athansios Jayne
            (ROCOR)
          • antiquariu@aol.com
            Dear in-Christ Athanasios! Great answer! I do not agree with all of it, but I do with most, and it is a great answer. Please follow my interlining. In a
            Message 5 of 22 , May 3, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear in-Christ Athanasios!

              Great answer! I do not agree with all of it, but I do with most, and it is
              a great answer. Please follow my interlining.


              In a message dated 5/3/2007 8:47:22 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
              athanasiosj@... writes:

              Dear Vova,

              It is my belief, based firmly upon the teaching of
              the Orthodox Church and Holy Fathers, that the
              Hierarchs of the Churches of Antioch and Alexandria
              have made heretical decrees, and on that basis,
              I have called them heretical.
              Vova: and yet here it is your personal judgment until such a time as this
              is endorsed by a Council.


              Was Iconoclasm a heresy
              only *after* it was condemned by the Seventh Ecumenical
              Council? Was Arianism a heresy only *after* it was
              condemned by the First? Is it your contention that
              the Iconoclasts and Arians were Orthodox before their
              canonical and synodal condemnation, and that no one
              should have called them heretics before then? Is it
              your contention that all who called them heretics
              before their canonical and synodal condemnation,
              sinned in doing so?

              Vova: Well, er, yes. Divinely inspired or not, one only has to red the
              transactions of the councils and the commentaries of the Church Fathers to see
              that these issues were far from clear. They rent the Church and the Empire,
              and many whom we now revere as saints were for at least some of their
              existence on the wrong side of the argument. As far as iconoclasm is concerned, even
              today there are those who would have you believe that their is a canonical
              prohibition against everything except flat aspect Byzantine graphics, and fact
              is, there isn't. And then comes the question of the incredible number of
              self-righteous schismatics (The "True," "Holy," and "Genuine" wings, the
              "Resistance" wings, etc. I know it's Augustinian (Hippo) thought, but I firmly
              believe, along with St Augustine, that schism begets schism, and that -- in
              keeping with how the Church reintegrates heretics -- heresey is much easier to
              overcome than schism. Even S John Chrysostomos says use love, whereas our
              self-righteous would rather concemn.



              What Ecumenical Council has
              said that the Pope of Rome is a heretic? None, and
              yet, he *is* a heretic--and no Orthodox Christian
              would say otherwise. Vova, would you agree with me
              that the Pope of Rome is a heretic? Please tell me
              what Ecumenical Council entitles you to do so, or
              tell us openly that you do not believe that the Pope
              of Rome is a heretic.

              Vova: I do not not believe that the Pope is a heretic. As one of my
              favorite priests told me once (ROCOR), I have judgment, not a blagodarometer in my
              pocket. I have heard our own hierarchs (specifically Metropolitan Vitaly)
              utter things that were completely at odds with the little I know of theology,
              yet we didn't call him a heretic, we called him a senile old man under the
              influence of the nechestnye. So, no, until Pope Benedict is formally condemned
              by a council I will not resort to such. That does not, however, mean that I
              subscribe to Roman Catholic teachings that are heretical and have been
              identified as such. Nor, for that matter, do I believe that Elder Ephraim is a
              heretic, since he has not been formally condemned as such. I have even greater
              issue with Elder Ephraim than I do with Pope Benedict, but God has given me
              judgment and discernment to be able to reject heretical teachings, and
              rebaptism is on the top of that list. Open enough?





              What Ecumenical Council
              condemned the Monothelites as heretical before
              St. Maximus the Confessor (who was never Ordained)
              decided that they were, and refused Communion with
              them, and at the same time condemning their decrees?
              Was St. Maximus the Confessor wrong, in your opinion?


              Vova: You mean that wonderful monk saint who was martyred by Constantinople
              (ahh, got to love those Byzantines) for professing Orthodoxy AND obedience
              to Rome? No, S. Maximos was not wrong. I actually have read most of his
              extant writings, and you should too. He certainly makes some pretty eloquent
              comments and arguments about the primacy of the Roman Church, and the
              shallowness that made up the Orthodox Church of his time. Really gives you some
              insight into the Glories of Byzantium. . .

              Athanasios: You are free to disagree with me concerning Antioch
              and Alexandria. However, as I say, my conclusions
              concerning them rest upon the teachings of the Orthodox
              Church and Holy Fathers--and you are not free to
              disagree with *them.* If you do not regard the decrees
              of Antioch and Alexandria concerning the Monophysite
              Syrians and Copts as heretical, then you have indeed
              "missed the Ecumenical Councils," by which their heresies
              are clearly revealed and condemned.

              It is for the holy Hierarchs to put Conciliar judgments
              into effect, and I fully realize that. But for a
              layman to recognize heresy, and to say so, is not a
              usurpation of the prerogatives of the Clergy, who alone
              have the power and right to apply the canonical
              *consequences* of heresy when it is necessary--includin*
              excommunication, deposition, and anathema. The most
              a layman can do, is to bear witness to the truth as he
              is able, to the best of his ability, and to live in
              accordance with it himself. May the Lord grant you and
              I the grace and the strength to do so.



              Vova: Agreed, and I have even read the canons which prohibit bishops from
              staying in hotels, inns and visiting taverns. The body of canon law is
              frequently at odds with itself: it was created by fallible men. You had it
              right with "the best of his ability. . ."

              What we absolutely do have to be careful with is believing our own
              propaganda; history and hagiography are written for a purpose, and that purpose is
              frequently at odds with the truth. I can hardly wait until we work up Ferrara
              and Florence (or should I say Basel, since that's where this council started)
              , and that very minor backwater village priest who became the champion of
              Orthodoxy. What happened was wonderful, but what was described in the
              hagiographies and in the watered down modern Orthodox treatments of the issue is
              sheer nonsense. So, no, I don't believe everything I'm told by any source.
              That's why we have a Creed - Symbol of Faith. Our definition of Orthodoxy rests
              in that document alone. All other essays, hagiographies, etc. are
              superfluous, and not necessarily accurate or true.

              Looking forward to continuing this one.

              In Christ,

              Vova H.






              ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Archpriest David Moser
              ... Here is the core of the issue - *your* belief and *you* deciding who is heretical and who is not. This is not Orthodoxy, this is protestantism. The ones
              Message 6 of 22 , May 4, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Athanasios Jayne"
                <athanasiosj@...> wrote:
                >
                > It is my belief, ... and on that basis,
                > I have called them heretical. ...

                Here is the core of the issue - *your* belief and *you* deciding who
                is heretical and who is not. This is not Orthodoxy, this is
                protestantism. The ones who are given the grace by God to make such
                determinations are the heirarchs, not everyone. The Church is not a
                democracy where everyone's opinion is equal. The Church has one head
                Jesus Christ and He and only He gives grace to certain members to be
                the archpastors of the flock. He does not give this grace to the
                whole flock, nor does He give it to all the "under shepherds" but only
                to the arch-shepherds. The archpastors (the hierarchs) do not
                themselves make such decisions, but can only speak with authority when
                they speak in unison - and even that statement is subject to our Holy
                Tradition. It is the height of pride for any single person,
                particularly any single layman to assume that he is the equal of a
                synod of bishops.

                > my conclusions
                > concerning them rest upon the teachings of the Orthodox
                > Church and Holy Fathers--and you are not free to
                > disagree with *them.*

                Exactly - it is not the teachings of the Church with which anyone
                disagrees, but rather your personal conclusions drawn from those
                teachings and your personal ideas of how those teachings should be
                interpreted and applied. To make yourself the arbiter of the teaching
                and practice of the Church is nothing more than protestantism applied
                to the whole of Tradition rather than to limited solely to written
                scripture.

                Archpriest David Moser
              • Athanasios Jayne
                ... Dear Father, I can t believe that you actually read the statements of Antioch and Alexandria, which I have characterized as heretical, before you made this
                Message 7 of 22 , May 5, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  Fr. E. wrote:

                  > All your reasonings concerning Great apostolic
                  > Patriarchates of Antiochia and Alexandria just sheer
                  > example of blasphemy against Jesus Christ and His
                  > apostles who have founded these churches in the power
                  > of the Holy Ghost. Don't trust your human logic in the
                  > spiritual matters...

                  Dear Father,

                  I can't believe that you actually read the statements
                  of Antioch and Alexandria, which I have characterized as
                  heretical, before you made this accusation against me.
                  Did you read them, Father, or did you make this grievous
                  accusation against me before you examined the basis of
                  my assertion?

                  If you haven't read them, Father, here are links to the
                  relevant statements:

                  ANTIOCH: http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state13.html
                  ALEXANDRIA: http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state05.html

                  1) Father, do you believe that the contents of these
                  official Synodal and Patriarchal statements are entirely
                  Orthodox?

                  2) Do you agree with the Patriarch of Alexandria, when in
                  this document (above) He recognizes the baptism of the
                  Anti-Chalcedonian Copts to be the "one Baptism" spoken of
                  by St. Paul in Ephesians 4:5, thus confessing that the
                  Anti-Chalcedonians possess the same Mystery of Baptism
                  as the Orthodox Church?

                  3) Do you agree with the Patriarch of Alexandria, when in
                  this document He recognizes and accepts as a true Mystery
                  the Marriages of the Anti-Chalcedonian Copts, thus
                  confessing them to possess the same Mystery of Marriage
                  as the Orthodox Church?

                  4) Do you agree with the Patriarch of Alexandria, when in
                  this document He allows Marriages between the Orthodox,
                  and the Anti-Chalcedonian Copts?

                  5) Do you agree with the Patriarch of Alexandria, when in
                  this document He agrees to give the Mysteries of the
                  Orthodox Church to the Anti-Chalcedonian spouses of
                  Orthodox Christians, and also affirms that the Orthodox
                  who are married to Anti-Chalcedonians, may receive the
                  "Mysteries" from the Anti-Chalcedonian Copts?

                  6) Do you agree with the Patriarch of Alexandria, when in
                  this document He affirms, contrary to the decrees of the
                  Holy Fathers in Ecumenical Council, that the Anti-
                  Chalcedonian Copts "have always loyally maintained the
                  same authentic Orthodox Christological faith, and the
                  unbroken continuity of Apostolic tradition"?

                  7) Do you agree with the Patriarch of Alexandria, when in
                  this document He agrees, contrary to the Holy Fathers in
                  Ecumenical Council, that the Anathemas decreed by our
                  Holy Fathers should be "lifted," and that there should be
                  a "restoration of full Communion" between the Orthodox
                  and the Anti-Chalcedonian Copts?

                  8) Do you agree with the Patriarch of Antioch, when in
                  this document (above) He and His Synod call the Syrian
                  Anti-Chalcedonians "our brothers"? The meaning here
                  can only be that of spiritual brotherhood.

                  9) Do you agree with the Patriarch of Antioch, when in
                  this document He, with His Synod, calls the gathering of
                  the Syrian Anti-Chalcedonians, a "sister Church"?

                  10) Do you agree with the Patriarch of Antioch, when in
                  this document He, with His Synod, say that union with
                  the Syrian Anti-Chalcedonians "will give the Eastern
                  Orthodox more light and radiance, that it has lacked for
                  centuries before"? Do you share their "conviction that
                  this orientation is from the Holy Spirit," and that this
                  move toward union with them is "inspired by the Holy
                  Spirit"?

                  11) Do you agree with the Patriarch of Antioch, when in
                  this document He, with His Synod, say that we should
                  "affirm total respect for the Holy Fathers of both
                  Churches"? Can you be unaware that our Holy Orthodox
                  Fathers *Anathematized* their "Holy Fathers" in
                  Ecumenical Council?

                  12) Do you agree with the Patriarch of Antioch, when in
                  this document He, with His Synod, say that Orthodox
                  students should attend theological studies taught by
                  the Syrian Anti-Chalcedonians?

                  13) Do you agree with the Patriarch of Antioch, when in
                  this document He, with His Synod, say that NO member
                  of the Syrian Anti-Chalcedonians who wishes to convert
                  to Orthodoxy, and become a member of the Orthodox Church,
                  can be permitted to do so? Do you agree with the Hierarchs
                  of Antioch that such persons ought to be refused entrance
                  into the Orthodox Church "irrespective of all motivations
                  or reasons"?

                  14) Do you agree with the Patriarch of Antioch, when in
                  this document He, with His Synod, permit Orthodox Bishops
                  and Priests to be co-celebrants, together with the Syrian
                  Anti-Chalcedonians, in the ministration of the Mysteries
                  of Baptism and Marriage?

                  15) Do you agree with the Patriarch of Antioch, when in
                  this document He, with His Synod, permits Orthodox Clergy
                  to give all of the Holy Mysteries of the Orthodox Church, to
                  the Syrian Anti-Chalcedonians, and also for the Orthodox to
                  receive the so-called Mysteries from the clergy of the Anti-
                  Chalcedonians "in localities where there is only one priest"?

                  16) Do you agree with the Patriarch of Antioch, when in
                  this document He, with His Synod, allows the clergy of the
                  Anti-Chalcedonians to use Orthodox temples, and also
                  allows Orthodox Clergy to use the temples of the Anti-
                  Chalcedonians?

                  17) Do you agree with the Patriarch of Antioch, when in
                  this document He, with His Synod, permits the Orthodox
                  to have Anti-Chalcedonian Godparents and Marriage
                  witnesses, and for the Anti-Chalcedonians to have Orthodox
                  Godparents and Marriage witnesses?

                  I must believe, Father, that you were unaware of the contents
                  these Patriarchal and Synodal decrees, when you accused
                  me of "blasphemy against Jesus Christ and His apostles" for
                  opposing such things, and for saying that these statements
                  by the Hierarchs of Antioch and Alexandria are heretical.

                  If you were mistaken in this, Father, I forgive you most
                  willingly. If, however, after being fully aware of what the
                  Hierarchs of Antioch and Alexandria have said, you still
                  accuse me of blasphemy against Christ and His Apostles,
                  I still forgive you, but I also receive your accusation as
                  the blessing of the Lord Himself, Who has honored me,
                  a sinner, to suffer false accusation for His sake.

                  I say again, and may I say it always and to my last breath,
                  with the help of God Who is my Witness, that the Hierarchs
                  of the Churches of Antioch and Alexandria have made
                  heretical confessions. I say this not of myself, not based
                  upon my own human logic (as you suggest), but rather
                  because it is the confession of Orthodoxy according to
                  the Church and our God-bearing Fathers.

                  The Hierarchs of the Churches of Antioch and Alexandria,
                  by their words and deeds, have made themselves liable to
                  Anathema and deposition--and so do all who remain in
                  Communion with them.

                  Athanasios Jayne
                  (ROCOR)
                • antiquariu@aol.com
                  In a message dated 5/5/2007 9:24:24 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, athanasiosj@juno.com writes: The Hierarchs of the Churches of Antioch and Alexandria, by their
                  Message 8 of 22 , May 5, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    In a message dated 5/5/2007 9:24:24 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
                    athanasiosj@... writes:

                    The Hierarchs of the Churches of Antioch and Alexandria,
                    by their words and deeds, have made themselves liable to
                    Anathema and deposition--Anathema and deposition--<WBR>an
                    Communion with them.

                    Athanasios Jayne
                    (ROCOR)






                    Khristos voskrese!

                    Lord have mercy, Athanasios, I have seen almost every one of those points
                    you made (Intermarriage, recognition of baptisms, godparents, etc) carried out
                    in ROCOR churches without too much fuss, and also with the knowledge and
                    endorsement of the hierarchs. And this was not by beginner or convert priests.
                    As far as the other points, patriarchs calling for lifting of anathemas and
                    so forth, what's wrong and heretical about that? Anathemas can and are lifted
                    based on more accurate understanding of what's going on. The canons - and
                    the interpretations thereof by councils - are hardly absolute.

                    What is absolute in Orthodoxy is that our hierarchs working in concert
                    (sobornost') are who call the shots. Initially, I had thought your arguments
                    resembled those of Torquemada (Roman Catholic Inquisition), but more and more I
                    see I was wrong. Your regular pet peeve of the week sounds a lot like more
                    like the Lord High Protector, Oliver Cromwell, himself. It's a very Protestant
                    line of approach to sack the hierarchs because certain lay people are in a
                    better position to deal with heresy. Let's hang them all and start over! To
                    paraphrase one of our dear Supreme Court justices, "I can't define heresy,
                    but I knows it when I sees it."

                    I know I surprised you with my last direct answers about Pope Benedict --
                    haven't heard a peep from you since then on that topic -- but tell me, with
                    those agonistean burdens on your shoulders, like worrying about the state of
                    the church and those evil heretics down there in Africa, do you have any time
                    left to help your neighbor or roll out pierogies or whatever else they do in
                    your neck of the woods?

                    Last question directed at you: why are the heretics and schismatics you
                    favor (i.e., the "true" rebaptizers and "zealots" any better than churches
                    seeking to redefine potential conciliar screw-ups?

                    Wishing you a wonderful weekend and a better Sunday,

                    Vova H.



                    ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com


                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • Athanasios Jayne
                    ... and Alexandria via Moscow.
                    Message 9 of 22 , May 6, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Fr. A. wrote:
                      >
                      >...In 12 days we shall also be in communion with Antioch
                      and Alexandria via Moscow.<<

                      XB!

                      Dear Father (et al),

                      I think it would be more accurate to say that "In 12 days
                      ROCOR shall be in Communion with Antioch and Alexandria
                      because ROCOR will be PART of the Moscow Patriarchate."

                      We will not be "in Communion with Moscow," we will be
                      PART of the Church of Russia--under the Moscow Patriarchate.

                      So, we will be in Communion with Antioch and Alexandria--not
                      "via" anybody else, but rather, we will, ourselves, as a
                      Church, be in Communion with Antioch and Alexandria, directly,
                      through our own Hierarchs, because Patriarch of Moscow will
                      be our supreme Hierarch on earth.

                      This is a *crucial* difference and change from ROCOR's past
                      relations with Churches such as Antioch or Constantinople,
                      despite the efforts of many to confuse and obscure this
                      matter, intentionally or unintentionally.

                      The Canons address Communion with heretics. To my knowledge,
                      they do *NOT* address, per se, "Communion with those who are
                      in Communion with heretics who are in Communion with
                      schismatics." Previously, ROCOR distanced itself from Local
                      Churches which were *themselves* involved in heresy.
                      So long as there was no manifest heresy in a Local Church,
                      ROCOR did not distance itself from them, even when they were
                      in Communion with Churches that were increasingly entangled
                      with heresy.

                      We see this in the precedant of ROCOR's Communion with
                      the Serbians and the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. These
                      Churches still maintained an Orthodox confession, and
                      so we were in Communion with them. But we were increasingly
                      separating from Churches like Constantinople and Antioch,
                      due to their increasingly manifest departure from
                      Orthodoxy. Thus, ROCOR did not have normative relations,
                      did not have unhindered Hierarchical Communion with
                      Local Churches whose Hierarchs made heretical
                      confessions.

                      This distance, or gradual "walling off" from the sick
                      members of the Church, will no longer hold true for
                      ROCOR after 17 May. On that day, it is the intention
                      of our Hierarchs to *unite* with the MP, a Local Church
                      which is in direct, full, normal, unhindered, and
                      Hierarchical Communion with Local Churches that are
                      ailing under Hierarchs of heretical confession. Therefore,
                      ROCOR will no longer be, itself, innocent of a breach of
                      the Canons which prohibit Communion with heretics.

                      This is a new situation, and, I contend, a clear departure
                      from ROCOR's previous ecclesiastical relation to heresy
                      within Orthodoxy. It is a change in practice reflecting
                      a change in Ecclesiology. Previously, our Hierarchs
                      affirmed that the Ecclesiology of the Holy Synod in
                      Resistance, for example, was "identical" to that of ROCOR,
                      and ROCOR's actions in the real-world substantially
                      supported this claim. ROCOR's present course, then, is
                      demonstrably a departure from this Orthodox and Patristic
                      Ecclesiology, which avoided Communion with heretics, fully
                      in accordance with the Canons and Holy Fathers of the
                      Church.

                      Those who have attributed a sort of "contamination" or
                      "electric" or even (and let me say that childish words have
                      no place here) a "cooties" Ecclesiology to me, have seriously
                      misunderstood me, and are attempting to discredit me by a
                      false association with erroneous Matthewitism. I do not
                      ascribe to the errors of Matthewitism, which I have often
                      repudiated as both false and schismatic. As I have said
                      before, I hold to the moderate Eccesiology of Resistance
                      which was previously also professed by our own ROCOR
                      Hierarchs, and I believe that this is one and the same with
                      the Patristic, Canonical, and Traditional Ecclesiology of
                      Orthodoxy itself.

                      I do not "unchurch" the Antiochians and Alexandrians. I say
                      that their Hierarchs have confessed heretical errors, and
                      have for years now, openly, and in essence "bare-headed
                      and in the Church," by official, Patriarchal, and Synodal
                      statements. Therefore, on the basis of the holy Canons
                      and teaching of the Holy Fathers, I say that they are
                      *liable* to Anathema and deposition. I do not say that they
                      have *already* been Anathematized by the Church, or that
                      they are *already* deposed, because the Canons are not
                      self-enforcing or automatic. Such application of the Canons
                      can *only* be done by a great Synod of Orthodox Hierarchs,
                      after a just examination of their case, and if the offending
                      Hierarchs do not repent of their errors. Until that time,
                      they remain Grace-bearing Hierarchs of the Church; that is,
                      their Mysteries are true Mysteries. At the same time, they
                      are also ailing members of the Church. Those who separate
                      themselves from the Communion of such ailing members, pending
                      a hoped-for Canonical and Synodal judgment, are not only not
                      schismatic, but are even worthy of praise, according to
                      St. Photios the Great and the Holy Hierarchs assembled in
                      Council with Him, because their act of separation has, as
                      its ultimate purpose, the preservation of the purity of the
                      Orthodox Faith, and the unity of the Orthodox Church in
                      truth.

                      Those who say that there is no difference between being in
                      direct, unhindered, and direct Hierarchical Communion with
                      a Local Church, and being "in Communion via an intermediate,"
                      assert that which is untenable. If such a theory were correct,
                      then it would also be correct to say that ROCOR never ceased
                      to be in Communion with the MP, which would make the historic
                      Act of 17 May largely superfluous and insignificant. But it
                      is neither superfluous nor insignificant. We are, in part,
                      "restoring" that which once did not exist before in the same
                      way--namely, Communion: full, direct, unhindered, and
                      Hierarchical, as between members of one and the same Local
                      Church, which ROCOR and the MP will be, in every sense, on
                      that day.

                      Athanasios Jayne
                      (ROCOR)
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.