[orthodox-synod] Re: In the Matter Of "God's Anointed"
- I have a question, having read the original post:
Can a Czar who had thus been anointed ever be
excommunicated by the Church?
Can what happenned to St. Theodosius the Great (he was
excommunicated by St. Ambrose of Milan for killing
7000 men, women and children) and later repented
happen to such a Czar.
Was the Church correct in ignoring the murder of St.
Phillip of Moscow by Ivan the Terrible (much less the
murders of many other innocent people). Does the fact
that Ivan the Terrible was anointed by God, protect
him from any consequence enacted by the Church (like
excommunication). And if the answer is that Czars are
a law unto themselves while on earth, was this a
development in Russia alone?
The decree of 1613 (at the start of the Romanov
dynasty) seems to state that the Patriarch has no
power to control the czar over any matter, religious
or civil. What happens if the Czar preaches heresy?
Can he be excommunicated or removed for such a thing?
--- intrprtr@... wrote:
>=== message truncated ===
> Several posts have been made to this List in the
> course of the last few
> days, or so, which disparage the sacred memory of
> Tsar' St. Nicholas II --
> the LAST Tsar' of Russia, to say nothing of
> disparaging the very concept of
> Sacred Monarchy, in general.
> While such attacks might seem to be excusable when
> they come from those who
> are not Orthodox -- or from those whose Orthodoxy
> has been "compromised" or
> "tainted" by the spirit of antichrist -- it is
> ignominiously despicable
> when it comes from those who claim to be Orthodox
> members of the Russian
> Orthodox Church Abroad!
> Has our spiritual upbringing been so shoddy that we
> no longer have *any*
> knowledge whatsoever of the Orthodox teaching
> concerning "God's
> Anointed"? Are not the basic tenets of the Orthodox
> Faith being taught in
> ROCOR's church schools in America anymore? Does
> ROCOR even *have* church
> schools in America anymore? And if it does, do the
> teachers there now
> subscribe to the neo-orthodox notion that we can
> pick, choose, and ignore
> at leisure the doctrines and canons of the Orthodox
> Faith, including the
> "anathemas" of Orthodoxy Sunday? In particular, the
> one which states:
> >To such as deny the Grace [imparted to the Monarch]
> in the Mystery of
> >Anointing [him] to the Throne and to [his] Royal
> service, which is an
> >especially unique service rendered to the Church of
> Christ, and who thus
> >audaciously dare to rebel and to commit treason
> against them: anathema!
> Should we not be ashamed of our ignorance regarding
> Sacred Monarchy, when
> even one such as Shakespeare (and he was certainly
> far from being an
> Orthodox Christian!) knew enough in his day to
> >Not all the water in the rough rude sea
> >Can wash the balm off from an anointed king;
> >The breath of worldly men cannot depose
> >The deputy elected by the Lord:
> Nicholas II, Emperor and Tsar' of All Russia became
> such at His coronation,
> when He was anointed with "the balm of Heav'n" (the
> "Oil of Gladness," as
> the Bible calls it). And He *remained* such, *even
> unto the very moment of
> His death*, which is *why* He was -- why He *had* to
> be --
> ritually-sacrificed to the powers of hell by
> Christ's enemies; and why,
> consequently, He has been glorified by God as the
> Martyr-TSAR' -- rather
> than merely as the martyred "citizen" Nikolai
> Had He ever been *other* than the Tsar', following
> His Coronation -- had He
> ever actually become, in effect, a mere "citizen"
> (as some claim) following
> his so-called "abdication" -- such a
> ritual-sacrifice would have been
> *absolutely worthless* from the point of view of
> those sons of satan who
> carried it out, as should be more than evident to
> any who claim to be at
> all studied in history and anthropology -- and who,
> consequently, should
> also then be well-versed in the mystically-symbolic
> "killing of the king"
> ritual that frequently took place in pre-Christian
> societies. (Those
> interested in pursuing this topic in more detail
> might well begin by
> referring to "The Golden Bough" [in its UN-abridged
> edition] by James Frazer.)
> Hence, Tsar' Nicholas' "abdication" on behalf of
> both Himself and the
> Tsarevich ("for the greater good of Russia," as He
> thought, having been
> deceived by those who had pledged their undying
> loyalty to Him), was not a
> *spiritually*-bindings document, but only a
> worthless scrap of paper...
> Wherefore, the only thing that *can* be said to have
> incontrovertibly at the moment that the Tsar's pen
> touched paper is that He
> exchanged the *form* of His service to Holy Rus'
> from being one of
> >"He Who restraineth"
> to being one of
> >"He Who redeemeth,"
> as, Christ-like, abandoned by all, He ascended His
> own personal
> Golgotha... And, just as Christ was the Innocent
> Sacrificial Victim Who
> shed His Blood for the sins of the whole world, so,
> too, Nicholas II -- the
> Martyr-Tsar' -- was
> the Innocent Sacrificial Victim Who shed His Blood
> for the sins of Russia --
> that Russia which had not wanted to belong to the
> Tsar' and, in
> consequence (in Voloshin's words),...
> >"went out humiliated, and a beggar, and slave to
> the meanest slave"...
> Anyone who believes or teaches otherwise -- whether
> he does so in
> ignorance, or with malice aforethought -- is simply
> playing into the hands
> the sworn enemies of Holy Rus' -- of those who
> participated in that
> terrible act of
> regicide (and whose spiritual descendants still rule
> our greatly-suffering
> Russian Land). And such a one, consequently,
> stands condemned by the
> fearsome words of that sacred and holy oath which
> was sworn by *all* Russia
> at the _Zemskii Sobor_ [Land Council (composed of
> representatives of every
> stratum of Russian society)] in 1613:
> >It is hereby decreed and commanded that God's
> Chosen One, Tsar' Mikhail
> >Feodorovich Romanov, be the progenitor of the
> Rulers of Rus' from
> >generation to generation, being answerable in his
> actions before the Tsar'
> >Of Heaven, Alone;
> >and should any dare to go against this decree of
> this _Sobor -- whether it
> >be Tsar', or Patriarch, or any other man, may he be
> accursed in this age
> >and in the age to come, having been sundered from
> the Holy Trinity...
> Unfortunately, the foregoing will doubtless appear
> to be naught but
> "senseless babble" to those who have lost the savour
> of genuine Orthodoxy,
> for they have been poisoned by the foetid saecular
> breath of that mephitic
> spirit, so aptly depicted in Boito's opera:
> >...the spirit who denieth all things -- always;
> >who is for naught, for devastation! --
> >for ruin-universal, and for strife;
> >and whose very life and breath
> >is what men once called:
> >Transgression, Sin and Death;
> that *demon*-o-cratic spirit which...
> >"walketh about, to and fro, in all the earth,
> seeking whom he may devour,"
> in order to prepare men to receive and worship the
> coming Antichrist -- him
> whose forerunners so viciously slew our Tsar' in
> order to clear the way for
> the arrival of their Beast, which, as Yeats said...
> >...its hour come round at last,
> >Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born...
> The purpose behind the ritualistic "killing of the
> ['old'] king," after
> all, is to remove him that he might not hinder the
> coming of the "new
> king." And Nicholas II -- the Martyr-Tsar' (being
> the "old king") -- was
> none other than...
> >"he who restraineth [the coming of the 'new king'],
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.