RE: [orthodox-synod] Address
- Fr. Leonid Mickle's post began:
>As the moderator of this list has already underscored, the orthodox-synodFar from inchoate musings. Hear, hear! I think it is high time, Fr.
>list consists of ROCOR members and those well-disposed toward ROCOR. One of
>our "well-disposed friends," a person one who had already been preparing the
>field for a schism while she was still claiming to be a part of ROCOR and
>denying that she was a part of the Suzdal group, now presents an unambiguous
>Once again, asking your forgiveness for wearying you all with my inchoate
>Deacon Leonid Mickle
Mark, to bar such propaganda from this list, whether coming from some
sort of 5th column within, or from schismatics and/or heretics (how
much difference is there!) without.
--Fr. Gregory Williams
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
1180 Orthodox Way
Liberty, TN 37095-4366 USA
Phone: (615) 536-5239
FAX: (615) 536-5945
- I did not graduate from a seminary. I did not read the decisions of the
October Sobor with a loupa, so I may have missed something. But beyond
saying that there are some positive moves in the MP, there was nothing there
to indicate an impending union of ROCOR with MP.
And I have not seen any MP rep inventorying property at my church (St.
Sergius in San Francisco).
The meanspirited and rebellious messages recently posted on this list (in
the name of God's truth) disturb me much more than anything the MP has done
God have mercy.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 11:46 AM
Subject: RE: [orthodox-synod] Address
> As the moderator of this list has already underscored, the orthodox-synod
> list consists of ROCOR members and those well-disposed toward ROCOR. One
> our "well-disposed friends," a person one who had already been preparing
> field for a schism while she was still claiming to be a part of ROCOR and
> denying that she was a part of the Suzdal group, now presents an
> manifesto: ROCOR has been an apostate organization since at least 1994,
> with a hierarchy which is "...not ashamed crudely to violate the canons
> wills of the Blessed First Hierarchs Metropolitans Anthony, Anastasy and
> Philaret..." ...to set upon on a "treacherous course of action," and is
> intending to unite with the Moscow Patriarchate...," and to "...[hurl]
> itself into the embraces of the ecumenist 'World Orthodoxy.'" Now the
> Suzdal group adds that ROCOR is neither canonical nor part of the Church,
> for it calls for the zealots of Orthodoxy to leave ROCOR and come under
> omorphorion of the Russian Orthodox Church., so that they might "acquir[e]
> canonical ground for their ecclesiastical existence...," "...seek
> with the True Orthodox Christians of all countries and peoples..." and
> practical steps "...to establish full canonical communion with sister True
> Orthodox Local Churches...."
> Forgive me for "stirring the pot" by asking a series of questions:
> 1) Fr. Moderator: Does this type of agitprop belong on the orthodox-synod
> 2) How often must we be told that the Sobor said things it did not say,
> things it did not do, planned a course it has not planned?
> 3) How often is it necessary to repeat, both with respect to the
> pronouncements of the MP and our bishops' assessments -both the positive
> the negative - of those pronouncements: Read the actual statements, and
> don't rely on the statements of those who [now overtly state] that they
> to rend the body of the Church.
> 4) Is it necessary to remind the intended audience of the Suzdal manifesto
> that a bit of history is being rewritten? When the Suzdal group joined
> ROCOR, it seemed to think ROCOR was canonical, and was part of the Russian
> Church. I believe that it was Metropolitan Vitaly, speaking on behalf of
> the Synod of Bishops of Rocor, who subsequently declared Valentin and
> with him to be outside the Church.
> 5) If a unification with the TOCs is anticipated, do those TOCs include
> group which in violation of the canons, left ROCOR to avoid canonical
> proceedings brought to sort out charges of sexual improprieties among
> clergy? Do they include those under a former ROCOR archimandrite Antony
> Grabbe, who, in violation of the canons, fled ROCOR rather than face
> canonical proceedings on a number of charges, and who has been advertised
> this list by a (former?) member of ROCOR as Archbishop of North America?
> What "canonical status" will those who leave ROCOR find by responding to
> this call for schism?
> 6)Would it be inappropriate to ask why the zealous defenders of Orthodoxy
> who are publishing assessments critical of the ROCOR Sobor do not also
> publish those assessments which are in support of our bishops, statements
> those who trust in their Hierarchs, and who do not read into the
> of our Hierarchs things they have not said?
> Once again, asking your forgiveness for wearying you all with my inchoate
> Deacon Leonid Mickle
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Olga Mitrenina [mailto:alektor@...]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 11:48 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: [orthodox-synod] Address
> Of the 8th Congress of the clergy, monastics and laity of the Suzdal
> of the Russian [Rossijskaya] Orthodox Church
> to all Orthodox Christians in the Fatherland and in the Diaspora
> We, participants in the 8th Congress of the clergy, monastics and
> of the Suzdal Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church, being zealous for
> glory of God and the preservation of the patristic Orthodox teaching,
> all those to whom Orthodoxy is dear. And first of all we address those
> and laity of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCA), both in Russia and
> abroad, whose Christian conscience cannot be reconciled with the
> course of action chosen by the hierarchy of the Church Abroad.
> In spite of difficulties and obstacles raised up on the path of our
> salvation, the Suzdal Diocese and the whole Russian [Rossijskaya] Orthodox
> Church strives to go by that path which was trodden by the Russian
> Church headed by his Holiness Patriarch Tikhon. By the mercy of God and
> prayers of the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia, our parishes
> increased the numbers of their members and continue, as far as they are
> the work of regenerating Orthodoxy in Russia.
> For us a huge significance attaches to the blessing and instruction
> Bishop Gregory (Grabbe) that was given by him before his blessed end to
> parishes of the Suzdal Diocese that were in the process of regeneration.
> 10 years ago, the parish of the Emperor Constantine left the Moscow
> Patriarchate. This became an important event in the history of the Russian
> Orthodox Church, since in Russia for the first time there appeared a legal
> Orthodox community not entering into the structure of the sergianist
> Much has changed in the past years. But the saddest thing for us has
> been the clear apostasy of the Church Abroad for its own confessing path.
> That which has been taking place there in the last years witnesses to the
> fact that power in the Hierarchical Synod belongs now, not to the zealots
> Orthodoxy, but to people who are not ashamed crudely to violate the canons
> and wills of the Blessed First Hierarchs Metropolitans Anthony, Anastasy
> Philaret. An eloquent witness to this apostasy from true Orthodoxy has the
> acceptance by the Church Abroad in 1994 of the heretical ecclesiology of
> Metropolitan Cyprian of Fili.
> The results of the last Hierarchical Council of the ROCA vividly
> to the fact that the hierarchs of the Church Abroad are intending to unite
> with the Moscow Patriarchate, and this elicited the perplexity of many
> representatives of the clergy, monastics and laity.
> The situation that has developed is fraught with schism, which
> to become the last event in the life of the ROCA: a part of her will be
> swallowed up by the Moscow patriarchate, while another part will disperse
> amongst various jurisdictions.
> Many have been deceived by the council of the MP which took place in
> August, 2000, at which the following documents were approved:
> 1) "The Basic Principles of the Relationship of the ROC to heterodoxy;
> 2) An Act glorifying the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia;
> 3) "The Bases of the Social Conception of the ROC".
> An analysis of these documents shows that no substantial change in
> sergianist-ecumenist course of the Moscow patriarchate can be foreseen.
> Ecumenism has not been condemned as a heresy, and the Moscow patriarchate
> remains a member of the World Council of Churches and other ecumenist
> The glorification of some of the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of
> Russia was not done without omissions and cunning, that is, it was not
> in an ecclesiastical manner. In particular, the Moscow patriarchate did
> repent of its own many years of slander against the Holy New Martyrs, who
> condemned sergianism.
> In the "social doctrine of the MP" many have seen a renunciation of
> declaration of Metropolitan Sergius and his course of action. But not only
> there not a word about repenting of the heresy of sergianism in this
> document: the name of Metropolitan Sergius is not mentioned at all. The
> document, like many previous sergianist declarations, is unsubstantiated.
> The Moscow patriarchate for many decades faithfully served Soviet
> and now it serves the New World Order. And it is with this "church" that
> hierarchy of the Church Abroad wishes to unite.
> All heretics in all ages have, under the guise of serving Christ,
> Antichrist and prepared his coming. But most of them, on falling away from
> the Church, have departed from Orthodox tradition. Sergianism is
> dangerous because it strives to preserve unchanged the external forms,
> them as nets in which to catch, if it were possible, even the elect.
> Beloved in Christ Jesus, brothers and sisters!
> Many today are faced with the question: is it possible to preserve
> faithfulness to True Orthodoxy while remaining in the Church Abroad, which
> consciously hurling itself into the embraces of the ecumenist "World
> Orthodoxy". We all very well understand that a significant part of the
> will not follow its clerical leadership along the false path.
> The Congress of the Russian Orthodox Church calls on all these
> of Orthodoxy to come over under the omophorion of the Hierarchs of the
> Russian Orthodox Church.
> We wish to emphasise that we are far from a striving to lord it over
> whomever it may be. We only want to help those who need help in acquiring
> canonical ground for their ecclesiastical existence.
> The Russian Orthodox Church is not striving to close in on itself. On
> the contrary, we desire communion with the True Orthodox Christians of all
> countries and peoples. We intend to take practical steps to establish full
> canonical communion with sister True Orthodox Local Churches.
> November 12/25, 2000.
> Archbishop Valentine, President of the Hierarchical Synod of the Russian
> Orthodox Church.
> Members of the Hierarchical Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church: Bishop
> Theodore, Bishop Seraphim, Bishop Victor, Bishop Anthony, Bishop Timothy.
> Protopriest Andrew Osetrov, Secretary of the Hierarchical Synod.
> And the signatures of many other participants in the Congress.
> Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
> Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
- At 03:58 PM 1/10/01 -0600, you wrote:
>Far from inchoate musings. Hear, hear! I think it is high time, Fr.It is impossible to "bar" such propaganda preemptively.
>Mark, to bar such propaganda from this list, whether coming from some
>sort of 5th column within, or from schismatics and/or heretics (how
>much difference is there!) without.
Without complete moderation of all postings, one can
only act after the fact. Some contrary opinions will
see the light of day. Is that bad? First we limit
the ravings of Fr Elia, now Olga posts, who's next?
Where do you suggest we draw the line? This list was
never meant to be an official organ of an approved
When the diversity of this list's membership was questioned,
I asked on the clergy list for accused "enemies" of ROCA
(present on this list) to be revealed, so that the intended
list membership (friends and members of ROCA) could be
maintained. No one wanted to name names, but Olga herself
has revealed, I think, the limits of our tolerance. She's
entered into the realm of proselytization, and outright attack
on ROCA. I am not suggesting she is an enemy, and it is
easy to love someone such as herself who really believes she
is doing us a service by posting what she has posted. It's
not really friendly however for a guest to accuse one's hosts
of treachery, schism and apostasy.
But then, as Fr Alexander Lebedev has said about his own
very controversial quotations posted to the orthodox-tradition
list, these are not her words, she is only reporting them
Ouch! our ox is being gored now, and the emotional response
is predictably like that on the tradition list in response
to Fr Alexander and Fr John Shaw's postings. Many would say
turnabout is fair play. I appeal however to all posters on
all lists to discern the membership and to not intentionally
goad the primary audience.
There are other forums with a more general audience, where
such information as Olga has provided would not be considered
inappropriate. Here in the context of the synod list it
cannot be considered anything but.
Of course we now have to have a conversation about the
limits of tolerance and what constitutes "propaganda" or
Fr Leonid wrote:
> 1) Fr. Moderator: Does this type of agitprop belong on theI don't believe so.
>2) How often must we be told that the Sobor said things it did notThis is just my opinion, but I think there will continue
>say, did things it did not do, planned a course it has not planned?
to be questions until there is a clearer understanding of
what happened - and people feel safe in asking questions
without fear of being labeled with "fifth column" or other
>3) How often is it necessary to repeat,...How often do we repeat the cycle of the Gospel lessons?
4) Is it necessary to remind the intended audience of the Suzdal manifesto
that a bit of history is being rewritten? ...
Yes, it is necessary. That would, in fact, be a good place
to start. It is best to leave out personal digs, and only
act on fact.
>5) If a unification with the TOCs is anticipated, do those TOCs include theThese are all good questions, which may now need to be
>group which in violation of the canons, left ROCOR to avoid canonical
>proceedings brought to sort out charges of sexual improprieties among their
>clergy? Do they include those under a former ROCOR archimandrite Antony
>Grabbe, who, in violation of the canons, fled ROCOR rather than face
>canonical proceedings on a number of charges, and who has been advertised on
>this list by a (former?) member of ROCOR as Archbishop of North America?
>What "canonical status" will those who leave ROCOR find by responding to
>this call for schism?
taken to a more appropriate forum such as:
but since you have raised them here, perhaps there are
some who will now feel compelled to present answers here.
>6)Would it be inappropriate to ask why the zealous defenders of OrthodoxyNot inappropriate, but surely more than a little beyond
>who are publishing assessments critical of the ROCOR Sobor do not also
>publish those assessments which are in support of our bishops, statements by
>those who trust in their Hierarchs, and who do not read into the statements
>of our Hierarchs things they have not said?
the realm of reasonable expectations. I don't see
partisans doing such things elsewhere. Viable lists
allow for more than one side of an issue to be aired,
so that balance is not lost. I'm sure no one here is
suggesting anything more authoritarian than that here.
Counter the propaganda, don't squash it, otherwise people
get paranoid and find it easy to believe the worst.
As a ROCA priest today wrote on the orthodox-tradition
"When emotion *prevails,* truth is cast aside. [...]
"People who are in political, religious, and economic leadership
know very well that emotion clouds the mind, tempers resolve,
and divides members of any society. Used "properly" emotions
can manipulate any person, institution, or nation caught in its
unthinking, non-logical grasp. Spiritual abuse, as found in sects
and may be found in the followers of a "charismatic" leader, for
example, is based on knowing the emotional make-up of the
adherent - and then using it against him/her.
"Some of us tend to be more emotional in nature than others
and are, therefore, more easily led, more easily discouraged,
more easily depressed, and more easily maneuvered into sinful
situations, than those who are less so and who are more
cognitive and rational in thinking.
"We are creatures who have emotions and also reasoning powers.
They both have their proper place in life. Reason, however, must
supercede emotion. Reason must temper emotion.
"It seems that in all of us reason and emotion are in a constant
struggle. Unfortunately, emotion comes easily. To exercise reason,
in the throes of emotion, is the struggle.
"As we walk through life the path to the goal must be paved with