RE: [orthodox-synod] Address
- 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