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

Re: [orthodox-synod] What_does_“dialogue”_really_mean?

Expand Messages
  • Kiril Bart
    Thank you for a really thaugthful posting, we deffinately has a lack of them lately. Subdeacon Kirill ... === message truncated ===
    Message 1 of 6 , Oct 30, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      Thank you for a really thaugthful posting, we
      deffinately has a lack of them lately.
      Subdeacon Kirill
      --- klandsberg@... wrote:
      > On these Internet mailing lists and elsewhere, we
      > repeatedly hear the
      > claim that the time has come for "dialogue" between
      > Zarubezhnaya
      > Tserkov (Z.Ts.) and the Moscow Patriarchate (MP).
      > Those individuals
      > desiring "dialogue" point to the spiritual rebirth
      > occurring
      > in
      > Russia (presumably because they credit the MP with
      > responsibility for
      > this rebirth) as evidence in support of the need for
      > dialogue;
      > however, it occurs to me that these people are
      > overlooking the most
      > important factor in successful dialogue--mutual
      > trust. In order for
      > dialogue to be productive, each party must have a
      > reasonable
      > expectation that the other party is telling the
      > truth, that he says
      > what he means, that he is sincere, honest, and
      > forthright.
      > Discussions between parties who don't tell the truth
      > are not
      > called "dialogue". They are called negotiations,
      > haggling,
      > bargaining, quibbling, deceit, sham, pretense,
      > duplicity, fraud,
      > treachery, and many other things, but not dialogue.
      >
      > The pro-"dialogue" group will say that the
      > "closed-minded" anti-
      > dialogue group is the cause of the mistrust, because
      > they will not
      > open their eyes to all of the positive evidence that
      > the MP is no
      > longer under the control of government, but is now,
      > they say,
      > actively pursuing the goal of bringing knowledge of
      > Orthodoxy to the
      > Russian people, who were previously deprived of such
      > knowledge by the
      > godless authorities. But I would like to pose a
      > question: What
      > cause have we to trust them? Over the past ten
      > years, the MP has had
      > innumerable opportunities to make a gesture of good
      > faith toward
      > Z.Ts., and, in every case, has failed to do so.
      >
      > First, let us review the opportunity that
      > representatives of the MP
      > had to act with brotherly love in the now-infamous
      > Hebron episode. We
      > have all heard the account of how representatives of
      > the MP were
      > denied access to the monastery by our nuns, in
      > violation, they say,
      > of an international treaty. In this case, the
      > brotherly thing to do,
      > and indeed the decent thing, would have been to call
      > their superiors
      > (the Director of the Jerusalem Mission or the office
      > of the Synod of
      > Bishops), report the violation, and request that the
      > superiors
      > resolve the situation. Such an action would have
      > shown a measure of
      > respect to Z.Ts.'s hierarchs and monastics, who have
      > been the
      > caretakers of these holy places for many decades.
      > Instead, the
      > representatives of the MP called in the Palestinian
      > authorities, who
      > arrived on the scene with police and physically
      > removed aging
      > monastics from the premises. Instead of using the
      > situation as an
      > opportunity to show respect and good will to Z.Ts.,
      > the MP
      > immediately sought a political and quasi-military
      > solution.
      >
      > Another good example of a missed opportunity to make
      > a good-faith
      > gesture is the situation with our parish in Ottawa
      > (and similar
      > situations in a handful of other parishes in North
      > America). When a
      > renegade priest seeks acceptance into the MP and
      > wants to take his
      > parish with him in order to cover up
      > misappropriation of funds or
      > other misdeeds, the MP could, as a good-faith
      > gesture, refuse to
      > accept him. Instead, the MP not only accepts such
      > priests, but aids
      > and abets these individuals, especially if there is
      > a prospective
      > transfer of real-estate ownership involved. One
      > can't help but
      > ask the question�if the MP is so sure that brotherly
      > reunification is
      > necessary and inevitable, why do they bother trying
      > to steal our real
      > estate in advance of such brotherly reunification?
      > Wouldn't it
      > be easier to behave in a Christian manner and treat
      > us with good will
      > until the desired reunification occurs? The obvious
      > answer is that
      > they desire no to embrace us with brotherly love,
      > but to smother and
      > destroy us.
      >
      > Another example of a missed opportunity to make a
      > gesture of good
      > faith is the Glorification of the New Martyrs. This
      > event posed a
      > unique and extraordinary opportunity to show us and
      > the faithful in
      > Russia that they are serious about a brotherly
      > reunification.
      > Instead of holding a "canonization" service for
      > these saints,
      > they could have simply announced that they recognize
      > the
      > glorification of the New Martyrs by Z.Ts. Would
      > this have been a
      > bold move? Would it have run a risk of exposing the
      > MP to criticism
      > in Russia? Certainly. But one would think that
      > they worthy goal of
      > reunification would warrant such boldness and such a
      > risk. Some will
      > answer that the Russian people were craving and
      > demanding a big
      > public celebration. There are plenty of ways in
      > which the MP could
      > have provided the desired celebration (off the top
      > of my head�
      > simultaneous molebni in every church in Russia
      > followed by
      > processions and free distribution of icons of the
      > New Martyrs would
      > have satisfied the desire of people for a solemn and
      > triumphant event
      > to mark the occasion). To heal the pain of 70+
      > years of mistrust, a
      > dramatic gesture is needed, and recognition of our
      > glorification of
      > the New Martyrs would have made every single
      > Zarubezhnik take
      > notice. There are, I am sure, many reasons why the
      > MP did not choose
      > this option. To do this would have been to
      > recognize the Z.Ts. is a
      > legitimate church with a canonically legal right to
      > exist; the MP,
      > however, continues to regard Z.Ts. as a schismatic
      > and illegal
      > entity. Doing this would also have deprived them of
      > their chance to
      > exclude St. Joseph of Petrograd from the list of New
      > Martyrs; his
      > exclusion is essential if the MP is to maintain
      > their defense of the
      > indefensible policy of collaboration with the
      > godless authorities,
      > which we commonly refer to as Sergianism.
      >
      > The course of action I describe above would also
      > have allowed our two
      > groups to avoid the tragic disparity which has now
      > occurred in
      > venerating the Royal Martyrs. For political
      > reasons, the MP chose to
      > glorify the Tsar's family not as martyrs, but as
      > "passionbearers"
      > (strastoterptsy). Many people have said that this
      > distinction is
      > unimportant. However, when the "inevitable"
      > brotherly
      > reunion
      > occurs, what will happen? Will the MP give them a
      > "promotion"? Will
      > we demote them? The MP could have demonstrated
      > their desire for
      > prayerful communion with us by ensuring that our
      > saints are venerated
      > in like ways (perhaps they could have even used our
      > beautifully-
      > written service to the Royal Martyrs). Clearly,
      > they had other
      > objectives which took precedence over their desire
      > for prayerful
      > communion with Z.Ts.
      >
      > The most significant gesture that the MP could make,
      > an option which
      >
      === message truncated ===


      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
      http://personals.yahoo.com
    • valichka@wanadoo.fr
      Having studied Church Slavonic at Jordanville, i can imagnie how extremely difficult it must have been to even find a sole person to write such a service
      Message 2 of 6 , Oct 30, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Having studied Church Slavonic at Jordanville, i can imagnie how
        extremely difficult it must have been to even find a sole person to
        write such a service nowadays.
        The purists criticising that service will not prevent those
        venerating the Royal Martyrs and all the New Russian Martyrs to find
        it nevertheless beautifully written, because beauty in Church is not
        a question of syntax, but a comprehension of the heart and the soul,
        no matter what syntax errors were made in Church Slavonic.
        Vechnaya pamiat Vl Antoniu!
        Valentina by the Mediterranean Sea
        ps : i don't see really the relation between that question and the
        good and bad people in MP (or in ROCOR, or Catholics, or Protestants,
        or Jews, or Muslims, etc...). Peace, love... flowers in the hair and
        marijuana like in the good old 70ies?

        --- In orthodox-synod@y..., klandsberg@y... wrote:
        > Thanks for the reply. I, too, heard this criticism of the service,
        > so I made a point of paying really close attention to it this year,
        > and discovered that I completely disagreed with the assessment.
        > Though it is syntactically complex, I found it to be accessible,
        > profound, thought-provoking, and awe-inspiring.
        > That is, of course, just my humble opinion.
        > K
        >
        > --- In orthodox-synod@y..., eledkovsky@h... wrote:
        > > A worthless comment about a minor point made within this
        > articulation
        > > of the complex issues that our Bishops are surely pondering (we
        can
        > > only humbly pray for the Holy Spirit to guide them in wisdom).
        > >
        > > RE:
        > > --- In orthodox-synod@y..., klandsberg@y... wrote:
        > > The MP could have demonstrated their desire for
        > > > prayerful communion with us by ensuring that our saints are
        > > venerated
        > > > in like ways (perhaps they could have even used our beautifully-
        > > > written service to the Royal Martyrs
        > >
        > > ...I have heard several people who are very knowledgeable of
        Church
        > > Slavonic crticize this particular service as verbose and
        > > syntactically awkward, and thus not really "beautifully-written"
        > > (with all due respect to the author, reposed Archbishop Anthony).
        > > Forgive the quibble, but I mention it because it is too easy to
        > > pretend that our beloved Church, on its "we took the high road"
        > > course, is exemplary in all things and in all ways.
        > > It is also too easy to paint MP as 'bad guys'. In my limited
        > > experience, there are many good people and (gasp!) some really
        > > wonderful clergy members serving God and people under the MP's
        > > mantel.
        > > We must continue to pray for peace and to love one another.
        > > In Christ,
        > > E.
      • Igumeniya Iulianiya
        ... I have a few questions about this belaboured subject of DIALOGUE . The organization in Moscow which claims to be a church does not seem familiar with
        Message 3 of 6 , Oct 30, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          klandsberg@... wrote:
          >" On these Internet mailing lists and elsewhere, we
          > repeatedly hear the
          > claim that the time has come for "dialogue" between
          > Zarubezhnaya
          > Tserkov (Z.Ts.) and the Moscow Patriarchate (MP)."



          I have a few questions about this belaboured subject
          of "DIALOGUE".
          The organization in Moscow which claims to be a church
          does not seem familiar with churchly terms (or
          anything else in Orthodoxy!)
          It is surely no news to any of the bishops involved in
          this sad SOBOR that since the Council of 1917-1918
          under Saint Patriarch Tikhon the corrupted and
          apostate church in Moscow has been and still is under
          Anathema, which can be removed ONLY by the Russian
          Orthodox Church which still remains faithful to
          Christ. The Anathema means among other restrictions
          that faithful Orthodox Christians MAY NOT HAVE ANY
          CONTACT OR DEALINGS WITH EITHER THE COMMUNIST SOVIETS
          OR THAT PART OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH WHICH UNITED
          ITSELF WITH THE SOVIETS AND THUS LEFT THE TRUE CHURCH
          PERMANENTLY. This false "church".. the "M.P". has no
          claim whatsoever on any Orthodox person or Church in
          any place, nor any claim on property which is still
          kept safe by the Russian Orthodox Church whose
          headquarters are in New York City. Every one of the
          past Metropolitans of the Russian Orthodox Church in
          Exile, as well as the present Metropolitan Vitaly has
          faithfully observed the Anathema and refused any
          correspondence or contact with the apostates.
          How then does anyone in the Russian Orthodox Church
          think and speak of a DIALOGUE with a "church" which
          simply does nor exist?
          The only similar dialogue which comes to mind is the
          one which Mother Eve conducted with the serpent. And
          we know how that one turned out, don't we?
          If we truly love ANYONE, a person or a church, we will
          treasure their immortal soul and do all in our power
          to help them avoid eternal death. We will scorn their
          lies and cling to the truth, thus showing them the
          way; we will pity them for their blindness and
          stupidity and we will remain steadfastly on the road
          of Faith in Jesus Christ and we will suffer and even
          accept death if necessary to give the example they
          must follow. Let it not be said at the Judgment that
          we failed to save them, at least by our own example.
          If you love them, in the Name of the Lord Jesus
          Christ, DO NOT JOIN THEM!
          sinful Abbjuliana







          " point to the spiritual rebirth
          > occurring
          > in
          > Russia (presumably because they credit the MP with
          > responsibility for
          > this rebirth) as evidence in support of the need for
          > dialogue;
          > however, it occurs to me that these people are
          > overlooking the most
          > important factor in successful dialogue--mutual
          > trust. In order for
          > dialogue to be productive, each party must have a
          > reasonable
          > expectation that the other party is telling the
          > truth, that he says
          > what he means, that he is sincere, honest, and
          > forthright.
          > Discussions between parties who don't tell the truth
          > are not
          > called "dialogue". They are called negotiations,
          > haggling,
          > bargaining, quibbling, deceit, sham, pretense,
          > duplicity, fraud,
          > treachery, and many other things, but not dialogue.
          >
          > The pro-"dialogue" group will say that the
          > "closed-minded" anti-
          > dialogue group is the cause of the mistrust, because
          > they will not
          > open their eyes to all of the positive evidence that
          > the MP is no
          > longer under the control of government, but is now,
          > they say,
          > actively pursuing the goal of bringing knowledge of
          > Orthodoxy to the
          > Russian people, who were previously deprived of such
          > knowledge by the
          > godless authorities. But I would like to pose a
          > question: What
          > cause have we to trust them? Over the past ten
          > years, the MP has had
          > innumerable opportunities to make a gesture of good
          > faith toward
          > Z.Ts., and, in every case, has failed to do so.
          >
          > First, let us review the opportunity that
          > representatives of the MP
          > had to act with brotherly love in the now-infamous
          > Hebron episode. We
          > have all heard the account of how representatives of
          > the MP were
          > denied access to the monastery by our nuns, in
          > violation, they say,
          > of an international treaty. In this case, the
          > brotherly thing to do,
          > and indeed the decent thing, would have been to call
          > their superiors
          > (the Director of the Jerusalem Mission or the office
          > of the Synod of
          > Bishops), report the violation, and request that the
          > superiors
          > resolve the situation. Such an action would have
          > shown a measure of
          > respect to Z.Ts.'s hierarchs and monastics, who have
          > been the
          > caretakers of these holy places for many decades.
          > Instead, the
          > representatives of the MP called in the Palestinian
          > authorities, who
          > arrived on the scene with police and physically
          > removed aging
          > monastics from the premises. Instead of using the
          > situation as an
          > opportunity to show respect and good will to Z.Ts.,
          > the MP
          > immediately sought a political and quasi-military
          > solution.
          >
          > Another good example of a missed opportunity to make
          > a good-faith
          > gesture is the situation with our parish in Ottawa
          > (and similar
          > situations in a handful of other parishes in North
          > America). When a
          > renegade priest seeks acceptance into the MP and
          > wants to take his
          > parish with him in order to cover up
          > misappropriation of funds or
          > other misdeeds, the MP could, as a good-faith
          > gesture, refuse to
          > accept him. Instead, the MP not only accepts such
          > priests, but aids
          > and abets these individuals, especially if there is
          > a prospective
          > transfer of real-estate ownership involved. One
          > can't help but
          > ask the question�if the MP is so sure that brotherly
          > reunification is
          > necessary and inevitable, why do they bother trying
          > to steal our real
          > estate in advance of such brotherly reunification?
          > Wouldn't it
          > be easier to behave in a Christian manner and treat
          > us with good will
          > until the desired reunification occurs? The obvious
          > answer is that
          > they desire no to embrace us with brotherly love,
          > but to smother and
          > destroy us.
          >
          > Another example of a missed opportunity to make a
          > gesture of good
          > faith is the Glorification of the New Martyrs. This
          > event posed a
          > unique and extraordinary opportunity to show us and
          > the faithful in
          > Russia that they are serious about a brotherly
          > reunification.
          > Instead of holding a "canonization" service for
          > these saints,
          > they could have simply announced that they recognize
          > the
          > glorification of the New Martyrs by Z.Ts. Would
          > this have been a
          > bold move? Would it have run a risk of exposing the
          > MP to criticism
          > in Russia? Certainly. But one would think that
          > they worthy goal of
          > reunification would warrant such boldness and such a
          > risk. Some will
          > answer that the Russian people were craving and
          > demanding a big
          > public celebration. There are plenty of ways in
          > which the MP could
          > have provided the desired celebration (off the top
          > of my head�
          > simultaneous molebni in every church in Russia
          > followed by
          > processions and free distribution of icons of the
          > New Martyrs would
          > have satisfied the desire of people for a solemn and
          > triumphant event
          > to mark the occasion). To heal the pain of 70+
          > years of mistrust, a
          > dramatic gesture is needed, and recognition of our
          > glorification of
          > the New Martyrs would have made every single
          > Zarubezhnik take
          > notice. There are, I am sure, many reasons why the
          > MP did not choose
          > this option. To do this would have been to
          > recognize the Z.Ts. is a
          > legitimate church with a canonically legal right to
          > exist; the MP,
          > however, continues to regard Z.Ts. as a schismatic
          > and illegal
          > entity. Doing this would also have deprived them of
          > their chance to
          > exclude St. Joseph of Petrograd from the list of New
          > Martyrs; his
          > exclusion is essential if the MP is to maintain
          > their defense of the
          > indefensible policy of collaboration with the
          > godless authorities,
          > which we commonly refer to as Sergianism.
          >
          > The course of action I describe above would also
          > have allowed our two
          > groups to avoid the tragic disparity which has now
          > occurred in
          > venerating the Royal Martyrs. For political
          > reasons, the MP chose to
          > glorify the Tsar's family not as martyrs, but as
          > "passionbearers"
          > (strastoterptsy). Many people have said that this
          > distinction is
          > unimportant. However, when the "inevitable"
          > brotherly
          > reunion
          > occurs, what will happen? Will the MP give them a
          > "promotion"? Will
          > we demote them? The MP could have demonstrated
          > their desire for
          > prayerful communion with us by ensuring that our
          > saints are venerated
          > in like ways (perhaps they could have even used our
          > beautifully-
          > written service to the Royal Martyrs). Clearly,
          > they had other
          > objectives which took precedence over their desire
          > for prayerful
          > communion with Z.Ts.
          >
          > The most significant gesture that the MP could make,
          > an option which
          >
          === message truncated ===


          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
          http://personals.yahoo.com
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.