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

Re: [orthodox-synod] An Interview with Archbishop Mark

Expand Messages
  • Joachim Wertz
    Dear Vladimir, Let me reply to your first questions. In the interviews he gave, Vl. Mark seems to me to make clear whenever he is voicing his own opinion. In
    Message 1 of 14 , Jun 12, 2002
      Dear Vladimir,
      Let me reply to your first questions. In the interviews he gave, Vl. Mark
      seems to me to make clear whenever he is voicing his own opinion. In his
      remarks at the roundtable discussion printed in "Der Bote", Vl. Mark gives
      his opinion that the Synod Abroad is PART of the Russian Church, the other
      parts being the MP and the Catacomb Church. He states also his opinion that
      since the '70's there remained no true catacomb bishop. I decline to answer
      your other questions in that they involve speculation and personal opinions.
      However in the two interviews, I believe, Vl. Mark does not speak of
      "autocephaly". Personally, I gather from reading his words, that Vl. Mark is
      more critical and less optimistic about the MP than some other people in the
      ROCOR, but on the other hand more realistic.

      In Christ,

      Joachim Wertz

      ----------
      From: "vladimir kozyreff" <vladimir.kozyreff@...>
      To: <orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com>
      Subject: RE: [orthodox-synod] An Interview with Archbishop Mark
      Date: Wed, Jun 12, 2002, 4:37 PM


      Dear Joachim, dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

      Thank you for your reply.

      I have more questions: when a bishop gives such an interview, does he
      express the meaning of the Church or his own?

      If he does not express the meaning of the Church, has he the right to do so
      and should he not make clear whom he represents?

      Is it the understanding of our Church that the MP is really the Church of
      Russia? In spite of having been founded by Stalin with the purpose of
      eradicating the real Church and having performed that mission with a certain
      success?

      If there are "stalinist" elements in the MP, is Patriarch Alexis II not the
      most stalinist of them all? Was it then well advised to have so frequent
      contacts with him? Especially against the opinion of the Metropolitan?

      Will our Church really seek legitimacy from an "autocephaly" obtained from
      the MP, as Friest Potapov once suggested, thus renouncing the legitimacy she
      once received from Partiarch Tikhon?

      Will our Church abandon all intention she may have had and all mission she
      may have received to return to Russia to be fully the legitimate Church in
      Russia again?

      What will the difference be with the OCA? Especially if our Church is bound
      to loose its Russian character and to receive its autocephaly from the MP,
      in spite of the latter considering the Latino-catholics as a "Sister Church"
      and continuing to proclaim that collaborating with Stalin, excommunicating
      the Martyrs (to re-instate them afterwards) and failing in those days to
      confess Christ before men is what saved the Church?

      Is the Synod of our Church totally free of contradictions? Did it not state
      first that it disapproved Vl Michael's failed attempt to take Vl Vitaly back
      to NY? Did it not later fail to issue any apology to Vl Vitaly? Why did it
      not even officially distance itself from the violence that took place and
      did it then promote Vl Michael after all as though nothing had happened? Is
      this an extremist question on my behalf?

      If the Synod did consider the complaint filed against Vl Ambrosius as
      futile, why did it not fulfil its guidance duty by explaining this to the
      believers?

      Please, brothers and sisters in Christs, do not insult me but be so kind as
      to explain to me if you will be so kind.

      May God have mercy!

      In Christ,

      Vladimir Kozyreff

      -----Message d'origine-----
      De : Joachim Wertz [mailto:wertz@...]
      Envoye : mercredi 12 juin 2002 2:26
      A : orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com
      Cc : orthodox-tradition@yahoogroups.com
      Objet : Re: [orthodox-synod] An Interview with Archbishop Mark


      Dear Vladimir,

      CHRIST IS RISEN!

      Most if not all of your questions are answered in an interview given by Vl.
      Mark to Evgeniy Vereshagin that appeared in the journal "Kontinent", No. 98
      (4) 1998, pp. 280-308, in Russian. Somehow I think you may be able to read
      Russian. I would highly recommend that anyone interested in Vl. Mark and his
      views read this article.

      I do not know what the "NTS movement" is/was. Could you elaborate?

      One simple thing I can clarify for you from the article is that Vl. Mark's
      family left East Germany when he was in his younger years. As to your other
      questions, I do not have the time, at present to translate from the article.
      But I do highly suggest that you find and read it.

      I would offer to send you a photocopy of the article, but mine is not of the
      best quality and I think it would be illegible in parts if I were to copy it
      again. Are you in Belgium? Maybe you can obtain it through what we here call
      "inter-library loan", or perhaps at a university library.

      Another suggestion: If you can read German, take a look at Abp. Mark's
      remarks in the article "Orthodoxe Tagung --Fortsetzung: Einheit--auf
      dogmatischer, aber nicht administrativer Ebene!"
      "Der Bote der deutschen Dioezese der Russischen Orthodoxen Kirche im
      Ausland", No. 2, 1996, pp. 10-15.

      In Christ,

      Joachim Wertz

      ----------
      From: "vkozyreff" <vladimir.kozyreff@...>
      To: orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [orthodox-synod] An Interview with Archbishop Mark
      Date: Tue, Jun 11, 2002, 3:32 PM


      This refers to:

      An Interview with Archbishop Mark by Mark Smirov.

      Regarding this interview, here are a few things which are not clear
      to me:

      Why, as Vl Mark converted to orthodoxy in our Church, did he apply to
      become a monk in Mt Athos? Why did he apply to follow courses of
      theology in The Trinity St Sergius monastery, instead of studying in
      the Jordanville Trinity Monastery? Why did he not refer to his bishop
      for this matter? If he did, why would his bishop have send him there?

      Was Vl Mark not a mmber of the NTS movement? Why does he not allude
      to this in the interview?

      Being a citizen of Eastern Germany in 1969, how come he became a
      student in Heidelberg? In those days, East German students in general
      could not so easily get the blessing of the Stasi to study theology
      in Heidelberg.

      I am puzzled. Can anybody help me?

      In Christ,

      Vladimir Kozyreff




      Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
      <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




      Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/






      Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
      <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • vladimir kozyreff
      Dear List, A concept which is often debated is the canonical territory . In his latest inteviw in
      Message 2 of 14 , Jun 23, 2002
        Dear List,

        A concept which is often debated is the "canonical territory". In his latest
        inteviw in < Nezavisimaya gazeta", Vl Mark says:

        - The concept of " canonical territory " is an innovation! This term never
        earlier in Church existed, and it is better to not use it because it turns
        the attention away from thre essential...

        http://religion.ng.ru/people/2002-06-05/1_looking.html

        It seems in fact that the concept is not that new. The Church has always
        been organised on a territorial basis. A diocese is a territory.

        Below is a reference that documents this idea.

        In Christ,

        Vladimir Kozyreff


        The Patriarchate of Moscow, as the local Church and in accordance with its
        official founding ecclesiastical Acts, also has its canonical jurisdiction
        with geographical boundaries and geographical restrictions, according once
        again to the canonical teaching and ecclesiology of the Orthodox Church.

        Its canonical jurisdiction - "the territory" - extends "to all Russia",
        namely as noted also above, within the boundaries of the Russian dominion
        and not beyond these.

        http://www.orthodoxa.org/orthodoxie/droit%20canon/russianterritory.htm
      • vladimir kozyreff
        Dear List, In his June 5, 2002 interview to Nezavisimaya gazeta , Vl Mark says: - In the remote prospect there could be a form of coexistence, and a further
        Message 3 of 14 , Jun 23, 2002
          Dear List,

          In his June 5, 2002 interview to "Nezavisimaya gazeta", Vl Mark says:

          - "In the remote prospect there could be a form of coexistence, and a
          further dialogue in the form which was described already by Patriarch Aleksy
          II.

          - In one of the interviews he gave, he recognised natural, that the ROCOR
          part of the Russian Church has a life, features which were developed for 80
          years, and nobody should bury them into oblivion.

          - For example, among our parishioners there are a a lot of non-Russians. We
          thus in many respects differ from the Russian parishes.

          - Any model of a mutual recognition which gradually would pass in the form
          of an autonomy is therefore necessary".

          http://religion.ng.ru/people/2002-06-05/1_looking.html

          I cannot understand Vl Mark's concept of "mutual recognition".

          - If the MP will renounce sergianism, ecumenism etc. and convert, we will be
          all part of the Russian Church and there would be no object for any "mutual
          recognition". Our "recognition" is automatic for all that have converted,
          without any declaration of any kind, in the same way that martyrs are
          recognised as saints, automatically, without any canonisation.

          - If the MP will not renounce sergianism, ecumenism etc., then there can be
          no recognition whatsoever on our part. The Church recognises only those and
          all those who follow Christ and His teaching, and make no concession to the
          worldly powers.

          - What is the autonomy Vl Mark is talking about? Did we not receive our
          autonomy from Patriarch Tikhon? Is the MP not autonomous too (except its
          links with the KGB)?

          - Is there now no "form of coexistence"? Both the MP and the ROCOR do
          coexist.

          I have another proposal:

          - If the MP does convert, we will be reunited with our Russian brothers and
          sisters. We pray for it every day.

          - Both the ROCOR and the present "MP" will cease to exist and there will be
          only "the Russian Church".

          - The believers that the ROCOR will leave behind her and that have no
          particular relation to Russia (it seems that they have become many)will
          found other Churches, named after the countries in which they live. These
          Churches will eventually reunite with local "orthodox" when the latter do
          convert, if there is no real local Church already. If there is one, there
          will be no reason for them not to join them. The Russian Church will keep a
          presence abroad, for the numerous Russian (or affiliated) population
          disseminated world wide. Anybody will be welcome to pray in her churches.
          Vl Mark will probably be part of the German Orthodox Church. Our hihghest
          hierarch will be the Patriarch of Moscow and all Russias. May God allow this
          to happen!

          In God,

          Vladimir Kozyreff
        • joeswaydyn2000
          ... hihghest ... allow this ... Why is it that the All-Russian Sobor appears to have been forgotten and replaced with dialogues ? No matter what position
          Message 4 of 14 , Jun 24, 2002
            --- In orthodox-synod@y..., "vladimir kozyreff"
            <vladimir.kozyreff@s...> wrote:

            > Vl Mark will probably be part of the German Orthodox Church. Our
            hihghest
            > hierarch will be the Patriarch of Moscow and all Russias. May God
            allow this
            > to happen!

            Why is it that the 'All-Russian Sobor' appears to have been forgotten
            and replaced with 'dialogues'? No matter what position you take
            toward the MP (mine is negative) I thought the Russian Church
            situation would be resolved when the whole Russian Church is
            represented. Just a thought.
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.