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

Re: [orthodox-synod] Re: FWD: The historical position of the Church Abroad

Expand Messages
  • Russell Martin
    I find nothing whatsoever questionable and dubious in Fr. Alexander s post. In fact, it is the kind of thing that, if one listens to with a calm and
    Message 1 of 10 , Jul 2, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      I find nothing whatsoever questionable and dubious in Fr. Alexander's
      post. In fact, it is the kind of thing that, if one listens to with a
      calm and charitable heart, only stirs compassion and optimism. At least
      for me. On the other hand:

      <<< We are together
      with the millions of martyrs of Russia. They, and only they, saved
      the Church in Russia.
      Am I mistaken?
      or is this so difficult to understand?>>>

      It is I who am frequently mistaken, but it seems to me that the first
      thing to correct here is the notion that anyone--even the
      martyrs!--saves the Church. The Church saves us. We do not save the
      Church.

      I am not, moreover, familiar with any official proclamations that
      suggest that Met. Sergius, in taking the actions he did, "saved" the
      Church.

      In Christ,
      Roman Martin

      Russell E. Martin
      Asst. Professor of History
      Westminster College
      New Wilmington, PA 16172-0001
      phone: 724.946.7246
      fax: 724.946.7256
      webpage: http://www.westminster.edu/staff/martinre/
      other email: remartin@...
    • joeswaydyn2000
      ... was to ... out to ... you may have ... a ruling ... bishops ... even ... lay alike ... chose ... Epistle; The ... you can ... you don t. ... Just seeing it
      Message 2 of 10 , Jul 3, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In orthodox-synod@y..., Hristofor <hristofor@m...> wrote:
        > Although I imagine the intent of the recent posting by Mr Kozyreff
        was to
        > show Metropolitan Philaret's strong stance against the MP, it turns
        out to
        > be quite an indictment of ROCiE and the Varnavaites.
        >
        > From M. Philaret's letter:
        > >And have written him letters, etc.? No matter how sincere a man
        you may have
        > >considered him to be, nevertheless, can your private opinion annul
        a ruling
        > >adopted by the Church? <...>
        >
        > Remember the hue and cry over the Epistle of October 2000? Some
        bishops
        > signed and then removed their signatures, former Bp Varnava didn't
        even
        > sign... It seems that many a private opinion from both clergy and
        lay alike
        > interfered with the decision(s) of the Synod. Although Bp Varnava
        chose
        > not sign, it did not mean that he did not have to abide by the
        Epistle; The
        > Orthodox Church is neither a democracy nor a Chinese menu, where
        you can
        > select the things you like about it and chose to ignore the things
        you don't.
        >

        Just seeing it from both sides here, not defending ROCE per se; if
        the ROCOR then signed a document affirming full membership with the
        WCC, the Bishops are obliged to abide by it? I mean, that would also
        be personal opinion. Let's be objective here.

        Joe
      • vkozyreff
        Dear List, Roman Martin writes: the first thing to correct here is the notion that anyone--even the martyrs!--saves the Church. The Church saves us. We do
        Message 3 of 10 , Jul 13, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear List,

          Roman Martin writes:

          "the first thing to correct here is the notion that anyone--even the
          martyrs!--saves the Church. The Church saves us. We do not save the
          Church."

          Let me kindly comment as follows.

          If there is no clergy left and no believers left in a country, the
          Church has ceased to be present in that country (has been lost).
          Achieving this in the USSR (destroying the Church) was the goal of
          the communists. Preventing this from happening (by being faithful)
          was "saving the Church".

          The faith does save the Church. The Faith essential to the Church. No
          faith, no Church. If all are living out of the faith, nobody is
          living in it, and there is no Church.

          The reason the Sergianists allowed themselves to collaborate with the
          atheist regime is that they thought or claimed that this was the only
          way to prevent the extinction of the faith in the Soviet Union.

          In those who accepted this view, they actually did destroy the faith,
          which is indispensable for the Church to be. A great deal of MP
          faithful tell you now that had it not been for Met Sergius, there
          would have been no place left to pray in the Soviet Union or even no
          notion that Christ had ever existed. They thus considered that they
          did save the Faith and thus the Church from disappearing.

          We all know that the Church saves us if we are in Her. This does not
          at all contradict the statement that the martyrs (in Christ) save (in
          Christ) the Church from all our sins. Our faith is to believe that,
          by the grace of God, there will always be martyrs on earth to save
          the Church from disappearing from earth, in spite of all apparently
          realistic predictions. In spite also of the fact that man can, if he
          chooses to, refuse God and thus destroy the Chuch.

          Our sins and our Sergianism in particular (a frequent mistake which
          consists in using evil means for supposedly sacred goals) do harm
          (kill) the Church. Acknowledging Christ in the most difficult
          conditions (being a martyr) is counteracting our sins and thus saving
          the Church.

          The martyrs do prevent the Church from disappearing (save Her) and,
          in doing so, allow us to be saved in Her. That is the Communion of
          Saints.

          Practicing or approving Sergianism is, by definition, not believing
          in the Church, that is not believing Christ: "And I tell you that you
          are rock, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of
          Hell will not overcome it".(Matthew 16:18)

          "for just as it is a work of his will and is called the world, so
          also the salvation of men is his will and this is called the church"
          (Clement of Alexandria).

          In Christ,

          Vladimir Kozyreff


          --- In orthodox-synod@y..., "Russell Martin" <martinre@w...> wrote:
          > I find nothing whatsoever questionable and dubious in Fr.
          Alexander's
          > post. In fact, it is the kind of thing that, if one listens to
          with a
          > calm and charitable heart, only stirs compassion and optimism. At
          least
          > for me. On the other hand:
          >
          > <<< We are together
          > with the millions of martyrs of Russia. They, and only they, saved
          > the Church in Russia.
          > Am I mistaken?
          > or is this so difficult to understand?>>>
          >
          > It is I who am frequently mistaken, but it seems to me that the
          first
          > thing to correct here is the notion that anyone--even the
          > martyrs!--saves the Church. The Church saves us. We do not save
          the
          > Church.
          >
          > I am not, moreover, familiar with any official proclamations that
          > suggest that Met. Sergius, in taking the actions he did, "saved" the
          > Church.
          >
          > In Christ,
          > Roman Martin
          >
          > Russell E. Martin
          > Asst. Professor of History
          > Westminster College
          > New Wilmington, PA 16172-0001
          > phone: 724.946.7246
          > fax: 724.946.7256
          > webpage: http://www.westminster.edu/staff/martinre/
          > other email: remartin@p...
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.