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

Historical Position of the ROCOR

Expand Messages
  • Fr. Alexander Lebedeff
    Dear Listmembers: There have been a number of postings on this list quoting various people, such as Prof. Ivan Andreev, Archbishop Averky, Bishop Gregory
    Message 1 of 4 , Nov 29, 2002
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Listmembers:

      There have been a number of postings on this list quoting various people,
      such as Prof. Ivan Andreev, Archbishop Averky, Bishop Gregory (Grabbe), and
      others regarding the Moscow Patriarchate.

      It should be remembered that all of these were written as polemical
      statements, of which, naturally, at that time, there were many.

      The Church Abroad, fulfilling a part of its mission, needed, at that time,
      to point out the subjugation of the Church in the Soviet Union to the
      Soviet atheistic state. The Church Abroad needed to tell the truth about
      the persecution of the Church and of the faithful in the Soviet Union.

      However, one must clearly differentiate between polemical statements and
      official policy statements. The first are expressions of the personal
      opinions of those who wrote them. They carry no authority or weight beyond
      the personal authority of their authors.

      Official policy statements, on the other hand, are defined in Resolutions
      and Epistles of the Sobor and Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside
      of Russia.

      I have already quoted from the Epistle of the Sobor of Bishops of 1933, in
      which Metropolitan Sergius, six years after the infamous Declaration of
      1927, which now is being presented as the symbol of the apostacy of the
      Moscow Patriarchate, is called "in reality, the Head of the Russian
      Orthodox Church," and is praised for his attempts at establishing legal
      status for the Church in Russia.

      I have posted the Resolution of the Sobor of Bishops of the Russian
      Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, dated August 16, 1938 (**eleven years**
      after the Declaration):

      "IT WAS RESOLVED: To recognize that there are no obstacles to prayerful
      communion and concelebration with the clergy of Metropolitan Sergius."

      [In Russian:

      POSTANOVILI: Priznat', chto ne imeetsia prepiatstvij k molitvennomu
      obshcheniju i sosluzheniju s dukhovenstvom Mitropolita Sergija."]

      This Resolution has **never** been officially rescinded.

      And both of these official statements (1933 and 1938) were issued **even
      after** Metropolitan Sergius and his Synod **suspended** all of the
      hierarchs and clergy of the Church Abroad!

      I will now present yet another official document--from the Protocol of the
      Sobor of Bishops of the Church Abroad, dated October 3/16, 1953 (this is
      now 26 years after the Declaration).

      A little background first.

      At this Sobor (in 1953) the question again arose of the position of the
      Church Abroad vis-a-vis the clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate. After
      extensive deliberations in which the question of gracelessness of the
      Mysteries in the Moscow Patriarchate, among other matters, was brought up,
      Metropolitan Anastassy asked that the 1st Canon of St. Basil the Great be
      read--i.e. the Canon in which St. Basil states that economy can be used in
      the acceptance into the Church of certain heretics without baptizing them.

      Metropolitan Anastassy then gave his summation of the discussions. (This is
      a transalation of the verbatim Minutes of the Sobor session):

      "The President [Metropolitan Anastassy, A.L.] suggests that concrete
      deductions be made from all that was said. Do we recognize in principle the
      efficacy of the the ordinations of the current Patriarch and his hierarchs?
      But can we even question them? Then we must declare the whole Church to be
      without Mysteries. Do we have enough audacity to declare all of Her
      graceless? Up to this point we have not addressed this question so
      radically. When Metropolitan Philaret [(Drozdov) of Moscow, A.L.] was asked
      about the Catholics, he replied: "How can I judge a Church that has not
      been judged by an Ecumenical Council?" What norm should we accept? The
      President says that he did not for no reason ask that the 1st Canon of St.
      Basil the Great be read. The Holy Father says in it that we must
      demonstrate great breadth. He speaks very well about Baptism. Ordination
      would then have less significance than Baptism. Metropolitan Anthony guided
      himself by this Canon of St. Basil the Great, when he said that he would be
      ready to accept according to the third rite both Catholics and Anglicans
      [the third rite is acceptance by repudiation of heresy and confession of
      faith--without Baptism of Chrismation, A.L.]. He held the point of view
      that, as soon as organic ties with heresy are broken and Orthodoxy is
      accepted, grace appears, so that it is as if the empty vessel is filled
      with grace. We hold to the principle, according to which one can accept
      [into the Church, A.L.] according to the third rite in those cases, where
      the thread of succession is not broken. Even Armenians, who confess a
      specific heresy, are accepted in existing rank. Regarding Anglicans, the
      question arose beacuse they are not convinced themselves that they have
      succession. ***If we accept in such a manner those foreign to us, then how
      can we not accept our own?*** [emphasis mine, A.L.] They say that Patriarch
      Alexis [I (Simansky), A.L.] has sinned more than his predecessor. Sinned he
      more or less, still we do not deny his ordination. Much was said about
      apostacy. But we must be careful. A direct accusation of apostacy can
      hardly be made. Nowhere do they affirm godlessness. In sermons that are
      being printed they try to hold to an Orthodox line. They took and are
      taking very strong measures against renovationism, and they have not broken
      the tie to Patriarch Tikhon. The deceitful policy belongs to the
      ecclesiastical authority, and responsibility for it falls on its leaders.
      **Only a heresy that is accepted by the whole Church defiles the whole
      Church** [emphasis mine, A.L.]. In the current case the people are not held
      to answer for the line of action taken by their leaders, and the whole
      Church, as it is, remains undefiled. No one may dare to say that the whole
      Church is graceless, but inasmuch as the priests have had contact with
      deceitful hierarchy, and they themselves had to act against their
      consciences, then repentance is necessary."

      I ask everyone to carfully reread the words of Metropolitan Anastassy,
      quoted above, in order to be able to understand the true historical
      position of the Church Abroad.

      Finally, I would like to remind everyone that the polemical statements of
      various individuals that were made during the time when the Church in the
      Soviet Union was totally subjugated to the atheistic, even theomachic,
      power--have absolutely no application today, when the Church in Russia is
      **not** being persecuted and is not under the control of the Soviet State
      and its communist authorities.


      With love in Christ,

      Prot. Alexander Lebedeff
      With love in Christ,

      Prot. Alexander Lebedeff
    • vkozyreff
      Dear Father Alexander, bless. You write: It should be remembered that all of these were written as polemical statements, of which, naturally, at that time,
      Message 2 of 4 , Dec 3, 2002
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Father Alexander, bless.

        You write:

        "It should be remembered that all of these were written as polemical
        statements, of which, naturally, at that time, there were many".

        I cannot agree that the bishops of our Church did make "polemical
        statements" in their defending the faith against the sergianists.

        In the same way, I think one should refrain from selectively
        qualifying statements by our same bishops (including Met Anastassy)
        as "personal opinions" and not worth mentioning whenever they do not
        contribute to a thesis or to the MP polemical aims.

        It is our faith that our beloved ROCA did defend the Truth and that
        this has nothing to do with a polemic. Polemics relate to another,
        worldly dimension, in which the MP wants to take us, because it is in
        it. The "polemic" argument is now being used by the MP, in its
        attempt to to erase differences that hurt because they are
        differences with the Truth.

        In God,

        Vladimir Kozyreff


        --- In orthodox-synod@y..., "Fr. Alexander Lebedeff" <lebedeff@w...>
        wrote:
        > Dear Listmembers:
        >
        > There have been a number of postings on this list quoting various
        people,
        > such as Prof. Ivan Andreev, Archbishop Averky, Bishop Gregory
        (Grabbe), and
        > others regarding the Moscow Patriarchate.
        >
        > It should be remembered that all of these were written as polemical
        > statements, of which, naturally, at that time, there were many.
        >
        > The Church Abroad, fulfilling a part of its mission, needed, at
        that time,
        > to point out the subjugation of the Church in the Soviet Union to
        the
        > Soviet atheistic state. The Church Abroad needed to tell the truth
        about
        > the persecution of the Church and of the faithful in the Soviet
        Union.
        >
        > However, one must clearly differentiate between polemical
        statements and
        > official policy statements. The first are expressions of the
        personal
        > opinions of those who wrote them. They carry no authority or weight
        beyond
        > the personal authority of their authors.
        >
        > Official policy statements, on the other hand, are defined in
        Resolutions
        > and Epistles of the Sobor and Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church
        Outside
        > of Russia.
        >
        > I have already quoted from the Epistle of the Sobor of Bishops of
        1933, in
        > which Metropolitan Sergius, six years after the infamous
        Declaration of
        > 1927, which now is being presented as the symbol of the apostacy of
        the
        > Moscow Patriarchate, is called "in reality, the Head of the Russian
        > Orthodox Church," and is praised for his attempts at establishing
        legal
        > status for the Church in Russia.
        >
        > I have posted the Resolution of the Sobor of Bishops of the Russian
        > Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, dated August 16, 1938 (**eleven
        years**
        > after the Declaration):
        >
        > "IT WAS RESOLVED: To recognize that there are no obstacles to
        prayerful
        > communion and concelebration with the clergy of Metropolitan
        Sergius."
        >
        > [In Russian:
        >
        > POSTANOVILI: Priznat', chto ne imeetsia prepiatstvij k molitvennomu
        > obshcheniju i sosluzheniju s dukhovenstvom Mitropolita Sergija."]
        >
        > This Resolution has **never** been officially rescinded.
        >
        > And both of these official statements (1933 and 1938) were issued
        **even
        > after** Metropolitan Sergius and his Synod **suspended** all of the
        > hierarchs and clergy of the Church Abroad!
        >
        > I will now present yet another official document--from the Protocol
        of the
        > Sobor of Bishops of the Church Abroad, dated October 3/16, 1953
        (this is
        > now 26 years after the Declaration).
        >
        > A little background first.
        >
        > At this Sobor (in 1953) the question again arose of the position of
        the
        > Church Abroad vis-a-vis the clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate.
        After
        > extensive deliberations in which the question of gracelessness of
        the
        > Mysteries in the Moscow Patriarchate, among other matters, was
        brought up,
        > Metropolitan Anastassy asked that the 1st Canon of St. Basil the
        Great be
        > read--i.e. the Canon in which St. Basil states that economy can be
        used in
        > the acceptance into the Church of certain heretics without
        baptizing them.
        >
        > Metropolitan Anastassy then gave his summation of the discussions.
        (This is
        > a transalation of the verbatim Minutes of the Sobor session):
        >
        > "The President [Metropolitan Anastassy, A.L.] suggests that
        concrete
        > deductions be made from all that was said. Do we recognize in
        principle the
        > efficacy of the the ordinations of the current Patriarch and his
        hierarchs?
        > But can we even question them? Then we must declare the whole
        Church to be
        > without Mysteries. Do we have enough audacity to declare all of Her
        > graceless? Up to this point we have not addressed this question so
        > radically. When Metropolitan Philaret [(Drozdov) of Moscow, A.L.]
        was asked
        > about the Catholics, he replied: "How can I judge a Church that has
        not
        > been judged by an Ecumenical Council?" What norm should we accept?
        The
        > President says that he did not for no reason ask that the 1st Canon
        of St.
        > Basil the Great be read. The Holy Father says in it that we must
        > demonstrate great breadth. He speaks very well about Baptism.
        Ordination
        > would then have less significance than Baptism. Metropolitan
        Anthony guided
        > himself by this Canon of St. Basil the Great, when he said that he
        would be
        > ready to accept according to the third rite both Catholics and
        Anglicans
        > [the third rite is acceptance by repudiation of heresy and
        confession of
        > faith--without Baptism of Chrismation, A.L.]. He held the point of
        view
        > that, as soon as organic ties with heresy are broken and Orthodoxy
        is
        > accepted, grace appears, so that it is as if the empty vessel is
        filled
        > with grace. We hold to the principle, according to which one can
        accept
        > [into the Church, A.L.] according to the third rite in those cases,
        where
        > the thread of succession is not broken. Even Armenians, who confess
        a
        > specific heresy, are accepted in existing rank. Regarding
        Anglicans, the
        > question arose beacuse they are not convinced themselves that they
        have
        > succession. ***If we accept in such a manner those foreign to us,
        then how
        > can we not accept our own?*** [emphasis mine, A.L.] They say that
        Patriarch
        > Alexis [I (Simansky), A.L.] has sinned more than his predecessor.
        Sinned he
        > more or less, still we do not deny his ordination. Much was said
        about
        > apostacy. But we must be careful. A direct accusation of apostacy
        can
        > hardly be made. Nowhere do they affirm godlessness. In sermons that
        are
        > being printed they try to hold to an Orthodox line. They took and
        are
        > taking very strong measures against renovationism, and they have
        not broken
        > the tie to Patriarch Tikhon. The deceitful policy belongs to the
        > ecclesiastical authority, and responsibility for it falls on its
        leaders.
        > **Only a heresy that is accepted by the whole Church defiles the
        whole
        > Church** [emphasis mine, A.L.]. In the current case the people are
        not held
        > to answer for the line of action taken by their leaders, and the
        whole
        > Church, as it is, remains undefiled. No one may dare to say that
        the whole
        > Church is graceless, but inasmuch as the priests have had contact
        with
        > deceitful hierarchy, and they themselves had to act against their
        > consciences, then repentance is necessary."
        >
        > I ask everyone to carfully reread the words of Metropolitan
        Anastassy,
        > quoted above, in order to be able to understand the true historical
        > position of the Church Abroad.
        >
        > Finally, I would like to remind everyone that the polemical
        statements of
        > various individuals that were made during the time when the Church
        in the
        > Soviet Union was totally subjugated to the atheistic, even
        theomachic,
        > power--have absolutely no application today, when the Church in
        Russia is
        > **not** being persecuted and is not under the control of the Soviet
        State
        > and its communist authorities.
        >
        >
        > With love in Christ,
        >
        > Prot. Alexander Lebedeff
        > With love in Christ,
        >
        > Prot. Alexander Lebedeff
      • sergerust2002 <sergerust@hotmail.com>
        ... **Never** ? How about the Sobor of 1971? See post 6274. Fr Alexander, please, non bis idem! ... Why would economia have been needed if there was no
        Message 3 of 4 , Dec 17, 2002
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          Fr Alexander (Lebedeff) wrote (post 6961):

          > "IT WAS RESOLVED: To recognize that there are
          > no obstacles to prayerful communion and concelebration
          > with the clergy of Metropolitan Sergius." (1938)

          > This Resolution has **never** been officially rescinded.

          **Never** ?
          How about the Sobor of 1971?
          See post 6274.
          Fr Alexander, please, non bis idem!



          > Metropolitan Anastassy asked that the 1st Canon
          > of St. Basil the Great be read--i.e. the Canon
          > in which St. Basil states that economy can be used
          > in the acceptance into the Church of certain heretics
          > without baptizing them.


          Why would economia have been needed if there was no obstacle?

          The reading of this canon rather demonstrates the existence of an
          obstacle. This obstacle is in fact the very subject of the Sobor
          deliberations.

          At that time (1938) the Sobor meant to overcome the obstacle through
          economia, for a reason clearly identified:

          "But we must be careful. A direct
          accusation of apostacy can hardly be made.
          Nowhere do they affirm godlessness".

          Later on, however, after the WW2, economia was no more feasible and
          finally, in 1971, the ROCOR Sobor recognises the new MP hierarchy as
          uncanonical (see post 6274).

          This Resolution has **never** been officially rescinded!

          Some prominent participants to this Forum, however, would like to
          misinterpret the sobriety of ROCOR condemnations by suggesting that
          no condemnation exists.

          This is simply "cognitive dissonance" (see post 7123).

          This is as absurd as stating (like fr Alexander continues to do) that
          that the new calendar has never been synodically condemned. In fact
          it was – see post 6474.

          Let's not forget this : where economia needs to be applied,
          we don't have Grace, but lack of Grace ; only "as soon as
          the organic ties with heresy are broken and Orthodoxy is accepted,
          grace appears, so that it is as if the empty vessel is filled
          with grace" (see post 6961).



          > And both of these official statements (1933 and 1938)
          > were issued **even after** Metropolitan Sergius and
          > his Synod **suspended** all of the hierarchs and clergy
          > of the Church Abroad!

          Did the MP ever rescind the "suspension" of ROCA hierarchs?


          In Christ,
          Serge Rust
        • 강 병송
          From: http://www.korthodox.org/eng/brief_history.html The report of korea-russian orthodox church belongs to ROCOR ... 1. THE BEGINNING OF THE HOLY ORTHODOX
          Message 4 of 4 , Dec 21, 2002
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            From: http://www.korthodox.org/eng/brief_history.html


            The report of korea-russian orthodox church belongs to
            ROCOR

            -----------------------------------------------

            1. THE BEGINNING OF THE HOLY ORTHODOX CHURCH IN KOREA

            The "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church"
            launched through the approval of the Tsar Nikolai II
            by the resolution of Russian Orthodox Synod at St.
            Petersburg on 1897, thus established Russian Orthodox
            Church in Korea (ROCK) .
            The first missionaries were Archimandrite Ambrosy,
            Deaconate monk Nikolai, Reader Krashin. They were
            expected to arrive at Seoul in 1897, however, due to
            the competitions among nations and resistance movement
            by lots of Korean people toward all the foreigners, it
            was not easy for them to enter into Korea.
            They tentatively stayed with Russian army at Novo
            Kiev. Fr. Ambrosy gave instructions and sermons
            towards Russian soldiers. In his sermon, he said that
            the corrupted army should be born again with the
            Christ's spirit to win the war, which finally made him
            to return to St. Petersburg. This is because some of
            the army leaders were angry with his sermon and
            accused him innocently. Two years later, the reader
            gave up his mission duty since he was extremely
            exhausted to stay in the military camp located at
            desolated area.
            With much patience, Fr. Deacon Nikolai waited and was
            permitted to enter Korea. He launched far and harsh
            road toward Korean Mission. Since 1897, Fr. Nikolai
            was preparing the mission while waiting the second
            missionaries.


            2. THE 2ND TRIALS OF RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH MISSION
            IN KOREA

            The Synod of Russian Orthodox Church organized the
            second team, they gave Ukase to Archimandrite
            Chrysanfos Shetkovsky and Reader Jona Levshenko as
            missionaries. They entered into Korea on 1900, and
            started their mission work with Fr. Deacon Nikolai
            Alexeyev. On March, 2nd (in old calender), 1900, they
            served the first Divine Liturgy in Korea cellebrating
            the Great Martyrs Feothora Thyrona inside the Russian
            embassy located at 22 Chungdong, Seoul.
            At that time, Navy choir from Chemulpo (Now called
            Incheon, where the Incheon international airport is
            located) harbor also praised the Lord. Participants
            were Russian ambassador Pavlov, envoys from Korean
            empire as well as many other celebrated persons.
            Korean newspapers such as "Hwangsung Shinmun" and
            "Chosun Daily" reported this event with the title,
            "the Russian Mission", and described that Fr.
            Chrisanfos and other missionaries came to Korea to
            propagate the Russian Orthodoxy in Korea. After that
            time, another newspaper called, "Hwangsung Shinmun"
            also reported that many men and women were baptized
            and became members of the Russian Orthodox Church.
            The Church was consecrated as St. Nicholas Church,
            commemorating St. Nicholas as well as the Tsar Nikolai
            II who actively supported the Korean mission.
            Fr. Chrisanfos was troubled in doing the mission due
            to language problem. In addition, collisions between
            Korean and missionaries from the West were occurred
            due to lack of understanding of the Korean culture and
            tradition. Laymen considered Fr. Chrisanthos and his
            team members as same as the people from the West.
            However, Fr. Chrisanthos cooperated with 15
            Russian-speaking Koreans in spreading the Russian
            Orthodox Faith.
            As for the new place for the Church in Korea, both
            Russia and Korea were favorable to each other. Korean
            emperor Kojong suggested to Russian Tsar Nikolai II
            that Korea will provide the place. However, after
            expressing the gratitude for Kojong's kindness (Jan.
            23rd, 1898), Tsar Nikoai II sent a telegram on Jan.
            11th, 1898) to the ambassador, N. G. Matyunina, not to
            receive the land for free. The Tsar Nicholas II
            returned $12,000 (Mexican dollars), which was donated
            by Kojong for the real estate of constructing St.
            Nicholas Orthoddox Church, to the Korean Emperial
            government by way of the ambassador (April, 11th,
            1898). So, Matyunina purchased some areas (the place
            was at 22 Chungdong, where KyungHyang newspaper is
            presently located) for the place for Church building
            according to the telegram from Russia. He also
            purchased private land.
            They completed the construction of the church building
            of Russian Orthodox Church in Korea (ROCK) between
            1901-1902. They decorated interiors of the Church and
            placed five Russian bells which were tolled beautiful
            sound.
            After setting up other things, Fr. Chrisanthos
            consecrated the Church on April 17th, 1903. The
            Russian Church in Seoul was of big interest of many
            people. A cathederal was to be constructed soon after,
            however, unfortunately, due to the war between Russia
            and Japan, the mission as well as the plan for
            building the cathederal were not easy to proceed.
            After the 6th day from the beginning of the war,
            Russian missionaries returned to their country, which
            was beyond their will.
            On 1906, after the war, a new mission team consists of
            administrator Fr. Pavel Invanovsky and Ivan Kang,
            Hantak, reestablished the Russian Orthodox Church
            mission in Korea. Ivan Kang, Hantak was Korean-Russian
            who translated Russian church books into Korean. And
            they tried to build a memorial place for Russian
            soldiers who were killed in the war with the
            permission of the Emperor Nikolai, however, due to
            Japanese it was not possible.
            The Russian Orthodox Church in Korea was originally
            under the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Synod
            at St. Petersburg, however on 1911, her ruling
            jurisdiction was changed to the Vladivostok diocese.
            They decided to ordain Ivan Kang, Hantak since Korean
            priest was definitely in need. Bishop Sergei of
            Vladivostok ordained him as deacon on 1911, and the
            next year 1912, Ivan Kang, Hantak was ordained as a
            priest, who was the first Korean priest of Russian
            Orthodox Church. Fr. Kang, Hantak was in charge of
            "Garuge" parish (Garuge, Kyoha-myon, Paju-kun,
            Kyungki-do, Korea).
            On 1914, Fr. Parazin became the administrator of
            Korean mission, he tried to develope Korean mission to
            the level of independent church, however, he returned
            without achieving his goal. Following his position,
            Vladimir, a server who was not ordained any
            priesthood. It is evaluated that the Korean mission
            was not successful in his time.


            3. THE BOLSHEVIC REVOLUTION AND WARS

            Unfortunately, due to the Bolshevic revolution on
            1917, Russian Orthodox Church was persecuted terribly.
            First, Metropolitan Vladimir of Kiev was killed, the
            persecution and murder were without ending. The first
            administrator of Korean mission, Fr. Ambrosy was
            killed at St. Petersburg on 1918. The Emperor Nikolai
            who was the supporter of the Russian Orthodox Church
            in Korea, killed at Ecatherinburg. The Royal family
            were killed in success.
            On the same year, Fr. Kang, Hantak was placed to
            Harbin, and he passed away on 1939.
            After the revolution, Fr. Luke Kim, Heejun (Korean who
            was a citizen of Russia) kept the Russian Orthodox
            Church in Korea lonely. He was a missionary since
            1912, and was ordained as deacon on 1913 by Bishop
            Sergei. Fr. Kim, Heejun performed his holy duty while
            several administrators were changed.
            On Feb. 29th, 1922, the Russian Orthodox Church in
            Korea (ROCK) was included into Japan Orthodox Church's
            jurisdiction.
            On 1923, Metropolitan Benjamin of St. Petersburg was
            killed and many priests, monks, nuns, and believers
            were killed. The ROCK was just barely existed without
            any financial support.
            On 1924, Fr. deacon Luke Kim, Heejun ordained as a
            priest by Bishop Sergei, and he led the Korean
            mission. According to Pavel Kim in 1985, Fr. Luke Kim,
            Heejun had kept the ROCK with firm belief like that of
            martyrs. However, he passed away due to malnutrition.
            On 1931, Fr. Alexander came to Korea from Japan, but
            he went to Harbin.
            On 1932, Alexey Kim, Euihan ordained as a deacon by
            Bishop Sergei.
            On 1933, Fr. Porikali came to Korea from Japan, but he
            left Korea on 1947.
            On 1945, Japan was defeated in the World War II and
            withdrew from Korea. Therefore, the Russian Orthodox
            Church in Korea lost its jurisdiction.
            On 1947, Fr. Alexey Kim, Euihan ordained as a priest
            by Bishop Benjamin. Fr. Alexey Kim performed his holy
            duty with tremendous social and financial
            difficulties. He was a faithful and good shepherd, who
            encouraged Korean believers to keep the Orthodox
            faith.
            On July 9th, 1950, Fr. Alexey Kim, Euihan was
            kidnapped to North Korea. Up to now, we do not know
            what happened to him after that time. Without any
            shepherd, the Russian Orthodox Church in Korea was
            slowed down gradually.


            4. THE BEGINNING OF THE GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH IN KOREA



            During the period, 1952-1954, Fr. Andrew and Fr.
            Daniel who were belonged to Greek army sent to Korea
            during the Korean war, dedicated to reconstruct the
            St. Nicholas church at 22 Chung-dong, Seoul. They sent
            Korean Boris Moon, Eichun to Japan, and Japanese
            bishop Irene ordained him as a priest on 1954.
            When Fr. Boris Moon, Eichun led all believers of the
            Russian Orthodox Church in Korea to Greek Orthodox
            Church's jurisdiction (Constantinople's jurisdiction
            of south and north America), the mission of the
            Russian Orthodox Church in Korea was ended.
            Fr. Boris Moon, Eichun and church believers agreed to
            sell the St. Nicholas Orthodox Church (at 22
            Chung-dong, Seoul, where the Kyung-hyang newspaper
            building is presently located) on December, 1966,
            although the Church's property was of Russian
            Federation Government and of Russian Orthodox Church.
            With that money which was made from selling the real
            estate, they purchased another place (424-1
            Ahyun-dong, Seoul) and built a new church in Bizantyne
            style, which exists up to now.


            5. THE REBIRTH OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX IN KOREA

            The Russian Orthodox Church in Korea reestablished
            similar to the appearance of blossoming spring after
            coldness and sufferings of winter.
            On the Easter of 1994, the Synod of Bishops of Russian
            Orthodox Church of Outside Russia gave a Ukaz to a
            Korean priest Fr. Justin Kang, Tae-Yong as an
            administrator of the Russian Orthodox Church in Korea.
            Now the mission of Russian Orthodox Church in Korea
            started again.

            http://www.korea-orthodox.org

            _____________________________________________________________________
            디지탈 카메라와 찰떡 궁합- 야후! 사진
            http://kr.photos.yahoo.com/
            친구들과 함께 바꿔보세요. - 야후! 메신저
            http://kr.messenger.yahoo.com/
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.