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

TELLING THE TRUTH IS DANGEROUS...

Expand Messages
  • sergerust2002 <sergerust@hotmail.com>
    ... It would be difficult to concentrate more fallacies in such short text: ( http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ ) - vl. Vladimir is not able to say a
    Message 1 of 21 , Dec 31, 2002
      V.Artzimovitch wrote (7263):
      > Do you believe that it is Metr. Vitaly who is ruling ?
      > Do you think that "so-called" (Vl.) Vladimir is able to say
      > a word in the highly political games of ex-Vl. Varnava ?
      > The "Vitalybans" are ruled by ex-Vl. Varnava , Mr. Joukoff,
      > Mr Ivanov-Trinadsaty, Mr. Semenoff, etc.


      It would be difficult to concentrate more fallacies in such short
      text: ( http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ )

      - vl. Vladimir is not able to say a word because Met. Vitaly is not
      ruling
      ("straw man" fallacy, assumed major)

      - vl. Varnava is a game player
      (ad hominem + poisoning the well, prejudicial reasoning)

      - vl. Vladimir is not a bishop because he is "so called (vl.)
      Vladimir"
      (assumed minor, non sequitur, circular reasoning)

      - Talibans are bad, Met. Vitaly & co are talibans, therefore they are
      bad people
      (buzzword, invalid remiss, affirmed consequent, commutation of
      conditional, 2 wrongs make a right)

      - Vitaly is not ruling, Varnava is a political schemer, therefore
      clergy are defrocked
      (illicit major, out of context inference, slipery slope, special
      pleading, appeal to ridicule)


      Moreover, Victor's message lacks proving that what is said is true,
      or useful, or good. It dramatically fails the Triple test (see
      moderator's post 6046).

      Why do the most aggressive opponents of vl. Varnava have such
      difficulty in formulating a single syntactically correct statement?


      Serge Rust
    • stefanvpavlenko <StefanVPavlenko@netscap
      ... Metropolitan Vitaly s health was deteriorating for a number of years prior to his personal verbal and written requests to be allowed to retire na pokoi .
      Message 2 of 21 , Dec 31, 2002
        > - vl. Vladimir is not able to say a word because Met. Vitaly is not
        > ruling
        > ("straw man" fallacy, assumed major)
        >

        Metropolitan Vitaly's health was deteriorating for a number of years
        prior to his personal verbal and written requests to be allowed to
        retire "na pokoi". Metropolitan Vitaly retired and a new Metropolitan
        was duly elected and enthroned. At the present time even his own loyal
        clergy admit that he (Metropolitan Vitaly)is under the control of
        Ludmilla Rasnianskaya, who had during his actual reign as head of the
        Church controlled access to him and controlled correspondence with
        him. She also attempted to hide, cover up and diminish the extent of
        his dementia.


        > - vl. Varnava is a game player
        > (ad hominem + poisoning the well, prejudicial reasoning)


        Bishop Varnava was censured, then he was deposed by the Synod of
        Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. Metropolitan
        Vitaly had no individual power or privileged to reinstate Varnava.



        >
        > - vl. Vladimir is not a bishop because he is "so called (vl.)
        > Vladimir"
        > (assumed minor, non sequitur, circular reasoning)

        Not celebrating the Divine Liturgy, but merely attending the service,
        retired "na pokoe" Metropolitan Vitaly witnesses the single handed
        consecration of archimandrite Sergious by deposed monk Varnava.
        Varnava and Archimandrite (non-bishop) Sergious then consecrate
        renegade monk Vladimir. Therefore without prejudicial reasoning,
        poisoning of the well, straw man fallacy, assumed minor, non sequitur,
        circular reasoning or ad hominem; Vladimir IS NOT a Bishop!


        Archpriest Stefan Pavlenko
      • vkozyreff <vladimir.kozyreff@skynet.be>
        Dear father Stefan, bless. You write: Metropolitan Vitaly retired and a new Metropolitan was duly elected and enthroned. At the present time even his own
        Message 3 of 21 , Jan 1, 2003
          Dear father Stefan, bless.

          You write:

          "Metropolitan Vitaly retired and a new Metropolitan was duly elected
          and enthroned. At the present time even his own loyal clergy admit
          that he (Metropolitan Vitaly)is under the control of Ludmilla
          Rasnianskaya, who had during his actual reign as head of the Church
          controlled access to him and controlled correspondence with him. She
          also attempted to hide, cover up and diminish the extent of his
          dementia".

          1. Do you remember that Vl Vitaly was forcefully taken by police (a
          woman police officer) that went to the altar to take him by force for
          a psychiatric examination and that the medical conclusion was that Vl
          Vitaly was sane and able to perform his duties of first hierarch?

          2. Do you forget that L Rosnyanskaya was sent to Vl Vitaly by the NY
          Synod with the mission to take control over him and to try to take
          him back to NY under the control of the NY Synod. Is this not
          frightful, to sin in the name of the truth? Is this not sergianism?

          You write:

          "Bishop Varnava was censured, then he was deposed by the Synod of
          Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. Metropolitan
          Vitaly had no individual power or privileged to reinstate Varnava".

          The deposition of Vl Varnava cannot be taken seriously by any
          informed orthodox, knowing that he was judged and condemned without
          hearing, on the basis of irrelevant canons in a way that would
          horrify any person who knows anything about canons, and knowing that
          he was condemned a second time for sins that had already been judged
          and pardoned.

          It is obvious that the real reason for which he was "deposed" was to
          prevent him from resisting the new path order in the ROCOR. In
          conclusion, an orthodox who perceives things as explained above
          cannot accept the deposition as valid and cannot be convinced by mere
          statements to the contrary. Christians are taught to beware of false
          prophets and false teachings and to exert their capacity to identify
          them.

          You write:

          "Not celebrating the Divine Liturgy, but merely attending the
          service, retired "na pokoe" Metropolitan Vitaly witnesses the single
          handed consecration of archimandrite Sergious by deposed monk
          Varnava. Varnava and Archimandrite (non-bishop) Sergious then
          consecrate renegade monk Vladimir. Therefore without prejudicial
          reasoning, poisoning of the well, straw man fallacy, assumed minor,
          non sequitur, circular reasoning or ad hominem; Vladimir IS NOT a
          Bishop!"

          You attempt here to show that using fallacies can lead to the truth.
          This is a kind of intellectual sergianism.

          We all agree that the situation in which we live is very abnormal.
          Who would have predicted that respected priests in the ROCOR would
          promote ecumenism and sergianism?

          Between the abnormality of a group that
          ·claim to follow the tradition of the ROCOR,
          ·show so little ability to convince that it has not taken a new path,
          ·condemn without hearing,
          ·attempt to make its point by recurrent use of fallacies (as
          abundantly shown on this forum),
          ·compare the Church to an army, not to a group united in the love of
          Christ to glorify the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit,
          ·ignore the conciliar traditions of orthodoxy,
          ·promote ecumenism and sergianism on this very site,
          ·use insult and mockery in order to discredit its opponents,
          ·insist on obedience to a bishop at the expense of the purity of the
          faith
          ·keep on repeating disinformation. (Here again about "renegade monk
          Vladimir". Please see post 6629 « Fr. Alexander Lebedeff wrote : "A
          renegade monk from Jordanville, who ran away spouting lies and
          vitriol against the monastery he had been tonsured in -- now he is
          a "bishop". I learned that Bishop Vladimir did not run away from
          Jordanville. He was given a monastic release by Archbishop Laurus to
          leave the monastery".

          and other abnormalities in a group that was expelled from the ROCOR
          against its will, because they chose to obey Christ before a bishop
          canonically accused of serious mistakes against the Faith,

          Many informed believers of good will chose the latter.

          Dear Father Stefan, if you want to show the veracity of your
          statements, please show evidence.

          In Christ,

          Vladimir Kozyreff

          The Church is a "unity, not based on a rationalistic science or an
          arbitrary convention, but on the moral law of mutual love and prayer,
          a unity where, in spite of the hierarchical graduation of sacramental
          functions, no one is enslaved, but where all equally are called to be
          participants and co-operators of the common work, in short a unity by
          the grace of God and not by a human institution: such is the unity of
          the Church."



          --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "stefanvpavlenko
          <StefanVPavlenko@n...>" <StefanVPavlenko@n...> wrote:
          > > - vl. Vladimir is not able to say a word because Met. Vitaly is
          not
          > > ruling
          > > ("straw man" fallacy, assumed major)
          > >
          >
          > Metropolitan Vitaly's health was deteriorating for a number of years
          > prior to his personal verbal and written requests to be allowed to
          > retire "na pokoi". Metropolitan Vitaly retired and a new
          Metropolitan
          > was duly elected and enthroned. At the present time even his own
          loyal
          > clergy admit that he (Metropolitan Vitaly)is under the control of
          > Ludmilla Rasnianskaya, who had during his actual reign as head of
          the
          > Church controlled access to him and controlled correspondence with
          > him. She also attempted to hide, cover up and diminish the extent of
          > his dementia.
          >
          >
          > > - vl. Varnava is a game player
          > > (ad hominem + poisoning the well, prejudicial reasoning)
          >
          >
          > Bishop Varnava was censured, then he was deposed by the Synod of
          > Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. Metropolitan
          > Vitaly had no individual power or privileged to reinstate Varnava.
          >
          >
          >
          > >
          > > - vl. Vladimir is not a bishop because he is "so called (vl.)
          > > Vladimir"
          > > (assumed minor, non sequitur, circular reasoning)
          >
          > Not celebrating the Divine Liturgy, but merely attending the
          service,
          > retired "na pokoe" Metropolitan Vitaly witnesses the single handed
          > consecration of archimandrite Sergious by deposed monk Varnava.
          > Varnava and Archimandrite (non-bishop) Sergious then consecrate
          > renegade monk Vladimir. Therefore without prejudicial reasoning,
          > poisoning of the well, straw man fallacy, assumed minor, non
          sequitur,
          > circular reasoning or ad hominem; Vladimir IS NOT a Bishop!
          >
          >
          > Archpriest Stefan Pavlenko
        • Fr. John R. Shaw
          ... JRS: First of all, as you may recall, it was later shown that no woman police officer had entered the sanctuary or removed Metropolitan Vitaly by force.
          Message 4 of 21 , Jan 1, 2003
            Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:

            > 1. Do you remember that Vl Vitaly was forcefully taken by police (a
            > woman police officer) that went to the altar to take him by force for
            > a psychiatric examination and that the medical conclusion was that Vl
            > Vitaly was sane and able to perform his duties of first hierarch?

            JRS: First of all, as you may recall, it was later shown that no "woman
            police officer" had entered the sanctuary or removed Metropolitan
            Vitaly by force. The "woman who went into the sanctuary" had been
            Ludmilla herself. But quite a lot of disinformation was spread by ROCiE
            people at the time, the more so as there were so few outside witnesses.

            Second, the psychiatric examination that was performed could in no way
            have been competent to judge Metropolitan Vitaly's ability to rule the
            Church. At best, they could state that they found no signs of a mental
            illness. But that is not the same thing as proving he had no signs of
            old-age mental deterioration! He could have been "normal for his age"
            i.e. someone over 90 -- but there are [at least in theory] Synodal
            rules against anyone over 90 holding an official Church administrative
            position.

            > 2. Do you forget that L Rosnyanskaya was sent to Vl Vitaly by the NY
            > Synod with the mission to take control over him and to try to take
            > him back to NY under the control of the NY Synod. Is this not
            > frightful, to sin in the name of the truth? Is this not sergianism?

            JRS: I was not aware this had been shown to be true. There was talk
            that at one point she had offered to bring him back, but that is not
            the same thing as her being "sent with a mission by the NY Synod". It
            also does not sound much like "Sergianism" to me...

            > The deposition of Vl Varnava cannot be taken seriously by any
            > informed orthodox, knowing that he was judged and condemned without
            > hearing, on the basis of irrelevant canons in a way that would
            > horrify any person who knows anything about canons, and knowing that
            > he was condemned a second time for sins that had already been judged
            > and pardoned.

            JRS: Varnava was "judged and condemned without [a] hearing", because he
            himself chose not to go to the Synod. If he had appeared, he would have
            had his "hearing". So the fault was his, and in such cases it is
            childish to think one could void the rulings of a Synodal session by
            ignoring them.

            He was also not "condemned for sins", but for disobedience, and for the
            kind of contempt for Church order that his refusal to appear
            demonstrated.

            > It is obvious that the real reason for which he was "deposed" was to
            > prevent him from resisting the new path order in the ROCOR.

            JRS: This endless, but vague, talk of a "new path in the ROCOR" may
            seem very convenient to justify doing what one pleases. But when,
            exactly, did the "new path" take effect? Vladimir Moss began making
            this accusation over two decades ago; he particularly singled out the
            late Archbishop Anthony of Geneva as a culprit, but Archbishop Anthony
            of Geneva was responsible for the [initially secret] consecrations of
            Varnava and Lazarus. It seems to me the very fact that these
            accusations, brought forth by various "interested parties" at various
            times since at least 1980 or 1981, if not earlier, belie that there has
            been any change.

            On the contrary, there are some angry and impatient voices on the other
            side that berate us for failing, even after all these years, to
            normalize relations with the Patriarchate.

            It can't be both ways: if in 1976, or 1980-81, or 1986, or 1995, or
            2001, the Church Abroad is accused of "embarking on a new path", and at
            the same time accused by others of sitting, in the English idiom, "like
            a bump on a log", then we must have been about in the same place in
            1976 as we are today...

            > In
            > conclusion, an orthodox who perceives things as explained above
            > cannot accept the deposition as valid and cannot be convinced by mere
            > statements to the contrary. Christians are taught to beware of false
            > prophets and false teachings and to exert their capacity to identify
            > them.

            JRS: This kind of argument approximates that of the Protestants: the
            individual to decide and interpret for himself!

            But while, in Protestant thinking, it is the Bible that is "absolute"
            and which each must somehow make sense of, in the argument you advance
            above, the Acts of the 7 Councils would, presumably, take this place.
            Yet in that case, the Canons (like the codification of the Bible)
            derive their authority from the Church, from the Councils, and not vice-
            versa.

            And the disciplinary Canons (as opposed to those that define dogma) can
            only be used by the hierarchy. To call on the individual to use them,
            is like giving computer files to someone who lives in a land without
            telephone lines, cables, or electricity...

            In Christ
            Fr. John R. Shaw
          • DCNDIMITRI@aol.com
            In a message dated 01/01/2003 10:20:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, ... I have been following this thread from its beginning. I can no longer keep silent as the
            Message 5 of 21 , Jan 1, 2003
              In a message dated 01/01/2003 10:20:16 AM Eastern Standard Time,
              vrevjrs@... writes:

              > > on the basis of irrelevant canons in a way that would
              > > horrify any person who knows anything about canons, and knowing that
              > > he was condemned a second time for sins that had already been judged
              > > and pardoned.
              >
              > JRS: Varnava was "judged and condemned without [a] hearing", because he
              > himself chose not to go to the Synod. If he had appeared, he would have
              > had his "hearing". So the fault was his, and in such cases it is
              > childish to think one could void the rulings of a Synodal session by
              > ignoring them.


              I have been following this thread from its beginning. I can no longer
              keep silent as the likes of a Mr. Vladimir Kozyreff distort the facts. With
              statements such as "The deposition of Vl Varnava cannot be taken seriously by
              any informed orthodox, knowing that he was judged and condemned without
              hearing...," you show your true intentions and your lack of knowledge of the
              facts. Father John is correct in his response above.
              I am aware of 2 separate telephone conversations, one of which I
              personally witnessed, to the now Monk Varnava. Both telephone calls were
              made to insure that Monk Varnava would attend the hearing. They were
              compassionate pleas for him to come to the Synod and to be heard. Monk
              Varnava did not "choose" not to go to the Synod, he REFUSED! Therefore, he
              is in control of his own destiny and received exactly what he deserved, based
              on his actions. No one can dispute this, I was at the Synod, I saw and heard
              it myself. It is indeed a real shame because all this could have been
              avoided had Monk Varnava shown up.

              In Christ,
              the unworthy
              deacon dimitri temidis
            • VladMoss@aol.com
              In a message dated 01/01/03 15:20:29 GMT Standard Time, vrevjrs@execpc.com ... A new path in ecclesiology does not immediately become apparent to all, and it
              Message 6 of 21 , Jan 1, 2003
                In a message dated 01/01/03 15:20:29 GMT Standard Time, vrevjrs@...
                writes:


                > JRS: This endless, but vague, talk of a "new path in the ROCOR" may
                > seem very convenient to justify doing what one pleases. But when,
                > exactly, did the "new path" take effect? Vladimir Moss began making
                > this accusation over two decades ago; he particularly singled out the
                > late Archbishop Anthony of Geneva as a culprit, but Archbishop Anthony
                > of Geneva was responsible for the [initially secret] consecrations of
                > Varnava and Lazarus. It seems to me the very fact that these
                > accusations, brought forth by various "interested parties" at various
                > times since at least 1980 or 1981, if not earlier, belie that there has
                > been any change.
                >

                A new path in ecclesiology does not immediately become apparent to all, and
                it takes time to gather speed.

                It began with Archbishop Anthony, who, contrary to the public promises of the
                ROCOR Synod to the Old Calendarist Greeks, entered into communion with the
                Greek new calendarists. When I protested, Metropolitan Philaret told me to my
                face that I was right, but that he had no power to stop Anthony. However, the
                1983 anathema against ecumenism put at least a partial stop to the process of
                concelebrating with ecumenists.

                But it started again in 1986, with the partial disavowal of the 1983 anathema
                and Archbishop Anthony's instructing his clergy to serve with the new
                calendarists when in Greece, which led to the departure of the ROCOR's Paris
                mission to the OCs. Further activities of this sort also led to HOCNA's
                departure - although I do not deny that in that case there were also personal
                motives involved.

                In the 1990s the "new path" gathered momentum with ambiguous statements about
                the MP and more or less continuous and official communion with the Serbs,
                which greatly troubled especially the new members (and bishops) of the ROCOR
                inside Russia. This process reached its climax with the ROCOR Sobor's
                official letter to the Serbian Patriarch (only a few months after that
                patriarch called the ROCOR "schismatical") asking him to help in restoring
                communion with the Soviet church.

                So the path is not that new, but its adoption by the whole of the ROCOR Synod
                (excluding Metropolitan Vitaly and Archbishop Barnabas, of course) is new.

                Vladimir Moss


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • VladMoss@aol.com
                In a message dated 01/01/03 15:20:29 GMT Standard Time, vrevjrs@execpc.com ... Does not every priest in the Orthodox Church swear to abide by the canons? Even
                Message 7 of 21 , Jan 1, 2003
                  In a message dated 01/01/03 15:20:29 GMT Standard Time, vrevjrs@...
                  writes:


                  > And the disciplinary Canons (as opposed to those that define dogma) can
                  > only be used by the hierarchy. To call on the individual to use them,
                  > is like giving computer files to someone who lives in a land without
                  > telephone lines, cables, or electricity...
                  >

                  Does not every priest in the Orthodox Church swear to abide by the canons?
                  Even a layman like myself was asked formally to accept their authority when I
                  joined the MP from Anglicanism in 1974.

                  Certainly, no decree of any secular authority, even if he is an Orthodox
                  Emperor like Peter the Great, can stand if it is opposed to the Holy Canons.

                  Vladimir Moss


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • boulia_1 <eledkovsky@hotmail.com>
                  I should like to respectfully point out to those brothers and sisters in Christ for whom English is a second, or (probably) a third (or maybe even fourth or
                  Message 8 of 21 , Jan 1, 2003
                    I should like to respectfully point out to those brothers and sisters
                    in Christ for whom English is a second, or (probably) a third (or
                    maybe even fourth or fifth) language, an error that is repeatedly made
                    on this list.

                    That error is the increasingly frequent use of a made-up (i.e.
                    non-existent in the English language) word as an adverb or adjective
                    (see just a few recent examples below).

                    It appears that this word has become, for certain posters, a
                    catch-all, to be used to describe any activity by any person or
                    ogranization of which he or she disapproves. In a sincere attempt to
                    help these people convey their opinions more accurately, I offer some
                    examples of descriptive words that actually excist in the English
                    language, that might be used as a substitute for "sergianism" in
                    future commentaries:

                    distasteful, incorrect, improper, annoying, immoral, dangerous,
                    aggravating, evil, frustrating, foolish, inappropriate, illegal,
                    heartbreaking, irritating, problematic, questionable, bad, wrong ...

                    I might also point out that Microsoft Word provides a decent English
                    language thesaurus, if my short list proves insufficient, inadequate,
                    woeful...

                    Please, dear readers, do not be offended by this comment. As a writer
                    and editor by profession, I only mean to point out that over-use of
                    ANY word tends to dilute its impact. That is even more true for a
                    made-up word like "sergianism," which really has no succinct and
                    logical definition. The fact that it is bandied about by some people
                    as frequently as the word "and" renders its meaning vaguer than ever.
                    If you want people to believe this "word" means something, then stick
                    to using it in the context of Patriarch Sergius' legacy within the MP
                    (that IS what 'sergianism' is supposed to be about, isn't it?)

                    In Christ,
                    Elizabeth

                    (preparing for the onslaught on angry replies from members of one camp
                    and the silent cheers from everyone else).

                    --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "vkozyreff
                    <vladimir.kozyreff@s...>" <vladimir.kozyreff@s...> wrote:


                    > 2. Do you forget that L Rosnyanskaya was sent to Vl Vitaly by the NY
                    > Synod with the mission to take control over him and to try to take
                    > him back to NY under the control of the NY Synod. Is this not
                    > frightful, to sin in the name of the truth? Is this not sergianism?
                    >
                    >

                    > You attempt here to show that using fallacies can lead to the truth.
                    > This is a kind of intellectual sergianism.
                    >
                    > We all agree that the situation in which we live is very abnormal.
                    > Who would have predicted that respected priests in the ROCOR would
                    > promote ecumenism and sergianism?
                    >
                    >
                  • Paul O. BARTLETT
                    On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, vkozyreff wrote: ... Could someone be kind enough to define intellectual sergianism ? Thanks. Just from a
                    Message 9 of 21 , Jan 1, 2003
                      On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, vkozyreff <vladimir.kozyreff@...> wrote:
                      (excerpt):

                      > You attempt here to show that using fallacies can lead to the truth.
                      > This is a kind of intellectual sergianism.

                      Could someone be kind enough to define "intellectual sergianism"?
                      Thanks.

                      Just from a brief membership in these two mailing lists ("synod"
                      and "rocor") I am beginning to wonder if there is so much contention
                      that if God does guide me back to Orthodox Christianity then I wonder
                      where I will hang my hat. I was orginally baptized at Holy
                      Transfiguration Monastery, which then under the ROCOR but is now under
                      some other jurisdiction. All this wrangling in American Orthodoxy is
                      becoming very discouraging. Maybe I should just stay where I now am
                      (which is outside Christianity entirely).

                      --
                      Paul Bartlett
                      bartlett at smart.net
                    • Margaret Lark
                      Glory to God for all things! From: Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 2:48 PM ... What the heck, my name is mud on this list anyway:
                      Message 10 of 21 , Jan 1, 2003
                        Glory to God for all things!

                        From: <eledkovsky@...>
                        Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 2:48 PM


                        | In Christ,
                        | Elizabeth
                        |
                        | (preparing for the onslaught on angry replies from members of one camp
                        | and the silent cheers from everyone else).

                        What the heck, my name is mud on this list anyway:

                        THREE CHEERS FOR ELIZABETH! I've grown so accustomed to the use of the term
                        "sergianism" that I hadn't even picked up on your excellent point, that it
                        is actually a made-up word. And a very overworked one, at that.

                        Frankly, there are posts I just go ahead and delete without reading them, at
                        this point. It's getting too close to Nativity for me to want to inflame my
                        passions any more than they are already (like I really needed *more* items
                        for my confession list....)

                        Write to me offlist, when you get a chance, and tell me how you're doing.

                        With love in Christ,
                        Margaret Lark, sinner
                      • vkozyreff <vladimir.kozyreff@skynet.be>
                        Dear Elizabeth, You write: I offer some examples of descriptive words that actually exist in the English language, that might be used as a substitute for
                        Message 11 of 21 , Jan 1, 2003
                          Dear Elizabeth,

                          You write: " I offer some examples of descriptive words that
                          actually exist in the English language, that might be used as a
                          substitute for "sergianism" in future commentaries: distasteful,
                          incorrect, improper, annoying, immoral, dangerous, aggravating,
                          evil, frustrating, foolish, inappropriate, illegal, heartbreaking,
                          irritating, problematic, questionable, bad, wrong ..."

                          Let me kindly comment that, except evil, distasteful, heartbreaking
                          and wrong, which are English and which everybody knows, all other
                          adjectives of your list are French.

                          I disagree with your suggestion to use them instead of sergianism,
                          because they are adjectives, and because they express psychological,
                          affective reactions. They cannot be substitutes for an abstract noun
                          which expresses a theological concept. In speaking about the Church,
                          would you suggest, in order to keep the impact strong enough, to
                          replace that term by such adjectives as: tasteful, correct, proper,
                          moral, safe, alleviating, beneficial, satisfactory, intelligent,
                          appropriate, legal, consoling, quietening, clear, unquestionable,
                          good, right…?

                          Regarding your idea that "If you want people to believe this "word"
                          means something, then stick to using it in the context of Patriarch
                          Sergius' legacy within the MP (that IS what 'sergianism' is supposed
                          to be about, isn't it?)", let me say the following:

                          The human mind works by identifying common patterns among apparently
                          separate objects. Showing the efficiency of this in research and
                          intelligence was one of the most important contributions of
                          structuralism in philosophy. This is the way the natural sciences and
                          medicine progress too.

                          When Father Shaw suggest that I am "protestant", he makes the kind of
                          generalisation which is the basic function of intelligence. He
                          analysed the essence of Protestantism and did not restrict himself to
                          call Protestants the formal or nominal adepts of Luther's and
                          associates' legacy. He just decided to call "Protestantism" the
                          attitude by which a man makes his personal religion, which is the
                          essence of Protestantism, by contrast to orthodoxy, in which the
                          faith is one and common. In this, he is correct. One can thus say "In
                          every man's soul, a protestant is sleeping".

                          In the same way, one might say "In every man's soul, a sergianist is
                          sleeping".

                          I attempt to analyse the essence of sergianism. I think it is the
                          belief that, in particularly critical situations, instead of
                          recommending one's soul to God with even more fervour, one must and
                          can defend the divine truth by lying.

                          In other words, you can and must make a deal with the Liar to save
                          the Church of Christ in particular circumstances. It is thus the
                          apology of lie as a supreme and last resort when God has abandoned
                          His people. It is related to the principle that the goal justifies
                          the means. That is why I speak about intellectual sergianism when one
                          claim to defend the truth by fallacies. The affective reactions that
                          this evokes in your mind are interesting, but are altogether a
                          different theme.

                          I try to find out how perverse sergianism is and how it can
                          infiltrate our thinking as a cancer can invade an organism. Remember
                          that Met Sergius was also an ecumenist before the letter (see post
                          7041). I think there is a link between the two heresies. It can be
                          observed in concrete cases (the defenders of the first defend the
                          second and vice versa, as seen on this list). If one analyses the
                          essence of the two heresies, I suspect that one might find out that
                          they have a lot in common.

                          Christ was crucified because the Jews could not accept that the
                          Kingdom is not of this world. They felt betrayed by the claim that
                          the Messiah would not liberate them from the Romans, but from the
                          sin. The main enemy of man, Satan, constantly tries to convince us
                          that the Kingdom is of this world, on the contrary. Met Sergius could
                          not accept that the fight does not go about material things, even
                          when the Faith is persecuted. Even Orthodox find it sometimes hard to
                          accept, in spite of their confessing the creed.

                          Let us thus call a cat a cat and sergianism sergianism. In saying
                          that we should not use the term because it is not defined is joining
                          the MP in its attempt to escape repentance. In addition, in doing so,
                          you are teaching a lesson to our predecessors in our dear Church and
                          to the millions of martyrs that considered sergianism to be
                          sufficiently well defined to die for refusing it. Please see again
                          Father Alexander Lebedeff first manner below.

                          Fighting sergianism is one of the main reasons for our Church to
                          exist. When it disappears with ecumenism and when the MP repents, we
                          will automatically cease to exist as ROCOR and become the orthodox
                          Church of Russia. So, this is not a boring theme for a believer.

                          In God,

                          Vladimir Kozyreff

                          Sergianism is not the recognition by the Church of the existence of a
                          State dedicated to the eradication of the Church.

                          It is not the recognition by the Church of the authority of a State
                          dedicated to the eradication of the Church.

                          It is not the cooperation of the Church with a State dedicated to the
                          eradication of the Church.

                          Sergianism, in its essence, is the concept that in order for the
                          Church to preserve some semblance of its existence in the face of a
                          State dedicated to the eradication of the Church, it is permissible
                          for the Church (as represented by its ecclesiastical authorities—its
                          hierarchs and senior clergy) to lie—to lie openly and bare-headedly,
                          both to one's flock, and to the entire world.

                          To lie openly about the extent of the persecution of the Church by
                          the State.

                          To lie openly about the very existence of persecution of the Church
                          by the State.

                          To lie openly by denying the Martyrs and Confessors of the Church.

                          Sergianism is the very denial of Christ, Who said "I am the Way, the
                          Truth, and the Life."

                          Sergianism is the very denial of the path of Christ, the path of the
                          Cross, the path of Confessors and Martyrs.

                          Sergianism is the embodiment of the concept that the "end justifies
                          the means," that any means, including those expressly forbidden by
                          God's commandments (specifically, "Thou shalt not bear false
                          witness"), are permissible, as long as the goal is to "save the
                          Church."

                          Sergianism is the affirmation of the concept that it is we who
                          must "save the Church," even at the cost of lying openly and
                          bareheadedly (thus following the path of Satan, the "Father of
                          Lies"), rather than it is us who must be saved by the Church, by our
                          standing fast in the Truth, even in the face of persecution, torture,
                          and martyrdom.

                          As such, Sergianism is contrary to our very calling, as Christians,
                          and must be totally rejected by Orthodox Christians, and it must
                          never be justified.

                          Those who attempt to justify it are, unfortunately, just compounding
                          the sins of their predecessors.

                          The sooner this sad page in contemporary Orthodox history is put
                          behind us, the sooner we can all move forward in proclaiming God's
                          eternal truth.

                          --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "boulia_1 <eledkovsky@h...>"
                          <eledkovsky@h...> wrote:
                          > I should like to respectfully point out to those brothers and
                          sisters
                          > in Christ for whom English is a second, or (probably) a third (or
                          > maybe even fourth or fifth) language, an error that is repeatedly
                          made
                          > on this list.
                          >
                          > That error is the increasingly frequent use of a made-up (i.e.
                          > non-existent in the English language) word as an adverb or
                          adjective
                          > (see just a few recent examples below).
                          >
                          > It appears that this word has become, for certain posters, a
                          > catch-all, to be used to describe any activity by any person or
                          > ogranization of which he or she disapproves. In a sincere attempt
                          to
                          > help these people convey their opinions more accurately, I offer
                          some
                          > examples of descriptive words that actually excist in the English
                          > language, that might be used as a substitute for "sergianism" in
                          > future commentaries:
                          >
                          > distasteful, incorrect, improper, annoying, immoral, dangerous,
                          > aggravating, evil, frustrating, foolish, inappropriate, illegal,
                          > heartbreaking, irritating, problematic, questionable, bad, wrong ...
                          >
                          > I might also point out that Microsoft Word provides a decent
                          English
                          > language thesaurus, if my short list proves insufficient,
                          inadequate,
                          > woeful...
                          >
                          > Please, dear readers, do not be offended by this comment. As a
                          writer
                          > and editor by profession, I only mean to point out that over-use of
                          > ANY word tends to dilute its impact. That is even more true for a
                          > made-up word like "sergianism," which really has no succinct and
                          > logical definition. The fact that it is bandied about by some
                          people
                          > as frequently as the word "and" renders its meaning vaguer than
                          ever.
                          > If you want people to believe this "word" means something, then
                          stick
                          > to using it in the context of Patriarch Sergius' legacy within the
                          MP
                          > (that IS what 'sergianism' is supposed to be about, isn't it?)
                          >
                          > In Christ,
                          > Elizabeth
                          >
                          > (preparing for the onslaught on angry replies from members of one
                          camp
                          > and the silent cheers from everyone else).
                          >
                          > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "vkozyreff
                          > <vladimir.kozyreff@s...>" <vladimir.kozyreff@s...> wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          > > 2. Do you forget that L Rosnyanskaya was sent to Vl Vitaly by the
                          NY
                          > > Synod with the mission to take control over him and to try to
                          take
                          > > him back to NY under the control of the NY Synod. Is this not
                          > > frightful, to sin in the name of the truth? Is this not
                          sergianism?
                          > >
                          > >
                          >
                          > > You attempt here to show that using fallacies can lead to the
                          truth.
                          > > This is a kind of intellectual sergianism.
                          > >
                          > > We all agree that the situation in which we live is very
                          abnormal.
                          > > Who would have predicted that respected priests in the ROCOR
                          would
                          > > promote ecumenism and sergianism?
                          > >
                          > >
                        • stefanvpavlenko <StefanVPavlenko@netscap
                          ... Do you remember why that happened? Police had been called to the Synod of Bishops in NY. They had been told that Met. Vitaly was either unconscious on the
                          Message 12 of 21 , Jan 1, 2003
                            --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "vkozyreff
                            <vladimir.kozyreff@s...>" <vladimir.kozyreff@s...> wrote:
                            > Dear father Stefan, bless.
                            >
                            > You write:
                            >
                            > "Metropolitan Vitaly retired and a new Metropolitan was duly elected
                            > and enthroned. At the present time even his own loyal clergy admit
                            > that he (Metropolitan Vitaly)is under the control of Ludmilla
                            > Rasnianskaya, who had during his actual reign as head of the Church
                            > controlled access to him and controlled correspondence with him. She
                            > also attempted to hide, cover up and diminish the extent of his
                            > dementia".
                            >
                            > 1. Do you remember that Vl Vitaly was forcefully taken by police (a
                            > woman police officer) that went to the altar to take him by force for
                            > a psychiatric examination and that the medical conclusion was that Vl
                            > Vitaly was sane and able to perform his duties of first hierarch?


                            Do you remember why that happened?
                            Police had been called to the Synod of Bishops in NY. They had been
                            told that Met. Vitaly was either unconscious on the floor or in grave
                            physical danger. The police supported the Met. when he chose to go to
                            Mansonville with Mrs. Rasnyanskaya. When the police were shown
                            medications for various diseases including dementia which were
                            prescribed by different doctors and dispensed by different pharmacies
                            they feared they could be responsible for the Metropolitans future
                            well being. The US Border police and Canadian police arrived at
                            Mansonville. Here, not like at the Synod they were not allowed
                            immediate access to the Metropolitan. The church doors were locked
                            (?!) and they were delayed. This brought there response level up a
                            number of degrees and they no longer remained cordial. The medical
                            doctors in the hospital found Metropolitan Vitaly sane, and not a
                            threat to himself or any one else, sanity and dementia are different.
                            The letter from ROCiE clerics shows that they now agree that the
                            Metropolitan is in some state of mental deterioration.
                            >
                            > 2. Do you forget that L Rosnyanskaya was sent to Vl Vitaly by the NY
                            > Synod with the mission to take control over him and to try to take
                            > him back to NY under the control of the NY Synod. Is this not
                            > frightful, to sin in the name of the truth? Is this not sergianism?
                            >
                            It seems that it was hoped that the Metropolitan could reside at the
                            Convent Novo Diveevo near NY. It was a concession to the Metropolitans
                            insistence to allow Mrs. Rasnyanskaya to continue being his care
                            taker, declawed and neutralized. As it turned out she took advantage
                            of all parties concerned and having reunited with the Metropolitan she
                            reasserted her previous devious position.


                            > You write:
                            >
                            > "Bishop Varnava was censured, then he was deposed by the Synod of
                            > Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. Metropolitan
                            > Vitaly had no individual power or privileged to reinstate Varnava".
                            >
                            > The deposition of Vl Varnava cannot be taken seriously by any
                            > informed orthodox, knowing that he was judged and condemned without
                            > hearing, on the basis of irrelevant canons in a way that would
                            > horrify any person who knows anything about canons, and knowing that
                            > he was condemned a second time for sins that had already been judged
                            > and pardoned.

                            The Synod of Bishops, including Metropolitan Vitaly censured Bishop
                            Varnava for his activities and the Synod of Bishops deposed him for
                            his support of the schismatic priests and establishment of his own
                            Church Authority in Europe which infringed on other bishop's diocese.
                            He chose not to attend a Synod gathering that was ready to examine his
                            case and there by forfeited his appeals. When a person repents of a
                            sin it is understood that he rejects it forever, if he returns to that
                            sin or he has reservations at the time of repentance, he most
                            certainly may be judged guilty again.



                            >
                            > It is obvious that the real reason for which he was "deposed" was to
                            > prevent him from resisting the new path order in the ROCOR.

                            There is no NEW PATH, other that the one ROCiE has invented.

                            In
                            > conclusion, an orthodox who perceives things as explained above
                            > cannot accept the deposition as valid and cannot be convinced by mere
                            > statements to the contrary. Christians are taught to beware of false
                            > prophets and false teachings and to exert their capacity to identify
                            > them.
                            >

                            > You attempt here to show that using fallacies can lead to the truth.
                            > This is a kind of intellectual sergianism.


                            Varnava was deposed. A Fact.
                            Metropolitan Vitaly retired. A Fact.
                            Metropolitan didn't celebrate the Liturgy. A Fact.
                            Archimandrite Sergious was not properly consecrated. A Fact
                            Vladimir was among those who caused trouble at Holy Trinity Monastery.
                            A Fact.
                            Vladimir's consecration is not valid. A Fact.

                            Archpriest Stefan Pavlenko
                          • Fr. John R. Shaw
                            ... Let me point out that the impression one gets from these e-mail lists is very much skewed. All this wrangling is the work of a very small handful of
                            Message 13 of 21 , Jan 2, 2003
                              Paul Bartlett wrote:

                              > Just from a brief membership in these two mailing lists ("synod"
                              > and "rocor") I am beginning to wonder if there is so much contention
                              > that if God does guide me back to Orthodox Christianity then I wonder
                              > where I will hang my hat. I was orginally baptized at Holy
                              > Transfiguration Monastery, which then under the ROCOR but is now under
                              > some other jurisdiction. All this wrangling in American Orthodoxy is
                              > becoming very discouraging. Maybe I should just stay where I now am
                              > (which is outside Christianity entirely).

                              Let me point out that the impression one gets from these e-mail lists
                              is very much skewed. "All this wrangling" is the work of a very small
                              handful of people; they are heard from here, but not too much anywhere
                              else (though HTM would be the exception, as it has been wrangling since
                              1986).

                              However, the sad truth is that "all this" has driven many people away
                              from Orthodoxy and the Church over the years, who had been thinking of
                              joining or returning.

                              My recommendation is to visit an actual parish, rather than going only
                              by what you read here...

                              In Christ
                              Fr. John R. Shaw
                            • Margaret Lark
                              Glory to God for all things! From: Paul O. BARTLETT Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 3:49 PM THIS, MESSRS. KOZYREFF, MOSS, AND RUST,
                              Message 14 of 21 , Jan 2, 2003
                                Glory to God for all things!

                                From: "Paul O. BARTLETT" <bartlett@...>
                                Sent: Wednesday, January 01, 2003 3:49 PM

                                THIS, MESSRS. KOZYREFF, MOSS, AND RUST, AND MS. PAHLEN, IS EXACTLY WHY WE
                                NEED TO BE CAREFUL OF WHAT WE THROW AROUND. If this gentleman does remain
                                outside the Faith, it is you and your sympathizers who will have to answer
                                before God. (And probably, unfortunately, me too, for responding in this
                                manner, but I have found this thread increasingly scandalous myself and now
                                feel I must speak, when its fruits become so apparent.)

                                | Just from a brief membership in these two mailing lists ("synod"
                                | and "rocor") I am beginning to wonder if there is so much contention
                                | that if God does guide me back to Orthodox Christianity then I wonder
                                | where I will hang my hat. I was orginally baptized at Holy
                                | Transfiguration Monastery, which then under the ROCOR but is now under
                                | some other jurisdiction. All this wrangling in American Orthodoxy is
                                | becoming very discouraging. Maybe I should just stay where I now am
                                | (which is outside Christianity entirely).

                                Dear Mr. Bartlett, don't go. Don't judge Orthodox Christianity by what you
                                read on the internet. I will be happy to speak with you offlist, if you
                                would like, but would urge you to join another list -- "orthodox-convert,"
                                perhaps, which has over 600 members who, thanks to occasional gentle
                                reminders from the moderator, keep the level of discourse at a remarkably
                                civilized level. The wrangling *is* very discouraging, but I would remind
                                you that the Evil One rejoices to see it, and will never cease attacking
                                Christ's Church.

                                For what it's worth, I have recently affiliated with ROCOR from the GOA. I
                                knew about this controversy, saw it develop from its very beginnings, have
                                studied the claims of the various contenders, and am comfortable with my
                                decision -- for one thing, it brings me great peace, and for another, it is
                                ROCOR that encourages me to struggle with my own sins, iinstead of flinging
                                mud at priests and hierarchs. God alone judges their worthiness to lead His
                                flock; I am nothing more than a simple sheep, and sometimes pretty black, at
                                that.

                                But as a sheep (and incidentally, as someone who knows rather more about
                                real sheep than most people), I also know that all I have to rely on in this
                                life is my Shepherd, and His under-shepherds. It was His guidance I asked
                                when faced with my decision, and the way events have arranged themselves in
                                my life, I have no doubt as to which is His true flock.

                                I hope to hear from you soon.

                                In Christ,
                                Margaret Lark, sinner
                              • janie pyle
                                Thank you, Margaret, for saying what so many are thinking. Mr. Bartlett, please just use the delete key when you see certain names. Don t let them dissuade
                                Message 15 of 21 , Jan 2, 2003
                                  Thank you, Margaret, for saying what so many are
                                  thinking. Mr. Bartlett, please just use the delete
                                  key when you see certain names. Don't let them
                                  dissuade you from returning to Orthodoxy. I hope you
                                  find a parish (I am in Rocor, also) where you may be
                                  nurtured as you travel the "royal path". I had hopes
                                  that some of these characters would make a resolution
                                  not to put their vitriol in print for the civil New
                                  Year but according to recent posts that doesn't appear
                                  to be happening. Let us remember to pray for these
                                  poor souls who are tares among the wheat. Delete and
                                  pray.... Magdalena

                                  __________________________________________________
                                  Do you Yahoo!?
                                  Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
                                  http://mailplus.yahoo.com
                                • Peter Okopny
                                  I am too, dismayed with such badgering going on before Christmas and overall. I thought this line was for FRIENDS of ROCOR ONLY, I believe that these people
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Jan 2, 2003
                                    I am too, dismayed with such badgering going on before Christmas and overall. I thought this line was for FRIENDS of ROCOR ONLY, I believe that these people should be removed from the list since they have proved that they are not!

                                    I pray that GOD may help them!

                                    One very sinful and annoyed Cossack,

                                    Peter Okopny
                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                    From: Fr. John R. Shaw
                                    To: orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com ; orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com
                                    Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 7:32 AM
                                    Subject: Re: [orthodox-synod] Re: TELLING THE TRUTH IS DANGEROUS...


                                    Paul Bartlett wrote:

                                    > Just from a brief membership in these two mailing lists ("synod"
                                    > and "rocor") I am beginning to wonder if there is so much contention
                                    > that if God does guide me back to Orthodox Christianity then I wonder
                                    > where I will hang my hat. I was orginally baptized at Holy
                                    > Transfiguration Monastery, which then under the ROCOR but is now under
                                    > some other jurisdiction. All this wrangling in American Orthodoxy is
                                    > becoming very discouraging. Maybe I should just stay where I now am
                                    > (which is outside Christianity entirely).

                                    Let me point out that the impression one gets from these e-mail lists
                                    is very much skewed. "All this wrangling" is the work of a very small
                                    handful of people; they are heard from here, but not too much anywhere
                                    else (though HTM would be the exception, as it has been wrangling since
                                    1986).

                                    However, the sad truth is that "all this" has driven many people away
                                    from Orthodoxy and the Church over the years, who had been thinking of
                                    joining or returning.

                                    My recommendation is to visit an actual parish, rather than going only
                                    by what you read here...

                                    In Christ
                                    Fr. John R. Shaw


                                    Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                    ADVERTISEMENT




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



                                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Margaret Lark
                                    Glory to God for all things! From: Peter Okopny Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 5:55 PM ... And if there s *one* thing you
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Jan 4, 2003
                                      Glory to God for all things!

                                      From: "Peter Okopny" <peter.okopny@...>
                                      Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 5:55 PM

                                      | One very sinful and annoyed Cossack,

                                      And if there's *one* thing you *don't* want to do, it's tick off a Cossack.
                                      ;-)

                                      In Christ,
                                      Margaret Lark, sinner
                                    • Hristofor
                                      ... The so-called new path (a red herring of I ever saw one) can be compared to other hysterical claims of pending doom. Here is a sampling, spanning the
                                      Message 18 of 21 , Jan 11, 2003
                                        At 10:19 AM 1/1/2003, you wrote:
                                        >JRS: This endless, but vague, talk of a "new path in the ROCOR" may
                                        >seem very convenient to justify doing what one pleases. But when,
                                        >exactly, did the "new path" take effect? Vladimir Moss began making
                                        >this accusation over two decades ago; he particularly singled out the
                                        >late Archbishop Anthony of Geneva as a culprit, but Archbishop Anthony
                                        >of Geneva was responsible for the [initially secret] consecrations of
                                        >Varnava and Lazarus. It seems to me the very fact that these
                                        >accusations, brought forth by various "interested parties" at various
                                        >times since at least 1980 or 1981, if not earlier, belie that there has
                                        >been any change.

                                        The so-called "new path" (a red herring of I ever saw one) can be compared
                                        to other hysterical claims of pending doom. Here is a sampling, spanning
                                        the centuries:

                                        Old-believers thought the world was ending with the nikonian reforms and
                                        some even went as far as committing suicide.

                                        In the US, there have been untold numbers of sects which have foretold the
                                        pending "End of the World". The only thing that has ended was they: either
                                        by committing suicide or becoming a laughing stock when the World Did Not End.

                                        In the 90's, many Orthodox (myself among them), were concerned by the
                                        pope's desire for at least "pascal union" if not liturgical union between
                                        Rome and the Protestants by 2000. "See," said the far right-wingers, "first
                                        they will force RC Pascha on us and then full union will not be far behind!
                                        You wait and see." Well, here we are, waiting to ring in '03 in a few days,
                                        and I rarely hear mention about a common Pascha anywhere. In fact, the only
                                        talk that I have heard is among the Protestants, for a fixed date for their
                                        Easter. That probably would be anathema to Rome, and should be anathema to
                                        all Orthodox bishops.

                                        Hristofor
                                      • goossir <irene.goossens@cec.eu.int>
                                        Dear Hristofor, You write: « The so-called new path (a red herring if I ever saw one) can be compared to other hysterical claims of pending doom …..».
                                        Message 19 of 21 , Jan 13, 2003
                                          Dear Hristofor,

                                          You write: « The so-called "new path" (a red herring if I ever saw
                                          one) can be compared to other hysterical claims of pending doom …..».

                                          The recent dialogue below between Fr Seraphim Holland and Fr John
                                          Shaw is hardly a product of our imagination.

                                          "--- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, " Fr. Seraphim Holland wrote:
                                          I have not had experienced much hatred or innuendo for a while, so I
                                          want to say plainly: I would completely accept union with the MP if
                                          my synod of bishops so desires it. A more likely scenario is
                                          liturgical communion, which I would also accept with great joy.
                                          Father John Shaw replied (post 7395): It seems to me that the two
                                          sides are getting closer and closer to each other all the time.
                                          In Christ
                                          Fr. John R. Shaw"

                                          The rapprochement with the MP is taking place, despite so numerous
                                          postings on this list, (and not the least, the last interview of
                                          Alexis II, posted by V. Kozyreff), demonstrating the lies and deceits
                                          of the MP, which is in no way amending itself but wishes to shush any
                                          allusion to sergianism and ecumenism.
                                          We see now our priest acknowledging it in the face of the world that
                                          they accept with joy communion with the heretical MP.
                                          Father Seraphim writes that he is ready to a complete union with the
                                          sergianist-ecumenist MP if the synod desires it, in spite of the
                                          anathemas of 1983 and 1918. Fr John is confirming the probability of
                                          the rapprochement which is already seen in the October 2000 letter
                                          from the Synod to the Patriarch of Serbia: "... the desired
                                          rapprochement will advance, ...")
                                          And in:
                                          "We acknowledge that various views on the course of the Church of
                                          Russia exist among us, and it happens that these views do not always
                                          coincide". (Epistle of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox
                                          Church Outside of Russia To the Divinely Saved Flock in the
                                          Homeland). In http://www.holyvirginmaryrocor.org/epistle10-31-01-
                                          eng.html

                                          Well, dear Hristofor, this is what we call the new path/views in the
                                          ROCOR.

                                          In Christ,

                                          Irina Pahlen

                                          --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, Hristofor <hristofor@m...>
                                          wrote:
                                          > At 10:19 AM 1/1/2003, you wrote:
                                          > >JRS: This endless, but vague, talk of a "new path in the ROCOR" may
                                          > >seem very convenient to justify doing what one pleases. But when,
                                          > >exactly, did the "new path" take effect? Vladimir Moss began
                                          making
                                          > >this accusation over two decades ago; he particularly singled out
                                          the
                                          > >late Archbishop Anthony of Geneva as a culprit, but Archbishop
                                          Anthony
                                          > >of Geneva was responsible for the [initially secret] consecrations
                                          of
                                          > >Varnava and Lazarus. It seems to me the very fact that these
                                          > >accusations, brought forth by various "interested parties" at
                                          various
                                          > >times since at least 1980 or 1981, if not earlier, belie that
                                          there has
                                          > >been any change.
                                          >
                                          > The so-called "new path" (a red herring of I ever saw one) can be
                                          compared
                                          > to other hysterical claims of pending doom. Here is a sampling,
                                          spanning
                                          > the centuries:
                                          >
                                          > Old-believers thought the world was ending with the nikonian
                                          reforms and
                                          > some even went as far as committing suicide.
                                          >
                                          > In the US, there have been untold numbers of sects which have
                                          foretold the
                                          > pending "End of the World". The only thing that has ended was they:
                                          either
                                          > by committing suicide or becoming a laughing stock when the World
                                          Did Not End.
                                          >
                                          > In the 90's, many Orthodox (myself among them), were concerned by
                                          the
                                          > pope's desire for at least "pascal union" if not liturgical union
                                          between
                                          > Rome and the Protestants by 2000. "See," said the far right-
                                          wingers, "first
                                          > they will force RC Pascha on us and then full union will not be far
                                          behind!
                                          > You wait and see." Well, here we are, waiting to ring in '03 in a
                                          few days,
                                          > and I rarely hear mention about a common Pascha anywhere. In fact,
                                          the only
                                          > talk that I have heard is among the Protestants, for a fixed date
                                          for their
                                          > Easter. That probably would be anathema to Rome, and should be
                                          anathema to
                                          > all Orthodox bishops.
                                          >
                                          > Hristofor
                                        • Hristofor
                                          ... No offense to Frs Seraphim and John, but they are expressing their own opinions and views of the current situation. With the exception of the musings of
                                          Message 20 of 21 , Jan 14, 2003
                                            At 10:40 AM 1/13/2003, you wrote:
                                            >Dear Hristofor,
                                            >The recent dialogue below between Fr Seraphim Holland and Fr John Shaw is
                                            >hardly a product of our imagination.

                                            No offense to Frs Seraphim and John, but they are expressing their own
                                            opinions and views of the current situation. With the exception of the
                                            musings of Vl. Amvrosi and the German newspaper interview with Vl Mark, and
                                            etc, all of which have been thoroughly discussed on this list, I have yet
                                            to hear any other ROCA bishop express similar pro union views, either in
                                            the year that I have been on this list or elsewhere. Not one other bishop.
                                            Do one or two bishops set the course and direction of the whole Church? The
                                            more so since Vl Amvrosy is not a member of the Synod and thus doesn't even
                                            attend the more frequent synodal meetings. As a matter of fact, 2 bishops
                                            in separate private conversations have expressed to me a
                                            less-then-optimistic picture about the speed for union or communion.

                                            >The rapprochement with the MP is taking place,
                                            Isn't that what all we Russian emigrees have hoped and prayed for the last
                                            80 years? A lady in our parish now has relatives spread through 5
                                            _different_ Russian Orthodox jurisdictions, each one claiming to be The
                                            Russian Orthodox Church. I myself have them in 3. If someone happens to
                                            have some Ukrainian relatives as well, that could theoretically bring the
                                            total up to 8 or 9 jurisdictions. Is this normal? Surely you have heard the
                                            adage "Concur and divide?" Looks like that is what is happening. I have
                                            already mentioned how many Orthodox souls in the US have fallen or drifted
                                            away due to marriage etc. How many more need to be lost, because through
                                            the tragedy of the Revolution and the Diaspora, the Russian Orthodox no
                                            longer speak with one mind and voice? Who will answer for these people who
                                            have drifted away?

                                            >We see now our priest acknowledging it in the face of the world that
                                            >they accept with joy communion with the heretical MP.
                                            >Father Seraphim writes that he is ready to a complete union with the
                                            >sergianist-ecumenist MP if the synod desires it, in spite of the
                                            >anathemas of 1983 and 1918. Fr John is confirming the probability of
                                            >the rapprochement which is already seen in the October 2000 letter
                                            >from the Synod to the Patriarch of Serbia: "... the desired
                                            >rapprochement will advance, ...")

                                            BTW, Metropolitan Vitaly signed the letter to the Serbian Patriarch, did he
                                            not? Or did he "realise this mistake and remove his signature from that
                                            letter as well." There have been so many ukases followed by retractions
                                            from Mansonville with his purported signature, that it is hard to keep
                                            track...

                                            Mr Kozyrev's arguments aside for correcting a mistake, I wonder how many
                                            ukazes ROCA has issued in it's 80 year history that have later had
                                            signatures retracted from them? Certainly, there have been ukazes changing,
                                            abolishing or amending previous ones, as a situation may warrant, but those
                                            were always done with a majority of the bishops and not unilaterally. Since
                                            Mr Kozyreff has dismissed Fr Alexander's 3 reasons for signature
                                            retraction, what then could possibly have changed Vl. Varnava's mind? I
                                            presume all the bishops were privy to all the same information: they are
                                            all learned and knowledgeable about the current state of World Orthodoxy
                                            when the issue of the letter to Patr. Pavle arose. On the other hand, I
                                            don't know of any major scandal or crisis which erupted in the Serbian
                                            Church directly after our October sobor which would have changed Vl.
                                            Varnava's mind so abruptly.

                                            >We see now our priest acknowledging it in the face of the world that they
                                            >accept with joy communion with the heretical MP.

                                            Well, only you and a few others operate under the premise that the MP is
                                            heretical.

                                            One of the oddest parts to phantom about the schism (assuming that the
                                            reason for it is union/communion with Moscow, which I sincerely doubt) is
                                            that most of the issues and concerns troubling the French have been
                                            occurring in one form or another for years, without much ado. And
                                            then--boom!--in an instant, the French are in schism. For instance, just
                                            before the split, right there on rue Claude Lorrain, the Moscow
                                            myhrr-bearing icon of Tsar-Martyr Nikolai II is brought from Russia and is
                                            in our Parisian parish to be venerated. Fast-forward two years later and
                                            now some of the same people who venerated the icon are saying that the MP
                                            is heretical!!

                                            >And in:
                                            >"We acknowledge that various views on the course of the Church of
                                            >Russia exist among us, and it happens that these views do not always
                                            >coincide". (Epistle of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox
                                            >Church Outside of Russia To the Divinely Saved Flock in the
                                            >Homeland). In http://www.holyvirginmaryrocor.org/epistle10-31-01-
                                            >eng.html
                                            >
                                            >Well, dear Hristofor, this is what we call the new path/views in the
                                            >ROCOR.

                                            During the years of Soviet power, I never imagined how the USSR would meet
                                            its demise and I certainly didn't think that it would happen the way it
                                            would. As much as I would have loved for the USSR to disappear and the
                                            clock turn back to 1917, it just didn't happen that way. Hatred of the USSR
                                            and all the bad things which happened to Russia in the past century should
                                            not turn in to an illogical stumbling block which paralyzes all present and
                                            future activity.

                                            Labelling everything from the current activities of the MP to banning
                                            Christmas in an American school "sergianism" really belittles the true
                                            meaning of the word and does a disservice to all those who spoke out
                                            against Metropolitan Sergius and were subsequently martyred.

                                            Hristofor
                                          • wn4732 <wn4732@yahoo.com>
                                            ... the last ... The ... happens to ... bring the ... heard the ... have ... drifted ... through ... Orthodox no ... people who ... Finally a person with his
                                            Message 21 of 21 , Jan 15, 2003
                                              --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com,

                                              Hristofor <hristofor@m...> wrote:

                                              > >The rapprochement with the MP is taking place,
                                              > Isn't that what all we Russian emigrees have hoped and prayed for
                                              the last
                                              > 80 years? A lady in our parish now has relatives spread through 5
                                              > _different_ Russian Orthodox jurisdictions, each one claiming to be
                                              The
                                              > Russian Orthodox Church. I myself have them in 3. If someone
                                              happens to
                                              > have some Ukrainian relatives as well, that could theoretically
                                              bring the
                                              > total up to 8 or 9 jurisdictions. Is this normal? Surely you have
                                              heard the
                                              > adage "Concur and divide?" Looks like that is what is happening. I
                                              have
                                              > already mentioned how many Orthodox souls in the US have fallen or
                                              drifted
                                              > away due to marriage etc. How many more need to be lost, because
                                              through
                                              > the tragedy of the Revolution and the Diaspora, the Russian
                                              Orthodox no
                                              > longer speak with one mind and voice? Who will answer for these
                                              people who
                                              > have drifted away?

                                              Finally a person with his head on straight! God Bless you Sir and may
                                              your words penetrate the stubborn hearts among the Orthodox Diaspora.

                                              Peter
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.