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

Re: TELLING THE TRUTH IS DANGEROUS...

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 21 , Jan 1, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 21 , Jan 1, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 21 , Jan 1, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 21 , Jan 1, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 21 , Jan 1, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 21 , Jan 1, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 21 , Jan 1, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 21 , Jan 1, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 21 , Jan 1, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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 10 of 21 , Jan 1, 2003
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- 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 11 of 21 , Jan 2, 2003
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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 12 of 21 , Jan 2, 2003
                          • 0 Attachment
                            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 13 of 21 , Jan 2, 2003
                            • 0 Attachment
                              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 14 of 21 , Jan 2, 2003
                              • 0 Attachment
                                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 15 of 21 , Jan 4, 2003
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  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 16 of 21 , Jan 11, 2003
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    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 17 of 21 , Jan 13, 2003
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      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 18 of 21 , Jan 14, 2003
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        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 19 of 21 , Jan 15, 2003
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          --- 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.