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

Re: [orthodox-synod] Re: TELLING THE TRUTH IS DANGEROUS...

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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]
      • Paul O. BARTLETT
        On Wed, 1 Jan 2003, vkozyreff wrote: ... Could someone be kind enough to define intellectual sergianism ? Thanks. Just from a
        Message 3 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
        • 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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.