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

[orthodox-synod] Re: In Christ's Church,Councils are the determining factor

Expand Messages
  • Michael Nikitin
    Fr. Stefan, St. Metropolit Philaret, Bishop Averky, Bishop Gregory Grabbe, Bishop Nikon would be scandalised by your post if you wrote it during their time.
    Message 1 of 45 , Feb 12, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Fr. Stefan,

      St. Metropolit Philaret, Bishop Averky, Bishop Gregory
      Grabbe, Bishop Nikon would be scandalised by your post
      if you wrote it during their time.

      During Bishop Averky's time MP was a harlot for
      serving with heretics, now, all of a sudden, MP has
      grace. And that's when ROCOR anathemised ecumenism
      in 1983 and again in 1998 in which MP is a member.

      I guess , new Metropolitan, new ecclesiology and a
      new tune - but why dance to it?

      All of the bishops in MP presently are the same as
      when communists ruled. MP is not the same church as
      St. Patriarch Tikhon's. Patr. Sergei was Stalin's
      choise and Stalin's organization.

      Did you pay attention to the stichiras on New Martyrs
      of Russia how St. Tikhon anathemised all communists
      and those who work with them. We know from church
      history that Patr. Serge informed to the authorities
      on all who refused to commemorate him and they were
      all murdered or sent to prison as contra
      revolutionists.

      I am surprised by Fr. Stefan for dancing to the new
      tune.

      Michael N.

      From: "stefanvpavlenko" <StefanVPavlenko@...>
      Reply-To: orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com
      To: orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: [orthodox-synod] Re: In Christ's Church,
      Councils are the
      determining factor
      Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 23:33:05 -0000

      Dear Vladimir,
      Here or on another board, someone said that answers
      were probably not
      given to every statement or question put forward,
      because no matter
      what proof or what logical argument or what full or
      partial quote is
      referenced, those who don't wish to accept or
      understand continue to
      IGNORE the presented documentation!

      Your presentation below is an example of why some of
      us do not bother
      to respond.

      Still I will attempt to explain.

      The ROCA 1971 sobor resolution you quote >>in part<<
      below, states
      only that the Council which calls itself an
      All-Russian Council, is
      in fact NOT an "All Russian Council", and that there
      fore, based on
      quoted canon law, its resolutions and decrees are not
      valid. It does
      not in any way shape or form, claim that the Moscow
      Patriarchate was,
      or is, without Grace. It also mentions the
      Patriarchate in
      Constantinople as a bad example a defence for their
      uncannonical
      action, and yet we all know that during the history of
      Turkish
      dominion over the Patriarchate and the illegal
      manipulation of that
      Episcopal See, it >>never<< was considered with out
      Grace by the
      Russian Orthodox Church or any Orthodox body. Can you
      not understand
      that?
      One thing is the understanding that the Administration
      of the Church
      in Russia, the Moscow Patriarchate, under the
      communist domination,
      was corrupt and illegal and even uncannonical, and on
      the other hand,
      that the crippled Church remained a dispenser of the
      Grace of Holy
      Baptism, Chrysmation, Confession, Communion, Marriage,
      and
      Ordination, for the people who attended the persecuted
      but open
      churches of that era.

      Vladimir, take a deep breath, cross yourself, look at
      the Icon of
      Christ in the Holy corner of your room and pray God
      gives you the
      wisdom and enlightenment to understand the difference.
      1) Illegal
      Administration. 2) Graceless, heretical church.

      The Russian Orthodox Church Abroad has always
      considered the Moscow
      Patriarchate a corrupt and illegal >>administration<<;
      it has never
      stated in any form, that it was >>without Grace<<and
      not an Orthodox
      Church.

      With sincere love for you,
      Archpriest Stefan Pavlenko



      _________________________________________________________________
      The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
      http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
    • Fr. John R. Shaw
      ... JRS: All the ROCOR bishops still do reject ecumenism, as do, so far as I know, all the priests. ... JRS: Because, although its contents are true and
      Message 45 of 45 , Mar 1, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Serge Rust wrote:

        > Now you tell us that Archbishop Afanassy also shared this position!
        >
        > All ROCOR bishops (In Christ's Church, Councils are the determining
        > factor) shared the anti-ecumenist position, not just HTM.

        JRS: All the ROCOR bishops still do reject ecumenism, as do, so far as
        I know, all the priests.

        > Fr John, you did not answer my question: why was the anathema «a
        > damage»?

        JRS: Because, although its contents are true and Orthodox, the *fact*
        of this anathema has been used almost exclusively as a means of
        attacking ROCOR.

        Thus, for example, one could cite your own anti-ROCOR posts, based on
        this anathema.

        > Is this your personal or your official opinion?

        JRS: I am a parish priest -- not a bishop. So I don't really see where
        one would draw the line between "personal" and "official" opinions.

        > Does your bishop bless it?

        JRS: My view is based on what my bishop has told me.

        > Are we going to be judged on our personal or on our official
        > statements?

        JRS: Both.

        In Christ
        Fr. John R. Shaw
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.