Re: collaborators and assistants to Metropolitan Anthony
- Dear V,
Regarding the possibility of ROCOR to make the MP change course
after the reunion, even Father Alexander Lebedeff does not believe in
We all know where Vl Mark did study, but we also know that his
application to the Trinity St Sergius Lavra was turned down.
You write: "How can we not accept "just" a discussion (with the MP)?
There are many recommendations to the contrary in the Holy Fathers.
This letter is probably a hoax, but it has been an interesting
opportunity to exchange ideas.
The good thing is that this time we did not fight. Glory to God.
PS I have a special friendship to your family (your father and your
sister), with regards to the marvellous memories that my children
have kept of their Vitiazi years. This friendship automatically
spills over to you.
--- In email@example.com, "Victor Artzimovitch"
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "vkozyreff" <vladimir.kozyreff@s...>
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 12:48 PM
> Subject: [orthodox-synod] Re: collaborators and assistants to
> Please allow some comments:
> Dear Father Daniel, bless.
> I thank you for your good words.
> You write: "Are you suggesting that Vl Mark is not careful?
> discerning? that he does not carry the grace of the Apostles poured
> out upon him at his consecration?
> 1. Vl Mark was once disciplined for not being careful vis-à-vis the
> MP. I cannot understand why, having been a NTS activist, he applied
> to study in the Trinity St Sergius Lavra when it was the centre of
> KGB anti God activity.
> Vl.Mark studied (as far as I know) in the Belgrade academy.
> Vl.Mark was disciplined as was ex-Vl. Varnava, but for very
> 2. The number of bishops who, in the past, have erred and fallen
> schism, apostasy or heresy is considerable. Did they carry the graceWe
> of the Apostles poured out upon him at his consecration?
> ...so is the case of ex-Vl. Varnava....
> 3. We are not choosing between my opinion and that of a bishop. We
> have to choose between the opinion of bishops and sizeable parts of
> the Church that disagree with one another.
> ... what is a "sizeable part of the Church" ? One ex-bishop and some
> 4. We are not accusing or condemning the captains of the ships. We
> have only to choose which ship to board. We know that some maps that
> were obviously wrong have not been corrected and are still in use.
> know also that some captains say now that it does not matter anything
> longer what maps will be used. They say that the most important
> is to be all on the same ship.Rome!!!!
> ...it's like flying a Boeing 747 with maps dated back to ancient
> Times have changed, Russia is in a very difficult process ofreforms. So is
> probably MP.help the
> Yes, the most important thing is to be on the same ship in order to
> captains to find back the right track...statement?
> Just pointing that the map is wrong is not enough....
> 5. You write: "There is nothing in the official documents of ROCOR,
> that I have been shown or have read, which indicates that it is not
> possible to discuss possible ways forward following the fall of
> communism in Russia". Speaking about official documents, there is
> none that show any will on the part of the MP to quit sergianism and
> ecumenism, and yet, we are invited to unite. Vl Amvrosii allows his
> flock to commune with the MP.
> Our Lord has not refused Judas of being part in the Last Supper...
> How can we not accept "just" a discussion?
> 6. The question is not "to unite or not to unite with the MP". The
> question is "To unite after the MP has renounced sergianism and
> ecumenism or before it has renounced sergianism and ecumenism". I am
> concerned, and this concern is not only mine. It is the concern of a
> sizeable part of the Church and of bishops.
> Should this question not be part of our discussions? ...and not a
> In God and asking your prayers,
> Vladimir Kozyreff
> --- In email@example.com, "orthodoxchurch_sg"
> <orthodoxchurch_sg@y...> wrote:
> > Dear in Christ Vladimir ~
> > You believe this, you assume that, you suspect the other. What are
> > you actually saying, based on evidence, teaching, official
> > You are quite right - we are Orthodox or not. And our Orthodoxy
> > not depend upon individual opinion, suspicion, assumption, however
> > respected or revered the opinion giver may be. There is nothing in
> > the official documents of ROCOR, that I have been shown or have
> > which indicates that it is not possible to discuss possible ways
> > forward following the fall of communism in Russia. Indeed, if we
> > not to consider it a possibilty we would be restricting the wisdom
> > and the power and the glory of God. We must be careful, of course.
> > Are you suggesting that Vl Mark is not careful? discerning? that
> > does not carry the grace of the Apostles poured out upon him athis
> > consecration? Yes, the laity should be rational sheep, notdeal.
> > automotons. Yet, surely, as I was taight and brought up in
> > among the clergy and laity of ROCOR (I am now a priest in EP)
> > including Metropolitan Philaret, Bishops Gregory and Constantine
> > Mark, - humility and patience and obedience count for a great
> > Where are they when it comes to splashing documents you dont likehttp://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > the InterNet?
> > God bless you and keep you well / Fr Daniel
> Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "vkozyreff"
>Well, it is clearly not a hoax, as it has just been posted on the MP
> This letter is probably a hoax, but it has been an interesting
> opportunity to exchange ideas.
website (so far in Russian only).
- From: "Victor Artzimovitch" <vartzimovitch@...>
Subject: Re: [orthodox-synod] Re: collaborators and assistants to
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2003 19:17:03 +0200
...it's like flying a Boeing 747 with maps dated back to ancient Rome!!!!
Times have changed, Russia is in a very difficult process of reforms. So is
Yes, the most important thing is to be on the same ship in order to help the
captains to find back the right track...
Just pointing that the map is wrong is not enough....
We should change the Church to the times?
The French did want to stay on course , but the Captains took the new
course . They are flying the ship and didn't want anyone interfering. I find
it is hard to help the Captains find back the right track. They won't
listen. That's why so many left and are leaving.
Why crash with them when one can take another ship and fly the same safe
route as our Holy Fathers? Knowing at least that we are following
the course the Captains took that never crashed.
6. The question is not "to unite or not to unite with the MP". The
question is "To unite after the MP has renounced sergianism and
ecumenism or before it has renounced sergianism and ecumenism". I am
concerned, and this concern is not only mine. It is the concern of a
sizeable part of the Church and of bishops.
Should this question not be part of our discussions? ...and not a statement?
ROCOR in it's letter to Patriarch Pavel begged him to pave the way for
dialogue and eventual union with MP. The MP wrote that ROCOR was in schism
from the Russian Church. Who's uniting to whom? How will ROCOR be united
with MP since they are in schism?
If we are not to waite for MP to show their good will to the faith and
renounce ecumenism that we Anathemetized, what should we expect from her?
Some concessions here and there and say they repented?
The MP have to show a desire to renounce these heresies, otherwise what's
stopping us from having dialogue with the Muslims, Jews, Latins,
Protestants, etc....Not a good idea.
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
- Just an aside: It was said:
>Yes, the laity should be rational sheep, not unthinkingThe phrase "rational sheep" is often misunderstood, mainly because of
the clumsy tranlation. "Rational" as used here is an overly-literal
rendering of the Greek "logikos", which did not mean "logical" at the
time. (I don't think it took on this sense till the Middle Ages.) It
come from "logos", meaning the inner, non-literal sense of something,
rather the the superficial meaning. IOW, "logikos/rational" refers to
what we what call the metaphorical sense. "Metaphorical", then, is
the best way to render this (though I doubt anyone will ever bother
to do so). As Christ's sheep, we are to be reasonable, certainly, but
the phrase in question has nothing to do w/this. Rather, it simply
means that we are His "metaphorical sheep", rather than literal cud-
chewing, bleating creatures.
Another case which comes to mind is Romans 12:1, which speaks of us
offering ourselves as living sacrifices because this is
our "reasonable service". Again, the word "reasonable" is "logikos"
and should be translated as "metaphorical". More than once I have
heard (or read) people respond to this passage saying, "Yes, offering
our bodies as living sacrifices is only reasonable, after all."
Actually, it's not very reasonable, and if anyone tried to crawl up
onto the altar table, it would be a problem. "Reasonable" has nothing
to do with what St. Paul is saying. "Service" here means liturgical
worship, in the sense of the OT priests sacrificing animals in the
Temple. St. Paul is merely saying that instead of sacrificing
animals, we Christians are to offer ourselves; this is how we
metaphorically serve God around a metaphorical altar. It is true
service, to be sure, but not in the literal sense of a blood
Fr. Peter Jackson