Re: Ecumenism Local or Universal problem?
- --- In email@example.com, "Fr. Alexander Lebedeff"
> Vladimir Kozyreff wrote regarding a ststement by Fr. John Shaw:Recently you quoted half of Metr. Vitaly's statement, found on
> Dear Fr. Alexander,
Orthodox Life, No. 4, 1984, p. 34:
>"De jure the Anathema which has been pronounced by us is of a purely
> > -------------------------------------
> character of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. . ."its
> Do you believe, Vladimir that the Bishops of the Church Abroad and
> spokesman on the issue, Metropolitan Vitaly (then Archbishop) wereignorant
> when they clearly defined the scope of the Anathema as being of apurely
> local character"?Here is the other half of Metr. (then Archbishop) Vitaly's statement:
> One must take the whole of a statement and teaching together.
> >"...But *de facto* it has immense significance for the history of
the UNIVERSAL CHURCH [emphasis mine], for ecumenism is a heresy on a
UNIVERSAL scale [emphasis mine]. The place of the Russian Church
Abroad is now plain in the conscience of ALL the Orthodox ... it
is.. no longer possible to remain silent, for continued silence
would be like a betrayal of the Truth, from which may the Lord
deliver us all!"
> Each local Church that holds the fulness of the unadulterateddoctrine of Orthodoxy IS the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic
Church, just as each piece of the Body and each drop of the Blood of
Christ in the Chalice is nevertheless not many Christs, but One
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Michael Nikitin"
> The fact remains that they left ROCOR and were under a bishop,
> were suspended._______________________________________________
If what I have seen is correct, the Synod had already met and
voted on the suspension before they left. The fact that Metr.
Vitaly delayed signing it long enough for them to leave doesn't
completely (if at all) take away the fact that Synod had already
voted to suspend them.
> Metr. Vitaly, the HEAD of ROCOR came to a realization that serving
> Ecumenical Serbs is a violation of the Anathema to Ecumenism. Heknew that
> all bishops in MP were KGB agents and when he realized thatArchbishop
> Laurus and other bishops were seeking union with MP, he organizedhis own
> jurisdiction - free of seeking union with MP.__________________________________________________
I had really wanted to believe that, but it seems that the real
reason Metr. Vitaly left ROCOR is because he was extremely upset and
offended that his secretary was taken away from him and how Bishop
Michael brutalized him. He had 3 months from July to October to
figure out that serving with ecumenical Serbs is a violation of the
Anathema, yet he actually *congratulated * Metr. Lavr at his
As far as the MP goes, the decision of the Synop of Bishops of
ROCOR in 1981 under CB. Metr. Philaret says, "...Yet any departure
from atheism and "Sergianism" must be seen as a positive step
towards pure Orthodoxy even though it *not yet be the opening of the
way of ecclesiastical union with us.*"
"Not yet" means that the Synod was looking *towards* that even
then. ROCOR has *always* had its goal to be the reunion of all the
separated parts of the historical Russian CHurch, when the Communist
power is fallen and MP has repented of sergianism and ecumenism.
It's whether and when those conditions will be fulfilled that is the
key question, *not* whether ROCOR will eventually re-unite with (a
purified, repentant) MP and the Catacomb Church.
To this date, all I can find is that ROCOR still finds
obstacles to union with MP and has not united with it. So what's