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

Re: Ecumenism Local or Universal problem?

Expand Messages
  • ochichernie2
    ... Recently you quoted half of Metr. Vitaly s statement, found on ... De jure the Anathema which has been pronounced by us is of a purely local ... its ...
    Message 1 of 57 , May 28, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. Alexander Lebedeff"
      <lebedeff@w...> wrote:
      > Vladimir Kozyreff wrote regarding a ststement by Fr. John Shaw:
      >
      >
      > Dear Fr. Alexander,
      Recently you quoted half of Metr. Vitaly's statement, found on
      Orthodox Life, No. 4, 1984, p. 34:
      >
      > > -------------------------------------
      "De jure the Anathema which has been pronounced by us is of a purely
      local
      > character of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad. . ."
      >
      > Do you believe, Vladimir that the Bishops of the Church Abroad and
      its
      > spokesman on the issue, Metropolitan Vitaly (then Archbishop) were
      ignorant
      > when they clearly defined the scope of the Anathema as being of a
      purely
      > local character"?
      >
      > ----------------------->
      >
      > One must take the whole of a statement and teaching together.
      Here is the other half of Metr. (then Archbishop) Vitaly's statement:
      > >
      "...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!"

      (Amen.)
      > Each local Church that holds the fulness of the unadulterated
      doctrine 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
      Christ.
    • ochichernie2
      ... then they ... _______________________________________________ If what I have seen is correct, the Synod had already met and voted on the suspension before
      Message 57 of 57 , Jun 27, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Nikitin"
        <mikeniki@h...> wrote:

        >
        > The fact remains that they left ROCOR and were under a bishop,
        then they
        > 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
        with
        > Ecumenical Serbs is a violation of the Anathema to Ecumenism. He
        knew that
        > all bishops in MP were KGB agents and when he realized that
        Archbishop
        > Laurus and other bishops were seeking union with MP, he organized
        his 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
        election.
        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
        the problem?
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.