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

Re: [orthodox-synod] Re: Synodal Letter to Bishop AMBROSE/ Fr. J. Shaw

Expand Messages
  • V. Boitchenko
    Hmm, I may have to apologize. My sources say something else, however. Although, considering the close relationship between Pat. Alexander and St. Athanasius, I
    Message 1 of 57 , Jun 1, 2003
      Hmm, I may have to apologize. My sources say something else, however. Although, considering the close relationship between Pat. Alexander and St. Athanasius, I would not be surprised if Pat. Alexander felt just as strongly about Arius as did Athanasius. Could you direct to me to your source please.

      v
      Daylight Time,
      venceslav@... writes:


      > A minor correction: Athanasius of Alexandria was consecrated in 328. 1st
      > Ecumenical Council was in 325. When Athanasius spoke at the Council against
      > Arius he was an Archdeacon. Arius was a priest.
      >
      > v
      >
      > Vladimir Moss wrote:
      > Thus the heretic Arius
      > was originally anathematized by the Bishop of Alexandria, which meant that
      > he
      > was excluded from receiving the sacraments throughout the Church of
      > Alexandria.
      > However, not all the bishops of neighbouring Churches agreed with this
      > anathema, so Arius was able to receive communion in other Local Churches.
      >
      >

      Quite correct. But Arius was first anathematized by St. Alexander, Bishop of
      Alexandria. I never claimed that he was anathematized first of all by St.
      Athanasius.



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


      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]
    • 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
        --- 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.