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

Defrocked but First Hierarch Commemorated

Expand Messages
  • sergerust2002
    ... Dear Mr Boytchenko, Do you mean that ROCOR *has not* been watchful for 80 years ? Where do you think Mr Kozyreff is at odds with ROCOR teaching ? Your
    Message 1 of 24 , Jun 4, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Mr Kozyreff wrote:
      > The ROCOR has been watchful for eighty years,
      > and we have become tired of defending the faith.

      Mr Boytchenko answered:
      > May I ask if someone in the Synod gave you any authority to speak
      > in the name of the ROCOR? I am really confused.
      > Are you sure you are in the right church?


      Dear Mr Boytchenko,

      Do you mean that ROCOR *has not* been watchful for 80 years ?

      Where do you think Mr Kozyreff is at odds with ROCOR teaching ?

      Your rhetorical question "Are you sure you are in the right
      church ?" does not bring any evidence to the subject. It is simply an
      ad hominem consideration. The debated question is not whether Mr
      Kozyreff is sure or not sure of his opinions.

      The debated question is much more important. Its importance is
      recognized by the Sobor, since it is has appointed a Commission for
      the "Unity of the Russian Church" (while Metropolitan Vitaly
      claims that such commission has no object).

      Maybe it would be more clear to put it this way : How come you do not
      ask to Fr John Show "Are you sure you are in the right church ?",
      when he claims that the anathema against ecumenism was "a damage" ?

      In Christ,

      Serge Rust
    • vkozyreff
      Dear Mr Boitchenko, Thank you for your message. Your question: May I ask if someone in the Synod gave you any authority to speak in the name of the ROCOR? I am
      Message 2 of 24 , Jun 4, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Mr Boitchenko,

        Thank you for your message.

        Your question: May I ask if someone in the Synod gave you any
        authority to speak in the name of the ROCOR? I am really confused.

        I do not speak in the name of ROCOR, I just express what she has
        always taught me (and you, if you are orthodox). If I say "the ROCOR
        has been faithful for eighty years", I make a statement, which I
        claim to be correct, and which, I claim, will be supported by most
        believers.

        Your question: Are you sure you are in the right church?

        Yes, I am in the orthodox Church.

        Your question: Do you have any authority to accuse anyone of heresy
        or should it be the Council to have such authority?

        Stating that the MP is heretical is not exerting any authority or
        accusing it any longer in our days. It is just mentioning a well know
        established fact. Since ecumenism and sergianism are heresies, and
        have been anathematised, professing them is being heretical. In the
        same way, calling the Latino-catholic heretical is not accusing them
        any more. It is mentioning an established fact.

        Your question: I also wonder if you (or anyone else) individually
        have any authority to apply anathemas as they feel fit in order to
        suit their political convictions.

        I did not apply any anathema. An anathema is not "applied". An
        anathema has been proclaimed or has not. It is as simple as that. If
        you knowingly profess an opinion that has been anathematised, you are
        anathema without any further administrative measure.

        Since sergianism and ecumenism were anathematised, those who profess
        them are anathema. "Ya zdyes ni pri chom". To hate sergianism and
        ecumenism is not political, it is being faithful to orthodoxy.

        Your question: I do not know that the Synod has ever stated
        officially that all the anathemas against ecumenism or any other
        false doctrine specifically apply to the Moscow Patriarchate, and
        therefore MP is "heretical." If it is only your personal opinion
        please say so.

        God does not know "official statements" and does not need them. An
        anathema applies to all those who profess the positions that have
        been anathematised, whether officially confirmed or not. The anathema
        is God's judgement and the Church only explicitly expresses it. As
        explained by Vladimir Moss, (Message 8513), all heresies and heretics
        are anathematised 'from all eternity' by the eternal Lord, for just
        as every truth is approved by the Truth Himself from all eternity, so
        is every lie and condemned by Him from all eternity, being condemned
        with 'the father of lies' to the gehenna of fire (Revelation 22.15).

        In God,

        Vladimir Kozyrrev

        --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "V. Boitchenko"
        <venceslav@s...> wrote:
        > Dear Mr. Kozyrev,
        >
        > May I ask if someone in the Synod gave you any authority to speak
        in the name of the ROCOR? I am really confused. Are you sure you are
        in the right church? Do you have any authority to accuse anyone of
        heresy or should it be the Council to have such authority? I also
        wonder if you (or anyone else) individually have any authority to
        apply anathemas as they feel fit in order to suit their political
        convictions. I do not know that the Synod has ever stated officially
        that all the anathemas against ecumenism or any other false doctrine
        specifically apply to the Moscow Patriarchate, and therefore MP
        is "heretical." If it is only your personal opinion please say so.
        >
        > v.
        >
        >
        > Dear Lawrence,
        >
        > The ROCOR has been watchful for eighty years, and we have become
        > tired of defending the faith. That is the first reason for us to
        pray.
        >
        > « Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The
        > spirit is willing, but the body is weak." Mark 14:37-39)
        >
        > You are perfectly right in saying that we should pray for the
        > sinners.
        >
        > I think however you are mistaken when you say that we should pray
        > *instead* of denouncing the sin. Denouncing the sin and praying
        for
        > the sinner are both inseparable obligations for the Christian.
        The
        > horror of their sin is the reason why we must pray for them and
        why
        > we cannot endorse their sin by associating with them before they
        > renounced it.
        >
        > « It is therefore unlawful, and a profanation, and an act the
        > punishment of which is death, to love to associate with unholy
        > heretics, and to unite yourself to their communion ». (St. Cyril
        of
        > Alexandria).
        >
        > It is an error to believe that we should chose between faith and
        > love. None can suffer from the other. Both are inseparable. This
        was
        > discussed many times on this site.
        >
        > "Frequently, on this forum and in many other circumstances, the
        > relationship of our Church with the heretical MP is presented in
        a
        > wrong way, in my opinion. That is why many around us believe that
        we
        > must soften somewhat the rigor of the dogma in order to
        accommodate
        > the necessity to love the victims of heresy and apostasy".
        (message
        > 6598).
        >
        > Let us not overlook the danger of being seduced under the pretext
        of
        > brotherly love.
        >
        > « Do not, even for the sake of defending the faith, converse with
        > heretics, for fear less their words instill their venom into thy
        > mind. If thou meet with a book said to be by one of the heretics,
        > read it not, lest it fill thy heart with deadly poison; but so
        > continue in that doctrine which thou hast learnt in holy church,
        as
        > neither to add or to take from it. « Isaias, Abbot [4th Cent.]
        >
        >
        > In God,
        >
        > Vladimir Kozyreff
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • V. Boitchenko
        Dear Mr. Rust, ... No, I did not mean that. However, can you tell me what is meant by that statement exactly? As Orthodox, I believe that my Church has been
        Message 3 of 24 , Jun 4, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Dear Mr. Rust,

          >>Do you mean that ROCOR *has not* been watchful for 80 years ?

          No, I did not mean that. However, can you tell me what is meant by that statement exactly? As Orthodox, I believe that my Church has been watchful for 2000 years and not some 80.

          >>Where do you think Mr. Kozyreff is at odds with ROCOR teaching ?

          In my opinion Mr. Kozyreff made statements that go beyond what the Church Abroad has taught. Here are some examples:

          >>VK:...the relationship of our Church with the heretical MP...

          Our Church has never taught or proclaimed MP to be "heretical." Mr. Kozyreff took the liberty to speak on behalf of the Church and make such claim.

          >>VK:...Let us not overlook the danger of being seduced under the pretext of brotherly love...

          I agree. Let us not. Who is the seducer?

          >>VK:...and we have become tired of defending the faith...

          Who is we? Did the Church Abroad or any of its officials ever declare that "they are tired of defending the faith?" Do you believe that is what we teach? If Mr. Kozyreff is "tired after defending the faith for 80 years", my question is not as rhetorical as it seems to you. Anyone who is tired of defending the faith must be in the wrong church.


          >Your rhetorical question "Are you sure you are in the right
          >church ?" does not bring any evidence to the subject. It is simply an
          >ad hominem consideration. The debated question is not whether Mr
          >Kozyreff is sure or not sure of his opinions.

          I hope this clarifies what I meant and answers your questions.

          In XC,

          v


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.