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

Re: [orthodox-synod] Re: 1983-1985

Expand Messages
  • VladMoss@aol.com
    In a message dated 26/06/03 14:18:25 GMT Daylight Time, vrevjrs@execpc.com ... So why did Metropolitan Philaret send the text of the anathema to Fr. Anthony
    Message 1 of 31 , Jun 26, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      In a message dated 26/06/03 14:18:25 GMT Daylight Time, vrevjrs@...

      > Vladimir Moss wrote:
      > > But the anathema was also an action, an action expressed in
      > > words. And it speaks louder than both the words and the actions of
      > those who
      > > hypocritically signed the anathema one day and trampled on it the
      > next.
      > JRS: I have never seen any evidence that the bishops ever did, in
      > fact, "sign the anathema". It was simply appended to the acts of the
      > 1983 Sobor after the fact.
      > Nor did any of them vote on it, nor was there ever any discussion of
      > it: this from two of the participant bishops at that Sobor.
      > All that happened was the Vl. Afanassy said in his speech, in passing,
      > that "the ecumenists and modernists ought to be included among those
      > anathematized on the Sunday of Orthodoxy".
      > But he did not actually compose any anathema text, as shown from the
      > fact that it was originally composed *in English*, and not in Russian
      > as would have been the case if it really had been the work of our
      > bishops.

      So why did Metropolitan Philaret send the text of the anathema to Fr. Anthony
      Gavalas? Why was it "reactivated" by the ROCOR in 1998? Why does the whole
      world think that the ROCOR anathematized ecumenism? Why, if it was indeed a
      mistake, has the ROCOR not issued an official refutation?

      Why, finally, would Vl. Afanassy say that the ecumenists should be included
      in those anathematized on Orthodoxy Sunday if they had not in fact been

      Vladimir Moss

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • ochichernie2
      ... is ... briefly; ... the ... where ... to ... better to ... said, What ... it better ... Metropolitan s ...
      Message 31 of 31 , Jun 28, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John R. Shaw"
        <vrevjrs@e...> wrote:
        > "ochichernie2" wrote:
        > > I would just like to know if Metr. Philaret:
        > >
        > > a) publicly or privately admonished any of his clergy for
        > > concelebrating with Serbs 1983-1985(or anyone else) *even if* he
        > > could not officially interfere in what they did. Admonishment
        > > not the same as actually interfering.
        > JRS: A few months before his repose, Metropolitan Philaret visited
        > Chicago, or rather passed through Chicago and stopped there
        > and a priest from one of our parishes was able to have a talk with
        > Metropolitan in the old Chicago cathedral rectory, upstairs in
        > Vl. Seraphim and Vl. Alypy lived.
        > This priest asked the Metropolitan point-blank, was it all right
        > concelebrate with the Serbs?
        > Metropolitan Philaret replied, in Russian: "Ne vospreschaetsja, no
        > luchshe vozderzhivat'sja" -- "It is not prohibited, but it is
        better to
        > abstain".
        > The priest later recounted this conversation to me, and
        said, "What
        > kind of an answer is that? If it is not prohibited, why is
        it 'better
        > to abstain'?"
        > At any rate, this seems to have been typical of the late
        > comments on the subject.
        > I think that should answer all your other points...
        > In Christ
        > Fr. John R. Shaw
        Dear Fr. John, Bless!
        Thank you very much for this pertinent answer.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.