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

Re: [orthodox-synod] My Great Concern! Your councel.....

Expand Messages
  • Fr. Alexander Lebedeff
    ... Well, I ll try. . . . ... This is a fallacious conclusion. It is a restating of the old electric current theory of communion between autocephalous local
    Message 1 of 11 , Oct 3, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      Stephanos Upton wrote:


      >Dear Reverend Hierarchs and Fathers;
      >
      >Bless ye! Evlogeite! Blagoslovite!
      >
      >Please read my reply below and grant me your learned counsel, to calm my
      >troubled soul:

      Well, I'll try. . . .



      >. . . This is what distresses me so much about the Monastery of the
      >Glorious Ascension, leaving ROCOR and going to the Jerusalem
      >Patriarchate. (Refering/replying to below . . .) While I laud and
      >applaud the JP's traditional stance and following the church (old)
      >calendar; the JP is in full communion with the Moscow Patriarchate and
      >the OCA.
      >
      >This places the MGA in the awkward, strange and ridiculous position of
      >being in full communion with the very Archbishop (Dmitri of Dallas) who
      >suspended them, and with the very church (the OCA) which they left over
      >the very fact of the OCA's modernism, new calendar, innovations and
      >betrayals of Orthodoxy, and the rejection of the 'proper' reception of
      >converts to the Holy Orthodox Faith, i.e. by baptism. YES, by being in
      >the Jerusalem Patriarchate....... the Monastery of the Glorious
      >Ascension is now in full communion with the OCA, the Moscow
      >Patriarchate; and God forbid, even the 'Archheresiarch' the Freemason,
      >New Calendarist, Jesuit, betrayer of Orthodox and 'Pope of the East',
      >Bartholomew of Constantinople.


      This is a fallacious conclusion.

      It is a restating of the old "electric current" theory of communion between
      autocephalous local Churches: that if A is in communion with B, and B is in
      communion with C, then A must be in communion with C.

      It doesn't work that way in the Orthodox Church.

      Every autocephalous local Orthodox Church has the authority to decide
      whether to maintain communion or break communion with any other local
      Church. This decision does not have any effect on other Churches the two
      may or may not be in communion with.

      Frankly, it is quite similar to diplomatic recognition between countries.

      If the US has diplomatic relations with Canada, and Canada has diplomatic
      relations with Cuba, it does not follow that the US has full diplomatic
      relations with Cuba.

      It is a historical fact that the Patriarchate of Constantinople, beginning
      in the 19th Century, broke communion with the Church of Bulgaria. The
      Church of Russia, throughout the entire period that the Patriarchates of
      Bulgaria and Constantinople were not in communion with each other,
      maintained ecclesiastical communion with both.

      Does that mean that the Church of Constantinople was actually in communion
      with the Church of Bulgaria because both were in communion with the Church
      of Russia?

      No.

      A church can break communion with another in the case of a serious dispute.
      Such an action does not affect any other churches either might be in
      communion with. (Similar to when a particular country breaks diplomatic
      relations with another particular country, it does not affect the
      diplomatic relations of either with other countries).

      There were recent breaks in communion between the MP and the EP; between
      the EP and the JP; and one currently continues in the Middle East between
      the Jerusalem and Antiochian Patriarchates. None of these breaks affected
      any other Churches these churches were in communion with.

      the ROCOR, initially and
      >involuntarily was 'de facto' excommunicated and "walled-in" by the
      >ecumenists SCOBA, when it prohibited its clergy and faithful from having
      >communion and concelebrations with ROCOR!!!

      Actually, the ROCOR was very clearly invited to join SCOBA at its
      inception, and it was the ROCOR that refused to join--not because of
      ecumenism or modernism, but simply because the same invitation to join
      SCOBA had been offered to the MP bishop in charge of the MP parishes in
      North America, and the ROCOR did not want to sit at the same table as an MP
      bishop. (Note: the MP representative eventually decided not to join SCOBA).
      ROCOR bishops and priests have frequently been invited to concelebrate with
      clergy from SCOBA jurisdications--so there is no "prohibition" by SCOBA
      regarding such concelebrations.




      > After a while, it seems
      >that the Hierarchs of ROCOR realized that this was God's will, to
      >protect the purity of Orthodoxy and the Faithful from innovation,
      >modernism, ecumenism, etc. Thus, now the ROCOR bishops forbid
      >communion and concelebration with non-ROCOR members (except for those
      >with whom ROCOR 'IS' in full common; such as the Greek (Met. Cyprian),
      >Romanian and Bulgarian Old Calendarists).

      This is simply not true. There is absolutely no official Resolution by the
      Sobor or Synod of Bishops of the ROCOR forbidding communion and
      concelebration with non-ROCOR members. Such concelebrations occur quite
      frequently. (Clergy from the Serbian Patriarchate consistently concelebrate
      with ROCOR bishops (see the pictures of the St. Job of Pochaev celebration
      in Jordanville for a Serbian priest serving with Metropolitan Laurus). A
      clergyman of the Jerusalem Patriarchate concelebrated with Bishop KirilI at
      the St. Seraphim celebrations in Monterey. Cordial relations exist between
      bishops and clergy of the ROCOR and SCOBA jurisdictions in many places
      (Bishop Job of Chicago--OCA--was present at the consecration of Bishop
      Peter in Chicago, and was warmly greeted by Metropolitan Laurus and all of
      the ROCOR bishops and clergy present) So where are these prohibitions?


      >
      >
      >This is also why 'reunion' of ROCOR and the MP should be VERY SLOW.
      >While the MP may be 'free' of the 'Atheist' government, etc. It is not
      >free of sergianism, innovation, and especially and worst of all the
      >'Panheresy' of Ecumenism. (On the contrary, it is becoming more and
      >more involved in it!!!)

      That is also absolutely not true.

      Compared to the huge MP delegations that had previously been sent to the
      WCC General Assemblies--delegations consisting of many Metropolitans,
      Archbishops, and dozens of high-ranking clergy--at the last WCC Assembly in
      Harare, the MP was represented by a single lowly hieromonk, who had
      instructions, as did all of the Orthodox delegates, no to participate in
      any joint prayer services and not to vote.

      Just a few days ago, Metropolitan Kirill of Smolensk, the head of the
      Department of External Relations of the MP, stated flatly "Ecumenism has
      met a dead end." (See zenit.org, September 9, 2003).

      This is "becoming more involved" in Ecumenism????



      >

      With love in Christ,

      Prot. Alexander Lebedeff
    • sputnikpsalomschchika
      So cross posting from another informal list to this Yahoo list is now condoned? I don t appreciate seeing my comments cut and pasted from one place to another
      Message 2 of 11 , Oct 3, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        So cross posting from another informal list to this Yahoo list is now
        condoned? I don't appreciate seeing my comments cut and pasted from
        one place to another out of context in this manner.

        Reader Michael Malloy
        Columbus Ohio


        --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, StephenATL <sbu@b...> wrote:
        > Dear Reverend Hierarchs and Fathers;
        >
        > Bless ye! Evlogeite! Blagoslovite!
        >
        > Please read my reply below and grant me your learned counsel, to
        calm my
        > troubled soul:
        >
        > . . . This is what distresses me so much about the Monastery of the
        > Glorious Ascension, leaving ROCOR and going to the Jerusalem
        > Patriarchate. (Refering/replying to below . . .) While I laud and
        > applaud the JP's traditional stance and following the church (old)
        > calendar; the JP is in full communion with the Moscow Patriarchate and
        > the OCA.
        >
        > This places the MGA in the awkward, strange and ridiculous position of
        > being in full communion with the very Archbishop (Dmitri of Dallas) who
        > suspended them, and with the very church (the OCA) which they left over
        > the very fact of the OCA's modernism, new calendar, innovations and
        > betrayals of Orthodoxy, and the rejection of the 'proper' reception of
        > converts to the Holy Orthodox Faith, i.e. by baptism. YES, by
        being in
        > the Jerusalem Patriarchate....... the Monastery of the Glorious
        > Ascension is now in full communion with the OCA, the Moscow
        > Patriarchate; and God forbid, even the 'Archheresiarch' the Freemason,
        > New Calendarist, Jesuit, betrayer of Orthodox and 'Pope of the East',
        > Bartholomew of Constantinople.
        >
        > Can this situation be more sad or ridiculous?? This is why I was SO
        > SHOCKED by their departure from ROCOR (despite ROCOR's
        imperfections....
        > i.e. ROCOR is made up of humans and is not perfect...) to the JP.
        >
        > The ROCOR, unlike the Greek and Romanian Old Calendarist resisters,
        who
        > rightfully and voluntarily, "walled themselves off" from the
        > new-calendarist ecumenists/modernists; the ROCOR, initially and
        > involuntarily was 'de facto' excommunicated and "walled-in" by the
        > ecumenists SCOBA, when it prohibited its clergy and faithful from
        having
        > communion and concelebrations with ROCOR!!! After a while, it
        seems
        > that the Hierarchs of ROCOR realized that this was God's will, to
        > protect the purity of Orthodoxy and the Faithful from innovation,
        > modernism, ecumenism, etc. Thus, now the ROCOR bishops forbid
        > communion and concelebration with non-ROCOR members (except for those
        > with whom ROCOR 'IS' in full common; such as the Greek (Met. Cyprian),
        > Romanian and Bulgarian Old Calendarists).
        >
        > This is also why 'reunion' of ROCOR and the MP should be VERY SLOW.
        > While the MP may be 'free' of the 'Atheist' government, etc. It is
        not
        > free of sergianism, innovation, and especially and worst of all the
        > 'Panheresy' of Ecumenism. (On the contrary, it is becoming more and
        > more involved in it!!!)
        >
        > Stephanos Upton
        > St. Mary of Egypt Parish, ROCOR
        > Atlanta, Georgia
        > a great sinner, who needs a 'pure' spiritual-hospital (which the
        Church
        > is) like ROCOR, to heal me of my numerous sinful and spiritual
        maladies.
        >
        >
        > Reader Michael Malloy wrote:
        >
        > > It is very good to see the support Rostislav is receiving for his
        > > correct comments about the issue at hand. I add my own support and
        > > encouragement!
        > >
        > > In my opinion, the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia is still at
        risk.
        > > It has made progress after the fall of the Soviet state, but there is
        > > still much work to be done. This business of getting close to the
        > > Uniates is absolute folly. Who can say more about the absolute
        > > stupidity of ecumenism? Both are non negotiables.
        > >
        > > I am a convert, going on seven years now. My convert zeal is more
        > > subdued than it was originally, but I hope it is still strong and
        > > correct. My spiritual father taught me to hold to the true faith and
        > > never to compromise to "novelties" which are creeping into some
        > > jurisdictions these days. My personal attraction has always been to
        > > the Russian practice as maintained by the ROCOR even though I am
        now a
        > > Reader in an OCA parish - new calendar and all. ;-(
        > >
        > > The truth is only found in unaltered Orthodox Christianity. It's not
        > > broken, so there is no need to "fix it."
        > >
        > > Reader Michael Malloy
        > > Columbus Ohio
        > >
        > >
        > > At 03:40 PM 10/1/03 -0400, you wrote: Dear Rostislav,
        > >
        > >> I am not from Russia ,but you are absolutely
        right.Ecumenism is
        > >> invading and it is dangerous.Worldwide Orthodoxy has to unite in
        > >> Truth and according to Holy Tradition .It is a blessing if all
        > >> Orthodox agree and fight this heresy. Compromise is not an option.It
        > >> is betrayal of the Truth.And yes,you are right :physical death is
        > >> preferable than spiritual death.
        > >> In Christ,
        > >> Melpomeni Mari.
        > >>
        > > ***************************************************************
        > > Yahoo!, anything for a buck, is a proud sponsor of SPAM
        > > ***************************************************************
        > >
        > > Reader Michael Malloy
        > > Choir director
        > > Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker Orthodox Church (OCA)
        > > Columbus Ohio
        > > ReaderMichael@m...
        > > (Work e mail remains: malloy.2@o...)
        > >
        > > "A Psalm is the tranquility of souls, the arbitrator of peace,
        > > restraining the disorder and turbulence of thoughts, for it softens
        > > the passion of the soul and moderates its unruliness. A Psalm forms
        > > friendships, unites the divided, mediates between enemies. For who
        can
        > > still consider him an enemy with whom he has set forth one voice to
        > > God? So that the singing of Psalms brings love, the greatest of good
        > > things, contriving harmony like some bond of union and uniting the
        > > people in the symphony of a single choir."
        > >
        > > St. Basil the Great; in: Strunk, W. Oliver (William Oliver), 1901-
        comp.:
        > > Source readings in music history from classical antiquity through the
        > > romantic era. New York, Norton [1950]
        > >
        >
        >------------------------------------------------------------------------
        > >
        > >_______________________________________________
        > >Newsletter mailing list
        > >Newsletter@m...
        > >http://monastery.org/mailman/listinfo/newsletter_monastery.org
        > >
        > >
      • michael nikitin
        Fr. Alexander Lebedeff wrote: This is simply not true. There is absolutely no official Resolution by the Sobor or Synod of Bishops
        Message 3 of 11 , Oct 3, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          "Fr. Alexander Lebedeff" <lebedeff@...> wrote:

          "This is simply not true. There is absolutely no official Resolution by the Sobor or Synod of Bishops of the ROCOR forbidding communion and concelebration with non-ROCOR members. Such concelebrations occur quite frequently. (Clergy from the Serbian Patriarchate consistently concelebrate
          with ROCOR bishops (see the pictures of the St. Job of Pochaev celebration in Jordanville for a Serbian priest serving with Metropolitan Laurus). A clergyman of the Jerusalem Patriarchate concelebrated with Bishop KirilI at the St. Seraphim celebrations in Monterey. Cordial relations exist between
          bishops and clergy of the ROCOR and SCOBA jurisdictions in many places (Bishop Job of Chicago--OCA--was present at the consecration of Bishop Peter in Chicago, and was warmly greeted by Metropolitan Laurus and all of the ROCOR bishops and clergy present) So where are these prohibitions?"


          Anathema Against Ecumenism. Pronounced in 1983 and reaffirmed in 1998 by
          the Synod of Bishops of ROCA.

          Michael N.




          ---------------------------------
          Do you Yahoo!?
          The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • orthodoxchurch_sg
          ... wrote: So where are these prohibitions? ... 1998 by ... Evlogeite! How many times do we have to go over this? The Anathema against the
          Message 4 of 11 , Oct 8, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, michael nikitin
            <nikitinmike@y...> wrote:
            So where are these prohibitions?"
            >
            >
            > Anathema Against Ecumenism. Pronounced in 1983 and reaffirmed in
            1998 by
            > the Synod of Bishops of ROCA.
            >
            > Michael N.
            >
            >
            Evlogeite!
            How many times do we have to go over this? The Anathema against the
            Branch Theory of 1983 does not refer to, cover or anathematise the
            Serbian Church, the Jerusalem Patriarchate or any of the other
            historical Churches.
            God bless/ Fr Daniel
          • zina kochnaya
            What does Anathema of 1983 and 1998 anathematize? ... __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
            Message 5 of 11 , Oct 9, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              What does Anathema of 1983 and 1998 anathematize?

              --- orthodoxchurch_sg <orthodoxchurch_sg@...>
              wrote:
              > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, michael
              > nikitin
              > <nikitinmike@y...> wrote:
              > So where are these prohibitions?"
              > >
              > >
              > > Anathema Against Ecumenism. Pronounced in 1983 and
              > reaffirmed in
              > 1998 by
              > > the Synod of Bishops of ROCA.
              > >
              > > Michael N.
              > >
              > >
              > Evlogeite!
              > How many times do we have to go over this? The
              > Anathema against the
              > Branch Theory of 1983 does not refer to, cover or
              > anathematise the
              > Serbian Church, the Jerusalem Patriarchate or any of
              > the other
              > historical Churches.
              > God bless/ Fr Daniel
              >
              >


              __________________________________
              Do you Yahoo!?
              The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
              http://shopping.yahoo.com
            • orthodoxchurch_sg
              ... There are two possible answers ~ a) just reading it, it clearly refers to those who hold the Branch Theory , a perculiarly Anglican idea, and one which is
              Message 6 of 11 , Oct 9, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, zina kochnaya <zikonaya@y...>
                wrote:
                > What does Anathema of 1983 and 1998 anathematize?
                >
                There are two possible answers ~

                a) just reading it, it clearly refers to those who hold the 'Branch
                Theory', a perculiarly Anglican idea, and one which is certainly not
                held or taught by any of the Historical Orthodox Churches.

                b) the Anathema must be applied and interpreted according to the
                official teaching of the Synod of Bishops who issued it. Again, ROCOR
                clearly does not understand it to mean it has anathematised any of
                the Historical Orthodox Churches.

                But as I said, we have been round and round on this one.
                Paradoxically those who wish to see the Anathema to be wide-ranging
                (and apply it to almost everyone but themselves) tend to be those who
                have left the Synod of Bishops who gave the Anathema its authority ~
                HOCNA, ROCiE, ROAC. While denying ROCOR grace, they base their
                eccentric ecclesiology on an even more eccentric interpretation of a
                document issued by a Church they do not recognise!

                God bless / Fr Daniel
              • frvboldewskul@aol.com
                I understand that most lists discourage me to posts. However, it seems that Fr. Daniel nailed this one on the head. The way the Anathema is used (or rather
                Message 7 of 11 , Oct 9, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  I understand that most lists discourage "me to" posts. However, it seems that
                  Fr. Daniel nailed this one on the head. The way the Anathema is used (or
                  rather abused) by some is similar to the due process clause of the 14th amendment
                  (in the U.S. Constitution) where the Supreme Court created a "right of
                  privacy" leading to the right for abortion. From outlawing slavery in the 19th
                  century, Brennan created the right to abortion. The same with this. Thank you Fr.
                  Daniel.

                  In Christ,
                  Priest Victor Boldewskul

                  In a message dated 10/9/03 7:59:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
                  orthodoxchurch_sg@... writes:

                  > There are two possible answers ~
                  >
                  > a) just reading it, it clearly refers to those who hold the 'Branch
                  > Theory', a perculiarly Anglican idea, and one which is certainly not
                  > held or taught by any of the Historical Orthodox Churches.
                  >
                  > b) the Anathema must be applied and interpreted according to the
                  > official teaching of the Synod of Bishops who issued it. Again, ROCOR
                  > clearly does not understand it to mean it has anathematised any of
                  > the Historical Orthodox Churches.
                  >
                  > But as I said, we have been round and round on this one.
                  > Paradoxically those who wish to see the Anathema to be wide-ranging
                  > (and apply it to almost everyone but themselves) tend to be those who
                  > have left the Synod of Bishops who gave the Anathema its authority ~
                  > HOCNA, ROCiE, ROAC. While denying ROCOR grace, they base their
                  > eccentric ecclesiology on an even more eccentric interpretation of a
                  > document issued by a Church they do not recognise!
                  >
                  > God bless / Fr Daniel
                  >
                  >
                  >



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • zina kochnaya
                  I don t think you know what you are talking about, Father. I don t understand you. Anathema is cutting off. So, it does not matter what church it is
                  Message 8 of 11 , Oct 11, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I don't think you know what you are talking about, Father.
                    I don't understand you. Anathema is cutting off. So,
                    it does not matter what church it is Episcopalian or Serbian.
                    Since they are in WCC, where they all pray together, then,
                    they are under ROCOR's anathema of 1983 and 1998.
                    But, since MP and OCA consider ROCOR schismatics,
                    then this Anathema does not mean anything to them.

                    That's what I learned from this list.
                    Zina
                    orthodoxchurch_sg <orthodoxchurch_sg@...> wrote:
                    --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, zina kochnaya <zikonaya@y...>
                    wrote:
                    > What does Anathema of 1983 and 1998 anathematize?
                    >
                    There are two possible answers ~

                    a) just reading it, it clearly refers to those who hold the 'Branch
                    Theory', a perculiarly Anglican idea, and one which is certainly not
                    held or taught by any of the Historical Orthodox Churches.

                    b) the Anathema must be applied and interpreted according to the
                    official teaching of the Synod of Bishops who issued it. Again, ROCOR
                    clearly does not understand it to mean it has anathematised any of
                    the Historical Orthodox Churches.

                    But as I said, we have been round and round on this one.
                    Paradoxically those who wish to see the Anathema to be wide-ranging
                    (and apply it to almost everyone but themselves) tend to be those who
                    have left the Synod of Bishops who gave the Anathema its authority ~
                    HOCNA, ROCiE, ROAC. While denying ROCOR grace, they base their
                    eccentric ecclesiology on an even more eccentric interpretation of a
                    document issued by a Church they do not recognise!

                    God bless / Fr Daniel


                    Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

                    Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod



                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                    ---------------------------------
                    Do you Yahoo!?
                    The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • michael nikitin
                    The WCC is an organization built upon the branch theory . ROCOR pronounced it in 1983 and reaffirmed it in 1998. If it doesn t fall on those in WCC who didn t
                    Message 9 of 11 , Oct 12, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      The WCC is an organization built upon the "branch theory".
                      ROCOR pronounced it in 1983 and
                      reaffirmed it in 1998. If it doesn't fall on those in WCC who didn't
                      proclaim it then it most
                      certainly falls on those who proclaimed it, but transgress it.


                      Anathema Against Ecumenism:
                      "Those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that Christ's Church
                      is
                      divided into so-called "branches" which differ in doctrine and way of
                      life,
                      or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be formed in the
                      future
                      when all "branches" or sects or denominations, and even religions will
                      be
                      united into one body; and who do not distinguish the priesthood and
                      mysteries of the Church from those of the heretics, but say that the
                      baptism
                      and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation; therefore, to
                      those
                      who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics or who
                      advocate, disseminate, or defend their new heresy of Ecumenism under
                      the
                      pretext of brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated
                      Christians, Anathema!"

                      Michael N.

                      orthodoxchurch_sg <orthodoxchurch_sg@...> wrote:
                      --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, zina kochnaya <zikonaya@y...>
                      wrote:
                      > What does Anathema of 1983 and 1998 anathematize?
                      >
                      There are two possible answers ~

                      a) just reading it, it clearly refers to those who hold the 'Branch
                      Theory', a perculiarly Anglican idea, and one which is certainly not
                      held or taught by any of the Historical Orthodox Churches.

                      b) the Anathema must be applied and interpreted according to the
                      official teaching of the Synod of Bishops who issued it. Again, ROCOR
                      clearly does not understand it to mean it has anathematised any of
                      the Historical Orthodox Churches.

                      But as I said, we have been round and round on this one.
                      Paradoxically those who wish to see the Anathema to be wide-ranging
                      (and apply it to almost everyone but themselves) tend to be those who
                      have left the Synod of Bishops who gave the Anathema its authority ~
                      HOCNA, ROCiE, ROAC. While denying ROCOR grace, they base their
                      eccentric ecclesiology on an even more eccentric interpretation of a
                      document issued by a Church they do not recognise!

                      God bless / Fr Daniel


                      Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

                      Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod



                      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


                      ---------------------------------
                      Do you Yahoo!?
                      The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search

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