ROCOR Faithful Are Not Silent
cons...@my-deja.com
Church
Abroad (october 2000) in New York
The pronouncements of the past Council of the Bishops of the Russian
Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCA) should be rightly considered misleading.
Instead of preserving the historical missionary role of the ROCA to be
the guardian of the true Church authority (disgraced and usurped by the
so-called "Moscow Patriarchia") and to support those in Russia who,
being accidentally under the yoke of patriarchia still preserve true
Christian values,- Bishops' Council paved the way for the reconciliation
with the official patriarchia on the basis of the following two main
aspects:
a) Together with patriarchia the Council proclaims the alleged great
progress in the spiritual Christian Church life of the Russian people,
whereas in the reality we see nothing of the kind - we see the
overwhelming degradation of Christian and even common human morality
both in the Church and in the Society;
b) Together with the sergianistic patriarchia the Council summons us to
acknowledge that the present State ruling authority in Russia is moving
along the way of the improvement of the social and religious life,
striving at the restoration of Christian values and morality and at the
economic and social stability of the Russian State after the downfall of
the communist yoke. In the absolute contrast to these slogans we see the
same former communists under the new camouflage of "democracy",
organised in criminal mafia supported by the international enemies of
Russia and leading Russia and its people to the full and final moral and
economic catastrophy. We see a criminal Church mafia collaborating with
this state mafia and other different criminal groups.
No wonder that the Bishops' Council of the ROCA payed no attention to
the deeds of some of the members of its Synod who helped Moscow
Patriarchia to usurp our property in the Sacred Land, although those
deeds had been disclosed in the Report and other documents presented by
Tatiana Kameneff (The Orthodox Palestine Society). The Bishops' Council
of the ROCA deproved Metropolitan Vitaly of his ruling authority and
threatened to those who would dare to make "slanderous accusations"
against Moscow Patriarchia or would try to frustrate the process
of reconciliation of the ROCA with Moscow Patriarchia. In this aspect
the Council of the ROCA repeated both in sense and style the
Metropolitan Sergius Stragorodsky's memoranda and demarches towards
Russian clergy in exile who in his opinion dared to "make false
accusations" against the bolshevicks rule. The Bishops' Council of the
ROCA demonstrated its fear of the Church voice having refused to summon
the universal Council of the ROCA under the false pretext of the
"absense of the theologically educated laymen". These facts and many
others show to us that the past Bishops' Council of the ROCA is
completely alien to the very character and historical mission of the
ROCA itself and therefore cannot be considered to be the genuine Council
of our Church.
Rev. Stefan Krassovitzky, Head of the Mission of ROCA
Roman Virshila
November, 29 / December, 12 2000
For information in Russian - see: http://www.chat.ru/~deistvo
----- End Forwarded Text ----------
Dear NewsGroup members,
It is so important to see these the voices of the firm foundation of
ROCOR. A couple of posters here have tried to mislead you into thinking
that there are no substantial issues of Faith upon which ROCOR has taken
her stand, falling from which the modernist and ecumenist churches have
separated themselves from ROCOR and the Orthodox Church. They have tried
to mislead you into thinking that the difference is merely "political"
when in fact the ecumenists have embraced another gospel and become
another church which is really no church.
And they have tried to mislead you into thinking that ROCOR will soon
unite with "world orthodoxy."
And that is not so.
With Christ's love,
Rd. Constantine
--
Reader Constantine Wright (consta...@hotmail.com)
Joy of All Who Sorrow Church - Atlanta GA
Russian Orthodox Church Abroad
http://constans_wright.tripod.com
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
cons...@my-deja.com
The Feast Of the Entry into the Temple
Of the Most-holy Bogoroditsa
Most-eminent Masters, All-honourable Fathers, Brothers and Sisters!
Having become acquainted with the Epistle of the ROCOR Bishops’ Sobor of
14/27 October 2000, we, as members of the Catholic [Sobornaya] Church of
Christ, cannot remain mute and indifferent participants upon those paths
which She travels. We feel that the “Epistle” must immediately be
rescinded and re-edited in the spirit of ROCOR traditions. If the Sobor
feels that the time has come to re-examine [our] relations with the MP,
then such a decision must be adopted at an All-Abroad Sobor [consisting]
of ROCOR clergy and laity. Until such a Sobor [is convened], the Church
Abroad must follow the path set down by previous All-Abroad Sobors.
In the course of the 10 years that ROCOR parishes have existed upon the
territory of Russia, we, by God’s mercy, have had an opportunity to
become quite seriously acquainted with the glorious and complex history
of our Church Abroad, and with her firm stance in the Truth of
Orthodoxy. Many of the Theologians of the [Russian] Abroad – including
all our First-Hierarchs, Metropolitans Antonii, Anastasii, Philaret, and
even the present [incumbent of the office], Vitaly, as well as such
[spiritual] luminaries and profound thinkers as Vl. Averkii, Nikon,
Archimandrite Konstantin, and others – wrote and and spoke with great
pain and wholehearted effort concerning what was then taking place – and
what is presently taking place – in [our] greatly-tormented country of
Russia. Of course, they also touched upon the enslaved church-folk who
found themselves oppressed by a ghastly and inhuman communist regime, on
the one hand; and, on the other, by the spiritual yoke of that offspring
of Sergii’s “synod” and of J. Stalin – the iniquitous Moscow
patriarchate.
The sentence of our Church unanimously spoke of the fact that the MP is
a monstrous, uncanonical organization, leading a parasitic existence
upon the body of the captive Church, and [of the fact] that what divides
us consists not merely of some sort of surface deviations on the part of
the sergian hierarchy, but is the very spirit of enslaving the
righteousness [or: truth (pravda)] of Christ in order to please a –
momentarily – more powerful authority.
The times, they are a-changing. A regular monster is growing – slowly,
but surely – upon the ruins of “developed socialism” in the Russian
[Rossiiskaya] Federation – an unspiritual [bezdukhovnoye] buy-sell
Russian-speaking society of “Ivans who remember neither kith nor kin.”
Only the essence and the spirit of the patriarchate remain unchanged. On
the surface, everything appears to be quite sufficiently decent and
decorous: [church] cupolas have begun to gleam with gold; the air is
permeated by the peal of bells; churches are springing up, staccato-
style, throughout the entire country; while many priests and laymen
worthy of respect, who sincerely care for the Orthodox faith and piety,
have begun to appear, here and there. There are, incidentally, also
contrary examples. But it is not of them that we speak at this time. We
speak – of ourselves.
Some time ago, to the question: “What divides us from the MP?” we began
to respond with a standard phrase: “1. Sergianism, 2. The non-
recognition of the New Martyrs, and 3. Ecumenism.” And we kept repeating
this, over and over, in the manner of a mantra [zaklinaniye], much as
did Pushkin’s Herman about his “three cards.” [The reference here is to
Pushkin’s tale “The Queen of Spades” (subsequently set to music by
Tchaikovskii) – Trans.] Thus: “Sergianism. Canonization. Ecumenism…
Sergianism. Canonization. Ecumenism…” And, somehow, we gradually began
to forget the devious and deceitful antichrist spirit of this
organization, and brought all our differences down exclusively to the
fulfillment of the specified demands. But the matter is quite a
different one from that [in its essence]; the formal, mechanical
acceptance of these conditions is yet a far cry from being the basis for
[our] rapprochement with the MP!
Forgive us our non-ecclesiastical “gambling” comparison – but, lo! it
appears that we have played our two “cards”: the patriarchate –
seemingly – has glorified the Royal Martyrs (albeit, in our opinion,
with impermissible reservations) and – again, seemingly – has rejected
sergianism, if in word only… Whereupon, in the Abroad, there was
immediately unleashed a tempest of exultation, of rejoicing: Hurrah!
We’ve won! This joy, however, is premature. As sad as it might seem, we
are dealing not with an honest player, but with an experienced card-
sharp [shuler]. The patriarchate is currently using a hook [baited with]
relatively “easy victories” and “triumphal processions,” in order to
crush-down and subjugate to itself that which we have so long been
building up with you: our Church Abroad – including, among others, Her
parishes in Russia. And we are not speaking, at present, of “playing”
our “last card” – ecumenism. We are speaking of not being negligent –
and, in general, of not sitting down to play reckless games of chance
with a time-proven swindler – even if, prior to that, he were to assure
us, under oath, that lo! henceforth he nevermore will deceive us, for
any reason, whatsoever.
Is it reasonable for experienced men of the cloth [dukhovny’e litsa] –
who, according to the type of activity in which they are involved,
constantly come into contact with multifarious human sins – suddenly to
express tempestuous joy at the words of an habitual liar? Even were one
to allow that the person had truly reformed – that he had repented) – it
still would be necessary (and this would even be very ecclesiatical!) to
impose a certain penance upon him; a time for testing the sincerity of
his intentions. Otherwise, it is possible not only not to help a
repenting culprit, but also to destroy all his good beginnings, and even
to perish oneself.
Observable disorders in the life of the Church have already begun now –
both in Russia and abroad – and this, because of the text of the
“Epistle,” alone. We may react to them in different ways, but one thing
is clear: the adoption of the “Epistle” has already served – and can yet
serve in the future – as an impetus to a serious schism, in which ROCOR
will lose those very people who are most-devoted to Her! Is this not too
high a price to pay for a spectral rapprochement with the MP? And will
ROCOR, by that time, still be the same, glorious Church Abroad, such as
we had known Her heretofore?
Abroad, however, the tempestuous rejoicing continues; and a “Commission
Of Russian Church Unity” has already been created (as if the Russian
Church had been divided prior to that time!). For the Sobor has declared
that the Moscow patriarchate is “part of the Russian Church.” It is
necessary to realize that it is for the first time that we hear such a
declaration from a Sobor. And it is here that there is concealed, as we
see it, something extremely serious: contrary to its own assertions, the
ROCOR Bishops’ Sobor, having recognized the Moscow patriarchate to be a
Church, has changed the course of our Ecclesiastical barque, which the
Church Abroad followed for 80 years! Thus, that selfsame organization
which the holy New Martyrs and Confessors, under torture and in the face
of death, shrank from calling a Church, is now being called such by
absolutely free people, who are threatened by nothing – except, perhaps,
by being deprived of earthly temples and losing their prestige… Is this
not, on our part, a voluntary rejection of the ordeal [podvig] of that
throng of Saints whom we had glorified – a rejection of confessing the
[Orthodox] Faith today?
Be that as it may, questions of such scope should be decided at an All-
Abroad Sobor. It is noteworthy that amongst the adherents of ROCOR’s
rapprochement with the MP, the overwhelming majority are specifically
dwellers in the Diaspora – people who served, who presently serve, and
who (regardless of the outcome of events) will continue to serve
successfully, in comfortable and well-heeled parishes abroad. The
opinions and condition of the tormented and persecuted flock in its own
Native Land of Russia is simply of no interest to them. Why is this
happening? Can it be that we, “the foreigners of Russia,” will simply be
offered up in sacrifice for the sake of [their] worldly well-being? –
and who will offer up the sacrifice!? – why, our own ecclesiatical
superiors [sviaschennonachaliye] – those whom we trusted unreservedly,
on whom we pinned our hopes, and for whom we prayed so resoundingly all
these blessed 10 years…
There have already been examples in this century’s history when the
thriving West tossed Russia to the vagaries of fate [na proizvol
sud’by], to be slaughtered by fierce foes: such was the betrayal [of the
Russian White Armies] by the Entente during the Civil war [between the
Whites and the Reds]; such, too, was the betrayal of the [Russian]
emigres and Cossacks at the end of the 2-nd World War (like the tragedy
in Lienz). It is hard to think of this, but it now appears that we might
well be on the verge of a possible third betrayal… Well, let those who
do this, do it quickly. But let them also keep in mind that this is it;
this is the final betrayal. Here our paths will finally diverge
definitively, and we will never trust them again.
Amen.
Priest Vasilii Savel’yev
Hieromonk Tikhon (Pasechnik)
Hypodeacon Viktor Zavodov
Et al.
cons...@my-deja.com
>The Appeal of the Omsk Clergy
>
>The Feast Of the Entry into the Temple
>Of the Most-holy Bogoroditsa
>
>Most-eminent Masters, All-honourable Fathers, Brothers and Sisters!...
First, the Diocese of Bishop Evtikhy has issued a rather sober (yes,
I mean sober; this is not a spell-check issue!) resolution, signed by
twenty-one clerics - including the three who signed the Omsk
statement - which states (in brief) that: the epistle of the October
Sobor attests to the primacy of the former course of ROCOR; the
epistle neither indicates approval of the current state of the the MP
nor calls us to union with it in its current state; the Sobor's
letter to the Serbian church contains a certain temptation, and that
our role should be to influence their withdrawal from the ecumenical
movement; and, it expresses disagreement with the declarations and
ultimatums to the Sobor and the ruling hierarch by certain clergy,
saying this is a result of unconsidered zeal.
Second, the three clerics signing below have written (on 10 December)
their own follow-up letter, which merits attention. My
[unprofessional] translation follows.
Thanks for listening!
George Skok
-------------
Dear fathers, brothers and sisters!
After the publication of the Resolution of the Ishim-Siberian
diocese, below which are our signatures, we began to recieve letters
and telephone calls with the questions, were our signatures falsified
or were we forced to sign. No, we reply, not forced, and our
signatures are authentic: after a heated discussion at the meeting,
the explanations of Vladyka Evtikhy and his firm assurances that the
recent Sobor of the RPZTs [ROCOR] had no secret intentions to unite
with the MP, we could not but believe our ruling hierarch.
We are not in agreement with all the formulations of the Resolution,
but at the same time we considered it imperative to sign this
document for the sake of preserving church peace.
We would also like to call upon all the faithful to preserve, in this
time, the ideals of the Church Abroad in tranquility and sobriety, so
as not to ourselves shake the ship of the Church, not to sow enmity
and distrust of one another, not to take inflammatory and indelible
actions.
Let us conduct ourselves in strict agreement with the holy canons,
relying more not on our human impressions but on the will of God -
only in this manner will we be able to safeguard our Holy Orthodoxy
and save our souls for Eternity.
May we be helped in this by the prayers of the Most Pure One
[Theotokos] and the Holy Royal Martyrs and all the new Martyrs of
Russia, as well as by the intercession (we believe this!) of our
former First Hierarchs - Anthony, Anastassy and Philaret.
Yours in Christ:
Priest Vasilii Savel'ev,
Hieromonk Tikhon (Pasechnik)
Sub-deacon Victor Zavodov
------- End Forwarded Text -----------
While I do not share their opinion that the Sobor Epistle accurately
reflects the primacy of the historic course of ROCOR, the above is well
worth reading beacues it makes clear again that there "is no intent to
unite with the MP."
With Christ's love,
Rd. Constantine
--
nick cobb
holym...@mail.ru
KNOW IT!
Fr. Kalashnikov of Kursk - ROCOR Holy Man
In article <9195t7$l0e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
cons...@my-deja.com wrote:
> The Appeal of the Omsk Clergy
>
> There have already been examples in this century’s history when the
> thriving West tossed Russia to the vagaries of fate
Christopher
> Concerning the Past Council of the Bishops of the Russian Orthodox
> Church
> Abroad (october 2000) in New York
Constantine
We only wish certain over-zealous Athens Ga. area ROCOR members would be
silent on this newgroup.
GS
Speak for yourself. You are not "WE"
Catherine Hampton
<cla...@killspamchartertn.net> wrote:
>We only wish certain over-zealous Athens Ga. area ROCOR members would be
>silent on this newgroup.
You said that in plural. I only know of one active here, and would
prefer he was speaking to being silent. At least then we know who he
is and where he is and what he is doing. :>
--
Catherine Hampton <ar...@tempest.boxmail.com>
====================================================================
Home Page * <http://www.hrweb.org/ariel/>
The Icon Wall * <http://www.iconwall.org/>
Kovalevo Children's Home * <http://www.kovalevo.org/>
St. Herman of Alaska * <http://www.stherman.sunnyvale.ca.us/>
(Please use this address for replies -- the address in my header is a
spam trap.)