ROCOR was ecumenist from the beginning

DIscussion and News concerning Orthodox Churches in communion with those who have fallen into the heresies of Ecumenism, Renovationism, Sergianism, and Modernism, or those Traditional Orthodox Churches who are now involved with Name-Worshiping, or vagante jurisdictions. All Forum Rules apply. No polemics. No heated discussions. No name-calling.


Post Reply
Agios_Irineos
Member
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri 20 September 2013 3:22 pm

Re: ROCOR was ecumenist from the beginning

Post by Agios_Irineos »

jdigrande wrote:

At the 1600th anniversary of the Council of Nicea, did Met. Antony Krapovitsky engage in joint prayers with the other heretics there?

I don't know the answer to this question. I am curious though what you think it means if the answer were "Yes"

Justice
Sr Member
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri 5 May 2017 4:39 pm
Faith: Deism
Jurisdiction: Possible Inquirer
Location: United States

Re: ROCOR was ecumenist from the beginning

Post by Justice »

RaphaCam wrote:
Justice wrote:

Even though ROCOR was in communion with the New Calendarists, this doesn't make them ecumenist. The majority of ROCOR parishes (excluding parishes like the ROCA in Hobart Tasmania which has concelebrated with the World Orthodox since 1973) refused to give communion to the New Calendarists. Like the Matthewites, they wanted to see if the New Calendarists and World Orthodoxy would return to the traditional calendar. Sadly, this never came to pass and the ROCOR finally rejected the World Orthodox in favor of the Traditionalists. Even though ROCOR never produced an official statement saying that the New Calendarises were outside the church, there actions such as siding with the True Orthodox and refusing to co-celebrate with the New Calendarists definitely show that the majority of the ROCOR wasn't ecumenist front the beginning.

Actions speak louder than words.

Sure this wasn't in respect for canonical boundaries? I mean, most New Calendarists weren't in communion with ROCOR at all, so it wouldn't be right to disrespect this fact in giving communion to and concelebrating with each other's faithful. A conscious Antiochian Orthodox shouldn't commune at a Jerusalemite parish, for instance.

The last part confuses me. Why shouldn't an Antiochian concelebrate with he church of Jerusalem?

jdigrande
Member
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed 28 March 2018 2:36 am
Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: RTOC

Re: ROCOR was ecumenist from the beginning

Post by jdigrande »

If the answer is yes it is in line with the general mentality that existed in the Orthodox Church from the turn of the century. St. Tikhon (later martyred by the Communists) and St. Nicholai Velimirovich both had joint prayer services with Anglicans earlier in the century (in America and London). A Mason who installed a very large Masonic coat of arms (instead of a Cross) above the Greek School that he built in the Phanar in 1877 (Joachim III) was Patriarch of Constantinople from 1901-1912.

The Romanovs (Alexander III) bowed to pressure from the head of the Anglican Church (Victoria) and had participated in an Anglican marriage service after the Orthodox marriage service (for their son and the Lutheran Elizabeth (later Saint) in St. Petersburg in the 1880's.

Every Orthodox Church knew that Joachim III was a Mason and that included Met. Antony Krapovitsky who was his close personal friend. So for the Orthodox Churches as as whole, it was allowed (with a gentleman's wink) to be a Mason and a Patriarch at the same time at the turn of the century.

Joachim III was the first to posit the heresy of ecumenism in an Encyclical in 1903 and he was also in favor of the calendar change to the Menaion as the very least.

It was considered Victorian bad manners to consider Victoria an heretic and under the anathema of 1285, much less the Pan Orthodox Councils. After all she was a monarch in the eyes of the Orthodox world. Monarchy, Victorian good manners and ecumenical tolerance was the order of the day and trumped Orthodox anathemas. By 1925 Met Antony Krapovitsky was winking at Meletius Metaxis (another very public Masonic Patriarch who just became Patriarch of Alexandria) as he walked in procession at Nicea with another pack of heretics.

Being Russian, he escaped being confronted by everyone except St. Theophan of Poltava and that was only a private rebuke.

This general attitude prevailed and has not been repented of to this day. Most of this happened before 1924. I think a perverted sense of monastic and autocratic obedience permeated the Orthodox Church as a whole so that all the saints and confessors who later confronted this heretical attitude were very passive before 1920.

This is the original sin of the Old Calendrists in my opinion: this attitude that extended from the Greek War of Independence to 1924 (about 100 years) and was present in the other local churches too. Masonic ecumenical tolerance invaded all the churches and monarchies. The punishment: God allowed all of this to be swept away.

A minister of Masonic Baal on the throne of Constantinople was unacceptable to God.

But it was very acceptable to the entire Orthodox Church before 1920. How can any Old Calendrist cast the first stone at anyone now given this attitude which was shared by all then. As Anna Akmatova poetically once wrote in 1914 before WW1: the beginning of the punishment allowed by God: "We Are All Drunkards Here."

If Met. Antony stands condemned for his joint prayers at Nicea with heretics in 1925, then all before him stand condemned for the same thing or cowardly silence in letting it happen. We also stand condemned today for a cowardly nod and a wink at the atmosphere before 1920 (and at the same time the Pharisitical belief that only we (a certain local church) is without sin. We think we are without sin and thus think we can throw all the stones we want to throw at the other OC TOC's churches.

And so the punishment continues: division of a house based on the bad foundation of 1821-1920.

d9popov
Member
Posts: 211
Joined: Fri 9 June 2017 8:29 pm

ROCOR -- ecumenist from the beginning

Post by d9popov »

Joseph, I believe that there is a world of difference between the errors before 1965 and those after. Before 1965, the transgressions were often of forbidden common prayer---even though the Orthodox often still reaffirmed the uniqueness of Orthodoxy (as we all agree Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky did clearly). I believe that Saint Tikhon, Saint Nikolaj of Zhicha, and Metropolitan Anthony genuinely believed that conservative Old Catholics and Anglicans were about to embrace Orthodoxy. I do not wink at any improper common prayers, but I know the historical context. After 1965, there was a dogmatic denial of God-given dogmas about one Church and one baptism. This was preaching another gospel. Once again, we need to focus on the two issues on which the Anathema of 1983 focuses. If all bishops affirm the 1983 Anathema in word and deed (no intercommunion with ecumenist laity), certain pastoral differences can be tolerated. . . . [polemical content removed] We need to look to Saint Philaret, Bishop Gregory Grabbe and the ROAC in Russia, and Archbishop Auxentios, who all defended the purity of dogma but exercised pastoral leniency. The solution today is staring us right in the face, and slapping us right in the face: all we need to do is wake up, see what is in front of us, and follow this "mainstream" of traditional Orthodoxy, and many of these issues can be resolved. Remember Orwell's words: to see what is right in front of us requires a constant struggle. We cannot resolve the transgressions of the 1920s. . . . [polemical content removed]

Last edited by Maria on Sun 13 May 2018 1:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Barbara
Protoposter
Posts: 3983
Joined: Sat 29 September 2012 6:03 pm

ROCOR was ecumenist from the beginning

Post by Barbara »

...

You wrote so nicely, JosephDiGrande, but made one error. Sergei Alexandrovich was the son of Tsar Alexander II. Grand Duke Serge was given high positions by his brother, Alexander III.

By the way, I kept meaning to write that his birthday was today, May 11, in 1857.

But about the reciprocity of marriage ceremonies, I am glad you pointed out that example and put this custom into the context of the Victorian worldview.

I always wondered WHY on earth double ceremonies needed to be performed, whether for royal figures, aristocrats or any prominent person. It seems shocking that not just the Romanovs, but ALL strata of society, put up with this fake Anglican or Lutheran ritual for their sons or daughters. What a terrible thing to suffer through after the beautiful Orthodox ceremony.

WHY wasn't the protestant half of the bargain just dropped ? IF the non-Orthodox spouse was keen enough to marry the particular Orthodox person, surely that person could have felt content with only having one wedding : the Orthodox one.

I never understood this bizarre custom, followed I guess up to the present.

I was reminded of this by a rare bumper sticker this afternoon : "The Episcopal church welcomes YOU". Perhaps the agreement to endure an anglican ceremony was forced on the bride or groom in the secret hope that said spouse would come around to accept Protestantism. Instead of the reverse, which is vastly more likely. Who would go from Orthodox to Episcopalian ? I remember reading of one noblewoman from St Petersburg at the turn of the century who did, but had to hush it up. She was obstinately convinced that the Anglican 'church' was the right way. But I expect this case was exceedingly rare.

Surely far more people accepted Orthodoxy ; Serge Alexandrovich's wife Grand Duchess Elizabeth and her younger sister Empress Alexandra being two of the most famous examples in relatively recent times.

I have split several posts because of the Intra-TOC Polemics contained within them.

Barbara's post had one sentence in her post here that was also moved into Intra-TOC Polemics located here: http://www.euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/vi ... 30&t=12462

If you do not have access to the Intra-TOC Polemics and are inquiring into the Traditional True Orthodox or are a member of one of the TOCs, and would like access to this private forum, please send me a PM. Or post a comment below.

In the Risen Christ,
Maria
Administrator

Last edited by Maria on Sun 13 May 2018 12:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Maria
Archon
Posts: 8428
Joined: Fri 11 June 2004 8:39 pm
Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOC
Location: USA

Re: ROCOR was ecumenist from the beginning

Post by Maria »

Barbara wrote:

...

You wrote so nicely, JosephDiGrande, but made one error. Sergei Alexandrovich was the son of Tsar Alexander II. Grand Duke Serge was given high positions by his brother, Alexander III.

By the way, I kept meaning to write that his birthday was today, May 11, in 1857.

But about the reciprocity of marriage ceremonies, I am glad you pointed out that example and put this custom into the context of the Victorian worldview.

I always wondered WHY on earth double ceremonies needed to be performed, whether for royal figures, aristocrats or any prominent person. It seems shocking that not just the Romanovs, but ALL strata of society, put up with this fake Anglican or Lutheran ritual for their sons or daughters. What a terrible thing to suffer through after the beautiful Orthodox ceremony.
WHY wasn't the protestant half of the bargain just dropped ? IF the non-Orthodox spouse was keen enough to marry the particular Orthodox person, surely that person could have felt content with only having one wedding : the Orthodox one.

I never understood this bizarre custom, followed I guess up to the present.

I was reminded of this by a rare bumper sticker this afternoon : "The Episcopal church welcomes YOU". Perhaps the agreement to endure an anglican ceremony was forced on the bride or groom in the secret hope that said spouse would come around to accept Protestantism. Instead of the reverse, which is vastly more likely. Who would go from Orthodox to Episcopalian ? I remember reading of one noblewoman from St Petersburg at the turn of the century who did, but had to hush it up. She was obstinately convinced that the Anglican 'church' was the right way. But I expect this case was exceedingly rare.

Surely far more people accepted Orthodoxy ; Serge Alexandrovich's wife Grand Duchess Elizabeth and her younger sister Empress Alexandra being two of the most famous examples in relatively recent times.

Until Vatican II, Roman Catholics had not recognized Orthodox Christian weddings and vice versa. Therefore, if a wedding were to be celebrated, then the clergy and parents of both spouses would demand a wedding ceremony in their church. Whereas today World Orthodoxy generally allows inter-faith weddings between Catholics/Protestants and Orthodox Christians, Traditional True Orthodox will only allow a Crowning to occur between spouses who are both baptized True Orthodox Christians.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.

jdigrande
Member
Posts: 145
Joined: Wed 28 March 2018 2:36 am
Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: RTOC

ROCOR was ecumenist from the beginning

Post by jdigrande »

Archbishop Theophilius was a New Calendar Romanian Archbishop inside ROCOR. They followed the New Calendar.At the time (early 1950's) St. Victor Leu of Romania was kidnapped in Vienna by the KGB and brought to Moscow to be interrogated by Beria himself. He later spent many years in the Romanian Gulag and suffered greatly but never was broken.

He was ordained by ROCOR after WW2 but they threw him under the bus and never tried to defend him at all and will not canonize him now (nor any of the Russian TOC's) although he suffered more then all of the normal saints (Matthew, John, Nicholai, Philaret etc) put together.

So at the same time St. Victor was being kidnapped, St. John of San Francisco decided to accept the Dutch and Romanian parish in Paris under the New Calendar with the hope that they would come to their senses. RTOC defends this by saying that when a ROCOR bishop visited Lesna- they would serve with them under the OC as a justification. I do not agree with that defense at all. ...

If I as a layman do not confess my sins, do not feel repentance for them, and do not try and rectify them the priest rightly tells me that I will be burned by communing. How many times I have heard that one must make peace with one's brother before approaching the Holy Chalice. But at the episcopal level, only "mistakes" get made.

One can try and rip the church apart by episcopal self will and whim and no one is going to answer for it.

But God is not mocked. We will pay and continue to pay until sins are admitted.

St. Philaret inherited this whole mess when he became Metropolitan of ROCOR but he was a willing agent while a normal Bishop. In 1974 he apologized to the Old Rite for 1667. I was in shock when I read it: a saint actually saying that the episcopate had sinned. but that is the humility needed now at the clerical level. I am not holding my breath. ...

This post has been partially edited due to Intra-TOC Polemics contained within it. See Intra-TOC Polemics for the complete post.

Maria,
Administrator

Post Reply