Glorification of José Munoz by the ROCOR-MP?

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
User avatar
Maria
Archon
Posts: 8428
Joined: Fri 11 June 2004 8:39 pm
Faith: True Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOC
Location: USA

Re: Glorification of José Munoz by the ROCOR-MP?

Post by Maria »

The original thread in Traditional Orthodoxy has been split into a new thread dealing with the ROCOR-MP and their possible attempt to glorify Jose Munoz.

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.

User avatar
Barbara
Protoposter
Posts: 3983
Joined: Sat 29 September 2012 6:03 pm

Re: Glorification of José Munoz by the ROCOR-MP?

Post by Barbara »

This move would be all the more sorry when one considers that Metropolitan Philaret the Great has not
moved past the same stage in the glorification process. At least as far as outsiders are aware. There was talk years ago about collecting testimonies of miracles performed by the third 1st Hierarch of Rocor and more recently, an indication of setting up a group to look into this prospect.

However, if active, the process for Met Philaret of New York's glorification is kept quiet. Of course, the MP would never support that, as the true Saint was most outspoken against them and the entire Soviet regime. If the MP wanted to show that it were honest and fair as well as lenient with its daughter Church, Rocor-MP, it would do well to back the immediate glorification of Metropolitan Philaret [ Vosnesensky ] instead.

Why does the MP appear to be backing the glorification of both Brother Jose and Fr Seraphim Rose ? Besides other indications, why would such a provocative illustration be posted for that article ?

In my opinion, poor taste in saints.

All the focus on "Saints" like Alexander Schmorell to me are distractions to keep the faithful away from focusing on authentic spiritual giants like Metropolitan Philaret. Bishop Constantine [ Essensky ] was not long ago found to be incorrupt. THAT is a sensation. Metropolitan Philaret's relics were discovered to be incorrupt, but hushed up at the time. Why are the true holy Archpastors of Rocor being pushed aside, with far lesser lights being promoted in their places ?

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

Re: Glorification of José Munoz by the ROCOR-MP?

Post by Justice »

I can't believe it! the MP hasn't canonized St. Philaret of New York? maybe its because they know about his stance on the soviet ordained church.

User avatar
NotChrysostomYet
Member
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri 15 September 2017 3:33 pm
Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America

Re: Glorification of José Munoz by the ROCOR-MP?

Post by NotChrysostomYet »

Barbara wrote:

This move would be all the more sorry when one considers that Metropolitan Philaret the Great has not
moved past the same stage in the glorification process. At least as far as outsiders are aware. There was talk years ago about collecting testimonies of miracles performed by the third 1st Hierarch of Rocor and more recently, an indication of setting up a group to look into this prospect.

However, if active, the process for Met Philaret of New York's glorification is kept quiet. Of course, the MP would never support that, as the true Saint was most outspoken against them and the entire Soviet regime. If the MP wanted to show that it were honest and fair as well as lenient with its daughter Church, Rocor-MP, it would do well to back the immediate glorification of Metropolitan Philaret [ Vosnesensky ] instead.

Why does the MP appear to be backing the glorification of both Brother Jose and Fr Seraphim Rose ? Besides other indications, why would such a provocative illustration be posted for that article ?

In my opinion, poor taste in saints.

All the focus on "Saints" like Alexander Schmorell to me are distractions to keep the faithful away from focusing on authentic spiritual giants like Metropolitan Philaret. Bishop Constantine [ Essensky ] was not long ago found to be incorrupt. THAT is a sensation. Metropolitan Philaret's relics were discovered to be incorrupt, but hushed up at the time. Why are the true holy Archpastors of Rocor being pushed aside, with far lesser lights being promoted in their places ?

LOL, what do you have against Fr. Seraphim Rose? With all due respect Barbra, you don't know what you're talking about if you're complaining about him. He's the most popular American-born Orthodox figure among Orthodox Christians today who supported the Old Calendar movement. You're shooting yourself in the foot if you criticize him.

I agree that it is unfortunate Metropolitan Philaret has not been canonized, though I can't blame ROCOR given his moves to back the Old Calendarist movement.

User avatar
Barbara
Protoposter
Posts: 3983
Joined: Sat 29 September 2012 6:03 pm

Re: Glorification of José Munoz by the ROCOR-MP?

Post by Barbara »

Yes, Justice, that must surely be the reason. Metropolitan Philaret never engaged in diatribes or rants and raves but always calmly and coolly pointed out the dire traits of the Soviet system. He never fell for even a bit of the Soviet propaganda, which fooled SO MANY in America and the West ! Sharp as a tack and discerning as ... as, as, let's see, a clairvoyant Saint, he never failed to expose the phoniness of the MP in every way as a tool of the Soviet system. And of course, as supposedly a rejuvenation of the original Moscow Patriarchate. Clearly, today's descendants of those MP leaders do not favor him. Instead, they gush over Met, then Patriarch Sergius [Stragorodsky] who issued the notorious declaration of loyalty to the Supreme Soviet instead of to the Supreme Creator and His Holy - Authentic - Church.

Though I don't know the progress of that shocking attempt to canonize this traitor, the process is underway.
So you can see that the MP's taste in contemporary Saints is poor. Abp Luke of Simferopol, Matrona, etc = and now
Brother Jose and Fr Seraphim Rose. Right there, one has to question their choice of these latter two, n'est-ce pas >?
The former two have been addressed in other threads.

Elder Ephraim is being groomed to be acknowledged as a Saint by all the World Orthodox, including the MP. One can judge this by the glowing articles appearing on that same website about Fr Ephraim of Arizona. The most that is admitted is that he is controversial. Never is a whisper of criticism allowed to creep into in any of the repeated adulatory interviews regarding him.

Why therefore does the MP zero in on much lesser people and let the dazzling stars of the spiritual firmament get pushed into
oblivion ? This is deliberate. Met Philaret of New York, perhaps other Rocor hierarchs of great sanctity will never be even considered by the MP. At least not for a long time. There is obvious hostility still lingering toward Rocor as the ONLY jurisdiction which stood up to the Soviet regime. Shamefully, the Oca kowtowed to Moscow.

Last edited by Barbara on Thu 19 October 2017 11:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Barbara
Protoposter
Posts: 3983
Joined: Sat 29 September 2012 6:03 pm

Re: Glorification of José Munoz by the ROCOR-MP?

Post by Barbara »

Ha, ha, NCYet, I am being restrained here ! If left to my own devices, I would have a lot more to say about Fr Seraphim Rose. But am not expressing myself strongly out of deference to the widespread favorable opinions of him.

However, you wrote about him being "the most popular American-born Orthodox figure among Orthodox Christians today who supported the Old Calendar movement".

But -- we are not talking about popularity. He is wildly popular in some quarters, especially those associated with St Herman Brotherhood or Christ the Savior Brotherhood, and also in various European countries. I don't think Fr Seraphim is as popular in Russia, but I am not up to date on this topic. I know from before, he was treated as ho-hum. Only he created interest due to the fact that he was an American. However, that was in the early to mid-1990s. Later, after all the meddling in the Russian economy by the supposed whiz kid Harvard economists, which resulted in financial collapse, Americans lost their previous mystique.

I don't know where it stands today, but I doubt that the average Orthodox person in Russia is much interested in Fr Seraphim's glorification. There are too many other more important things in their lives. I believe that a vastly wider range of Saints Days are observed there than in the "new world", especially among the convert community. Thus Fr Seraphim is not the only thing on their minds. Only here in America is this movement a big deal to raise up this teacher to the level of a great prophet.

Instead of popularity with converts to Orthodoxy, the core question is about the TRUE level of sanctity of the person in question. Being a good teacher or an effective missionary figure is admirable > but it does not mean that one is an actual Saint !
I think that the converts from other religions have less experience or familiarity with Saints than those brought up Orthodox.
Therefore, they confuse the process of glorification with being impressed with, or fond of, a certain figure. That is not how it works. The other aspect is that the converts often have interest in their contemporaries, with little historical depth.
But there are so many outstanding Orthodox figures of the past who have been passed over, though their deeds were monumental and striking miracles were documented to have been performed by them. I would be interested in THESE figures being glorified. Not modern people who, while striving mightily, are not on the same level of sainthood as many holy ascetics of the past. Just for one example, look at Valaam Monastery. There were so many outstanding clairvoyants, ascetics, hermits, etc. who lived too early for popularization to the Orthodox world via mass media. That is not their fault. Read about how THEY lived and compare with these weaker figures being pushed today by the 'establishment'. One has to wonder WHY this imbalance exists.
Apparently, the fact that the average Westerner has a short memory is a factor. The establishment counts on the inability to research historically and read about the amazing feats of the ascetics and great holy people of times past. Instead, today's average Westerner has been conditioned to focus on celebrities of the moment, today's news [ but not yesterday's ! ]. Thus it is easy to trot out a figure from the past 2 or 3 decades and keep presenting that person over and over as extraordinary : most Americans will be wide-eyed and fascinated simply because this was almost their contemporary. Add a compelling [ read : unruly ] beard, and hard-to-read eyes which could easily be construed as 'mystical', and the less experienced converts are won over to the cause of this individual's canonization. Why else was Fr Seraphim's life - all 800 pages or whatever it was - written up twice ? To kick off this campaign to get him glorified.

That does not make him a Saint. Just an inspiring figure.


Last edited by Barbara on Fri 20 October 2017 12:18 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: Glorification of José Munoz by the ROCOR-MP?

Post by Maria »

NotChrysostomYet wrote:
Barbara wrote:

This move would be all the more sorry when one considers that Metropolitan Philaret the Great has not
moved past the same stage in the glorification process. At least as far as outsiders are aware. There was talk years ago about collecting testimonies of miracles performed by the third 1st Hierarch of Rocor and more recently, an indication of setting up a group to look into this prospect.

However, if active, the process for Met Philaret of New York's glorification is kept quiet. Of course, the MP would never support that, as the true Saint was most outspoken against them and the entire Soviet regime. If the MP wanted to show that it were honest and fair as well as lenient with its daughter Church, Rocor-MP, it would do well to back the immediate glorification of Metropolitan Philaret [ Vosnesensky ] instead.

Why does the MP appear to be backing the glorification of both Brother Jose and Fr Seraphim Rose ? Besides other indications, why would such a provocative illustration be posted for that article ?

In my opinion, poor taste in saints.

All the focus on "Saints" like Alexander Schmorell to me are distractions to keep the faithful away from focusing on authentic spiritual giants like Metropolitan Philaret. Bishop Constantine [ Essensky ] was not long ago found to be incorrupt. THAT is a sensation. Metropolitan Philaret's relics were discovered to be incorrupt, but hushed up at the time. Why are the true holy Archpastors of Rocor being pushed aside, with far lesser lights being promoted in their places ?

LOL, what do you have against Fr. Seraphim Rose? With all due respect Barbra, you don't know what you're talking about if you're complaining about him. He's the most popular American-born Orthodox figure among Orthodox Christians today who supported the Old Calendar movement. You're shooting yourself in the foot if you criticize him.

I agree that it is unfortunate Metropolitan Philaret has not been canonized, though I can't blame ROCOR given his moves to back the Old Calendarist movement.

Metropolitan Philaret of blessed memory was not a Sergianist as was the Soviet Church during the time of his life. Even the present MP, Kirill, continues to be a Sergianist according to this Catholic website below, but I question their accuracy in many of their posts as they do maintain a political bias against anything Orthodox. However, Kirill, like his predecessors, has been accused of being a KGB agent, and Putin, himself a KGB agent, was reported as saying, "Once a KGB agent, always a KGB agent."

"Patriarch Kirill of Moscow, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, paid tribute to his predecessor, Patriarch Sergius I, who governed the Church from 1925 to 1944.

"Ninety years ago, Patriarch Sergius controversially declared his “absolute loyalty” to the Communist regime in an attempt to ensure the Church’s survival. [seems like an apology for the apostasy of Sergius]

“Metropolitan Sergius took that step without violating by any means either the dogmata or canons,” his current successor said. “His did it to create prerequisites for possible development of relations with the state and for consolidating the situation of the Church in the then Soviet Union.” [Sergius did violate the canons]

"Nonetheless, the Church entered “an epoch of terrible persecution” under Stalin, said Patriarch Kirill.

“It is the gravest page of our national history, the hardest page in the history of the Church,” he added, as he paid tribute to the “new martyrs and confessors, who remained faithful to Christ, did not waver in their faith and did not reject God and the Church.

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/hea ... ryid=32327

Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me a sinner.

Post Reply