Address to ROCA, by Bishop Gregory

[Nevski]

Deleted

[Nevski]

Note the context of my post about Bishop Gregory being the most feared: he is feared not because he is a tyrant, but because he holds to the truth and expresses it in a way anyone can understand. He is feared by ROCA because Bishop Gregory does not cower from pointing out their heresies.

Feared? Really? I have spoken plainly on this forum that I regard the man to be a kook. After so speaking, I sent an e-mail to him expressing the same assessment. Haven't heard anything back from him yet. Experiencing no chills up my spine as of yet; hearing no things that go "bump in the night."

This man is "a cloud carried by the tempest," moving from this "true Church" to now that one. He has been so ever since I learned about him several years ago. Round and round he goes, and where he'll end up, nobody knows. Nothing to fear here, and everything to loathe.

[mwoerl]

Fr. Seraphim wrote:

"I have always found it rather curious that those who claim that the MP is without grace, were received as MP clergy into ROCOR. Why were they not ordained into true Orthodoxy?"

Many may find that situation curious, Fr. Serafim, but I do not. Why? Because I understand this mentality very well! "They" have no need to be "ordained into True Orthodoxy," simply because these types love to condemn OTHERS as graceless, heretics, what have you; but, "they," themselves, of course, are also without any blemish whatsoever! It is from their standpoint of absolute perfection that they condemn others, yet their own shortcomings are minimized, excused, overlooked, and hidden. And of course those who have the absolute gall to mention these shortcomings are also deemed worthy of attack and condemnation. It is simple demagoguery, Fr. Serafim. Or perhaps plainly expressed, "What I do is my business; what everyone else does is my business, too!"

As far as the post stating that "Bishop Gregory is the most feared clergyman in America . . ." Fr. George states that he did not mean that his ecclesiastical superior is feared as a "tyrant," but that he is feared because he "holds the truth and can express it in a way anyone can understand . . ." and that he is feared by the ROCOR because he "does not cower from pointing out their heresies."

First of all, I do not know why the "tyrant" explanation was necessary. I certainly did not infer in any way that your eccleisastical superior was a "tyrant," Fr. George. Have some rumors accusing him of "tyranny" been going around? YOu felt they had to be countered? Is that why that particular topic was addressed?

So, I guess my next question is, since this eloquent answer was put in two parts, just who is it that fears him becasue he "holds the truth and can express it in a way anyone can understand"??? I don't know about anyone else on the list, but I would not characterize the "Address" that sparked this topic to be some model of clarity and precision that ANYONE would be inclined to fear!

Again, as far as the ROCOR "fearing" Fr. George's ecclesaistical superior, I would simply have to see evidence. Has anyone in the ROCOR stated that they are in "fear"? Has there been any indication whatsoever that anyone in ROCOR has evinced even a modicum of this "fear"? I will state again, I have heard many comments about Fr. George's ecclesiastical superior, both when he was in, and after he left, the ROCOR. Nothing I have ever heard has ever even remotely resembled "fear." I am afraid this "fear" is some pipe-dream of Fr. George. Though, it is a rather slick tactic-if no one points out its fallacies!

As a rather vague statement that one cannot possibly furnish any evidence to prove, only the gullible or discontented who may for whatever reason experience gratification at the thought of "ROCOR cowering in fear" can be "hooked" by such an bait. Which leads to another question-since it is stated that "ROCOR fears" Fr. George's ecclesiastrical superior-what exactly does "ROCOR"mean in this context? The entire membership, hierarchs, clergy, monastics and laity? Or Just the hierarchs and clergy? Or just the hierarchs? Or just those who want union with the MP? Or . . . ??? Why aren't you imitating the much vaunted talent of your ecclesiastical superior, Fr. George, and stating this fantasy in a way that it can be easily understood? Instead, you resort to this extremely vague blanket statement-besides the fact that it is, as I have pointed out earlier, ludicrous, it is also meaningless once we get past the "gee willikers, wow!" of the gullible and the discontented expressing their joy at hearing something they think might be "cool," or "relevant," or fitting into their misinformed world view! The fact that one is obviously willing to risk one's credibility by making vague, unsubstantiated and meaningless statements does not reflect well on one's "cause," Fr. George. That is a simple fact that I am afraid cannot be refuted by anyne espousing any cause. When people see this sort of thing, it only brings one thing to their mind-suspicion of the "cause" under discussion. If it cannot be stated simply, without resorting to vague and meaningless statements and innuendo-then I would not think such a "cause" is worth any consideration at all.

This is the exact same tactic employed so frequently by the "Elder" Panteleimon et al over at the "HOCNA True Orthodox Church"! I thought that your ecclesiastical superior was not -uh- fond of those people, Fr. George! Apparently that disenchantment with the "Elder" stops when one feels that the tactics learned there can be "usefully" employed, eh? . . . In other words, if you can't pin it down, don't say it; somebody might ask you for proof! And, that would not be convenient, now would it? So, if you have any proof that "ROCOR" is in such a tizzy of fear-let's see it, ok? Far from being feared, Fr. George, it would surprise me greatly if your ecclesiastical superior is even taken seriously at all by "ROCOR." By that designation, I do mean the Hierarchy, and the clergy. As well as the vast majority of those layman in ROCOR who are even aware of his existence. Which, of course, would NOT be the vast majority of layman in ROCOR. There, see, that's quite specific-not that difficult, is it? Yes, I understand quite well why you might LIKE to think that "ROCOR" (again, whatever you may mean by that!) is in "fear," but, you see, reality and fantasy are two different things. It seems to me that I have read something once or twice that fantasizing is not considered spiritually healthy by the Orthodox Church . . .

Code: Select all

Michael Woerl

[Bogatyr]

:ohvey: By no means have I ever been considered an advocate of +Bishop Gregory, but here we are indicting the man not because of his message, but because of his perceived person. I do not agree with his assessment of the ecclesiology of the moderate resistors, but I do see wisdom in his opposition to this path of ruin former OCA members now styling themselves as ROCOR Priests are bringing upon us. Attacking the person of a Heirarch is not appropriate yet I hear these voices grow ever shrill. They not only attack +Bishop Gregory, they attack ANY Bishop who does not agree with their agenda. Of note, the recent e-lynching of +Bishop Gabriel due to his opposition to ecumenism. Now, if you mention the canonical irregularities and dogmatic and ecclesiological compromises of a sergianist heirarch or a new calendarist bishop, shouts of "schismatic", "pharisee", "extremist" are heard. One need only raise a conversation on the irregular situation of the antiochian archdiocese, for instance, and these same people will shout the loudest defending the authority of Bishops and the need to not be "judgemental"! What irony and hypocrisy.
+Bishop Gregory is no fan of Fr. Panteleimon, that may be good or bad, but it is true and he was one of the people rallying some of those of would have left with Boston to remain in ROCOR. HOCNA WAS CORRECT IN ASSESSING FR LEBEDEFF WAS AN ecumenist. +Bishop Gregory wrote his statement out of love for ROCOR and not to produce schism. The literature his institutions produce is some of the finest in the Orthodox diaspora. He would have not too many kind things to say about the Synod of +Metropolitan Kiprianos, but he could probably write a treatise with conviction in defense of ROCOR. To dismiss his observations is simply to stifle dissent and endorse blindly the ruinous path of the liberals. I say, honestly, that his epistle I looked upon as reminiscent of the "Sorrowful Epistles" but lacking, from my perspective, the same balance and depth. I disagree with his ecclesiology, but I do not dismiss it. Why? Because we all affirm the same thing, THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH THAT THE ORTHODOX CHURCH AS THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE CHURCH OF CHRIST AND WE AFFRIRM THE INVIOLABLE LIFE OF HOLINESS SHE IMPARTS TO US. Whereas, the ecumenists, whom the liberals do not attack, would have homosexual episcopalians in our altars and lend the title "co-religionists" to them. They see a new church ready now, needing to be reunitied, a church they must "save". sergianist and HERETICAL thought as you can see. Indeed with the new junket to rome being made by mr. putin, who "is such a pious and Orthodox Christian", they would welcome a papal tiara and complete the work isidore couldn't centuries ago. Criticism of heirarchs upholding the Orthodox Faith is miplaced, degenerate, and, frankly, the sign of a craven party putting the lust for power in the form of compromise at the expense of the Truth of Orthodoxy. It is utterly illegitimate. We can discuss and debate positions but we should never lynch persons and eat those who would be our friends, one with our family.
Lastly, ROCOR will cease to exist as we know it if at this moment we let the vandals tear down our temples and let "red tied" bureacrats cow us into believing their government is in anyway legitimate, much the more that their orientation is anything more than militantly secular and degenerate--the brothels in Russia and gang wars attest to the actual reality. ROCOR will become an eccentric Russian preservation society which will gradually fade away with the the assimilation of future generations into non-Orthodox cultures. The only thing that will be left is buildings and a lingering spectre, that being the curse of our forebears heard in ghostly whispers at this compromise and this empowerment of the party of betrayers of Holy Russia. ROCOR will be the last holdout who betrayed Holy Russia when she needed its support most.
Orthodoxia I Thanatos!
Rostislav Mikhailovich Malleev-Pokrovsky

[Seraphim Reeves]

Michael,

Many may find that situation curious, Fr. Serafim, but I do not. Why? Because I understand this mentality very well! "They" have no need to be "ordained into True Orthodoxy," simply because these types love to condemn OTHERS as graceless, heretics, what have you; but, "they," themselves, of course, are also without any blemish whatsoever! It is from their standpoint of absolute perfection that they condemn others, yet their own shortcomings are minimized, excused, overlooked, and hidden. And of course those who have the absolute gall to mention these shortcomings are also deemed worthy of attack and condemnation. It is simple demagoguery, Fr. Serafim. Or perhaps plainly expressed, "What I do is my business; what everyone else does is my business, too!"

Isn't this a whopper of an assumption on your part? Metropolitan Valentin ran afoul of the MP, and ultimatly left her for the ROCOR, precisely because he realized she was a fabrication founded upon a poor foundation.

I think it's very presumptuous of you, to assume to know how Metropolitan Valentin, or any others who have been received from the Soviet MP, feel about their pasts. In fact, I know quite the contrary of what you're insinuating here.

First of all, I do not know why the "tyrant" explanation was necessary. I certainly did not infer in any way that your eccleisastical superior was a "tyrant," Fr. George. Have some rumors accusing him of "tyranny" been going around? YOu felt they had to be countered? Is that why that particular topic was addressed?

I will not speak for Fr.George, but I know this and worse has been said against Vladyka.

Seraphim

[mwoerl]

Seraphim Reeves wrote:

"Isn't this a whopper of an assumption on your part? Metropolitan Valentin ran afoul of the MP, and ultimatly left her for the ROCOR, precisely because he realized she was a fabrication founded upon a poor foundation.

"I think it's very presumptuous of you, to assume to know how Metropolitan Valentin, or any others who have been received from the Soviet MP, feel about their pasts. In fact, I know quite the contrary of what you're insinuating here. "

On the contrary, I feel that it is "a whopper of an assumption on your part"! Did I mention "Metropolitan Valentin" in my post? No. Did I "assume" that I "know how Metropolitan Valentin . . . feel[s]"? No. If you are so well convinced that you "know" what I was "insinuating" here, please feel free to share it! What I said was a rather general observation concerning what I have seen. When I joined this forum, I did so because it seemed that it was different from other internet lists, in that people were not attacked because of their opinions; it also seemed that opinions could be freely expressed, but apparently I was somewhat mistaken. It seems that there are certain "sacred cows" here that are apparently not only above criticism, but also above even being questioned!

Hierarchs of the ROCOR can be freely criticized here, either from a basis of concrete verifiable facts, or from a basis of pure fantasy, it does not seem to matter. On the other hand, it seems no criticism of, nor even questioning of, hierarchs of various "True Orthodox" groups, is "equally allowed." Perhaps you, yourself, Seraphim, are the most "touchy" about this. If this is indeed a forum where differing opinions can be freely expressed, I would submit that your extreme "touchiness" over this issue is unwarranted.

It is also almost unimaginable that such "touchiness" can find any place on such a forum. Especially when the varied groups mentioned here, and apparently have adherents here-ROAC, ROCiE, the Chrysostomos Synod, the Auxentios Synod, the Lamia Synod, and others-by their very nature, it seems, show more antagonism towards each other than they show to the adherents of "World Orthodoxy"! In this situation, one must certainly expect some things to be said that everybody does not "like." And please, do not go all indignant over the fact that I have mentioned this mutual antagonism-it is simply a fact! I think it very indicative of the situation of these various True Orthodox groups, that every time a question is asked on here how this or that group happened to originate, or what its relations to another of the groups consist of, the answer usually seems to begin with something like, "well, i do not really want to answer this in public . . . "

Also, please inform me-if I am completely mistaken as to the purpose and practices of this forum let me know. If this is simply the "ROAC List," then simply admit that, and I will simply depart. Simple, huh?

As to your assessment of the "tyrant" question-I certianly realize that Bishop Gregory of Denver and Colorado has been called "worse things." In some instances, these were unwarranted; in some, perhaps, this type of reaction was simply self-inflicted. I recall an interview given by then Father Gregory to a newspaper in Canada, in which he discussed something like how many angels could sit on the back of a chair and cause it to tip over, as well as charging another Old Calendar priest with hiding pornography under the altar in his parish church. Perhaps you can inform us, Serpahim, what should be the reaction to such an interview? It seems to me that neither of these pronouncements would be exactly the sort of thing that would present the Old Calendar movement in a favorable light to those-the readers of a Canadian newspaper-who had no prior knowledge of it. But, apparently, in your thinking, Bishop Gregory of Denver and Colorado is above any and all criticism or even questioning, so perhaps according to you, it is not permissible to even mention that this interview ever existed?

With the comments on the "Bishop Gregory is the most feared clergyman in America" statement, I was trying to point out one simple fact-when ludicrous statements are made, statements that cannot be supported by any evidence whatsoever, statements that seem to be either wishful thinking or even sheer fantasy-such statements ONLY DAMAGE ONE'S CAUSE. Only the extremely gullible would unquestioningly accept such statements. When such statements appear repeatedly, it makes one wonder-are those who make such statements repeatedly even serious about their cause themselves, or are they only trying to attract the gullible to their side, and for what purpose?

Michael Woerl

[Bogatyr]

:ohvey: Would that these people exhibit such zeal in criticizing new calendarist, ecumenist, sergianist, renovationist Bishops. Such blind hypocrisy and outright craven activity is not worthy of a Christian. Would that they recognize their disunion and their disharmony with the Church. Such new vision of Orthodox ecclesiology leaves one understanding why ecumenism arose and how it prospers. It seems, a witch hunt is fashionable for this party, which sounds not so much like ROCOR put a nightly soire at Fr. Lebedeff's. I am even more ashamed of you. People who trample the mantle of ROCOR to lead the resistors NOW promote dissension amongst the faithful of ROCOR. You are doing no good in your betrayal of the legacy of the Church.
ORTHODOXIA I THANATOS!
R M Malleev-Pokrovsky
PS "Heirarchs of ROCOR can be freely criticized here..." Would you also "freely criticize" the sergianists who have betrayed the Church?! That very comment is a sign of rebellion, how ROCOR's Bishops, once the standard bearers of Patristic Orthodoxy, are now the targets of misguided criticizm. Such craven activity, such an evil mentalite. In other words, the affirmation is of no loyalty to anyone but to the self. It is utterly vile and unworthy of an Orthodox Christian.