ROAC or ROCOR?

Information, news stories, and questions about True Traditionalist Orthodox Churches. This is the place to post encyclicals and any official public communications from True Orthodox jurisdictions.


Moderator: Mark Templet

User avatar
TomS
Protoposter
Posts: 1010
Joined: Wed 4 June 2003 8:26 pm
Location: Maryland

You are looking in the wrong place

Post by TomS »

Ben wrote:

...I am not clear on what Orthodoxy is or which jurisdiction holds the true apostolic faith.

That's because the "true Apostolic Faith" resides WITHIN YOU. Why would you think it resides in any institution run by sinners?

----------------------------------------------------
They say that I am bad news. They say "Stay Away."

User avatar
Грешник
Sr Member
Posts: 655
Joined: Tue 30 September 2003 11:20 am

Post by Грешник »

TomS: Are you honestly stating that the Church exists in you because you are sinless? None is sinless except for God. So how can it be found inside a human? You stated:

That's because the "true Apostolic Faith" resides WITHIN YOU. Why would you think it resides in any institution run by sinners?

It seems that the statement you are trying to make is very clear and yet very disturbing at the same time. Please explain yourself.

Juvenaly

User avatar
Грешник
Sr Member
Posts: 655
Joined: Tue 30 September 2003 11:20 am

Nevsky...

Post by Грешник »

Nevski,

I am quite disturbed by your outright hatred of ROAC, its leaders, its followers and everything in between, It seems you are obsessed with hatred for this Church and honestly I do not know why. Part of my discouragement is the fact that as Ben has stated you cover yourself in "blanket statements" and refuse to define or explain what you mean. This is seen evident in both your post on the Epistle of Bp. Gregory, where you were asked to explain your words against him personally, "of him being "a kook", and also here where you were asked to do the same of the ROAC itself, and you seemed to skip right over the request.

It seems to me that hatred can not exist where explanation is not present. I can not understand where this hatred is rooted for statements such as these to be made. And so I am going to ask again and pray you answer these statements with reason to back yourself up.

The soul-destroying evil of spiritual pride Please Explain

The soul-destroying evil of Phariseeism Please Explain

The soul-destroying evil of lovelessness (I Cor. 13:1-7) Please Explain

The soul-destroying evil of ignorance ("I would not have you ignorant, brethren. . . .") Please Explain

The soul-destroying evil of factionalism (schism) Please Explain

All interrelated evils, and evils very real. Please Explain

Also there was this quote made to Ben...

Join ROAC, and you'll find out. The evils I listed are self-evident.

Might I ask a question? Have you ever been to any ROAC Church, Have you spoken to Bishop Gregory, to any of the Monks at Dormition Skete, to any of the priests in any of the churches, outside of this forum and any other forum on the internet have you had any flesh and blood, heart to heart conversations with any professing member of the ROAC Church? I am guessing that somewhere the answer is yes otherwise you could never have experienced the seething cauldron of anger and hatred that you seem to harbor for the ROAC.

I do not mean for this post to sound self-righteous as I am also a sinner working towards my own salvation. I just ask because I desire to better understand your feelings toward a church that I am seeking to join and have yet to come across any of the feelings that you seem to hold for ROAC. I only desire communication with, not condemnation of you.

Thank you.

Juvenaly

Alexis in Alaska
Jr Member
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon 4 November 2002 7:24 pm

Post by Alexis in Alaska »

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I find this attack on His Grace GREGORY and ROAC not only scandalous, but also deeply offensive!

I demand that nevsky apologize for such slanderous and damaging remarks. They are almost malicious and diabolic.

His Grace GREGORY is a lover of souls even baptizing those in prison and traveling many distances to reach people for Christ. He is a godly right believing Hierarch.

This pseudo-papal form of Ecclesiology used by some mainstream Orthodox is against the true notion of what the Church is; that communion with "official" "canonical" Jurisdictions makes one Orthodox; NO! Even if the whole world were to fall away and there was one right believing bishop with his small faithful there would be the Orthodox Catholic Church. Remember: "Athanasius Contra Mundum." Orthodox Truth stands independent of feelings and even the hierarchy who no longer hold to the pleroma thereof.

His Grace has not created a castle to hide until the Second Parousia; His Grace is indeed missionary-minded and desires only the salvation and deification of men. What a blessed thing to have such bishops left in this world.

As a member of ROCOR (L) I am not afraid to state the above because as Christians we are called to defend people against calumny.

May God grant unto His Grace GREGORY many years!

In Our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ!

Alexis

LatinTrad
Jr Member
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu 25 September 2003 6:55 pm

Post by LatinTrad »

AlaskanOrthodox wrote:

This pseudo-papal form of Ecclesiology used by some mainstream Orthodox is against the true notion of what the Church is; that communion with "official" "canonical" Jurisdictions makes one Orthodox; NO!

This is precisely why I am grateful to be Catholic. The Fathers unanimously teach that the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is 1) visible and 2) truly one. The true Church cannot be cut up and divided into an infinite number of little sects, each following its own bishop, each choosing what to believe. The true Church is visibly one. You are leaving it up to each layman to decide whether his bishops are heretics or not, and telling him to "study" all these different sects, and jump from one to the next until he finds one that he likes. Orthodoxy cannot be divorced from Communion with the Church. Even if the Church is filled with heretics and worse, there is no salvation anywhere else.

Ben, I think you will find that none of these groups have any jurisdictional coherence to them. It seems that no EO bishop feels any obligation to stay in union with any other bishop--but we know from the Fathers that the Church can't work that way. Look at me, for instance. I am a traditionalist Catholic who wants to attend the Tridentine Mass until the day I die. Will I sever communion with Peter over that? Never. There is no salvation in traditionalist schisms, as attractive as they may appear. I pray God that my union with the One Church may never be weakened.

I apologize if this offends anyone here, but I think we need to meditate a little more on the unity of the Church. St. Athanasius never broke his communion with Peter's successor (even when St. Liberius, under duress, condemned him). St. Athanasius never violated the discipline of the Church. In this age of heresies, we should look to St. Athanasius for our example, and remember that for juridical purposes only the Church can declare someone a heretic.

But, for the EO's, where is the Church? What Church? The ROCOR synod? But aren't they schismatic? Schismatic from whom? But it's okay to be schismatic? Etc., Etc., Etc.

I trust I make myself clear.

LatinTrad

User avatar
Seraphim Reeves
Member
Posts: 493
Joined: Sun 27 October 2002 2:10 pm
Location: Canada

Latin Trad

Post by Seraphim Reeves »

This is precisely why I am grateful to be Catholic. The Fathers unanimously teach that the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church is 1) visible and 2) truly one.

Of course. And such is the Orthodox Church. I stress, the Orthodox Church.

Of course, there can be periods of confusion, where even isolated, agreeing parties may not for a moment have an active relationship to one another. The existance of a budding ultramontaine Papacy did not prevent the "Great Western Schism" from occuring (not to mention the odd, concilliar solution to this crisis.)

The true Church cannot be cut up and divided into an infinite number of little sects, each following its own bishop, each choosing what to believe.

Of course not.

You are leaving it up to each layman to decide whether his bishops are heretics or not, and telling him to "study" all these different sects, and jump from one to the next until he finds one that he likes. Orthodoxy cannot be divorced from Communion with the Church. Even if the Church is filled with heretics and worse, there is no salvation anywhere else.

By "unity of the Church" you of course mean "administrative subordination to the Bishop of Rome". As history indicates, this has not prevented grave confusion from occuring within the Papalist context, nor has it prevented the profusion of schisms and further heresies.

I also find the attack on the subjective nature of the individual religious journey to be curious, since one's arrival at the door of Roman Catholicism (say, after much conscientious religious searching) is ultimatly just as "subjective" and based just as much on inquiry and study. Ultimatly, where we choose to stand is just that - a choice. Of course, "different sides" will say those choosing their "side" is an act of grace, where as the contrary is an act of delusion - but as far as human eyes can see, someone converting to Catholicism is more or less involving themself in the same, subjective process.

Ben, I think you will find that none of these groups have any jurisdictional coherence to them. It seems that no EO bishop feels any obligation to stay in union with any other bishop--but we know from the Fathers that the Church can't work that way. Look at me, for instance. I am a traditionalist Catholic who wants to attend the Tridentine Mass until the day I die. Will I sever communion with Peter over that? Never. There is no salvation in traditionalist schisms, as attractive as they may appear. I pray God that my union with the One Church may never be weakened.

The RCC is a "communion" of dogmatically disagreeing, lip service offering heirarchs, clergy, and faithful. Has the "infallible magisterium" of the Pope prevented such a situation, or in fact only made it worse? Organically, doctrinally, the RCC of today is not the religion it was a hundred years ago - and that in turn, is not the same religion of the high middle ages, prior to Trent - and that in turn is not the same religion as what existed during the time of St.Gregory the Great.

However, all is (apparently) well, so long as those administrative ties are left in tact. There even has been devised an entire system, to obfuscate the incredible additions and ommissions of "Latin theology" ("development of doctrine" theory, which has been practically baptized as a dogma by the Latins...which is odd, since texts like the "definition of the Immaculate Conception" and the Vatican I decree on the Pope's supposed "infallibility" all make no account of this Newmanian synthesis - they claim quite explicitely that these modern "dogmas" are apostolic in nature, which is a shameless misrepresentation). But the truth is, that this is the nature of Roman Catholic "unity." It is not a unity in common belief, or even anything resembling a common ethos, but subjegation to a single man, who in quite legal positivist fashion is free to commit his followers to the most obvious absurdities - for "he is tradition", as Pius IX allegedly (angrily) thundered to a protesting Bishop at the first Vatican Council.

I apologize if this offends anyone here, but I think we need to meditate a little more on the unity of the Church. St. Athanasius never broke his communion with Peter's successor (even when St. Liberius, under duress, condemned him). St. Athanasius never violated the discipline of the Church. In this age of heresies, we should look to St. Athanasius for our example, and remember that for juridical purposes only the Church can declare someone a heretic.

This is almost as bad (in what it omits) as the shameless misrepresentations of St.Maximos the Confessor, regarding the See of Rome (he in fact made it quite clear, he would be in communion with Rome so long as it's confession was sound, not on the basis of it having some alleged infallibility.)

I do have a question for you - do you believe there was a consciousness in the Church prior to the year 1000, let alone one which would fit into any sort of Vincentonian qualification, that the Pope of Rome was infallible?

But, for the EO's, where is the Church? What Church? The ROCOR synod? But aren't they schismatic? Schismatic from whom? But it's okay to be schismatic? Etc., Etc., Etc.

I trust I make myself clear.

Yes, you've made yourself very clear. However, I find the following even clearer...

Image

Image

Image

Nostra Aetate - official document of Vatican Council II

The truth is LT, we know exactly who we are, and what we believe, just as you do. The only difference being, Orthodox Christians put a premium upon the confession of St.Peter, over the "person" of St.Peter, or his alleged, unique successors (according to St.Cyprian, St.Peter's significance was to the entire episcopate, but that is another topic altogether.) Hence, it is the difference between being able to call a spade "a spade", and not, out of some fantasy that a man concocting doctrines which contradict those of his predecessors is somehow in possession of an "infallibile" insight we can scarcely fathom.

Seraphim

User avatar
Julianna
Member
Posts: 384
Joined: Fri 23 May 2003 4:12 pm
Location: Schnectady
Contact:

WARNING!

Post by Julianna »

I'm pretty sure Nicholas warned Latin Trad that this's a"no-prosylitization zone" for the heterodox as it's an Orthodox forum unlike one's with Orthodox in it's name run by Papists and Monophysites. :D

Image

Post Reply