Moderator: Mark Templet
mwoerl wrote:but-do not question or criticize the sacred cows! if you do, you are a bad boy!
Thank you, Michael, for expressing many of my own thoughts in your recent postings. This has clearly become a pro-ROAC forum - in itself not a huge problem - but at the expense of everyone else.
And to think that Bp Gabriel did not want this forum to call itself the ROCOR Cafe! As it turns out, his reasoning has shown him to be clairvoyant.
Do the favour of please showing where in the Fathers & the Canons one synodeia has the authority to condemn and anathemize other local churches. That is the point. The Fathers did separate, did condemn the heresy, but did not declare large tracts of the Imperial Church "graceless". You speak of "heretics with grace". Which Council declared them heretics? What ecclesiology upholds such unilaterilism? I know the montanists favoured it, but they WERE condemned. What is missed is the FACT that there are millions of souls you are condemning with these words. That's not appropriate. Furthermore, ROCOR fell by "adopting Kyprianite ecclesiology"...one is at a loss. How can that be reconciled with the legacy of Blessed +Metropolitan Philaret who INDEED maintained Communion with the Serbian Church and the JP, both very much bodies at the time engaging in ecumenism. Indeed, the Synod in Resistance shows opposition to that ecclesiological lapse, seeing it as inconsistent, but, somehow, it is responsible for rocor-mp union?! Was our Synod in any way consulted, an interlocutor. No, on the contrary, the lebedeff party used us as a straw to illustrate how it "was taking ROCOR back to its roots" identifying us with those of extremist ecclesiology, thereby indicting the legacy of Blessed +Metropolitan Philaret, +Archbishop Averky, Fr. Seraphim of Platina, et al. We have consistently condemned ecumenism and spoken out against these types of politics and compromises. Our beloved +Metropolitan has even termed such activity "neo-uniatism". No, by saying that we maintain that grace remains in ecumenist, new calendar, renovationist, sergianist bodies until a General Council rules otherwise we are CONSISTENT with the views of noted theologians LIKE bl. +Metropolitan Antony (Khrapovitsky) who maintained the SAME position, and what we are doing is leaving the door open for repentance and not compromise. That is a point only the "hocna" party in ROCOR couldn't get. Indeed, it's ecclesiology, in the end, was not ours. Finally, on this very thread you have noticed my strident defense of +Bishop Gregory. Is it not bad form to create enemies where you do not need them? My position is that we must seek a consensus to common cause to combat this error, before we are subject to some novel attempt at "divide et impera". I am not your enemy and neither is the Synodeia to whom I swear allegiance. Please bear that in mind.
Orthodoxia I Thanatos!
Rostislav Mikhailovich Malleev-Pokrovsky
PS As is evident, I a moderate and a TIKHONITE have left ROCOR for I am unwilling to compromise Orthodoxy. That should speak loudly as to my loyaltes.
Wow! Over 3,100 views to this thread! I hope as many souls come to the Truth because of it!
Nicholas Zollars
Father Mark,
Father, Bless
I've tried to write this post for about half an hour now--but every time I get a few paragraphs into it, I end up erasing what I've written. So then, let me just speak plainly, and if I am guilty of being presumptuous I hope you will forgive me. You said earlier in the thread:
There is a huge context that you (and Joe and apparently Nicholas and others) who are new to Orthodoxy cannot yet imagine. We convert priests are wary of bringing it up for fear of scandalizing - and the russians see this as irrelevant - so the ignorance continues.
I would like to hear more about this, and I imagine others would eagerly listen as well. There are at least two ROAC catechumens that participate here at the Cafe, and I know of three other regular participants on this forum who may eventually join ROAC. What's more, who knows how many lurkers might be in a similar position. If you have information to share, I for one welcome you to post it (if you think it would be profitable for us).
Father, Bless
Father Mark,
I took your advice...
'We are the only choice, the remnant!' This only-pure-church rhetoric may play well to inexperienced ears, but it is really sad. That only true church changes for Bp Gregory quite often and with each new affilliation the old true church gets condemned. Who is the standard?
You can take the monk out of Boston... and you can take any mention of Boston out of the monk's history, but...
If you really want to get a feel for the other side of things (which I don't really recommend - instead just step back from being used as a mouthpiece and pray instead - even attend Church) search for Vladimir Moss (who nails the HOCNA similtude) or Nicholas Candela on orthodox-tradition starting just about exactly 1 year ago up to feb or so of this year.
The stuff that transpired between Vladimir Moss/Hieromonk Augustine/etc. and Met. Valentine/Fr. Lourie/etc. does make ROAC look bad. Something that I personally thought was even more striking was the way that Bp. Gregory talked about the Greek Old Calendarists such as Met. Chrysostom in February on orthodox-tradition. Maybe it was because I'm right in the middle of going over all the Greek O.C. history at the present moment, but Bp. Gregory's rhetoric was utterly baffling to me. I encourage anyone who is ROAC, or entering ROAC, or thinking about ROAC, to give careful consideration to what they are getting themselves into. (And no, I'm not going to get into a long discussion of why the posts baffled me, I gave the link above so that anyone who cares to see can read the posts for themselves and make their own decision. I'm tired of debates where everyone pulls out their favorite proof-texts and beats everyone else over the head with them.)
Justin,
The stuff that transpired between Vladimir Moss/Hieromonk Augustine/etc. and Met. Valentine/Fr. Lourie/etc. does make ROAC look bad.
I think it was very ugly, but I'm trying hard to see how ROAC looks "bad" because of it all. Then again, I've tried to familiarize myself with why the heirarchs acted as they did in this situation (and kept in mind Fr.Basil did sign a confession to the effect that he accepts the Russian Church's historical condemnations of the "name worshipping" cult). While we can personally speculate how "good" the faith was on Fr.Basil's part in doing such, this is ultimatly pointless. What Vladimir seems to have forgotten is that he is not a church-unto-himself; and that there is a wisdom in not making any more a spectacle of a bad situation than one needs to.
Something that I personally thought was even more striking was the way that Bp. Gregory talked about the Greek Old Calendarists such as Met. Chrysostom in February on orthodox-tradition.
I tried in vain to find the posts in question. I'm not a regularly reader of said list. If you could copy them and send the "offending" posts my way, I'd appreciate it.
I encourage anyone who is ROAC, or entering ROAC, or thinking about ROAC, to give careful consideration to what they are getting themselves into.
Of course. That should be a given. We live in times which, sadly, are characterized by falseness.
(And no, I'm not going to get into a long discussion of why the posts baffled me, I gave the link above so that anyone who cares to see can read the posts for themselves and make their own decision. I'm tired of debates where everyone pulls out their favorite proof-texts and beats everyone else over the head with them.)
Ok...but the link you gave simply goes to the list, not to any particular post/thread. I wasn't able to find the posts which you express some concern about.
Seraphim
I found them and was looking through them...as always, I have no plans to get involved in this but thought I would provide the link Justin is speaking of...
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orthodox- ... scount=-30
Click "PREVIOUS" and "NEXT" to thumb through the february posts.