Orthodox Ethos-Fr Peter Heers

[NektariosLopez]

The "fighting from within" squad will ultimately fail. Why?

 

I have a different perspective to add. "Fighting from within" is not a phrase I have ever heard from World Orthodox. I'm sure it originated there with some elder or other telling the zealous not to leave. However, I only ever hear it from True Orthodox saying it will not work. I have never heard them say that they must fight their hierarchy from within or without. I have heard the opposite teaching explicitly. What I hear them say is that they must do nothing and wait for a council*. Sure, those people who speak up to the extent that Fr. Peter does, exist, but they are extremely rare even among the traditionalists. Those can be counted almost on one hand, and they are merely speaking against past patriarchs (and sometimes rival synods) while carefully avoiding any mention of their own current hierarchs. For which Fr. Peter got suppressed anyway.

The people fighting from within are not losing because of how they are fighting, or why, even though those would have mattered. Nobody is actually fighting from within. Not even trying to. They sit around and wait. What percentage of people whom we claim to be "fighting from within" have ever sent a letter to their bishops, or tried to initiate a conversation?

And as an aside, is it because they know how that would work out?

*It has comedic potential--"To ourselves and those who teach as we do, ANATHEMA!¨

 

The "fighting from within" is a catch all umbrella term. I don't imagine any really use that phrase but any who are aware of the heresies of their bishops but only kvetch are the "fight from within" crowd. They are the a tiny minority who are outspoken though interestingly I've encountered more of them when I was in ROCOR-MP. The thing is that even these outspoken ones are "fighting from within" according to what you described. They believe that as long as they remain "faithful to the teachings of the Church and reject Ecumenism *personally* in their hearts" (almost reminds me of protestants) then they're fighting from within, regardless whether they're acting on this or not. What counts is that what they "believe in their hearts" can't be tainted by the heresies of their bishops, according to what I've gathered from speaking with such people. My "godfather" is one that believes I should come back to WO and "fight from within" and that soon enough this will all work itself out. 

[Rumpelstiltskin]

You're right there. I doubt the world Orthodox would use that term. It would conflict with their view. 

[eish]

 

I don't disagree. Very true about the protestant tendency.
 

[Barbara]

If people don't mind, could anyone explain to me exactly what happened to Fr Peter Heers ? Why was he suppressed, and why will no World Orthodox jurisdiction take him ? At least SO FAR.

[SavaBeljovic]

He was received into ROCOR-MP by Met. Ilarion but as soon as he died and Nicholas was elected, he reversed that decision, forcing Fr. Peter into a "canonical limbo" to speak. He is under no Bishop and doesn't have a lawful antimension.
 

[eish]

He was received into ROCOR-MP by Met. Ilarion but as soon as he died and Nicholas was elected, he reserved that decision, forcing Fr. Peter into a "canonical limbo" to speak. He is under no Bishop and doesn't have a lawful antimension.

 

"reversed" Sorry, I try not to pick nits unless it creates semantic ambiguity.

My understanding is even worse when you spell it out. Fr. Peter served with ROCOR-MP for years and when Met. Nicholas came in, he simply pretended as if Fr. Peter had never been received. They did not depose him nor even technically undo the decision to receive him in any way, they simply found fault with the paperwork ("lost" it IIRC) and claimed that Fr. Peter was not under them but under the Greeks, contrary to having allowed him to serve.

The Greeks in turn said that they had released him to ROCOR-MP, and he was not with them but the Russians. With a nod and a wink between the two, Fr. Peter found himself deposed without trial or accusation.

I don't know if canon law is the same, but in civil law if you let someone work for you for remuneration then even if one can find no evidence of a contract written or verbal, this proves him an employee ipso facto. I presume that allowing an ordained priest to serve must imply something similar.

Remember kids, these bishops are "canonical."

[SavaBeljovic]

Thank you for pointing out the spelling errors. It should be fixed now!