Current objections refuted.

[pjhatala]

http://pages.prodigy.net/frjohnwhitefor ... ctions.htm

[Pravoslavnik]

On what canonical basis can it be asserted that the Moscow Patriarchate has no continuity with the Russian Church? Here we are told that Metropolitan Sergius was “once-legitimate”, but at what council was he declared to be illegitimate?

Code: Select all

   Metropolitan Sergius was rightly condemned at the time of his apostasy by an epistle of St. Cyril of Kazan, written prior to St. Cyril's martyrdom.  Historically, this  is analogous to St. Mark of Ephesus' condemnation of the Council of Florence, which sought a false union with Rome for reasons of political, worldly expediency. As to why the Patriarchates and lesser heirarchs of 20th century Orthodoxy--Constantinople, Antioch, OCA-- have failed to appropriately denounce the KGB "Church" in Council, let them answer to God.  Even Pope Benedict of Rome has rightly condemned a heirarch of the Polish Catholic Church for collaboration with the secret police of the Godless, comunist state in Poland.  In contrast, the heirarchs of modern Orthodoxy have entered into communion with Satan and the MP to further their own worldly ambitions, and all in the name of "unity"!

   It is now a matter of clear historical record that the KGB has appointed and promoted only the most Godless and cynical of men within the heirarchy of the so-called Moscow Patriarchate in recent decades. And where is the evidence of their so-called "repentance?"  Can Father John Whiteford please post examples of the "repentance" and metanoia of the MP heirarchs, who have even recently been accused of murder, theft, extortion, graft, and the most unmentionable debauchery.  Is it any wonder that a cathedra of the MP in England has recently sought refuge under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate?

I do not know Father John Whiteford, or Father Gregory Williams, but I do know of the good works of Father Gregory at the St. John of Kronstadt Press and the ROCOR missions in Haiti. What are the works of Father John Whiteford, that I may have some confidence in his many words?

[pjhatala]

I am not separating from anything holy, from anything that authentically belongs to the Church. I fear only to approach and cling to that which I recognize as sinful in its origin, and therefore I refrain from brotherly communion with Metropolitan Sergius and the Archpastors who are one in mind with him, since I have no other means of accusing a sinning brother. The many attempts known to me of personal written brotherly exhortations addressed to Metropolitan Sergius by the reposed Metropolitan Agathangelus, by Metroplitan tan Joseph and his two vicars, by Archbishop Seraphim of Uglich and Bishop Victor of Vyatka, have not been able to return Metropolitan Sergius to his proper place and to a fitting manner of action. To repeat this attempt of convincing by words would be useless. Therefore, I acknowledge it as a fulfillment of our archpastoral duty for those Archpastors and all who consider the establishment of the so-called "Temporary Patriarchal Synod" as wrong, to refrain from communion with Metropolitan Sergius and those Archpastors who are of one mind with him. By thus refraining, for my part, I am not in the least affirming or suspecting any lack of grace in the sacred actions and Mysteries performed by Sergianists (may the Lord God preserve us all from such a thought!), but I only underline my unwillingness and refusal to participate in the sins of others.

Therefore, I will not liturgize with Metropolitan Sergius and the Archpastors of one mind with him. But in case of mortal danger, with a peaceful conscience I will receive Unction and the final prayers from a priest appointed by Sergius or who submits to the Synod established by him, if there is not present a priest who shares my relation to Metropolitan Sergius and the so-called "Temporary Patriarchal Synod." Similarly, if I find myself in a locality where all the churches are under the "Temporary Patriarchal Synod," I will not enter them to pray at public Divine services, but I acknowledge it as possible, without a preparatory sanctification of the church, to serve Liturgy in one of them either alone or with the participation of clergy and believing laymen one in mind with me if such ones happen to be there. In my opinion, every clergyman who shares m; attitude to Metropolitan Sergius and the Synod established by him can act in the same way. - Met. Cyril of Kazan.

And on what basis do you draw comparison between Met. Cyril and St. Mark? Because you want to? History vindicated St. Mark of Ephesus. History is now being decided by The CHURCH as to the positions of St. Cyril of Kazan and Met. Sergius.

[Pravoslavnik]

In February of 1934, prior to his death, St. Cyril of Kazan wrote his last epistle concerning the illegitimacy of Metropolitan Sergius's "Church" administration. Let us remember, in reading the words of the Saint on this subject, that he had been chosen by St. John of Kronstadt, himself, to conduct St. John's funeral service, at a time when St. Cyril was a relatively unknown parish priest.

Code: Select all

  [color=red] [size=150][b][i]The different understanding of the Patriarchal Testament which is affirmed by Metropolitan Sergius has already led to the fact that the Testament which was left for securing the speedy election of a new Patriarch has become the foundation of the substitution for the person of a Patriarch in the church administration by some kind of collegial "Patriarchate." Whether the blessing of God rests on this undertaking of Metropolitan Sergius we do not dare to judge until a lawful Council by its sentence shall utter the judgment of the Holy Spirit concerning him.  However, just as with everything akin to Renovationism, we cannot acknowledge the church administration which has been renovated by Metropolitan Sergius as our Orthodox administation coming by right of succession from His Holiness, Patriarch Tikhon.  And therefore, remaining in canonical unity with Metropolitan Peter, the Patriarchal Locum Tenans, under the present impossibility of contact with him, we acknowledge as the only legitimate thing the organization of the church administration on the foundation of the Patriarchal Ukase of November 7/20, 1920.

[/i][/b][/size][/color]
The "Church" has not resolved to move under the omophorion of Patriarch Alexey ("Drozdov") Ridiger. Metropolitan Laurus and some members of the Church have resolved to do so, just as many heirarchs once resolved to move under the omophorion of the Papacy at the Council of Florence. No man is "infallible" in the Church, even Metropolitan Laurus--despite the fact that the MP has built and furnished a mansion for him in Moscow since the 1990's, and his brother is a KGB big wheel. The Church is more than one man, or even a Council, per se. Additionally, there was never a canonical vote on the Act of Union with Moscow. Only four bishops were present at the September Synod meeting--a far cry from sobornost, I should think. Therefore, you and Father John Whiteford do greatly err in quoting so selectively from the writings of St. Cyril of Kazan. I pray that our Lord, Jesus Christ, will forgive you for this, and reveal the truth to you.

[pjhatala]

No man is infallible- not even Met. Cyril.

I've been debating about this here for four years. It has gotten nowhere. Those ignorant of the full scope of Russian Church history from the 19th-20th century, and that history in the context of the Church's history in its entirety, will always hold the same groundless position today. Those with seminary educations from Jordanville are overwhelmingly for this union. Those of the older generation of ROCOR, who have actually lived ROCOR's history, not just read about it in the books of monastery press and orthodoxinfo.com are overwhelmingly for this union. I follow them. I follow the bishops. I'm not St. Mark of Ephesus and neither are you.

[Pravoslavnik]

Dear Phtala;

Code: Select all

   Which ROCOR bishops do you follow?  The ones who have been recruited by the KGB to betray their flocks to Major Drozdov?  Laurus?  Mark?  Hilarion?  Kyril?  There was a time, not so long ago, when a friend of mine sent a substantial amount of money to Bishop Kyril because he had been atacked in his apartment, and had suffered a serious head injury.  Shortly after this incident Bishop Kyril reversed his opposition to the MP 180 degrees, and demanded that his previous written criticisms of the MP be withdrawn from public circulation. He supported Laurus' coup d' etat, and was promoted to the rank of Archbishop for his loyalty.  He subsequently forced the pious, elderly nuns of St. Vladimir's Convent from their monastery, and endorsed the subjugation of the ROCOR to the KGB heirarchs of the MP--something that, as one who had spoken with him quite personally on this subject in the past, seemed almost unbelievable to me.  You are confusing nationalist pride--something sinful--with Orthodox piety.  
   If you deny the testimony of St. Cyril of Kazan, what can be done for you?  As our Lord indicated, the one sin that shall not be forgiven is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

[Benjamin W. C. Waterhouse]

No man is infallible- not even Met. Cyril.

I've been debating about this here for four years. It has gotten nowhere. Those ignorant of the full scope of Russian Church history from the 19th-20th century, and that history in the context of the Church's history in its entirety, will always hold the same groundless position today. Those with seminary educations from Jordanville are overwhelmingly for this union. Those of the older generation of ROCOR, who have actually lived ROCOR's history, not just read about it in the books of monastery press and orthodoxinfo.com are overwhelmingly for this union. I follow them. I follow the bishops. I'm not St. Mark of Ephesus and neither are you.

I would respectively disagree with you....