The Future of the ROCOR

paleocon · Post by **paleocon** » Sun 5 September 2004 12:21 am

OoD,
As to your other post, I either misread you, or from what I read, you agree with me. That is, if I willingly and knowingly follow a priest or bishop into heresy, I am also guilty. That said, I know of no ROCOR clergy, or any Orthodox clergy that fit the category you describe.
I suggest you read (or re-read) "On the Vital Question" at the ROCOR website.
I do have some other questions: At what date did the followers of Gregory of Colorado become heretics? When they first signed on? When they "discovered" he wasn't what they expected? Or was it at the moment that his "metropolitan" disowned him? In case I have the opportunity to discuss this issue with someone in the future, I would appreciate a date and time; I wouldn't want to uncanonical about it--I'm not partial to what calendar is used, but I would appreciate military time.
I'm curious, was Gregory's crime worse (in your opinion) than homosexual pedophilia?

OrthodoxyOrDeath · Sun 5 September 2004 8:37 pm

paleocon,

According to the Holy Fathers, being in communion with heretic bishops is the same as having one yourself. What that means to you depends on which bishops you follow.

I am not inclined to answer your other questions about the ROAC, not being a member of their synod. I will say that the twice deposed Gregory was cut off from our synod years ago based on documents provided by ROCOR demonstrating immoral and depraved acts while at HTM. Exactly what his sad situation has to do with anything realtive to the struggle for the faith is about the same I suppose as someone being interested in ecumenist bishops groping women at casinos; or the dozen or so ecumenist ukrainian groups all claiming to be the grand historic stem of Ukrainian "Orthodoxy" and who are not in communion with eachother. So if you want to talk about scandals as some sort of proof of something, then I am not interested in this discussion.

paleocon · Post by **paleocon** » Sun 5 September 2004 11:31 pm

OoD,
I really don't care about the scandals; I am just using the same logic that you use. You don't want to "give me an example", but yet you support them (roac) every chance you get.
Don't think you are taking the 'high road' with me; I know where you're coming from...
That's humorous, you use the Church Abroad as witness against Gregory; I thought you said they were heretics.
So...
You will accept what the ROCOR tells you about Gregory, but not Mansonville or Valentin.

OrthodoxyOrDeath · Mon 6 September 2004 8:53 am

You don't want to "give me an example", but yet you support them (roac) every chance you get.

I am not in communion with them and I think they know their history much better than I. More to the point, I don’t believe you are sincere in your inquiry and are just looking to discredit a person as much as possible – a discussion that can go around and around for days, and one that can be applied to many ecumenist bishops as well.

They do have an Orthodox confession, which is a prerequisite to be considered Orthodox wouldn’t you say? Something your ecumenist jurisdictions are in the lack.

That's humorous, you use the Church Abroad as witness against Gregory; I thought you said they were heretics.

Heretics? They are not themselves but are in communion with heretics. The documents in question predate this new communion from a time when they were in communion with us.

So...
You will accept what the ROCOR tells you about Gregory, but not Mansonville or Valentin.

You accept what the Third Ecumenical Council says, but not the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, or Seventh. It seems we all discern what to believe, its just that some are better at it than others.

ROCOR's versions of events concerning Met. Vitaly and Met. Valentine seem to be likely driven by their own unionizing adgenda.

Mor Ephrem · Post by **Mor Ephrem** » Mon 6 September 2004 4:34 pm

OrthodoxyOrDeath wrote:
You accept what the Third Ecumenical Council says, but not the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, or Seventh. It seems we all discern what to believe, its just that some are better at it than others.

What?? Another Monophysite?!

OrthodoxyOrDeath · Mon 6 September 2004 8:07 pm

What?? Another Monophysite?!

Monophysites are becoming popular it seems - you are in fashion.

Justin Kissel · Post by **Justin Kissel** » Wed 6 October 2004 5:41 am

This may be (that it was a divisive and highly imprudent move), but one could argue the same thing about another great disaster in liturgical reforms (which took centuries to iron out), the changes in Russia under Patriarch Nikon. This was not an "essential" change, and in most respects was simply the result of Nikon's Byzantophilia. Yet, history and the Church's consensus on the matter has viewed those who opposed Nikon of going into schism.

And then I read this on another forum...

I have had good contacts with the "Edinoveri", who are Old Ritualists (Old Believers)existing within the Russian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate. It is amazing the similarities between the Greek Old Calendarists and the Russian Old Believers! - Source

Just great :shock: