Is Bishop Alexander (Mileant) afraid?

[Giorgos]

+
DEAR FRIEND AND BROTHER,
EXCUSE ME, SILOUAN, I HAS DIRECTED MY MESSAGE AT "BASIL" BY MISTAKE, IS AN ERROR. RECENTLY I HAD EDITED THIS FAULT.
KINDEST REGARDS,
GIORGOS.
P.S. In my close message I wish write a reponse to you and Joshua. Excuse me again, but I must work, too.
As you know we live from our hands. DEO GRATIAS.
Giorgos

[Priest Siluan]

Dear Ania:

Apologize if I offended you in something, because I am rude many times to speak and a great sinner.

Me also desire the rebirth of the Peace and the Love in Russia, and of the whole world (is it less than a Christian can want). Because violence, disunion is not good for anything.

Simply, I defend my faith and in what I believe.

With Love in Christ and ask your prayers for me.

[Priest Siluan]

Dear in Chist, Giorgos:

No Problem.

With Love in Christ

[Joshua F]

They are not heretics, nor schismatics. I have not heard a valid argument yet that would make them such.

A good read is Vladimir Moss' "Sergianism as an Ecclesiological Heresy"

This heretical transformation of the patriarchate into a western-style papacy has been described by Fr. Vyacheslav Polosin thus: If Metropolitan Sergius was ruled, not by personal avarice, but by a mistaken understanding of what was for the benefit of the Church, then it was evident that the theological foundation of such an understanding was mistaken, and even constituted a heresy concerning the Church herself and her activity in the world. We may suppose that these ideas were very close to the idea of the Filioque: since the Spirit proceeds not only from the Father, but also from the Son, that means that the vicar of the Son.. can dispose of the Spirit, so that the Spirit acts through Him ex opere operato.. It follows necessarily that he who performs the sacraments of the Church, the minister of the sacrament, must automatically be infallible, for it is the infallible Spirit of God Who works through him and is inseparable from him However, this Latin schema of the Church is significantly inferior to the schema and structure created by Metropolitan Sergius. In his schema there is no Council, or it is replaced by a formal assembly for the confirmation of decisions that have already been taken on the model of the congresses of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

Also, one might take the ROCOR's own condemnation of the illegitimate succession of Pimen to the Patriarchal throne. See
http://www.stvladimirs.ca/library/conce ... pimen.html

Or the epistle of Metropolitan Vitaly on the subject from 1998:

If the Church is Christ Himself, then how is it possible to imagine Christ Our Lord with the traitor Metropolitan Sergius next to Him, or Christ next to Drozdov (Alexis II)? [1] If the Serbian holy man, Justin Popovitch, could say and write that the last two Serbian patriarchs were unlawfully elected to this highest level of the hierarchy by the communist party, then we can have no hesitation in saying that the last four patriarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate have been chosen by the communist state [2] , which has suddenly declared itself to be a democracy. This senior administration of the Moscow Patriarchate is simply a government institution, devoid of Divine grace, and those who comprise it are no more than government officials in cassocks. There are "clever" people who will tell you that this entire letter is just the Metropolitan's own personal opinion. But here I will reply that I have been compelled to write this letter by endless protests from throughout our great Russian diaspora. So this letter of mine is the voice of our Holy Russia outside the borders of Russia, and I have simply expressed it for all to hear. God grant that those who do not agree with this letter will not let their differences of opinion become transformed into a more profound disunity of soul; this would be the real tragedy. Let us always thank the Lord that we are in the Holy Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, which throughout the 80 years of its existence has trodden the straight, royal path of God, without ever turning aside and losing its way.

[Archimandrite Michael]

Dear Ones,
Greetings in Christ!
Although I have written these questions to the list before, I possibly sent it to the wrong discussion forum, so I am writing again.
The comments about Bishop Alexander and Orthodoxy in South America are important to consider, although I should think that anyone writing against the good bishop should be ashamed. He is a holy and concerned bishop, and I hate to see nasty comments made about him (or anyone, including the ones he has made!). There are troubles in South America, to be sure, but I feel that they can be overcome in a different manner.
However, my questions are as follows....and not posed in a nasty manner nor with malice aforethought:
1. If ROCOR, or the majority of members thereof, are inclined to work for reunification with the Moscow Patriarchate, would that then place them in "communion" with all of world-wide Orthodoxy?
2. If such a re-unification occurs, would that then place the present ROCOR group in "communion" with OCA, since OCA is in "communion" with MP?
3. The above questions being considered, would it not be more sensible for the ROCOR to work more seriously with the OCA at this time and re-unify with the MP....and world ecumenical "Orthodoxy" throough them?
4. Would it not be an automatic "re-unification" with MP if ROCOR and OCA (which is already recognised by MP...and was created be her) became one immediately?
5. Would ROCOR clergymen be able to serve with OCA clergymen, and in extension with MP clergymen....and even Antiochians once this proposed "re-unification" is accomplished?

The questions above being considered, and answered logically, the final question is....

Code: Select all

6. Why don't they "go to it" if they all think the same way, and create "The Ecumenical Orthodox Church", and leave the rest of believing Orthodox to carry the banner?

Archimandrite Michael

[ania]

Dear Ones,
Greetings in Christ!
Although I have written these questions to the list before, I possibly sent it to the wrong discussion forum, so I am writing again.
The comments about Bishop Alexander and Orthodoxy in South America are important to consider, although I should think that anyone writing against the good bishop should be ashamed. He is a holy and concerned bishop, and I hate to see nasty comments made about him (or anyone, including the ones he has made!). There are troubles in South America, to be sure, but I feel that they can be overcome in a different manner.

Very very true.

However, my questions are as follows....and not posed in a nasty manner nor with malice aforethought:

And I will try to answer them in kind.

1. If ROCOR, or the majority of members thereof, are inclined to work for reunification with the Moscow Patriarchate, would that then place them in "communion" with all of world-wide Orthodoxy

I would say no, as we are currently in communion with the Serbs, who are in communion with the MP. In this case A squared + B squared does not equal C squared.

2. If such a re-unification occurs, would that then place the present ROCOR group in "communion" with OCA, since OCA is in "communion" with MP?

My answer for the first question should cover this as well.

3. The above questions being considered, would it not be more sensible for the ROCOR to work more seriously with the OCA at this time and re-unify with the MP....and world ecumenical "Orthodoxy" through them?

Several options for this one. Traditionally, ROCOR & MP are closer than ROCOR & OCA. There are the several issues with that. The OCA's calander & language (meaning, the parishes that still serve in Russian mostly serve IN Russian, not Church Slavonic, which causes issues, as the last time I was at such a service, it just sounded wrong, poor translation). Church properties... The OCA & ROCOR have had several instances of law suits, property seizures, etc over the years. Actually, there have been more between the OCA & ROCOR than there has been between the MP & ROCOR. Also ROCOR is not just in America. ROCOR is a worldwide organization, with parishes on 6 continents. The OCA is only in America. If they were just seeking co-communion that's one thing. If the talks were administrative, it would be a MESS. It could happen in the long run, but the OCA is no longer really a "Russian" church, and ROCOR has remained one (I know, I know, American converts, intigration of the decendents of Russian immigrents, etc, but it is still a Russian church). Also from what I understand ROCOR didn't break with the OCA, but the other way around (I don't know the details of the split, but most people in ROCOR see it this way). ROCOR doesn't have a history of chasing after people who have left it.

4. Would it not be an automatic "re-unification" with MP if ROCOR and OCA (which is already recognised by MP...and was created be her) became one immediately?

I think the answer for #3 covers this one as well.

5. Would ROCOR clergymen be able to serve with OCA clergymen, and in extension with MP clergymen....and even Antiochians once this proposed "re-unification" is accomplished??

I think once again we have to take into consideration that we have been in communion with the Serbs, who have always, and are in communion with the MP. Shortly after participating in the consection of the Christ the Savior Cathedral in Moscow, Pat Pavl of Serbia traveled to America, I was present at one of the services... In the alter serving were 2 ROCOR priests, along with Met. Lavr's personal subdeacons.

The questions above being considered, and answered logically, the final question is....

Code: Select all

6. Why don't they "go to it" if they all think the same way, and create "The Ecumenical Orthodox Church", and leave the rest of believing Orthodox to carry the banner?

Archimandrite Michael[/quote]

I think my previous answers cover this one... and it sounds just a tad bit spiteful, but your disclaimer at the top comforts me in knowing you didn't mean it...

Now I am off, I have finally found an honest mechanic in the DC area... imagine, a dimond in a dung heap.

[Priest Siluan]

I Think that Archimandrite Michael has outlined the topic correctly.

Because maybe OCA is or it is as Russian as ROCOR, OCA has Russian root (we investigate its history)... I would say that it is a luck of Church Russian Autocephalous in America (and also in Australia and South America -Venezuela and Brazil -... because maybe it has to have some parishes in Europe to have but or less the same canonical territory ROCOR)

As for Ania:

I believe that Serbian Patriarch doesn't admit to be in communion with ROCOR (then Is this an unilateral communion?)

With Love in Christ

Siluan Dignac