Priest Siluan wrote:Wasn't St. Silouan in communion with godless "world orthodoxy"(i.e. new calendarists?!)
But ROCOR have done a document of recognizing already several years ago when we were in communion (our Archbishop Feodor (Gineyevsky) told me) ROAC recognizes it, as well as Matewites and also Florinites.
:bump:
It makes sense to me. I just thought it wouldn't make sense to ROAC, or any other group who claims that "world orthodoxy" has left the Church. St. Silouan, as far as I know, would have commemorated the Ecumenical Patriarch after the Patriarch's letter to the "churches" and the calendar change. Wouldn't this same Patriarch have been in communion with the "Soviet Church" ? Wouldn't that put St. Silouan in communion with heretics, by your standards?
It makes sense to me. I just thought it wouldn't make sense to ROAC, or any other group who claims that "world orthodoxy" has left the Church. St. Silouan, as far as I know, would have commemorated the Ecumenical Patriarch after the Patriarch's letter to the "churches" and the calendar change. Wouldn't this same Patriarch have been in communion with the "Soviet Church" ? Wouldn't that put St. Silouan in communion with heretics, by your standards?
You should know that technology of the communication in that time was not those of today. You also forget that in those times the EP recognized to ROCOR or Synod of Karlovci, and at the same time it recognized to the "Church Renovacionist" or "Living Church." Everything was very confused in that time. In almost all the monasteries (but all) Mount Athos in that time they supported the thought Old calendarist (until financially). You should know these things. San alone Silouan was a humble (although Great Sjima) Monk. Who are you to judge him?
Priest Siluan wrote:It makes sense to me. I just thought it wouldn't make sense to ROAC, or any other group who claims that "world orthodoxy" has left the Church. St. Silouan, as far as I know, would have commemorated the Ecumenical Patriarch after the Patriarch's letter to the "churches" and the calendar change. Wouldn't this same Patriarch have been in communion with the "Soviet Church" ? Wouldn't that put St. Silouan in communion with heretics, by your standards?
You should know that technology of the communication in that time was not those of today. You also forget that in those times the EP recognized to ROCOR or Synod of Karlovci, and at the same time it recognized to the "Church Renovacionist" or "Living Church." Everything was very confused in that time. In almost all the monasteries (but all) Mount Athos in that time they supported the thought Old calendarist (until financially). You should know these things. San alone Silouan was a humble (although Great Sjima) Monk. Who are you to judge him?
It may be the language barrier, but it's obvious I'm not judging him. Of course he was a great saint of the Church. I'm just trying to figure out how by ROAC logic this can be the case.
Christ is Risen!
This is the same case with Saint Nectarius of Aegina, regarding his glorification. And, yes, the newspapers were very active at Saint Silouan's times. If you read his life, you would find out that many monks came to Elder (Starets) Silouan asking him why isn't he reading the news so he can pray for the world. And, at Mount Athos, the actual renovations that were happening in the Church was being heard by Mount Athos, when the Fathers decided to come together and discuss wether they should do the walling-off of the EP. So technically, even at Saint Silouan's time, Ecumenism was very much known on the Garden of the Theotokos.
Pjhatala say
It may be the language barrier, but it's obvious I'm not judging him. Of course he was a great saint of the Church. I'm just trying to figure out how by ROAC logic this can be the case.
Forgive me, a sinner
This logic should be looked in the resolution of ROCOR, we simply inherit it. Them also until recently they didn't recognize EP. And What to say of the Matewites or autentic Florinites?
Christ is Risen!
This is the same case with Saint Nectarius of Aegina, regarding his glorification. And, yes, the newspapers were very active at Saint Silouan's times. If you read his life, you would find out that many monks came to Elder (Starets) Silouan asking him why isn't he reading the news so he can pray for the world. And, at Mount Athos, the actual renovations that were happening in the Church was being heard by Mount Athos, when the Fathers decided to come together and discuss wether they should do the walling-off of the EP. So technically, even at Saint Silouan's time, Ecumenism was very much known on the Garden of the Theotokos.
Voistunu Voskrese!
Those news were surely official. Also all what that better we know about St Silouan comes from the book of "Staretz" Sophrony (Sakharov) which is not very reliable.
I think that synod of ROCOR, Mathewite etc you bases to recognize the sanctity of Staretz Silouan in something more than this book. Maybe they gathered more information in the Holy Mount.
Priest Siluan wrote:Pjhatala say
It may be the language barrier, but it's obvious I'm not judging him. Of course he was a great saint of the Church. I'm just trying to figure out how by ROAC logic this can be the case.
Forgive me, a sinner
This logic should be looked in the resolution of ROCOR, we simply inherit it. Them also until recently they didn't recognize EP. And What to say of the Matewites or autentic Florinites?
Christ is Risen!
This is the same case with Saint Nectarius of Aegina, regarding his glorification. And, yes, the newspapers were very active at Saint Silouan's times. If you read his life, you would find out that many monks came to Elder (Starets) Silouan asking him why isn't he reading the news so he can pray for the world. And, at Mount Athos, the actual renovations that were happening in the Church was being heard by Mount Athos, when the Fathers decided to come together and discuss wether they should do the walling-off of the EP. So technically, even at Saint Silouan's time, Ecumenism was very much known on the Garden of the Theotokos.
Voistunu Voskrese!
Those news were surely official. Also all what that better we know about St Silouan comes from the book of "Staretz" Sophrony (Sakharov) which is not very reliable.
I think that synod of ROCOR, Mathewite etc you bases to recognize the sanctity of Staretz Silouan in something more than this book. Maybe they gathered more information in the Holy Mount.
I don't mean to split hairs here...but I guess I kind of do. I'll apply what seems to be ypical ROAC/GOC logic to this question again. St. Silouan was in communion with "heretics" according to the ROAC/GOC view. One of these heretical bodies was the "Moscow Patriarchate" started by Stalin(in your view)...the "Soviet Church" we hear so much about here which was partly responsible for the persecution of the True Orthodox Church. If St. Silouan was in communion with these "heretics", than he himself must have been outside the Church, by your usual logic. How can one in communion with heresy be given the gifts of the holy spirit and the grace required to become a saint?
What hath light to do with darkness.. (blah blah blah)
(Again, I don't believe this at all... it's just that his saintliness does not fit into ROAC "true orthodox" logic)
