To: tocmed@hotmail.com:
In a message dated 3/20/2006 2:27:45 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time, tocmed@hotmail.com writes:
Glory To Jesus Christ!
YOU WRITE: My assumptions are based on my past experiences, AS A MEMBER OF
THE OCA, at having to endure being told "Father John of Kronstadt" was "too
political to be a Saint"...
RESPONSE: Very strange. Don't know who told you this, but the person
surely was not expressing the OCA's understanding. Hardly an "official"
statement. If what you had been told was the position of the OCA, then we
surely would not have parishes dedicated to St. John of Kronstadt.
ME: I could simply find some old articles penned by one of the Parisian luminaries like Mr. Fedotov (ante) or even Frs. Schmemann and Meyendorff and their reaction to the Synod's (ROCOR's) glorification of "Father John of Kronstadt" in 1964. But let's be genuine and not political. I am not lying and accusing me of doing so is contemptuous, especially when you know I'm not.
YOU WRITE: ...or that the Tsar' Martyr was "Bloody Nicholas" or that the
"schismatic Synod could never produce Saints."
RESPONSE: Again, rather ridiculous, since OCA clergy -- myself included --
joined Metropolitan Herman and other OCA bishops at the glorification of the
Royal Family in Christ the Savior Cathedral in Moscow in 2000. What
"schismatic Synod" is being referred to? Hardly the Holy Synod of the
Russian Orthodox Church, which celebrated the canonization and at which our
own hierarchs and clergy concelebrated!
ME: So since 2000 you haven't had any staff to add glorified Saints to your site, but you have, say, for St. Raphael of Brooklyn, who was glorified in roughly the same time period?! I find that also disingenuous. The "schismatic Synod" Fr. Kondratick used to regularly refer to: ROCOR. The same "Synod" referred to as such in YOUR Q & A SECTION. But the Mother Church HAS INDEED glorified these Saints and its American "autocephalous" hierarchs are witnesses to it...The ommission then of these Saints seems consciously irreverent and scndalous. One would think that on the eve of ROCOR reintegration into the Mother Church, some sort of considerations and simple recognitions be put forward. This is all so sad.
YOU WRITE: (I could mention the names of certain past faded lights of the
theodosian era: Frs. Oleksa, Jorgensen, Dirga, et al.)
RESPONSE: I find it rather hard to believe that some of these individuals
would have said this.
ME: I don't at all--it is completely fitting of their characters. People such as these drove me and my family out of the OCA. And it seems we weren't alone. If you look at the OCA publication, ORTHODOX AMERICA, a hardbound hook printed in c. 1976, we read that in the prospects for the future, the OCA is "well poised to witness to America and to future generations" where it says further "having over one million members (1000000)." Today's not so nice news stemming from the cabal of the theodosian era admits now four hundred thousand (400000) members. Are we then to believe that 60% of the membership has died and no new membership added?! All in the span of thirty years, 30 years ruled mainly by +theodosius. Such incompetence and corruption would result in prison time and bankruptcy anywhere else. No, it seems that I and my family ARE NOT ALONE and that there seems to be more weight to my "accounts" than your denials.
YOU WRITE: So I think the issue of "being charitable" is rather CYNICALLY
addressed. FYI, I am LOYAL TO THE MOSCOW PATRIARCHATE.
RESPONSE: Obviously, since the OCA hierarchs concelebrated at the
glorification of the Royal Family, the OCA has no problem with the Moscow
Patriarchate, does it?
ME: Then why is it you not include Saints glorified by the Mother Church which have a deep significance for Russia at home & abroad? I don't have the problem. But, say, for instance, when one reads the OCA liturgical calendar, NO MENTION IS STILL MADE. Surely a few extra key strokes don't take all that much more time to get to the printers?! The stench of dishonesty is stifling.
YOU WRITE: If you would like, I would be glad to assemble materials for you
that you would be able to edit at your leisure.
RESPONSE: We would be happy to receive materials, although when they could
be edited is hard to say. We are extremely short staffed and cannot say
when we could get to such a project.
ME: Oh, I see, and when, say +Metropolitan Anthony (Bloom) is glorified, will it still be so short staffed. I hardly think so. Yes, I'm saying your reply is disingenuous.
YOU WRITE: What of the work on the glorification of Blessed +Metropoltan
Leonty?
RESPONSE: Recently the OCA Holy Synod agreed that this is not going to be
pursued in the immediate future.
ME: A further travesty, reminiscent of the grave of St. Alexis of Wilkes Barre once being used as a trash dump. Do you even realize that you are corresponding with ONE OF YOUR OWN, WHO CAME up in the same churches, celebrating the same holidays and sharing the same picnics?! How is it you are so smug discounting the views and experiences of the other half (actually 60%+) chased out by the incompetence and corruption of the era of +theodosius and those who propped him up?! You do realize that the following of +Archbishop Kiprian of South Canaan was actually the majority, finally?! As I have offered, I will be glad to provide the materials, but I won't deal with a continuation of theodosian corruption and disinformation. Certain people are simply past their prime and failures: I hope they finally get the hint before it's too late...
In the LOVE of Christ,
Rostislav
