Duma disappointed in one ROCOR delegate to Council

[Kollyvas]

Christ is Risen!

Evlogeite Pater.
It was St.Tikhon himself who anathemized the bolsheviks in 1918; however, prior to his death, he recognized the soviet regime as the civil government of the Russian people. Now, the MP emanates from that succession CANONICALLY. No one else does. Moreover ROCOR AND EVERYONE else RECOGNIZED its clerics as CANONICAL and its believers as Orthodox Christians until the fall of communism, DE FACTO RECOGNITION of its status. Your stance would have you rebaptizing ALLof its believers, beginning with your Metropolitan FOR THEY WOULD BE HERETICS. The MP is the direct successor to the All Russian Council and the church of St. Tikhon. Moreover, bodies separated from that administration have no right in determining its canonicity--that itself is uncanonical and condemned by the Canons. Just as the anathemas on Icons of God the Father are ONLY LOCALLY BINDING--otherwise you fall under those anathemas as a heretic due to your position--so too the anathemas of separated dioceses WHICH WERE NEVER EMPOWERED to speak for the Russian local church, nor is there ANY Canonical precedent, foundation, for them to have done so. Lastly, St. Tikhon didn't include any of your exceptions--THEY ARE ALL FOREIGN TO HIS PATRIARCHAL ADMINISTRATION.
Indeed He is Risen!
Rostislav Mikhailovich Malleev-Pokrovsky

[尼古拉前执事]

Actually the ROCOR issued declarations on every "patriarch" since 1941 deeming them uncanonical. I have to go to work for 11 hours today, but will try to repost those documents as I believe they are elsewhere on this forum.

[Kollyvas]

Christ is Risen1

Evlogeite Pater.
Let's say that the grabbe-inspired (and controlled) ROCOR has a paper trail stating that the election of every Patriarch since +Sergius was "uncanonical," then why is it they recognize the believers and clerics of the MP, receiving them in their due rank WITHOUT Chrismations, Baptisms, etc.?! Your ecclesiology would call that ecumenism, condemning the ROCOR "of the good ole days." Moreover, what Canonical authority did ROCOR have to act as a "replacement" for the MP, which IT NEVER CLAIMED, to speak in the name of the Patriarchal Throne?! St. Tikhon NEVER delegated such authority to them, nor could he, nor would he place patriarchal authority in the hands of the grabbes (opportunist TRAITORS and betrayers of the Tsar'-Martyr along with the rodziankos and all manner of other FILTH who wore red armbands in those demonic days of February). So such pronouncements lay outside the instructions and patriarchal administration of St. Tikhon AND ARE PATENTLY WITHOUT CANONICAL FORCE, INVALID. Moreover, the PATRON of ROCOR, under the auspices of the 39Th. Canon of the 6Th. Ecumenical Council. the Patriarch of Belgrade and All Serbs, RECOGNIZED EVERY PATRIARCH OF MOSCOW AND MAINTAINED PRAYERFUL & EUCHARISTIC "FRATERNAL" COMMUNION WITH MOSCOW. In other words, the authority of oversight over ROCOR recognized the MP as legitimate; therefore, their "repudiations" can only bear a POLITICAL (grabbe-directed) character WHICH HAS NO CANONICAL FORCE AND IS FOREIGN TO THE LEGACY OF St. Tikhon AND NOT AT ALL BLESSED BY ITS OVERSIGHT AUTHORITIES, meaning rebel and renegade acts. By extension, their "spin offs," protesting their perceived (ROCOR's) "compromises," have just as little Canonical jurisdictions/justifications (even less), becoming not much better than VAGANTE jurisdictions--the Ofiesh & Kupchak successions are almost Canonically equivalent in authority to the "spin offs."
Indeed He is Risen!
Rostislav Mikhailovich Malleev-Pokrovsky
Now resistance is a Patristic standard, but I think it's clear that I'm indicating that the ROCOR "spin offs" in questions never bothered to reach the thresholds of where they could legitimately lay claim to it BY FLIPPANTLY DEFYING THE DIRECTIONS OF St. TIKHON & THE WILL OF THE ALL-RUSSIAN COUNCIL of 1917-18.

[Kollyvas]

Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 06:28:26 -0400
Reply-To: Orthodox Christianity <[log in to unmask]>
Sender: Orthodox Christianity <[log in to unmask]>
From: Michael Brereton <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: State Duma Deputy warns ROCOR Church
Content-Type: text/plain

State Duma deputy urges Russian Church Outside Russia not to doom itself to
role of 'ethnographic museum of gone civilization'
Moscow, May 2, Interfax - Natalia Narochnitskaya, a State Duma deputy and
well-known historian, suggests that the Russian Church Outside Russia cast
away doubts as to the advisability of restoring unity with the Moscow
Patriarchate.

'Today's doubts are like temptations endured by a person who wants to adopt
baptism but the enemy of humankind whispers into his ear: Wait, you are not
ready; don't do it today but tomorrow!' Narochnitskaya writes in her article
published in Rossiyskaya Gazeta.

However, she continues, there may no tomorrow. 'At a time when all the
forces in the world have united to prevent Russia from restoring her
national and religious identity, Russian people cannot understand the virtue
and 'truth' of a Church which cannot put away the secondary things and,
instead of offering an embrace, asks to meet a bill.'

'What kind of faith is it if there is no all-forgiving love in it; what kind
of Orthodox are those who try to see the mote in a neighbor's eye; what kind
of love of Russia is it if it looks more like admiration for itself rather
than for Russia?' the author of the article asks.

She draws the attention of hesitant pastors and laity of the Russian Church
outside Russia to the fact that today when 'Christian Europe has surrendered
without resistance and is going away, it is post-Soviet Russia alone,
however paradoxically it may seem, that is revolting'.

According to Narochnitskaya, 'it is sad to read those lay emigrants who,
shutting themselves away in a ivory tower, endlessly reproduce and transfer
to today's Russia and Russians the notions of 'the cursed days' and demons
of the 1920s. One should probably isolate oneself from reality intentionally
and refuse to change anything in it to fail to see how different today's
Russians, Russia and her much-suffering Church are from the idea of them
drawn up from antiquated cliches.

'To reject with pride an superiority a hand offered today, to repel the
hopes of Russian people who await the reunification of the family with
sinking hearts and a children's unreasoning joy would be a blow on Russia,
the more so that it comes not from an enemy but from a brother. It will by
an irremediable insult to the most sincere feelings of millions of people
who have admired the feat of the Church Outside Russia but have not even
suspected their own Russian brothers abroad to treat them with such
disdain', the author of the article believes.

In this connection, Narochnitskaya asks the question: 'Will such a rejection
devalue the feat once performed by the Russian emigres who have preserved
their Russian nature and faith in foreign lands and who preserved in their
hearts 'the Russia we have lost' and remained committed to it in their love
and faith?'

Do not then lose forever the true Russia which has survived through
suffering and is now in a search', she adds urging the Russian Church
Outside Russia not to doom itself to 'the role of an ethnographic museum of
the gone civilization, to a reservation existence outside the theme of
Russia and Russians in world history'.

St. George Broadcasting
www.stgeorgebroadcasting.com

[Priest Siluan]

Christ is Risen1

Evlogeite Pater.
Let's say that the grabbe-inspired (and controlled) ROCOR has a paper trail stating that the election of every Patriarch since +Sergius was "uncanonical," then why is it they recognize the believers and clerics of the MP, receiving them in their due rank WITHOUT Chrismations, Baptisms, etc.?! Your ecclesiology would call that ecumenism, condemning the ROCOR "of the good ole days." Moreover, what Canonical authority did ROCOR have to act as a "replacement" for the MP, which IT NEVER CLAIMED, to speak in the name of the Patriarchal Throne?! St. Tikhon NEVER delegated such authority to them, nor could he, nor would he place patriarchal authority in the hands of the grabbes (opportunist TRAITORS and betrayers of the Tsar'-Martyr along with the rodziankos and all manner of other FILTH who wore red armbands in those demonic days of February). So such pronouncements lay outside the instructions and patriarchal administration of St. Tikhon AND ARE PATENTLY WITHOUT CANONICAL FORCE, INVALID. Moreover, the PATRON of ROCOR, under the auspices of the 39Th. Canon of the 6Th. Ecumenical Council. the Patriarch of Belgrade and All Serbs, RECOGNIZED EVERY PATRIARCH OF MOSCOW AND MAINTAINED PRAYERFUL & EUCHARISTIC "FRATERNAL" COMMUNION WITH MOSCOW. In other words, the authority of oversight over ROCOR recognized the MP as legitimate; therefore, their "repudiations" can only bear a POLITICAL (grabbe-directed) character WHICH HAS NO CANONICAL FORCE AND IS FOREIGN TO THE LEGACY OF St. Tikhon AND NOT AT ALL BLESSED BY ITS OVERSIGHT AUTHORITIES, meaning rebel and renegade acts. By extension, their "spin offs," protesting their perceived (ROCOR's) "compromises," have just as little Canonical jurisdictions/justifications (even less), becoming not much better than VAGANTE jurisdictions--the Ofiesh & Kupchak successions are almost Canonically equivalent in authority to the "spin offs."
Indeed He is Risen!
Rostislav Mikhailovich Malleev-Pokrovsky
Now resistance is a Patristic standard, but I think it's clear that I'm indicating that the ROCOR "spin offs" in questions never bothered to reach the thresholds of where they could legitimately lay claim to it BY FLIPPANTLY DEFYING THE DIRECTIONS OF St. TIKHON & THE WILL OF THE ALL-RUSSIAN COUNCIL of 1917-18.

Dear Rostislav:

Xristos Voskrese!

I don't really believe that it is good to accuse to the Family Grabbe of what has happened in ROCOR in those years. Would not that be to underestimate all of Synod of Bishops of that time?

As for the recognition of MP ordinations, mysteries etc on the part of ROCOR. I think that ROCOR has applied "Economy" for diverse cases, just as it has always made for the Russian Church.

In Christ

P. Siluan

[Kollyvas]

Voistinu Voskrese!

Blagoslovite Otche.

Firstly, the fact that the grabbes were the secretaries of the Synod and had a profound influence on it from the times of bl. +Metropolitan Antony says it all. The infamous count thought it politically expedient to put a monarchist cap back on in Belgrade after praising the revolution and wearing red armbands. The things these corrupt people did. And when some spoke out against them, like blessed +Archbishop Theophan of Poltava, they were sidelined. Or when other hierarchs ignored them, like +Archbishop Leonty of Chile or St. John of San Francisco, nasty things happened. How did the grabbes come into possession of ROCOR's prep school in NY, Father, if they weren't so influential, a building which they later sold and pocketed the resources for? One need not talk about the abortions, embezzlement, backroom talks with Constantinople, etc. These charlatans ran ROCOR. Now new charlatans do.

As far as the ordinations of the MP being recognized as a matter of "economy," I think you would find it hard to establish a consistent paper trail regarding such a position. The fact remains that ROCOR never, nor could it ever, maintain that the Mysteries performed within the Mother Church were "graceless." Even +Metropolitan Vitaly has come up with a neo-protestant theory of how the Eucharist in the MP is valid. So, really, Father, aside from the fact that there is no canonical foundation for a separate diocese(s) declaring their Mother Church "graceless," ROCOR by its actions and pronouncements never did so. That is one of the dr. moss' et al's imagined chimeras which only finds itself pronounced on crazed ultramontane lips.
In the LOVE of Christ,
Rostislav Mikhailovich Malleev-Pokrovsky

[Priest Siluan]

Voistinu Voskrese!

Blagoslovite Otche.

Firstly, the fact that the grabbes were the secretaries of the Synod and had a profound influence on it from the times of bl. +Metropolitan Antony says it all. The infamous count thought it politically expedient to put a monarchist cap back on in Belgrade after praising the revolution and wearing red armbands. The things these corrupt people did. And when some spoke out against them, like blessed +Archbishop Theophan of Poltava, they were sidelined. Or when other hierarchs ignored them, like +Archbishop Leonty of Chile or St. John of San Francisco, nasty things happened. How did the grabbes come into possession of ROCOR's prep school in NY, Father, if they weren't so influential, a building which they later sold and pocketed the resources for? One need not talk about the abortions, embezzlement, backroom talks with Constantinople, etc. These charlatans ran ROCOR. Now new charlatans do.

Bog blagoslovite!

Dear Rostislav:

How can you compare to the Grabbe Family with the current new ROCOR commandants? I differ with you in this point. The old ROCOR which was an inspiration for everyone has anything to do with the new ROCOR.

As far as the ordinations of the MP being recognized as a matter of "economy," I think you would find it hard to establish a consistent paper trail regarding such a position. The fact remains that ROCOR never, nor could it ever, maintain that the Mysteries performed within the Mother Church were "graceless." Even +Metropolitan Vitaly has come up with a neo-protestant theory of how the Eucharist in the MP is valid. So, really, Father, aside from the fact that there is no canonical foundation for a separate diocese(s) declaring their Mother Churches "graceless," ROCOR by its actions and pronouncements never did so. That is one of the dr. moss' et al's imagined chimeras which only finds itself pronounced on crazed ultramontane lips.
In the LOVE of Christ,
Rostislav Mikhailovich Malleev-Pokrovsky

How can one call to the MP to be "Church Mother" if it doesn't have a canonical origin and this "Patriarchate" is not any successor of the true Russian Patriarchate since it was created with political ends by Stalin and Sergei Stragorodsky?