Interesting note about Fr Ambrose Mooney (ROCOR-MP)

[JHunt777]

For the record, on the subject of the MP and internet censorship, something happened to me a few years ago which I never mentioned publicly, as I recall. It was around the time of the ROCOR-MP union in 2006 or early 2007. At the time, I was trying to find information, and to engage in an on-line discussion about the Act of Canonical Union, on a Yahoo group website for members of the ROCOR, moderated by the pro-union ROCOR-MP priest, Fr. John Whitefield.

I was somewhat surprised when Fr. John Whitefield abruptly banned me from this Yahoo group after I tried to post some questions and concerns about the Act of Canonical Communion. It was obvious to me at the time that this Yahoo "ROCOR" group was not the least bit interested in engaging in an honest, civil discussion about the impending union. In fact, it was downright creepy-- like something out of George Orwell's novel 1984 or the Soviet Union in the Stalinist era.

For the record, though, it should be pointed out that just as TOC/GOC members have been banned from various lists moderated by those in communion with the ancient Orthodox Patriarchates, so have members in communion with the Orthodox Patriarchates been banned from various lists moderated by TOC/GOC members. I mention this lest someone should be tempted to think that members of the Orthodox Patriarchates are “heavy on censorship” because they are supposedly “afraid of the truth”, whereas the TOC/GOC members in their “commitment to truth” supposedly are much more open to debate.

Now, in the history of the Internet, there have been many different lists, with different purposes, different moderators, different intents, etc. There have been a few lists that have seemed to be rather open and broad, allowing vigorous debate between TOC/GOC groups and churches that are in communion with the ancient Patriarchates. The Indiana List seemed to allow a great deal of debate in the past, as did Orthodox Tradition (Paradosis); yet each list has had its own evolution over time as the “ecclesial landscape” has changed, as the affiliations of list moderators have changed, as the moderators themselves have changed, etc. In groups that have allowed fairly vigorous debate between TOC/GOC members and those in communion with the ancient Patriarchates, even these groups have list rules and occasionally individuals are banned because they have violated these list rules. Any time a person subscribes to a list, it is important that they pay attention to the list rules so that they do not find themselves penalized for violating these rules, and in order to respect the on-line community that they have joined. Typically, it seems that moderators do a fairly good job in penalizing people only when list rules are violated, as opposed to selectively banning people they disagree with, which would be a great injustice indeed.

Now, regarding Paradosis (Orthodox-Tradition), I believe its only moderator is the layman Seraphim Patterson. I am not sure of his present affiliation, but in the past he has been with ROCOR, the Matthewites, and probably other groups. He has rarely chimed in over the past few years, and I can only find a few instances where he notified the list that specific individuals were banned. In such cases, these bannings had to do with very inappropriate conduct and list rule violation, and not at all because of a person’s ecclesiology or affiliation. Every once in a while, Seraphim has chimed in to express regret over the general climate of the list, the constant trash talking, gossiping, denigration of others, hostility, and general spirit of animosity that often characterized the list, but he seemed to rarely do anything to radically alter this climate. In any case, with the history of that particular list, and its rather open debate and loose moderation, I am surprised that Fr. Joseph says he is heavily moderated, but I suppose he could easily ask the moderator about this if he believes he is being treated unjustly. In the past, however, it seems that people have only very rarely been placed on moderation or banned, and that when such an action was taken it was due to the very un Christian behavior which also violated list rules, and not because of a person’s affiliation.

Regarding Indiana List, which did seem rather open to different positions at one time, this list has seen its share of censorship. When Fr. John Whiteford of ROCOR was on Indiana List prior to the reunion between ROCOR and the MP, he wished to start a list just for people who agreed with and supported the path that the Synod was taking with regard to the Moscow Patriarchate. According to Fr. John, when he announced that he had established this new list, he was immediately banned from “Indiana List” and “Orthodoxy-Synod”, both of which were moderated by Fr. Mark Gilstrap of GOC-Kallinikos. Regarding this, Fr. John has said:

“Back in 1998, things in ROCOR began to heat up, because of Metropolitan Vitaly's
unilateral epistles stating that the MP had no grace, along with the subsequent
retractions, and then reassertions of such views. Unfortunately, the chummy
relationship that most ROCOR clergy had on the Internet prior to that time
suffered as well, and despite the fact that we had been friends before, I found
myself on the outs with Fr. Mark [Gilstrap], and then found my posts defending our bishops
not being allowed, while the most vile attacks on them were permitted, often
from anonymous or pseudonymous posters.

“I decided to start a group called The ROCA list in which the pro-ROCOR faction
of ROCOR would be free to defend the bishops, and disrespectful, anonymous, or

pseudonymous would not be allowed.”

“I then found myself summarily removed from both the Orthodox Synod list and the
Orthodox list, merely for having dared to do so.”

Now, I do not quote this to criticize Fr. Mark Gilstrap for this decision, or to say he was unjustified in making this decision, or to open debate as to whether Fr. John was portraying the situation accurately in the above quote, or to vindicate Fr. John in some way. I present this only to show that there are those in ROCOR who have also complained about being banned from groups moderated by TOC/GOC members. Fr. Ambrose and Fr. Aidan have been banned from this list (E-Café), and Fr. Ambrose (and perhaps others) have been banned from commenting on NFTU. I once posted something on Paradosis only to have Fr. Joseph respond openly on NFTU (which he controls), which seriously limited my ability to respond to him. The “comments” section on the site only allowed a limited number of words, and every time I tried to divide up the message to post it, I ran into serious problems. Again, I don’t bring this up to debate these past circumstances or to criticize anyone, but only to say that there are people on both sides who accuse the other of censorship and trying to avoid the truth.

In general, it is always good to check out forum guidelines before participating in a discussion group. Some groups (such as Orthodox-Rocor) are specifically intended for those who agree on certain things, and are intended to provide an atmosphere for mutual support, mutual encouragement, and mutual edification for like-minded people. On such lists, attacks from the “outside” are not welcome on principle because such attacks can become a major distraction or divergence from the intent of the list, and they often result in the intended audience signing out . Just as there are lists for people in communion with the ancient Patriarchates and those inquiring respectfully with them, so there have been lists created by members of the TOC/GOC groups that are intended for its own members and for those who would like to respectfully inquire about the various TOC/GOC groups. As far as I know, there is only one list that includes moderators and members from TOC/GOC groups and from those in communion with the ancient Orthodox Patriarchates. When there is a board of moderators (rather than just one moderator), and the moderators include TOC/GOC members as well as members in communion with the ancient Patriarchates, this tends to limit unjust penalization and concerns about moderator bias. This model probably creates the best atmosphere for open debate between these parties, but it is a model that is exceedingly rare and unlikely to be replicated elsewhere.

[Suaidan]

For the record, though, it should be pointed out that just as TOC/GOC members have been banned from various lists moderated by those in communion with the ancient Orthodox Patriarchates, so have members in communion with the Orthodox Patriarchates been banned from various lists moderated by TOC/GOC members. I mention this lest someone should be tempted to think that members of the Orthodox Patriarchates are “heavy on censorship” because they are supposedly “afraid of the truth”, whereas the TOC/GOC members in their “commitment to truth” supposedly are much more open to debate.

But those the Paradosis list in particular has historically pretended to be an Orthodox Traditionalist list; in fact exactly the opposite is true.

Now, regarding Paradosis (Orthodox-Tradition), I believe its only moderator is the layman Seraphim Patterson. I am not sure of his present affiliation, but in the past he has been with ROCOR, the Matthewites, and probably other groups. He has rarely chimed in over the past few years, and I can only find a few instances where he notified the list that specific individuals were banned. In such cases, these bannings had to do with very inappropriate conduct and list rule violation, and not at all because of a person’s ecclesiology or affiliation. Every once in a while, Seraphim has chimed in to express regret over the general climate of the list, the constant trash talking, gossiping, denigration of others, hostility, and general spirit of animosity that often characterized the list, but he seemed to rarely do anything to radically alter this climate. In any case, with the history of that particular list, and its rather open debate and loose moderation, I am surprised that Fr. Joseph says he is heavily moderated, but I suppose he could easily ask the moderator about this if he believes he is being treated unjustly. In the past, however, it seems that people have only very rarely been placed on moderation or banned, and that when such an action was taken it was due to the very un Christian behavior which also violated list rules, and not because of a person’s affiliation.

Seraphim is and has been a member of ROCOR-MP for a few years and has ROCOR-MP priests as assistant moderators. However, I began to suspect over time that I was being moderated; and at first Seraphim denied doing such a thing. It was only later I realized he could be telling the truth-- he could have had someone else moderate me. In any case, the censorship debate came up one last time about a year or two ago. Seraphim issued a public denial on other lists, something I thought strange, but then retreated since. Up until a few months ago, every time my messages were delayed, I'd send a letter to Seraphim, indicating that I had a message waiting in queue (meaning I was moderated). The letter would be, quietly, released immediately. Then the release of the letters became more sportadic to which I protested. Finally, my messages would only sometimes go through, and I realized Seraphim was simply not going to respond anymore.

It suits your purposes, Jason, as Seraphim's, to keep a few vocal True Orthodox speaking freely on the Paradosis list (particularly those who don't really engage in discussion, such as Vladimir Moss, a former moderator of Paradosis himself-- I don't know if he is still there.) It gives the impression of a forum free for debate.

Regarding Indiana List, which did seem rather open to different positions at one time, this list has seen its share of censorship. When Fr. John Whiteford of ROCOR was on Indiana List prior to the reunion between ROCOR and the MP, he wished to start a list just for people who agreed with and supported the path that the Synod was taking with regard to the Moscow Patriarchate. According to Fr. John, when he announced that he had established this new list, he was immediately banned from “Indiana List” and “Orthodoxy-Synod”, both of which were moderated by Fr. Mark Gilstrap of GOC-Kallinikos. Regarding this, Fr. John has said:

It doesn't MATTER what he said. On almost all these lists, one of the common guidelines is not advertising other lists. I was once (fairly) removed from Paradosis years ago for doing this very thing.

Now, I do not quote this to criticize Fr. Mark Gilstrap for this decision, or to say he was unjustified in making this decision, or to open debate as to whether Fr. John was portraying the situation accurately in the above quote, or to vindicate Fr. John in some way.

Of course you do--

I present this only to show that there are those in ROCOR who have also complained about being banned from groups moderated by TOC/GOC members.

-- and that's how. You are turning Father Mark's action into a jurisdictional one to equivocate when in fact Fr John violated a basic principle of list netiquette.

Fr. Ambrose and Fr. Aidan have been banned from this list (E-Café),

To my knowledge Fr Aidan has not, and Fr Ambrose was engaging in seriously harrassing behavior. Why just today, he sent me a third email about something I didn't want to discuss after I said "please, this doesn't interest me". He simply doesn't care how people feel. This is a behavior that violates basic human decency and goes beyond polemic.

and Fr. Ambrose (and perhaps others) have been banned from commenting on NFTU.

I have only banned people who engage in comment spam; I do not remember banning Fr Ambrose.

I once posted something on Paradosis only to have Fr. Joseph respond openly on NFTU (which he controls), which seriously limited my ability to respond to him. The “comments” section on the site only allowed a limited number of words, and every time I tried to divide up the message to post it, I ran into serious problems. Again, I don’t bring this up to debate these past circumstances or to criticize anyone, but only to say that there are people on both sides who accuse the other of censorship and trying to avoid the truth.

The fact that IntenseDebate limits your post length is not an indication that we censor people but that you should write more succinctly.

[Suaidan]

Subdeacon David Gould wrote, on the Paradosis List:

The reconciliation of the Autonomous Metropolis of the Americas to the Russian Orthodox Church via the Moscow Patriarchate or the Church Abroad is a worthy aspiration of Fr. Deacon Joseph. Perhaps a trip downtown to the Synod would help breakdown misconceptions of the reunion with the Patriarchate and open the doors to the 'Autononous Metropolis' being under the beneficent omophorion of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia.
Subdeacon David Gould

Dear Subdeacon David: Seriously? Thousands of people died because of tbe actions of your new "mother Church". I sure hope you didn't read this thread and think I could say nothing! Be assured that I can respond to you, whether or not the Paradosis list-censors want me to or not.

In fact, it is better this way; because the more people who realize that they are being duped, the better. To the Traditionalists still there, don't let yourself be used! To the World Orthodox who want to know the Truth, go places where that truth is safe! To those who want to cover it up, the truth always comes out!

And to you, Subdeacon David: if you want a more substantive response, try to write something substantive. When we spoke privately just two days ago after you invited to me to consider some strange item as news, you seemed in a rush after I told you the truth about your "traditional" Metropolitan, as though you were surprised we know anything about him. We probably know more than you do. That's why I am in no rush to catch a train to 93rd St. (It's uptown New York, by the way).

Being "official" in these days is of no value to me, since it means sacrificing the faith.

[JHunt777]

Fr Dcn Joseph,

Seraphim is and has been a member of ROCOR-MP for a few years and has ROCOR-MP priests as assistant moderators. However, I began to suspect over time that I was being moderated; and at first Seraphim denied doing such a thing. It was only later I realized he could be telling the truth-- he could have had someone else moderate me. In any case, the censorship debate came up one last time about a year or two ago. Seraphim issued a public denial on other lists, something I thought strange, but then retreated since.

I exchanged some emails with Seraphim a couple of months ago, and he wasn’t with ROCOR then. I don’t know what his current affiliation is, though. Who do you think these assistant moderators are? Looking over some past messages from Seraphim on the List regarding moderatorial actions, I see no indication at all that there are other moderators besides Seraphim. If you look at the archives, in recent years when he has banned members, he has made formal announcements to this effect, and the reason for these actions have rarely been debated because it is usually very obvious that the person moderated is breaking list rules and behaving in a very unseemly manner, regardless of their ecclesiology or affiliation. Again, if you look at the archives you will see that he laments not have a “board of moderators” to consult with, which obviously leaves him open to accusations of bias. So, I think there is little reason to believe that other moderators are involved, but if you believe this then who do you think is serving in this capacity?

Up until a few months ago, every time my messages were delayed, I'd send a letter to Seraphim, indicating that I had a message waiting in queue (meaning I was moderated). The letter would be, quietly, released immediately. Then the release of the letters became more sportadic to which I protested. Finally, my messages would only sometimes go through, and I realized Seraphim was simply not going to respond anymore.

For what its worth, on three separate occasions between May and July of last year I emailed Seraphim because my messages were also not appearing right away, but were rather taking 15 hrs or a few days or more to appear. Seraphim did not respond to any of these emails, but he may have responded by allowing my posts to appear. When my posts did appear, this didn’t happen immediately after notifying him, which again doesn’t surprise me because I don’t think he checks the email account regularly. On this list, Seraphim has indicated that when a person is new, or if they have changed their username, the system automatically places them on review for a period of time, which I think means that messages do not appear until the moderator gives permission for them to appear. For instance, on March 25, 2009, Seraphim stated:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orthodox- ... age/128255

Hello everyone,

I think the list has calmed down enough for us to try removing the
restriction of total moderation. New members will still be placed on
moderation automatically by the server until such restriction is
removed, and we always reserve the right to put a particular rule-
breaker on review, but regular members will be able to post without
the delay. I am hoping to go to a model like the one I use on the
Convert list where we have a moderator board that can step in when
there is a problem, but where the list is mostly self-policing.

Thanks to everyone who stuck with the list through this period. I know
it is annoying to have to wait for your posts to appear. But I think
most of us would agree that the tone of the list had degenerated to
the point where drastic action was called for.

Seraphim

I do not know why my posts were not appearing promptly in May of 2010, but I did change my user name in June of that year, which might explain why my posts were delayed in June and July. When I changed my user name, this must have placed me in the “new member” category, resulting in “automatic moderation” status from the server. In your case, I notice that before May of this year, “DJS” shows up as the user name most commonly associated with your messages, whereas after May your messages are associated with the user name “Dcn Joseph Suaiden”. I would assume that this change of user names might have triggered the automatic moderation, as seems to have been the case for me last year. As a new member, Searn77 was probably also put on moderation automatically by the server, which would explain why his messages were delayed also.

So, I think there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for why your messages do not appear promptly. It would be nice if Seraphim would respond to your inquiry, and I wish he would respond to my emails also, but I think he probably pays very little attention to the List and to his email account. For instance, in Sept 2 of 2009, Seraphim posted a message to the list under the heading “Total Moderation?”, saying:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orthodox- ... age/132327

Hello everyone,

I'll be honest. I don't read much of the list these days, save for random post.
However, it has come to my attention that there are bad things happening, so I
will start to go back and catch up. I imagine we'll have to look into total
moderation again. In the meantime, please play nice.

Seraphim

I don’t think he has been paying any more attention to the list recently than he did in Sept of 2009. If anything, he is probably paying even less attention. From this message it seems clear also that he was the only moderator at that time, which is probably still the case.

It suits your purposes, Jason, as Seraphim's, to keep a few vocal True Orthodox speaking freely on the Paradosis list (particularly those who don't really engage in discussion, such as Vladimir Moss, a former moderator of Paradosis himself-- I don't know if he is still there.) It gives the impression of a forum free for debate.

Certainly the cause of the TOC/GOC groups is not assisted by inventing imaginary conspiracies. There is hardly any participation of any kind on that list, but among the participants is Vladimir K. who is very vocal in his opposition to ROCOR and the MP, and who does engage the list directly. I realize that Vladimir Moss’ activity on the list is limited to posting his new articles, and that he doesn’t engage in discussion. I mention his postings, though, because if a moderator (or group of “top secret” undercover moderators) wanted to censor the list in order to remove from it anything favorable to the TOC/GOC groups, then Mr. Moss’ articles would certainly not be permitted. His articles are not in the least supportive of ROCOR, the MP, or anyone in communion with the Patriarchates, and yet he seems to post the articles quite freely without any restrictions, including his “History of the Fall of ROCOR” which he posted in March of this year. Do you think anyone who is trying to promote a pro-Reunion or pro-MP position would want to promote this article? That wouldn’t make any sense at all.

Again, in citing the banning of Fr. John Whiteford, Fr. Aidan, and Fr. Ambrose from various lists, my point in doing so is not to argue about whether or not they were justifiably banned, but merely to state that regardless of what has happened in particular cases there are members of TOC/GOC groups and those in communion with the Orthodox Patriarchates who believe they have been censored on one or more lists because of their ecclesiological position rather than their conduct. The claim is made on both sides. I don’t think it would be appropriate here to discuss each case and whether or not the moderator’s actions were appropriate in each case, nor would such a discussion be in any way profitable. Regarding your own case as it pertains to Orthodox-Tradition/Paradosis, however, I think there is a reasonable explanation for the delays you have noticed, and little evidence to support belief in a conspiracy of unknown and unnamed moderators against you in particular, or against TOC/GOC groups in general.

Ideally, there would be a group of engaged moderators for that list, or at least one in ROCOR or in communion with ROCOR, and one who is a member of a TOC/GOC group. Unfortunately, it seems that there is only one moderator for the list, and one who is not very responsive to emails or attentive to the list in general. This is not at all ideal for a discussion list, but while it is unfortunate it is not sinister.

[Suaidan]

Fr Dcn Joseph,
I exchanged some emails with Seraphim a couple of months ago, and he wasn’t with ROCOR then. I don’t know what his current affiliation is, though. Who do you think these assistant moderators are? Looking over some past messages from Seraphim on the List regarding moderatorial actions, I see no indication at all that there are other moderators besides Seraphim. If you look at the archives, in recent years when he has banned members, he has made formal announcements to this effect, and the reason for these actions have rarely been debated because it is usually very obvious that the person moderated is breaking list rules and behaving in a very unseemly manner, regardless of their ecclesiology or affiliation. Again, if you look at the archives you will see that he laments not have a “board of moderators” to consult with, which obviously leaves him open to accusations of bias. So, I think there is little reason to believe that other moderators are involved, but if you believe this then who do you think is serving in this capacity?

Seraphim went with the ROCOR-MP years ago and has not been anything but negative towards the idea of joining any Traditionalist body since-- he has indicated that other World Orthodox parishes are available. I frankly do not know or care if he is on the ROCOR-MP parish roll call. He left for World Orthodoxy and hadn't looked back. The fact that he doesn't state his jurisdiction anymore is irrelevant. Most World Orthodox on the list as a habit don't, including you, Jason.

First, he has previously mentioned that he was trying to spend less time with the list and that two priests in ROCOR-MP were given moderator duties as well. I will address the rest shortly.

For what its worth, on three separate occasions between May and July of last year I emailed Seraphim because my messages were also not appearing right away, but were rather taking 15 hrs or a few days or more to appear. Seraphim did not respond to any of these emails, but he may have responded by allowing my posts to appear. When my posts did appear, this didn’t happen immediately after notifying him, which again doesn’t surprise me because I don’t think he checks the email account regularly. On this list, Seraphim has indicated that when a person is new, or if they have changed their username, the system automatically places them on review for a period of time, which I think means that messages do not appear until the moderator gives permission for them to appear. For instance, on March 25, 2009, Seraphim stated:

Iam going to skip what Seraphim stated because he's also stated he had ROCOR-MP priests doing some of the managerial duties on the list and I know he has had a board which acts as a de-facto moderatorial board (I was an observer of said board as far back as 2001). So if he lacks a board, I know he has MP moderators working with him.

I do not know why my posts were not appearing promptly in May of 2010, but I did change my user name in June of that year, which might explain why my posts were delayed in June and July. When I changed my user name, this must have placed me in the “new member” category, resulting in “automatic moderation” status from the server. In your case, I notice that before May of this year, “DJS” shows up as the user name most commonly associated with your messages, whereas after May your messages are associated with the user name “Dcn Joseph Suaiden”. I would assume that this change of user names might have triggered the automatic moderation, as seems to have been the case for me last year. As a new member, Searn77 was probably also put on moderation automatically by the server, which would explain why his messages were delayed also.

Nice try, but that was simply a change of profile name for the SAME username, which I haven't changed on Yahoo for almost a decade now.

So that argument is worthless. It is simply a difference usually caused by sending an email as opposed to posting on the site.

I don’t think he has been paying any more attention to the list recently than he did in Sept of 2009. If anything, he is probably paying even less attention. From this message it seems clear also that he was the only moderator at that time, which is probably still the case.

I know for a fact that the third instance isn't true, Jason. Need proof as opposed to a theory? You claim that the evidence says Seraphim is the sole moderator, but since I know that isn't true, look here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OrthodoxW ... sage/19230

Actually, I still run the list. Fr. John helps me from time to time. He was
heavily involved a few weeks back because I put the list on 100% moderation for
a time to stop some of the ugly personal attacks. I needed the help since I
work, have a family and so forth and do not have time to sit in front of the
computer all day reading through messages.

As for Fr. Elia, he is not on review at all, so I don't know how he is being
censored. Whatever he posts goes through automatically. We ended the 100%
moderation a few weeks ago, and the whole experiment lasted all of four
weeks--out of the eleven year life of the forum. Maybe his complain dated back
to that four week period.

How did I get involved in this discussion anyway?

Seraphim

So here, Seraphim admitted that putting the whole list on moderation was a four week experiment and a priest (of ROCOR-MP) was helping with the list.

So who's spouting conspiracy theories, Jason?

[Suaidan]

For the record, though, it should be pointed out that just as TOC/GOC members have been banned from various lists moderated by those in communion with the ancient Orthodox Patriarchates, so have members in communion with the Orthodox Patriarchates been banned from various lists moderated by TOC/GOC members. I mention this lest someone should be tempted to think that members of the Orthodox Patriarchates are “heavy on censorship” because they are supposedly “afraid of the truth”, whereas the TOC/GOC members in their “commitment to truth” supposedly are much more open to debate.

For the record, and as a long time witness to these behaviors, I have watched many World Orthodox priests across the board violate list guidelines on the basis that they are priests who deserve "respect". They seem to confuse the internet with their parishes, and have little interest in following rules.

The majority of TOC listmembers will usually get silenced for continuing to repeat a contrary opinion, keep arguing after a moderator threatens, or (the most common among younger laypeople) refuse to accord respect to World Orthodox clergy. In fact, this became a point of debate on the paradosis list, whether priests could be referred to by first name or with quotes around their title; this practice was finally curtailed, but its application became of course lopsided in favor of World Orthodoxy.

[timothyvargas]

Good points Fr.Dcn.Joseph, and agree 100% with what you wrote concerning the Paradosis List...

As for those who are in communion with the "ancient" Orthodox Patriarchates? Definately is NOT those who make up todays "world" denomination led by the Patriarch of Turkey, since they have betrayed the faith time and again. The possesion of property which does NOT belong to you does not mean its rightfully yours. So it is with the Patriarchates, they have been taken by force just like the heretics of old... One thing to remember, God is not worshiped on Mt. Zion or on Mt. Gerizim (world denomination Patriarchate properties), but rather "the true worshippers" (True Orthodox)" will worship the Father in spirit and in the truth, for the Father is seeking such to worship Him." A part of the "world" denomination heresy is that you have to be in communion with the so-called Patriarchs, even if they have fallen head-long into heresy, or have to have big cathedrals or ancient monastic centers... Those of the True Orthodox have chosen the Promised land, while those in the "world" denomination have chosen the stew-pots of Egypt.

It is my prayer that those who have been decieved by the evil one and are in communion with the "world" church, repent and humbly come to be received into the fold of the Church of Christ.

Timothy