Looks like ROCOR priest concelebrated with EP and MP priests

Feel free to tell our little section of the Internet why you're right. Forum rules apply.


Post Reply
bogoliubtsy
Sr Member
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed 16 April 2003 4:53 pm
Location: Russia

Post by bogoliubtsy »

Paradosis wrote:

Those who are condemned condemn themselves, for having seen the light they willingly choose the darkness. (cf Jn. 3:16-18

Justin,

I agree with you...the bishops at a local council or can make judgements on the Universal Church's state of affairs. Their hands are not tied, as you say, and they are not prevented from proclaiming what they believe to be the truth. However, as was stated in different forms a couple of times, ROCOR made the statement as the type of judgement that would later hopefully be affirmed and accepted by the entire Church- leading the way...in a way. Until the time of the Universal Church's acceptance of the anathema though, the ban on concelebrating with those still wrestling with ecumenism and ecumenism's place in the Church is De Facto, and not De Jour. This, I believe, ties in with your quote above and what Fr. Alexander has written. The idea of willingly choosing darkness. I believe there will, or should come a time when the Orthodox World must either knowingly and willingly choose the path of the Branch Theory(which the anathema condemns) or must reject it outright in a Universal Statement of the Church. This might come after certain hierarchs are asked point blank about these issues and certain sides are taken.(but then again, it doesn't seem the apostasy should be that easy to categorize!)
Just some thoughts.

bogoliubtsy
Sr Member
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed 16 April 2003 4:53 pm
Location: Russia

Post by bogoliubtsy »

Daniel wrote:

Peter,

I'm a little confused. Was that Vladyka Vitaly, former First Hierarch of the ROCA, commemorating Sergius who handed the Church in Russia over to the Communists?

Daniel,
No, this is Archbishop Vitaly Maximenko, the founder of Holy Trinity Seminary who looked favorably(apparently) upon commemorating Patriarch Sergius out of obedience.

Daniel
Member
Posts: 443
Joined: Thu 10 July 2003 9:00 pm

Post by Daniel »

Peter J. Hatala wrote:

Daniel,
No, this is Archbishop Vitaly Maximenko, the founder of Holy Trinity Seminary who looked favorably(apparently) upon commemorating Patriarch Sergius out of obedience.

Thank you, Peter! That takes care of my confusion.

Savva24
Member
Posts: 180
Joined: Sat 14 June 2003 10:25 am

Re: Sounds like hand washing :(

Post by Savva24 »

Also, in helping to clarify the anathema is the context of the tone, history, and raison d'etre of ROCOR from the beginning. I think we shouldn't forget that Archbishop Vitaly Maximenko commemorated Patriarch Sergius in the 1940's simply out of obedience to the concept of Church order...or when St. John was doing the same thing in Shanghai for a time.

Code: Select all

Dear Peter,

I would be very surprized to find out if this were true about St. John during his Shangai years. I have read the exact opposite in at least three different places. One was in the book Man of God about the life of St. John in a section by Protopriest Elias Ven, the Chinese priest (still living, 102 years old!) who spent the the entire time St. John was in Shangai with him. I don't have the book anymore and it has been some time since I read it, but Fr Elias writes about how they were critisized and persecuted by all the other Russian bishops in China for the very fact that only St. John and his clergy would not commemorate the Patriarch.
In another place, in an article (one of those ''101 reasons why Sergianism is evil'' Vladimir Moss articles, I forget which one, you know the type) it was also shown that St. John refused to commemorate the Patriarch.
The final place I saw this fact was in the account of a Sobor of the OCA around 1970 (around the time of autocephily) written up by Archbishop John of San Francisco (the OCA one, Shakovski???) in which they make a laborous polemic against the ''Karlovsky synod'' ( aka:ROCOR). In it one of the big gripes they had was that St. John was the only bishop in China that would not recognize the Patriarch. This last source would be the easiest one for me to find a quote from out of the three if you want me to search around.

Anway I really have to run. Sorry this is so sloppy I am writing it while an my way out.

In Christ,

Nicholas (Savva)

bogoliubtsy
Sr Member
Posts: 666
Joined: Wed 16 April 2003 4:53 pm
Location: Russia

Post by bogoliubtsy »

Ok,
This info might be slow coming. I want to make a couple of things clear first though. I'm definately not trying to "prove" somehow that the ROCOR hierarchy were corrupt, or believed in the freedom of the MP, etc. I'm not trying to prove that commemorating the Patriarch of Russia was correct even out of obedience during the Soviet era. The point I'm trying to make is that there has been room for these types of things(a commemoration for a certain reason, concelebrations with certain jurisdictions, etc) to occur in the past within ROCOR without it causing major schisms.

This is an account from Herman Podmoshesky. I know some might doubt his credibility, but I don't believe he'd make something like this up especially after he took an even more hardline stance upon leaving ROCOR. Here St. John isn't commemorating Sergius, but Alexei I.

Archbishop John, according to Mrs. Shakhmatova, was not a narrow ecclesiastical fanatic. He did not believe in jurisdictions. When he arrived in Shanghai, there were many Orthodox ecclesiastical denominations. He united them all, served everywhere, became available to all, loved all, and eventually saved many. During the Second World War, when pro-Soviet ideas were in fashion and all the Russian bishops in the Far East accepted the Moscow Patriarchate, Archbishop John, as true son of the Orthodox Church, also commemorated the Patriarch of Moscow, Alexis I, but he did not cease commemorating the Russian Synod to whom he gave vows as a bishop

User avatar
尼古拉前执事
Archon
Posts: 5126
Joined: Thu 24 October 2002 7:01 pm
Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Non-Phylitist
Location: United States of America
Contact:

Post by 尼古拉前执事 »

http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/antioch_innovation.htm

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ecum_branch98.htm

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/thessaloniki_roc.htm

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_critique.htm

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyclical.htm

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/antioch_mono.htm

TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOLY SYNOD OF ANTIOCH

Prayers to God and fraternal greetings in our Lord, Jesus Christ.

It is our pleasure to inform you that pertaining to the Holy Synod decision concerning our unity with the Holy Syriac Church, a meeting was held in Damascus at the Orthodox Syriac Patriarchate on July 22, 1991. The following hierarchs attended the meeting: His Beatitude Patriarch Ignatius (Zakka) I (Iwass), His Beatitude Patriarch Ignatius IV, Metropolitan George Khodre, Malatius Barnabas, Aphram Barsoum, Isaic Saka, and Paul Al-Soukie.

After the discussion the participants consented to issue a draft which was preceded by a letter and whose contents were agreed upon to be discussed at the next meeting. It will assume its official status after the agreement of the Holy Synod: and what is sees as appropriate to the matter during the forthcoming Holy Synod meeting.

The Lord is always with us

Patriarch IGNATIUS IV
Damascus, Syria

To All Our Children,
Protected By God,
Both Clergy and Laity of
The Holy See of Antioch

Beloved:

You must have heard of the continuous efforts for decades by our Apostolic See with the sister Orthodox Syriac Church to foster a better knowledge and understanding of both churches whether on the dogmatic or pastoral level. Those attempts are nothing but a natural expression that the Orthodox Churches, and especially those within the Holy See of Antioch, are called to articulate the will of the Lord that all may be one, just as the Son is One with the Heavenly Father.

It is our duty and that of our brothers in the Syriac Church to witness to Christ in our Eastern area where He was born, preached, suffered, was buried and rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and sent down His Holy and Life-Giving Spirit upon His holy apostles.

All the meetings, the fellowship, the oral and written declarations meant that we belong to One Faith even though history had brought forward the phase of our division more than the aspects of our unity.

All this has called upon our Holy Synod of Antioch to initiate a quick desire for our Church in the See of Antioch, for a unity that preserves for each Church its original Eastern heritage whereby the one Antiochian Church benefits from its sister Church and profits from its rich traditions, literature and holy rituals.

Every endeavour and pursuit in the direction of coming together of the two Churches is based on the conviction that this orientation is from the Holy Spirit, and it will give the Eastern Orthodox image more brightness and elegance that has lacked for centuries before.

Therefore, the Holy Synod of Antioch saw fit to translate the brotherly approachment relationship between the two Churches, the Antiochian Orthodox and the Syriac Orthodox for the edification of their faithful wherever they happen to be.

The Holy Synod of Antioch has decided the following matters:

1) The complete and mutual respect between the two Churches for their rituals, spirituality, heritage and holy fathers; and the full protection of both the Antiochian and Syriac liturgical practices.

2) The incorporation of the fathers of both Churches and their heritage in general in the Christian education curriculum and theological teaching; and the exchange of theological professors and students.

3) The refraining from accepting members of one Church in the membership of the other whatever the reasons might be.

4) Organizing meetings of both Synods whenever need and necessity may arise.

5) Leaving every Church as a reference for its members in all matters pertaining to marriage, divorce, adoption etc.

6) If two bishops of the two different Churches meet for a spiritual service the one with the majority of the people will generally preside. But if the service is for the sacrament of holy matrimony the bishop of the bridegroom will preside.

7) Whatever has been previously mentioned does not apply to the concelebration among the bishops in the Divine Liturgy.

8) Whatever has been said in number six applies to the clergy of both Churches.

9) If one priest of either Church happens to be in a certain area he will serve the Divine Mysteries for the members of both Churches including the Divine Liturgy and the sacrament of holy matrimony. The same priest will keep an independent record for both Churches and transmit the registration of the members of the sister Church to its spiritual authority.

10) If two priests of both Churches happen to be in a certain community they will take turns, and in case they concelebrate the one with the majority of the people will preside.

11) If a bishop from one Church and a priest from the sister Church happen to concelebrate, presiding naturally belongs to the bishop even though being in the community of the priest on the condition that there are people of both Churches.

12) Ordinations into the Holy Orders are performed by the spiritual authorities on candidates in every respective Church prefereably in the presence of the brothers from the other sister Church.

13) Godfathers, Godmothers and witnesses in the sacrament of holy matrimony are allowed to be chosen from the members of both Churches without any discrimination.

14) In all mutual celebrations the first clergyman in ordination will preside over the ceremony.

15) All organizations from both Churches will co-operate in all matters whether educational, cultural and social for the enrichment of the brotherly spirit.

We promise you on this occasion to continue strengthening our relationship with the sister Church and all other Churches for all to become one community under one Shepherd.

OrthodoxyOrDeath

Post by OrthodoxyOrDeath »

I just have one question for Peter before I address his latest repsonse, which summarizes his position (thank you, it clear things up).

Is it acceptable to be in communion with the "Oriental Orthodox"? In other words, do you trust your leaders judgement as being sanctifying, or condemning?

Post Reply