Looks like ROCOR priest concelebrated with EP and MP priests

[ania]

I'll do my best to find first hand accounts of St.John commemorating Patriarch Sergius. As of now, most of the info I have is from a second hand, yet reliable source. I know that Ania may be able to give you some concrete info on this. I'll ask and see if she can post here.

Hey, I gotta check with my dad about some this stuff, (he's writing his disertation on St. John, and has collected documents from all over the world regarding him, writen by him, & to him, and because of this is having a lot of trouble stuffing all that knowledge into a max 200 pages.)so I'll write probably on Monday when it will probably be irrelavent.
Ania

[bogoliubtsy]

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?

Is it acceptable to be in communion with the "Oriental Orthodox"? Well, I know I'm probably walking right into a messy trap here but I'll have to say "No", not at this point. As much respect as I have for the Oriental Orthodox I think there has to be another council, maybe even an Ecumenical one, where the Oriental Orthodox question has to be figured out and the Oriental Orthodox have to, without reservations, prove conclusively that they believe in the two perfect natures of Christ. This "proof" can either come through effectively showing that the question has been one of semantics all along, or that they acknowledge their past monophysite beliefs but now reject them. Ok...now come the attacks on my "faulty ecclesiology".

Let me continue with my clarifications from above. I'd also like to add that I am certainly not a theologian. I'm a 24 year old kid who knows some things about some things pertaining to the Church, and even less about other things. The most I can do is utilize the little knowledge, smarts, and common sense I have combined with what I know about the Fathers and what certain trusted hierarchs and spiritual authorities say to come up with "conclusions" on theological issues. I suppose that formula to some degree pertains to many of us on this forum. I'm here for the exchange of ideas... to put forth what I believe to be true and Orthodox and to listen to what other people have to say on certain issues. Of course, the reason we take certain "positions" is that we believe them to be true...however, I'm officially taking it down a notch now, stepping onto a soapbox a little lower to the ground, and utilizing this forum more for the exchange of ideas and less as a platform for smashing other's theological approaches. I think there are many well informed, intelligent, and good people on this forum and I'd like to remain cordial, kind, and open with all of you.
This doesn't mean of course that we can't, with a spirit of kindness, challenge the beliefs of others, but I believe we should, starting with myself, keep things open and friendly.

On another note... I find it pretty funny that on this forum I seem to take the more "mainstream" approach in my arguments...it may seem siding often with "world Orthodoxy". I think Anastasios mentioned once that the same thing happens to him when he contributes here. In "real life" I tend to be a bit more "traditional" in my approach at times...probably because many Orthodox people I've dealt with in the recent past have been the modernist type. It might just be my argumentative personality? Who knows...

Anyway,
That's about it.

[ania]

Okay, here goes...
First I would like to note, that before embarking on his monastic life, St. John was an attorney, & knew logistics very well. He worked for a time in a court in Harkov, Ukraine as a lawyer.
St John, during the confusion of post-revolution & WW2, ordered the parishes under him in Shanghai to commemorate Alexey I. My father has a copy of the decree, where, St. John in his own handwriting, wrote that as Alexey I is acknowledged by all other Patriarchs, (Jerusalem, Georgian, etc), they are to commemorate him until further notice.
News came finally from Europe finally that Met. Anastasy was alive, and the synod was now based in Germany. As St. John had given his oath to follow Anastasy, who had been designated before WW2 as leader of the free church, he began commemorating him.
Also, he went to the Soviet Embassy in Shanghai, & realized the evils of the propaganda there, and decided not to strengthen his ties with Moscow.
However, his superior, Bsp. Victor, still commemorated Alexey I. St. John & Bsp. Victor served together, each commemorating their own leaders. Eyewitnesses said that after a while, it was quite common for the supporters of St. John to stand on his side of the church (meaning where he stood when on the amvon) and Bsp. Victor's on the other side.
Dad also has a copy of a letter to Met. Anasastasy about the confusion, but they apparently served together in peace.
Also in Dad's possession is a copy of the Cheen Pravoslavia (Rite of Orthodoxy) that was used in Shanghai from 1946-48 (St. John departed Shanghai in 1949). On it, at the Mnogaya Letia, (Many Years), were the names of the patriarchs at that time, including Alexey I. Also included were Met. Anastasy, Bsp. Victor, & St. John.
In all the writings/documents that my father has been able to find, and in all the interviews he has had with those that knew St. John well, never have any of them said that the MP does not have Grace. St. John acknowledged, that because he was consecrated a bishop under Met. Anastasy, he gave his oath to him, & therefore followed him. If he had given his oath to Alexey I, in the MP he would have stayed. It was logistics.
On a side note, St. John served panihidas for both the White Army dead & the Red Army dead. He said that among them were Orthodox souls, and that during WW2 the Red Army was protecting Russia from the Germans.
Well, that's quite a mouthful, hope it resolves something.
Ania

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Ok...now come the attacks on my "faulty ecclesiology".

No attacks,

The most I can do is utilize the little knowledge, smarts, and common sense I have combined with what I know about the Fathers and what certain trusted hierarchs and spiritual authorities say to come up with "conclusions" on theological issues. I suppose that formula to some degree pertains to many of us on this forum.

Yes it does. And I think if everyone opens their hearts to the truth, and I don't mean just say it and convince yourself that you are, but really do it, the Holy Spirit will lead everyone by the hand to the truth . If not today because of our lack of knowledge, then tomorrow with persistent study out of love for God.

I'm here for the exchange of ideas... to put forth what I believe to be true and Orthodox and to listen to what other people have to say on certain issues. Of course, the reason we take certain "positions" is that we believe them to be true...however, I'm officially taking it down a notch now, stepping onto a soapbox a little lower to the ground, and utilizing this forum more for the exchange of ideas and less as a platform for smashing other's theological approaches. I think there are many well informed, intelligent, and good people on this forum and I'd like to remain cordial, kind, and open with all of you.

This is very true and a great comment. What we find on this board are just that, human thoughts, which represent an actual person, but is not the person themselves. It is therefore easy to think ill of someone because they have been reduced to a set of thoughts which we may disagree with. But each person is so much more, and we often don't perceive this until we have actually met them.

This doesn't mean of course that we can't, with a spirit of kindness, challenge the beliefs of others, but I believe we should, starting with myself, keep things open and friendly.

Yes, but how do you explain the fact that I am right and you are wrong?

On another note... I find it pretty funny that on this forum I seem to take the more "mainstream" approach in my arguments...it may seem siding often with "world Orthodoxy". I think Anastasios mentioned once that the same thing happens to him when he contributes here. In "real life" I tend to be a bit more "traditional" in my approach at times...probably because many Orthodox people I've dealt with in the recent past have been the modernist type. It might just be my argumentative personality? Who knows...

Well, perhaps you agree with some of what is being said but find yourself having to disagree and defend those other things you don't agree with, which happens to be everything that would push completley in the GOC camp.

Well, another day is going to go by before I can really nail you to the wall Peter ; Some business came up today that is just to important.

If you could please answer one more question in the mean time...

Why do you find it nesessary to defend an idea of Grace with those you also agree are heretics, such as Bartholomew?

[Savva24]

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

Dear Peter,

I hope you don't think I was trying to attack your general point of view. I agree with what you usually have to say. It is obvious that St. John would be considered liberal from the point of view of many today. It many have been a minor point but I just wanted confermation of your statement because it contradicted what I had read in the past.

I don't really take anything Fr. Herman has to say too seriously judging from his slander and lies concerning things in the past (Take a look at the book ''Not of this World'' and you will see all kinds of personal axes to grind). But from Ania's post I am beginning to get a clear picture of what was happening in Shanghai at the time. Thank you both.

In Christ,

Nicholas (Savva)

[Seraphim Reeves]

One thing that I do not understand, is how some seem to believe that errors and miscalculations made in the past (particularly when they were made in a situation of terrible confusion), which were eventually corrected, represent some kind of precedent for us now?

It's quite clear that St.John came to severe any relations (as remote as they were) with the MP, and that as the smoke setteled and things became more clear, that he was not some closet admirer of the MP or a proponent for it's soundness.

What is also clear, is that ROCOR herself (culminating in the person of St.Philaret) not only had long ceased to recognize the Soviet church, but had go so far as to clearly state that she was beyond the pale of Orthodoxy (see the other post in this thread on this subject.)

Thus, it's very disingenous, I think, to pretend this somehow excuses the activities of certain persons NOW, regarding the MP - particularly when they are operating with far more clarification, and after a lot more water has flowed under the bridge.

Seraphim

[ania]

One thing that I do not understand, is how some seem to believe that errors and miscalculations made in the past (particularly when they were made in a situation of terrible confusion), which were eventually corrected, represent some kind of precedent for us now?

No matter how horrible the postal service was back in those days, the news that the new ROCA Synod was up & operational in Germany came shortly after the end of the war. He was in corrispondance with Met. Anastasy from then on. The initial confusion was cleared up rather quickly. How then do you explain him serving along side the MP until his departure from China in 1949? Now there's a braintwister.

It's quite clear that St.John came to severe any relations (as remote as they were) with the MP, and that as the smoke settled and things became more clear, that he was not some closet admirer of the MP or a proponent for it's soundness.Seraphim

Granted, St. John disaproved the MP being used as a propaganda machine. As for "any relations (as remote as they were) with the MP," I guess my next task will be to do some research into if & what kind of relations he had with the MP while he was in France & San Fransisco, after all, they do have a church there. I'll do that tonight or tomorrow night (need my free night-time minutes to make the calls).

What is also clear, is that ROCOR herself (culminating in the person of St.Philaret) not only had long ceased to recognize the Soviet church, but had go so far as to clearly state that she was beyond the pale of Orthodoxy (see the other post in this thread on this subject.)Seraphim

I highly doubt you ever met Met. Philaret, however I have. (Granted I was about 4 when he died, but whatever). That's besides the point, I want to say that my family was very close to him. He ordained by grandfather to priesthood, & bestowed my father with the rank or proto-deacon (he was mad at Bsp. Anthony of San Fran becuase he wanted to be the one to make my dad a deacon, but Bsp. Anthony did it while Met. Philaret was traveling.) When ever he came to San Fran, he would come to our apartment, play with us kids, (my sister is still very proud that he taught her how to snap her fingers), and chat with my parents. Before that, when my parents were living near NYC, they would go to monthly chats/dinners held by Met. Philaret, for the local young people. My parents specifically remember one young man, who was leaving for the USSR for a long period of study in Moscow, if he could have communion in any church over there. Met. Philaret answered that certainly he may. Anyway the point is, in all that time, from the time my parents met him (more than 35 years ago) he always lammented the enslavement of the MP, but never, ever, ever, did he say that they were not part of the whole of the Russian Orthodox Church. As far as him being a saint... well, we know he was a good pious man, but I fear people are glorifying his ideals, or what they think were his ideals, rather than that he led an exemplery Orthodox monastic life.

Thus, it's very disingenous, I think, to pretend this somehow excuses the activities of certain persons NOW, regarding the MP - particularly when they are operating with far more clarification, and after a lot more water has flowed under the bridge.Seraphim

Actually, that can be used both ways, describing both factions, pro-MP & anti-MP.

Well, I'm almost done with the box of raisins I brought for breakfast, it's time to start thinking about lunch.

Sorry if this was a bit longwinded & disjointed, I was typing in spare minutes at work, but hopefully it makes some kind of sence.

Toodles,
Ania