Thoughts on ROAC

[尼古拉前执事]

Yup! That is basically it in a nut shell!

[Matushka Christina]

Julianna,

It was Father Dionysi who responded. He must have writen when I was logged on. Sorry for the confussion.

[mwoerl]

uh-first of all-:
}Paradosis wrote:

1. If the Cyprianite union and acceptance of Cyprianite ecclesiology was such a horrible thing, then why did Valentine seek out reconciliation with ROCA even after ROCA had united with Cyprian?

He sought it as a last effort to save the ROCOR. {

now, assuming he felt rocor was "the Church," he was trying to "save the Church"? -uh- didnt a bunch of people get really mad when metroplitan sergius said HE was trying to "save the Church"?

You know, first we had rocor; then rocor and the russian parishes under bostonites; then roac and rocorand the russian parishes under bostonites; then rocie, roac and rocor and the russian parishes under bostonites; now we gots rocor, roac, rocie, and another one in russia-i forget what intitials they go by and the russian parishes under bostonites-too much information for me to assimilate. apparently the fragmentation of rocor is turning opponents of the mp into a new 'greek old calendarist' deal-a new one pops up everyday....which has a lot to do, i think, with rocor's initial forays into russia. i dont think a lot of effort was put into checking out the "lay of the land," so to speak...-uh- bishop varnava, et al...
michael woerl

[Monk George]

uh-first of all-:
}Paradosis wrote:

1. If the Cyprianite union and acceptance of Cyprianite ecclesiology was such a horrible thing, then why did Valentine seek out reconciliation with ROCA even after ROCA had united with Cyprian?

He sought it as a last effort to save the ROCOR. {

now, assuming he felt rocor was "the Church," he was trying to "save the Church"? -uh- didnt a bunch of people get really mad when metroplitan sergius said HE was trying to "save the Church"?

_______There is a fundamental difference between Metropolitan Sergios' declaration and Metropolitan Valentine's efforts to bring the ROCOR back to its historical path.

Sergios "saved" the Church by subjecting it to the atheistic authorities, by making the conscience of his false Church one with the atrocities of the communist power. When he declared in July of 1927 that the joys of the Soviet State were the joys of the Church and the sorrows of the State were his sorrows, he united his church with the antichrist.

In the final analysis, in the words of the New Martyrs, Metropolitan Sergios simply saved himself, and nothing else.

Metropolitan Valentine in maintaining some form of communion with ROCA, acted with discernment and mercy. The Church does not believe that the moment a bishop or even a Synod of Bishops makes an ecclesiological error that they have fallen into the pit of apostasy. We all make errors, but if an error has been repeatedly pointed out to those in authority and they persist in the error, then one can safely say that they believe the error to be Orthodox and have fallen from the truth.

When the ROCOR initially accepted communion with Cyprian, they attempted to soothe the flock by saying Cyprian believes and teaches the same as themselves. A mature and spiritually measured man would approach this situation with patience and caution, for by using such a technique as this, he would be able to explain rationally and precisely where the theological error of Cyprianism lies. But by reacting quickly and rashly, the opportunity to save the beacon of true Orthodoxy in the diaspora for the last seventy years would be lost.

I should like to also point out for those who might have heard the typical report that Bishop Gregory over reacts to ecclesiastical issues, that for an entire year after the union with Cyprian, Vladyka attempted in three conscientious open letters to explain the essence of Cyprianism. He was only met with stubborn silence. They could not refute anything he said. When finally they did say something, it wasn't "Father Gregory, you are wrong in saying this or that," it was, "Shut up or else you will be suspended." Then we heard the famous remark from Metropolitan Vitaly: "Going into communion with Cyprian was a mistake, but to correct it, would be a worse mistake"!!!

It is interesting to note that after being in communion with Cyprian for eight years, Metropolitan Vitaly finally acknowledged that he was in communion with a heretic, but it was too late, the damage had already been done.

In Christ,

George, hegumen

[mwoerl]

father george,
i wasn't remarking on what "anyone" saved or did not save-only the statement-it seemed rather odd to me-met sergius was criticized for making such a statement-as he could never "save" the church, only christ can save the church. it just seemed odd to see a remark about another bishop who was going to "save" the church. if indeed that was what was said.....a guy in our parish at the time had a lot of matrial about met cyprian-i do not know if these were the materials from then fr gregory or not-the materials i saw included a kind of laundry list of episcopal conmsecrations that was nearly indecipherable concerning its supposed conclusions, and did not amount to much more than "cyprian is bad because i say so." so many claims and counter claims-and then the counter counter claims and then the .... oh, never mind....
do you remember when i visited the skete? and from st louis?
michael woerl