Address to ROCA, by Bishop Gregory

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Michael / Seraphim,

I recently read of a study that showed school children feel they are pushed/hit by other kids 40% harder than they actually push or hit themselves, but in actuality, the force is the same. This is why the study said schoolyard fights escalate.

Not that I am comparing anyone to a school kid, I suppose myself if anyone. But the point is, it is always easier to pick on someone than to be picked on. I know I don't like it.

But I don't think this is entirley the case here.

Michael wrote:

I think it very indicative of the situation of these various True Orthodox groups, that every time a question is asked on here how this or that group happened to originate, or what its relations to another of the groups consist of, the answer usually seems to begin with something like, "well, i do not really want to answer this in public . . . "

Just like there are many Orthodox books you should have a blessing of a priest to read, there are many issues people just waking up from the coma called new-calendarism should not read. I believe the scandals created by the few ambitious and nominal genuine Orthodox are the single biggest reason keeping ecumenists away.

In other words, people are never healed instantly so to apply all the cure at once sometimes means death.

[fserafim]

Dear Michael,

It seems to me that this list is not soley a ROAC list, although their views have suddenly appeared in force in recent months. But the list is beginning to remind me of Speakers' Corner in Hyde Park, London where everyone stands on a soap box and shouts into the air. Poor Fr A.Lebedev, Poor Gregory of Colorado (He once phoned me to warn about the Cyprianites - a very strange message that was!) and perhaps poor Deacon Lev aka Archbishop Lazar. The smaller the group the larger the voice.

However I look forward to some informed discussions governed by the spirit of Christian charity. I think Nick is doing an admirable job!

Yours in Christ,

Fr Serafim

[Bogatyr]

:ohvey: Sadly, when the discussion does not lapse into their favour and their personal attacks are parried, they don't pursue the issues. They cast smokescreens of "baiting and marginalized voices heard too loudly", etc. when the failure, the moral failure is that of their position. The lukewarmness of their message is gauged in their approach. They won't head on address the new calendarists, ecumenists, etc. because they are not interested in that. They want to be like them. This is the craven moral collapse of their party. They won't approach the issues on ROCOR's terms, because they know they don't represent the thought of ROCOR. Where do you hear +Archbishop Averky, Blessed +Metropolitan Philaret or St. John of San Francisco, Fr. Seraphim of Platina, JORDANVILLE, amongst their voices? They have "informed" discussion framed by the likes of Fr. Lebedeff, but not by the witness of ROCOR. This is truly the party of betrayal and a diasporan gang preparing to give the kiss of judas to Russia. Why won't they discuss Russia, the MP, in their rush to dialogue and union at all costs? Why? Because the very reality of Russia contradicts their arguments and places their witness in question and reveals a nefarious goal centered on power and petty, personal interests. That is not worthy of ROCOR, neither its laity nor its clerics!
ORTHODOXIA I THANATOS!
Rostislav Mikhailovich Malleev-Pokrovsky
PS One is left with an unsavoury and sleazy feeling when political parties intrude in the place of actual positions. Kyprianites, HOCNA, etc. If the message were anonymous concerning this ruinous union and the cacodox ecclesiology of the liberal party, the heresy of ecumenism, it would be nonetheless true. Ultimately, what we must put first is the test of WHO is in fidelity to the Fathers, the Canons, the Phronema of the Church. We will find that that is where the liberal party is indicted and it will be made clear that their attacks on resistors are nothing more than "divide et impera". Such a concentrated political initiative is indeed worthy of sergianist, masons, oppressors of the Church, but supposed voices of ROCOR?! I think not.

[Bogatyr]

We ask the liberals to clarify their positions:
1). Is renovationism not anathemized?
2). Is the calendar reform legitimate?
3). Is sergianism morally justified?
4). Are the communist autocephalies canonical? Do they recognize the American "autocephalous" church (OCA)?
5). Was the lifting of anathemas by athenagoras justified?
6). Were the heirarchs of ROCOR in error when they broke communion with the ecumenists?
7). Is ecumenism heresy?
. Do you feel it is appropriate that latins partake of the Gifts?
By framing the issue with these questions, we can best understand WHO these people are and IF indeed they reflect the positions of ROCOR. I will be the first to say that this lebedeff party does not.
ORTHODOXIA I THANATOS!
Rostislav Mikhailovich Malleev-Pokrovsky

[mwoerl]

OOD,

I am sorry, but I do not agree with your reasoning here concerning "not in public . . . "

This list, it seems, includes many inquirers. Some of these inquirers, seemingly extremely ill-informed about almost every issue that is relevant, still want to seem "informed" about everything, and say things that they may undoubtedly later regret.

One of the reasons that I am not happy with current events in the ROCOR is that it seems some people are simply trying to pull one over. Many of the "pro-MP" clergy faction on the various lists engage in hateful and decietful conduct, not only unworthy of clergy, but unworthy of anyone who would call themselves a Christian. One of the so-called "leading clergy" informs us that ecumenism is no longer an issue with the MP, because Metropolitan Kirill (Gundayev) has stated that "ecumenism has met a dead end." This is his proof. Yet, when one takes the trouble to find what Metropolitan Kirill actually said, one finds that Metropolitan Kirill went on to say that, therefore, "ecumenism must be renewed." Either this leading clergyman does not do much research into his "proofs," or he figures that everyone else is stupid, and that they will not bother to check out what he has said (since, oh my- HE said it!), and feels this intellectuial dishonesty is somehow "permitted" to him, for his cause, and for some "greater good." My point? No one wants to feel that they are either considered too stupid to check further, or that someone is trying to pull the wool over their eyes.

As I mentioned, there are many inquirers on this list. I would not want to be responsible for leading an inquirer in a certain direction, after refusing to disclose information that would possibly influence that inquirer, and have him find that once he arrives at the destination through my directions, he feels only that I was trying to pull the wool over his eyes. If things have happened, then they have happened. What-we must be convinced of the absolute total rightness of sometihng before we are told about any possible conflicts, drawbacks, etc.? If we buy a new car, don't we want to know about possible defects BEFORE we buy? Or would we thank the salesman for hiding those defects until AFTER we bought the car?

I can hear the protests already-"becoming Orthodox" or "joining a Church" is not "buying a car." I realize that. It is incalculably more important than buying a car-does anyone not agree? Which, to my way of thinking, makes it incalculably MORE important that one has all the pertinent information beforehand. Once you buy the car, you are stuck. Once you join up, in many ways, you are stuck. Once you join up, you can be told anything and everything, up to and including "oh, we are not allowed to question our bishops or clergy," or the ever popular, "oh, that is not important, it is none of your business, don't worry about it." But it seems to me, once you sign up, you are less likely to get a "full disclosure." If someone feels that they have something to hide-that is strike one as far as I am concerned. If someone cannot admit past indiscretions or explain discrepancies in an atmosphere of honesty-I am simply noit going to bother to inquire further. None of us are perfect; when we all realize that this applies equally to all of us-whether joe schmoe in the back of the church, or bishop _________ in the front of the church, the better off we will all be. I feel that basically asking someone to make such an important decision without all the information is totally unfair as well as uncharitable in the extreme.

As far as the "schoolboys" example or reference-I made my statement; in that statement, I neither addressed Seraphim, nor did I mention Metropolitan Valentin. Therefore, I was very surprised to see that he somehow thought what I said was addressed towards him or someone or something he apparently holds dear. I was further surprised to see that he claimed to know all about what I "really" meant. When one makes such statements, they simply must be backed up. I realize that I may be somewhat argumentative at times-or at least perceived as such. But I saw too much of this kind of thing on the other lists. People are continuously accused of saying things they did not say. Of course, when the accusers are asked to explain, they usually do not, because they cannot. SO, if anyone wants to question what I have said, they are of course free to. But, I am equally free to ask for an explanation myself.

While the subject of explanations has come up, possibly an explanation here would be in order, as I have a question. I read the one statement on here by Bishop Gregory of Denver and Colorado, concerning unity among the True Orthodox. He stated that (correct me if I am wrong . . . ) unity should be declared, or at least explored, between ROAC and the Lamia Synod, which he explained both had an unquestionable canonical basis. This statement seemed to directly contradict that in an interview with Archbishop Chrysostomos II of Athens, in which he stated that the origin of the Lamia Synod lies in the defection of Bishops under him who took exception to an impending investigation of a bishop for homosexuality, and that the separation was eventually over administrative grounds only.

Isn't a separation on administrative grounds simply "schism?" If your ruling bishops or first hierarch are not preaching heresy, can there be a canonically justifiable separation for administrative reasons? If Archbishop Chrysostomos II of Athens is correct in what he stated, then isn't Bishop Gregory of Denver and Colorado totally incorrect in stating that the Lamia Synod has an "unquestionable canonical foundation?" Wasn't Bishop Gregory of Denver and Colorado at one time a member of the church of the Lamia Synod? Why would he leave this church with an "unquestionable canonical foundation" then?

Or is this simply one of those questions that we are not going to deign to approach on this forum? When someone does something-uh-questionable-we do not "harm" them or "help" their enemies if someone asks and are then told about this questionable activity. The harm and the "help" to the enemies comes from the original questionable activity in the first place. As I stated before, and it seems Bogatyr misunderstood my point-why is it that hierarchs of ROCOR are "fair game" on this forum, but other "certain hierarchs" are "off-limits" to any and all criticism and questions? As a matter of fact, Seraphim "chastized" me sort of similarly on another occasion. I asked him this very same question then, and, of course, he did not answer. Nor do I expect an answer from him in this case. That much is clearly expressed in his criticism!

Michael Woerl

[mwoerl]

In an interview with the Russian NTV, in December 2001, Metropolitan Valentin stated:

"NTV: What would rapprochement of the ROCOR and MP require?
Met. Valentin: Either a change of mind by the hierarchs of the MP, their request to those who have preserved the Truth for instruction and teachings. Such a rapprochement we would honor . . . "

This interview can be found on this forum, under the topic "Met. Valentin on the MP and the ROCOR."

In his "Adress to ROCA," Bishop Gregory of Denver & Colorado states:

"The MP has not repented, and I believe, cannot repent . . . "

In stating that "we" would "honor such a rapprochement" between the MP and the ROCOR, that is, one that would invole the repentance of the MP Hierarchy, it seems Met. Valentin is not in agreement with Bishop Gregory's statement that "the MP . . . cannot repent . . . "

Code: Select all

Michael Woerl

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Michael,

Much of what is done here, whether it is recognized or not, is pastoral. This can be constructive or destructive as you seem to agree.

I would offer the thought that the path for each person being drawn out of the ecumenist church is specially lit by the Holy Spirit with the love only God can provide - and each circumstance is very unique. If we should find ourselves in the midst of this wonderous miracle, then we should take the same care as a hospital would a person who is critically ill.

I have found in my limited and sinful existence that people are many times entrenched in their ideas the more they are opposed. The most useful care and effort is to wait for a person to come out with his own question, to indicate on his own that he is now ready to seek out the answers to a certain matter, it is then that you can pray and carefully point in the right direction.

People truly seeking the truth will always find it - it is not for us to tell them when. Setting the "Lamp up high" means we can show if they are looking, but if they are not looking and are not asking about something they are not ready for, then I feel it is wrong to grab their head and make them look. Of course the well placed comment is sometimes effective.

And I feel people come here looking for answers to some of the more basic questions, they are not ready to hear that Bishop such and such is rumored to have a tatoo on his arm and that therefore his synod are apostates. Of course that is an exageration, and I do have my own most correct views