bogatyr writes:
"the topic of this thread is ROCOR's ruinous union with the MP . . . "
gee, it doesn't say that. it says "Bishop Gregory's Address to ROCA." so, i would think that Bishop Gregory's Address to ROCA would be the topic, and that any commentary, critiques, observations, opinions, judgments, etc etc etc concerning, or on, Bishop Gregory's Address to ROCA would be acceptable as realting to the -uh- TOPIC of Bishop Gregory's Address to ROCA. while the Address does indeed include the seemingly impending union of ROCOR and the MP as ONE of its topics, it also includes the little story about the MP being behind the persecution of Met. Valentin because the prosecutor said such and such; it also includes Bishop Gregory's statement that he thinks the MP cannot repent. anything mentioned in the Address, then, would be one of the acceptable "topics" of this thread; as well as the Address itself-how it is written, etc etc etc. i mean, i aint right bright, but i aint plumb dumb, neither! and when i was in grade school, when we had multiple choice questions about "what is the topic of this paragraph," hey, i ALWAYS picked the right answer from those multiple choices. well, most of the time, anyway.
oh yeh-bogatyr, you also mentioned something about the size of Met. Valentin's following and how it is not important-i think-in reference to my remark about the "True Orthodox group B" that had bishops and one parish-apparently you missed the "disclaimer" that those comments were about a hy-po-thet-i-cal sit-chee-a-shun. in other woids, it's ooo-ooo-ooonnnleeeeeeeeeeeeeeee maaaaaaaaa-aaaaaaa-aaaaaaaake beleeeeeeve!
bogatyr also commented on the fact that Met. Valentin was the target of some charges; he was acquitted; therefore he is still a bishop. as i remember, the fact that ROCOR deposed Met. Valentin from his status as a bishop was because he undertook episcopal consecrations without permission from the Council of Bishops of ROCOR, and that, no matter what bogatyr's "opinion," according to the official ROCOR version, a) no criminal charges had anything to do with the fact that Met. Valentin was deposed by ROCOR, and b) according to ROCOR, Met. Valentin is no longer a bishop.
bogatyr also stated that Bishop (then Father) Gregory was "one of the few people loyal to ROCOR when HOCNA split . . ." -uh- i THINK i know waht bogatyr means here, but i am not sure. and, anyone unfamiliar with that entire distatsteful episode would be utterly confused by that statement. first of all, there was no such entity as "HOCNA" when the "Elder" Panteleimon, et al, split. Secondly, as the great (-uh-maybe like 500 to 1 . . .) majority of ROCOR members at that time indeed REMAINED as members of ROCOR, it doesn't seem to me that ANYONE could be proclaimed as "one of the few who remained loyal . . . "
and, bogatyr, "ultramontane"????? why the recurrent RC lingo? isnt there some less obscure, less RC way to describe what you mean than one that requires people to look up a link on the internet to find out exactly what it is that you do mean? or is this like the reader's digest "improve your vocabulary" thing?
finally, (poor bogatyr! i really aint pickin on him-but-you know, when you get an opening like this . . . ) bogatyr, you mentioned that Bishop Gregory's "canonicity is as legitimate as that of any other Russian faction . . . " This, my good man, has got to be one of the most utterly unique statements i have ever seen in my life. None of the so-called "other Russian factions" come even close to recognizing the "canonicity" of any of the "other Russian factions," except, of course, that of thier own "faction." I dont think anyone else in the whole wide world (with the exception of your esteemed self!) recognizes or even would suggest that all of these "other Russian factions" share equally in the legitimacy of their claims to "canonicity." Yet, while you seemingly SUPPORT each and every one of these "other Russian factions" CLAIMS to canonicity, you clearly state that you DO NOT support any of the "groups," and which, by "groups," i take it, you mean "the other [any and all, including Bishop Gregory's] Russian factions." all i can say is that you are ONE INTERESTING DUDE, bogatyr!
juvenaly, among others, gives us his "take" and "opinion" on what Bishop Gregory said about the MP repenting. this Adress isn't exactly the Bhagavad Gita, in that it requires, or even invites, a myriad of interpreters to tell us who await with bated breath what it REALLY means!! Bishop Gregory said, point blank, in black and white, "I do not believe the MP can repent." what else can possibly be said about that statement?
fr. george's comments are possibly among the most interesting of the lot, despite the fact that bogatyr is indeed one interesting dude. he quotes the Apostolic Constitution:
"it is a dangerous thing to judge . . . or to determine punishment against a person [and seemingly, since both ROCOR and the MP are being discussed here-a church?] before he is convicted . . . "
then fr. george goes on to comment that forgiveness is one of Bishop Gregory's great attributes, and that the entire ROAC Synod shares that attribute, then says: "Bishop Gregory would extend forgiveness to any who come in repentance . . . "
so, first we hear the danger of judging and determining punishment for those not convicted . . . then we hear that Bishop Gregory would extend forgiveness to any who come in repentance . . . so-ROCOR has already been convicted? did i miss something? when was the trial? if it has, i would like to know who "convicted" them, and when and where this "conviction" took place. because if ROCOR has not yet been convicted . . . well, let's just say that it would make what fr. george says -uh- quite -uh- well, let me put it in the form of a question:
if they aint been convicted, why would they be forgiven or ask forgiveness? and, ROCOR [or the MP for that matter . . . ] must approach Bishop Gregory, or Metropolitan Valentin to seek forgiveness? Huh?
michael woerl
