Comment of Met. Laurus

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


User avatar
GOCTheophan
Member
Posts: 367
Joined: Mon 11 September 2006 7:46 pm
Location: Ireland.
Contact:

Post by GOCTheophan »

scwaterfowl wrote:

Pravoslavnik,
I
Theophan,
How did we make the jump to Rome?? At least the Copts say the same creed as we do. Again, ROCOR has always been in communion with Antioch, but our clergy have not concelebrated. I may not like everything the Antiochians do, but they are still Orthodox. Maybe you are concerned that now they may become more traditional?? Communion/concelebration works both ways.

Juvenaly,
Apology accepted. :wink:

Because of what Patriarch Alexis and his friend Pavle have said about the current and previous Popes. Putin who was the driving force behind the ROCOR/MP merger and as the cermonies of unification showed is an extremely important player in all this has said that he wants the MP to work out some deal with the Vatitican. With what was the majior critic of false ecumenism now out of the way all is set for the apostasy to speed up. Will we in two or three years accept to see you here telling us that your Russian Church was ALWAYS one with the RCC basically? I can already hear the arguments that will be used. I heard them when I was in your MP.

How can a Church throw out an Ecumenical council and still be considered Orthodox?

And as regards being in Communion how can that be when Antioch and all the other fallen away Patriachates considered ROCOR to be non-canonical, considered ROCOR to be schismatic?

Have you ever heard the words "Karlovitsky schism"? Have you ever wondered why ROCOR used to take priests fleeing the apostasy of false ecumenism without canonical release, priests who in some cases had been defrocked?

Communion and concelebration works both ways you say?

I have reservations about where Drewmiester and Juvenaly bow their heads, but they at least are trying to hold onto the Orthodox faith in these dark times. In all likelihood they are much more truelly Christian than me (which wouldnt be hard). You however believe yourself above Ecumenical councils. Not a good starting point.

Theophan.

scwaterfowl

Post by scwaterfowl »

Who says we are non-canonical??

In a way, here anyway, I guess they are correct. All of the US could be considered non-canonical; how else would you explain four Orthodox Churches in one city (I'm sure there are others who could claim more than four).

sc

User avatar
GOCTheophan
Member
Posts: 367
Joined: Mon 11 September 2006 7:46 pm
Location: Ireland.
Contact:

Post by GOCTheophan »

scwaterfowl wrote:

Who says we are non-canonical??

In a way, here anyway, I guess they are correct. All of the US could be considered non-canonical; how else would you explain four Orthodox Churches in one city (I'm sure there are others who could claim more than four).

sc

Sc you must know that until very recently all of what we call World Orthodoxy considered ROCOR to be non-canonical. ROCOR was most definitely canonical in reality until 1994 when you entered into Communion with the Synod in Resistance which is 100 per cent schismatic (I would not for instance refer to the Matthewites as schismatic), and may well be heretical.

However your zeal for the canons and dogmas of the Church seemed to start fading once Met Vitaly got rid of Bishop Gregory Grabbe, the foremost canonist of the 20 th century. The suspicous treatment of your former jewel in the crown monastery, Holy Transfiguration of Boston, which may well have been because you didnt want your most prestigous insituation to be Greek didnt help either (yes I believe HOCNA to be heretics, but there heresy is a Russian one-funny that...).Now ya'll seem to define canonicity to mean the lawless tryanny of the "Offical" apostates.You made being Russian so important that God has let Orthodoxy be taken from you and so you have lost the essence of TRUE Russianness.

Personally I agree with the holy monastery of Esiphigmenou that the part of ROCOR that stayed loyal to Met Vitaly is the canonical continuation of ROCOR. I can see arguments aganist that though.

Be Offical, be Russian, be whatever you want to be but stop pretending you have any concern about the canons and the Dogmas of the Orthodox Church because it is clear to everyone that you dont.

Theophan.

catechuman
Newbie
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon 19 December 2005 3:42 pm

Post by catechuman »

GOCTheophan wrote:

Have you ever heard the words "Karlovitsky schism"? Have you ever wondered why ROCOR used to take priests fleeing the apostasy of false ecumenism without canonical release, priests who in some cases had been defrocked?

Theophan.

Greetings Theophan. You present an interesting perspective.
I searched "Karlovitsky schism" and only came up with this thread.

Can you point me in the direction of some sources where I can learn more about the other jurisdictions claims that ROCOR was schismatics?

Thanks in advance.

User avatar
chrsstms
Newbie
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat 17 September 2005 4:43 pm
Location: Lost Angels, Kali-4-nya

Post by chrsstms »

should be "Karlovtsy schism" named after the city ROCOR was founded in.

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl ... tsy+schism

catechuman wrote:
GOCTheophan wrote:

Have you ever heard the words "Karlovitsky schism"? Have you ever wondered why ROCOR used to take priests fleeing the apostasy of false ecumenism without canonical release, priests who in some cases had been defrocked?

Theophan.

Greetings Theophan. You present an interesting perspective.
I searched "Karlovitsky schism" and only came up with this thread.

Can you point me in the direction of some sources where I can learn more about the other jurisdictions claims that ROCOR was schismatics?

Thanks in advance.

Post Reply