MP leads Dali Lama behind Iconostsis!

[ORPRcamper]

A picture is worth 1000 words, and that last post had 5

[gphadraig]

I too am troubled by this occasion and this thread. What the photographs show is a very friendly greeting, the Tibetan leader in front of some large icons, (presumably stood in front of an iconastasis), and little else?

So-called ecumenism and inter-faithism do greatly offend. However, is this a leader being treated as a guest, albeit unwisely, by a bishop of the ROC?

Tibet raises and has raised an emotive response among many troubled by the behaviour towards it and its' people by the Chinese government and the importation of great numbers of Han Chinese into the region. The Dalai Lama is a rallying point for this dissent, as the Chinese government well knows. And hence its' fury at Russia permitting the visit.

More factual and detailed information please...........

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

I wonder what people would think (this includes myself) if we could put in pictures the countless other spiritual realities going on in the ecumenist church. For instance, when the press says "Bartholomew met with the pope behind closed doors...", it would sure be interesting to be a fly on the wall in that room.

[savva26]

For those who couldn't be there:

Awww... their cuddling how cute.

Seriously, why do they have to like be all over each other like that. Its so gross. A normal greeting would have been fine, no? :ohvey:

[TomS]

Awww... their cuddling how cute.

Seriously, why do they have to like be all over each other like that. Its so gross. A normal greeting would have been fine, no? :ohvey:

Well yeah for normal people - but not for Brothers in Chri...... err nevermind.

Even I, of liberal Orthodoxy, think this is truly pathetic. I mean, if the guy was at LEAST a Christian you could cut the MP some slack -- but the DL's a PAGAN for Gods sake!!!

[Sean]

When the Moscow Patriarchate apparently "denounced" the heresy of ecumenism at their 2000 Sobor, they were quick to add that the individual actions of any particular clergyman do not constitute the position of the Church. How convenient! In other words, the ecumenists within the MP still have carte blanche to betray the Faith in whatever way the devil moves them, but the Synod of Bishops of the MP don't have to take responsibility for it. The "practice" is business as usual, but the "theory" pacifies anyone who would raise objections. And with nothing changing in practice, the resolutions of the MP's 2000 Sobor will soon become just as obselete as the Holy Canons are to these heretics. The pro-Sergianists within ROCOR are mad!

[John Haluska]

Initial reply to post:

“Does anyone else reading this, wonder about the actual political implications of recieving a religious leader who has been percieved as the enemy of (Chinese) Communism? Could this possibly be a gesture on the part of the MP to further try to distance the Church from its tragic Soviet associations? Of course, to allow the DL behind the iconostasis was a terrible error in judgement, no quesion. BUT if the Church truely is going to be part, wholly and completely, of the future of Russia, some recognition of foreign leaders (as in their visiting an Orthodox Cathedral, etc.) may come about.

Now, I view the MP's association with the WCC as horrifying, it is the major reservation I have about unification, and I admit, this does sound like "let's all be touchy feely New Age Buddhists." A dreadful affront to Orthodoxy. But from the historical/political context, in '58, when the DL fled to India, the CIA met with members of his family about the possibility of recruiting Tibetan refugees to work with them. Buddhism certainly has been appropriated by every liberal, hippie type with ideas completely at odds with the truths of Orthodoxy, but the DL himself has been consistently anti-Communist.

I am NOT trying to stir up any trouble, WHATSOEVER! I'm just wondering how this incident "spins" Moscow in the eyes of the world. I'm merely asking this in political terms, I don't in anyway condone the MP's actions, if anything, if he really wants unification, he needs to sincerely and significantly act in an according way.”

With regards to the above quote, the following is offered:

First, my personal thoughts on the context of the reply, then second the ‘verbatim quotes’ of hierarchs, some of whom though not glorified, are indeed Saints. This portion deals directly with the context of the above response, as in this specific instance the “government” aspect of the text is the Soviets.

My thoughts:

The reply context theme is one of what I perceive to be “negotiation”, “diplomacy” with respect to “political” aspirations. At least from the text it appears that way, so I will respond with that theme in mind.

And, no, my response is not meant to be a retort in any way.

The Orthodox Church is not a “government”, and absolutely nothing that ‘flavors’ of “government” should be involved with respect to Her. She is inviolable and is in fact the Truth, unsullied if you will.

The closest one can come to this “political diplomacy” is what is happening at this very instant between the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and the MP.

On the one hand, as has been stated by many hierarchs and conciliar statements of the Synod of Bishops, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is the confessing, free portion of the Russian Orthodox Church.

The MP on the other hand is NOT the Russian Orthodox Church, NOR is it the so-called “mother church”.

At best, it could be considered, as some have called it – an ailing part of the Russian Orthodox Church.

It is most definitely NOT the “whole” Russian Orthodox Church. One also has to include the Catacomb Church in the Russian Orthodox Church. This was also stated in a part of the material presented below.

There is but one Mother Church and She is the Orthodox Church.

The “diplomacy” and “watching where one steps” and trying not to “step on another’s toes” because of so-called “delicate”, shall we say, ‘governmental’ talks is foolishness. Why is this?

“Government” has absolutely No place whatsoever in the Orthodox Church – NONE!

It may be prevalent in many groups, but the Orthodox Church transcends what is called “government” as it is the Orthodox Church, and

Her Head is our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Your second paragraph is perfect, and I understand completely. It is just that there is way too much of this, as you have most eloquently put it, “touchy-feely” nonsense going on.

As was stated, or at least alluded to in my post, these types of shenanigans are exactly what Ecumenism feeds off. “It” expects people to have “misgivings” due to, as you alluded, “political” ramifications.

This is NOT Orthodoxy.

It is Ecumenism.

Ecumenism wants us, needs us, to throw up these “smoke and mirror” blockades because they give us a sense of justification that,

“Hey, if this will cause “such and such”, then it ‘has to be OK”.

“That” is what is incorrect, as it is in a grand scale rationalizing away the teachings and traditions of the Orthodox Church for something which appears magnanimous and helpful, “politically”.

+++

To others who have responded, my question would be,

“At what point in time, or with what “specific” instance will the “stop” order be given, and the phrase

“That’s enough with Ecumenism already” be stated?

Also, to another individual who replied, the quote from the article says:

“…As a sign of extreme respect, the Dalai Lama was even led behind the iconostase of the orthodox church,…”

fairly accurately states what happened.

Interesting…today is the Leave taking of the Orthodox Feast of the Presentation of the Mother of God Into the Temple. If I may, the following is the Epistle reading for both the Feast and the Leave Taking.

Hebrews 9, 1-7:

“Then the first covenant had also ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary. For there was a tabernacle made; the first, wherein was the candlestick; which is called the sanctuary. And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called the holiest of all; which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; and over it the cherubim of glory shadowing the mercy seat; of which we cannot now speak particularly.

Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle , accomplishing the service of God. But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people:”

Here the Old Testament priests had very specific laws to deal with regarding the sanctuary, did they not?

A question arises,

“Would a non-Jew be allowed into the Jew’s Altar area?”

Today, what happens if by chance a stray animal (and nothing is derogatorily meant here) somehow gets into the Altar? Are not the Altar area, and the Church itself blessed along with the Service of the Lesser Blessing of Water? Why is this done? Simple, the Church and the Altar were defiled, that’s why.

I know of an Orthodox parish in which, some 20+ years ago, women stood on the left. The women had their heads covered, and, their arms were covered and their attire was modest.

Today that same parish allows non-Orthodox in the Cliros.

When questioned, the response is, “Hey, what harm does it do? The person “may” become Orthodox and besides it may "hurt" their spouse if they were forbidden to stand and sing in the Cliros!”

“That”, sorry to say, is Ecumenism.

Is it “too Orthodox”, or “fundamentalist” or “super-Orthodox”?

No. It is just Orthodox, and that is what it “used to be like” a while back.

But, the “giving in”, the “touchy-feely”, the don’t want to “hurt anyone’s feelings” that has permeated numerous parishes.

Is this the “norm” in parishes today?

One may say, “What is he doing “going off” on this vein; the topic was the allowance of a pagan Buddhist into the Altar.”

Why?

It is very relevant, as these what would be called “super-Orthodox” and “fundamentalist” traditions are deemed “overboard” by some. Are they not?

The “bottom line” to every tiny bit of this whole instance is absolutely nothing more or less than the “giving in” and acquiescing to Ecumenism. NOTHING!

The “act” was accomplished.

It was just another one of those “little innocuous things” which the heresy of Ecumenism needs and loves.

It causes a stir, and that is also “its” food.

But, if nothing is said, it (the act whatever it is) becomes an “acceptance” and then is seemingly impossible to eradicate later on because “It was done once, what makes it wrong now all of a sudden?”

Dress? Someone wore this revealing attire once and nothing was said. So what happens if it is done again and someone says aught against it? The reply?

“Hey it was OK before, why isn’t OK now?”

In the future when more “brotherly love” “prayerful concelebrations” occur, the same

“Hey it was OK before, why isn’t OK now?” phrase will “pop up” as a “justification.

“That” is Ecumenism, and “that” can be stopped.

Just “trying” to be Orthodox can stop Ecumenism.

If any form of “government” is in any way involved in the Orthodox Church, then one can rest assure that it is wrong.

Now for the actual direct response to your first paragraph. The topic has already been dealt with, quite succinctly, and by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

People may not like it, but it has been decided.

It may be long, but it directly answers the comment made initially in that it deals directly with the aspect of “government” and its direct involvement with the church.

I believe their words are infinitely more “to the point” and accurate than mine ever will be.

John

++++++

RESOLUTION OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH OUTSIDE OF RUSSIA CONCERNING THE ELECTION OF PIMEN (ISVEKOV) AS PATRIARCH OF MOSCOW

The Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia on September 1/14, 1971 considered the gathering which, calling itself an All-Russian Church Council, met in Moscow from May 30 to June 2 of this year for the purpose of electing a Patriarch of Moscow and all Russias.

This gathering declared that Metropolitan Pimen was elected to the Patriarchal Throne.

After considering all aspects of this election, the Council of Bishops, representing the free part of the Russian Orthodox Church, came to the following conclusion:

1. For the election of the Primate of a Local Church it is essential that such an election take place according to the laws of the given Church and that it be free, representing a genuine expression of her voice.

2. In 1917 the All-Russian Council adopted a resolution restoring the Patriarchate in Russia, and elected to the Patriarchal See His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon.

This council included all canonically consecrated bishops of the Russian Church, representatives of the monastic clergy and the Orthodox Theological Academies, invited by the Synod on the basis of the Regulation it had issued.

All the representatives of the diocese were chosen freely at elections on three levels: parish elections, deanery elections and diocesan meetings.

The actual election of the Patriarch took place in a fashion that guaranteed freedom in the nominating of candidates for election. The latter were established by a secret ballot, and at first a large number of candidates were named.

From among them, by systematic balloting, the three who received the highest number of votes were picked, and of those one was finally elected by the drawing of lots.

This system of election, guaranteeing complete freedom and confirmed by the All-Russian Church Council, was never abolished by a free council of equal authority.

Therefore, and election of Patriarchs, effected otherwise and not in a free manner, does not express the voice of the Russian Orthodox Church and is not lawful.

Not only the election of the present Pimen, who claims to be Patriarch, but those of his two predecessors must also be regarded as unlawful.

Their supporters can not defend these elections by saying that the external conditions caused by persecutions against the Faith prevented the realization of a lawful form of election, since, despite the obvious, they constantly insist on the supposed full religion's freedom in the Soviet Union.

Similar decisions were made the now-elected Patriarch Pimen. At all three Patriarchal elections, no one attempted or had any possibility of nominating a candidate other than the one indicated beforehand by representatives of the secular authorities.

1. The lawful succession of higher Church authority in the Russian Church has been broken since 1927, when the Acting Locum-Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, Metropolitan Sergius of Nizhny-Novgorod, went against the order of the Metropolitan of Krutitsa whom he was replacing and signed an agreement with the atheistic authorities, to which neither Metropolitan Peter nor the other elder hierarchs agreed.

The Soviet government began to throw all the hierarchs who did not agree with Metropolitan Sergius in prison, thus clearing the path for him to become the head of the Russian Church.

He for his part, taking no account of the elder bishops, formed a Synod by his own personal choice and, while Metropolitan Peter of Krutitsa, to whom by position the Moscow diocese belonged, was still alive, he unlawfully gave himself the title of "His Beatitude the Metropolitan of Moscow" with the right to wear two Panaghias In 1943, by orders of the atheist and the malicious persecutor of the Church, Stalin, he hurriedly (in four days) pulled together, in fulfillment of the latter's political plans, a Council consisting of bishops specially chosen and freed from prison for the purpose by Stalin, a Council which, counting Metropolitan Sergius, consisted of only 19 bishops, and which elected him Patriarch.

In 1945, after the death of Patriarch Sergius, Metropolitan Alexis of Leningrad gathered a Council, to which representatives of the clergy and laity, picked without elections and prepared for the election of a Patriarch, and, submissively following the directions of the atheistic authorities, unanimously elected as Patriarch Alexis of Leningrad.

After his death, in the same illegal manner the so-called All-Russian Council was convoked this year for the election as Patriarch of Metropolitan Pimen, known not so much for his devoutness or theological education, but rather for his diligence in carrying out the orders of the atheistic government, which are directed toward the destruction of the Church and toward fulfilling the political plans of the Soviet Regime.

4 All the elections of Patriarchs in Moscow, beginning in 1943, are invalid on the basis of 30th Canon of the Holy Apostles and the 3rd Canon of the 7th Ecumenical Council, according to which, "if any bishop, having made use of secular rulers, should receive through them Episcopal authority in the Church, let him be defrocked and excommunicated along with those in communion with him".

The significance that the Fathers of the 7th Council gave to such an offense is obvious from the very fact of a double punishment for it, that is, not only a deposition but excommunication as well, something unusual for ecclesiastical law.

The famous commentator on Canon Law, Bishop Nicodemus of Dalmatia, gives the following explanation of the 30th Canon of the Holy Apostles:

"If the Church condemned unlawful influence by the secular authorities in the ordination of bishops at a time when the rulers were Christians, then it follows that She should condemn such actions all the more when the latter are pagans and place even heavier penalties on the guilty parties, who are not ashamed of asking for help from pagan rulers and the authorities subjugated to them, in order to gain the episcopate. This (30th) Canon has such cases in view". If in defense of this position examples are given of the Patriarchs of Constantinople who were placed on the Throne at the caprice of the Turkish Sultans, one can reply that no anomaly can be regarded as a norm and that one breach of Canon Law cannot justify another.”

Taking into consideration all the above-mentioned reasons, the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, as the representative of the free part of the Russian Church, determines:

The election of Pimen (Izvekov) as Patriarch of Moscow and All Russias at the gathering calling itself an All-Russian Church Council in Moscow the 2nd of June of this year, on the authority of the 3rd Canon of the 7th Ecumenical Council and other reasons set forth in this decision, is to be regarded as unlawful and void, and all his acts and directions as having no strength.

THE RELATIONSHIP TO THE SO-CALLED METROPOLIA

As regards the relationship to the so-called Metropolia

IT WAS RESOLVED:

The Sobor of Bishops, having heard the report of the Synod of Bishops about the fact of the so called Metropolia has received autocephaly from the Moscow patriarchate, approves of all the steps taken by the Synod of Bishops to convince Metropolitan Ireney and his associates of the fallacy of their decision, which increases the rift provoked in 1946 by the Cleveland Sobor with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

The American Metropolia has received its autocephaly from the Moscow Patriarchate, which does not have a true succession from His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon ever since the time when Metropolitan Sergius, later called the Patriarch, broke his obligations toward the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, Metropolitan Peter, and embarked on a course which was immediately condemned by the eldest Exarchs of the Russian Church.

The Moscow Patriarchate, more and more subservient to the influence of the atheistic and anti-Christ government, ceased to be the voice of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Therefore, as correctly stated by the Synod of Bishops, none of its acts, including the granting of autocephaly to the North American Metropolia, have any legal effect.

Besides, independently of this, this act, which has affected the rights of other numerous Churches has resulted in protests by a number of Orthodox Churches which have severed relations with the American Metropolia.

Observing with sorrow this illegal act and acknowledging it to be without effect, the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, up to now not relinquishing the hope for the reunification of the American Church unity detects in the announcement of the American autocephaly a step leading the American Metropolia to even further rift away from unification of the Russian Church.

Seeing in it a mortal sin toward the subservient and suffering Russian Church,

the Synod of Bishops DECREES:

That hereafter, the clergy as well as the laity should not have spiritual or liturgical relation with the hierarchy and clergy of the American Metropolia.