Paradosis wrote:.
It was laudable when the retired Metropolitan Vitaly separated himself from his former Synod of Bishops. Moreover, it was with great sorrow that we beheld the photographs of him being abused by these same bishops whom he himself had ordained. Besides their lack of Faith, does not their lack of love also demonstrate their lack of grace?
I do not disagree with the attempt to bring Vitaly back to the states. Call it kidnapping if you wish. One cautions that things much worse than this were done in Church history by saints. A number of Saints in fact became bishops almost against their will. This aspect of the whole fiasco undoubtedly seems more offensive to our westernized sensibilities than it really should (if we had a truly Orthodox sense).
The key difference in this situation as opposed to the life of
any saint is that the people apprehending Met. Vitaly were not doing so in
order to return him to the Church, or to his diocese. They were doing this
in order to commit him to a mental institution.______If in the lives of the Saints we see the faithful in their zeal to
have holy shepherds coercing them to be ordained, it was for the benefit of
themselves, not the confinement of the candidate.________The fact that the ROCOR would go to such an extent as dragging the
Metropolitan out of his house, and throwing him into a car, as if he was
some sort of common man, is indicative of the underhanded tactics they have
now accepted as the norm. By this action, the ROCOR has broken the boundary
of decency, as if the end justified the means.2) Concerning the Canonical Status of ROCE and Metropolitan Vitaly
This document makes a point that it does not commend or support ROCiE's actions and deems them uncanonical. Mentions an interesting, relevant, historical example (in relation to the whole ROCiE matter).
_________The pertinent excerpt from Bishop Gregory's letter may be found
here:http://htmadmin.phpwebhosting.com/B_Gre ... _ROCOR.htm
For the actual anathema, please see our homepage:
This document also says that Vitaly fell away from Orthodoxy in 1995 at the Cyprian union, which leads me to assume that I am not considered Orthodox by ROAC. I guess I already knew that... with the Dormition Skete saying that ROCOR was apostates and such, it's just interesting to have it confirmed here. I wonder, what would happen if I were to become ROAC? I have apparently never been Orthodox, in their view. Never baptized, never chrismated, never confessed, never communed. Never sacramentally married?
__________We receive people from the ROCOR on a case by case basis. This is
something he can discuss with the bishop or a priest privately, once his
circumstances have been ascertained.
Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church has preserved the Faith of our ancestors. It rightly acknowledges itself as the true Church of Patriarch Tikhon and all the New Martyrs of Russia, and this is indisputable. Why not desire the prayers of the Russian Church, as a seal to your repentance?
"Indisputable"? I wouldn't go that far! It is of interest that Bishop Gregory would even use such a word, though. When one examines the Letters of Saints Gregory of Basil, we see the exact opposite. When addressed to the actual person/group being discussed, they are rarely filled with polemic, but are more often reconciliatory and postively toned. One wonders what Bishop Gregory hoped to accomplish by including a word like "indisputable" in this sentence.
4) An Anathema against the Sergianists
Anathematizes sergianists.
Interestingly, this timeline doesn't mention when ROCOR came into communion with the Bulgarians and Romanians. I find that very odd, considering how detailed they were concerning all the other claimed lapses on the part of ROCOR hierarchs.
The Timeline is not an exhaustive history of any particular group.
The initial audience was not homogenous, thus many noteworthy events in
various groups were included. I'm glad though that you pointed out the lack
of an entry about the Romanians and Bulgarians. We will have to add that. :mrgreen:
7) Interview with the First Hierarch of the ROAC, Metropolitan Valentine
Some interesting comments. Met. Valentine's position comes across well. However, interestingly, when asked: "Did the desire to leave the ROC come only in 1990 or before? If you were prepared to leave ROC, before, why then did this materialize only in 1990?" he responded: "Before 1990, actually, there was nowhere to go. The parishes of the Church Abroad were deep underground, and if there is no alternative, then one thinks that there is nowhere to go and it is possible some how to suffer a bit longer." This is exactly the position a traditionalist is in in America if they don't see ROCOR as where they should be (since the GOC, ROAC, etc. are so far between--if one even accepts them as legit alternatives at all). We are stuck with nowhere to go. Perhaps the advice of St. Raphael (of Brooklyn) is relevant here: he told people that it was better to pray in their homes than to go to non-Orthodox Churches. But what does that mean for people like me, who ROAC, etc. would say are not even in the Church to begin with?
____________The advice of Bishop Raphael is advice that Bishop Gregory
himself gives to many souls consistently. Many faithful in ROAC are not in
close proximity to one of our churches. But that does not deprive them of
living a Church life. The faithful of ROAC are grounded on the canons and
teachings of the Holy Fathers, who insist that we should not go the churches
of heretics to pray. There is no blessing there, as we all know.
________From your perspective though, coming from the ROCOR, you should
begin to understand that the ROCOR of today is not the ROCOR of a decade
ago. They are living on the legacy their predecessors laid for them, but as
you have seen from Bishop Gregory's open letters, this is not the course
they are now following.
________What will be effectual for your salvation is to courageously
analyze the situation, come to a cohesive conclusion based upon the facts,
and then solve the problem by getting out of ROCOR (L). A man who is
drowning does not need much time to ascertain what he must do.
I thought some of the comments were very untrue... at least from what I've seen. I've never once heard (or heard about) anyone "openly laugh" at either Vitaly or that whole sad situation, as Met. Valentine claims. I've seen quite the opposite, the ROCOR has tried to "cover their father's nakedness" because he was indeed such a good, Orthodox man. One of the things that is hard for me is that ROCiE has this rhetoric machine that keeps pumping out anti-ROCOR literature, while the ROCOR hiearchs seem to be almost totally quiet about things. They seem to be taking it on the cheek, and then showing the other one. No, I don't agree with these words of Met. Valentine, not for one second.
______________It is conceivable that the Metropolitan is using a Russian
expression which does not translate directly into English in this particular
case.
_______ROCOR is taking it on the cheek publicly, because they are fighting
tooth and nail in the court system to seize all ROCE property, both in
Canada, San Francisco, and anywhere else ROCE has a church. ROCOR is not
doing this because they are magnaminous, by no means. From the bitter
experience of the loss of Fr. Victor M."s church to HOCNA through the
courts, ROCOR has learned to tactfully keep public support on their side by
playing the victim.
_______You might do well to consider just how much the ROCOR respects their
"father" from just what we've discussed here. To drag your father out of his
monastery, not once, but twice I believe, the second time even from the
sanctuary itself, by a female police officer, to attempt to use his
secretary to kidnap him, to then use all possible means to take whatever
churches commemorate him away from him: doesn't sound like a very loving
plan of action to me. I don't know what they might be writing or saying, but
their actions are pretty clear.
12
) "Falling Under Their Own Anathema" or: The Inglorius End of the Church Abroad
This text makes a number of good points about the ROCOR document of 2000 which concused many in and out of ROCOR. The issue of the recognition of the martyrs by the MP, and the letter to Paul of Serbia were both brought up. However, we again have no actual examination of the 1983 anathema, but just some generalized comments. One wonders how someone can name an article something, and then barely speak of it in the actual text. Surely ROAC is aware that there is more than one interpretation of what the anathema means, how it is to be used/executed, etc... so why not take the time to explain the ROAC position? It would also be interesting to read what ROAC think of the document published by ROCOR in 2001 which attempted to clarify what was meant by the admittedly hastily prepared and poorly articulated document from 2000.
_______Points well taken. I will forward your comments on to Bishop Gregory.
Because we are so familiar with the 1983 anathema, we might overlook that
many are not at times. An article dedicated simply to the anathema would
prove useful.
_______With this last concelebration, I really wonder why they wasted their time with such a "back track" except to try to keep more in for a longer time.
[/quote]
You forgot to ignore us. Yes, at times it is easy to have the answers. Simple and silly questions are not a problem. Which was is north, do fish swim, or should we concelebrate with heretics? Easy answers and ROAC can provide them.