Is ROCiE a schism? Is Met Vitaly mentally capable to lead?

Joshua F · Post by **Joshua F** » Mon 13 December 2004 10:47 am

romiosini wrote:
joasia wrote:
With all due respect Joshua,

There are many priests in ROCA that don't accept any re-interpretations. Time will tell if these priest will go with the flow or stand up for the true suffering Russian Orthodox.

Don't clump everybody in one basket. The division of the ROCIE is problematic enough. As a laity, I don't need anymore rebel priests and monks to contend with. They are just confusing the issue.

I'm sick and tired of these divisions. Why do grown men have to act like such selfish children?? I wish St. John Maximovich was here. He would be a true guiding light.

Good saying Joanna! $/\$
If only people were like Saint John, then there wouldn't be silly schisms... Sadly today, no one has made perfect obedience to the Church's Canons, like Saint John has.

All true, but y'all are presuming that ROCiE is a schism.

romiosini · Post by **romiosini** » Mon 13 December 2004 6:12 pm

Technicly, no. I believe that they are temporarily broken away, and have the oppertunity to fix their mistake. How can a 90 Bishop that suffers Amnesia continue to rule over a diocese when he has over 20 different voices around (people) telling him what to do? Poor Metropolitan Vitaly! But, when his synod decides to condemn his bishops, then there must be a problem. Because it was Metropolitan Vitaly himself who actually brought the idea to enter dialogue with MP in the begining. And he's the one that kept communion with the Serbian and Jerusalem Patriarchate. How can he suddenly change? Well blame it on his environnement. Metropolitan Laurus's article on poor Vladika Vitaly clearly state that he isn't able to do his own will anymore...(Vitaly)

Katina · Post by **Katina** » Mon 17 January 2005 4:12 pm

romiosini wrote:
Technicly, no. I believe that they are temporarily broken away, and have the oppertunity to fix their mistake. How can a 90 Bishop that suffers Amnesia continue to rule over a diocese when he has over 20 different voices around (people) telling him what to do? Poor Metropolitan Vitaly! But, when his synod decides to condemn his bishops, then there must be a problem. Because it was Metropolitan Vitaly himself who actually brought the idea to enter dialogue with MP in the begining. And he's the one that kept communion with the Serbian and Jerusalem Patriarchate. How can he suddenly change? Well blame it on his environnement. Metropolitan Laurus's article on poor Vladika Vitaly clearly state that he isn't able to do his own will anymore...(Vitaly)

The Laurus propaganda is false. It is the willingness of the Laurus group and of Met. Laurus himself to resort to lies that has me completely convinced that he and his synod are in the wrong. When it comes to important matters, Vladika Vitaly is quite capable of acting on his own will. I have seen him "in action" and very much acting on his own will plenty of times since the split. It takes a lot out of him and he will be rather weak physically afterwards, but he can still be very capable (and even serve for short times - he just needs really big print!) when the need arises. If anything, he is less subject to outside influence now than when he was surrounded by those who disliked his strict positions in NYC. He amazed everyone at last November's sobor by his complete taking charge of the occasion.

Vladika Vitaly has a hard time seeing and hearing and at times it takes him awhile to recall something (but he will get it in the end!) and this can be taken advantage of - and I assure you that those in Manhattan did a good job of exploiting his old age. He is much freer to express his will now than he was previously and the truth is that those in New York are not happy about this. Please do not believe what you hear from the Laurus group about Met. Vitaly because it is simply not true. If it were otherwise, I would not be writing this or be 100% behind Met. Vitaly. I can assure you that Vladika Vitaly is happy, not at all exploited, and very much in his right mind, and by God's grace, I see him rather often to know it for myself and not by hearsay.

Joshua F · Post by **Joshua F** » Tue 18 January 2005 3:35 am

Thank you Katina. I wanted to speak to this, but refrained since I can't speak from first-hand experience, at least within the last few years. Nevertheless, this is exactly what I have heard from friends of mine who have had the opportunity to visit Vladika Vitaly recently; unfortunately I have been stuck out here in the west.

I will say this, however: anyone who thinks that Vladika Vitaly has changed his position on the Moscow Patriarchate would do well to consider his epistles on the subject, particularly this one from 1998:

http://www.stvladimirs.ca/library/metro ... -roca.html

Next September I'll probably be in Montreal or New York, and am looking forward to visiting Vladika and the monastery, it's been too long since his visits to Edmonton.

Joshua F · Post by **Joshua F** » Tue 18 January 2005 3:39 am

romiosini wrote:
Well blame it on his environnement. Metropolitan Laurus's article on poor Vladika Vitaly clearly state that he isn't able to do his own will anymore...(Vitaly)

Curious that the psychologists who assessed his mental state found no impariment that would interfere with the execution of his responsibilities as first hierarch.

Katina · Post by **Katina** » Tue 18 January 2005 8:36 am

Joshua Fraese wrote:
Next September I'll probably be in Montreal or New York, and am looking forward to visiting Vladika and the monastery, it's been too long since his visits to Edmonton.

I look forward to meeting you when you are at the monastery! If you can get away a little earlier, come for Transfiguration. Also, if you come in early September, make sure you bring mosquito repellent!

joasia · Post by **joasia** » Tue 18 January 2005 11:57 pm

Joshua Fraese quote:

Curious that the psychologists who assessed his mental state found no impariment that would interfere with the execution of his responsibilities as first hierarch.

Exactly, what do the psycholosgists know about what it takes to have the responsibilities of a first hierarch?

All true, but y'all are presuming that ROCiE is a schism.

It is in my eyes...for very spiritual reasons. And they are very painful reasons. Spiritual desertion is a very spiritual offense committed by a confessor priest. No matter what his reasons may have been.

If you were a father with children, would you run out of the house and leave your children to burn to death? If a priest feels so strongly about the faith and the right thing to do...then why abandon all his spiritual children...those who have gone to him with complete trust and confessed their inner most sins.

Katina, you go ask Fr. Sergei, why he would do this to us! As far as I'm concerned, his actions were incomprehensible...meaning, he never tried to comfort us. I felt completely abandoned.

You live in your cosy ROCiE, but you have no idea what his actions have done to his spiritual children, who he has left behind. And then I'm told that I should trust the actions of the clergy of the ROCiE? I have been given no good reason for it.

I thought bishops and priests were suppose to stand and fight for the truth and defend their holy ground. Not run away and start up another group.

I as a layman have every right to feel confused about these actions and demand an explanation. Can you, Katina, explain this atrocity to me? Can you have a level mind, without ROCiE fanatism and understand what I am saying?

By the way, Katina, there are two sides to a story.