Matthew 22:15
Then the Pharisees went and plotted how they might entangle Him in His talk.
This "conversation" below was taken off the ROCOR Refugees Blog from the comments of a 12/29/08 post "Orthodox Facing the 1980's." Could this be the same guy that Dr. E.L. Magerovsky answered in the previous post? If it is not the same guy, then they do think alike. Dr. Magerovsky did a beautiful job in answering. Joanna just made a bigger mess of things, so Joanna is not going to allow herself to be tricked into any more debates.
Post a Comment On: ROCOR REFUGEES
"Orthodox Facing the 1980's"
22 Comments -
Anonymous said...
This part caught my attention: ". . . Metropolitan [Philaret] has warned other Orthodox Christians of the disastrous results of their ecumenical course if they continue; ** but at the same time our bishops have refused to cut off all contact and communion with Orthodox Churches involved in the Ecumenical Movement **, recognizing that it is still a tendency that has not yet come to its conclusion (the Unia with Rome) and that (at least in the case of the Moscow Patriarchate and other churches behind the Iron Curtain) it is a political policy forced upon the Church by secular authorities."
January 1, 2009 7:15 PM
Joanna Higginbotham said...
Yes, interesting. Especially since our prophets tell us there will be an eighth Council before the end, and Rome will repent. This is included on the "Prophecies For Russia" post last April on this blog.
January 2, 2009 2:45 PM
Anonymous said...
Given Fr. Seraphim's statement that points out "old ROCOR" refused to cut off all contact and communion with Orthodox Churches involved in the Ecumenical Movement before unia with Rome, I am wondering if ROCOR-PSCA has considered seeking to re-establish some of those previous ties. Its communion with the Synod in Resistance was continued on those grounds so, to be consistant, it seems that such an effort would be equally desirable.
January 3, 2009 5:02 PM
Joanna Higginbotham said...
I don't see happening what it seems to me you are hoping for. Fr. Seraphim was speaking from a time when the OCA had recently been given its self-governing status by the MP. Many parishes were still unsettled. Since that time the gap between World Orthodoxy and the Royal Path has widened. Since then the OCA has become more firm in ecumenism and almost all OCA parishes are now on the new calendar. Those "previous ties" you refer to are pretty old. We have to face reality. This gap was widening before the ROCOR-MP union, so I expect it will continue to widen after the ROCOR-MP union. If old ROCOR, prior to the ROCOR-MP union, was working to create ties with the OCA as it is (ie: without its renouncing ecumenism), then it was the part of ROCOR that went with the MP, and not the part that went with Vladyka Metropolitan Agafangel. Of course, it would be a cause for great joy if any ecumenical parish (or whole jurisdiction, if I may dream) decided to renounce ecumenism and all that leads to it, so that ROCOR-Agafangel and the Sister Churches could welcome them as one of the Royal Path Churches. But for the good of all, if the ecumenical churches insist on flirting with ecumenism, we must maintain a distance. It does not mean we don't love them. It does not mean we do not consider them brothers. It does mean we must be divided, however sad that is. We maintain a distance for our sake so we don't also fall into the same trap. And for their sakes, so we don't inadvertently encourage their ecumenism by appearing to condone or accept their flirtation. ROCOR-Agafangel is the old ROCOR of St. Philaret of New York, Blessed Archbishop Averky, and the original Fr. Seraphim Rose, who all - with soft hearts and loving hearts - did not compromise the Truth. And the truth about ecumenism is that we should have no part in it. Neither should we support it, nor pretend that it is not the most devastating heresy of all times. I'm not certain where your confusion comes from.
It's possible that maybe you have some close relatives in the ecumenical churches or something? That's just a guess. If that is the case, then you should lead your loved ones OUT of the ecumenical churches - and not wait on a vain (useless) hope that the anti-ecumenism churches will accept the ecumenical churches as is - (ie: with their ecumenism).
January 4, 2009 9:31 PM
Anonymous said...
"ROCOR-Agafangel is the old ROCOR of St. Philaret of New York, Blessed Archbishop Averky, and the original Fr. Seraphim Rose, who all - with soft hearts and loving hearts - did not compromise the Truth. And the truth about ecumenism is that we should have no part in it. Neither should we support it, nor pretend that it is not the most devastating heresy of all times."
ROCOR was not in communion with the OCA when Fr. Seraphim Rose wrote that piece(see 1971 Sobor Resolution) so one cannot explain the statement at the top of the comments using the OCA. The million dollar question is exactly, "How was Old ROCOR able to be 'in communion' with those involved in ecumenism while at the same time (correctly) not supporting it and not compromising the Truth?" These were Saintly people. How did they understand this matter?
January 5, 2009 7:31 AM
Joanna Higginbotham said...
Not everything is black and white. Old ROCOR was officially not in communion with the ecumenical churches. But certain cases were left to the judgment of individual priests who might be willing to commune certain new calendar laymen. While this freedom could have been abused, there are also times when it surely was warranted. ROCOR clergy, though, did not concelebrate with OCA clergy. The wording chosen by Fr. Seraphim ("refuse" and "communion") I see as being directed to an audience he saw before him (I picture laymen) and alluding to the pressure put on ROCOR by the super-correct. This was a speech and not a writing. Had Fr. Seraphim written this, he may have chosen other words. So if you are not referring to the OCA, are you then referring to the Serbian Church? If so, then I believe the answer to your original question is "No." I do not see ROCOR-Agafangel having plans to restore old ties with the Serbian Church which is now officially part of World Orthodoxy.
January 5, 2009 8:37 AM
Joanna Higginbotham said...
Another thought: You bring up something I see as significant. Neither the ecumenists nor the super-correct can dismiss the Royal Path. Not when we see the fruits (the saints) produced by this path. (Although both the ecumenists and the super-correct have been claiming these saints were supportive of either the left or the right.) According to the Prophecies of Russia there will be an 8th Council and all these disgusting heresies will be lanced and drained like the putrid infections that they are. I can HARDLY wait!
January 5, 2009 8:49 AM
Anonymous said...
"According to the Prophecies of Russia there will be an 8th Council and all these disgusting heresies will be lanced and drained like the putrid infections that they are. I can HARDLY wait!"
You also bring up something that is interesting. I agree with your enthusiasm. I share it, but have you considered WHO will most likely be seated at such an 8th Ecumenical Council, involved in making such a ground breaking decision? Probably the very jurisdictions you say there should be no communion with! The ones who have been dialoging with Rome for so many years including those they are 'in communion' with. In other words, if ROCOR-PSCA's current understanding of 'no communion' with the other ancient patriarchates lines up with what you are suggesting then ROCOR-PSCA will have NO voice at the prophesied 8th Ecumenical Council. Basically the very patriarchates you refuse to seek communion with (because of ecumenism) will have assembled together and been used as a tool for the repentance of Rome and her entry back into the Church. Perhaps because of the prophecy we both look forward to is why Old ROCOR had said, " . . . our bishops have refused to cut off all contact and communion with Orthodox Churches involved in the Ecumenical Movement. . ." Just thinking out loud since that section first caught my attention.
January 5, 2009 11:44 AM
Joanna Higginbotham said...
The way the prophecy is worded and from whose lips it comes makes it look like the heretical churches will not run the council, or even be invited. (Of course, they may have some fake councils of their own in the meantime. But fake councils are of no account. You can't lie your way into heaven:
"...2) Before the birth of the Antichrist an Eighth Ecumenical Council must be convened of all the Churches under the One Head, Christ and under the one Protecting Veil of the Mother of God [according to St. Nilus the myrrh-gusher: 'a last and eighth Ecumenical Council to deal with the disputes of heretics and separate the wheat from the chaff'. Its aim will be to unite and reunite all the holy Churches of Christ against the growing antichristian tendency under a single Head, Christ the Life-Giver, and under a single Protecting Veil of His Most Pure Mother, and to deliver to a final curse the whole of Masonry and all the parties similar to it (under whatever names they may appear), the leaders of whom have one common aim: under the pretext of complete egalitarian earthly prosperity, and with the aid of people who have been made fanatical by them, to create anarchy in all states and to destroy Christianity throughout the world, and, finally, by the power of gold concentrated in their hands, to subdue the whole world to antichristianity in the person of a single autocratic, God-fighting tsar - one king over the whole world..."
January 5, 2009 12:04 PM
Joanna Higginbotham said...
These were Saintly people. How did they understand this matter?
Very worthwhile question to ask ourselves. Here is some 1981 ROCOR history that aids in this understanding: CLICK HERE http://cyprianites.blogspot.com/2009/01/decision-of-synod-of-bishops-1981.html
January 5, 2009 9:08 PM
Anonymous said...
While the piece you posted does not answer the question, "How was Old ROCOR able to be 'in communion' with those involved in ecumenism while at the same time (correctly) not supporting it and not compromising the Truth?", excellent "decision" is very clear and definitive on the ROCOR position on the MP in the early 80's. In relation to that piece what is the equally clear, definitive, official position of ROCOR-PSCA on the MP almost 30 years later? Does the ROCOR-PSCA believe that the government in charge in Russia is Atheist?
January 8, 2009 2:52 PM
Joanna Higginbotham said...
So you liked the article about the 1981 Decision of the ROCOR synod. Now you ask...
Q: "In relation to that piece what is the equally clear, definitive, official position of ROCOR-PSCA on the MP almost 30 years later?"
A: The same. Our policy is the same, but circumstances may have changed. The same policy is applied to new circumstances. If it were not the same, then ROCOR-PSCA (now ROCA-A) never would have formed in the first place. Instead Vladyka Agafangel would have just joined one of the R-splits. (by "R-splits" I mean like ROCIE, ROAC, RTOC, etc.)
Next you ask...
Q: Does the ROCOR-PSCA believe that the government in charge in Russia is Atheist?
A: Yikes! Let St. John have this one! CLICK HERE http://cyprianites.blogspot.com/2008/12/is-mp-sick-or-graceless.html
January 9, 2009 1:26 PM
Anonymous said...
Thanks again! You had linked that statement in response to my original question so it appears that you are saying that ROCOR-A is making the same argument about the MP today as St. John did in 1960. That ROCOR could not be administratively tied to MP because it is "against its nature to be in dependence to an authority that sets as its goal the destruction of the Church and of faith in God itself." Do I have this right? As I study the MP question in relation from the "various R-splits" as well as from ROCOR-MP, they all have very strait foward positions. I am hoping to get equally strait answers from ROCA-A on exactly how they view the MP today as I compare notes.
January 9, 2009 3:18 PM
Joanna Higginbotham said...
I wish you every success.
In his last will and testament, Metropolitan Anastassy has said:
"As for the Moscow Patriarchate and its bishops, archbishops and metropolitans, the Russian Church Abroad must not have any canonical, prayerful, or even simple everyday association." http://www.monasterypress.com/bishopopinions.html
These old policies are still in effect, same old policies are applied to new circumstances. In the MP nothing has really changed except now it is behind a facade.
January 9, 2009 9:09 PM
Joanna Higginbotham said...
I wish you every success and I understand why you are looking for clearly stated stands. You say that the ROCOR-MP (world othodoxy) and the R-splits (super-correct) do have such clearly stated stands. And you hope to find a clearly stated stand from ROCA-A (royal path) as well.
Remember in Fr. Seraphim's article he says that both ecumenism and super-correctness are both worldly diseases. The Royal Path is other-worldly and produces saints. While some ROCA(A) clearly stated stands do exist, such as the "1981 Decision" that you liked, and our Anathama of Ecumenism; much of your understanding of our stand will not come by official decrees, but in less concrete ways.
We do not have one person you can go to and ask for a definite answer to everything. Our Synod consists of different men all with various opinions, but still of one mind even while holding different opinions. St. Philaret and St. John are an example of this phenomenon. St. John, as you read, tends to be of the opinion that the MP is "sick". St. Philaret, on the other hand, is known to have PRIVATELY revealed that he was of the opinion that the MP was without grace. (He held this opinion while refusing to make any official declaration).
So we see 2 different opinions. But they are not contradictory. Both St. John and St. Philaret said that they were "of one mind" or "like-minded" with each other. Both of them are revealed incorrupt in the same time frame - one on the east (coast of USA) and one on the west (coast of USA).
The ecumenists can not grasp this. Neither can the super-correct grasp this. If you sense that you are getting a grasp on this in any sense, then you belong in a Royal Path Church. In America that would be ROCA(A)or SIR.
ROCA and SIR are not always of the same opinion. But they are "of one mind". Because of the One Mind, we do not feel threatened to give each other "wiggle room" with opinions.
The super-correct do not enjoy the same security, cannot tolerate "wiggle room", so they end up chronically fragmented.
We are known by our fruits. None of the Super-Correct are in communion with each other. All of the Royal Path are in communion with each other.
The Super-Correct and the Royal Path have it in common that they are both non-ecumenical.
I can't think of anything the Royal Path has in common with World Orthodoxy. I hope this helps.
January 9, 2009 10:26 PM
Anonymous said...
Yes, your comment helps. I found it clear on the reality that various opinions were/are able to co-exist. This is a valuable point you stress. One thing that I have found is that ROCOR established in its official and semi-official statements that the MP was a part of the Russian Church, even while waist deep in submission with the communists. I think Metropolitan Philaret's signature is on one of these statements. I find this to be very compassionate. Is it safe to say that this official position is still "official" in ROCA(A), especially in today's Russia?
I ask this because a good point was made by a ROCOR priest back in 2001 who used sarcasim in laying out a Russian reality that was inconvenient for a "super-correct" opponent at the time:
"Monasteries full of monks and nuns praying day and night, children learning the Law of God, processions of the Cross through city streets and across expanses of field and wood, churches built, rebuilt and with services in praise of God, baptisms, funerals, weddings and blessings of every kind, icons in public places ... these are all tricks of the devil to confuse us, these are the fruits of Satan and the antichrist before the end, don't be fooled. Tear down those churches, save those children from those books, put those monastic fakes into psych wards and outlaw those processions, God forbid someone should be taken in by such false shows of open religion! We will have none of that. " Sarcastic, yes, but a good point.
On the backside of the official statements (that the MP is a "captive" part of the Russian Church) I also find many other official statements which state that the "various R" splits are OUTSIDE of the Church. Given the hard line often touted against ecumenism, etc by ROCA(A) (which is mirrored almost exactly by the splinters) this point is a bit puzzling, that the MP would be considered a part of the Church while those other splinters (who seemed to break away because a moving towards a communion with the MP) are actually claimed to be NOT a part of the Church. Is this official position also still in effect? On the surface at least is seems ROCA-A is almost 100% in line with the splinters on such major issues (ecumenism, WCC, etc). That these splinters are "not" in the Church while the MP "is" in the Church seems a tad odd. I am not expecting you to have all of the answers and I thank you for the pleasent postings (a rarity on these subjects!)
January 10, 2009 7:50 AM
Joanna Higginbotham said...
It is important not to confuse opinion with official statements. We will hear far more opinion than official statement. The terribly fragmented R-splits all agree that ROCA(A) should declare the ecumenical churches graceless. Our Vladyka Metropolitan Agafangel says that ROCA(A) does not have the canonical right to make such a declaration. That this must be done by a Council. Metropolitan Philaret said the same thing. So no official statement is being issued. So, maybe you'd like to see our official opinion?
Our official opinion does not seem to address the issue of grace. All we say is: Ecumenism is heresy and we are not in communion with ecumenical churches. That SHOULD be all that needs to be said, for now. We have already said that we do not have the canonical right to make a declaration about grace. So why do we keep getting hounded (by the R-splits) to do something we've already said we don't have the right to do?
People say this and people say that, and opinions are not Truth (Fr. Seraphim disliked opinions, even his own). Metropolitan Vitaly said that people will SAY one thing, but for us to watch what they DO. ROCA(A) has not entered into communion with any of the R-splits. But ROCA(A) has opened her doors to all who will come and promises to use the maximum "economia" possible for all. Vladyka Agafangel was willing to accept RTOC completely "as is" with no re-ordinations.
Later, Bishop Tikhon Pasechnik was completely confused by this. The source of his confusion was from his relating everything back to the grace/graceless issue, even though "grace" was NEVER MENTIONED. He said (paraphrasing) he didn't understand us because we won't go into communion with him (which must mean we think he has no grace), but that we are willing to accept him "as is" (which must mean we must think he does have grace). So he was confused. Do we say he has grace or not?
HEY, we didn't say anything about grace.
The action of ROCA(A) in this matter speaks louder about our "official" policy than any words could do. But to see what this action is saying, you have to be able to look passed the messy idea of grace/graceless, canonical/uncanonical, inside/outside the Church. (All these words seemed to be used interchangeably with no discrimination).
With Satan tripping people up with words and wordiness, and with the language barriers and faulty translations, it is all the more important to study actions. Only listen to what people say with half an ear.
*** You ask again about ROCA(A)'s relationship to the MP. I see two reasons why we can not be in communion with the MP. One is because it is still Stalin's Church. The second is that it is in World Orthodoxy. Take your pick, either one of those reasons will prevent our being able to be in communion with them. ***
That prophecy that the priest was talking about could be referring to these times. We know there will be a genuine flowering under a God-appointed Orthodox Tsar that will precede Antichrist. So probably this is the false flowering that precedes the genuine one.
It is just an opinion - but maybe certain individual faithful souls can still be saved amid the mockery. I'm reminded of the court jester who entertained his pagan king by staging a mock baptism and baptizing himself with a triple immersion in a tub of water. When he came out of the water he said, "Now I'm a Christian!" And the king roared with laughter. But the jester kept saying that he really was a Christian. Soon the king realized it was true, and had him beheaded. God can save amid mockeries.
January 10, 2009 10:33 AM
Anonymous said...
You correctly point out the need to separate opinion from official statement. I find this fact stated constantly when I read debates between "old ROCOR" and the "R-Splits". I notice the "splits" always do a reversal and quote the opinions over the official statements to argue their side. It seems ROCOR debating the "R-Splits" is itself a tradition!
So the MP being "Stalin's Church" is opinion while ROCOR's "official position" is that the MP IS a part of the Church (1974 Epistle, etc.). This is what the evidence shows (even if it appears on the surface to be contradictory and confusing).
Here is a debate response I found between ROCOR and an "R-Split" from 2002 concerning an official 1974 statement from Met. Philaret on the Russian Church while researching this topic: "The (1974 All-Diasporan) Sobor produced an extremely important document, namely "The Epistle of the Third All-Diasporan Council of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia to the Orthodox Russian People in the Homeland." Now, it should be obvious to everyone that there can be no document that would clearly state the official position of the Church Abroad to the Church in Russia that would have more weight then of its official Epistle to the Russian People in the Homeland. If Metropolitan Philaret and the other Bishops of the Church Abroad and the clergy and the laity participating in the Sobor truly believed that the Moscow Patriarchate was a false church and devoid of grace, this Epistle to the Russian People in the Homeland would have been just the instrument to warn the Russian flock not to have anything to do with the apostate Moscow Patriarchate. But what, instead, do we read in this Epistle? "In their never-sleeping prayers for one another, in their love for the Lord Jesus, in their faithfulness to the ideal of the past and f u t u r e [original emphasis] Orthodox Russia (Rus') the faithful archpastors, pastors, monks and laymen on both sides of the Iron Curtain are one. Together they comprise the Holy Russian Church -- indivisible, as is indivisible the seamless shroud of Christ." And let no one think that the Sobor was talking only of the Catacomb Church in this context. The entire Epistle was a response to a Letter addressed to the All-Diasporan Sobor by the noted Russian writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn, and it particularly addressed those issues that had been brought up by Solzhenitsyn-- specifically concerning the Church in Russia. . . The Catacomb Church, however, is mentioned in the another context, in a different part of the Epistle, where the Sobor states that after spiritual renewal of Russia and the freeing of the Church which events are yet to come, "then the Moscow Patriarchate and the Catacomb Church and we, the Church Abroad will stand before the judgment of the local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church." This clearly indicates that all three parts of the Russian Church, explicitly including the Moscow Patriarchate, are equally subject to answer before a future All-Russian Council. This part of the Epistle reflects the previously stated position of the Church Abroad, proclaimed by Metropolitan Philaret in his own Epistle to the Russian flock, that these are the three parts of the Russian Church. He had written: "in addition to the Moscow Patriarchate and the Catacomb Church, there is a third part of the Russian Church, namely the Russian Church Abroad." Metropolitan Philaret could easily have written the following: "In addition to the Catacomb Church and the Russian Church Abroad, which have preserved the Church both in Russia and abroad, there exists a third entity calling itself the Russian Church, namely the Moscow Patriarchate, which is a creation of the Stalinist regime and is totally the void of the grace." But, that's not what he wrote. Therefore, all those who are interested in understanding the true historical position of the Russian Church Abroad, should look carefully at the official Epistles of the Sobors over previous decades. Only then will they see that the positions expressed by the Sobors of the Church Abroad in 2000 and 2001 in no way have strayed from the historical positions expressed by previous Sobors. Let me repeat the words of the Epistle of the 1974 All-Diasporan Sobor once more, because they are so important: "In their never-sleeping prayers for one another, in their love for the Lord Jesus, in their faithfulness to the ideal of the past and f u t u r e [original emphasis] Orthodox Russia (Rus') the faithful archpastors, pastors, monks and laymen on both sides of the Iron Curtain are one. Together they comprise the Holy Russian Church -- indivisible, as is indivisible the seamless shroud of Christ." That was the position of the Church Abroad 28 years ago. It is still the position of the Church Abroad today (in 2002). " - Finish quote - So, given Met. Philaret's statement in 1974 to the Orthodox people in Russia, it is safe to say that ROCA-A officially carries on that same position today? Furthermore, if the MP is part of the Russian Church as Met. Philaret stated, then certainly one must assertain that the MP has grace as well. Of course they do. How could one be a part of the Church while at the same time be "graceless"? This is where the confusion comes in as well. If the opinion is the MP is "Stalin's Church" yet the official statement is that the MP is "part of the Russian Church", then for both statements to be true one must conclude that "Stalin's Church" is indeed part of the Russian Church. Given this strange combination, I can see how the official statements should rightly be placed above opinion. Moreover, one should note that Met. Philaret looked forward to a time when the MP, ROCOR and the Catacomb Church would meet together in a future All-Russian Council. Do you know if ROCA-A has any plans to initiate such a council?
January 10, 2009 1:01 PM
Joanna Higginbotham said...
Honestly I don't have any problem with the Russian Orthodox Church also being Stalin's (now Putin's) Church. Maybe (and I HATE analogies) like if you stole something from me - it would still be mine even while it was in your possession. If it was something LIVING - such as my dog - then my dog would still bark the same bark, shed the same hairs, etc.. But none of my real friends are going to have doggie play dates with you and your stolen dog. But my dog's doggie friends don't know the difference.
I need to ask you what your purpose is for this research. I'm starting to wonder if you are not trying to "prove" something - if so what? You are acting and sounding like a lawyer digging through and interpreting (and misinterpreting) old cases. Your deductions/logic/calculations have a false ring. You build a tangled web.
You can "prove" that 2+2=5 with enough cleverness.
If you are trying to prove something that is already true, then you are wasting your time. If you are trying to prove something true that is really false, then you are wasting my time.
Real answers are found in prayer.
*** It is my understanding that the 8th council will be called by the future promised God-appointed Orthodox Tzar.
January 10, 2009 2:26 PM
Anonymous said...
Pardon me, madam! You are being a bit rude and unfair here. I am not trying to cause you offense so I will disconnect after this. If I am reading this on your blog, I also thank you for being fair enough to let my post through. I have already explained to you the reason for my research. In fact, to this you said, "I wish you every success and I understand why you are looking for clearly stated stands." Also understand that I want to be absolutely positive that "Old ROCOR" is truly being represented here so I need to see how facts from the past (many of which you posted) are explained in light of what appear to be conflicting, current opinions. The ROCA-A websites and latest official statements are not very forthcoming and somewhat nebulus. So I want to make sure this IS the genuine article because that is the claim of every single jurisdiction not in communion with the ancient patriarchates in this day and age. Apparently you don't appreciate this and now the hostility I am reading here is really no different from any of the other groups who call each other "splinters" or "schismatic". You accuse me with, "Your deductions/logic/calculations have a false ring. You build a tangled web" but please look objectively at how this discussion is going. I first point out a statement by Fr. Seraphim Rose where he says, " . . . our bishops have refused to cut off all contact and communion with Orthodox Churches involved in the Ecumenical Movement . ." and later you reply, "Not everything is black and white. Old ROCOR was officially not in communion with the ecumenical churches." Do I believe you or Fr. Seraphim? What Fr. Seraphim Rose points out is true as ROCOR history from his time has shown. ROCOR was in communion with Serbia and Jerusalem and various bishops concelebrated with other jurisdictions as well. This is black and white. Either you are in communion or not and that understanding lines up with Fr. Seraphim Rose's statement. You scoff at such a communion today yet no Orthodox church is in communion with Rome as back then. Keep in mind Fr. Seraphim wrote his statement well after the Greeks lifted the 1054 anathema. I then ask you "Does the ROCOR-PSCA believe that the government in charge in Russia is Atheist?" and you say, "Yikes! Let St. John have this one!" and link to a statement of his from 1960 (almost 50 years ago!!) where he clearly explains in black and white terms why ROCOR could not be in communion with the MP. He had explained that, "against its nature to be in dependence to an authority that sets as its goal the destruction of the Church and of faith in God itself." You link this 50 year old statement when I ask about today only later to accuse me of "acting and sounding like a lawyer digging through and interpreting (and misinterpreting) old cases. " I am basically reading the links you gave me for the answers to my questions and providing other sources to support my conclusions in response. When I read this statement below concerning the MP, complete with + Agafangel's picture and signature, I wonder if all of those new "unofficial opinions" are not just individuals trying to make + Agafangel into their own image!
http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/eng2006/5enposlaniye.html
I wish you the same success you wish for me.
p.s. I asked: Moreover, one should note that Met. Philaret looked forward to a time when the MP, ROCOR and the Catacomb Church would meet together in a future All-Russian Council. Do you know if ROCA-A has any plans to initiate such a council? You answered: It is my understanding that the 8th council will be called by the future promised God-appointed Orthodox Tzar. I reply: At the risk of sounding to lawyerly, employing "false logic" or plain being calculating for you, I must point out that the 8th council is not the same as a future "All Russian Council" attended by ROCOR, MP and the Catacomb Church.
January 10, 2009 5:50 PM
Joanna Higginbotham said...
Wow! You take offense quite easily I see. I sincerely apologize for offending you. That was not my intention. I'll try to be less careless and more sensitive.
I wish you success, but you are not going to have any success if you approach this only horizontally.
If the only way you can think is horizontal, then only horizontal statements are going to make sense to you. And that's got to be why you have no trouble getting "clear" statements from the Ecumenical and from the Super-Correct. The genuineness of ROCA(A) can not be "figured" out. You can not "figure out" the saints with "logic" or "logical progression" of thought.
It is our job to try to understand the saints - and not their job to behave understandably. To understand the saints we have to transcend worldliness and tap into otherworldiness.
'MY WAYS ARE NOT YOUR WAYS AND MY THOUGHTS ARE NOT YOUR THOUGHTS..."
I was trying to help you see things more vertically. Because you are so determined to have everything spelled out in black&white (yes, like a lawyer - no offense - just a description) I am inclined to want to withhold black&white statements from you to snap you out of this thinking and this approach. This very approach that Fr. Seraphim tells us does not work.
Every time I have given you the black&white statement that you have very insistently demanded, it has not quenched you - you just want more and more. I do not want to contribute to this - it is not helping you.
I am trying to help you. But maybe I am not able. Pray for the insight to see the unity, wisdom, love (not sentiment) in the seemingly contradictory things in ROCOR/ROCA(A). They are only contradictory to a black&white approach. They are not contradictions to me, as I've tried to explain.
I will pray for you, too.
*** For a MP/ROCA(A)/Catacomb Council we will have to wait for the Future God Appointed Tzar. Probably this will be taken care of at the 8th council.
January 11, 2009 2:03 PM
Joanna Higginbotham said...
Dear Anonymous, This section of the blog is supposed to be used for comments. And this has turned into a "conversation." If you still wish to continue this conversation, please email me.
Later, I will probably transfer this conversation to the Cyprianism Blog. Because, after looking over this conversation, I feel it could be of more interest to those trying to understand Cyprianism.
Love, Joanna
January 11, 2009 5:07 PM
This Anonymous Poster never emailed me. Looking back over the "conversation" it appears to me that Anonymous just wanted to have a debate. Live and learn... Because of this debater, I added two new rules to the Guidelines For Comments on the ROCOR Refugees blog:
√ Comments section is not an appropriate venue for debates.
√ Antagonistc posters will not be extended the same rights and freedoms as friends. It's not about "fairness" - it's about what is helpful for ROCOR Refugees.
Another thing, in hindsight, I see something I overlooked in the very beginning. The quote first in question could be boiled down to, "...refuse to cut off ALL communion..." Maybe if I had pointed this out in the beginning of the conversation, things would have gone differently. If our bishops refuse to cut off ALL communion that means they retain SOME communion. Maybe that concept could have helped Anonymous get a grasp on the Royal Path where the answer can rightly be yes and no. -jh
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment