There Is None That Watcheth Out For My Soul

This essay by Archbishop Chrysostomos can help the super-correct to understand us and helps to explain the Royal Path.

Evlogeite. As usual, externally compelling and intelligent, and not without some valid points (albeit validity in a typically curious and questionable context). From under the covers of theology and history, I must point out that there peep the following:

1) I have heard this refrain too often: "How dare the Church act without doing what I want. It must do so because it is motivated to reject the Royal Priesthood." Unfortunately, the idea of universalism in the priesthood deteriorates into Protestant-like chaos, when abused. It is as dangerous as it is essential and important. When Father Florovsky was asked about his claim that the people could even remove a Bishop, for example, he quickly said: "Only in times of intense piety and not without the final approval of the Church." This is a very important rejoinder.

2) World Orthodoxy is heretical because it is "clear" to the writer. He has no need for a Synod to declare this. Had such views prevailed in the Oecumenical Synods, the spirit of love and forgiveness, as well as extreme economy in some cases, would have impeded the unity that the Fathers of these Synods, guided by the Holy Spirit, sought to restore.

3) The claim is made that ecumenism is a heresy and is a hundred years old. Thus we do not need the judgment of the Church against it. This is a dangerous view, and especially since ecumenism, which is in fact older than that, was nonetheless not always as deviant as it is today. In its virulent form, it is still developing. We should not look at it as monolithic thing, even in opposing it.

As well, religious toleration is not a heresy. Too many of these firebrands, as demonstrated even more lucidly by what they say in private, lack tolerance and love and have confused ecclesiological opposition to religious syncretism with bigotry and self-elevation. As one woman told me recently, "Orthodoxy began its decline when the Emperor of Byzantium whom you criticize burned the last heretic in the Orthodox East. Our fires should be ready." (This is a reference to Alexios I Comnenos, the Byzantine Emperor who burned Basil the Physician, the Bogomil heretic, around 1118, if I recall correctly. This was one of only four or five instances of violence against heretics in Byzantium, which is something that St. Maximos the Confessor and other Fathers flatly condemn. It is vile transgression of the teachings of Christ.)

This is not an "orthodoxy" in which I believe.

4) We are considered heretics since our ecclesiology is never honestly presented and is reduced to simplistic ideas such as "sick" and "healthy" Churches, without providing our larger Patristic context. We are accused of giving the Mysteries to New Calendarists (which is not our policy), whom we consider to have valid Mysteries and Grace, by those who in fact give the Mysteries to New Calendarists, whom they consider to lack Grace! Nor do these people ever present a justification for their "judgments without synodal authority" from a Patristic standpoint. If they cite the Fathers, they do so by ignoring historical context and with a theological naivete covered by the fact that they can cite something. This is not thinking discourse.

5) Did St. Mark of Ephesus, in his day, act as though he constituted a synod and unilaterally condemn the unionists as heretics without Grace, or did he wall himself off and resist the unionists with the aim of restoring unity? And did he not do just that? The answer from history is quite clear. Moreover, he was dealing in the fifteenth century with a unionist illness that dated back to the thirteenth century.

6) Sectarian thinking is ultimately not compatible with order and with patience and trust in the Church. Ad hoc lay committees do not have the approbation of the Church. The Bishops, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, must act in a synod to adjudicate matters in the end. They constitute the authority of the Church.

That there are false synods and true ones has never impeded us from waiting for God's action. We have the right to protest, to cut ourselves off temporarily, and to organize a temporary ecclesiastical structure; however, we do not have the right to assume we that WE are the whole Church, whether in the name of the Royal Priesthood or some tiny group of people with putative "universal jurisdiction."

Our egos have to suffer, we must act humbly, and we must not make of a short time, in the scheme of things ecclesiastical, an irreversible ill in the Church and create an "Orthodoxy" of our liking and according to an authority that we do not have, whether as laymen or Churchmen.

And let me ask where, in any of this, one finds love for those in error and an expressed desire to restore them? This is all talk about "those who are correct" at the cost of those who are ill, whom these same super-correct radicals disdain. What is missing here is Christianity.

If I am in heresy for writing any of this, so, then, must be many of the great Fathers of the Church. Ego and the desire for power do not trump the power of the Church, the primacy of love, and God, however. So, I am not a heretic.

Least Among Your Brothers,

+ AC

Recent Articles on R0C0R Refugees Blog

A behind-the-scenes look at the writing of the Fr. Seraphim's 1976 article, "The Royal Path: True 0rthodoxy in an Age of Apostasy"
"Inside View of The Royal Path
http://rocorrefugees.blogspot.com/2009/12/inside-view-royal-path.html


This article gives an example of the Royal Path in action.
"How To Regard Piety Found In MP"
http://rocorrefugees.blogspot.com/2009/11/how-to-regard-piety-found-in-mp.html

SIR Statement of Doctrine

Abstracts of Metropolitan Cyprian Oroposskogo
Daily Courier
daily-courier.livejournal.com
• Nov. 6th, 2009 at 10:15 AM

Definition of the Council of Bishops of ROCOR in 1974:

Chairman of the Cathedral of St. Filaret New York 

"As for the question regarding the presence or absence of the grace of the Holy Spirit in the sacraments of the Church novostilnoy, Pravoslalvnaya Russian Church Outside of Russia does not consider himself or any other local Church has the power to make the final decision 
as the final solution to this problem belongs to a specially convened Ecumenical Council " 



Message from the Council of Bishops of ROCOR from 3 / 16 May 1990 
Chairman of Metropolitan Cathedral. Vitaly (Ustinov):


"We believe and confess that in the churches of the Moscow Patriarchate, in those in which the priest believes fervently and sincerely pray,   Being not only a minister of religion, but a good shepherd who loves his sheep, by faith beginning, served in the saving grace of the Sacraments."


Resolution of the Synod of Bishops of ROCOR 3 / 16 August 1994 
President of the Synod of Met. Vitaly (Ustinov) 

§ 2, paragraph a) "the Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian fully kept the same ecclesiological and dogmatic principles, as our Russian Orthodox Tserkvov. 




Ekkliziologicheskie theses
or
Statement of the doctrine of the Church
for Orthodox opposing the heresy of ecumenism

Metropolitan Oropossky and Filiysky Cyprian 


1. Church and heresy.

We believe in "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church." The Church in heaven and the Church on earth - one, even if the latter is named after different places, such as the Church of Galatia, "in Ephesus" or " The Church in Greece. "There is one Lord" of the Orthodox Church - Jesus Christ our Lord. "single faith" in the Church - Orthodoxy divinely inspired Apostles, the Holy Ecumenical Councils and Bogonosnyh Fathers. "One Baptism for salvation - Orthodox Baptism in the name of the Father and Son and the Holy Spirit. "

Orthodox Church as a whole - is infallible and invincible. "And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it", says the Lord Almighty. However, Christians and local churches can err in matters of faith, that is, they may be mentally ill, and sometimes there is a kind of "penetration of disease into the body of the Church", as St.. John Chrysostom. Christians can be divided and within the Church may appear "divisive" as the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians. Local Churches may fall into heresy, as happened with the ancient Orthodox Church of the West, which fell into the great heresy of Protestantism and the papacy and, eventually, to the heresy of heresies - ecumenism.

Spiritual illnesses are treated within the Church or repentance, or ecclesiastical court. Until the eruption of a heretic, schismatic and a sinner - whether the church or directly by the Lord - view individual believer can not replace the verdict of the Cathedral Church and her Lord, Jesus Christ, even if the matter remains unresolved until the Second Coming. As is known, the Church is likened in Scripture field performance of the "wheat and chaff," according to the divine and a church dispensation. Those misguided in a proper understanding of faith in the fact that sins but still untried ecclesiastical court, are the sick members of the Church. Mysteries committed such unconvicted members, according to the Seventh Ecumenical Council, are valid. For example, they are the ordination of God, "as notice of the Cathedral of St. Chair. Tarasius. On the other hand, the possible penalties imposed by the preachers of heresy in the Orthodox opposed to it - are invalid and baseless, according to the teachings of the Church," since the start of their sermons "( that is, from the moment they began to preach heresy), wrote St. Celestine of Rome and adopted the Third Ecumenical Council ..


2. Opposing and unity.

Orthodox Christians have a right based on the Gospel and church canons, detached, that is, to suspend the ecclesial communion and remembrance of the Bishop, who preaches a "heresy prinarodno and bareheaded in church, or one who is accused of what he unrepentant wrong "in matters of piety and righteousness", as stated in th Apostolic Canon, namely, when it acts "against the debt and equity," explains canonist Zonaras. If a bishop or cleric, said SW. John Chrysostom, "Luka in matters of faith, then Run, and reject it if it is not only" man, but even if an angel from heaven. "

The Orthodox, who are separated in such a way, adhering to the sacred canons, not be "canonical punishment." On the contrary, they are worthy of the church "honor", "befitting an Orthodox." They are regarded as worthy Orthodox, because "they did not split the unity of the Church a schism, but, in contrast, sought to rid the Church from schisms and divisions." This means that "they have their office did not cause a split of the Church, but soon released her from splitting (caused by pseudo-bishops) as it depended on them," again explains Zonaras. Those who preach heresy, and the one who brings novelty into the Church, shared her and violated her integrity and unity. Those who oppose the heretical preaching or separated from it, strives to save the integrity and unity of the Church. The purpose of the confrontation and separation - the fight against heresy, the protection of the Orthodox faith and preserve the unity of the Orthodox Church, that is Orthodoxy itself.


3. Separation of the Church due to ecumenism.

Today the Church in Greece, unfortunately, divided and sick. In 1924, the dark forces divided it by innovation trinadtsatidnevnogo change festive calendar. This move resembles the emergence of the iconoclastic heresy. Iconoclastic heresy first showed itself as a failure. of the holy icons. However, this refers to not only the veneration of icons, but there was a vast religious and ecclesiastical reformation. "It was, indeed," very godless and fundamental alteration ", described it as a prep. Theodore. Also a modern innovation in the festive calendar is presented as innocent chronological change. However, this is the beginning and a clear expression and manifestation of the heresy of ecumenism. This change is not just a vast religious and ecclesiastical reformation, but innovation is ecumenical, Orthodox heretics aspirant assimilation and subordination of Orthodoxy heresiarch Antichrist-Pope. It concludes in themselves "the overthrow of all, and ultimately, the adoption of the Antichrist," writes the same teacher. mihiyskoy Theodore of heresy, which, like the heresy of ecumenism, rejects God's law.

Due to innovations in the festive calendar, the Orthodox were divided into two parts: the sick in faith and health; to Renovationists and opposing, to the followers of innovation, as well conscious of our ignorance, and to oppose that separate themselves from heresy to defend Orthodoxy. These latter are the champions of the association "separated", that is, for the unity of the Orthodox Church as the Seventh Ecumenical Council refers to those who are separated for these reasons.
Followers of innovations in the calendar has not yet been convicted as such, it vsetserkovno, as is customary in Orthodoxy.

Writes St. Nicodemus the Holy Mountain, the offender is convicted of the existing rules only when it has already been tried "the second person, that is the cathedral." Novostilniki subject to the court since 1924 and should be judged on the basis of the Holy Council, as the local and universal, and in particular on the basis of religious orders of the sixteenth century, against the then Pope's proposals for reform of the festive calendar. Therefore, those who are separated from novostilnikov actually interrupt ecclesial communion "of the cathedral before the court, as prescribed in Rule 15-m double-Cathedral. So novostilniki has not yet been convicted. Consequently, their sacraments are valid, but the penalties imposed by them on opposing - invalid and baseless. In addition, their repentance and restoration of Orthodoxy - easily, if only they themselves wish this blessed return.


4. Repentance and return.

Each member novostilnoy Church in Greece may be resisting ecumenical innovation. This can be realized through repentance, as it always happened in Orthodoxy. We read in the minutes of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, as some bishops said: "We all have sinned, we all ask for forgiveness." "And rising, a pious bishop Juvenal with them crossed to the other side", ie the side of the Orthodox. "And the representatives of the East, together with their pious bishops exclaimed: Welcome, Orthodox, verily, God brought you!". Thus, through repentance and the transition they were taken to Orthodoxy. We see a similar return and the Sixth Ecumenical Council. St. Tarasov, Chairman of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, tells us that "most" of the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council "were ordained" heretics, namely, "the leaders monofelitskoy heresy." But the same passage, they were taken to Orthodoxy.

Return to Orthodoxy may also be realized through the formal renunciation of heresy. St Meletii Antioch was ordained by heretics who were called "new heretics" because they had not yet been convicted. However, as he said in his speech at the inauguration supported Orthodoxy, he became head of the Orthodox of Antioch in the later became Chairman of the Second Ecumenical Council. Thus, it was adopted by the Orthodox confession and preaching of the Orthodox faith. The same thing happened later. The Seventh Ecumenical Council recalls the relevant episode of "scenes from the life of our father St. Sava. It explores how mentors monks, saints Sawa and Theodosius, with his monks, entered into communion with Archbishop John III of Jerusalem who had previously agreed with the arch-heretic North - after the archbishop referred to verbally renounce heresy. At the same council leader of the iconoclastic heresy Business center, Vosstaniya was accepted to participate in the cathedral through the examination of his beliefs and his written denial of this great heresy.

Orthodox tradition of the Holy Ecumenical Councils of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church teaches us that the sick in faith members divided the Church of Greece may be taken by one of the above ways of repentance and return to the ranks of Orthodoxy, because they are not condemned as heretics or schismatics, and members of the Church had not yet given to court. The adoption of this blessed repentance and immediate or gradual return belongs, of course, the pious judgment Orthodox bishop, who acts according to God, or his confessor. Believers need to take these God blessed the pastors of God as the path to perfection, according to the will of Jesus Christ our Savior, "who all man hoschet be saved in the mind of the truth Priit" and the divine commandment, which states: "iznemogayuschago in the same verve acceptable, not in doubt thoughts. "All of you," writes St. Ignatius of Antioch, "go to the footprint of the Orthodox bishop and priests. Because "that he approves of, and also want God."


5. To the Cathedral of association.

Since the Church of Greece today is divided, the Holy Cathedral Church of Greece united in the form in which it existed before the innovation of 1924, can not be convened. As it has always been in the Orthodox Church, the convening of such a council
would be possible only when separated will unite in Orthodoxy.

During the dominance iconoclast heresy, for example, it was impossible to convene the Orthodox Cathedral of the Church. Only when the iconoclastic heresy was no longer in power, in the year, was convened by the Seventh Ecumenical Council of Association. The same Seventh Ecumenical Council, through the words of the Holy Fathers declared that he held "to split" differences to reconcile, and to remove the barrier of hostility, and to restore the priority of the original precepts Catholic (Orthodox) church. "In other words, it was held in order to disparate parts of the Church - then divided by the iconoclasts, dissenters from the Orthodox faith, Orthodox, opposed iconoclast heresy - were united in harmony within Orthodoxy. In this way, it is through the consent of Orthodoxy Church United Church of Greece can be convened as the Cathedral of the association "separated" followers of the ecumenical innovation and opposing it.

According to the teachings of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church, the so-called "Holy Synod of the Church of Greece" is not a united Synod of the Church of Greece. This synod, deviating in innovation, was at odds with the Church. His actions and decisions in favor of changing the calendar and the papal ecumenism - and indeed the heresy of ecumenism - put him clearly in the category of ancient cathedrals, who sympathized with heretics, or were themselves heretical. These churches were going to convene the ecumenical councils, such as the iconoclastic council of 754, was convened to innovation iconoclastic heresy and condemned by the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

But the Holy Synod of the opposing innovation in the festive calendar and ecumenism, too, do not constitute a joint council of the Orthodox Church in Greece. According to the Gospel and the canonical law and the teachings of the Holy Fathers, the separation and the struggle against heresy by the Orthodox opposed to it, is aimed at preserving the unity of the Church's faith, and the union split the Church of Greece by uniting the council. As already mentioned, they did not split the unity of the Church a schism, but, in contrast, sought to rid the Church from schisms and divisions, "Therefore, until such a Council is only expected association and still be held in the future, now struggles to exploit the Orthodox opposition . The existence of different synods oppose - a sign of the good fight and struggle for faith. They should therefore be considered as groups and gatherings of bishops, who represent the spirit of the Orthodox opposition to heresy in favor of Orthodoxy and for the sake of the unity of the Church.


6. Need Orthodox opposition.

By the first requires no administrative organization opposed to innovation, as if they alone form a united Church of Greece, but the need is the struggle against the Orthodox heresy, according to the deeds and teachings of saints of the past. "We need a great fight and the law," said St. Basil the Great in times similar to our. "Indeed, we need a great struggle according to the evangelical and canonical law, the acts of saints and the just state law.

Each combines an ecumenical council of the Church was the fruit of the sacred struggle of Orthodox, who opposed the heresy. First Ecumenical Council was held as a result of righteous struggle for the faith, mainly Sts. Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius, the Second Ecumenical Council - Ss. Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian. Third Ecumenical Council took place thanks to the efforts, first, Ss. Cyril of Alexandria and Celestine of Rome. Fourth and Fifth Ecumenical Councils were convened by the efforts of the Orthodox, who, without sparing himself, fought for the Orthodox faith "even unto death." The Sixth Ecumenical Council was held by the struggle, above all, teacher. Maximus the Confessor and St. Sophronius "The Seventh Ecumenical Council was the result of efforts, in particular teacher. John of Damascus and other saints.

And today, we would come to the Orthodox Cathedral of the divides of the Church in Greece, by imitating the saints and the heroic fighters of the Orthodox Church, which preceded us. This requires: Orthodoxy, Fathers' rationale; standoff following the example of the saints, and cooperation between the opposing in the Orthodox faith and love of truth, "says the Apostle Paul, the struggle against the innovations in the calendar, and generally against the heresy of heresies - ecumenism. The fight must be persistent, the legal and until his death. For the LORD said, a single, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, our Lord Jesus Christ: "Blessed be faithful even unto death, and give ti crown belly"

+ Cyprian, 
Metropolitan Oropossky and Filiysky, 
Chairman of the Synod of Resistance 
(True Orthodox Christians in Greece).
Monastery of Sts. Cyprian and Justina, Fili, Attica, Greece. 1993

Translated from the Greek

Epistle to Cyprianites‏

Epistle to Cyprianites‏
From:
O Ekklisiastikos (ekklisiastikos@gmail.com)

Sent:
Mon 10/19/09 2:06 PM
To:
joannahigginbotham@live.com

http://www.ekklisiastikos.com/2009/08/epistle-to-cyprianites.html

Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,
this is a letter to Cyprianites written by the editorial team of the website http://www.ekklisiastikos.com  as a responce to their announcement of the cessation of informal dialogue between their community and the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece. If you consider the letter important and if you will you may publish it.
 
Yours,
--
Ο Εκκλησιαστικός
www.ekklisiastikos.com

≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈

St. Pelagia

Dear Ekklisiastikos,

Thank you for thinking to send this to R0C0R Refugees. You might know that I have a satelite blog devoted to "Cyprianism" in an effort to understand this issue.

http://cyprianites.blogspot.com/

I pretty much ended my searchings into this matter after visiting the SIR monastery in Etna last March. For all the criticisms against the SIR, for all the accusations of their being heretics and schismatics, for all the canons and quotes of saints, all the pages and pages of intellectual logic proving their gracelessness, -- how do we explain that they do in fact have grace?

http://cyprianites.blogspot.com/2009/03/sir-does-too-have-grace.html

Grace is there. It is there where, according to the anti-Cyprianites, it can not be. It is there in the SIR monastery in Etna so thick you can cut it with a knife. The only conclusion I can come to is there has to be something faulty with the anti-Cyprianite reasoning. Just what the error is I could never hope to figure out, that is for somebody smarter than I.

The only other possibility I can imagine is that I'm in prelest - that I mistake a demonic illusion for God's grace. If that is so, then also the grace at my baptism was a demonic illusion, and 0rthodoxy is a trick and not the true faith. That possibility is too absurd to consider.

So, the issue is pretty dead for me, but I will post the invitation to your website for those who wish to look into it further.

In Christ,
Joanna Higginbotham

∞∞∞
WARNING:
I've been advised to be clear to our readers that R0C0R Refugees blog does not recommend the ekklisiastikos.com website or studying these types of materials [about grace, heretics, canonicity] written by the super-correct since it can lead away from the Royal Path.

Sticky

HA! See this!
http://rocorrefugees.blogspot.com/2009/06/letters-to-troubled-monastic.html

Thank Dear Heaven! I do not have to hear any more about who has grace and who does not have grace!

Miracle In Moscow

(No matter how this miracle is interpreted, it manifested first in the private home of a servant of God in the MP in 1998. Considering this, it shows us the Royal Path regarding how we should view the MP. -jh)

MIRACLE IN MOSCOW

Just as the end of 1997 was wrought with a multitude of ominous and somber signs: the murder of Brother Jose Munoz, the disappearance of the wonder-working, myrrh-streaming icon of the Iverskaya Mother of God, the murder of Fr. Alexander Zharkov, the fire in the Synodal cathedral in Montreal, - so also did the culmination of this past year (1998) become a time of miracles of Divine consolation. On November 10th, the incorrupt remains of Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesenkskii) - the third of the First Hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia - were discovered at Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville, New York. Just three days prior to that, an ikon of the Tsar'-Martyr Nicholas II began to exude myrrh in Moscow, Russia.

***
What is particularly significant about the manifestation of this particular icon is that it was presented as a gift to a devout woman, Alla Dyakova, on October 30th, the anniversary of Brother Jose's murder.

As Anna Dyakova related to Elena Yugina, a correspondent for ITAR-TASS, the miracle occurred on November 7th, the annual anniversary of the Bolshevik revolt, which brought a regime of theomachists and regicides to power over a Russia that had turned away from her Tsar'. The servant of God, Alla, pondered on the fact that now (and this, despite the collapse of the communist regime) there are still demonstrators carrying red flags along the streets of Moscow - flags from which streams the blood of millions of New Martyrs. This very bloodshed was itself a sign of Divine wrath on account of sin - of Divine wrath called forth by Russia's falling away from God's Anointed One, from God Himself, and from obedience to the Orthodox Church. On bended knee, and with a heart contrite, Alla offered up a tearful prayer unto the Lord, that He might forgive Russia the sin of regicide. It was precisely then that the miracle took place - the icon began to exude myrrh. And from that moment on, on a daily basis and contrary to all the laws of physics, sweetly fragrant, amber-colored myrrh has been flowing along the face of the icon - not downwards, as would normally be expected, but from its four sides toward its center: toward that spot where the Tsar-Martyr is depicted.

The myrrh-streaming ikon was transferred to the Moscow Cathedral of the Ascension of the Lord, on Gorokhov's Field (Radio St., House 2), which belongs to the Moscow Patriarchate. It was in this cathedral that at one time there was preserved a venerable copy of the icon of the Feodorovskaya Mother of God - the Protectress of the House of the Romanovs. The dean of the cathedral, Archpriest Vasilii Golovanov, immediately placed the miracle-working icon on an analoi so that hundreds of believing pilgrims from the entire could venerate it. According to the dean's testimony, the icon exudes myrrh almost daily, and the fragrance becomes particularly strong during periods of panikhidas for the Czar-Martyr. (The faithful of the Moscow Patriarchate who venerate the Czar-Martyr serve panikhidas for him, as the MP has not canonized him.)

Protopriest Vasilii himself is of the opinion that the myrrh-streaming of the ikon speaks of the approach of the glorification of the Tsar-Martyr in Russia, so much anticipated, and hoped for, by so many. [In fact, the holy and right-believing Tsar-Martyr is already glorified; one can speak only of the recognition of the undeniable fact of his sanctity by the Moscow Patriarchate.] The more so, as the inscription on the ikon states: "This holy Ikon hath been painted for the glorification of the Tsar-Martyr in Russia."

"The commencement of the miracle-working on the fatal day of the October revolt," Protopriest Vasilii says, "is a sign of the fact that the Russian people have been forgiven for their apostasy from God." He feels that we are eye-witnesses to the fulfillment of the hopes and expectations of St. John of Shanghai, who said: "If our hopes and prayers will be strong, the Lord will empower the prayer of the Tsar-Martyr, of Tsarevich Aleksii, and of the Royal Women Martyrs; and they will shine forth as a radiant dawn over our Fatherland, then washed clean by tears of repentance and by the blood of martyrs."

***
The myrrh-streaming of the ikon of the Tsar'-Martyr has become a matter of world news. All of the major information agencies, from ITAR-TASS to Reuters, have reported on the miracle in detail in their communiqués. This most certainly is a unique occurrence in the history of the world's mass media over the past several decades. However, even this apparently fails to persuade those whose hearts have grown shamelessly callous in their opposition to God. Opposition to the canonization of the Royal Martyrs has become the traditional stance of the Moscow Patriarchate's ecclesiastical policy, a line that is adhered to with astonishing consistency and conviction despite the fact that as a result of such "hard-headedness" the hierarchy of the MP suffers significant moral damage. Neither the great numbers of miracles on the part of the Royal Martyrs - the myrrh-streaming and fragrance of their icons, and the healings, - nor their universal veneration throughout the MP itself, nor the position of the government, which was expressed in the rendering of dubious honors to the last Emperor by interring the "Ekaterinburg remains" in the Cathedral of Saints Peter and Paul, have convinced the (Moscow) Patriarchate to take any kind of measures toward their canonization. This opposition in principle to the glorification of the Tsar' can only evoke astonishment when it is viewed in light of that "flexibility" wherewith the MP has frequently exhibited its position in other circumstances.

The hierarchs of the MP have used the classical method of eluding and obscuring the significance of these events in order once again to drown the current wave of spiritual revival in a morass of bureaucracy and conformity. Patriarch Aleksii II, as unofficial sources report, has given the order not to take the ikon anywhere outside the cathedral, and to report in advance to him all coming activities connected with it. The very fact that the dean resolved to place the ikon upon an analoi is already being interpreted by many parishioners as a "courageous action" on his part.

On January 30th, the superintendent of churches was present briefly in the Cathedral of the Ascension of the Lord, on Gorokhov's Field; and, at a general meeting, he issued an order in the presence of the parishioners that the ikon be removed to the altar (although it is true that he did permit it to be brought out occasionally for the veneration of the faithful). Having kept the ikon on its analoi for several more days, the dean finally submitted to the administrative directive and the ikon is now in the altar, being brought out only during the panikhidas served for the Tsar-Martyr. The panikhidas take place daily, at 5:00 p.m., with the exception of those days on which there is an All-night Vigil.

***
What is the significance of this miracle for us? First of all, it bears witness once more time to the fact that the Lord has already glorified the Tsar-Martyr in the Heavens. The faithful sons and daughters of the ROCOR have no need of proofs of the holiness of the Emperor and His Family, which was borne witness to by ROCOR's glorification in 1981. The hierarchs of the ROCOR, then headed by Metropolitan Philaret, were not dismayed by that wave of hatred and slander against the Royal Martyrs which welled up among the emigres and, even more so, in the soviet press. The "haste" displayed at that time was nothing other than spiritual wisdom (as is evident now); and the universal veneration of the Royal Martyrs bears witness most convincingly of all to the truth of the decision made at that time, a decision which nourishes and strengthens this veneration in many.

All the declarations of the Moscow Patriarchate about a need for some sort of investigations (investigations in the course of which slanders refuted decades ago are examined, and re-examined, and then examined again), all its declarations about a need to turn the process of canonization into a public court procedure, in accordance with the mediaeval Roman Catholic model (one in which each and every blasphemer of the Emperor's memory can evoke the applause of a certain part of society), all must conceal one simple fact: that of the Moscow Patriarchate's obstinate desire simply not to join with the voice of the Church of Russia, as this was expressed at the Council of Bishops of the ROCOR, and thus, de facto, to cut itself off from the one Body of the Russian Orthodox Church. The hierarchy of the MP has set itself up as judge over both the Russian Church and the Tsar-Martyr, manifesting an almost sectarian willfulness and pride in this matter. One would expect that the higher clergy of the MP would yet again "adapt to the situation," rejecting Sergianism, glorifying the New Martyrs, and taking a firm, Orthodox position in church matters, thus not only preserving, but also multiplying their assets at the expense of those who suppose that the barrier between the MP and our Church is only one of discipline and practice, and not one of Grace... However, it appears that the hierarchs of the MP are mightily bound by someone or by something so that their stubbornness sometimes manifests itself, even despite its being to their advantage to do otherwise. This bears witness yet once again to the fact that the question of belonging to the Moscow Patriarchate is not simply one of jurisdiction, but one of a definite and sufficiently clear complex set of views in which there is not, nor can there be, any place found for the canonization of the New Martyrs... Hence, the sons and daughters of our Church Abroad should neither be dismayed, nor come to false conclusions on the basis of the fact that the miracle-working ikon of the Tsar'-Martyr happened to appear in the Moscow Patriarchate. The Lord imparts His wonders not just as a consolation to all the faithful; but also as a dread sign to infidels, in order that the minds of those who oppose the Grace of God might be edified by the miracle.

To those who criticized and denounced the firm and strictly ecclesiastical spirit which was connected with the name of our First-Hierarch Metropolitan Philaret, to those who called the years of his primacy "a time of stagnation," the proof of his undoubted sanctity has now been manifested. It was made apparent at that very same time when, among some of our pastors and members of our flock, there arose doubts as to the rightness of this course, and even the temptation to cast themselves into the deceptively open embrace of the Moscow Patriarchate.

Now, as if to try everyone's faith, of the faithful and hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate, the myrrh-streaming ikon of the Tsar'-Martyr has appeared. The fruits of this faith have been made immediately apparent by the persecution that was unleashed against this miracle-working ikon.

The Tsar-Martyr has become, de facto, a sign of stumbling for our people. The refusal to glorify Him, the disputes that seethe impiously around his name, bear witness to the fact that the Sin of Regicide continues to weigh heavily upon our people. How mistaken are those who claim that it is absurd to speak of the necessity for national repentance, as no one should have to repent for the sins of one's fathers. Regicide is not the sin of our fathers. It is our sin. Its essence was remarkably expressed by St. John of Shanghai, who stated in one of his sermons that,

"All those have sinned against him (the Tsar-Martyr) and against Russia who, in one way or another, either moved against him; or who did not oppose this action; or who, even out of sympathy with it, thus took part (vicariously) in that event which occurred many years ago. This sin lies upon all, until that time when it is washed away by genuine and sincere repentance."

How many there are yet in Russia of those who labor tirelessly to blacken the memory of the Tsar-Martyr, sparing no efforts to prevent his universal glorification! How many there are in our midst who, on more than one occasion, have spoken sympathetically of this regicide, repeating fables about "Bloody Nicholas" and unfounded gossip concerning Rasputin, exclaiming: "What kind of saint was the Czar'?!" Even amongst today's zealous defenders of the veneration of the Tsar'-Martyr there are not a few who for years had to scrour away their former blasphemously contemptible and narrow-minded prejudices. And who among us has not sinned through treacherous silence when we listened to the slander poured out against the Royal Martyrs and did nothing to silence lying lips with the word of truth. We must not be deceived, regicide is a fearsome sin, one which, as before, continues to weigh heavily upon our people. It is only through sincere and tearful repentance that we can shake off its burden. If a penitential prayer for the forgiveness of her sins, offered up by one, single, devout woman, had as its consequence the manifestation of a myrrh-streaming ikon, then the repentance of each and every one of us is not pointless, but something laden with great significance, and something that, through the prayers of holy Czar'-Martyr Nicholas, will not remain fruitless before God.

O Holy Right-believing Czar-Martyr Nicholas, pray unto God for us sinners!

source: Orthodox Life (Jordanville) Jan-Feb 1999
Translated into English by G. Spruksts from an abridged Russian text appearing in Vertograd-Inform No. 1 (46). Edited by Holy Trinity Monastery

An online photo of the icon:
http://www.albanyrocor.org/miracle.html

AN ECCLESIOLOGICAL POSITION PAPER

This position paper, composed in 1984 by Metropolitan Cyprian and the Fathers of the Holy Monastery of Sts. Cyprian and Justina, is perhaps the most articulate contemporary ecclesiological document issued by any Old Calendarist group in Greece. Its general tone and the trenchant use of Patristic and Church historical sources are elements which commend it to a general Orthodox audience. Its appealing and reasonable arguments have met with general approval in Greece, both among Old and New Calendarists of moderate inclinations.


AN ECCLESIOLOGICAL POSITION PAPER
For Orthodox Opposed to the Panheresy of Ecumenism
by Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili


The Church and Heresy.

We believe in “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.” 99 “The Church in the Heavens and that on earth” are “one,” 100 “even if the latter is designated according to different localities,” 101 as, for example, the Churches of “Galatia,” 102 the Church in “Ephesus,” 103 or the “Church of Greece.” There is “one Lord” of the Orthodox Church, our Lord Jesus Christ. There is “one Faith” in the Church, the Orthodoxy of the God-inspired Apostles, the Holy Ecumenical Synods, and the God-bearing Fathers. There is but one “Baptism”104 unto salvation, that of Orthodox Baptism “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” 105

The Orthodox Church as a whole is unerring and invincible: “And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,”106 says the Lord, the Ruler of All. It is possible, however, for Christians and for local Churches to fall in faith; that is to say, it is possible for them to suffer spiritually and for one to see a certain “siege of illness within the body of the Church,” as St. John Chrysostom says. 107 It is possible for Christians to separate and for “divisions” to appear within the Church, as the Apostle Paul writes to the Corinthians. 108 It is possible for local Churches to fall into heresy, as occurred in the ancient Orthodox Church of the West, which fell into the heresies of Papism and Protestantism and finally into the panheresy of ecumenism.

Spiritual maladies within the Church are cured either by repentance or by judgment. Until the judgment or expulsion of a heretic, schismatic, or sinner—either by the Church or, in a more direct manner, by the Lord—, the opinion of a believer cannot be a substitute for the sentence of the Church and of her Lord, Jesus Christ, even if the resolution of a situation be prolonged until the Second Coming. As is well known, in the Scriptures, the Church is likened to a field replete with “wheat” and “tares,”109 in ac- cordance with Divine and ecclesiastical economy. Sinners and those who err in correctly understanding the Faith, yet who have not been sentenced by ecclesiastical action, are simply considered ailing members of the Church. The Mysteries of these unsen- tenced members are valid as such, according to the Seventh Ecumenical Synod, as, for example, the President of the Synod, St. Tarasios, remarks: “[their] Ordination” “is from God.” 110 By contrast, should expositors of heresy punish the Orthodox opposed to them, these punishments are ecclesiastically invalid and groundless “from the time their preaching began” (i.e., from the moment they began preaching heresy), as St. Celestine of Rome wrote and as the Third Ecumenical Synod agreed.111


Those in Opposition and Union.

Orthodox Christians have an evangelical and canonical right to wall themselves off: that is to say, to break ecclesiastical communion with and comme- moration of a Bishop who preaches “heresy” “publicly” “and bareheaded in the Church,”112 or who is blameworthy, in that he errs unrepentantly “in point of piety and righteousness,” as the Thirty-First Apostolic Canon states 113—namely, when the Bishop acts “contrary to duty and justice,” as Zonaras the canon lawyer explains. 114 If a Bishop or clergyman is “evil” “with regard to the Faith, leave and abandon him, not only if he be a man, but even if he be an angel come down from heaven,” says St. John Chrysostom.115

Those Orthodox who have canonically separated themselves in this way, in keeping with the holy canons, are not subject to “canonical punishment,” but are even worthy of ecclesiastical “honor” “befitting those of right belief.” They are honored as worthy Orthodox since “they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions.” 116 That is, “they have caused no schism in the Church on account of their separation, but have rather freed the Church from the schism [of her pseudo-Bishops],” Zonaras again observes.117 He who preaches heresy or he who brings innovation into the Church divides her and abrogates her oneness or unity. He who opposes the preaching of heresy, or who separates himself from it, is eager to save the oneness or unity of the Church. The aim of opposition and separation is the combatting of heresy, the defense of the Orthodox Faith, and the preservation of the unity of the Orthodox Church, indeed of Orthodoxy itself.


The Division in the Church over Ecumenism.

Today, the Church of Greece is, unfortunately, divided and ailing. In the year
1924, dark powers divided her through the thirteen-day inno- vation in the festal calendar. This innovation resembles the innovation of the iconoclastic heresy. The iconoclastic heresy raged in its desire to abolish the sacred Icons. However, it was related not “only to the veneration of Icons, but, more broadly, was a religious and ecclesiastical reformation.” 118 It was, truly, a “transmutation of all things into ungodliness,” as St. Theodore the Studite characterized it. 119 Yet the current innovation in the festal calendar is presented as an innocent chronological change. It is, however, for us the inception and clear manifestation of ecumenism. This change is not simply part of an extensive religious and ecclesiastical reformation, but it is one with ecumenism, which aspires to the assimilation of Orthodox by heretics and the submission of Orthodoxy to the Papacy. It embodies the “overturning of all things, even to [the spirit of] Antichrist,”120 as St. Theodore writes again regarding the Moechian** controversy, which, like the heresy of ecumenism, abolished the law of God.

With regard to the innovation in the festal calendar, Orthodox are divided into two parts: into those who are ailing in Faith and those who are healthy, into innovators and opposers—into followers of innovation, whether in knowledge or in ignorance, and those opposed, who have separated themselves from heresy, in favor of Orthodoxy. The latter are strugglers for oneness among the “divided,” as the Seventh Ecumenical Synod 121 calls those who so separated for the Orthodox unity of the Church. The followers of the festal calendar innovation have not yet been specifically judged in a Pan-Orthodox fashion, as provided for by the Orthodox Church. As St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain writes, the violator of established precepts is considered sen- tenced, insofar as he is judged by “the second entity (which is the council or synod).”122 Since 1924, the innovators have been awaiting judgment and shall be judged on the basis of the decisions of the holy Synods, both Œcumenical and local, and, to be sure, on the basis of the ecclesiastical pronouncements of the sixteenth century against what were then Papal proposals for changes in the festal calendar. In this respect, those who have walled themselves off from the innovators have actually broken communion “before [a] conciliar or synodal verdict,” as is allowed in the Fifteenth Canon of the First-and-Second Synod.123 That is to say, the innovators are still unsentenced. Consequently, their Mysteries are valid, the punishments perchance imposed by them against those in opposition are invalid and groundless, and their repentance and restoration to Orthodoxy are easy, should they wish this blessed return.


Repentance and Return.

Every innovationist member of the divided Greek Church is capable of changing over to opposition against the Ecumenist innovation. This can be accomplished through repentance, as has always taken place in Orthodoxy. In the Acts of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod, we read that certain Bishops proclaimed: “We have all sinned; we all ask forgiveness.” “And having stood up, the revered Bishop Juvenal, along with the others, went over to the other side,” that is, to the side of the Orthodox. “And the Easterners, along with their pious Bishops, cried out, ‘Welcome, Orthodox, God has rightly brought you.’” 124 Hence, they were received through their repentance and by their having approached the Orthodox. We see a similar manner of return in the Sixth Ecumenical Synod. St. Tarasios, President of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod, tells us that the “majority” of the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod “had been Consecrated” by heretics—indeed, by “the leaders of the monothelitic heresy.”125 However, by their having approached [the Synod] they were enrolled in Orthodoxy.


A return to Orthodoxy can also take place through a formal renunciation of heresy. St. Meletios of Antioch was Consecrated by heretics—the so-called “new heretics,” since they had not yet come to trial. 126 Since, however, he supported Orthodoxy in his address at his enthronement, he was considered the leader of the Orthodox of Antioch and later became the President of the Second Œcumenical Synod. Thus he was received into Orthodoxy by confession and by preaching the Orthodox Faith. The same also occurred later. The Seventh Œcumenical Synod invoked a pertinent passage “from the life of our Holy Father Sabbas.” In this passage, it is related that the monastic leaders St. Sabbas and St. Theodore, along with the monastics under them, entered into communion with Archbishop John III of Jerusalem—who had previously been in agreement with the arch-heretic Severos—, after the Archbishop verbally renounced the latter’s heresy.127 And at the same Synod, the chief representative of the heresy of iconoclasm, Gregory of Neocaesareae, was received as a member of the synod through an examination of his corrected opinions and previous libel and by his renunciation of this great heresy.128


Therefore, the Orthodox Tradition of the Holy Œcumenical Synods and of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church prescribes that that part of the divided Greek Church that is ailing in Faith be received by one of the foregoing means of repentance and returned to the ranks of Orthodoxy. For they are not condemned schismatic or heretical Christians, but members of the Church who have not yet been brought to trial. The working-out of this blessed repentance and immediate or gradual return belongs, of course, to the pious judgment of the Orthodox Bishop whose acts are in keeping with the Divine, or to a spiritual child appointed by him. The Faithful are obliged to receive these God-pleasing acts of economy by the Shepherds of God as a process for the perfecting of sinners, in accord with the Will of Christ our Savior, “who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of thetruth.”129 And we also have the divine commandment, which tells us: “Him that is weak in the Faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.”130 “Every one of you,” writes St. Ignatios the God-Bearer, “follow” the Orthodox Bishop and the Presbyters. For “whatever he should approve,” this “is pleasing to God also.” 131


Towards a Unifying Synod.

Obviously, insofar as the Greek Church is divided today, the Holy Synod of the united Greek Church, as it was before the innovation of 1924, cannot be con- vened. As has always happened in the Orthodox Church, the convocation of this Synod will be made possible only when those who are divided are united in Orthodoxy.

During the reign of the iconoclastic innovation, for example, it was impossible for an Orthodox Synod of the entire Church to be convened. For this reason, such a Synod was convened when the iconoclastic heresy was no longer in power, that is, in 787, as the Seventh Œcumenical Synod of union. The same Seventh Œcumenical Synod writes through its Fathers that the Synod took place “so that we might change the discord of controversy into concord, that the dividing wall of enmity might be removed and that the original rulings of the Catholic [Orthodox] Church might be validated.” 132 That is, it was convened so that the differing factions of the Church, divided up to the time of the Synod—the Iconoclasts disagreeing with the Orthodox belief and the Orthodox opposed to the iconoclastic heresy—, might be united by means of an agreement within Orthodoxy.

According to the teachings of the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church, the “Holy Synod of the Church of Greece” is not the Synod of the united Greek Church. This is a Synod in ecclesiastical discord and marked by innovation. Her acts and decisions with regard to the changing of the festal calendar and Papal heresy—or, more generally, the heresy of ecumenism— place her, assuredly, in the category of the more ancient, heresy- befriending or heretical councils that were convened before the Ecumenical Synods, as, for example, the iconoclastic council of 754, convened on behalf of the innovation of the iconoclastic heresy, 133 and condemned by the Seventh Œcumenical Synod.

But neither do the Holy Synods of the opposers of inno- vations in the festal calendar and ecumenism constitute the Synod of the united Orthodox Church of Greece. In agreement with evangelical and canonical law and the teachings of the Holy Fathers, the walling-off and the struggle against heresy, by the Orthodox in opposition to these things, are aimed at saving the unity of the Church’s Faith and at the union of the divided Greek Church through a unifying Synod. As it has been said, such “have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions.”134 Insofar, then, as a unifying Synod is sought for and takes place in the future, and the fight now is one of Orthodox objection, the existing Synods that stand in opposition to innovations represent the good fight for the Faith. That is, they should be considered groups and convocations of Bishops who have, in an Orthodox fashion, made objections, as opposers of heresy, on behalf of Orthodoxy and for the unity of the Church.


The Need for Orthodox Opposition.

What is preeminently required, therefore, is not the administrative organization of those in opposition to innovation, as though they alone constituted the whole Greek Church, but rather the fight against heresy by Orthodox, as the Saints practiced and taught such in times past. “There is a need, then, for a great and lawful struggle,” said St. Basil in a time that parallels our own.135 Indeed, there is a need for a great struggle that conforms to evangelical and canonical law, to the acts of the Saints, and to legitimate state legislation.

Every unifying Œcumenical Synod of the Church was the fruit of the holy struggles of Orthodox who stood opposed to heresy. The first Œcumenical Synod came about especially as a result of the faithful struggles of St. Alexander of Alexandria and St. Athanasios the Great. The Second Œcumenical Synod was the result of the particular struggles of Sts. Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian. The third Œcumenical Synod came forth from the special efforts of St. Cyril of Alexandria and St. Celestine of Rome. The Fourth and Fifth Œcumenical Synods grew forth from the efforts of Orthodox who did not rest, but who struggled for the Orthodox Faith “unto death.”136 The Sixth Œcumenical Synod came forth from the special struggles of St. Maximos the Confessor and St. Sophronios of Jerusalem. The Seventh Œcume- nical Synod was the outcome of the efforts of St. John of Damascus and other Saints.

Today, also, we will attain to a unifying Synod of the divided Greek Church by imitating the holy and heroic strugglers for Orthodoxy who have gone before us. This demands, then: Orthodoxy; a Patristic footing; that our protest be modelled on that of the Saints; collaboration among those putting forth opposition, that is, those rooted in the Orthodox Faith and in the love “of the truth,” as the Apostle Paul says; 137 and a struggle against the change in the festal calendar and, more generally, ecumenism. The fight must be strong, lawful, and unto death. For, “be faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life,” says the Lord of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, our Lord Jesus Christ.138

[Translated from the Greek by Bishop Chrysostomos of Etna.]

——————

** A theological and political dispute involving Emperor Constantine VI and his divorce and remarriage to his mother’s lady-in-waiting. St. Theodore the Studite vehemently opposed the Emperor’s remarriage as adulterous and illicit by Church law. [See comments above, Chapter I.]

Source: Patrick G. Barker, A Study of the Ecclesiology of Resist- ance (Etna, California: C.T.O.S., 1994), pp. 57-66.

See Also: THE TRUE MEANING OF CANONICITY
http://rocorrefugeesreadmore.blogspot.com/2008/08/true-meaning-of-canonicity.html

++++++++

99 The Symbol of the Faith.
100 The Acts and Pronouncements of the First Ecumenical Synod, PM, 2, 889.
101 St. Basil the Great, PG, 32, 629.
102 Gal. 1: 2.
103 Rev. 2:1.
104 Eph. 4:5.
105 St. Mt. 28:19.
106 St. Mt. 16:18.
107 St. John Chrysostom, PG, 48, 844.
108 I Cor. 1:10–14.
109 St. Mt. 13:20–30.
110 Acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod, PM, 12, 1042.
111 St. Celestine of Rome, PM, 4, 1045.
112 Fifteenth Canon of the First-and-Second Synod.
113 Thirty-First Apostolic Canon.
114 Zonaras, S.K., 2, 40.
115 St. John Chrysostom, PG, 63, 231.
116 Fifteenth Canon of the First-and-Second Synod.
117 Zonaras, S.K., 2, 694.
118 B. Stephanidou, Ecclesiastical History [in Greek], Athens, 1970, p. 256.
119 St. Theodore the Studite, PG, 99, 1164.
120 Ibid., 1025.
121 Letter of the Seventh Ecumenical Synod, PM, 13, 408.
122 St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain, The Rudder [in Greek], p. 19 [5].
123 Fifteenth Canon of the First-and-Second Synod.
124 Seventh Synod, op. cit., 1034.
125 Ibid., 1047.
126 St. Epiphanios of Cyprus, PG, 42, 429.
127 Seventh Synod, op. cit., 1042–1046.
128 Ibid., 1115–1119.
129 I Tim. 2:4.
130 Rom. 14:1.
131 St. Ignatios the God-Bearer, Bepes, 2, 281 [Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, 8].
132 Letter, op. cit., 408.
133 Seventh Synod, op. cit., 397.
134 Fifteenth Canon of the First-and-Second Synod.
135 St. Basil the Great, PG, 31, 1540.
136 Rev. 2:10.
137 II Thes. 2:10.
138 Rev. 2:10.

SIR Does Too Have Grace

A Testimony

The Anti-Cyprianites are not going to like this. They have it all figured out from the canons that the Cyprianites are heretics and can't possibly have grace. They are simply wrong. Something is missing in their logic. I do not know what it is, their logic seems sound to me. But something has to be wrong, because grace IS there. I'm a witness to it.

When St. Vladimir's envoys said, "We knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth..." that was not just a poetic description of their joy and awe. And it was not because they were overwhelmed with the beauty of the icons, the chanting, the fragrant incense, the peaceful expressions on faces of the worshippers, the majesty of the service.

What struck them was that they found themselves in a "place" where the line between heaven and earth is indistinct. Through no effort of their own, and without expectation, they found themselves in a place where time and thought are suspended. A silencing of all inner strife, profound peace. Effortlessly your whole being becomes an active state of prayer and worship. There is no time or room for anything else. There is nothing like it on earth and no way to describe it with words. It is as the envoys said, "We knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth." Because it is being both in heaven and on earth at the same time. And "earth" does not remain the same when it occupies the same time/space as heaven.

For St. Gregory of Palamas Sunday I visited St. Gregory Palamas' in Etna where my Vladyka Andronik was also visiting. I arrived a little early, and found the monks already deep inside the church with their shoes all neatly piled outside the door. I entered the Church and took "my place" on the woman's side. Immediately I noticed that timelessness that used to be so familiar in old ROCOR services. It became more intense as I stood there, and it overtook me. I do not think I've ever experienced it that strong. A deep sense of belonging and rightness of being in the "here and now."

Later at the convent I was shown the convent chapel of St. Elizabeth's. And Lo! The same timelessness was there even though there was no service going on! I thought, "Everybody is here!" meaning all the saints and angels who are present for services. The nun who showed me the chapel said that the sisters keep the full cycle - maybe that's why heaven does not bother to draw back up in between services.

-jh

Joanna's Notepad

Dr. Vladimir Moss Open Letter on Cyprianism
http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/208/an-open-letter-cyprianism/

I've read this. The logic is flawless. It makes perfect sense.
And I love Dr. Vladimir Moss.
So, why don't I join the Super-Correct?

Because I know that there can be some grace where logically it should be impossible for there to be any grace at all. I know this because I've experienced it myself and can not deny it. In the OCA and in ROCOR-MP. This is why I can not join the super-correct, even though I like to listen to them.

Westminster Abbey Has No Grace

from the account of the late Archimandrite Ambrose Pogodin (†2004)

Vladyka John had the habit of visiting heterodox churches where some grace of Orthodoxy might still be present, namely in the form of holy relics of saints that were glorified before the division of the Churches. Vlayka John expressed the wish to visit Westminster Abbey. Westminster Abbey may once have been a very holy place. It was miraculously saved as a parish church from the general destruction under Henry VIII, and now those sacred objects that one might have expected in an ancient church are no longer there. We went simply to have a look at it as one of the tourist attractions of London. Vladyka went with us. After a certain time, the shortest possible, he left. "Here," he said, "there is no grace." Indeed, there are found the relics of many great persons of England, the great political builders of the country, writers, scholars, but no saints.

http://www.pravmir.com/six-encounters-with-st-john-of-shanghai-and-san-francisco

Archpriest Georgy (Primakov) On Grace Issue

Google translation of an article in Vernost No. 40
http://www.metanthonymemorial.org/VernostNo40.htm

Ignoring SERIOUS RELIGIOUS ISSUES

Archpriest Georgy PRIMAKOV, Dean RPTSZ Canada

Since none of our blessed memory первоиерархов and hierarchy did not say that the Church has no grace, we are persuaded that this means that in the MP it is. This is a very strange approach to a very important issue. A more logical and more persuasive, it would be to specify when and where it was said or written that there is total bliss. If our hierarchs believed that grace is complete, then why do they have categorically refused to eucharistic communion with the Church of grace? Most of all - there was neither mentioned nor written that there is total bliss. Moreover, you can find a personal expression of our hierarchy, which indicate the opposite.

Our church does not have a prayer with churches that have moved to a new style, but I do not remember that our hierarchs ever called them bezblagodatnymi. Let's think: we may be blessed memory hierarchy первоиерархи and lodged us an example of great humility believing that they were not worthy to decide about grace in the Church? In the same spirit expressed Metropolitan Cyprian, starostilnoy the Greek Church, when asked his opinion about the grace of novostilnoy the Greek Church. He said: who am I to decide this case, it will be decided in the future for true ecumenical council of the Orthodox churches, but just in case, we avoid any prayerful communion with them ». I invite all those who are trying to convince us about the grace in the Church, take the example of humility and our первоиерархов to ask yourself: Do I deserve to decide what it is and I have convincing evidence, that I may so hard to convince my colleagues in this?

Our hierarchs sebo perhaps ask the question: can I get Grace placemen Soviet atheist, non-believers in God's grace, even if they were correct hirotoniyu?

Unfortunately we kept in the dark about the negotiations regarding prayer with Moskovko Patriarchy. We duhovanstvo our church does not have the slightest notion that was resolved during the negotiations. We know however, that the Commission RPTSZ accepted the position of MP, that the activity of Metropolitan Sergius were deed ministry. " This is very unfortunate. because even a dozen years ago by members of the UIS Commission, this activity was considered to be betrayal of the Church of Christ! This type of negotiation, where the truth is murder in order to appease opponents who played more as a political rather than religious.

If the slavish service to the Soviet government and submissive compliance with the decrees of the secret service to be considered a heroic deed, then his refusal to serve Новомучеников and Исповедников our Russian Church Abroad now considers a mistake? Then, for their fame? And when the Church announced the Metropolitan Sergius saints, the Church and we will remember him along with the New Russian?

In May 2005, Patriarch Alexei II has congratulated the President of Vietnam Socialist Republic with 30-year anniversary of victory over the American army, trying to protect South Vietnam from komunistov seeking to enslave him, and he wanted God's help the Vietnamese Government. It looks as if this greeting one another Communist leader?

And in September, the patriarch of a Muslim leader Alex awarded the Order of St. Azebaydzhana. Sergius Radonezhskago first degree.

Congratulations red and rewarding Muslim leader - is not preventing us from the Lord? Which reminds us how:

«Dear children, be careful, you do not have a notion of who you want to have it!»

One of the members of our clergy, who now was in favor of prayerful communion with the Church, in 1994 wrote:

«Why talk to the MP is currently dangerous? This can cause a deep division among our clergy and flock, (That is currently happening). Prot. Lev Lebedev considers that the damage in the episcopate MP too deep and there is no sincerity in it. Priest Timothy Alferov, even being in the MP, warned us that the dialogue with the Church hierarchy is not possible. I. Lapkin warns that the final death for the Russian Church will be when the Church will go to all the requirements of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, otrekutsya from the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius, kanoniziruyut the new, come from the World Council of Churches, of ecumenism. And all this without internal transformation, all this good will be done as a political move, and then RPTSZ no reason not to come to the negotiating table. And then a majority vote to suppress the truth. "It is not clear whether he was right I. Lapkin? Not happen there today that he foresaw a dozen years ago?

The aforementioned cleric RPTSZ now become a supporter of Union in 1998 in a letter the newspaper «Rus Orthodox», under the title «Be on the side of persecuted and suffering» wrote:

«His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon, the last recognized by the Russian Orthodox Patriarch of people, gave the Bolsheviks anathema. In addition, he zaklyal all who join in communion with them: «I charge all of you loyal chad Orthodox Church of Christ, not to join with those monsters of the human race in which a communication». If His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon zaklyal all come into contact with the godless power, and the Metropolitan Sergius, in its Declaration made it so does not extend it a paternoster for MP to this day? There was and whether anfematstvovanie Patriarch Tikhon real meaning and effect? And his paternoster? What these anafematstvovanie and paternoster were removed? This is a serious spiritual issues, and ignore them Russian Orthodox Christian can not ».

Today in our church just happens that this cleric has called unacceptable disregard for serious spiritual questions.

Our country is number 2791

A Letter 1/31/09

Joanna shares parts of a personal letter.

St. Ninnidh Inismacsaint
Holy Fathers Athanasios and Cyril, Arcgbishops of Alexandria
January 18/31

Dear ___N___,

Clearly we never should have received St. Andrew's parish into our ROCA(A) with all their doubts. It has turned out to be a major embarrassment and we embarrassed ourselves. I like how you say that we let them in with a banana peel under each foot.

The battle that Vl. Agafangel is having with defining our position regarding the MP is a battle that has been going on for decades. St. Philaret of NY was also criticized and misunderstood from both the left and the right.

The R-splits (super-correct) have always been demanding a black&white statement from us. But now there is another group with the same debating/official/statement mentality who are not super-correct. They seem to be ROCOR Refugees, but with that same "horizontal" legalistic mentality of the super-correct. They do not recognize that ROCO(A) is the sole valid continuation of ROCOR, but it seems they would like to have it PROVED to them. It is obvious they are in distress.

But they do not seem to accept any help except in the form they want - which is more and more "official statements." And that does not help them. It only encourages their legalistic thinking. I had one even tell me that he would not use prayer to help him understand, the only thing he would use is official statements. This particular one has interpreted ROCA(A)'s policy to mean that we definitely say the MP has grace, therefore he believes if he is in the MP he is in the Church.

. . .

All through ___xxx___'s letters to me you can see where he is putting words in my mouth that make extensive and grand assumptions from just a few of my words. I read some of the stuff he writes about what he thinks I said and WOW! Where did he get that? It was turning into one of those situations where the more I said, the more material I gave him to misinterpret.

The other guy who was like this with me recently (see Cyprianites blog - the "Joanna's Tangle") accused us (I assume he meant ROCA laymen) of giving "nebulous" answers.

How can we make ourselves understood to those who do not have the capacity to understand? This has been a long-time question. To try to answer that, we explain that MP is "sick." I've twice now used analogies that basically show this concept of "sick." With the first ("Joanna's Tangle") I used the analogy of my dog being stolen. With another guy I used the analogy of Hitler still being a human even though he was evil. Both of my attempts to verticalize their horizontal thinking were met with THEM starting to get angry and cutting off the conversation. These people are not super-corrects, but they have that same black&white mentality. They are not World Orthodox either. We are seeing a new brand of horizontal thinking - could it be from the new brand of ROCOR which is now ROCOR(MP)?

What should I call these folks? The number of them I've met is growing. Maybe just "legal types" will do for now.

These people find that they do not FIT either in World Orthodoxy or in the Super-Correct. But since ROCOR(MP) left the Royal Path - then WHERE ARE THEY? This clearly shows that the Royal Path is not a MIXTURE of the World Orthodoxy and the Super-Correct. When you leave this Royal Path you've entered into SOME kind of horizontal path and way of thinking. And it appears that the horizontal paths are just incapable of seeing the Royal Path. Because of this, they draw their own insulting conclusions about us, rather than try to understand.

We must not let ourselves be disturbed by what other people think. It is not that we don't define the Royal Path - it is that the horizontal thinkers either CAN NOT or WILL NOT understand.

The Church is a living organism. A body. Bodies have the capacity of being sick, imprisoned, mistaken, tortured, possessed, kidnapped, overfed, underfed, ___fill-in-the-blank___- all these things can happen without the body being instantly totally dead. And it is possible to heal. We must maintain that, despite the shrill criticism from the super-correct. For lack of a better way to express the Royal Path, we must not be afraid to say "sick" in describing the MP. Otherwise we inadvertently condone the idea of "why not join them, then?" to our weaker brothers.

Cyprianite! And proud of it! This is the Royal Path! We are in good company!

As far as the MP getting better some day - YES! We fully expect that. This is why one of the things we are praying for is the "restoration of the throne of the Orthodox Tsar" which is something Vl. Agafangel has said we need to pray for (officially) and in our daily home prayers. The future Tsar is going to purge the MP of all the false clergy - and that is going to be virtually all of them.

Because of the way horizontal thinkers abuse official statements - I'm glad we avoid making one. They extrapolate and twist what they imagine to be between the lines. We are better off suffering our present grief. Vertical thinkers will find us, as God leads them to us.

Love, Joanna

Joanna's Thoughts, Notes, Observations

This is a draft subject to revision:


8. It is not my way to take facts and form my impressions from the facts. This seems to be the super-correct method. My method is the opposite, my impressions are what interpret the facts. And my impression of the super-correct is that they are terribly tragically fragmented, and therefore, disqualified to interpret the facts.


7. ....√the "false telescope" theory I.M.Andreyev writes of (Is There Grace In The MP?). I understand, but I do not see the situation in the MP as a telescope. The MP was started with a valid link - however weak and betraying that link (Sergius) - and we know that the grace does not depend on the piety of the hierarch. It could be through even this "thread" that God serves people who approach with fear and faith (and true forgivable ignorance). We do know that the Russian Church will be restored by God for the sake of the Faithful http://www.geocities.com/kitezhgrad/autobio/story.html

6. ....√St. John M. says "sick" and does not say "graceless". Yet St. John endorses Blessed Abp. Averky and St. Philaret, who do use the word "graceless." But neither Blessed Abp. Averky nor St. Philaret were willing to make an official declaration......


5. The anti-Cyprianites perceive Cyprianism as giving ecumenism a "foot in the door." They also say that Cyprianism was the first step of ROCOR submitting to the MP. This is a tempting thought, for if ROCOR would only declare the doubtful jurisdictions graceless, then they would not consider uniting with them.
But, looking at it logically we see something else. If Cyprianism causes a traditionally-minded jurisdiction (Royal Path Churches) to flirt with ecumenism, then long before this the SIR or at least one other of the Sister Churches would have succumbed. If Cyprianism causes an Old Calendar jurisdiction to unite with it's New Calendar so-called "mother," then the other Royal Path Churches would also be in the process of submitting to their so-called "mothers."
What we actually see instead is quite different. What we see are two groups: anti-Cyprianites and Cyprianites. All of the anti-Cyprianites are disunited, and all of the Cyprianites are united. So logically, looking at the facts, it appears more that anti-Cyprianism causes disunity and fragmentation (among those that are in full agreement about this important issue!)
But, it would probably be more accurate to say that groups who are prone to anti-Cyprianism are also prone to disunity. For whatever reasons which are not quite clear, although St. John of Shanghai & San Francisco sure sheds some light on this in his report The Spiritual Condition of Russians Abroad. (posted December 17, 2008 on the ROCOR Refugees Blog)


4. In the prophecies on the future of Russia it says that God will send a Tsar who will purge the Church of the false/blasphemous hierarchs (which will be nearly all of them). The Church will be "purged," not "resurrected from the dead," not started anew and built from scratch. But the already existing Church (MP) will cleansed, healed of mortal spiritual diseases.


3. Along with Fr. Victor Dobroff, I notice that in the beginning of the Book of Revelations, God writes letters to seven Churches. Not all seven are completely faithful to God, yet God considers all of them His. (Of course, I prefer to be in the Church He praises as being the most faithful...)


2. In 1996 I experienced grace at my baptism in a new calendar OCA church. Same year/same Church, my civil husband, who had witchcraft spells on him, was unable to remain in the Church for more than a few minutes at a time, even though he tried very hard to stay in. If the Church were graceless, why were the demons so afraid? My husband could go into any heterodox church without any trouble.
In 2008 I experienced grace at my goddaughter's baptism in a ROCOR-MP parish with a super-pro-union priest.


1. We do not know who does and who does not have grace. It does not matter how many Holy Fathers or canons we quote. Without clairvoyant sight, we do not know. If we experience grace in a certain Church, then we can say we know it was there at the time we experienced it. But that's all we can know. We can see where the presence of grace is doubtful, where it should not be. And, places where it is doubtful, we should avoid and not be in communion with them.

Joanna Gets Tangled Up With Fruitless Debate

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