The Prayer of the Heart

[haralampopoulosjc]

Not really. Look, I don't want to offend anyone at the Abbey or in the Autonomous Metropolia, but Patriarch Volodymr of Ukraine was the predecessor of Patriarch Filaret of the Ukrainian Orthodox - Kyiv Patriarchate, correct?

The most common understanding of the death of Patriarch Volodymyr was that Filaret Denisenko probably had him killed to take over.

Okay, but was Volodymyr still a valid Patriarch?

[Suaidan]

Okay, but was Volodymyr still a valid Patriarch?

I don't know about canonically; I know he was a real confessor and spent prison time in Soviet jails. So he's clean in my book.

[haralampopoulosjc]

Okay, but was Volodymyr still a valid Patriarch?

I don't know about canonically; I know he was a real confessor and spent prison time in Soviet jails. So he's clean in my book.

Fair enough, I'm just a little more strict in my evaluation of which TO synods are canonical or not.

[Barbara]

I started this reply to H [Your name is too long when it's late at night !] 2 pages bac. Then I realized there had been so many posts since then !
INTERESTING DISCUSSION, very informative, thank you everyone !

Here was my answer :

Yes I personally dislike Elder Silouan of Athos. I always wonder what people see in him ? Especially when there are Optina Elders, TRUE Valaam Elders, Glinsk Elders ; in recent times, Metropolitan Philaret of New York, St John Maximovitch of Shanghai and San Francisco... Elder Silouan can NOT compare with these bright lights. He just strikes me as average.

Where is the documentation about Fr Sergius Irtel raising the dead ? That is a VERY STRONG CLAIM TO MAKE !

Also do we know WHAT years Fr Sergius resided in Paris and anything more about that time ? With whom did he associate there ? We all know that Paris was the emigre capital at that time. 1st Berlin, then the Russian emigres moved en masse to Paris. Then the U.S.

So with which Paris group did he spend time, do we have any knowledge about that ? From for example, the memoirs of fellow emigres ?

To sum up so far, I would put Fr Sergius Irtel below Elder Silouan of Mt Athos in terms of validity.

I DO remember the passage from that book, thank you for posting it so it's handy for us all to read.

But it feels like Fr Herman, who was the inspiration behind that Platina publication, left out probably much more besides omitting Fr Sergius' residence at the Abbey of the Holy Name.

By the way, Fr Sergius' insistence on moving his cell to higher ground away from the Spruce Island beach is not particularly remarkable !

Surely common sense and REGULAR foresight would dictate THAT much.
We can NOT work overtime to transform simple anecdotes into assembling a case for Fr Sergius as a clairvoyant elder.

[Unseen.Warfare]

Okay, but was Volodymyr still a valid Patriarch?

I don't know about canonically; I know he was a real confessor and spent prison time in Soviet jails. So he's clean in my book.

Fair enough, I'm just a little more strict in my evaluation of which TO synods are canonical or not.

Just curious. How would you view a situation like the one below.

Theodosius and Agapetus Bishops of Synada.

A Certain Theodosius was bishop of Synada in Phrygia Pacata; he violently persecuted the heretics in that province-and there was a great number of them-and especially those of the Macedonian sect; he drove them out not only from the city, but also out of the country. This course he pursued not from any precedent in the orthodox church, nor from the desire of propagating the true faith; but being enslaved by the love of filthy lucre, he was impelled by the avaricious motive of amassing money, by extorting it from the heretics.

To this end he made all sorts of attempts upon the Macedonians, putting arms into the hands of his clergy; and employing innumerable stratagems against them; nor did he refrain from delivering them up to the secular tribunals.7 But he especially annoyed their bishop whose name was Agapetus: and finding the governors of the province were not invested with sufficient authority to punish heretics according to his wish, he went to Constantinople and petitioned for edicts of a more stringent nature from the Praetorian prefect. While Theodosius was absent on this business, Agapetus who, as I have said, presided over the Macedonian sect, came to a wise and prudent conclusion. Communicating with his clergy, he called all the people under his guidance together, and persuaded them to embrace the `homoousian' faith. On their acquiescing in this proposition, he proceeded immediately to the church attended not merely by his own adherents, but by the whole body of the people. There having offered prayer, he took possession of the episcopal chair in which Theodosius was accustomed to seat himself; and preaching thenceforth the doctrine of con-substantiality, he reunited the people, and made himself master of the churches in the diocese of Synada.

Soon after these transactions, Theodosius returned to Synada, bringing with him extended powers from the prefect, and knowing nothing of what had taken place, he proceeded to the church just as he was. Being forthwith unanimously expelled, he again betook himself to Constantinople; upon his arrival at that place he complained to Atticus, the: bishop, of the treatment he had met with, and the manner in which he had been deprived of his bishopric. Atticus perceiving that this movement had resulted advantageously to the church, consoled Theodosius as well as he could; recommending him to embrace with a contented mind a retired life, and thus sacrifice his own private interests to the public good. He then wrote to Agapetus authorizing him to retain the episcopate, and bidding him be under no apprehension of being molested in consequence of Theodosius' grievance.
[Book VII, Ch. 3, from Socrates Scholasticus "Ecclesiastical History"

https://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/NPN ... 979_862288

[Unseen.Warfare]

I started this reply to H [Your name is too long when it's late at night !] 2 pages bac. Then I realized there had been so many posts since then !
INTERESTING DISCUSSION, very informative, thank you everyone !

Here was my answer :

Yes I personally dislike Elder Silouan of Athos. I always wonder what people see in him ? Especially when there are Optina Elders, TRUE Valaam Elders, Glinsk Elders ; in recent times, Metropolitan Philaret of New York, St John Maximovitch of Shanghai and San Francisco... Elder Silouan can NOT compare with these bright lights. He just strikes me as average.

Where is the documentation about Fr Sergius Irtel raising the dead ? That is a VERY STRONG CLAIM TO MAKE !

Also do we know WHAT years Fr Sergius resided in Paris and anything more about that time ? With whom did he associate there ? We all know that Paris was the emigre capital at that time. 1st Berlin, then the Russian emigres moved en masse to Paris. Then the U.S.

So with which Paris group did he spend time, do we have any knowledge about that ? From for example, the memoirs of fellow emigres ?

To sum up so far, I would put Fr Sergius Irtel below Elder Silouan of Mt Athos in terms of validity.

I DO remember the passage from that book, thank you for posting it so it's handy for us all to read.

But it feels like Fr Herman, who was the inspiration behind that Platina publication, left out probably much more besides omitting Fr Sergius' residence at the Abbey of the Holy Name.

By the way, Fr Sergius' insistence on moving his cell to higher ground away from the Spruce Island beach is not particularly remarkable !

Surely common sense and REGULAR foresight would dictate THAT much.
We can NOT work overtime to transform simple anecdotes into assembling a case for Fr Sergius as a clairvoyant elder.

He raised a woman’s baby to life in Paris and this was a well known miracle all over Europe. When you’ve already taken this sort of tone towards him because of your dislike towards Saint Silhouan the Athonite (which seems to be rooted in World Orthodoxy promoting him) which is because his spiritual son Sophrony who is actually the one who’s problematic.. Have you considered that maybe you are wrong about St. Silouan and Elder Theodore and you aren’t as discerning as you might think and your rejection of both of them isn’t rooted in anything you’ve been revealed by God… But, your own personal logical reasoning which is cold and calculating? Maybe it would be wiser to pray about this and see if God or one of the Saints will give you an answer. I believe you would come to very different conclusions if you did that.

“No matter how much we may study, it is not possible to come to know God unless we live according to His commandments, for God is not known by science, but by the Holy Spirit. Many philosophers and learned men came to the belief that God exists, but they did not know God. It is one thing to belief that God exists and another to know Him. If someone has come to know God by the Holy Spirit, his soul will burn with love for God day and night, and his soul cannot be bound to any earthly thing.” - St. Silouan the Athonite

Elder Theodore was born George Irtel in 1904. His father had been a renowned physicist in the Russian Royal Court and a friend of St Tsar Nicholas II. His father’s connections permitted young George to be one of Tsarević Alexei Romanov’s playmate. During the Bolshevik Revolution, George fled across Siberia on foot to Irkutsk. Then learning his mother still in Moscow, he walked back across Siberia. He had been arrested in 1920; afterwards, in 1924 he entered Valaam Monastery as a novice. It was there that Novice George came under the spiritual care of the staretz Justinian. Due to godless incursion into the vicinity of Valaam, Novice George moved on to the Pskov Caves Monastery in Estonia.
Under the care of the Elder Schema-Archimandrite Simeon, Monk George was clothed in the small schema and renamed Sergei (Sergius). Stavrophore-monk Sergei was among the many Russian émigrés to Paris in the 1930s. At the Sorbonne, he earned an advanced degree in Philosophy and was ordained to the priesthood in 1934. It has been said that there were three men consecrated to the episcopacy in secret. Fr Sergei was one of the three. Secret consecrations are outside the norm in Orthodoxy. Nevertheless, these elevations were conducted because there was suspicion that the NKVD (predecessor of the KGB) had targeted certain Russian hierarchs in Europe for assassination. While in France, Fr Sergei had frequent fellowship with St. Archbishop John Maximovitć during his tenure there.

Many in ROCOR considered Elder Theodore to be a Wonderworker. the Orthodox word mentioned him a few times prior to the passing of St. Seraphim Rose. But, it seems no amount of information will suffice once people have made up their minds. This constant need to make everything black and white and “consistent” is the root of this truthfully.

Not everything we have in the Church can be confirmed by documented evidence like we are in a court case. Imagine if we took this same tone towards every Saint in history. We wouldn’t have such a thing as Holy Tradition. We’d be overly rationalistic secular scholars or something.

I believe Vladyka John who knew Elder Theodore and a few others who knew him that go to our Church. if you have any questions about the Wonderworker Elder Theodore you can ask him if you’d like.

[haralampopoulosjc]

I don't know about canonically; I know he was a real confessor and spent prison time in Soviet jails. So he's clean in my book.

Fair enough, I'm just a little more strict in my evaluation of which TO synods are canonical or not.

Just curious. How would you view a situation like the one below.

Theodosius and Agapetus Bishops of Synada.

A Certain Theodosius was bishop of Synada in Phrygia Pacata; he violently persecuted the heretics in that province-and there was a great number of them-and especially those of the Macedonian sect; he drove them out not only from the city, but also out of the country. This course he pursued not from any precedent in the orthodox church, nor from the desire of propagating the true faith; but being enslaved by the love of filthy lucre, he was impelled by the avaricious motive of amassing money, by extorting it from the heretics.

To this end he made all sorts of attempts upon the Macedonians, putting arms into the hands of his clergy; and employing innumerable stratagems against them; nor did he refrain from delivering them up to the secular tribunals.7 But he especially annoyed their bishop whose name was Agapetus: and finding the governors of the province were not invested with sufficient authority to punish heretics according to his wish, he went to Constantinople and petitioned for edicts of a more stringent nature from the Praetorian prefect. While Theodosius was absent on this business, Agapetus who, as I have said, presided over the Macedonian sect, came to a wise and prudent conclusion. Communicating with his clergy, he called all the people under his guidance together, and persuaded them to embrace the `homoousian' faith. On their acquiescing in this proposition, he proceeded immediately to the church attended not merely by his own adherents, but by the whole body of the people. There having offered prayer, he took possession of the episcopal chair in which Theodosius was accustomed to seat himself; and preaching thenceforth the doctrine of con-substantiality, he reunited the people, and made himself master of the churches in the diocese of Synada.

Soon after these transactions, Theodosius returned to Synada, bringing with him extended powers from the prefect, and knowing nothing of what had taken place, he proceeded to the church just as he was. Being forthwith unanimously expelled, he again betook himself to Constantinople; upon his arrival at that place he complained to Atticus, the: bishop, of the treatment he had met with, and the manner in which he had been deprived of his bishopric. Atticus perceiving that this movement had resulted advantageously to the church, consoled Theodosius as well as he could; recommending him to embrace with a contented mind a retired life, and thus sacrifice his own private interests to the public good. He then wrote to Agapetus authorizing him to retain the episcopate, and bidding him be under no apprehension of being molested in consequence of Theodosius' grievance.
[Book VII, Ch. 3, from Socrates Scholasticus "Ecclesiastical History"

https://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/NPN ... 979_862288

If I'm reading the story correctly, a heretic took over the see of an Orthodox bishop who was abusing the heretics?