Alexey II says all evil forces are against MP-ROCOR union

User avatar
Kollyvas
Protoposter
Posts: 1811
Joined: Mon 26 September 2005 5:02 pm
Location: Mesa, AZ
Contact:

phyletism?

Post by Kollyvas »

Christ is Risen!

Evlogeite.
Phyletism? Last I checked the Russian church was quite multi-ethnic: no, arguments for/against "phyletism" don't apply here because what is being discussed is the reintegration of separated dioceses of the one Russian local church, which may have linguistic homogeneity but represent many different peoples. (Phyletism implies certain ethnicities have greater favour with God and that "nationalism" is a basis for ecclesiastical divisions, following the rousseauian ideas of national religion.) I think the ecumenist strawman here is troublesome. Yes, ecumenism is heresy (awaiting a synodal pronouncement), BUT the MP's espoused model is supposedly dialogue as witness, which is not heretical. Resistance on these grounds would probably be schism.
R
Fr. Andrew's analysis is limited to his experience and is simplified; however, there is a bit of truth to it. If I were to posit one reason for ROCOR reintegration into the MP, I would simply say:

BECAUSE ST TIKHON SAID SO.

Those ROCOR (et al) types who refuse to honour his instructions, have a canonical relationship they can pursue with the Serbs. Above and beyond that, there is resistance, but resistance would not be to the MP but rather to ROCOR. Truth be told, it should all be part of the OCA.

Love is a holy state of the soul, disposing it to value knowledge of God above all created things. We cannot attain lasting possession of such love while we are attached to anything worldly. —St. Maximos The Confessor

User avatar
尼古拉前执事
Archon
Posts: 5118
Joined: Thu 24 October 2002 7:01 pm
Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Non-Phylitist
Location: Euless, TX, United States of America
Contact:

Re: phyletism?

Post by 尼古拉前执事 »

Kollyvas wrote:

Christ is Risen!

Yes, ecumenism is heresy (awaiting a synodal pronouncement)

Truly He is Risen!

Already pronounced by the ROCA and was received accepted by the various traditionalist Orthodox Churches who have added it in to the anathemas on the Sunday of Orthodoxy.

"To those who attack the Church of Christ by teaching that Christ's Church is divided into so-called "branches" which differ in doctrine and way of life, or that the Church does not exist visibly, but will be formed in the future when all branches or sects, or denominations, and even religions will be united into one body; and who do not distinguish the priesthood and mysteries of the Church from those of heretics, but say that the baptism and eucharist of heretics is effectual for salvation; therefore, to those who knowingly have communion with these aforementioned heretics or who advocate, disseminate, or defend their new heresy, commonly called ecumenism, under the pretext of brotherly love or the supposed unification of separated Christians, Anathema!"

User avatar
Kollyvas
Protoposter
Posts: 1811
Joined: Mon 26 September 2005 5:02 pm
Location: Mesa, AZ
Contact:

St. Tikhon's Blessing?

Post by Kollyvas »

Christ is Risen!
Evlogeite Pater.
The pronouncement of a separated diocese of a local church does not bear authority upon the entire Oikumene. Let's say the Russian local church anathemized ecumenism, still wouldn't be an ecumenical pronouncement. What is necessary is the recognition of at least the principle local churches, as yet unrealized. Moreover, how could this mediate St. Tikhon's will "that separated dioceses reunite with the Patriarchal centre once persecution had abated and in unity resume the work of the All-Russian Council"? I think defying the wishes of St. Tikhon is rather unsound ground, indeed.
R
BTW, is it to be understood then Icons of God the Father bear ecumenical condemnation by such reasoning?

Love is a holy state of the soul, disposing it to value knowledge of God above all created things. We cannot attain lasting possession of such love while we are attached to anything worldly. —St. Maximos The Confessor

User avatar
尼古拉前执事
Archon
Posts: 5118
Joined: Thu 24 October 2002 7:01 pm
Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Non-Phylitist
Location: Euless, TX, United States of America
Contact:

Post by 尼古拉前执事 »

Because the "Mother Church" is the Church that went underground. Not the one created when Stalin installed a ex-Living-Church "hierarch" puppet as "Patriarch".

As for ecumenism, you said it needed synodal pronouncement. It has been done. And the other traditionalist Churches including the Catacomb Churches received it and accepted it and even proclaim it on the Sunday of Orthodoxy.

User avatar
Kollyvas
Protoposter
Posts: 1811
Joined: Mon 26 September 2005 5:02 pm
Location: Mesa, AZ
Contact:

"puppet churches"

Post by Kollyvas »

Christ is Risen!
The vast majority of the katakombniki returned to the bosom of the MP after WWII (and remain until today) under the same stalin. One would be hard pressed to find a "katakombnik" organization having a direct link to St. Peter or St. Kyrill or St. Agathangel or St. Joseph, and those one will find broke from the MAJORITY of their synods who reunited with the restored Russian church. But to carry the stalin analogy further, the election of a canonical Patriarch IN DIRECT SUCCESSION from St. Tikhon surely is much more legitimate ecclesiastically than a lutheran synod run by an oberprocurator. As oppressed as the MP was, it was still the functioning Russian local church with a more valid hierarchical structure than Peter's subjugation of the Russian church. It could be argued that the MP was subject to the whims of an ideologically hostile government, but the ep since 1453 as well as Antioch and Alexandria and Jerusalem exist under similar circumstances now for centuries. And the FACT that communism is now over begs the question of the relevence of these observations. Orthodoxy is freer in Russia today than anywhere else in the West. Moreover, why is it the Russian church cannot recognize a socialist government when it can recognize any filthy Western contrivance?! Leaving this all pointless and ST TIKHON's INSTRUCTIONS SOVEREIGN:

SEPARATED DIOCESES ARE TO REUNITE WITH THE PATRIARCHAL CENTRE ONCE PERSECUTION ABATES TO RESUME THE WORK OF THE ALL-RUSSIAN COUNCIL.

He was pretty clear, and I prefer to walk in the footsteps of the Father of the restored Patriarchate, not look for outdated cold war propaganda to defy the conscience of the New Martyrs and the Russian church.

That certain synodeias in resistance may have anathemized ecumenism surely bears local weight, but it is a call for a larger synod, not an autonomous act, and synods of ecumenical character do not arise when others refuse unity with their Mother Churches over political grudges. No the resistance stays isolated and contained and does not rise to confront the wrongdoers. That's sterile resistance. The MP as a body is the largest and most conservative local church in Orthodoxy and ecumenism is not at all popular with the believers, monastics, clergy. Refusing to witness resistance in unity, with such a great opportunity as this, condemns such resistance and invalidates it.
Indeed He is Risen!
Rostislav
Again, St. Tikhon, and not ROCOR nor even St. Joseph, et al., has set our path before us. Being disloyal to him is disloyalty to the Russian church.

And again, by such models of conciliarity, then, Icons of God the Father are heretical, making vast tracts of the Russian church, resister and non, heretical anyways, right?! I think we know that local anathemas don't bear this kind of weight.

Love is a holy state of the soul, disposing it to value knowledge of God above all created things. We cannot attain lasting possession of such love while we are attached to anything worldly. —St. Maximos The Confessor

User avatar
Kollyvas
Protoposter
Posts: 1811
Joined: Mon 26 September 2005 5:02 pm
Location: Mesa, AZ
Contact:

Fr. Andrew Philips: The atheist west In Light Of Orthodoxy

Post by Kollyvas »

http://www.orthodoxengland.org.uk/

The Atheist West in the Light of Orthodoxy

Arise, Russia! The time is already near!
Arise for the sake of the service of Christ!
O Russia, great is the coming day,
The universal and Orthodox day!

Daybreak, Tiutchev

Founded in 1993, the World Council of Russian People is made up of secular civic organizations, acting under the spiritual direction of the Russian Orthodox Church. Indeed, the head of the Council is Patriarch Alexis, aided by two deputies, Metropolitan Kyril of Smolensk and Kaliningrad, and the Chairman of the Union of Russian Writers, Valery Ganichev.

Held this year from 4 to 6 April in the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow, the Tenth World Council of Russian People adopted a Declaration of Human Dignity and Rights. This Orthodox manifesto openly rejected the modern Western system of humanist values and called on Russian society to look again at the concept of human rights in the light of the Gospel. The decision to put forward an Orthodox Christian view of this question was taken at last year's Council. It was prompted by the Church's view that Western secular human rights do not at all correspond to the spiritual and moral values of the Orthodox Faith.

As Patriarch Alexis II asked: 'To what extent does the Western view of human rights permit an Orthodox people to live according to the faith it professes?' He openly affirmed the Orthodox view that the Western concept of human rights has led to the 'revival of neo-paganism'. Thus, the Council's participants denounced the 'distorted view of human rights' that has become prevalent in the contemporary West. Having rejected all traditional spiritual and moral values, the selfish individualism of the Western view is clearly leading to the breakdown of society and marriage, sexual depravity and ecological disaster.

In particular, the Council rejected the irresponsible idea of 'moral autonomy'. This Western individualistic idea, which has evolved from Protestantism and been adopted wholesale by Roman Catholicism since the 1960s, is alien to the Orthodox Faith. It postulates that individual moral autonomy can only be limited by the autonomy of other individuals, that there is no supreme authority to distinguish between good and evil. Clearly, this relativistic and basically selfish view of life is unacceptable to the Orthodox Christian Church.

The Church believes that turning the autonomy and rights of an individual into an absolute value, without the counterbalance of moral responsibility, inevitably leads to the suicide of civilization, as is now happening throughout the Western world. As the contemporary Orthodox saint, St Justin of Chelije, wrote only a few decades ago: 'Dark night has fallen on Europe. Its idols are crashing down and the day is not far off, when not a single stone of the European culture that has built cities and destroyed souls, that has worshipped created things and rejected the Creator, will be left one on the other'.

Thus, the Council rejected the idea that an individual's rights are superior to the rights of communities. Taking as its model the unity in diversity of the teaching of the Holy Trinity, the Council declared that there is need for balance between the interests of society and those of the individual. 'There are values that are no less important than human rights', affirmed the Council, 'these are faith, morality, holiness and patriotism'. The modern West, on the other hand, conditions each individual to live his life in the bubble of consumer society egoism. The Orthodox Declaration also denounced Western hypocrisy in 'the policy of double standards in the field of human rights, as well as the attempts to use these rights to advance political, ideological, military and economic interests, and to impose a certain State or social system'. This latter declaration certainly seemed to refer to the recent disastrous Western war in Iraq, founded on the arrogant interventionism of the Bush-Blair ideology.

Miraculously, after seventy-five years of Communism and nearly fifteen years of drift, at last Russia is beginning to find her way once more. At last, the free voice of Orthodoxy inside Russia can be heard stating what we faithful Russian Orthodox outside Russia have always maintained. In this way, Moscow is speaking for the whole of the Orthodox world, which, fragmented outside Russia, is not strong enough to express the Orthodox view of the world. Russia is expressing our understanding that our Orthodox Christian civilization is unique, based on a set of distinctive values and evolving along a path different from that of the post-Schism, and now post-Judeo-Christian, West.

Moreover, again miraculously when considered against the background of recent Russian history, these Orthodox views are beginning to influence the present Russian government. They show that Russia is capable of defending her own interests and those of our allies. For instance, these Orthodox views are reflected in the contemporary Russian concept of 'sovereign democracy'. This notion challenges Western-imposed globalism and asserts the desire and ability of Orthodox peoples to define our own destiny and rules of life independently, in our own society.

Here is proof that the voice of Orthodoxy is now beginning to be heard on the world stage. For years after the collapse of Communism, Russian leaders, in an ideological vacuum, merely reiterated the cliches of Western humanist propaganda. Thus, under Gorbachev, slogans like 'the common European home' and 'common human values' abounded. In its efforts to fill the post-Communist and Western humanist void, the Russian authorities are today turning towards the traditional views of the Orthodox Church, returning to Russia's uniqueness, which distinguishes Russia from the decadent West. The world is discovering once again that the Orthodox God is not the god of Western humanist philosophers, but the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The Russian leadership is turning to the Orthodox Church and Russia is returning to her roots - Orthodox roots.

Fr Andrew

Love is a holy state of the soul, disposing it to value knowledge of God above all created things. We cannot attain lasting possession of such love while we are attached to anything worldly. —St. Maximos The Confessor

Justin Kissel

Post by Justin Kissel »

Gee Nicholas, you didn't make too much of a fuss about all this Russian-ness when you were in ROCOR. Maybe you should have written to the seminary and told them that they were in America, and to start teaching in English? Or you could have sent a personal letter to all the priests, explaining that in America no one understands Slavonic, including half the people in the choirs?

Personally, I don't see what the fuss is about regarding the Russian aspect of this. Hello? They consider themselves a RUSSIAN Church in exile, which has been waiting for GENERATIONS to RETURN to communion (and eventually union) with... um... er... the RUSSIAN Church. Now, just why would they be so interested in talking about the Russian element? :roll: 8)

Post Reply