An Appeal to the hierarchs, clergy and faithful children of the ROCA


An Appeal to the hierarchs, clergy and faithful children of the ROCA
The Appeal does not show a date.  The earliest I can find it on the internet is August 6, 2004.
http://web.archive.org/web/20040701000000*/http://orthodoxinfo.biz/appeal.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20040806212542/http://orthodoxinfo.biz/appeal.htm
It was reposted Sept. 7, 2006
http://revniteli.livejournal.com/14282.html?thread=9674
http://www.euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=7009
The ECafe commentators include 2 MP goons.  back-up archive of ECafe comments found below the Appeal.



An Appeal to the hierarchs, clergy and faithful children of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad

We, members of the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, appeal to our Synod of Bishops, the clergy and the faithful.

With deep filial love and respect, we note with sorrow that storms of doubt and confusion assail the Church. We know that these storms are temporary and the Church will remain firm and steadfast.

In order to allay the fears of the clergy and faithful who may feel Isolated and alone in their confession of the Faith, we feel it necessary to voice our concerns. In regard to the proposed union with the Moscow Patriarchate, we have several points that we ask the Synod of Bishops to consider. Firstly, we must state that responsiveness to reconciliation is essential.

There could be no greater joy than that the Orthodox people of Russia and abroad should be united in truth. However, there are major obstacles to reconciliation.

The issues that have always been considerations for the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad are the glorifications of the New Martyrs and the Royal Martyrs, and involvement in the heresies of Ecumenism and Sergianism. 

Also of serious consideration is the future role of the American Metropolia, known as the Orthodox Church in America. We are reminded that two resolutions, in 1971 as well as 1990, declare that we do not recognize the legitimacy of the elections, nor the actions, of the patriarchs of Moscow since the time of the betrayal of Metropolitan Sergius. These resolutions have never been rescinded. We do not recognize the Moscow Patriarchate as the “Mother Church” nor the legitimate heir to the Church of St. Tikhon and the New Martyrs.
Some of these issues have been addressed, yet others remain considerable obstacles that would preclude any intercommunion or concelebration. 

Prior to intercommunion the process should be genuine and transparent.  There must be not even the appearance of one sidedness or even the appearance of machination. Intercommunion is the result of one-mindedness; it does not create one-mindedness. From the Divine Liturgy we are taught to recite the Symbol of Faith before we are able to share in the Divine Body and Blood of Christ.

It would be utterly impossible for us to share in the Eucharistic Mysteries before there is complete unity of Faith, in honesty and fidelity to the legacy of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and Her God-granted mission to preserve the Truth.

Archimandrite Alexis (St. Edward’s Brotherhood)
Mitred Archpriest Vladimir Schlenew
Archpriest Nikita Chemodakov
Archpriest Sergei Okunev
Archpriest George Petrenko
Archpriest John Stukacz
Archpriest Michael Konstantinoff
Archpriest Peter Semovskih
Archpriest Gregory Williams
Archpriest Andrei Alexiev
Archpriest George Lapardin
Archpriest George Lagodich
Archpriest Basil Grisel
Archpriest Wsewolod Dutikov
Priest Thomas Maretta
Priest Constantine Bussyguin
Priest Alexis Duncan
Priest George Primak
Priest Nicholas Rabbe
Priest Seraphim Stephens
Priest Vladimir Petrenko
Priest Mark Gilstrap
Hieromonk Theophylact (Clapper-DeWell)
Priest Vladimir Tsukanov
Priest Anastasy Yatrelis
Priest Victor Dobroff
Priest Peter Baulk
Priest Christo Kralstev
Priest John Moses
Priest Onuphry Keith
Priest Leonid Goferman
Priest Michael Metni
Protodeacon Basil Yakimov
Protodeacon Basil Hadarin
Hierodeacon Sabbas (St. Edward’s Brotherhood)
Deacon Nicholas Chernjavsky
Deacon Nicholas Lukianov
Deacon Eugene Braga
Deacon Kesarii Mortari
Deacon Anthony Bridges
Deacon Vasily Milonov
Subdeacon Joseph Zurhmuehl
Subdeacon Jospeh Brinda
Reader Oleg Rodzianko
Reader Peter Bushunow
Reader John Qualls
Reader Peter Lukianov
Reader Benjamin Popov
Reader John Dunn
Reader Mark Alexiev



GOON SEARCH PUZZLE
For fun: count how many goons are hidden in this conversation:


by 尼古拉前执事 » Thu 7 September 2006 7:17 pm
An Appeal to the hierarchs, clergy and faithful children of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad 

We, members of the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, appeal to our Synod of Bishops, the clergy and the faithful. 

. . .
To add your name to this appeal, send an email indicating this to: appeal@orthodoxinfo.biz


by strastnaya » Fri 8 September 2006 12:56 am
This "appeal" was penned prior to the May Sobor and the issues they raised were addressed there in San Franscisco. 
One wonders why at this moment when the ROCOR Synod has gone ahead with reconciliation that a deacon in the ROAC would re-post such a thing? 
Face it, after Met. Lavr went to Russia it was only a matter of time for the Russian Church to come together in unity. 
There are no more reasons for separation, the Church in Russia is free and those who want to remain Russian Orthodox need to be joined to the Patriarch. 
In Christ, 
Deacon John




by 尼古拉前执事 » Fri 8 September 2006 1:40 am
strastnaya wrote:
One wonders why at this moment when the ROCOR Synod has gone ahead with reconciliation that a deacon in the ROAC would re-post such a thing?


Dear Fr John, 

Welcome to the forum. As to why I post things, you may wish to read the disclaimer in my signature. And for the record I posted this before the publication about the ROCOR Synod approving the communion with the MP which was 2 hours later and I promptly posted it athttp://EuphrosynoCcafe.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7010 . 

You may want to read other articles about the MP in this World Orthodoxy section if you care to see how in many ways the MP has not changed.




by strastnaya » Fri 8 September 2006 2:33 pm
You may want to read other articles about the MP in this World Orthodoxy section if you care to see how in many ways the MP has not changed.


Dear Fr. Dcn. Nikolai, 
I know all the news and articles concerning the life of the MP. 
The MP is not teaching anything other than the Orthodox faith, is spite of some of the poorer members of the body of Christ who do mess up. 
The essential questions are: whether the faithful of the Russian Orthodox Church accept them as the Church and they do, and whether the rest of the churches of Orthodoxy accept them as the Church and they do. 
I am sorry, but to deviate from that definition of "where the Church is" takes you into some strange territory. 
In Chrsit, 
Dcn. John




by Joseph » Fri 8 September 2006 8:39 pm
Are you not aware that the MP is a full member, participant and promoter of the teachings and goals of the WCC? This is clearly teaching that is contrary to the Orthdoox Faith.




by jckstraw72 » Fri 8 September 2006 9:01 pm
i thought part of the union btwn ROCOR and MP included that the MP must quit the WCC




by George Australia » Fri 8 September 2006 9:44 pm
Nathanael wrote:
Are you not aware that the MP is a full member, participant and promoter of the teachings and goals of the WCC?

Oh really? 
Well the WCC doesn't seem to think so, nor did the Russian Orthodox delegates to the WCC Assembly in Harare.
Perhaps you need to keep more abreast of current affairs:
Russian official tells WCC it must reform to retain its Orthodox members
ENI-98-0557

By Stephen Brown
Harare, 7 December (ENI)--The World Council of Churches (WCC) assembly - which is meeting in Harare - has been warned by a representative of the Russian Orthodox Church that unless there are radical reforms of the WCC, more Orthodox churches will quit the organisation.

Dr Hilarion Alfeyev, leader of the Russian Orthodox delegation to the WCC assembly, told delegates during a debate yesterday 6 December about the future direction of the WCC, that "two Orthodox churches have already left the WCC [and] some other Orthodox churches have decided to send reduced delegations to Harare".

"If the structure of the WCC is not radically changed, other Orthodox churches will also leave the WCC," Dr Alfeyev said. He denied that his remarks were "a threat or blackmail", but rather "an outcry of pain" and stressed that the Russian Orthodox Church - which is the WCC's biggest member church - did not want to leave the WCC but preferred to "continue our journey together".

"We want the WCC to be radically reformed so it becomes a true home for Orthodox in the 21st century," Dr Alfayev said, during a debate on a document entitled "Towards a Common Understanding and Vision of the WCC (CUV)".

The CUV document is intended to focus and give direction to the work of the WCC in the years ahead. It has also provided the basis for a major restructuring at the WCC's headquarters in Geneva. However, many Orthodox church representatives have said they would like to see more thoroughgoing reforms, to transform the WCC so that it becomes representative of the main church "families" rather than of individual churches as it is at present.

Last year the Georgian Orthodox Church announced its withdrawal from the WCC, blaming the WCC's "failure to take interests of Orthodox churches fully into account". Since then the Bulgarian Orthodox Church has also announced that it will leave the WCC, although the WCC has yet to receive official notification. There has also been strong pressure within a number of other Orthodox churches, including the Serbian and the Russian churches, to quit the WCC, most of whose 339 member churches come from Anglican and Protestant traditions.

The issue of Orthodox participation in the WCC has emerged as a major issue in the WCC's assembly, which opened in Zimbabwe's capital on 3 December. In a written message sent to the assembly, Bartholomeos I, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, who holds the position of "first among equals" among Orthodox leaders, warned that since the WCC's last assembly, held in 1991 in Canberra, "a series of liberal, theological and moral positions [had been] adopted and brought into the life of the council by a variety of member churches, mainly of the Northern hemisphere".

In his speech, Dr Alfeyev, who is an official of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church, warned that Orthodox churches and churches of Protestant tradition were "developing in the opposite direction".

Orthodox churches were maintaining "traditional Christian values", he said, whereas many Protestant churches were "adopting Western liberal values and throwing out traditional Christian values, one after the other".

Dr Alafeyev's speech to the eighth assembly was the first by a representative of the Russian Orthodox Church. Discontent with WCC policies has been growing in the Russian church in recent years, particularly in past months. The Russian church drastically cut the size of its assembly delegation which, unusually, includes no senior church leaders.

"The Orthodox cannot affect the agenda of the WCC because they are a minority," Dr Alfeyev said. "What about the veneration of the Virgin Mary, the veneration of icons and the veneration of the saints? These [Orthodox practices] cannot be discussed because they are divisive. But what about inclusive language and the ordination of women?" he said, referring to subjects that are frequently mentioned by liberal Protestants. "Are these not divisive?"

Among other Orthodox speakers during the debate, Leonid Kishkovsky, of the Orthodox Church in America (which is linked to the Russian Orthodox Church), said that the WCC had been formed primarily to deal with questions linked to the 16th-century Protestant Reformation.

"The churches of the East were not and are not part of this story. The Reformation is not our story," Kishkovsky said. "Its theological debates and presuppositions are not our theological debates and presuppositions."

But the assembly gathering was also electrified by a staunch defence of ecumenism by Rose Hudson-Wilkin, a priest of the Church of England, who said that the debate was "really about power" being "wrapped up in theological and ecclesiological language".

Referring to Kishkovsky's remarks, she said that at the Decade Festival of the Ecumenical Decade of Churches in Solidarity with Women, which preceded the assembly, "we said just the opposite: Your story is my story.

"If we're going to listen to each other, we cannot do it from a distance. That means walking side by side with me, even if you are uncomfortable." [841 words]





by Priest Siluan » Sat 9 September 2006 2:24 am
George: 

What church do you belong? I thought that you belong to the Kyprianites (am I right or not?), do they think now that MP is not Ecumenist?




by George Australia » Sat 9 September 2006 4:09 am
Answer to Question 1) The Great Church (according to the Holy Canons). 
Answer to Question 2) You are wrong (always seem to back the wrong horse, don't you?:wink:) 
Answer to question 3) Yes, but so what? Archbishop Gregory of Denver and Colorado also thinks so. And he also calls himself "Genuine Orthodox", "True Orthodox" and "Traditionalist Orthodox"- But does any of this make him Orthodox? Or Canonical? Or is he in reality just another schismatic? 

All that aside, I wonder if you even bothered to read what the Russian Orthodox delegation to the WCC had to say as I posted in this thread here and cited from this website: http://www.eni.ch/assembly/0557.html which could hardly be considered biased, since it is the website of "Ecumenical News International"......I doubt you had read it, because your questions are completely unrelated to any of this thread. And why am I not surprised? 
Warning: Prejudiced responses based on misinformation and sounding like they come from an unthinking automaton will henceforth be ignored. 





by George Australia » Sat 9 September 2006 4:53 am
Address of the Synod of Bishops to the God-loving Flock of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia 
September 7th 2006 
Dear in the Lord Fathers, Brothers and Sisters! 

For 90 years now, the dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia have existed on all continents, along with monasteries, publishing houses and parishes. Everything that signifies church life: parish councils, sisterhoods, schools, youth groups, general parish meetings, magnificent choirs, altar boys, etc. gathered around them. All this arose as diocesan conferences and Church Councils convened, which regulated all of church life. Thus, through the chaos of the persecution of the Russian Church, the Russian Orthodox people gathered to stand around their Hierarchy, which found itself abroad, and strove to serve towards the emancipation and rebirth of their people on the foundation of the Orthodox Faith. 

Within the boundaries of Russia, persecution took the form of the absolute destruction of faith in Christ. Much was destroyed, many suffered. But the Lord did not permit the disappearance of the Church in our Homeland. In those places where ancient churches survived, people are once again gaining spiritual nourishment. That which was destroyed is being rebuilt. Church life is rising from the ashes. Archpastors, clergymen and believers are trying to rebuild Orthodox Russia anew. This process of renascence requires effort and the strength of will, since it is necessary to conduct spiritual educational work with the descendants of the generations of godless violence which touched absolutely every person without exception. Many obstacles remain on this path, but we see that these obstacles, and the remnants of Soviet times, are gradually being overcome. 

The day has arrived when we must seek the reestablishment of communion with the wellspring of our own traditions. For there are two wills at work—one being that of those Russians who are children of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, prepared in every way to cooperate in the reestablishment of church life and development of the spirituality of the people, and the other is from our brethren and sisters in Russia, who labor towards her rebirth and extend their hand to us. 

Positive changes in the church life of our Homeland spurred the Council of Bishops of October 2000 to establish a Committee on the unity of the Russian Church and to bless the organization of scholarly conferences on church history with the participation of the members of our Church and representatives of the Church in Russia. These conferences were held in 2001 and 2002. Then, in December 2003, a Commission on discussions with the Moscow Patriarchate was formed. At the same time, the Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate decided to create a similar Commission on dialog with our Church. This bore witness to the earnest and good-willed effort of both parts of the Russian Orthodox Church to make sense of the tragedy of our common history, so that we "may discuss peacefully… whatever question there is which separates your communion from us," as we read in Canon 92 (103) of the Council of Carthage, which called upon the flock to trust their Hierarchy, which possessed the right to heal the divisions between the Orthodox and the Donatists. 

The "Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia," the by-laws under which our Church lives, demand that we regularize the situation of the Local Russian Church. It is important to note that a commission to revise the "Regulations of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia" was established before the year 2000. 

This shows that even then it was apparent that our "Regulations" are in need of amendment. Since 2000, new possibilities emerged in this regard. Now, in connection with the adoption of the "Act on Canonical Communion," our by-laws can be reexamined, taking into account new possibilities. 

Still, it is necessary to point out that we are not discussing the "self-abolishment" of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. Our Church will exist as before, as attested to by the first paragraph of the "Act on Canonical Communion:" "The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, conducting its salvific service in the dioceses, parishes, monasteries, brotherhoods and other ecclesiastical bodies that took shape through history, remains an indissoluble part of the Local Russian Orthodox Church." These words in the "Act" attest to the recognition on the part of the Moscow Patriarchate of our historical path and of the living bond between the entire Local Russian Orthodox Church and its part abroad, which always existed and which we never denied. This historical document will reestablish the unity of the Russian Orthodox Church, through this mutual act acknowledging the lawful status of the Russian Church Abroad and the Moscow Patriarchate in Russia. Each side, preserving its identity as a Church, will continue to exist in full legality and independence, but now recognizing the other side and declaring the unity of the Russian Church. For this reason, this means the reconciliation and mutual recognition of each other while yet preserving our administrative self-governance, for we understand the needs of our clergy and of our flock better than they understand them in Moscow. 

The IV All-Diaspora Council and the Council of Bishops that followed approved the steps towards reestablishing unity already taken by our Hierarchy, and blessed its continued progress. 

The above-mentioned "Act" has been approved and confirmed by the Synod of Bishops, but it will be finally adopted when it is signed by the Primates of the two parts of the Russian Orthodox Church. Working out the details of this signing, and also the Rite of the establishment of canonical communion has been assigned to the Commission on discussions with the Moscow Patriarchate. It is expected that it will embark on this task jointly with the Commission on dialog with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia at their next meeting. Then, the results of this meeting will be considered at the next session of the Synod of Bishops, which will be held in December of this year. 

Dear in the Lord fathers, brothers and sisters! We do not intend to depart from our positions of principle, in particular with regard to the ecumenical movement. We intend to continue to firmly speak out in condemnation of the so-called "branch theory" and of joint prayer with heretics, which is emphasized in our anathema of ecumenism adopted by the Council of Bishops of 1983. This is reflected in the documents of the church Commissions confirmed by both Holy Synods and published in the official publications of the two parts of the Russian Orthodox Church. From this we see that in the Moscow Patriarchate, our attitude towards the heresy of ecumenism has long ago been absorbed. That is why we are not compromising the inherited principles which have always guided us. Still, we were always open to dialog with everyone, but on the condition that this be done without any hindrance to Orthodox teaching. In the decisions of the Councils of Bishops we always held fast to the ecclesiology of moderation, and never rejected the presence of grace in the Moscow Patriarchate or in other Local Churches. 

We will continue to maintain the spirit of our great fathers, the founders of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, following their legacy and the historical path of our Church. To carry this great inheritance to Russia is the mission we strive to fulfill. 

We will always remember that only in the Kingdom of Heaven will everything be perfect and good, that in the Church on earth we will perpetually experience difficulties caused by human passions, failings, temptations and sins, which must be overcome by means of beneficial fraternal dialog and cooperation, condescension, understanding and a Christian attitude towards each other, as Apostle Paul wrote to the Galatians: "correct such a one in the spirit of meekness" (Galatians 6:1). 

In conclusion, let us remember Schema-Archimandrite Amvrossy (Kurganov) of blessed memory, the Abbot of Vvedensky Milkovo Monastery in Serbia, whence came several bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, since departed. The eminent church figure of the Russian diaspora, P.S. Lopukhin, writing on the Christian death of Fr Amvrossy, said: "I preserve in my memory this image of a man, weeping in joy on his death bed for Divine unity." Blessed Metropolitan Anthony said of Fr Amvrossy that in spirit he was closer to him than anyone. 

May God grant all of us to experience this feeling of "spiritual joy in Divine unity," leading us to the successful conclusion of the process of reconciliation of the two parts of the Russian Orthodox Church. 

May the Lord help us! Amen. 

+ LAURUS, 
Metropolitan of Eastern America and New York, 
First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia 
+ Mark, Archbishop of Berlin and Germany 
+ Kyrill, Archbishop of San Francisco and Western America 
+ Michael, Bishop of Geneva and Western Europe 
+ Gabriel, Bishop of Manhattan 
+ Peter, Bishop of Cleveland




by Frelias » Sat 9 September 2006 5:46 am
I think as one reads the letter below written by Prot. Alexander Lebedeff, one can easily see the ridiculous “logic” of his argument. I continue to be amazed by so many who seem to be blind to the hypocrisy of both the MP and ROCOR in their ecumenistic behavior of the past years. 

Nevertheless, if one will truthfully investigate the many reports of the persecutions of the ROAC clergy and parishioners -- does this not raise a flag one one’s mind? For after the death of Metropolitan Philaret of blessed memory, clearly ROCOR began (little by little) down a path radically different than in the days of Metropolitan Philaret. 

Priest Elias 


July 28, 2006 
Fr. Alexander Lebedeff on the MP, the ROCOR and Ecumenism 
Filed under: Ecclesiastical at 2:48 am 
Posted on the Orthodox Jurisdictions forum.
In discussions regarding the MP and Ecumenism, many seem to be under the impression that the MP was **always** involved in ecumenism, and that the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia was **always** staunchly against ecumenism and participation in the WCC. 
Nothing could be further from the truth. 
In fact, when the World Council of Churches was officially founded in 1948, the Moscow Patriarchate convened a Pan-Orthodox Council that categorically rejected ecumenism and stated that participation in the WCC was incompatible with Orthodox ecclesiology. 
At that time, the ROCOR was actively involved with ecumenism, as it had been since the 1920s, and during the entire time of the tenure of Metropolitans Anthony and Anastassy. 
The ROCOR was a Charter Member of the original founding organization–the precursor of the WCC and to this day one of its key elements: The Committee on Faith and Order. 
The ROCOR Sobors of Bishops blessed participation by bishops and clergy representatives at all of the meetings of the Faith and Order Commssion. 
Even as late as 1951, the ROCOR sponsored a European sub-Assembly of the WCC, held in Baden-Baden. You can see pictures of this assembly, with ROCOR Archbishop Benedict and Bishop Alexander surrounded by the usual WCC melange of Copts, Armenians, Anglicans, Methodists, Lutherans, etc. in the official history of the ROCOR, published during the time of Metropolitan Philaret in 1968 (the two-volume Sollogub opus). 
There you can also see pictures of Ecumenical meetings with Metropolitan Anthony participating in Serbia–especially meetings with Anglicans. One can see the bishops of the ROCOR in ecumenical dialogue with the Archbishop of Canterbury and other Anglican bishops. 
Recently, someone claimed that there was an Ukaz of the ROCOR in 1953 banning all contact with the World Council of Churches. 
Why then do I have before me the Report to the Council of Bishops by Protopriest George Grabbe, describing in detail his participation in the General Assembly of the World Council of Churches at Evanston in 1954? He was officially an observer, but was certainly officially representing the Church Abroad. 
And why is no one talking about the official delegation of the ROCOR to the Second Vatican Council in Rome, at the invitation of Pope John XXIII? 
This was an official delegation, headed by Archbishop Anthony of Geneva, Archimandrite Ambrose (Pogodin), Protopriests Igor Troyanoff and Alexander Troubnikoff– with official Observer status. 
They participated in all of the major “official” events, such as the opening ceremonies in St. Peter’s Cathedral, where they processed as part of the Orthodox church representatives, and the official receptions given to the “Orthodox sister churches” by the Pope. 
(This was actually quite interesting, because the Moscow Patriarchate had also been invited, and sent a delegation headed by Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov). This was the first occasion where both a ROCOR and an MP delegation participated side by side, representing the Russian Church–which caused quite some interesting issues of protocol–order in the procession, seating at the sessions, receptions and banquets, etc.) 
And all of this with the full blessing of the Council of Bishops of the Church Abroad under Metropolitans Anastassy and Philaret. 
Another rarely-mentioned fact in the collaboration of the ROCOR with the World Council of Churches and allied ecumenical organizations is that all of the bishops and clergy of the ROCOR in Germany and Austria received their salaries from the local Church World Service of the WCC–throughout all of the time that Metropolitan Philaret was First Hierarch. This continued virtually to the end of the 1990’s. Our parishes in Germany and Austria were able to exist only because of the very significant subsidies received from the ecumenists– for decades. 
One should also mention that the majority of members of the ROCOR who emigrated to the United States, Canada, Australia, and other countries from “Displaced Persons” camps in Germany and Austria had their travel expenses paid by the ecumenical Church World Service–so most of our older generation of parishioners (and clergy) — are here only because of ecumenical organizations outreach programs. 
Cooperation by the ROCOR continues with ecumenical organizations to this day. The Russian Home for the Aged near the Strathfield Cathedral in Sydney, Australia, is operated by the National Council of Churches of Australia in close cooperation with our Diocese of the Church Abroad. If there were no cooperation between the NCCA and the ROCOR, thirty-five elderly ROCOR parishioners would have no home to live in. 
So, it is completely false to depict the ROCOR as being historically anti-ecumenical, while condemning the Moscow Patriarchate for participating in the WCC. 
It was the Moscow Patriarchate which first condemned, on strict Orthodox ecclesiological grounds, Orthodox participation in ecumenical organizations and specifically, the WCC. 
The Moscow Patriarchate joined the WCC only in 1961–when the ROCOR had been involved in it and its precursor throughout all of the previous decades since the 1920’s — and this cooperation continued, especially in the area of having clergy salaries paid in Europe by the WCC until just a few years ago. 
Condemning an organization while taking money from it would really be the height of hypocrisy, wouldn’t it? 
With love in Christ, 
Prot. Alexander Lebedeff



by George Australia » Sat 9 September 2006 8:54 am
Frelias wrote:
I think as one reads the letter below written by Prot. Alexander Lebedeff, one can easily see the ridiculous “logic” of his argument.
Well I can't, so could you point it out? Especially explain to me the part that says:
"Even as late as 1951, the ROCOR sponsored a European sub-Assembly of the WCC, held in Baden-Baden. You can see pictures of this assembly, with ROCOR Archbishop Benedict and Bishop Alexander surrounded by the usual WCC melange of Copts, Armenians, Anglicans, Methodists, Lutherans, etc. in the official history of the ROCOR, published during the time of Metropolitan Philaret in 1968 (the two-volume Sollogub opus)."
Who exactly is being "illogical" and trying to rewrite history- is it Fr. Alexander or yourself?

Frelias wrote:
I continue to be amazed by so many who seem to be blind to the hypocrisy of both the MP and ROCOR in their ecumenistic behavior of the past years.
They probably don't see it because it doesn't exist. There is no such word as "ecumenistic".

Frelias wrote:
Nevertheless, if one will truthfully investigate the many reports of the persecutions of the ROAC clergy and parishioners
Which ROAC?

Frelias wrote:
For after the death of Metropolitan Philaret of blessed memory, clearly ROCOR began (little by little) down a path radically different than in the days of Metropolitan Philaret.
And you can speak with authority about this because you belong to whom.....? Is it ROAC (Andrei), ROAC (Gregory), ROCOR(Vitaly) or ROCOR (Laurus)? Or is it neither?




by 尼古拉前执事 » Sat 9 September 2006 11:45 am
I only have a minute before I must got to work, so I must make this quick. 

George there is only 1 ROAC and you know that. Please do not not try to pretend otherwise. Gregory of Colorado no longer falsely claims to be ROAC.



by George Australia » Sat 9 September 2006 12:52 pm
Deacon Nikolai wrote:
Gregory of Colorado no longer falsely claims to be ROAC.
Then who is making these announcements "under the direction of Archbishop Gregory of Denver and Colorado" in the name of ROAC ? :http://www.roacamerica.org/announcements.html




by ioannis » Sat 9 September 2006 3:10 pm
George, 

Before Fr. Nicholas answers your question, maybe you should tell us which of the 3, 4, or 5 Ukrainian indepedendent nationalist "Orthodox" churches speaks for your "one church" in the Ukraine? 

And do please tell us which of the two "Patriarchs" in Jerusalem is the real one - they both make the claim and according to your logic, making the claim is all that matters.




by George Australia » Sat 9 September 2006 3:32 pm
Hang on a minute. Why so defensive? 
Dcn. Nicholas said that "Gregory of Colorado no longer falsely claims to be ROAC", however I pointed out recent statements published apparently under his omorphion here: http://www.roacamerica.org/announcements.html, and asked the simple question of who is doing this if, as he said, Archbishop Gregory no longer claims to be ROAC. 
Sheesh!




by 尼古拉前执事 » Sat 9 September 2006 4:33 pm
George Australia wrote:
Then who is making these announcements "under the direction of Archbishop Gregory of Denver and Colorado" in the name of ROAC ?


The same retired, excommunicated monk that later on that same site says,
" ... the need was apparent to identify ourselves by a different name. Therefore, the Genuine Orthodox Church of America, (GOCA) was founded in 2004. Our Church is officially known as the Genuine Orthodox Church of America ... "


This excommunicated monk's new "official" web site for his synod of one excommunicated monk Gregory of Colorado can be found athttp://www.gocamerica.org, not to be confused with the Genuine Greek Orthodox Church of America, whose web site can be found athttp://TheGreekOrthodoxChurch.com . As for the real ROAC in America web site, that can be found at http://www.ROACusa.org .



by strastnaya » Sun 10 September 2006 5:27 pm
Nathanael wrote:
Are you not aware that the MP is a full member, participant and promoter of the teachings and goals of the WCC? This is clearly teaching that is contrary to the Orthdoox Faith.


I think that soundbite a little simplistic and somewhat naive. 
The ROC has been very clear and articulate concerning its participation and goals in the ecumenical movement. 
If there have been mistakes in the past, they are not being repeated now, and part of that will be the influence of ROCOR which will maintain the strict Orthodox position when meeting with the heterodox. 
I myself personally feel that the fruits are not evident given all the work that goes into these endeavors, but I do not believe that working in such a setting automatically makes one a heretic. Some however do believe that fruit will be borne at some point and may God give them the strenght to endure. 
In Christ, 
Deacon John


(Goon George never answers the question.)

Counting the goons: 
1.George
2. George's assistant, strastnaya
3. Goon Lebedeff  (quoted.)