High Time

Unionite reveals true self on Yahoo Group forum


https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/orthodox-synod/conversations/topics/20247


May 30 2007
Re: One more reason why ROCOR should not be in SCOBA?

          Anti-union 
>In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, michael nikitin
> wrote:
>
> Metr.Laurus joined his "Mother Church" and everyone that follows
> him are now one with the MP. Wherever Metr. Laurus serves,
> Patr.Alexey II will be commemorated first. There is no other
> choice. There is no difference if one commemorates Metr.Laurus or
> Patr.Alexey II, they are one.
>
> Those that commemorate Metr. Laurus and not Patr.Alexey II are
> not being honest with themselves. ROCOR is one with MP, they are
> inseperable now. Whoever the MP is in communon with, those in
> ROCOR under Metr. Laurus are also. We see those in
> ROCOR(L)flagrantly concelebrating with the Antichans, Copts, EP
> and OCA.
>
> Those in ROCOR(L) now fall under their own Anathema of 1983
> and they also fall under the anathemas of our Ecumenical Councils
> which they disregard against the Monophysite heresy and
> Monothelite heresy, that the Copts and Antiochans have never
> repented of.
>
> Making up for lost time. Canons...what canons?
>
> Patr.Alexey II should leave WCC, ecumenism, repent of Sergianism,
> and become a simple monk in a Monastery somewhere
> for the good of the Church instead of tearing it apart by causing
> schisms with the help of Metr.Laurus.
>
> Michael N



          Unionite
Hey, "Mike" -- 
High tiem for you to shut up.  No one cares about your uninformed
opinions.  You failed in your efforts to ransack the holy process of
unification, you failed in your devil-inspired efforts to discourage
brotherly love among Orthodox.  Crawl back into your hole and leave us
alone now.

I saw the Patriarch with my own eyes, on 5 distinct occasions.  You
have no right to offer suggestions as to what he should do.  He is
doing God's work.  Your efforts belong to someone else.  Go away now.
 We are tired of your amti-Christian attitudes.  Find a monsatery and
YOU take up monasticism.  Maybe the scales will fall from your eyes
and you will learn that we Christians are better off loving one
another than not.

Wishing your peace in your life,
Elizabeth Ledkovsky



About Elizabeth

http://eadiocese.org/MusicComm/en.bio.ledkovsky.htm

On Our Division ~ Bishop Agafangel

http://sobor2006.livejournal.com/276075.html

On our division

Regarding the division which occurred in our Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, I would like to provide a brief clarification on the nature of the transpired event.

The current division occurred solely on matters of faith.

Our disagreements began several years before the removal of Metropolitan Vitaly from his office and became irreversible after his departure. Unfortunately, from then on the violation of the principle of catholicity (principle of sobornost) in our community began in earnest, and with time, increased further.
The Synod began making decisions, which did not reflect the conciliar opinion of the entire Church. One of these decisions, for example, was the cessation of communion (in order to please the Moscow Patriarchate) with the Old-Calendarist Churches. Since that matter was not even raised at the Councils, I never considered this a legitimate Synodal decision.
Similarly, in opposition to the conciliar opinion of the Church, our Synod decided to join the MP, which continues to uphold the heresies of sergianism and ecumenism. This was not approved either at the Pastoral Conference (at which about 150 members of our clergy were gathered), nor at the All-Diaspora Council, nor at the Bishops’ Council. In addition, the numerous protests by clergy and laypeople were also ignored. Our Synod took such an important decision in opposition to the conciliar opinion of ROCOR , having beforehand, carefully hidden their intentions from the flock and making, from time to time, false official statements.

In other words, we witnessed a violation of one of the fundamental dogmas of the Church – its catholicity. That is why I do not see a future for those who joined the MP, and consider the restoration of the canonical order of the ecclesiastical body of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad to be a matter of the utmost importance. That is why our path – the path of those who desire to remain in the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad - is the path towards the Vth All-Diaspora Council, which would adopt measures which would defend the dogma of the Church from attempts to distort it.


+ Bishop Agafangel
Odessa, 16/29.05.2007.
The Third Day of The Feast of The Holy Trinity.

http://sobor2006.livejournal.com/profile

Decision of the Widowed Australian Diocese

  http://sobor2006.livejournal.com/273006.html


Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2007 1:31 AM
Subject: THE DECISION OF THE MEETING

THE DECISION OF THE MEETING
OF THE «WIDOWED» __AUSTRALIAN__ DIOCESE
OF THE «WIDOWED» ROCOR
              28 BISHOP STREET , BOX HILL, MELBOURNE (address of meeting)
                                                                                                                    
5/18 May 2007
Memory of Great Martyr Irene
 
In connection with the signing yesterday of the «Act of canonical communion», the entry of a part of our ROCOR into the « sergianist » entity known as the «Moscow Patriarchy» and falling into a complete subservience to it, we—the clergy and the supporting flock—of the  AUSTRALIAN  diocese consider that such an act by our Synod, taken contrary to the will of the fullness of our Church Abroad, as manifested at the Sobor, is not obligatory for all members in good standing of ROCOR and forces us to terminate our subservience to the Synod of Metropolitan Laurus who has left the ROCOR.
 
The joining of the Synod of Metropolitan Laurus to the schismatic «Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchy», that continues its membership in the World Council of Churches, as well as perpetuates its heresy of ecumenism which was adjudged by ROCOR and anathematised in 1983, in effect constitutes the joining of heretical schismatics with the departure of the Synod of MetropolitanLaurus from the Church Abroad into a « sergianist » schism and the creation of a schism within the Church Abroad.
 
Following the Rule 33 of the Holy Laodocian Council which forbids the faithful to pray with a heretic or an outcast schismatic, we are forced to suspend all prayerful communion with Metropolitan Laurus, his bishops and his clerics, who have created the schism in our Church Abroad.
 
The merger with the “Moscow Patriarchy”, undertaken by a part of our church, does not resolve the question of the wholeness of the Russian Orthodox Church, which can be effectively decided only by a free Land Sobor of the Russian Orthodox Church.
 
Therefore, all of us assembled here do consider the action undertaken by the Synod as inadequately grounded in canons and premature, and do hereby resolve:
 
1.   To remain true to the current statute and by-laws of ROCOR.
             
2.      To ask the bishops remaining true to God and His Holy Church, the Bishop Agafangel of Odessa and the Tauride and the Bishop Daniel of Erie, Vicar of the First Hierarch, to take our “widowed” diocese under their protection.
 
3.      To ask the bishops remaining true to the traditional course of ROCOR to form the Temporary Supreme Church Authority (as perSt.Tihon’s Ukaz №362) before the creation of a new Synod of ROCOR at the Fifth All-Diaspora Sobor.
 
Signatures:
 
HIEROMONK JOHN SMELIC
BARBARA EVSUKOFF
ANDREW SHERBA
VICTORIA CHERBENA
AMMIA CASTELLANI
MARY MARCZYK
CATHERINE ALEXEEFF
 
Signatures by telephone:
 
KONSTANTINE SOUPROUNOVICH 
VERA SOUPROUNOVICH
NADIA SACHAROV
OLGA OLEINIKOV
IRENE MILOVANOVICH
TANIA MILOVANOVICH
JOHN MILOVANOVICH
LYDIA CHERBENA
PAUL CHERBENA

Decree of the Assembly of the Widowed Eastern-American Diocese of the Widowed RCA

  http://sobor2006.livejournal.com/272816.html



Decree of the Assembly
of the Widowed Eastern-American Diocese
of the Widowed Russian Church Abroad



May 5/18, 2007
Memory of the Great Martyr Irina
 
In connection with the signing of the Act of Canonical Communion on the Feast Day of the Ascension of the Lord on May 4/17 of this year, and the joining of a part of the Church Abroad in the structure of the sergianist Moscow Patriarchy, and its canonical subordination to it, occurring yesterday, we - the priests of the Eastern-American Diocese and those laypeople who support us, consider this action of our Synod, which was taken in violation of the Conciliar opinion of the body of our Church Abroad, to not be binding for the faithful members of ROCA.
 
The merger with the MP(Moscow Patriarchy) undertaken by a part of the Church Abroad is not a solution to the question of the unity of the Russian Orthodox Church. This matter can only be resolved by the Church’s independent Local Council, as was called for in the Conciliar Resolution of the IV All-Diaspora Council.
 
With Metropolitan Laurus' Synod having joined the Moscow Patriarchy; which is in schism from the Local Russian Orthodox Church, which lacks a Prelate with Apostolic succession, which causes it to be in schism from the Universal Church, which continues its membership in the World Council of Churches and the participation in the heresy of ecumenism, constitutes a joining with heretical schismatics and the departure of Metropolitan Laurus' Synod from the Church Abroad into the sergianist schism, thereby causing a schism in the
Church Abroad itself.
 
According to the 33rd rule of the Holy Laodicean Council, which forbids Orthodox faithful to pray with heretics or apostate-schismatics, we are compelled, with a painful heart, to cease our prayerful communion with Metropolitan Laurus, his bishops and clergy, who have perpetrated schism in the Church Abroad, and release ourselves from subordination to the Synod of Metropolitan Laurus, which went from ROCA into schism.
 
Therefore we, the undersigned, having considered the action taken by Metropolitan Laurus' Synod to be unfounded canonically, premature and life-threatening, hereby declare:
 
1. To remain based in the existing Status of the ROCA .
 
2. To ask the bishops remaining faithful to the traditional course of ROCA to form a Provisional Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority (PSEA), to convene a Vth All-Diaspora Council, and reinstate the ROCA Synod, which has ceased to exist.
 
3. To ask Agafangel, Bishop of Buenos Aires and South America , who also governs the Crimean Diocese, and Daniel, Bishop of Erie, to take our widowed Diocese under their care.
 
4. To give a blessing to the clergy of the Diocese to allow the following form of liturgical commemoration:
“His Eminence, the Most Reverend Agafangel, Bishop of South America and Buenos Aires , governing the Eastern-American Diocese.”
 
5. The Diocesan Assembly elected the Synodal Presbyter Victor Dobroff for the position of Secretary-Administrator of the Eastern-American Diocese, as well as two assistant secretary-administrators: from the clergy - Protopriest Sergey Klestov, from the laypeople - Petr Nikolayevich Koltypin.
 
6. The Diocesan Assembly proposes that the PSEA consider the candidacy of the most-honorable Abbot Andronik Kotlyarov for Ordination as a Bishop.
 
Signatures:
Archpriest Gregoriy Kotliarov
Archpriest Wsewolod Dutikow
Archpriest Sergey Klestov
Priest Victor Dobroff
Hieromonk Evtikhiy Dovganyuk
Priest Sergey Serzhanov
Priest Ilya Gan (who added his signature on May 6/19)
 
Alexander Volk (parish warden)
Olga Kozinskaya (parish warden)
Oleg Rodzianko (The Society of the Revniteli of the Memory of Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky)
Petr Koltypin (The Society of the Revniteli of the Memory of Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky)
 Evgeniy Magerovskiy (The Society of the Revniteli of the Memory of Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky)
 
The names of those not attending, who expressed a desire to add their signatures, and who authorized those present to sign for them:
Archimandrite Andronik Kotlyarov
Archpriest Igor Hrebinka
Archpriest Alexy Mikrikov
Priest Nikita Grigoriev
Hieromonk Savva Bogdan
Hieromonk Ilya Sheptitsky
Priest Daniil Meshter
Protodeacon Job Chemerov
 
While the Diocesan Assembly met in the city of Nyack , NY, similar assemblies took place throughout the Eastern-American Diocese at the same time in other deaneries. The resolutions of these local assemblies, conducted by trusted persons who support the present Decree and Resolution, will be sent separately by them, including all signatures, to Bishop Agafangel.
 
Reverend Victor Dobroff

Church Merger Mr. Putin's Acquisition

HOUSES OF WORSHIP: CHURCH MERGER, PUTIN'S ACQUISITION
by Nadia Kizenko
Wall Street Journal, 25 May 2007

Last week, on the Christian feast of the Ascension, leaders of the emigre Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia agreed to re-establish "canonical communion" with the Russian Orthodox Moscow Patriarchate. Thousands stood in line to attend the celebration at Moscow's Cathedral of Christ the Savior. But this was clearly an event of more than religious significance. The attendees were a veritable who's who of Russian political life, including Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov and President Vladimir Putin, the merger's architect.

News media world-wide described the event as a step in overcoming Russia's tragic history. The New York Times called the merger "the symbolic end of Russia's civil war." But the reality is far more complicated. Not only are there theological and moral issues at stake, but there is also the suspicion among some that Mr. Putin is building new networks of influence by using the church to reach out to Russian emigre communities all over the world.

While lower-ranking clergy at the ceremony stressed the spiritual aspects of the merger, Patriarch Aleksy II emphasized other factors: He gave short shrift to God, but thanked President Putin.

Indeed, it was Mr. Putin who first made overtures to the Church Abroad in September 2003, when he met with its leadership during a visit to New York. The church merger is only the most recent of his successful attempts to appropriate symbols of Russia's prerevolutionary and anticommunist past along with Soviet ones. The "repatriating" of the Danilov monastery bells from Harvard University, and the bodies of the White Russian Gen. Anton Denikin from Jackson, N.J., and the Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna from Copenhagen, have gone hand in hand with reintroducing the old Soviet anthem and the Red Army's flag. Mr. Putin is thus the first modern Russian leader to incorporate all aspects of Russia's "usable past" in claiming his legitimacy. The Russian Orthodox Church in all its forms is a key component of that past.

Now the Russian government is being heavily criticized for its authoritarian behavior. Mr. Putin needs friends anywhere he can find them. Having a ready-made network of 323 parishes and 20 monasteries in the U.S. alone, and over a million church members in 30 countries, will offer Russia greater influence abroad. This is particularly true because, according to the terms of the agreement, Moscow regains control over bishops' appointments and the right to open or close all parishes.

Less clear-cut are the moral issues the merger raises, particularly for the American-based Church Abroad. From the time when Russia became communist and atheist after 1917, the Church Abroad had sought to be the free voice of Russian Orthodoxy world-wide. Its independence was authorized by the courageous Patriarch Tikhon in 1920, who resisted Communist domination.

But in 1927, the Soviet government imprisoned the independent bishops and transferred leadership of the Russian Church to Metropolitan Sergii (Stragorodsky), who infamously declared that the Soviet Union's "joys and successes are our joys and successes, and [its] sorrows are our sorrows." From that moment, the official bishops inside of Russia did not utter a word of public protest to anything the state did, even though the country was drenched in the blood of tens of millions of people, many of whom were believers, and thousands of whom were clergy.

Instead, the leadership took to referring to Stalin as "the wise, God-appointed leader of our Great Union." In 1930, when the ruthless extermination of the faithful was at a fever pitch, Sergii announced, "There never has been religious persecution in the U.S.S.R., nor is there now."

Today's Moscow Patriarchate is the as-yet-unrepentant inheritor of this legacy. Rather than distancing himself from Sergii's appeasement, Patriarch Aleksy wrote a lengthy foreword to a 2003 biography, praising the "heroic path" taken by Sergii and viciously castigating the critics of this appeasement (including dissenting Orthodox groups in Russia and abroad). He has blessed the construction of a memorial complex in honor of Sergii, complete with a square, a museum and a monument. In 2005, Alexy wrote a congratulatory epistle to the president of Vietnam on the occasion of 30 years since the communist victory in the Vietnam War, calling it a "glorious anniversary." Similar letters were sent to the leaders of North Korea and Cuba.

As long as the Church Abroad existed as an independent entity, it implicitly challenged the authority of Moscow to speak for the Russian Church. It consistently denounced the collaboration of the church with the Communist Party, called for a more positive valuation of Russia's prerevolutionary and anticommunist past and served as a hopeful beacon to Orthodox Christians in Russia seeking an alternative.

Many in the Church Abroad wonder how this merger went through at all. The process was secretive, and there has even been speculation that some American businessmen with Russian ties helped to push it along. But now having accepted Moscow's authority, the former Church Abroad faces many questions. Can its leaders press Moscow to reject the church's tradition of collaborating with both the Kremlin and the KGB? Can they hold on to the church properties they have maintained for the past 80 years? Will the Moscow Church dispatch pro-Kremlin clergy to promote political aims? And, above all, can the leaders of the Church Abroad stem the tide of defection from the disappointed faithful that has already begun?

These problems may be averted if the Russian Church Abroad uses its new status to actively engage Moscow. But last week's glad-handing suggests that it is the Kremlin, rather than heaven, that is smiling on this union.

---

Ms. Kizenko is an associate professor of history at the State University of New York at Albany. (posted 25 May 2007)
taken from: http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/0705f.html
http://sobor2006.livejournal.com/273873.html

Example of pro-union priest ridicule


Fr. Alexey Chumakov [RocorMP Holy Protection, Hollywood CA] shows his true character belittling a forum member for his dismay over the RocorMP's instant-ecumenism at the May 17 signing.  


Other Jurisdictions Present at MP/ROCOR May 17
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orthodox-synod/message/20101

Fri May 18, 2007
michael nikitin
Congratulations to ROCOR(L) who did not waste time in
concelebrating with those in World Orthodoxy.
Who said it wouldn't happen?
Michael N

Sat May 19, 2007
"Fr. Alexey Chumakov"
An what exactly is the problem, in concelebrating with other
Orthodox? The porblem, dearest Michael, is in your head. I hav eno
idea who and when said that it would not happen, but I am pretty
satisfied that it did.
Glory be to God.

Appeal of Remaining Bishops

   http://sobor2006.livejournal.com/267964.html

Appeal of the Remaining faithful to God, Orthodox Bishops to the God loving Flock of the ROCOR

Appeal of His Grace Daniel, Bishop of Eerie.
 
                       5 May 2007,
 
                 I, Bishop Daniel of Eerie, will not sign the Act of union with the Moscow Patriarchate.
                
                 I remain a member of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia and the others may
 
                 arrange their future as they see fit.
 
                 Daniel, Bishop of Eerie.
 



Appeal of His Grace Agafangel, Bishop of Crimea and Odesa.
 
 
    As a consequence of the integration of part of ROCOR on the recent feast of Holy Ascension including the current First Hierarch and members of the Synod into the structure of the Moscow Patriarchate, I must inform my flock as well as all the faithful children of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia of the following:
      Because the long awaited repentance of the Moscow Patriarchate in the sins of Sergianism and Ecumenism to this very day has not occurred I find it premature the establishment between our churches Eucharistic and Administrative union. I also find it unacceptable the rejection by ROCOR of its spiritual inheritance which, according to my own personal conviction, will be impossible to secure in its fullness under the terms outlined in the Act of Canonical Union.
      For this reason I remain faithful to the original stance of ROCOR-until the complete resolution of the obstacles for our entire Church. I continue to consider for myself the directives and all other examples of Church authority by the Moscow Patriarchate to be without canonical basis.
      Bishop Agafangel
                        Odessa 4/17 May 2007
       Ascension of Our Lord

Putin's Reunited Russian Church

Time Magazine
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1622544,00.html


Putin's Reunited Russian Church
By Yuri Zarakhovich/Moscow Thursday, May 17, 2007


The Russian Orthodox Church was torn in two by revolution and regicide, by the enmity between communism and capitalism, nearly a century of fulmination and hatred. That all formally ended on Thursday in Moscow. Thousands of the Russian Orthodox faithful — including several hundred who flew in from New York — lined up under heavy rain to get into the Moscow's Cathedral of Christ the Savior. There, they witnessed the restoration of the "Canonical Communion and Reunification" of the Moscow-based Russian Orthodox Church (ROC), which claims more than 70 million adherents, and the U.S.-based Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (ROCOR), which is believed to be 1.5 million strong. Many among the clergy and laity wept at the end of the 86 year-old schism brought about by the 1917 Bolshevik revolution, and the ensuing murder of the dethroned Tsar and the forced emigration of hundred thousands Russians defeated in Civil war. While the sumptuous ritual was clearly an emotional and pious event, the reunification has political resonance as well because the Russian Orthodox Church is increasingly a symbol and projection of Russian nationalism.

Indeed, rather than first give thanks to God in his speech, the head of the ROC, Patriarch Alexy, paid homage to Russian President Vladimir Putin. The Patriarch emphasized that the reunification could happen only because the ROCOR saw in Putin "a genuine Russian Orthodox human being." Putin responded in his speech that the reunification was a major event for the entire nation.

Nationalism, based on the Orthodox faith, has been emerging as the Putin regime's major ideological resource. Thursday's rite sealed the four-year long effort by Putin, beginning in September 2003, to have the Moscow Patriarchate take over its rival American-based cousin and launch a new globalized Church as his state's main ideological arm and a vital foreign policy instrument. In February press conference, Putin equated Russia's "traditional confessions" to its nuclear shield, both, he said, being "components that strengthen Russian statehood and create necessary preconditions for internal and external security of the country." Professor Sergei Filatov, a top authority on Russian religious affairs notes that "traditional confessions" is the state's shorthand for the Russian Orthodox Church.

he Church's assertiveness and presence is growing — with little separation from the State. The Moscow City Court and the Prosecutor General's Office maintain Orthodox chapels on their premises. Only the Orthodox clergy are entitled to give ecclesiastic guidance to the military. Some provinces have included Russian Orthodox Culture classes in school curricula with students doing church chores. When Orthodox fundamentalists vandalized an art exhibition at the Moscow Andrei Sakharov Center as "an insult to the main religion of our country," the Moscow Court found the Center managers guilty of insulting the faith, and fined them $3,500 each. The ROC had an opera, based on a famous fairy tale by the poet Alexander Pushkin, censored to the point of cutting out the priest, who is the tale's main protagonist. "Of course, we have a separation of State and Church," Putin said during a visit to a Russian Orthodox monastery in January 2004. "But in the people's soul they're together." The resurgence of a Church in open disdain of the secular Constitution is only likely to exacerbate divisions in a multi-ethnic and multi-religious Russia.

The ROCOR's American clergy insist that they retain administrative independence over their churches even as they recognize the Moscow Patriarch as their Head. Filatov says that the ROCOR has "about as much [independence] as Eastern Europe's 'people's democracies' had in the Soviet bloc." One of the first tests of the new union will be in the Holy Land, where the ROCOR maintains religious properties — and has had run-ins with representatives of the Moscow patriarchate in the past. In 1997, for example, Yasser Arafat forcibly turned over the only Christian church in Hebron, run by the ROCOR, to the ROC. (That church includes the site where the Bible says Abraham met three angels.) The American-based Church still controls St. Mary Magdalene, with its seven gilded onion domes and Muscovite facade, one of the most prominent churches in Jerusalem because of its commanding spot on the slopes of the Mount of Olives above the garden of Gethsemane. The ROCOR also has a convent on the summit of the Mount of Olives, a monastery in the Judaean desert founded by a hermit in the third century, and one chapel in Jericho and another on the Jordan river. The Reunification deal says that the administration of these properties will not change. But some observers remain skeptical.

With a reunited Russian Orthodox Church, Putin is pushing Russia's dominance in the global Orthodox movement, the traditional Orthodox leadership is vested in the Patriarch of Constantinople, in a first among equals style rather than the dominant Papal regime of the Roman Catholic Church. The Orthodox communion includes churches in Greece, Cyprus, Ukraine, Belarus and various Balkan states as well as Georgia, Armenia and Moldova. Historically, the Russian Orthodox Church has always pressed its pre-eminence among these nations and is likely to do so again. Putin's new unified Church will also further expand in the U.S. and Western Europe as it tries to use the ROCOR's network and congregation to become as much an arm of Russian nationalist politics as well as Russian piety. 

With Reporting by Andrew Lee Butters/Jerusalem

On the Eve

http://sobor2006.livejournal.com/266448.html

On the Eve ~ by Dimitri Gontscharow 

On May 17, 2007, the Act of Canonical Communion will be signed between the Moscow Patriarchate (MP) and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR). All attempts to appeal to the pastoral conscience of the pro-union adherents have failed to move their hearts. Instead, they have unleashed inquisitions, purges, denunciations and threats. Sadly, we will probably also witness show trials after May 17th, as all remaining opposition is weeded out and eradicated.  Discussions about sergianism, ecumenism and all the other critical issues have been swept aside in this desperate attempt to repudiate the past. As a parting word to those who still support this union, it is important to consider the following.

            On April 25, 2007, in an advertising supplement to The Washington Post called “Inside Russia,” an interview appeared with Met. Kirill about the coming union. Met. Kirill starts with a short summary of church history and says, “In the 1920s, some bishops and parishes of the Russian Church Abroad broke off with the hierarchy of the Russian Church .” That is it. That is all you need to know why union should not occur at this time and why no ROCOR member should agree to it. This is not an over-simplification, most truths in life are quite basic. When the Act is signed, we will be accepting, approving and giving credence to the MP’s false version of church history. This will be an injustice of monumental proportions.

In taking this action, we will defame the history of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Tikhon and all those who came before him, along with the founding hierarchs of the Church Abroad, and most dangerously, the Holy New Martyrs of Russia. There is an icon of St. Tikhon, the Patriarch of Russia, in the church of St. John the Baptist in Washington , DC . On it, St. Tikhon holds a scroll in his hand containing the words, “Чадцамои, несходитеспутикрестнагонизпосланнагонамБогом.” (My children, do not stray from the Way of the Cross sent down to us by God.) As with many such messages, there can be several meanings, but one can be relatively assured that one of them would be that St. Tikhon would expect us to continue preserving the Russian Orthodox Church. 

The pro-union side often invokes the notion that the union is God’s will. In this way, they can stifle legitimate debate and intimidate those who do not understand the details. But what of the fear of God? There seems to be very little mention of that. Is the notion too old-fashioned for these progressive times? Is it no longer possible that the God who is Love can also punish His errant children? The New Martyrs died defending His Truth. They did so in opposition to the godless regime, and in many cases, they did so in opposition also to the Moscow Patriarchate. If we now negate their sacrifice by agreeing to the MP’s version of the past, is it not possible that we will bring down the wrath of God upon us? 

We also hear constantly that we must be obedient to the bishops, but are we not supposed to be obedient to the Holy Canons, the Church’s teachings, and the many councils that came before? Or can we casually overlook them in our emotional rush for union with the Motherland? Are we to be ruled by our feelings, as is so prevalent in these amoral times, or are we governed by the Law of God and the laws of the church? 

Sadly, many of the motives for forcing this union are earthly, but there are those among us who have little interest in the here and now and dedicate themselves to the service of God and the hereafter, our monastics. They are the conscience of the church and a great majority of them oppose the union. We ignore their warning of the dangers that lie ahead at our peril. One shudders to think what surprises the MP has in store for us in the future. God help us all.


Irina Bagration responds to pro-union article

Irina Bagration's response to an article written by manipulative pro-union priest

from: Irina Bagration
Tuesday May 15, 2007
XB

This refers to [RocorMP] Archpriest Theodore Shevzov's "Thoughts of a Priest of the Russian Church Abroad about Liturgical Communion with the Moscow Patriarchate".

Fr Theodore has given much thought to a union between The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia and the Moscow Patriarchate, just as we all have. I cannot speak, of course, for all who consider such a union premature, but I believe that very few are motivated, as he surmises, by fear of the new, or by haughtiness, or hatred or enmity. Nor can I believe that many today are guided by the past. I think most of us are concerned about union with the Moscow Patriarchate of today and with Russia today.

In America, a country that welcomed us and that we have adopted, there is growing concern about Russia being ruled by the KGB and about a Patriarchate that is closely associated with it. There is concern throughout the West about the gradual return to Soviet methods and practices. We are appalled by the growing nostalgia for Stalin and by the fact that it is not discouraged. There is increasing xenophobia and there is a marked rise in anti-American rhetoric within the Russian government. Last week, in a Victory Day speech, President Putin's reference to the Third Reich was widely recognized as directed against the United States.

Russians today do not want sermons, lessons or advice from "emigres" living abroad. To them we are foreigners. ROCOR clergy will not find it easy to be heard. For many people in Russia and abroad, taking Communion from the same Eucharistic Cup is not an issue. ROCOR expatriates living and working in Russia commonly take Communion in MP churches. Russian tourists traveling abroad take Communion in ROCOR churches. Many claim that they are not interested in "church politics".

All that is of spiritual value to us is being sent to Russia. Russia already has so many relics, so many venerable miraculous icons, so many valuable archives, so many historically famous dead. If all our sacred memorials are transferred to Russia, what will be left to us and to our descendants?

But past history, new arguments and politics are not the main issues. The issue that concerns us most is today's claim that sergianism and ecumenism have become irrelevant. We believe that they are relevant and that they will remain relevant until the end of the world, because they preach accommodation with the world.

Fr. Theodore reminds us of the painful Evlogian schism, but there was another schism that cannot be ignored. The schism of the New Martyr bishops and priests who refused to commemorate Metropolitan Sergius.

Irina Sergeyevna, kn. Bagration Moukhranskaya
New York


archived:
http://sobor2006.livejournal.com/265230.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orthodox-synod/message/20032

And see how genuine anti-union inquirers were censored here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orthodox-rocor/message/7087
The only anti-union information permitted came from obvious nut cases like Kapner, or "schismatics".

Re: "Thoughts of Priest

   http://sobor2006.livejournal.com/265230.html

Re: "Thoughts of Priest from ROCA" ~ Kn. Irina Sergeyevna Bagration Moukhranskaya

X B
             
This refers to Archpriest Theodore Shevzov's "Thoughts of a Priest of the Russian Church Abroad about Liturgical Communion with the Moscow Patriarchate" . 

Fr Theodore has given much thought to a union between The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia and the Moscow Patriarchate , just as we all have.  I cannot speak, of course,  for all who consider such a union  premature, but I believe that very few are motivated, as he surmises, by fear of the new, or by haughtiness, or hatred or enmity. Nor can I believe that many today are guided by the past.  I think most of us are concerned about union with the Moscow Patriarchate of today and with Russia today.  
 
In America, a country that welcomed us and that we have adopted, there is growing concern about Russia being ruled by the KGB and about a Patriarchate that is  closely associated with it. There is concern throughout the West about the gradual return to Soviet methods and practices.  We are appalled by the growing nostalgia for Stalin and by the fact that it is not discouraged.  There is increasing xenophobia and there is a marked rise in anti-American rhetoric within the Russian government.  Last week, in a Victory Day speech,  President Putin's reference to the Third Reich was widely recognized as directed against the United States.
 
Russians today do not want sermons, lessons or advice from "emigres" living abroad. To them we are foreigners.  ROCOR  clergy  will not find it easy to be heard. For many people in Russia and abroad, taking Communion from the same Eucharistic Cup is not an issue.  ROCOR expatriates living and working in Russia commonly take Communion in MP churches.  Russian tourists traveling abroad take Communion in ROCOR churches. Many claim that they are not interested in "church politics".  
 
All that is of spiritual value to us is being sent to Russia.  Russia already has so many relics, so many venerable miraculous icons, so many valuable archives, so many historically famous dead.  If all our sacred memorials are transferred to Russia, what will be left to us and to our descendants?
 
But past history, new arguments and politics are not the main issues.  The issue that concerns us most  is today's claim that sergianism and ecumenism have become irrelevant.  We believe that they are relevant and that they will remain relevant until the end of the world, because they preach accommodation with the world.
 
Fr. Theodore reminds us of the painful Evlogian schism, but there was another schism that cannot be ignored.  The schism of the New Martyr bishops and priests who refused to commemorate Metropolitan Sergius.
 
 
Irina Sergeyevna, kn. Bagration Moukhranskaya
New York

On the Eve

    http://sobor2006.livejournal.com/266448.html

On the Eve ~ by Dimitri Gontscharow 

On May 17, 2007, the Act of Canonical Communion will be signed between the Moscow Patriarchate (MP) and the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR). All attempts to appeal to the pastoral conscience of the pro-union adherents have failed to move their hearts. Instead, they have unleashed inquisitions, purges, denunciations and threats. Sadly, we will probably also witness show trials after May 17th, as all remaining opposition is weeded out and eradicated. Discussions about sergianism, ecumenism and all the other critical issues have been swept aside in this desperate attempt to repudiate the past. As a parting word to those who still support this union, it is important to consider the following.
 
            On April 25, 2007, in an advertising supplement to The Washington Post called “Inside Russia,” an interview appeared with Met. Kirill about the coming union. Met. Kirill starts with a short summary of church history and says, “In the 1920s, some bishops and parishes of the Russian Church Abroad broke off with the hierarchy of the Russian Church .” That is it. That is all you need to know why union should not occur at this time and why no ROCOR member should agree to it. This is not an over-simplification, most truths in life are quite basic. When the Act is signed, we will be accepting, approving and giving credence to the MP’s false version of church history. This will be an injustice of monumental proportions.
 
In taking this action, we will defame the history of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Tikhon and all those who came before him, along with the founding hierarchs of the Church Abroad, and most dangerously, the Holy New Martyrs ofRussia. There is an icon of St. Tikhon, the Patriarch of Russia, in the church of St. John the Baptist in Washington , DC . On it, St. Tikhon holds a scroll in his hand containing the words, “ЧадцамоинесходитеспутикрестнагонизпосланнагонамБогом.” (My children, do not stray from the Way of the Cross sent down to us by God.) As with many such messages, there can be several meanings, but one can be relatively assured that one of them would be that St. Tikhon would expect us to continue preserving the Russian Orthodox Church. 
 
 
We also hear constantly that we must be obedient to the bishops, but are we not supposed to be obedient to the Holy Canons, the Church’s teachings, and the many councils that came before? Or can we casually overlook them in our emotional rush for union with the Motherland? Are we to be ruled by our feelings, as is so prevalent in these amoral times, or are we governed by the Law of God and the laws of the church? 
 
Sadly, many of the motives for forcing this union are earthly, but there are those among us who have little interest in the here and now and dedicate themselves to the service of God and the hereafter, our monastics. They are the conscience of the church and a great majority of them oppose the union. We ignore their warning of the dangers that lie ahead at our peril. One shudders to think what surprises the MP has in store for us in the future. God help us all.

Fr. Nikita Grigoriev fired


Fr. Nikita Grigoriev fired from Jordanville seminary teaching staff because his thinking is not in line with Met. Laurus

2007-5-5

Blessed are the persecuted for righteousness' sake: Thou teh have tsarstvie nebesnoe!
Meanness traitors ROCOR has no boundaries!

Bozhiy most honest Priest - Priest Nikita Grigoriev - Professor of Apologetics, who prepared for the long 23 years of teaching at the Seminary in Jordanville, a galaxy of ROCOR clergy, today, on May 2, new style, was fired from his job for his personal opinion, not appropriate the rate of Metropolitan Laurus, the ROCOR sent the attachment to the canonical Orthodox Church and obedience to split Sergians ecumenical Patriarchate.

It is expected that the site is about. Nikita next semester will take a teacher, sent from St. Petersburg Theological Seminary MP.

Lord, help me, save me, and have mercy on your servant iereya Nikita!

   http://sobor2006.livejournal.com/256650.h tml # cutid1

A Mathematical Solution to the MP/ROCOR Problem

   http://sobor2006.livejournal.com/259034.html


A Mathematical Solution to the MP/ROCOR Problem


Pravoslavnik
Posted: Fri 4 May 2007 8:40 pm    Post subject: A Mathematical Solution to the MP/ROCOR Problem

With the signing of the “Act of Canonical Communion” on May 17, 2007 the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR), established by a ukase of the former Patriarch St. Tikhon of Moscow prior to his martyrdom in the 1920’s, will enter under the canonical jurisdiction of the current “Patriarch” of Moscow Alexei II (Ridiger.) Those within the current ROCOR administration of Metropolitan Laurus (Skurla) have recently decided that the current Moscow Patriarchate (MP) is a canonically legitimate administration of the Russian Orthodox Church. Others have disputed the canonical legitimacy of the current Moscow Patriarchate, in line with the longstanding edicts of the ROCOR Synods prior to 2001, which have never recognized as legitimate the election of the various Soviet state-appointed “Patriarchs” of the Moscow Patriarchate since the time of the martyrdom of St. Tikhon and his appointed Locum Tenans hierarchs in the 1920’s.

Without presuming to judge whether the current Moscow Patriarchate is a legitimate Orthodox Church authority, which is beyond the scope of this analysis, there still remain a number of logical conclusions that derive from basic premises and Orthodox Church canons, as follows. At the very least, the people of the ROCOR have a right to expect internal, logical consistency in the deliberations and acts of their hierarchs.

Premise A: Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the Moscow Patriarchate is a legitimate, canonical Patriarchate of the Orthodox Church.

If premise A is true, then it follows that the Orthodox Church of America (OCA) is the proper, canonically legitimate, autocephalous administration of the Orthodox Church in the geographical locale of America .* According to Orthodox Church canons, there can be only one unified Orthodox Church administration and hierarchy serving any one geographical area. It is also a heresy of the Orthodox Church, called “phyletism,” for two separately administered Orthodox Church hierarchies to exist in the same location, segregated on the basis of nationality or ethnicity. Since the Moscow Patriarchate, itself, granted official autocephalous status to the Orthodox Church of America in 1970, it would be countermanding its own official edicts by sanctioning and supervising the administration of a separate “Russian” Church in North America now. It would also be participating, officially, in an heretical act of “phyletism,” and, hence, in open “schism” from the true Orthodox Church.

The logical conclusion is that, if the Moscow Patriarchate is a legitimate Patriarchate of the Orthodox Church, it can have no administrative role in establishing or supervising a separate “Russian” Church in America . To avoid committing an heretical act, it must, lawfully, direct the former ROCOR parishes of America on May 17, 2007 to move under the jurisdiction and administration of the autocephalous Orthodox Church of America, established by the Moscow Patriarchate, itself, in 1970. Independently of any decisions of the MP and ROCOR hierarchs, people within the ROCOR who believe that the Moscow Patriarchate is legitimate should move to the OCA, individually, or collectively, after May 17, 2007 to avoid becoming “schismatics,” who are actively participating in the Orthodox heresy of phyletism.
Premise B (not A): If, on the contrary, we begin with the assumption that the current Moscow Patriarchate is not a canonically legitimate Patriarchate of the Orthodox Church, the logical consequences are quite different. 

Of foremost importance for the ROCOR, if premise B is true, is the fact that the ROCOR will be subsumed under the supervision and direction of an illegitimate “church” authority on May 17, 2007 . Hence, people in the ROCOR will have no proper choice but to leave the ROCOR. But where should they go? If the MP is not a legitimate Church administration, then neither is the OCA, since it was established as an autocephalous church by the MP, itself, in 1970. Furthermore, the various ethnically-organized (phyletistic) administrations of the Orthodox Churches in America (Greek New Calendarists, Antiochians, etc) are also unacceptable, canonically, since they have been in active communion with the illegitimate “Patriarchate” of Moscow, and are, themselves, violating Church canons regarding phyletism (and ecumenism.)

Hence, if premise B (not A) is true, the only logical choice for people in the ROCOR is to move to a traditional Orthodox Church that is not affiliated with the MP, or with the modern Orthodox Church administrations of the New Calendar Greeks, Antiochians, or OCA, a rather grim and difficult choice, indeed.

Either A or B must, of necessity be true, (since B is “not A.”) It is noteworthy, in this analysis, that regardless of whether one accepts premise A or premise B as true, there is a logical conclusion that people in the ROCOR cannot, canonically, move under the direct administration and jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate after May 17, 2007, as Moscow has planned. They must decide, individually or collectively, to move to the OCA, (per premise A) or to a traditional Orthodox Church that is not in communion with Moscow (per premise B.) Otherwise, they will be either “schismatics” (actively engaged in the heresy of phyletism), or participating in a church that is administered by a canonically illegitimate hierarchy.

*If it is argued, in refutation, that the Moscow Patriarchate is canonically legitimate now, but was not in 1970, we must logically ask when and how it became canonically legitimate. Many of the current hierarchs of the Moscow Patriarchate, including Patriarch Alexei II (Ridiger) were active in the MP in 1970, or were subsequently appointed and promoted by those who were actively managing the MP in 1970 when the OCA was granted autocephaly. There has never been a single, public resignation from the MP hierarchy by those who were identified as KGB “agents” in the KGB files reviewed by Father Gleb Yakunin after the fall of the Soviet government, or in those published by Vasily Mitrokhin at Cambridge University in 1999, which definitively identified Alexey Ridiger of Tallinn , Estonia as KGB agent “Drozhdov.”

http://euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7853

Open Letter from Lesna Sisters

. http://www.portal-credo.ru/site/?act=english&id=252

.

DOCUMENT: Letter of Lesna Monastery sisters concerning their passage under the jurisdiction of the True Orthodox Church of Russia


Dear in Christ friends and benefactors of our monastery! Christ is Risen!

We wish to inform you that as of the feast of Mid-Pentecost, 19.04/02.05.2007, our monastery will be under the jurisdiction of the True Orthodox Church of Russia. Beginning on Tuesday evening with the Vespers of the feast, we will His Grace, the Most Reverend Archbishop Tikhon, Archbishop of Omsk and Siberia, as our ruling hierarch.Many of you knowour unwillingness to accept the pending union of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Church Abroad and of our reluctance to follow that path. Our decision was not made lightly. We gave it much thought, sought the advice of many, prayed hard and wept throughout this troubled time.

Sincerely and from the bottom of our hearts we thank our many, many friends and well wishers, from many different jurisdictions, holding the most varied opinions and headed in various directions, for the assistance that they have offered and for the support that they have voiced as we struggled to come to the right decision in choosing a new path for our monastery.We understand that not everyone will agree with us, but we ask you to believe that we have acted according to our conscience, and that we felt we could not decide otherwise without betraying our past, our heavenly protectors, our instructors and the sisters who have gone before us.We do not press anyone to follow us, we do not condemn anyone, nor consider them to be "without grace" or "outside the Church".

Our times are very complicated and treacherous and it is truly difficult to come to a decision and to discern the best way without being swayed by one’s passions.We do not feel that we have the right to condemn anyone that has come to different conclusions in these matters.The great majority of our sisters support our decision. We will not force anyone to comply with it.And we will assist those sisters that decide otherwise to find homes with other monastic communities.

Some of you have expressed doubts about various jurisdictions, pointing out the weaknesses, mistakes or faults of certain hierarchs.We wish to clarify that we did not choose hierarchs that we liked personally, but the Church body and path that we felt best preserved and perpetuated the teachings and traditions of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.

Along with the rumours of our refusal to accept union with the Moscow Patriarchate, there has been much talk over the past few months of an imminent move by our monastery to Russia.It is true that since the appearance in Russia of parishes of the Church Abroad, and once sisters from the former Soviet bloc countries began entering our community, we had hoped to found a dependant monastic community there and undertook several steps in that direction.This is something our abbesses had prayed and hoped for, consciously preserving our monastery as a largely Russian-speaking community, with services in Church Slavonic and the traditions of pre-revolutionary Russian monasticism.We do hope eventually to start at least a small skete in Russia.On the other hand, we are well aware of all of the risks and dangers involved in doing business and even just plain living in contemporary Russia, especially for inexperienced foreigners, and we have no intention of dropping everything in Provemont and forcibly transporting our sisters to some unknown destination.We intend to continue our monastic life within the walls of our presentmonastery according to our strength and financial possibilities.

Many of you know of the complications with the legal status and ownership of our property.The church, houses and land in Provemont officially belong to the so-called "Association of Friends" of the monastery, comprised of clergy and laity from many different jurisdictions; in short, of everyone except the sisters of the monastery. It is entirely possible that our adherance to the True Orthodox Church of Russia will lead to claims on our property, to legal action, to inter-jurisdictional squabbling and financial difficulties.Many lawyers and notaries have assured us on numerous occasions that, as the monastery has been paying the property tax on this real estate for many years in it’s own name and from it’s own funds, and has maintained the estate at it’s own expense, with virtually no help from the hierarchy of the Church Abroad, it de facto belongs to us and that it is impossible to evict us.Nevertheless, our uncertain situation worries the sisters, and we ask for your prayers and support.

Ever since its foundation ina largely non-Orthodox area on the borders of the Russian Empire, our monastery has been open to all that seek God and the Truth, and such, God willing, it shall always remain.All pilgrims to our miracle-working Icon of the Mother of God of Lesna or wishing to venerate our many other spiritual treasures will always be welcome, and we will accomodate them as best we can according to our means and our monastic rules.In questions regarding participation in our liturgical life and in the Sacraments we will be guided by the instructions of our hierarchs.

Our life will undoubtably change to some degree in these new circumstances.We do not know if we will be able to continue celebrating the Divine Liturgy daily, as for now only Hieromonk Evfimy (Trofimov) is remaining with us.We hope to continue celebrating the entire cycle of services, but we will have to take into account a smaller community and the necessity of providing for ourselves.

Financially the monastery is managing, but donations have always been a great help, and we have no idea as to what sort of assistance we can rely on in the future.When the nuns in San Francisco seperated themselves from the Church Abroad they were accused of taking funds that were intended for a monastery specifically of the Church Abroad.We dare to hope that you have made your donations with the intent of supporting our monastic life regardless of what jurisdiction we were under.

We humbly ask your prayers for us as we embark on this new path.Metropolitan Philaret, who considered Lesna his summer home, left us the words "…that which ye have already hold fast…" (Rev. 2:25) as his last testament, and such is our intention.The recently reposed Metropolitan Vitaly, who twice convened Church Councils at our monastery, ended his days in exile and poverty, and we do not fear a similar fate.Our sense of the unceasing protection of the Most Holy Mother of God, St. John of Kronstadt’s letter preserved here, promising not to abandon our monastery, the appearance of St. John of Shanghai to the guardian of his chapel in San Francisco, reminding him that Lesna needed help, and the recent news that the remains of our foundress, Abbess Catherine, were discovered incorrupt, fill us with hope and strengthen our faith in the prayers and intercession on our behalf in heaven.And we ask your prayers for us sinners.

With profound gratitude and always with love in Christ,
Abbess Macrina and sisters
19.04/02.05.2007
Mid Pentecost