who is the author of this?

Mark Kotlaroff, who is the author of this? It is a very twisted and untrue in its conclusions, pro-schism version of canons and church history!    Inbox

Dan Everiss Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 9:48 PM Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original Just one distortion after the other, to build up your false case, of defending the terrible evil that you are doing. And many statements that you post on your site, are without the name of the author. Why? are they ashamed to put their name to what they have written? It seems so. And, you do not accurately present the...long and well published . .. positions and explanations of Met. Agafangel either, as he has  already covered all the points you write about here....and fully explained them all. But I sincerely doubt that you all have ever actually read what he has been saying for years now. You attempt to miss-define a man, that you have never known. Why? Is that his fault or yours? Your sophist clever sounding words here, as with your entire disgusting rebellion, are  stupid and totally without any credibility, no matter how many gullible people you are fooling. You are on your personal power trips, and are opposing the Orthodox Church's canons, theology, and the lawful rule by lawful Bishops, the successors to the Apostles. That in itself, puts you outside of the Orthodox Church, and indeed, enemies of the Orthodox Faith. Let's see, who you link up with, enter in 'co-communion with'. You don't even know which of them have or does not have valid consecrations. But then, you have proven that you neither know the truth, nor care about obeying it. What arrogance! Perhaps you have no time to learn it? It seems so. In essence, you are making up your own new false religion, your bogus updated version of Orthodoxy. And, you may fool some, but not all of us. Rd. Daniel Everiss in Oregon, loyal to our very solidly Orthodox and pious and very wise Vladyka Metropolitan Agafangel, who is 100 times smarter, and more Orthodox,  than all of you schismatic church wreckers put together! OBEY HIM! and beg his forgiveness. MANY YEARS! to Vladyka Agafangel and to our Holy Synod of Bishops, and to all who remain  loyal to the real ROCA...which jurisdiction you are departing from. And may Almighty God, disperse and end your idiotic rebellion! Do you really have any vague idea as to where you are all headed? For your  endless slanders and lies and libelous calumnies against our metropolitan and other bishops, that alone is making for you a place in eternal hell. Of that I have no doubt. But, do you even believe that there is a hell?..  or a heaven?...or a God? You act and speak and write, as if you do not. You lamebrain and malicious schismatics are simply NOT ORTHODOX CHRISTIANS! WAKE UP!~, REPENT! and ask the forgiveness of those whom you  have and still are offending by your seeking some sort of satanic revenge and in your boundless energies to make up your new 'church'. Shame on you all! October 12, 2016 Additional Questions and Answers have been added: There are many citations on the website Internet-Sobor from the Holy Fathers in judgment of your schism. ​ Division of any kind in the Church, regardless on what level it occurs, is a tragedy, though not all such divisions can be considered schisms as understood by the canons and the Holy Fathers.? Those who speak of the current divisions in the church and label it a schism are consciously or subconsciously subverting the concept.?  Schism is when unity with the universal Church is violated.  Those who call us schismatic show that they believe that the Odessa synod is the Russian local Church, but such a belief is absurd.?  From its very founding, the ROCA considered itself only a part of the Russian Church.  When the ROCA joined with the Moscow Patriarchia in 2007, those who did not agree with the decision, found themselves divided into many administrative church bodies, commonly called “fragments.”  So, the Odessa synod is not the entirety of the Russian Church, but only a “fragment” of its part. The danger of schism is that it is a separation from the universal Church.  If separation from the synod in Odessa is a separation from the universal Church, then it follows that all who are not in communion with the synod in Odessa find themselves outside the Church.  Yet, the Metropolitan Agafangel himself never held such beliefs.  On the contrary, in his writings and actions he recognized the relative canonicity of the other “fragments.”  (The canonicity of all the present “fragments,” including the Odessa synod, can be questioned to some degree.)  For example, Metropolitan Agafangel accepted Bishops Dionisiy, Iriney and Anastasiy, who were consecrated by other “fragments,” in their existing office without cheirothesia. In this way, separation from the synod of Metropolitan Agafangel is not a departure from the Church, i.e. schism, and applying “fearful” citations from the Holy Fathers to our circumstances is an intentional or unintentional deception.  How should one call such divisions within the “fragments”? ​ An answer grounded in the canons cannot be given to such a question, simply because these very “fragments,” i.e. microscopic church jurisdictions existing autonomously, are not provided for in the canons.  This should not be forgotten by those who enjoy discoursing loudly about the canons and applying them to our circumstances.  The canons present a universal Church made up of united local Churches, along with various divided groups of schismatics, who are outcasts from the Church.  In our day, just the opposite is true.  What we consider the universal Church is made up of divided “fragments,” which do not associate with each other.  Further divisions within the “fragments” can be called “divisions of the church administration.” ​ If we break with the Odessa synod, we will lose contact with the family of anti-ecumenical Churches? ​ These are very unfortunate circumstances, though it does not follow at all that we will fall away from the Church because of this division.  To confirm that, let us consider, for example, the synod of Archbishop Tikhon (Pasechnik), who is not in communion with the Kallinikos synod.  Let us ask ourselves, why?  Is the synod of Archbishop Tikhon less Orthodox than the Odessa synod?  Certainly, not.  It can be explained by developments in the relations between the bishops of both synods, a topic best avoided at this time.  For the fact that the Odessa synod, out of all the other “fragments,” is in communion with the Kallinikos synod is no more than a historical coincidence, and conclusions of a canonical nature cannot be derived from this circumstance.  One must remember that the Greek True Orthodox Churches are in a similar “fragmented” condition.  For example, the bishops of the Synod in Resistance would most probably not agree with the contention that before they joined with the Kallinikos synod, they were outside of the Church and their mysteries were invalid.