Dan Everiss
<oregdan@hotmail.com> | Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 3:36 PM |
|
|
*Under this first article,
about Andrei Erastov and Vladimir Moss, there is published an official
ROCA UKAZ/EDICT ,"THE THIRD AND LAST INVITATION", summoning ONCE
AGAIN-as the canons dictate, under-ban Archbishops
Andronik-Kotlaroff and Sofrony-Musienko to appear before a council of
their fellow bishops in Odessa, Ukraine this October....to decide their
final disposition. This will be their last canonical opportunity to
repent... or be cast out & deposed-defrocked from
our church for good. Those, clergy and laity, IF THEY TOO DO NOT
REPENT, but who will still foolishly & blindly follow them, these
false-shepherds, these wolves in sheep's clothing, in their illegal
impious and unjustified power-hungry effort at destroying
our canonical Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, their evil-schism, will
also be cast out, ex-communicated.
Nothing!
that those in this absurd schism, do they have any right to do, and to
also call themselves, "Orthodox Christians", they have
left Christs' Holy Church, and have created a anti-Orthodox sect.
(*With the added link to read
the full TEDIOUS/Argumentative Vladimir Moss's full article: "The
Reunification of the Russian Church", for those who have the time and
hardy patience.)
WARNING:
Moss makes a number of assertions and claims, his conclusions which,
at best, are highly debatable or outright rejected categorically, by
many others, and especially
as to his private application of certain canons to specific persons or dates or events.
I
am sorry to have to say, that UK Professor Vlad Moss, [himself a
ever-roaming former member of numerous various previous splinter or old
calendarist jurisdictions] as much
knowledge as he possesses on many varied arcane subjects, just does not
know or have the final word on all matters.
Personally, I do not trust much that he claims.
Also, sometimes, he appears to make up/INVENT his own biased version of past or even current events and people....and canons.
Also too, Moss seems to be able to read people's minds and hearts, to know what has motivated them. That is delusional.
And if a canon is MIS-APPLIED ,indeed by anyone,
i.e. does not clearly fit the circumstances or persons
alleged,... what is the value of doing this? or how is such a
misapplication a valid USE of those canons?
Such is perpetrating a LIE!...and causing injustice.
Vlad Moss misapplies various canons, in my view. AND SO DOES THE MP!
As
also so do schismatics, such as our current 'Mountain-View'
ROCA-schismatics, who have cooked up or exaggerated/MIS-APPLIED many
supposed violations of the canons, by our
Vladyka Agafangel!
But I have read all of their charges, and find them all to be, unsubstantiated slanderous RUBBISH!
Others, such as our Vladyka Agafangel,
himself a PERSONAL LIVING WITNESS
of much of these past events and as PERSONALLY ASSOCIATING WITH
AND KNOWING the people involved,
have very different DIRECT understandings/memories of the
various persons and events and canons, dealing with all of these later
diaspora Russian church matters, especially with anti-MP 'splinters',
and post revolution times and events.
Vladimir Moss appears to listen to and to swallow whole, deceptions and lies, if..... they fit his pre-conceived
self-serving agenda. That is also what the MP does, routinely.
Comment: This is from under-ban, former ROCA Australian monk-priest, Andrei Erastov's pathetic self-defense, of one delusional church
schismatic and dissembler, renegade schismatic pseudo-'bishop' Andrei Erastov, ....TO SOME of the charges thrown against him by another church dissembler, [but
one who is more known & published & world-infamous], Know-it-all, the All-wise, 'Orthodox canon-law armchair EXPERT', UK Professor Vladimir Moss.
Neither are truly 100% in the right,
in their various or sundry conclusions, most certainly not!
on all issues or canons or church history. Both are church and
soul-killers...haughty and self-promoting and false-prophets
and spokesmen of these end times....whom scripture warns
us to FLEE FROM.
This is the wacky off-balanced short mini-reply of Australian Andrei Erastov to a few
of the wacky off-balanced criticisms [some
criticisms are untrue, but others have a degree of debatable truth to
them- one must read the TEDIOUS~! entire Moss' recent LONG tirade, on
his site, to know what I mean:
http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/articles/825/-reunification-russian-church/ ...of himself, by wacky & ill-spirited Vladimir Moss.
|
Vladimir Moss - Author of Orthodox Christian Books.
|
And by-the-way, Andrei Erastov did not fully address all of Moss's in-depth attacks on himself
or upon Erastov's former canonical jurisdiction of our ROCA,
or against our ROCA and our Vladyka Metropolitan Agafangel- whom Moss especially always & endlessly
slanders and devalues and denigrates, ...even in the same mode, as does the KGB run Moscow Patriarchate.
Where does Vlad Moss get his income from, who pays him? He seems to talk.... LIKE... a Kremlin
operative, aiming to constantly divide and eliminate or destroy all Russian anti-communist/anti-MP diaspora opposition to them.
Rd. Daniel in Oregon
- sickened by these church and soul destroyers, all of them who are on their personal power trips,
and clearly in deepest prelest and delusion.
And
yet they all pretend to be pious 'experts' of our Orthodox canons.
Yes, other 'canon experts'
have always been the KGB who run their captive, 1943 Stalin founded,
Moscow Patriarchy, who KNOW VERY VERY WELL! & who USE our own
Orthodox canon laws, -to control & enslave and to destroy our
Orthodox faith!
P.S. And yes, here Erastov defends 'the Cyprianites', which of course he
must do, as he gets/obtains his (alledged
episcopal apostolic succession, but now as a schismatic FROM our canonical ROCA,
which is already his breaking his former canonical link!,
through his former canonical LINK to that
ROCA...whose episcopate was continued with the help of the laying on of
hands, from the episcopate of the Synod in Resistance,(who originally,
like all Greek Old Calendarists, got their initial
episcopal apostolic succession from/through our OLD
ROCOR!...... i.e. 'The Cyprianites'. But of course, Andrei Erastov
is CORRECT to deny the false claims of those who STILL! claim that SIR
Met. Cyprian, of Thrice Blessed Memory, was a 'heretic'!
[a long ago disproven false charge!]
However, it seems that the real motive for Erastov making this spirited
pro-'Cyprianite' defense, is only self-serving, -to establish his own,
supposed, episcopal legitimacy..i.e. that those who recently put their
hands on his head, were themselves, valid
and canonical Orthodox bishops.
Making schism is HERESY too, so those in these current schisms are heretics.
YET, both
under ban, "Archbishops"
Andronik Kotlaroff and Sofrony Musienko, ( yes, originally valid ROCA
consecrated bishops) were and are, both under our ROCA's canonical ban
and are in full blown illegal rebellion and schism
[i.e. they have broken communion and SOBORNOST/CONCILIARITY with their
fellow brother bishops) from the church-their fellow bishops, that
consecrated them, our Met. Agafangel's ROCA Synod, ....
so that therefore by the canons, NOTHING they perform is valid or
grace-conveying. Schismatics cannot perform ANY valid sacraments.
Schismatic bishops cannot consecrate new, schismatic, 'bishops'!
Further,
any participation by 'RTOC-Trenton" Stefan Sabelnik, is also quite
questionable, as
his own 'episcopal consecration ritual and ceremony, was performed, in
Odessa, Ukraine, by those THEMSELVES in rebellious and illegal schism
from the old ROCOR, and thus, he too has no right, by Orthodox canons,
to consecrate or ordain, any others.
SUCH
is our present END TIMES Mass-world-wide Apostasy chaos, for we who
are struggling to
remain faithfully Orthodox and to obey canonical and fully Orthodox
bishops. I believe that Vladyka Metropolitan Agafangel is such a genuine
Orthodox bishop. The rest are liars and deceivers.
English: (*his own composition)-
Bishop Andrei of Yarraville and Australia's reply to Vladimir Moss
A Response to V. Moss
In his article “The Reunification Of The Russian Church” (Воссоединение Русской Церкви)
http://nftu.net/reply-of-v-moss-to-the-proposals-of-bishop-andrei-erastov/#comment-2728,
church historian Vladimir Moss provides a critical analysis of the
report that I prepared for the VI All-Diaspora Council in January 2017.
More precisely, V. Moss examines
only the final, closing section, in which I discussed the present
canonical status of the Russian Church. I must say, it is important to
me that a well-known church commentator took notice of my work and even
wrote a critical analysis of it. But unfortunately,
I found nothing in V. Moss’ article to embrace nor to accept as a
correction. It would seem that V. Moss did not read the report carefully
enough, because when analyzing the paragraphs in question, he did not
consider them within the overall context of the
report and did not attempt to understand the ideas and intentions of the
author.
|
Godless America: The New Reality July 26, 2017. 0. Reply of V. Moss to the Proposals of Bishop Andrei (Erastov)
|
As a result, in his critical analysis he refutes ideas that he
ascribes to me, but which I did not have in mind at all. It is thus not
surprising that he finds contradictions and inconsistent thinking in my
report.
To demonstrate V. Moss’ critical methodology one example will suffice. He cites this paragraph from my report:
“ The ‘splinters’ dispute with each other over who has the right
of succession from the pre-schism Church Abroad. However, it no longer
exists. As was said before, the ROCOR Synod existed, not on the basis of
any canonical acts, but in spite of them.
The meaning of the existence of the Synod lay in the fact that it was
the bearer of Church truth. But when the Synod later fell into the
deception of Sergianism, it lost all significance. The canonical basis
of the Synod lay in its lofty spiritual-moral authority
and in considerations of what is profitable for the Church. (‘What is
useful for the Church is canonical’ (V.V. Bolotov).)
And then makes the following comment:
“This again makes no sense. However great the authority of V.V.
Bolotov, the expression “What is useful for the Church is canonical” is
not sanctioned by Church tradition. For who is to say what is useful for
the Church? Many ecumenists have considered
following the canons about, for example, concelebration with heretics,
to be not useful for the Church. Are they to be allowed to redefine what
is not canonical as canonical simply because it is “useful” to them?! “
V. Moss makes no attempt to understand the point I was making. He
dislikes V.V. Bolotov’s statement, so he interprets Bolotov arbitrarily
and then objects to his own interpretation.
In fact, V.V. Bolotov does not argue at all that anyone, utilizing
one's own judgement, can declare something canonical if it benefits him.
Bolotov’s point is that the Church, as a living organism inspired by
the Holy Spirit, and reacting to historical circumstances,
organically develops one or another canonical forms. For the most part,
the Holy Fathers at the councils did not introduce new canonical
formulations, but rather only strengthened those that had already arisen
earlier in the Church. In this way canonicity
has at its core what benefits the Church. The Church itself develops
canonical forms that are most responsive to the Church's needs and these
formulations in turn, are confirmed by the canons. Met. Anthony’s Synod
was not sanctioned by the Higher Church Authority
of the Russian Church and did not have a formal canonical right for its
existence, yet the point of benefiting the Church at that moment in
history called for a centralized religious body in the diaspora and
therefore its existence was justified canonically.
When reading V. Moss’ article, the impression is created that the
critical analysis of my report is only a prologue to this: V. Moss
proposes that we accept three postulates of zealotry, which in his
opinion must form the basis of a unified profession of
faith by the reunited Russian Church. In one of these postulates, V.
Moss demands that we anathematize Cyprianism and consider the
consecrations of our bishops (including my own) to be invalid as they
were performed with the participation of bishops of the
synod of Met. Cyprian. In this way, V. Moss hopes to separate the
“wolves from the sheep.”
What can I say to such a proposal?
Armchair theologians refuse to see that Met. Cyprian’s theory was a
stillborn teaching that did not outlive its creator and that has no
influence on the life of the Church.
After the union of the Synod of Resistance with the Synod of Abp.
Kallinikos, no one remains who spreads the teachings of Met. Cyprian and
there is absolutely no one interested in these teachings. Yet, this
does not deter warriors against Cyprianism who
have devoted their time and energy to exposing this dangerous heresy.
Verbally and in print, they continue to denounce Cyprianism.
One can make another surprising observation: the denouncers of
Cyprianism, as a rule, understand this teaching in great detail, while
those whom they call “cyprianites,” on the contrary, have only a vague,
if any, understanding of it at all. Try to find
anyone among the ROCA clergy who is well versed in Met. Cyprian’s
teachings. I fear this is no easy task. Enter any of our parishes and
ask the first person you meet, what do you know about Cyprianism? Most
likely, that person will stare at you in surprise.
But, even if you were to find someone who has heard of Met. Cyprian’s
teachings, that person, most likely, heard about them from one of those
battling against Cyprianism! I would like to give those battling
Cyprianism the following advice: if you are truly
sincere in your desire to erase Cyprianism from the face of the Earth,
it is not hard to do. Simply, stop talking about Cyprianism and it will
disappear of its own accord as it is of no interest to anyone but
yourselves.
It is not Cyprianism, but false zealotry that is the primary danger
for our Church. The Pharisaical spirit of false zealotry is foreign to
the spirit of the Gospel. Like some lethal gas, it spreads among our
churches and poisons the souls of the faithful.
Fr. Seraphim Rose called this spiritual condition “super-correctness,”
and he himself regretted that in his early works, he did his part in the
creation of this “monster.” The “monster” of false zealotry is quite
alive because it feeds on the human weaknesses
of pride and vanity. False zealotry presumes to know the answers to all
questions and, without the slightest hesitation, traces the borders of
the Church as if with a ruler and pencil.
It is important to note that between false zealotry and its antipode,
Cyprianism, there is one point in common, their rationality. Either
teaching, in essence, represents a logical scheme. Zealots typically
find fault in the Church Abroad for its inconsistent
and illogical position in regard to World Orthodoxy. They do not see
that they are exposing themselves, because the Church is governed by the
Holy Spirit, and not by human logic. In this way, the zealots show that
their ecclesiology is a product of human logic,
and not the wisdom of the Church. And this is the basis upon which V.
Moss hopes to build unity among churches!
How to understand this quixotic phenomenon, the never-ending battle
with the non-existent heresy of Cyprianism? Is it tilting at windmills
or is there some rational reason behind it?
To find the answer, let us set theology aside and return to the
sinful earth. Let us ask the classic question that helps explain most
matters: whom does it benefit?
Who benefits by calling our bishops “cyprianites” and denying the
validity of their ordinations? Who benefits by sowing discord to
undermine our union with Bp. Stefan? Who finds no joy in our union and
is instead very troubled by it? Let the reader himself
find the answers to these questions.
============================== ============================== ============================== ============================== ===================
(From Rd. Daniel: My inserted comment on this biblical quote:
How sad but laughable it is, that those who
themselves [clearly!] are condemned by this scriptural admonition and
many others, dare to quote such, as a weapon -against their personal
critics! Such is the typical habit of sectarians
and the non-Orthodox, who do not obey Holy Scriptures themselves, but
who only USE it, ARGUE it, against their critics. Our Lord warned us of
these: "By their fruits shall ye know them!")
========================================================================================
{“I
urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause
dissensions and obstacles … for such people are not serving our Lord
Jesus Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they
deceive the hearts of the simple.” (Romans 16:17-18)
Bp. Andrei }
============================== ============================== ============================== ============================== =========
RUSSIAN: (His own composition)-
Ответ Епископа Ярравильского и Австралийского Андрея Владимиру Моссу
Ответ В. Моссу
В статье THE REUNIFICATION OF THE RUSSIAN CHURCH (Воссоединение Русской Церкви)
http://nftu.net/reply-of-v-moss-to-the-proposals-of-bishop-andrei-erastov/#comment-2728
церковный историк В. Мосс критически разбирает мой доклад,
написанный для 6-го Всезарубежного Собора в январе 2017 г. Точнее, он
подвергает анализу только последнюю, заключительную главу, в которой
говорится о каноническом положении Русской Церкви в настоящий
момент. Должен сказать, что для меня ценно то, что известный церковный
публицист обратил внимание на мою работу, и даже написал критический
разбор. Но к сожалению, я не нашел в статье В. Мосса ничего, чем я мог
бы воспользоваться или взять на замечание. Повидимому,
причина в том, что В. Мосс недостаточно внимательно прочитал мой доклад,
потому что те параграфы, которые он анализирует, он рассматривает вне
контекста всей работы, не пытаясь понять мысль и намерение автора.
|
Godless America: The New Reality July 26, 2017. 0. Reply of V. Moss to the Proposals of Bishop Andrei (Erastov)
|
Таким образом, в своем критическом разборе он опровергает мнения,
которые он сам же мне приписывает, и которых я совершенно не имел в
виду. Неудивительно, что он находит в моей работе противоречия и
непоследовательность мысли.
Чтобы продемонстрировать критический метод В. Мосса достаточно одного примера. Он приводит абзац из моего доклада:
«Осколки» оспаривают друг у друга каноническое правопреемство от
дораскольной Зарубежной Церкви, однако, его не существует. Как было
сказано выше, Синод РПЦЗ существовал не на основании каких-либо
канонических актов, а скорее, вопреки им. Смысл существования
Синода был в том, что он являлся носителем церковной правды. Когда же
впоследствии Синод впал в соблазн сергианства, то он утерял всякое
значение. Каноническое обоснование Синода было в его высоком
духовно-нравственном авторитете и в соображениях церковной
пользы. (Каноничным следует считать то, что полезно для Церкви. (В.В.
Болотов))
И так комментирует его:
« Это опять же не имеет смысла. Как бы ни был велик авторитет
В.В. Болотова, выражение - Каноничным следует считать то, что полезно
для Церкви – не подтверждается церковным Преданием. Кто может сказать,
что полезно для Церкви? Многие экуменисты считают,
что следовать канонам, запрещающим сослужение с еретиками, не полезно
для Церкви. Имеют ли они право называть каноничными свои неканоничные
действия, только потому, что они им «полезны»?!».
В. Мосс совершенно не старается вникнуть в смысл сказанного. Ему не
нравится высказывание В.В. Болотова, он произвольно истолковывает его и
возражает против этого своего толкования.
Однако В.В. Болотов вовсе не говорит, что каждый может по своему
разумению называть каноничным то, что ему полезно. Мысль Болотова в том,
что Церковь, как живой организм, движимый Св. Духом, отвечая на вызов
исторических обстоятельств, сама органически вырабатывает
те или иные канонические формы. По большей части св. отцы на соборах не
вводили новых канонических форм, а только закрепляли те формы, которые
уже сложились в Церкви раньше. Таким образом, в основе каноничности
лежит польза Церкви. Церковь сама вырабатывает
канонические формы, наиболее отвечающие церковной пользе, и эти формы
впоследствии закрепляются канонами. Синод митр. Антония не был
санкционирован Высшей Церковной властью Русской Церкви и не имел
формально-канонических прав для своего существования, однако
соображения церковной пользы в тот исторический момент требовали
централизованной церковной организации в зарубежье, и потому ее
существование было канонически обосновано. При чтении статьи В. Мосса
создается впечатление, что критический разбор моего доклада
– это только предисловие к главному:
В. Мосс предлагает нам принять три постулата зилотства, которые, по
его мнению, должны быть положены в основание единого вероисповедания
воссоединенной Русской Церкви. В одном из этих постулатов В. Мосс
требует от нас анафематствовать киприанизм и признать
недействительными хиротонии наших архиереев (включая меня), потому что
они были совершены с участием епископов Синода м. Киприана. Таким
способом В. Мосс надеется отлучить «волков от овец».
Что я могу сказать на такое предложение?
Кабинетные богословы не хотят видеть, что теория м. Киприана -
мертворожденное учение, которое не смогло пережить своего творца - не
оказывает никакого влияния на церковную жизнь.
После объединения Синода Противостоящих с Синодом арх. Каллиника уже
никто не распространяет учение м. Киприана, и совершенно никого оно на
интересует. Впрочем, это не смущает борцов с киприанизмом, посвятивших
свои силы и время на разоблачение этого опасного
заблуждения. Они и письменно и устно продолжают обличать киприанизм.
Можно сделать еще одно удивительное наблюдение: обличители
киприанизма, как правило, до тонкости разбираются в этом учении; те же,
кого они называют киприанитами, напротив, имеют самое смутное о нем
представление, а то и вовсе никакого. Попробуйте найти
среди священников РПЦЗ кого-либо, кто бы хорошо знал, в чем заключается
учение м. Киприана; боюсь, задача будет не из легких. Войдите в любой
наш приход и спросите первого попавшегося: что он знает о киприанизме?
Скорее всего, он посмотрит на вас с удивлением.
Но если и удастся найти кого-либо, слышавшего о учении м. Киприана, то
слышал он о нем, наверняка, от какого-нибудь борца с киприанизмом!
Хочется дать борцам с киприанизмом такой совет: если вы,
действительно, искренни в своем желании стереть киприанизм с лица земли,
то вам нетрудно это сделать. Просто перестаньте говорить о киприанизме,
и он исчезнет сам собой. Потому что кроме вас он никому
не интересен. Не киприанизм, а ложное зилотство является первейшей
опасностью для нашей Церкви. Фарисейский дух лже-зилотства чужд духа
Евангельского. Как какой-то ядовидый газ, он расползается по нашим
церквам и отравляет души верующих. Это духовное направление
о. Серафим Роуз называл «сверх-правильностью» и сам каялся в том, что в
своих ранних писаниях, вложил лепту в создание этого «монстра». «Монстр»
лже-зилотства очень живуч, потому что он питается от человеческих
страстей: гордости и тщеславия. Лже-зилотство
воображает, что знает ответы на все вопросы, оно без малейших колебаний,
очерчивает границы Церкви, как бы при помощи линейки и карандаша.
Достойно замечания, что между лже-зилотством и его антиподом
киприанизмом имеется известное сходство: это их рассудочность. И то и
другое учение, в сущности, представляют собой логические схемы. Зилоты
обычно укоряют Зарубежную Церковь в непоследовательности
и нелогичности ее позиции по отношению к Мировому Православию. Они не
видят, что этим они сами себя обличают, потому что Церковь управляется
Духом Святым, а не человеческой логикой. Таким образом, зилоты сами
показывают, что их экклезиология есть продукт человеческого
ума, а не разума Церкви. И на таком основании В. Мосс думает выстраивать
церковное единство!
Как объяснить это загадочное явление: неутомимую борьбу с
несуществующей ересью киприанизма? Что это: борьба с ветряной мельницей
или за этим стоит какая-то рациональная причина?
Чтобы найти ответ, лучше оставим богословие и спустимся на грешную
землю. Зададим классический вопрос, помогающий разобраться во всяком
запутанном деле: Кому это выгодно?
Кому выгодно называть наших епископов киприанитами, и отрицать
действительность наших хиротоний? Кому выгодно сеять сомнения, чтобы
поставить под вопрос наше объединение с Вл. Стефаном? Кого не радует это
наше объединение, а напротив, очень мешает? Пусть
читатель сам поищет ответы на эти вопросы.
«Братие, блюдитеся от творящих распри и раздоры...таковии бо
Господеви нашему Иисусу Христу не работают, но своему чреву: иже благими
словесы и благословением прельщают сердца незлобивых.» (Рим. 16, 17)
Еп. Андрей
============================== ============================== ============================== ============================== ============================== ============
An Official ROCA UKAZ/EDICT:
ADDED: THIRD AND FINAL
SUMMONS TO APPEAR BEFORE A ROCA CHURCH COUNCIL OF THEIR FELLOW BISHOPS:
TO ARCHBISHOPS ANDRONIK AND SOFRONY:
ROCOR: Third invitation to the Cathedral to Archbishop Andronicus and Sophrony (PHOTO)
Автор: Митрополит Агафангел вкл. Author: Metropolitan Agafangel inc.
11 Август 2017 11 August 2017
. .
Опубликовано в
РПЦЗ (Просмотров: 57) Posted in
ROCOR (Views: 57)
Запрещённым в
священнослужении архиепископам Андронику и Софронию напралено почтой,
электронной почтой и продублировано в средствах Интернет третье
приглашение
явиться на Архиерейский Собор в октябре сего года.
Archbishops
Andronik and Sophrony, who were banned from the priesthood, were sent
by mail, e-mail and duplicated in the Internet, the third
invitation, to appear at the Bishops' Council in October of this year.
Просба также ко
всем, у кого есть такая возможность, напомнить им о необходимости
явиться на этот Собор, поскольку решения, принятые на нём, будут
окончательными,
без права обжалования.
Be it advised also, to all who have such an opportunity, to
remind them of the need to appear at this Council, since the decisions
taken on it will be final, without the right of appeal.
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment
Guest comments MAYBE can be made by email.
joannahigginbotham@runbox.com
Anonymous comments will not be published. Daniel will not see unpublished comments. If you have a message for him, you need to contact him directly.
oregdan@hotmail.com