 |
| Met. Pavlos and Fr. John Hinton with Fr. Wsewolod at St. Markella, Astoria, NY 2013 |
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Met. Pavlos and Fr. John Hinton with Fr. Wsewolod
Fr. John Hinton with Fr. Wsewolod
 |
| Fr. John Hinton visiting Astoria, NY with Fr. Wsewolod in our garden 2013 |
Monday, June 3, 2013
Archive Statement from the Chairman
June 2007
Russian
http://sobor2006.livejournal.com/285897.html
"I am not pursuing the objective of uniting all the fragments of Orthodoxy."
The period of time we are now undergoing is marked by a striving to unite many of the Orthodox who currently exist as separate entities. In and of itself, this is a praiseworthy endeavor. However in order that this intention become a reality, it must unavoidably be strengthened by an inner re-arrangement of values, i.e. through repentance. In order to be lifted to a new spiritual plane, to a truly positive level of interaction or even unity, we may accomplish this only through repentance and to some degree, through transforming our inner essence.
Those who are currently proposing the initiative of reconciliation suggest that everyone unite “as they are” (which in and of itself is quite primitive and looks very much like a type of “alternative” ecumenism). Unfortunately, we are too different to unite in such a direct manner. Therefore, I see for myself a current priority to be not the unification of the Church’s disjointed parts, but primarily preserving faithfulness to the principles of spiritual life which formed in the Russian Church Abroad, as well as the strengthening and confirming of these principles. In other words, the main goal for us right now is the preservation of the traditional Russian Church Abroad.
Out of all the parts of the Russian Church, the spiritual succession of the historic Local Russian Church has been preserved only by ROCOR. The Moscow Patriarchate under the close patronage of the theomachists was broken and was not capable of carrying the Legacy of the fathers of the Russian and Universal Church in all required fullness, while the Catacomb Church, as a result of persecutions, unprecedented in the history of the Church, withered inside the godless cordon, not being regenerated with fresh, healthy forces from the people. Only the Church Abroad became the fully-fledged and full-blooded keeper of Patristic Tradition during that period of time. This Tradition primarily involves the passing on of the living Orthodox faith and practices from one generation to the next, i.e. the very condition of the Orthodox soul. In the Orthodox Church this thread of spiritual succession stretches unbroken from the Lord Himself and His apostles to us who live now. Thanks to the Russian Church Abroad, it remains unbroken even at the current time, despite all the efforts of the theomachist-communists.
In order to unite, one must select a certain reference point or norm which should become the center of unification. For me and all those around me who support me, in order to unite, one must select a certain reference point or norm which should become the center of unification. For me and all those around me who support me, this norm and goal is the Russian Church Abroad in its condition under our ever memorable First Hierarchs, Metropolitans Anthony, Anastasy, Philaret and Vitaly. And therefore we may only unite with those who wish to remain or desire to join the spiritual heritage of the Church Abroad, and through this heritage, the Holy Tradition of the Universal Church. For this reason we are forced to protect ourselves from those who could introduce a foreign spirit and different practice into our church enclosure. Hence, in the current phase I consider it possible to enter into discussions of union only with those for whom our Russian Church Abroad is dear, and not with the multiple “sister churches”.[fragments]. Therefore in accordance with the aforesaid, I consider that for the sake of re-establishing the oneness of ROCOR, repentance is indispensable for those who have in some way stepped away from that Tradition, not excluding myself as well in that regard, if this is demonstrated to me convincingly or if I suddenly see my own transgression.
In this manner, summarizing the above, I will repeat myself: the center of unification can only be Living Holy Tradition, which for us, the faithful sheep of the Russian Church Abroad, is the history and life of ROCOR. We cannot consider any imaginary or newly created, newly invented “jurisdictions”. (For instance that same RTOC does not have a tradition of a spiritual heritage, besides the life it experienced in schism from 2001 onward.)
***
I am grateful to the representatives of the RTOC for attempting to point out to me what they feel are my inadequacies – our supposed union with a “neo-occult sect of D. Korchinsky” and the commemoration of the Ukrainian civil authorities (this refers only to their latest letter, since in their previous writings they saw far more inadequacies). As well in that letter, RTOC representatives presented me with an ultimatum: “Our refusal to commemorate the civil authorities in divine services and our rejection of the ‘Korchinsky sect’ as well as dubious persons and forces (as I understood they are implying I reject ‘collaboration with the CIA’ - +B.A) are contingencies directly linked to a possible future dialogue and union”. But these claims made against us by RTOC, as always, are contrived. We are not in any union with any neo-occult sects nor have we ever been. The fact that a group of youth belongs to the political party “Brotherhood” and wishes to found a parish within our Church may in no way be considered a crime, and I have no intention of expelling them from ROCOR to please RTOC (incidentally this demand, even though it was presented as a wish, was already made to me by Ukrainian officials; and again in this case there appears to be a strange synchronized action by the [civil] officials and RTOC*). The program and ideology of this political party never and in no way influenced us nor can it ever influence us. The commemoration of civil authorities is one of the traditions of the Russian (Rus’) Orthodox Church and I see nothing criminal in praying for those who rule the country in such a way that they do not interfere in our internal church life and attempt as much as possible to protect the freedom of conscience of its citizens. The prayerful commemoration of a state which does not persecute the Church of Christ, but on the contrary gave asylum to Russian refugees and gave them an opportunity to live freely and prosper – such is also one of the traditions of ROCOR and we do not intent to reject it to please RTOC. Our parishes in Byelorus, Moldava and the Russian Federation, where the regime violates its own laws governing religion in one form or another, do not commemorate the regime in divine services.
Russian
Category: An early firm statement from our Bishop Agafangel about our ROCA, himself, and as regarding RTOC, etc.
A Statement from the Chairman of the ISCA of ROCOR Bishop Agathangel
A Statement from the Chairman of the Interim Supreme Church Authority of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, Bishop Agafangel of Tavrichesk and Odessa.
"I am not pursuing the objective of uniting all the fragments of Orthodoxy."
The period of time we are now undergoing is marked by a striving to unite many of the Orthodox who currently exist as separate entities. In and of itself, this is a praiseworthy endeavor. However in order that this intention become a reality, it must unavoidably be strengthened by an inner re-arrangement of values, i.e. through repentance. In order to be lifted to a new spiritual plane, to a truly positive level of interaction or even unity, we may accomplish this only through repentance and to some degree, through transforming our inner essence.
Those who are currently proposing the initiative of reconciliation suggest that everyone unite “as they are” (which in and of itself is quite primitive and looks very much like a type of “alternative” ecumenism). Unfortunately, we are too different to unite in such a direct manner. Therefore, I see for myself a current priority to be not the unification of the Church’s disjointed parts, but primarily preserving faithfulness to the principles of spiritual life which formed in the Russian Church Abroad, as well as the strengthening and confirming of these principles. In other words, the main goal for us right now is the preservation of the traditional Russian Church Abroad.
Out of all the parts of the Russian Church, the spiritual succession of the historic Local Russian Church has been preserved only by ROCOR. The Moscow Patriarchate under the close patronage of the theomachists was broken and was not capable of carrying the Legacy of the fathers of the Russian and Universal Church in all required fullness, while the Catacomb Church, as a result of persecutions, unprecedented in the history of the Church, withered inside the godless cordon, not being regenerated with fresh, healthy forces from the people. Only the Church Abroad became the fully-fledged and full-blooded keeper of Patristic Tradition during that period of time. This Tradition primarily involves the passing on of the living Orthodox faith and practices from one generation to the next, i.e. the very condition of the Orthodox soul. In the Orthodox Church this thread of spiritual succession stretches unbroken from the Lord Himself and His apostles to us who live now. Thanks to the Russian Church Abroad, it remains unbroken even at the current time, despite all the efforts of the theomachist-communists.
In order to unite, one must select a certain reference point or norm which should become the center of unification. For me and all those around me who support me, in order to unite, one must select a certain reference point or norm which should become the center of unification. For me and all those around me who support me, this norm and goal is the Russian Church Abroad in its condition under our ever memorable First Hierarchs, Metropolitans Anthony, Anastasy, Philaret and Vitaly. And therefore we may only unite with those who wish to remain or desire to join the spiritual heritage of the Church Abroad, and through this heritage, the Holy Tradition of the Universal Church. For this reason we are forced to protect ourselves from those who could introduce a foreign spirit and different practice into our church enclosure. Hence, in the current phase I consider it possible to enter into discussions of union only with those for whom our Russian Church Abroad is dear, and not with the multiple “sister churches”.[fragments]. Therefore in accordance with the aforesaid, I consider that for the sake of re-establishing the oneness of ROCOR, repentance is indispensable for those who have in some way stepped away from that Tradition, not excluding myself as well in that regard, if this is demonstrated to me convincingly or if I suddenly see my own transgression.
In this manner, summarizing the above, I will repeat myself: the center of unification can only be Living Holy Tradition, which for us, the faithful sheep of the Russian Church Abroad, is the history and life of ROCOR. We cannot consider any imaginary or newly created, newly invented “jurisdictions”. (For instance that same RTOC does not have a tradition of a spiritual heritage, besides the life it experienced in schism from 2001 onward.)
***
I am grateful to the representatives of the RTOC for attempting to point out to me what they feel are my inadequacies – our supposed union with a “neo-occult sect of D. Korchinsky” and the commemoration of the Ukrainian civil authorities (this refers only to their latest letter, since in their previous writings they saw far more inadequacies). As well in that letter, RTOC representatives presented me with an ultimatum: “Our refusal to commemorate the civil authorities in divine services and our rejection of the ‘Korchinsky sect’ as well as dubious persons and forces (as I understood they are implying I reject ‘collaboration with the CIA’ - +B.A) are contingencies directly linked to a possible future dialogue and union”. But these claims made against us by RTOC, as always, are contrived. We are not in any union with any neo-occult sects nor have we ever been. The fact that a group of youth belongs to the political party “Brotherhood” and wishes to found a parish within our Church may in no way be considered a crime, and I have no intention of expelling them from ROCOR to please RTOC (incidentally this demand, even though it was presented as a wish, was already made to me by Ukrainian officials; and again in this case there appears to be a strange synchronized action by the [civil] officials and RTOC*). The program and ideology of this political party never and in no way influenced us nor can it ever influence us. The commemoration of civil authorities is one of the traditions of the Russian (Rus’) Orthodox Church and I see nothing criminal in praying for those who rule the country in such a way that they do not interfere in our internal church life and attempt as much as possible to protect the freedom of conscience of its citizens. The prayerful commemoration of a state which does not persecute the Church of Christ, but on the contrary gave asylum to Russian refugees and gave them an opportunity to live freely and prosper – such is also one of the traditions of ROCOR and we do not intent to reject it to please RTOC. Our parishes in Byelorus, Moldava and the Russian Federation, where the regime violates its own laws governing religion in one form or another, do not commemorate the regime in divine services.
Meanwhile, I also have some questions for the RTOC representatives, but not in the format which they proposed in their letter to me; austensibly being prepared to repent, for “supposedly we (i.e. RTOC - +B.A.) took advantage of the distressed situation of the Church Abroad in order to satisfy our ambitions and organize a church group ‘under us’. Although this indeed was and is occurring, it is not the main object of my concern. I am far more disturbed, for example, by the very path and practice of RTOC. I am prepared not to bring up its premature inception and its seven-year existence in schism from ROCOR. I can, as they say, “grit my teeth” and forget even all the subsequent anti-canonical actions of this group (including deceit and speculation over Metropolitan Vitaly’s directives, as well as the unilateral proclamation of their own Synod which can only be formed by a decision of the supreme Church authority; this includes also proclaiming themselves to be a new church, separate from ROCOR, supposedly in the catacombs.) But even this is not what disturbs me the most. Mostly I am grieved by the constant deliberate falsehood in the actions and publications of RTOC, lies aimed at discrediting others and enhancing their own popularity. (I am convinced that this is also the intent of their last letter to me and Bishop Daniel.) One can forgive many things and disregard much for the sake of reconciliation and unity. But what does one do with these lies? Must one reconcile with them too? I am convinced that namely this is unacceptable and impermissible for us.
Therefore my sentiments to RTOC representatives are, that they carefully read over their voluminous writings (which they, incidentally, not sparing the expense, have sent by mail to all of our clergy without exception), and determine the source of the lies which these writings abundantly contain and finally cut off this fowl flow. Otherwise our dialogue will not yield, nor can it yield good fruits based only on good intentions.
Of course a union with whomever, whenever and on what terms is not for me to decide, but for our supreme Church authority, which has not yet been formed. I have merely expressed my view of our church union, desired by all. In the current phase I am convinced that we may receive representatives of the RTOC into our Church only through repentance and in the rank they occupied at the moment they split from ROCOR.
+Bishop Agafangel
Odessa, May 27/June 9, 2007
St. John the Russian, Confessor
*An example of other strange synchronized actions of the civil authorities together with RTOC , was the joint, most active endeavor to ruin ROCOR, and in the same context, the joint, active slander campaign against me, together with the strange increase in the popularity of RTOC on the internet among pro-soviet and pro-MP activists.
Therefore my sentiments to RTOC representatives are, that they carefully read over their voluminous writings (which they, incidentally, not sparing the expense, have sent by mail to all of our clergy without exception), and determine the source of the lies which these writings abundantly contain and finally cut off this fowl flow. Otherwise our dialogue will not yield, nor can it yield good fruits based only on good intentions.
Of course a union with whomever, whenever and on what terms is not for me to decide, but for our supreme Church authority, which has not yet been formed. I have merely expressed my view of our church union, desired by all. In the current phase I am convinced that we may receive representatives of the RTOC into our Church only through repentance and in the rank they occupied at the moment they split from ROCOR.
+Bishop Agafangel
Odessa, May 27/June 9, 2007
St. John the Russian, Confessor
*An example of other strange synchronized actions of the civil authorities together with RTOC , was the joint, most active endeavor to ruin ROCOR, and in the same context, the joint, active slander campaign against me, together with the strange increase in the popularity of RTOC on the internet among pro-soviet and pro-MP activists.
Our ROCA Positional Statement
Russian original document from 2007 and English Translation
Category: Our ROCA Positional Statement: In 2007, Clearly setting forth our official ROCA position regarding the Russian 'fragments', - our and their relationship etc. This epistle being addressed to our sister, Greek, Romanian, and Bulgarian churches, by then, Bishop Agafangel.
Original Russian Text:
АРХИВ: Послание Председателя ВВЦУ РПЦЗ Агафангела, Епископа Таврического и Одесского
Корреспондент: i-sobor вкл. 03 Июнь 2013. Опубликовано в РПЦЗ (Просмотров: 11)
ПРЕДСТОЯТЕЛЯМ СВЯЩЕННОГО СИНОДА ПРОТИВОСТОЯЩИХ – ГРЕЧЕСКОЙ ЦЕРКВИ ПРОТИВОСТОЯЩИХ ХРИСТИАН,
РУМЫНСКОЙ СТАРОСТИЛЬНОЙ ПРАВОСЛАВНОЙ ЦЕРКВИ И
БОЛГАРСКОЙ СТАРОСТИЛЬНОЙ ПРАВОСЛАВНОЙ ЦЕРКВИ 13/26 июля, 2007 года
Собор Архангела Гавриила.
Ваши Высокопреосвященства, Ваше Преосвященство!
Благодарю за то, что Вы сочли возможным поддержать нас, — тех, кто остался в Русской Зарубежной Церкви в сложный и драматический период ее бытия. Мы всегда будем помнить и ценить эту Вашу братскую поддержку, которая во многом помогла нам выдержать выпавшие на нашу долю испытания.
В тоже время, в своем послании, Вы просите нас объединиться с группой, возглавляемой архиепископом Тихоном (Пасечником). Хочу заверить, что вопрос единства Русской Церкви всегда стоит на первом месте в наших мыслях, молитвах и делах. Наша часть Русской Зарубежной Церкви всегда будет стремиться к максимально возможному такому единству. Известно, что Русская Истинно-Православная Церковь возникла в лоне Русской Православной Церкви Заграницей. В свое время я лично дал этой части Церкви такое название, собственноручно написал ее Устав и зарегистрировал этот Устав в Киеве — потому только, что в то время власти наотрез отказывались регистрировать на Украине Русскую Православную Церковь Заграницей.
Повторяю, что название части Зарубежной Церкви "Русская Истинно-Православная Церковь" принято только лишь в силу сложившихся на Украине обстоятельств исключительно для получения регистрации в государственных органах. Позже, отколовшись от РПЦЗ, под влиянием только лишь умонастроений, без всяких канонически и экклесиологически обоснованных причин, эта ее часть объявила о своей самостоятельности, объявила себя новой Церковью, являющейся, якобы, Церковью-сестрой РПЦЗ. Хочу спросить, если бы такое случилось в Греции, Болгарии или Румынии, то есть, если бы от возглавляемых Вами Синодов отделилась бы маленькая группка без всяких на то веских оснований, и объявила бы себя "сестрой" существующей Греческой, Болгарской или Румынской Старостильной Церкви, то разве ради единства возможно было бы признать и узаконить ее существование? Узаконить существование, скажем, двух Болгарских или Румынских Церквей с одинаковой практикой и вероучением? Повторю, что РИПЦ (под управлением архиеп. Тихона) не имеет иного происхождения, кроме происхождения от Русской Зарубежной Церкви.
Поэтому я не могу дерзнуть узаконить (установив с ними евхаристическое общение) существование еще одной Русской Православной Церкви, не имеющей никакого своего духовного и исторического самостоятельного начала. Я писал раньше, что мы с радостью готовы принять архипастырей, пастырей, монашествующих и мирян РИПЦ туда, откуда они вышли — в Русскую Православную Церковь Заграницей. Принять, добавлю, учитывая также и Ваше к нам обращение, с применением максимально возможной икономии — в сущем сане.
Поэтому, прислушиваясь к Вашим мудрым словам, дорогие во Христе братья архипастыри, учитывая, что Вы приняли на себя нелегкое бремя посредничества между нами, я прошу:
---во имя единства святой Русской Православной Церкви Заграницей;
---во имя единства нашего общего православного свидетельства;
---во имя «малых сих» (Матф. 18:14), верных чад святой Русской Зарубежной Церкви, чью православную церковную совесть архиереи-униаты распяли на кресте и через сердца которых проходят кровавые борозды разделения, тех, кто еще вчера были вместе, были едины, а сегодня оказываются разделенными;
---— донести до верных чад РИПЦ мой призыв к ним вернуться в лоно родившей их Русской Зарубежной Церкви и заверить, что мы примем их с распростертыми объятиями, возблагодарив Бога за то, что Он благоволил помочь нам преодолеть это пагубное разделение.
Я хорошо понимаю, что ради церковного единства всем нам следует забыть личные обиды и укоры, отставить в сторону все незначительные упреки и размолвки. Единство Церкви важнее всего личного. Поэтому я прошу прощения у всех представителей РИПЦ, а также и других "осколков" РПЦЗ, у всех, кого я безосновательно обидел или своими словами и поступками ввел в соблазн. Да не будет этого между нами впредь!
С любовью во Христе и с теплой молитвой к Нему быть всем нам едино,
Ваш во Христе сомолитвенник и послушник
+ Епископ Таврический и Одесский АГАФАНГЕЛ,
Председатель ВВЦУ РПЦЗ
==============================
English translation:
http://sobor2006.livejournal.
An Epistle of Bishop Agafangel
To the Hierarchs of the Holy Synod in Resistance –
the Greek Church of True-Orthodox Christians,
the Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Romania, and
the Old Calendar Orthodox Church of Bulgaria
July 13/26, 2007
Archangel Gabriel
Your Eminences, Your Holinesses!
I am grateful that you found it possible to support us – those of us who have remained in the Russian Church Abroad in this difficult and dramatic period in its history. We will always remember and value this brotherly support of yours, which has helped us in many ways to withstand the hardships we have encountered.
In your letter, though, you ask us to unite with the group headed by Archbishop Tikhon (Pasechnik). I affirm that the issue of the unity of the Russian Church is always paramount in our thoughts, prayers and actions. Our part of the Russian Church Abroad will always strive to the utmost towards such a unity. As is known, the Russian True-Orthodox Church, emerged from within the Russian Church Abroad. In the past, I personally gave this name to this part of the Church. I also wrote its Charter by my own hand and registered this Charter in Kiev, which was necessary, because at that time the [civil] authorities categorically refused to register the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia in the Ukraine. Again, the “Russian True-Orthodox Church” part of the Church Abroad, was given this name only because of circumstances in the Ukraine and as necessary only to receive the registration from government agencies. Later, having separated from ROCOR, on its own will and without any grounds based in the canons or ecclesiology, this part of the Church announced its independence and declared that it was a new Church, purportedly a 'Sister-Church of ROCOR'. I would ask, if something like this occurred in Greece, Bulgaria, or Romania, if a small part of the Synod which you head, broke off, without any grounds for such an action and were to declare that it was a “Sister” of the existing churches in Greece, Bulgaria, or Romania, would you recognize and legitimatize it solely for the sake of unity? Would you sanction, presumably, two Bulgarian or Romanian Churches with the same observances and theology? Let me say again, that the RTOC (under the authority of Abp. Tikhon (Pasechnik) ) has no other origin other than emerging from the Russian Church Abroad. Therefore, I dare not legitimatize it (by establishing Eucharistic communion with them) the existence of yet another Russian Orthodox Church, lacking an independent spiritual and historical origin. I wrote earlier that we are happy to welcome the bishops, clergy, monastics, and laypeople of the RTOC, back to where they came from - the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. And welcome them, I will add, in respect to your appeals to us and with the maximum amount of ekonomia possible – in their current clerical status.
That is why, having heeded your wise counsel, dear hierarchs, our brothers in Christ, and recognizing that you have taken upon yourselves the difficult burden of being our intermediaries, I ask:
- in the name of the unity of the holy Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia
- in the name of the unity of our common witness of Orthodoxy
- in the name of the “little ones” (Matthew 18:14), the loyal brethren of the Russian Church Abroad, whose sacred Orthodox conscience was crucified on the cross by its bishops-uniates and whose hearts bleed over the split. Those who only yesterday were together, as one, and now find themselves broken apart,
that you relay to the loyal brethren of the RTOC my appeal for them to return to the source from which they emerged, the Russian Church Abroad, and I promise that we will greet them with outstretched arms, giving thanks to God that He in His wisdom helped us to overcome this disastrous separation.
I understand quite well, that for the sake of the unity of the Church, we should forget all personal offenses and hurt and set aside all the meaningless accusations and disagreements. The unity of the Church is more important than any personal matters. That is why I ask for forgiveness from all representatives of the RTOC, and all the other “shards” of ROCOR as well, and from all those who I may have unknowingly offended and led into temptation either by my words or actions. Let none of this [negativity] remain between us, as we are going forward
With love of Christ and with an impassioned prayer to Him for all of us to be one,
Your fellow supplicant and servant in Christ,
+ Bishop of Taurida and Odessa.
Agafangel
Chairman of the ROCOR Provisional Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority
Saturday, June 1, 2013
Funeral Service Metropolitan Cyprian
A few early photos of the funeral service, of Metropolitan Cyprian (Kutsumbas) of Oropos and Fili
==============================
В субботу 19 мая /1 июня в монастыре святых. муч. Киприана и Иустины (Фили, Аттика), было совершено отпевание Высокопреосвященнейшего Киприана Митрополита Оропосского и Филийского, в котором участвовали архиерее и иерее из Америки, Италии, России, Румынии, Болгарии, Грузии, Швеции, Чехии, Словакии и из других стран мира.
(Текст из Требника "Последование мертвенное над скончавшимся")
News Old Calendar Church Synod in Resistance
IMPROVED Machine-English Text:
(The text of the Book of Needs , " The Service of the Deathly deceased " )
The funeral service for recently departed Metropolitan Cyprian (photos)
Reporter: Martin chtets incl. June 1, 2013. Posted in Synod in Resistance (Views: 6)
On Saturday 19 May / 1 June at the Monastery of The Holy Martyrs Cyprian and Justina (at Fili, Attica, Greece), has been committed the funeral of His Eminence Metropolitan Cyprian of Oropos and Fili, in which there have participated hierarchs and clergy from America, Italy, Russia, Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Sweden, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and other countries of the world.
(The text of the Book of Needs , " The Service of the Deathly deceased " )
==============================
*Duplicate photos, but with all Russian/Slavonic-liturgical text.
Отпевание новопреставленного Митрополита Киприана (фото)
Отпевание новопреставленного Митрополита Киприана (фото)
Корреспондент: чтецъ Мартинъ вкл. 01 Июнь 2013. Опубликовано в Синод Противостоящих (Просмотров: 6)В субботу 19 мая /1 июня в монастыре святых. муч. Киприана и Иустины (Фили, Аттика), было совершено отпевание Высокопреосвященнейшего Киприана Митрополита Оропосского и Филийского, в котором участвовали архиерее и иерее из Америки, Италии, России, Румынии, Болгарии, Грузии, Швеции, Чехии, Словакии и из других стран мира.
(Текст из Требника "Последование мертвенное над скончавшимся")
Concert of the ROCA Pokrov Parish School
Video: Paschal Concert of the ROCA Pokrov Parish School, Kongaz, Moldova
found on: http://internetsobor.org
"Let the little children come unto me, and forbid them not,
for of such is the Kingdom of Heaven".
The theme of this (non-liturgical music) church school concert?
CHRIST IS RISEN!
TRULY HE IS RISEN!
XB!
Brief Analysis of A. Schmemann's ideas
Russian original & English translation:
A brief perspective on the ideas of Alexander Schmemann- only a small analysis of his many false teachings
Category: For a better understanding of the influences and teachings of Fr. Alexander Schmemann,
a very complicated man and a product of the Evlogian Paris St. Sergius Academy, and former Dean of the New York, OCA, St. Vladimir's Seminary, whose name and teachings and books blanket the entire world, in numerous languages, and who is considered by many Orthodox and non-Orthodox, as
a prime Orthodox Theologian, of our modern times (!) But, is he?
Rd. Daniel
Translation done, kindly, by Vladimir Djambov in Sofia:
-with a few explanatory added notes, by Reader Daniel, for better clarity.
To Be or Not to Be
(Posted on 06.11.2009 by Roman Vershillo)
Posted on 06.11.2009 by Роман Вершилло
"But I would have you to be without care". (1 Cor. 7:32).
Among the suggestions, which have now long, been placed in notoriety [“glorified”] is the name of Fr. Alexander Schmemann, with his suggested idea, [among other innovations] to cancel Confession before Holy Communion. He developed this idea in a keynote report of his to the [Metroplia/OCA] Synod in 1971, [entitled] “The American Autocephalous Church”, which [religious body] by the way, was established that same year through his own efforts.
As is often the case with modernistic ideas, Fr. A. Schmemann’s argumentation ['renovation'] is no less damaging to the Church, as is his very suggestion to abolish [to empty] [Holy] Confession. He believed that Confession should be abolished, because it blocks the Christian’s way to the Sacrament of Communion. In the Orthodox Church laymen receive [partake] of Communion not with each Liturgy, unlike the priests who are – “somehow” perceived as devoted in some special sense to God. This, too, was unacceptable for Fr. A. Schmemann, insofar as it contradicts the Protestant – [or] to put it squarely , the Lutheran – doctrine (which he confessed also) about the “Universal Priesthood of Believers”.
In addition to rendering support to this well-known [Protestant heretical] deviation from the teaching of the Church, Fr. Schmemann also supplied a seemingly worldview [worldly] foundation to his revolutionary proposal. He reasoned like this: since man is a whole being, and [so] a Christian is a Christian in everything, no matter what one does: whether one prays or works, believes or studies at university, fasts or watches TV. Fr. A. Schmemann gives a completely absurd definition of what are the key aspects of human existence: i.e. to him this is: family, work, education, science, art, etc. All of these aspects of life, supposedly, should relate to the faith and be rooted in it. [somehow].
Fr. Schmemann calls the division between the secular and the priestly, [between] the earthly and the [ecclesial] Church – “secularism” and declares it [to be] an internal problem of the Church, one may even say – a sin. Fr. Schmemann supplies his own definition of “secularism” (secularization, worldliness): this is when the secular sphere of life is conceived as autonomous, led by its own values and principles different from the religious [ones]. It was [exactly] against this kind of “secularism” that Fr. Schmemann fought, [however] shattering in the process the Christian faith, as well.
Meanwhile, however, according to the generally accepted meaning of the word “secularism” – this is a worldly outlook, based on the premise that religion and all religious considerations are to be ignored or deliberately eradicated (Merriam-Webster – “indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations”). Suffice it to recall here the Bolshevik decree “On the Separation of the Church from the State”, which – despite its title – stipulated not a separation but the destruction of the Church.
Fr. Schmemann himself, in his youth, [in Catholic France, and as a member of the Renovationist, anti-Monarchial, avant-garde, Evlogian Parisian Schism from the Russian Church Abroad,] in his book “The Historical Road of Orthodoxy” [1953], condemned the Christian state and the Church for [their] “Caesaro-Papism” and, hence – at least approximately – he realized what secularization [secularism] is [means], in the immediate sense of the word. 20 years later, he improvised on a different motive already: only modern society is secular, while prior to the 20th century – that is, over 1500 years of “Caesaro-Papism" – Orthodoxy knew as [lived?!] some different, non-secular, type of society.
And meanwhile, throughout the ages we observe [in fact] a separation of the secular from the ecclesial. We’re not talking about the fact that, according to the Holy Canons, the clergy have no right to engage in worldly and military affairs, trade, surgery, speaking in private [civil lawsuit] cases before the court, [and] participate in political affairs. This alone suggests already that not all areas of work, science and culture
may be rooted in Faith. Let’s take a look at Ancient Rus’ where there were two classes of courts and two classes of laws: secular and ecclesiastical [religious]; and also everywhere in the history of Christianity we see an impassable borderline between the Church and the world. So, where and when did the Orthodox live in a non-secular society? [Maybe,] In the Rus’ of Alexey Mihaylovich after the Legal Code? under Peter the Great [the First]? or under Katherine the Great, ? or, perhaps, under the Mongol or Turkish rule [domination]?
Only the national state [civil governments] of Modern times [the New times] began – systematically or on the ground of principled consideration – to cross the borderline between the Church and the world, reclaiming for itself, [former] Church prerogatives and seizing Church property. Modern medicine, the natural sciences along with their experimental methods,the modern class-and-lesson system of education, the academies and universities – have never, since their inception in the 16th – 17th centuries, been guided by Christian values and principles. And in a strange coincidence, coming to the fore at the same time was Protestantism and religious modernism, which calls us to treat in a religious way, these pathological forms of civilization.
[Everyday] Life, as encompassing man fully [as a whole], Fr. Schmemann acknowledged as having 'religious significance', while life according to the Faith and the commandments through participation in the Sacraments he announced as [being a] “nominal” Christianity and therefore – a foreign religion. It is fully logical that in that same report Fr. Schmemann declared supplications for help that Christians address to the Savior, to the Mother of God and to the saints as [being] incongruous with religion.
[side note: He taught his seminary students that Canons, Akathists, etc, which he labeled as private non-liturgical unnecessary prayers, are in-appropriate and that there are too many saints and festivals on the church calendar. He was also anti-monastic and he wanted the Typikon purged and greatly shortened, to make church practices, more in line with, [ some versiion of] 'The Early Church', etc. Rd. Daniel]
If, in the words of St. Gregory the Theologian, Not everyone may [ is able to] lyubomudrstvovat [philosophize] about God. Yes! – not everyone. This [faculty] is acquired not cheaply and not by those [who are] creeping along the ground!... When is this possible? When are we [do we happen to be] free from the external slime and rebellion, when the domineering in us [the Old Adam] does not merge with [the] unfit and wandering images, as the beauty of the writing [written] mixed up with meager writing[s], or as the sweet fragrance of myrrh mixed up with mud – this is what modernism proposes as an opposing commandment: anyone can theologize, and especially that one who has burdened and contaminated one’s mind with worldly concerns, with outward slime and the rebellion of this world. Polluted [contaminated] by what?: With having ascribed to worldly concerns – [namely] family, work, education, science, art[s], etc. – 'a religious significance' unbecoming [not fitting] to them.
Fr. Schmemann wanted to introduce earthly life [a secular world view] and the [everyday] life into the Church, understanding his mission as mixing the sacred with the profane, and therefore he offered the cancellation of the Sacrament of Holy Confession.
Religion is thus brought into the daily life, but at what cost! At the cost of the emptying [abolition] of religion – in religion itself, as this is the inevitable cost of [the payment for] attempting to destroy the barrier between the Church and the world, whether it stems out of the world or from the Church.
"The time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away." (1 Cor. 7:29-31).
R.A. Vershillo
Быт или не быть?
Posted on 06.11.2009 by Роман Вершилло
Хочу, чтобы вы были без забот (1 Кор. 7:32).
Среди предложений, надолго “прославивших” имя о. Александра Шмемана, была идея отменить исповедь перед Причастием. Он развивал эту мысль в своем ключевом докладе 1971 г. Синоду “Американской автокефальной церкви”, в том же году, кстати, учрежденной его собственными усилиями.
Как часто бывает с модернистскими идеями, аргументация о. А. Шмемана не менее разрушительна для Церкви, нежели само предложение упразднить Исповедь. Он считал, что Исповедь должна быть упразднена, потому что преграждает путь христианину к Таинству Причастия. В Православной Церкви миряне причащаются не за каждой Литургией, в отличие от священников, которые “почему-то” воспринимаются как в особом смысле посвященные Богу. Это тоже неприемлемо для о. А. Шмемана, поскольку противоречит исповедуемому им протестантскому – непосредственно Лютеровскому – учению о “всеобщем священстве верующих”.
Помимо опоры на это известное отклонение от Церковного учения, о. А. Шмеман подводит и как бы мировоззренческую основу под свое революционное предложение. Он рассуждает так: человек есть существо цельное, и христианин – христианин во всем, что бы он ни делал: молится ли он или работает, верует или учится в университете, постится или смотрит телевизор. О. А. Шмеман дает совершенно вздорное определение того, каковы основные стороны человеческого существования: для него это семья, работа, образование, наука, искусство и т.п. Все эти стороны жизни, якобы, должны быть связаны с верой и укоренены в ней.
Разделение между мирским и священным, земным и Церковным о. А. Шмеман именует “секуляризмом” и объявляет внутренней проблемой Церкви, ее, можно сказать, грехом. О. Шмеман дает свое собственное определение “секуляризма” (обмирщения): это когда мирская сфера жизни мыслится как автономная, руководимая своими собственными ценностями и принципами, отличными от религиозных. Против такого “секуляризма” и борется о. А. Шмеман, попутно сокрушая и Христианскую веру.
А между тем, согласно общепринятому значению слова “секуляризм” – это мировоззрение, основанное на той посылке, что религия и все религиозные соображения должны игнорироваться или намеренно искореняться (Merriam-Webster). Достаточно вспомнить здесь большевистский декрет “Об отделении Церкви от государства”, который, вопреки названию, предполагал не отделение, а уничтожение Церкви.
Сам о. Шмеман в молодости, в своей книге “Исторический путь Православия”, осуждал Христианское государство и Церковь за “цезаропапизм”, и следовательно, хотя бы приблизительно сознавал, что такое секуляризация в прямом смысле слова. 20 лет спустя он импровизирует уже на другой мотив: только современное общество является секулярным, а до XX века – то есть на протяжении полутора тысячелетий “цезаропапизма” – Православие знало иной, несекулярный, тип общества.
А между тем, везде на протяжении веков мы наблюдаем отдельность светского от церковного. Мы уже не говорим о том, что, согласно Св. канонам, духовенство не имеет права заниматься мирскими и военными делами, торговлей, хирургией, выступать в частных делах перед судом, участвовать в делах политических. Уже одно это говорит о том, что не все области работы, науки и культуры могут быть укоренены в вере. Посмотрим на Древнюю Русь, где существовали два разряда судов и два разряда законов: светских и церковных, да и везде в истории Христианства мы видим непереходимую границу между Церковью и миром. Так где и когда православные жили в несекулярном обществе? На Руси Алексея Михайловича после Уложения? При Петре Первом? При Екатерине? Или, может быть, под монгольским или турецким владычеством?
Только национальное государство Нового времени стало систематически и по принципиальным соображениям переходить границу между Церковью и миром, усваивая себе церковные прерогативы и захватывая церковное имущество. Современная медицина, естественные науки с их экспериментальным методом, современная классно-урочная система образования, Академии и университеты – никогда, со времени своего возникновения в XVI-XVII веках, не руководились христианскими ценностями и принципами. И по странному совпадению в это же время выходит на сцену протестантизм и религиозный модернизм, который призывает относиться религиозно к этим патологическим формам цивилизации.
Быт, как охватывающий человека целиком, о. Шмеман признает имеющим религиозное значение, а жизнь по вере и заповедям через участие в Таинствах он объявляет “номинальным” Христианством, и поэтому – религии чуждой. Вполне логично, что о. Шмеман в том же докладе объявляет несоответствующими религии просьбы о помощи, обращаемые христианами к Спасителю, Божией Матери и святым.
Если, по слову св. Григория Богослова, любомудрствовать о Боге можно не всякому. Да! не всякому. Это приобретается не дешево и не пресмыкающимися по земле!.. Когда же можно? Когда бываем свободны от внешней тины и мятежа, когда владычественное в нас не сливается с негодными и блуждающими образами, как красота писмен перемешанных письменами худыми, или как благовоние мvра смешанного с грязью,- то модернизмом предлагается противоположная заповедь: богословствовать может всякий, и особенно тот, кто обременил и загрязнил свой ум мирскими заботами, внешней тиной и мятежом этого мира. Чем загрязнил? Тем, что придал мирским заботам – семье, работе, образованию, науке, искусству и т.п. – неподобающее им религиозное значение.
Земную жизнь и быт о. Шмеман хотел внести в Церковь, понимая свою миссию как смешение священного с несвященным, для того и предлагал отменить Исповедь.
Религия, таким образом, вносится в быт, но какой ценой! Ценой упразднения религии – в самой религии, потому что такова неизбежная плата за попытку разрушить преграду между Церковью и миром, исходит ли она от мира или от Церкви.
Время уже коротко, так что имеющие жен должны быть, как не имеющие; и плачущие, как не плачущие; и радующиеся, как не радующиеся; и покупающие, как не приобретающие; и пользующиеся миром сим, как не пользующиеся; ибо проходит образ мира сего (1 Кор. 7:29-31).
Р.А. Вершилл
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)