Hagia Sophia to become a mosque again?

When will Christendom awake to the perils within and from outside?

(Before It's News) From the 1389 Blog mailbox: “…the narrator thinking of this phrase melancholy of an old prince Bibesco: “The fall of Constantinople is a personal misfortune happened to us.” This news about here converting Hagia Sophia into a mosque has brought anew my deep forebodings about the future of America and our Civilization whose last hope may indeed be only America. Sadly, I must agree with the thought-sentence I singled out towards the end of this article in bold red letters. Increasingly, the image of the end of our Civilization is becoming sharper and darker to me.. Either the Western civilization will define itself and regain its core identity or it will perish. The cult of guilt-ridden and misplaced Western idealism, misdirected compassion and profound materialism are the root cause of the decline. “…..all stem basically from the same man-centeredness of high Culture that has lost its soul…A new era then emerges, upon the Culture; one of decline, characterized by a revolt of exterior forces upon its weakness. Inside the Culture, the rot of the people becomes evident….” — Wayne McLeod Resolutely stopping this outrageous and open insult and scorn by Turkey to Christians will be the right step in the right direction. Raymond Ibrahim has the story: June 21, 2013 While unrest in Turkey continues to capture attention, more subtle and more telling events concerning the Islamification of Turkey—and not just at the hands of Prime Minister Erdogan but majorities of Turks—are quietly transpiring.  These include the fact that Turkey’s Hagia Sophia museum is on its way to becoming a mosque. Why does the fate of an old building matter? Because Hagia Sophia—Greek for “Holy Wisdom”—was for some thousand years Christianity’s greatest cathedral. Built in 537 in Constantinople, the heart of the Christian empire, it was also a stalwart symbol of defiance against an ever encroaching Islam from the east. After parrying centuries of jihadi thrusts, Constantinople was finally sacked by Ottoman Turks in 1453. Its crosses desecrated and icons defaced, Hagia Sophia—as well as thousands of other churches—was immediately converted into a mosque, the tall minarets of Islam surrounding it in triumph. Then, after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, as part of several reforms, secularist Ataturk transformed Hagia Sophia into a “neutral” museum in 1934—a gesture of goodwill to a then triumphant West from a then crestfallen Turkey. Thus the fate of this ancient building is full of portents. And according toHurriyet Daily News, “A parliamentary commission is considering an application by citizens to turn the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul into a mosque….  A survey conducted with 401 people was attached to the application, in which more than97 percent of interviewees requested the transformation of the ancient building into a mosque and afterwards for it to be reopened for Muslim worship.” Even lesser known is the fact that other historic churches are currently being transformed into mosques, such as  a 13th century church building—portentously also named Hagia Sophia—in Trabzon. After the Islamic conquest, it was turned into a mosque.  But because of its “great historical and cultural significance” for Christians, it too, during Turkey’s secular age, was turned into a museum and its frescoes restored. Yet local authorities recently decreed that its Christian frescoes would again be covered and the church/museum turned into a mosque. Similarly, the 5th century Studios Monastery, dedicated to St. John the Baptist, is set to become an active mosque.  And the existence of the oldest functioning Christian monastery in the world, 5th century Mor Gabriel Monastery is at risk. Inhabited today by only a few dozen Christians dedicated to learning the monastery’s teachings, the ancient Aramaic language spoken by Jesus and the Orthodox Syriac tradition, neighboring Muslims filed a lawsuit accusing the monks of practicing “anti-Turkish activities” and of illegally occupying land which belongs to Muslim villagers. The highest appeals court in Ankara ruled in favor of the Muslim villagers, saying the land that had been part of the monastery for 1,600 years is not its property, absurdly claiming that the monastery was built over the ruins of a mosque—even though Muhammad was born 170 years afterthe monastery was built. Turkey’s Christian minority, including the Orthodox Patriarch, are naturally protesting this renewed Islamic onslaught against what remains of their cultural heritage—to deaf ears. The Muslim populace’s role in transforming once Christian sites into mosques is a reminder of all those other Turks not protesting the Islamization of Turkey, and who if anything consider Erdogan’s government too “secular.” Their numbers are telling.  In May 2012, Reuters reported that Thousands of devout Muslims prayed outside Turkey’s historic Hagia Sophia museum on Saturday [May 23] to protest a 1934 law that bars religious services at the former church and mosque. Worshippers shouted, “Break the chains, let Hagia Sophia Mosque open,” and “God is great” [the notorious “Allahu Akbar”] before kneeling in prayer as tourists looked on. Turkey’s secular laws prevent Muslims and Christians from formal worship within the 6th-century monument, the world’s greatest cathedral for almost a millennium before invading Ottomans converted it into a mosque in the 15th century. Calls to turn Hagia Sophia into a mosque is not about Muslims wanting a place to pray—as of 2010, there were 3,000 active mosques in Istanbul alone.   Rather, it’s about their reveling, and trying to revivify, the glory days of Islamic jihad and conquest: Reuters added that Muslims “staged the prayers ahead of celebrations next week marking the 559th anniversary of the Ottoman Sultan Mehmet’s conquest of Byzantine Constantinople.” According to Salih Turhan, a spokesman quoted by Reuters, “As the grandchildren of Mehmet the Conqueror, seeking the re-opening Hagia Sophia as a mosque is our legitimate right.” Sultan Mehmet was the scourge of European Christendom, whose Islamic hordes seized and ravished Constantinople, forcibly turning it Islamic. Openly idolizing him, as many Turks do, is tantamount to their saying “We are proud of our ancestors who killed and stole the lands of European Christians.” And yet, despite such militant overtones, Turhan, whose position is echoed by many Turks, still manages to blame the West: “Keeping Hagia Sophia Mosque closed is an insult to our mostly Muslim population of 75 million. It symbolizes our ill-treatment by the West.” So keeping a historically Christian/Western building—that was stolen by Islamic jihad—as a neutral museum is seen as “ill-treatment by the West,” even as Turks continue destroying the nation’s original Christian heritage. And the historical revisions continue.  Last May 29th, when Turks celebrate the Fall of Constantinople, Erdogan himself declared that the jihadi invasion—which saw countless Christians enslaved, raped, or slaughtered—was the true “time of enlightenment.”  After showing how Erdogan got it upside down, Ralph Sidway, an Orthodox Christian author,  wrote: Erdogan and Turkey celebrate the Fall of Constantinople, and the West congratulates them.  “We are continuing to write history today,” says Erdogan, and write it — or re-write it — they do, under the somnambulant gaze of craven Western leaders too ignorant, or too fearful, to challenge Islam’s claim to moral superiority, historical righteousness and eventual world domination. By their policies, posture and pronouncements, Western European nations, and the United States, are conceding the future to a rapidly re-Islamicizing Turkey, and are aiding in Islam’s stated goal of a new, global caliphate determined to conquer us, just as it conquered Constantinople 560 years ago.  Every Turkish celebration of 29 May 1453 is a gauntlet flung down in challenge to the West. Each such event which goes unanswered and unchallenged by the West is another nail in the coffin of Christian culture, human rights, and free people everywhere. Indeed, at a time when Turkey is openly reclaiming its jihadi heritage, Europeans are actively erasing their Christian heritage which for centuries kept the Islamic jihad at bay.  Among other capitulations, Europeans are currently betraying church buildings to Muslims to convert to mosques and scrubbing references of the historic Turkish jihads against Europe from classroom textbooks, lest Muslim students be offended. Meanwhile, here are neighboring Turkey’s Muslims openly praising the same jihadi warlords who brutally conquered a portion of Europe centuries ago, converting thousands of churches into mosques, even as they openly prepare to finish the job—which may not even require force, as Europe actively sells its own soul. Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.   About Raymond Ibrahim Raymond Ibrahim, a Shillman Fellow at the DHFC, is a Middle East and Islam expert, author of the new book, Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians(Regnery, 2013), and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum. Join him as he explores the “Intersection”—the pivotal but ignored point where Islam and Christianity meet—including by examining the latest on Christian persecution, translating important Arabic news that never reaches the West, and much more. [Source]

7 attachments — Scan and download all attachments View all images

image001.jpg 13K View Scan and download

image002.gif 1K View Scan and download

image003.jpg 8K View Scan and download

image004.jpg 8K View Scan and download

image005.jpg 11K View Scan and download

image006.jpg 11K View Scan and download

image007.jpg 6K View Scan and download

ROCA Church News: South America: Altar Feast of the Holy Trinity Church in Vila Alpina, Brazil

 Престольный праздник Троицкого храма в Вила Алпина, Бразили

Found on: http://internetsobor.org 

With Bishop Gregory of Sao Paulo and South America, ROCA:

 

   

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.474357289318945.1073741830.433127950108546&type=1
https://plus.google.com/photos/111561692358181416209/albums/5893042005621596401?gpinv=AMIXal_PAuY06K5Vs1fTWkPnILFAR_EHv7k0hRzgi9ZXe4LJE51LOn1KS3Ryv5uZE3iGF18iRbhgJHMhl0ZnbVIhDDUoJlBWtXVDpNOGzs3z0j0m8JgFD_c&cfem=1&authkey=CKucmKfvusXfjwE

Obama to Egyptian Christians: 'Don't Protest the Muslim Brotherhood'

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/raymond-ibrahim/u-s-asks-egypts-christians-not-to-oppose-morsi/

Obama to Egyptian Christians: Don’t Protest the Brotherhood

Posted By Raymond Ibrahim On June 25, 2013 @ 12:42 am In Daily Mailer,FrontPage | 96 Comments

As Egyptians of all factions prepare to demonstrate in mass against the Muslim Brotherhood and President Morsi’s rule on June 30, the latter has been trying to reduce their numbers, which some predict will be in the millions and eclipse the Tahrir protests that earlier ousted Mubarak. Among other influential Egyptians, Morsi recently called on Coptic Christian Pope Tawadros II to urge his flock, Egypt’s millions of Christians, not to join the June 30 protests.
While that may be expected, more troubling is that the U.S. ambassador to Egypt is also trying to prevent Egyptians from protesting—including the Copts. The June 18^th edition of Sadi al-Balad reports that lawyer Ramses Naggar, the Coptic Church’s legal counsel, said that during Patterson’s June 17 meeting with Pope Tawadros, she “asked him to urge the Copts not to participate” in the demonstrations against Morsi and the Brotherhood.
The Pope politely informed her that his spiritual authority over the Copts does not extend to political matters.
Regardless, many Egyptian activists are condemning Patterson for flagrantly behaving like the Muslim Brotherhood’s stooge. Leading opposition activist Shady el-Ghazali Harb said Patterson showed “blatant bias” in favor of Morsi and the Brotherhood, adding that her remarks had earned the U.S. administration “the enmity of the Egyptian people.” Coptic activists like George Ishaq openly told Patterson to “shut up and mind your own business.” And Christian business tycoon Naguib Sawiris—no stranger to Islamist hostility—posted a message on his Twitter account addressed to the ambassador saying “Bless us with your silence.”
Indeed, the U.S. ambassador’s position as the Brotherhood’s lackey is disturbing—and revealing—on several levels. First, all throughout the Middle East, the U.S. has been supporting anyone and everyone opposing their leaders—in Libya against Gaddafi, in Egypt itself against 30-year U.S. ally Mubarak, and now in Syria against Assad. In all these cases, the U.S. has presented its support in the name of the human rights and freedoms of the people against dictatorial leaders.
So why is the Obama administration now asking Christians not to oppose their rulers—in this case, Islamists—who have daily proven themselves corrupt and worse, to the point that millions of Egyptians, most of them Muslims, are trying to oust them?
What’s worse is that the human rights abuses Egypt’s Coptic Christians have been suffering under Muslim Brotherhood rule are significantly worse than the human rights abuses that the average Egyptian suffered under Mubarak—making the Copts’ right to protest even more legitimate, and, if anything, more worthy of U.S support.
Among other things, under Morsi’s rule, the persecution of Copts has practically been legalized, as unprecedented numbers of Christians—men, women, and children—have been arrested, often receiving more than double the maximum prison sentence, under the accusation that they“blasphemed” Islam and/or its prophet. It was also under Morsi’s reign that another unprecedented scandal occurred: the St. Mark Cathedral—holiest site of Coptic Christianity and headquarters to the Pope Tawadros himself—was besieged in broad daylight by Islamic rioters. When security came, they too joined in the attack on the cathedral. And the targeting of Christian children—for abduction, ransom, rape, and/or forced conversion—has also reached unprecedented levels under Morsi. (For more on the plight of the Copts under Morsi’s rule, see my new book Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians.)
Yet despite the fact that if anyone in Egypt has a legitimate human rights concern against the current Egyptian government, it most certainly is the Christian Copts, here is the U.S., in the person of Ms. Patterson, asking them not to join the planned protests.
In other words, and consistent with Obama administration’s doctrine, when Islamists—including rapists and cannibals—wage jihad on secular leaders, the U.S. supports them; when Christians protest Islamist rulers who are making their lives a living hell, the administration asks them to “know their place” and behave like dhimmis, Islam’s appellation for non-Muslim “infidels” who must live as third class “citizens” and never complain about their inferior status.

RTOC is Unfit Alternative for Children of ROCOR

Please Share this:

Russian original, with the English translation below it:

Призыв к Единению ~ Протоиерей Стефан Сабельник

(с комментариями)

Протоиерей Стефан Сабельник 

6 июня 2007г. (н.ст.)

Преп. Симеона Столпика

Трентонское Благочиние РПАЦ

Комментарии иерея Виктора Доброва

(Дорогой о.Стефан, мы надеемся что Вы случайно и по недоразумению перепутали название церкви к которой Вы присоединились, когда ушли из РПЦЗ  - РИПЦ -  с названием совершенно другой церкви, тоже, находящейся в России под омофором митрополита Валентина, под названием РПАЦ)

Досточтимые и дорогие Собратья во Христе,

В первую очередь хочу ещё раз уверить всех, что каноничность иерархов Катакомбной Церкви не должна стоять под вопросом. У меня есть копии Ставленнической Грамоты Владыки Лазаря и два Свидетельства о его хиротонии, в которых ясно сказано, что Владыка Лазарь был рукоположен именно для Катакомбной Церкви. Как добавочное свидетельство, предлагаю Вашему вниманию статью О. Стефана Красовицкого, в которой он описывает, как и под чьим влиянием Синод РПЦЗ принял решение игнорировать Катакомбную Церковь как самостоятельную Церковь и открывать собственные приходы и епархии на ее территории.

Дорогой отец Стефан,  мы- верные чада РПЦЗ, немножно ошарашены Вашим заявлением о том, что якобы РПЦЗ худо поступила в свое время в отношении к Катакомбной Церкви и, якобы,  открывала свои приходы на ее канонической территории. Мы знаем, что Зарубежная Церковь облагодетельствовала т.н. «Катакомбную Церковь», а точнее - катакомбные приходы, приняла их в свое духовное окормление, установила  пропавший у них канонический порядок, поставила епископов и приняла с Собой – Истинной Тихоновской Церковью - в каноническое единство и административное подчинение. Странно, батюшка, особенно в Вашем лице, увидеть ревизионоиста истории Зарубежной Церкви.

Pазрешите, отче, Вас немножко подправить в Вашей оценке нашего отношения к вопросу каноничности епископата РИПЦ.

Мы – православные клирики, в меру своих возможностей и сил обязаны всегда испытывать свои поступки на каноничность, особенно, когда апостасийные, а может быть даже апокалипсические ветры разделений раскачали и уже готовы потопить корабль нашего спасения – дорогую нашу Зарубежную Церковь.

Простите, дорогой батюшка, но только на слово мы не можем Вам поверить и не имеем права без исследования признать каноничность возлюбленного нами епископата и синода РИПЦ, с которым нас связывает любовь и  взаимное желание евхаристического общения  и канонического единства .

Каноничность хиротонии владыки Лазаря, о которой Вы говорите, хотя он и рукополагался в своё время только одним архиереем, ни у кого из нас не вызывает  сомненний. Ведь епископ Варнава рукополагал его для катакомбных приходов еще во времена гонений на Церковь в СССР, тайно, но что самое главное - по поручению Синода и Собора РПЦЗ.

Всем нам также прекрасно известно, что сразу, по первом прибытии вл. Лазаря в Нью Йорк,  т.е. при первой  возникшей для того возможности,  сонм Зарубежных архиереев торжественно восполнил ранее совершенную (одним епископом  по икономии) хиротонию и принял владыку  Лазаря в евхаристическое общение. Хиротония  приснопамятного архиепископа Лазаря, равно как и хиротония епископа  Вениамина, ни у кого из нас никогда не вызывала сомнений.

Естественное сомнение у нас вызывает неканоничность епископата рукоположенного владыками Лазарем и Вениамином,  а в частности - хиротония Первоиерарха РИПЦ архиерископа Тихона и всего его епископата, за исключением здравствующего еще ныне, да укрепит Всемилостивый Господь здоровье и продлит дни  его жизни, архиепископа Вениамина.

Почему они нам кажутся неканоничными?  Они такими нам представляются по ряду причин:

1.Избрание на епископство  кандидатов архиепископа Лазаря не было одобрено Синодом РПЦЗ(В) и Митрополитом Виталием - т.е. не одобрено той канонической властью и Предстоятелем, в подчинении и под омофором которого ( ведь именно так было  до самой смерти митрополита Виталия в сентябре 2006 года!) находились и таковыми считали себя  владыки Лазарь и Вениамин на момент совершения рассматриваемых нами архиерейских хиротоний . Известно, что епископы, избрание которых не было одобрено Высшей Церковной Властью, называются самосвятами.

2. Решение хиротонисать во епископов своих кандидатов было совершено владыками Лазарем и Вениамином самочинно и против письменного запрещения, полученного ими от Высшей Церковной Власти в лице Первоиерарха РПЦЗ(В) в ответ на письменный запрос к Митрополиту Виталию от епископа Вениамина о возможности, или невозможности  новых хиротоний. Епископы, совершившие хиротонии и хиротонии которых были совершены против воли Высшей Церковной Власти, называются раскольниками.

3.Решение хиротонисать во епископов своих кандидатов, а в частности еп. Тихона,  было совершено владыками Лазарем и Вениамином в расколе, т.к. они самочинно, вдвоем, сами создали для себя свой собственный синод РИПЦ, ранее не существовавший, выйдя из канонического подчинения законному Синоду РПЦЗ(В),  в подчинении которому они всегда, во всё время своего архиерейства с первого дня, находились. Следовательно все совершенные  раскольничьим синодом РИПЦ  хиротонии епископов неканоничны –разве это не так ?

4.Самочинное «преобразование» владыками Лазарем и Вениамином вполне законного Совещания Российских Преосвещенных  в самостоятельный синод РИПЦ , не санкционированное, не одобренное и не утвержденное Синодом и Собором РПЦЗ(В) -  т.е. той  Высшей Церковной Властью и Предстоятелем, которыми для владык Лазаря и Вениамина они являлись ( ведь они сами, добровольно после избрания в  митрополиты РПЦЗ Лавра, остались в каноническом подчинении ушедшему на покой владыке Виталию и  учинившему в РПЦЗ т.н. «мансонвильский раскол»), называется на языке канонов, учинением раскола.   

Если Вас, отец Стефан, интересуют подробности учинения владыками Лазарем и Вениамином раскола в РПЦЗ(В) и подробности самосвятских архиерейских хиротоний, пожалуйста посмотрите здесь: http://sobor2006.livejournal.com/208987.html#cutid1

Задайте себе, дорогой отец Стефан, несколько вопросов и постарайтесь на них найти ответы. Если Вы это сделаете по совести, то и сами с полной уверенностью убедитесь в том, что РИПЦ - это безблагодатный самосвятский раскол:

1. В каком году  появился независимый канонически Синод РИПЦ и  какая Высшая Церковная Власть (Собор) канонически создала эту независимую Церковь  ?

2.На каком каноническом основании Синод РИПЦ был создан?

3.Если Синод РИПЦ канонически не самостоятелен, но подчинен, какая Высшая Церковная Власть создала для себя эту низшую  ( Синод РИПЦ),  и в каноническом подчинении какому Синоду должна находиться РИПЦ?

4.Если Вы ответили на пункт 1 положительно, то ответьтье, когда эта Высшая Церковная Власть дала каноническое самоуправление, автономию, или автокефалию Синоду РИПЦ?    

5.На каком Соборном Каноническом Документе основана РИПЦ ?  Если таковой имеется, то пожалуйста опубликуйте его.

6.В чем прослеживается непрерывная  каноническая  связь РИПЦ с исторической Российской Поместной Церковью .

7. Кто является Предстоятелем независимой Российской Истинно-Православной Церкви - т.е. кто, на ряду с Предстоятелями Поместных Церквей, является Предстоятелем РИПЦ?

8.Кто в канонически независимой РИПЦ, на канонических правах Предстоятеля ( не первоиерарха, а Предстоятеля!) освящает для своей Церкви святое Миро?  Когда и на каком каноническом основании в РИПЦ началось мироварение?

9 Если Святое Миро в РИПЦ не варят и не освящают, то в духовном подчинении кому РИПЦ находится, получая от своей Высшей Духовной Власти святое Миро?

В своём обращении к епископу Даниилу и епископу Агафангелу епископат Катакомбной Церкви пишет: «Сегодня, когда уния уже свершилась, важным должно быть не то кто раньше или кто позже отверг его «новый курс», а то, что все мы решительно отвергаем унию с советской церковью. В этом мы едины, и это является залогом того, что диалог между нами и объединение возможны.» http://portal-credo.ru/site/index.php?act=news&type=archive&day=5&month=6&year=2007&id=54647

Хорошо было бы нам, удалив всякое подозрение, внять этому доброму и благословенному призыву. В противном случае, если мы только устами молимся «о соединении всех», а в сердцах наших питаем подозрение и недоброжелательство к тем, кто «не по нашему» ревнуют о сохранении заветов наших почивших первоиерархов – то мы только «медь звенящая» (см. Кор.13:1) С сердечною болью наблюдаем, что в последнее время обстоятельства только ухудшились: не хотят отвечать друг другу по телефону, появились ложные обвинения и укоризны на интернете – всё это благодаря интернету молниеностно становится явным для всех! Мне пишут верующие: «Мы не знаем, куда деватся или за кем идти при виде этого кошмара.»

Приличие и уважение - неотемлемое достоинство нашей Христианской икономии. Ошибочно поступают те, которые прельщаются тем, что их гнев праведный, он основан на их ревности по Боге. «Помню, где-то о. Серафим Роуз писал, что повидимому один из признаков приближающегося конца это то, что сейчас люди так возгордились, что даже самые ревностные православные и якобы единомысленные, и то не могут договорится.» (Лесненский сайт от 5-6-2007г.)

http://lesnianka.livejournal.com/

Давайте серьёзно подумаем, дорогие собратья: какая у нас задача? У всех нас одно желание и одна задача - сохранить и востановить соборность нашей заветной Зарубежной Церкви. Причина, по которой многие из Вас остались “под омофором” тех двух иерархов, которые отказались от унии с МП, по сути благородна. Но обстоятельства изменились со времени написания «Обращения к епископу Даниилу и епископу Агафангелу» (7/20 мая 2007г.).

 Епископ Даниил, который в действительности не отказался от евхаристического общения с митрополитом Лавром (и, следовательно, наряду с епископом Гавриилом, протопресвитером Валерием и другими), окончательно отказался участвовать в каком-либо восстановлении антиуниатов, прося чтобы его «оставили в покое.»

Многократные устные и опубликованные письменные заявления старенького и больного  Владыки Даниила красноречиво говорят о том, что он всегда был категорически против объединения РПЦЗ с МП. Находясь в стесненных обстоятельствах и лишенный свободного общения с верными чадами РПЦЗ, он ,тем не менее, выпустил свое письменное Заявления от 22 мая с.г., в котором для сохранения канонического порядка создал ВВЦУ РПЦЗ, а по болезни и немощи, полностью отходя от дел, добровольно передал бразды правления и дело организации ВВЦУ РПЦЗ владыке Агафангелу.

Ваши заявления о том, что Владыка Даниил сказал то, или это, оснаваны не на словах самого Владыки Даниила, а на словах ставленника Синода РПЦЗ (МП) о.Пимена Саймона – ярого ненависткика и хулителя Владыки Даниила, каким этот ничтожный человек (да простит меня Многомилостивый Господь  за мои слова!) раскрылся перед всеми во время своей 40-минутной хулы на Владыку Даниила, произнесенную в уши всех соборян на IV Всезарубежном Соборе.

В виду этих обстоятельств неободимо сейчас трезво всем внять мольбам Катакомбных иерархов в их призыве к единению. А это единство во Христе осуществимо только с молитвою и отвержением всякого подозрения, всяких провокационных действий, гнева или обмана, всяких манипуляций за первенство в административных делах церкви, отвержением своего «Я». Ещё раз прошу Вас, дорогие Отцы, ПОНЯТЬ что архиепископ Тихон не ищет владычества над зарубежными приходами! Всем всё ещё сомневающимся (да и вообще всем) предлагаю прочесть послание Его Высокопреосвященства: «У порога Филаделфийской Церкви.» http://catacomb.org.ua/modules.php?name=Pages&go=page&pid=1195

Как удивительно похожи слова Вашего Призыва к нам на те,  которые мы вплоть до 17 мая слышали из уст нашей московской лжебратии, пропагандировавшей нас тоже установить с ними без страха и боязни евхаристическое и каноническое общение!

«Мы, Российские Архиереи, с открытыми сердцами простираем к Вам наши объятия. Еще и еще раз призываем Вас: простим друг другу все недоразумения и обиды, в сердцах сказанные необдуманные слова, и в духе братолюбия будем трудиться во имя созидания мира, благосостояния и единства нашей истинно-православной Церкви, как это завещал нам Великий Учитель Любви – Христос-Спаситель.» (там же)

Если кто скажет: «Пусть ушедшии к митр. Киприану или архиеп. Тихону остаются с ними, мы неподвижно остаёмся при нашем еп. Агафангеле», то к нему отнесутся укорительные слова Ап. Павла, сказанные Коринфянам: “У вас говорят: «я Павлов», «я Аполлосов», «я Кифин», «а я Христов». Разве разделился Христос?”(1 Коринф.1:12-13)«Я Киприанов», «я Тихонов» «а я Агафангелов» -да не будет!

Дорогой батюшка Стефан, Ваши призывы к нам оставить епископа РПЦЗ Агафангела и присоединяться к РИПЦ совершенно неприемлемы! Ведь мы – не дети, и прекрасно  понимаем что происходит. Если намерения архиепископа Тихона от  начала действительно были чисты, если он только хотел помочь зарубежным приходам, временно принимая их под свой омофор, веря, что после 17 мая не останется в РПЦЗ ни одного епископа,  то для чего вы продолжаете заниматься этим теперь?

Мир Божий да почиет на нашу страждущую Зарубежную Церковь.

Странно слышать, отче, из Ваших уст, слова «нашу Зарубежную Церковь», ведь Вы к ней больше не имеете отношения, находясь в другой юрисдикции и будучи клириком РИПЦ!

Как Вы, человек с большим духовным опытом, могли попасться на удочку «временного» канонического перехода под омофор архиепископа Тихона? В книге каких Правил Вы нашли возможность такого перехода? Как Вы посмели до 17 мая перейти от своего правящего епископа к другому, да еще в другую епархию, без Отпускной Граматы? Около времени Вашего перехода в РИПЦу  мы с Вами подробно говорили по телефону на темы, которые я здесь коротко изложил в виде комментариев на  Ваш Призыв. В телефонном разговоре со мной Вы признались, что «каноны на моей стороне», но что Вам лично в данный момент не до канонов, т.к. для вас необходимо немедленно спасать от МП церковную и приходскую собственность. Быть может теперь для Вас настало время перечитать Книгу Правил? Разве Вы не понимаете, или забыли, что в Церкви  Христовой только из неповрежденного сосуда каноничности черпается Божественная Благодать для  совершаемых Таинств?

К  сожалению ситуация с архиепископом Тихоном раскрылась теперь во всей своей неприглядной наготе: епископы у нас в РПЦЗ есть, есть у нас Высшее Временное Церковное Управление и даже сохранилась епархиальная структутра Церкви. Проводится подготовка к Организационному Собранию и к Пятому Всезарубежному Собору. Разве не пришло время для таких, как Вы, для тех, кто по страху и неведению временно ушел из РПЦЗ под омофор владыки Тихона, немедленно вренуться назад и вместе с нами воссоздавать из руин, которые оставил после себя митрополит Лавр и его единомышленники, Церковь пророчества Иоанна Шанхайского – маленькую, но чистую, как кристалл РПЦЗ?

Справка:  До 2001 года РПЦЗ находилась в евхаристическом общении со старостильным греческим синодом митр. Киприана, а также с болгарской и румынской старостильными церквами. РИПЦ не разрывала с ними общения. Они с РИПЦ тоже. Но оно разорвано с Синодом РПЦЗ(Л). В виду всех произшествий, ещё предстоит диалог и с этими поместными Церквами.

 РИПЦ – это не РПЦЗ. Относительно того, что с РИПЦ старостильные Синоды митр. Киприана, Власия и епископа Фотия отношений не разрывали- это факт. Только необходимо помнить и то, что РИПЦ с ними евхаристического общения никогда и не устанавливала ! Поскольку сослужений у архиепископа Тихона с епископатом старостильных синодов  никогда не было, а официальных заявлений со стороны старостильных синодов относительно РИПЦ никогда не публиковалось, то естественно и разговоров, или заявлений на эту тему от них и быть не могло -  нам, во всяком случае, о них не известно.

Согласно опубликованных официальных документов:

 Синод митрополита Власия считает истинными епископами РПЦЗ только двух епископов: владык Даниила и Агафангела. http://sobor2006.livejournal.com/275045.html#cutid1

Синод митрополита Киприана выразил свою полную поддержку делу восстановления РПЦЗ под омофором епископа Агафангела, http://sobor2006.livejournal.com/278750.html#cutid1заверяя нас в готовности евхаристического общения  и называя «истинным продолжением и остатком Благодати РПЦЗ», но РИПЦ, к сожалению, к этому остатку Благодати пока не относится!

С искренным уважением и любовию о Господе,

Протоиерей Стефан Сабельник

Настоятель Успенского Храма                  Отвечать по адресу: sabelnik@hotmail.com

Трентон, НьюДжерзиReply in English: sabelnik@aol.com

Смотреть по теме:

ОСТОРОЖНО, РАСКОЛ ! ~ Клирики, которые присоединяются к Тихоновской ИПЦ, уходят в раскол ! 

ПОЧЕМУ НЕЛЬЗЯ ИСКАТЬ ОМОФОРА АРХИЕП. ТИХОНА ИЗ РАСКОЛЬНИЧЬЕЙ И САМОСВЯТСКОЙ РИПЦы ? 

http://sobor2006.livejournal.com/208987.html#cutid1

Introductory comments, by Rd. Daniel:

This archival document, which I recently re-discovered, & which has been translated into English, and whose message is timely now, comes from 2007, and is the polite conversation between our ROCA, Fr. Victor Dobroff, and the then, RTOC, Fr. Stefan Sabelnik, of Trenton, New Jersey.  It has to do with the canons, and rightful church order.  Here, canon-law expert Fr. Victor, points out most of  the central & historical reasons that the RTOC is uncanonical from its inception, and why, thus, it has not been nor is now, an acceptable alternative to our ROCA under our Metropolitan Agafangel.  This is the way it is, who likes the truth, or not.  This is not intended to offend anyone, but as an informational enlightening, nothing more and nothing less.

 The Schismatic RTOC Represents an Uncanonical Alternative for the Faithful Children of ROCOR

"A Call to oneness" by Fr. Stephen Sabelnik

with Responding Comments by Priest Victor Dobroff (in blue) 

In late October of 2001, Archbishop Lazarus [Zurbenko] made a fatal canonical mistake when he did not commemorate his Primate, ROCiE, i.e.,  [ROCOR(V)] Metropolitan Vitaly [and he as a "follower" of Metropolitan  Vitaly, and not of Metropolitan Laurus of ROCA, e.i. Archbishop. Lazarus perpetrated a schism! R.D.] and for one month, he did not commemorate Met. Vitaly even after he had “reconciled” with his First Hierarch, having obtained from him his personal opinion [that was] in principle, not in objection to the new consecrations  for the Russian parishes.  What kind of a connection with the traditional ROCOR can the head of RTOC "Archbishop" Tikhon [Pasechnik] talk of, if at his very own consecration, he commemorated  Archbishop Lazar Zhurbenko as his Primate?  

 A CALL TO ONENESS

by  Archpriest Stephen Sabelnik  

(with Comments by Priest Victor Dobroff embedded in blue)

 June 6, 2007. (New Style)

Ven. Simeon Stylites 

Trenton Deanery ROAC

Dear Fr. Stephen, we hope that you accidentally and by way of misunderstanding mixed up the name [The Trenton Deanery of ROAC] with the church which you had joined when you left  ROCOR to go to RTOC – with the name of a completely different church, but one also located in Russia, but under the omophorion of Metropolitan Valentine [Ruzantsov], under the name of ROAC?

Venerable and dear brethren in Christ,

First of all, I want to once again reassure you all, that the canonicity of the hierarchs of the Catacomb Church should not be put in doubt. I have copies of the Stavlennicheskaya [Appointment] Diploma of Vladyka Lazarus and two Certificates of his consecration, which clearly state that Vladyka Lazarus was ordained exactly for the Catacomb Church. As an additional piece of evidence I offer to your attention an article by Fr. Stephen Krasovitsky, where he describes in what way and under whose influence – the ROCOR Synod made the decision to ignore the Catacomb Church as an independent Church and to start opening up their own parishes and diocese on its territory.

Dear Father Stephen, we, the faithful children of ROCOR, are a little puzzled by your statement that alleges that  ROCOR acted wrongly at the time, in respect to the Catacomb Church and that it allegedly opened its parishes on the latter’s canonical territory.  We know for a fact that the Russian Church Abroad has acted favorably with respect to the so-called “Catacomb Church” – and more specifically, in favor of the catacomb parishes; it took them under its pastoral care, re-established in them canonical order which was previously lost, placed for them bishops and received into Itself [ROCOR] – the True Tikhon's Church – in  canonical unity and administrative subordination.  It is very strange, dear Father Stefan, especially on your part, to draft a revisionist version of the history of the [Russian Orthodox] Church Abroad.

Do allow me, Father, to correct you a little, in your evaluation of our attitude to the issue of the canonicity of the RTOC bishops.

We – Orthodox clerics – to the best of our abilities, are always required to test our actions for their canonicity, especially when the apostate, and perhaps even apocalyptic winds of divisions have swayed [started blowing] and which are now ready to sink the ship of our salvation – our dearest [Russian Orthodox] Church Abroad.

Forgive me dear batyushka [Father], but we have no right to take you only on your word – without due investigation – to recognize the canonicity of,  the beloved by us, bishops and synod of the RTOC, with which we have a love for and mutual desire for, Eucharistic communion and canonical unity.

The canonicity of the consecration of bishop Lazarus [Zurbenko], which you speak of, even though he was ordained at the time by only one bishop, raises no doubts for us at all.  After all, ROCOR Bishop Barnabas consecrated him for us as a ROCOR bishop for the catacomb parishes early back in the days during the persecution of the Church in the USSR, in secret, but most importantly – on behalf of the Synod and Council [of bishops] of ROCOR.

We all know perfectly well that upon the first instance of the arrival of Bp. Lazarus in New York, that is, at the earliest opportunity,  a host of ROCOR bishops, solemnly filled up, [fufilled] the previously performed (by one bishop – by ekonomia) hyrotonia [consecration], and received Bishop Lazarus into Eucharistic communion as a fully legitimate bishop.  The hyrotonias [consecrations] of the late Archbishop Lazarus, just as well as of Bishop Benjamin, have never raised any doubts for any of us.

A natural suspicion is raised by us, however,  in regards to the canonicity of the bishops consecrated  by Vladyka Lazarus and Benjamin, and in particular – the consecration of (now) RTOC "Primate," Archbishop Tikhon [Pasechnik] and his entire episcopate with the exception of the still healthy – may the All-merciful God strengthen his health and prolong the days of his life! – Archbishop Benjamin.

On what grounds do they seem uncanonical? They seem uncanonical for a number of reasons:

1. The election of candidates for the episcopacy by Archbishop Lazarus were not approved by the Synod of ROCOR (V) nor by its Metropolitan Vitaly – i.e., it was not approved by that Canonical Authority and that Primate, under whose subordination and under whose omophorion they were subject to, and as bishops Lazarus and Benjamin considered themselves as being under, at the time of the performing of the episcopal consecrations, which are under our consideration here.  It is known that  bishops, whose elections have not previously been approved by the Supreme Church Authority, are uncanonical and thus called self-holy, [samosvyatye].

2. They made their decision  to consecrate their own candidates, by bishops Lazarus and Benjamin, willfully and contrary to the prohibition in writing, that they had received from the Supreme Church Authority in the person of the First Hierarch of the ROCOR (V), in response to a written request to Metropolitan Vitaly by Bishop Benjamin, about the possibility – or impossibility – for such new consecrations  to be performed.  The bishops who perform ordinations [and consecrations], and as well as those so ordained, are performed against the will of the Supreme Church Authority, and  are called schismatics. 

3.The decision to perform ordinations of their own candidates, and particularly for bishop Tikhon, by Lazarus and Benjamin, was done while in schism, as they willfully-the two of them, on their own, created for themselves a RTOC Synod which previously did not exist, abandoning their canonical subordination to their lawful ROCOR (V) Synod, [since they did not consider canonical at that time the ROCOR Synod of Metropolitan Laurus, but rather ROCOR(V) to be a canonical continuation of ROCOR], under whose subordination they had been.  Therefore all those performed ordinations [and consecrations], by the schismatic RTOC synod of bishops, are uncanonical – are they not?

4. The willful "transformation" by the bishops Lazarus and Benjamin of the legitimate "Meeting of the Russian Rt. Reverends" ("Soveshanie Rossijskih Preosveschennyh") into an independent RTOC synod had not been sanctioned, not approved and not approbated by the Synod and Council of ROCA (V) – i.e., by that Supreme Church Authority and that Primate, which were, for them valid, for bishops Lazarus and Benjamin, (after all, they themselves, voluntarily after the election of Laurus as Metropolitan of ROCOR, remained in canonical subordination to the retired Metropolitan Vitaly and part of the perpetrated within ROCOR, of the so-called “Mansonville” schism, "ROCOR(V)" and "ROCiE"),  being  called – in the language of the Canons – a perpetration of schism.

If you, Father Stephen, are interested in the details of this perpetration, by Vladykas Lazarus and Benjamin's schism within ROCA (V) and the details of the willful uncanonical and their samosvyatsky ordinations, please take a look here: http://sobor2006.livejournal.com/208987.html#cutid1

Ask yourself, dear Father Stephen, a few questions and try to find answers to them.  Should you do so in good conscience, then undoubtedly you shall be convinced that RTOC is a graceless samosvyatsky [self-holy] schism and a para-synagogue:

A. When did the canonically independent Synod of RTOC appear?

B. What Counciliar Canonical Document (Tomos) is RTOC based on?

C.What Supreme Church Authority granted canonical self-government, autonomy, or autocephaly to the Synod of RTOC?

D. Which Autocephalous Church ( only an Autocephalous Church may grant that) granted canonical independence to RTOC?

E. In which way can one observe the non-severed canonical bond of the Synod of RTOC with the historic Russian Local Church?

F. Who is the Primate of the independent Russian True Orthodox Church - that is, who, along with the Primates of the Local Churches, is the Primate of RTOC?

G.Who in the canonically independent RTOC, based on the canonical Rights of the Primate (not the First-hierarch, but of the Primate!), consecrates for his Church the Holy Myrrh?

H. When and on what canonical basis did RTOC begin Myrrh-preparation?

I. If they do not consecrate Holy Myrrh in RTOC, then under whose spiritual subordination is RTOC when it is obtaining Holy Myrrh from its Higher Spiritual Authority?

J. If the Synod of RTOC is not canonically independent  but subordinate, then which Supreme Church Authority has created for itself this lower one (the RTOC Synod), and under the canonical subordination to what Synod, should  RTOC be?

In their address to bishop Daniel and bishop Agafangel the Catacomb Church bishops wrote: “Today, when the unia is accomplished already, what is important must be not who rejected earlier or who [did] later [reject], his “new course”, but [rather] what [(importantly must be) the fact that] we all are to firmly be rejecting the unia with the Soviet church. In this matter, we are one [united], and this is a guarantee [pledge] that the dialogue between us and about [against] the union is possible.”   <  http://portal-credo.ru/site/index.php?>>act=news&type=archive&day=5&month=6&year=2007&id=54647

  It would be good for us – having removed any suspicion [whatever] – to take heed to this good and blessed call. Otherwise, if we were praying with the mouth only “for the unification of all”, while in our hearts we harbor suspicion and hostility [ill-will] towards those who are zealous but “not in our way” about preserving the legacy [bequests] of our deceased first-hierarchs – then we [would be] only “sounding brass” (see 1 Cor.13:1). It is with heartache that we observe recent circumstances only worsening: [namely] they would not answer the phone [call] to each other; false accusations and reproaches have appeared on the internet – and all that – thanks to the Internet – like a flash instantly becoming apparent to everyone! The faithful have been writing to me: “We do not know where to go or whom to follow at the sight of this nightmare.”

  Decency and respect are an inherent dignity of our Christian ekonomia. It is erroneous what those who are tempted by the belief that their anger is righteousness and that their anger is based on their zeal for God." I remember that somewhere, Fr. Seraphim Rose wrote that, apparently one of the signs of the approaching end is the fact that now people have grown so proud that even the most devout Orthodox [faithful] and [people] though supposedly of one mind, and yet  they cannot come to agreement.” (Lesna site of [June 5,] 5-6-2007). http://lesnianka.livejournal.com/

  Let's think seriously about it, dear brethren: what is our task [now]? We all have one desire and one task – to preserve and restore the catholicity of our cherished [Russian Orthodox] Church Abroad. The reason for which many of you have remained “under the omophorion” of those two bishops – who refused

from entering a unia with the MP, is in essence noble. But circumstances have changed since the time of the writing of the “Address of Bishop Daniel and Bishop Agafangel” (May 7/20, 2007.).

  “Bishop Daniel, who has in actuality not given up  Eucharistic communion with Metropolitan Laurus (and, therefore, alongside with Bishop Gabriel, and  Protopresbyter Valery[Lukianov],  and others) has finally refused to participate in any restoration of the anti-uniatists, asking that he be “left alone” [left in peace].

Multiple oral and published written statements by an old and sick Vladyka Daniel speak eloquently about the fact that he has always been categorically against the unification of ROCOR with the MP.  Being in isolated circumstances, and deprived of free communication with the faithful children of ROCOR, he, nevertheless, did issue a written Statement dated May 22, 2007, in which for the purpose of preserving the canonical order, he established  the ROCA PSCA [Provisional Supreme Church Authority], but – due to reasons of illness and frailty, he completely departed from affairs, voluntarily handing over the reigns of government and the business of organizing the ROCA PSEA to Vladyka Agafangel.

Your statements that Vladyka Daniel said this or that, are based not on the words of Vladyka Daniel himself, but rather on the words of the Synod of ROCOR (MP)'s protege, Fr. Pimen Simon – a staunch hater and detractor of Vladyka Daniel, as this petty man (may the Most-Merciful God forgive my words!) revealed himself to be before all, during his 40-minute blasphemy [angry tirade] against Vladyka Daniel, uttered to the hearing of all convened at the IV All-Diaspora Council held in San Francisco, in 2006.

In view of these circumstances, we all need now to soberly take heed to the pleas by the Catacomb bishops to their call for unity. And this unity in Christ is only feasible with prayer and the rejection of any suspicions, any provocative actions, anger, or deceit, any manipulations for supremacy in the administrative affairs of the church, -rejection of one’s own “self”. Once again, I ask you, dear Fathers, TO UNDERSTAND that Archbishop Tikhon[Pasechnik]  is not seeking domination over the parishes of the [Russian Orthodox] Church Abroad! To all who are still doubters (and indeed to all) I suggest reading the message of His Eminence: “At the Threshold of the Church of Philadelphia”. http://catacomb.org.ua/modules.php?name=Pages&go=page&pid=1195

How remarkably similar are the words of your 'Call' to us, to those that we – down to May 17th, were hearing from the mouths of our Moscow [MP] false brethren, who propagandized that we also should establish with them – without fear or dread – Eucharist and canonical communion!

[Fr. Stefan, Quoting this paragraph, by Bp. Tikhon Pasechnik]:

   "We, the Russian bishops [of RTOC], with open hearts extend our embrace [stretch our arms] to you.  Again and again we urge you: let us forgive each other all misunderstandings and resentment, words said in the hearts, and not thought over, and in the spirit of brotherly love may we labor for the building up of peace, prosperity and unity of our True Orthodox Church, as bequeathed to us by the Great Teacher of Love – Christ the Savior.” (ibid.)

 

   Should someone say, “Let those who went to Met. Cyprian or to Archbishop Tikhon remain with them, we are going to remain without moving, [without changing our loyalties], with our bishop Agafangel” then the words of reproach by the Apostle Paul which he said to the Corinthians, would would refer to them, “Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided?” (1 Cor. 1:12-13) “I am of Cyprian”, “I of Tikhon”, “and I of Agafangel” – God forbid!

Dear batyushka [Father] Stephen, your calls for us to leave  ROCOR Bishop Agafangel and to join RTOC are totally unacceptable!  After all, we are not children, and we fully understand what is happening.  If the intentions of Archbishop Tikhon since the beginning of all actions, have been really clean, if he only wanted to help the parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad by temporarily accepting them under his omophorion, believing that after May 17th, 2007, there would not be a single valid bishop left in the ROCOR, then why do you continue dealing with us now?

May the peace of God rest upon our suffering [Russian Orthodox] Church Abroad.

It is strange to hear, Father, from your lips, the words “our Church Abroad” as you no longer have any relation with it, since you are in another jurisdiction and are an RTOC cleric.

How can you, a man of great spiritual experience, swallow the bait of the “temporary” canonical transition under the omophorion of Archbishop Tikhon?  In the book of Rules [Canons] have you found the possibility of such a translation?  How did you dare – prior to May 17th – to make the transition from your ruling bishop to another, and not even to another diocese, but to a completely different Church without a Release Charter [Gramata ]?  Around the time of your transition to RTOC you and I spoke at length on the phone on the topics which I’ve briefly outlined here, as my comment on your 'Call'.  In the telephone conversation with me, you admitted that “the canons are on my [Fr. Victor's] side”, but that for you, your first priority is [was] to save Church property from the MP and to worry about the canons later.  Just maybe now, for you the time has come to re-read the Book of Rules?  Don’t you realize, or have you forgotten, that in order to perform the sacraments – Divine Grace must be drawn into the Church of Christ only from an intact vessel of canonicity?

Unfortunately the situation with Archbishop Tikhon has now been revealed in its ugly form for all to see: we have bishops with our ROCA parishes, we have a Provisional Supreme Church Authority, and we have even preserved the diocesan structure of the Church.  Preparations are being made towards an Organizational Meeting and towards the Fifth All-Diaspora Council.  Is it not the time now, for people like yourself, for those who, for fear or lack of knowledge and understanding have temporarily left the ROCOR and gone under the omophorion of Bishop Tikhon, to come back, and together with us reconstruct out of the ruins left behind by Metropolitan Laurus and his followers, the Church of the Prophecy by St. John of Shanghai – a small but pure as crystal ROCOR?

Background:

Prior to 2001, ROCOR was in Eucharistic communion with the Old Calendar Greek Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian as well as with the Bulgarian and Romanian Old Calendar Churches.  RTOC has not severed communion with them.  They also never severed communion with RTOC.  But such  is severed with the Synod of ROCOR (Laurus).  In view of all these calamities, a dialogue has yet to take place with these local churches, too. 

RTOC is not ROCOR.  The Old Calendar Synods of Metropolitans Cyprian, Vlasie and Bishop Photios have not severed relations with RTOC – this is a fact.  One only has to remember the fact that RTOC never established Eucharistic communion with them!  Inasmuch as there have never been concelebrations of Archbishop Tikhon together with the episcopate of the Old Calendar synods and no official statements of the Old Calendar synods concerning RTOC have ever been published, then it is natural that there could be no talks or statements on this subject matter by them – of which, we, at least, are unaware of any such statements.

According to officially published documents:

The Synod of Metropolitan Vlasie [Romanian], recognizes [as] true bishops of ROCOR only two bishops: namely Vladykas Daniel and Agafangel. http://sobor2006.livejournal.com/275045.html#cutid1

The Synod of Metropolitan Cyprian [Synod In Resistance], expressed its full support for the deed of restoration of  ROCOR under the omophorion of Bishop Agafangel, http://sobor2006.livejournal.com/278750.html#cutid1 , assuring us of their preparedness for Eucharistic communion with us, and calling us “the true continuation and remainder of the Grace of ROCOR”, but RTOC, unfortunately, does not as yet belong to this "remainder of  Grace"!

With sincere respect and love in Christ,

Archpriest Stephen Sabelnik

Rector of the Church of Dormition

Reply at: sabelnik@hotmail.com Trenton, New Jersy

Reply in English: sabelnik@aol.com

See also on the issue:

BEWARE – A SCHISM! ~ Clerics who are joining the Tikhon TOC, go into schism!

WHY IS ONE NOT TO SEARCH THE OMOPHORION OF ARCHBISHOP TIKHON OF THE SCHISMATIC AND SELF-SAINTED RTOC?

http://sobor2006.livejournal.com/208987.html#cutid1?

Translation kindly provided by Nellie and edited by committee, June 2013.