www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West What is ROCOR's positioin regarding Moscow Patriarch's lies ?

The Russian Orthodox Patriarch telling more LIES. Nothing he has indicated in this site is true according to my friends at the Ukrainian Embassy here in Washington D.C. According to several of my sources, these are complete LIES. There is absolutely no basis to the claims being made by the Moscow Patriarch.

http://www.risu.org.ua/eng/news/article;6224/

At the same time, we hear that the ROCOR is thinking (some claim very close) about reunification with the ROC.

What is the position of the ROCOR about these clear lies being made by the holy leader of the Russian Orthodox Church ???

Dear Jean Francois,

Well, I think you won't find much sympathy for the UGCC coming from the ROCOR!

Or for Ukrainians in general, I surmise . . .

The perspective on this is that western Ukraine formerly belonged to the Orthodox Church of Rus' (understood by the MP today to be the Russian Orthodox Church).

The Polish Jesuits and their lackeys among the then Ruthenian Orthodox Church (appointed by the Polish King) used the Union of Brest to create the "Unia" and the people had no say . . .

In 1946, the western Ukrainian Uniates were "reunited" to their Mother Church of Russia and His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow (who received them with open arms!).

In 1991, western agents of the CIA colluded with Jesuits and Ukrainian nationalists living in North America to re-establish the hated and heretical Unia once more, against the will of the people. This "Greek-Catholic" organization has been causing trouble ever since.

There you have it in a vodka bottle.

Alex

Dear Alex,
Please pass the vodka. It is true that the Russian Church Abroad is unlikely to support the idea of the Ukrainian Church in union with Rome. But perhaps it goes a bit far to suggest that one would find little or no sympathy in that Church. Often this is suggested by people who don't themselves have any history of negative experiences with the Church Abroad, but have listened to rumors instead.
Some of the hierarchs of the Church Abroad speak excellent Ukrainian and are not hesitant about doing so - that includes Metropolitan Laurus, whom I have never found to be unsympathetic.

Incognitus

Dear Incognitus,

I did not say members of the ROCOR are unsympathetic!

I know a number who have always been sympathetic to the UGCC.

But we're talking about the "Unia" in general and when has the ROCOR ever been sympathetic to that e.g. the division within the Russian Orthodox Church in 1596?

ROCOR's position on church history is the same as that of the Moscow Patriarchate i.e. "nedilymaya Rus'" with Moscow at its centre, condemnation of the Unia of Brest and the view that a separate Ukrainian national identity is a Western importation with no basis in reality.

Reverend Sir, this IS the position of ROCOR as can be seen from its publications that I too have studied over the years.

And ROCOR can hardly be said to officially approve of the UGCC in Ukraine today along with the "infectious spread" of the Unia.

I understand where they are coming from. I don't like it, but I understand.

ROCOR is also a Tsarist Orthodox jurisdiction ("Tsareslavna") and so is closely aligned with Tsarist imperial views.

If any of the above has changed in any way with ROCOR, please do let myself and the rest of the Forum know!

Alex

Well,there is currently no Tsar available (though a Tsar might well be an improvement on Putin), so I suppose that's a change. But as you gather, I tend to react to people rather than public statements.

Incognitus

Dear Incognitus,

I agree that a Tsar WOULD be an improvement on Putin!

By "Tsarist" I mean "imperialist."

And I would support the return of a Tsar for Russia - just not over her former satellites.

Unfortunately, the ideology of imperialism does indeed affect many people, in history and today!

Alex

Dear Incognitus, Alex,

You obviously have not been following the news very closely. The next Tsar is already resident in Moscow... and in charge! Each news report out of Moscow is more frightening than the previous. Just give V. V. Putin a few more years . . .

Σώσον, Κύριε, καί διαφύλαξον η�άς από τών Βασιλιάνικων τάξεων!

Dear Andriju,

One can always count on you to be on top of the situation!

Vslavsia, vslavsia, Russkey Tsariu!

Alex

Dear Kobzar,
Putin is not the sort of Tsar I had in mind!
But here's a thought: could President Yushchenko be convinced that his own term in office could culminate in an invitation to a suitable Hapsburgh prince (in the model of Vasyl' Vyshyvanyi) to accept the long-vacant throne of the Grand Prince of Kyiv?

Incognitus

I'm a ROCOR cleric who supports neither Putin nor the MP(as she is today).I'm not against dialogue,but any union should be in the truth.I DON'T support forced unions of any sort whether it be that of 1596 or 1946.For the record,I've seen a photo of our first Metropolitan,Metropolitan Anthony(Khrapovitsky) serving a Moleben for the Hetman Pavlo Skoropadsky in Kharkhiw.

Dear Father,
Thanks for your welcome post. Any ecclesiastical union not based firmly on truth does not have a good chance of success. Our Lord Jesus Christ founded His Church on the Rock of Truth, not on the shifting sands of politicial correctness!
You inspire me to wonder whether Metropolitan Anthony and Hetman Skoropadsky had had any difficulties with each other whilst they were both in Kyiv. Have you any information?

Incognitus

Dear Reverend Friends,

Met. Anthony Khrapovitsky was an avowed Russophile.

Hetman Pavel Skoropadsky brought in special protections for the Orthodox Church (and the Greek-Catholic Church as well). Hetman Pavel was an avowed Ukrainophile who opened up, for example, many, many Ukrainian schools etc.

However, His Highness Pavel was very democratic toward all religious faiths, as is shown in the two-volume edition of modern Ukrainian history by Prof. Dmytro Doroshenko (himself a descendant of two Kozak Hetmans).

Alex

Bless, Father Al!

I agree that the Union of Brest was "forced" insofar as it was done by the Metropolitan of Kyiv and the Ruthenian Orthodox hierarchy - the people were obliged to follow and those that didn't had to obtain a new Orthodox hierarchy (via Theophane of Jerusalem).

However, I would strongly disagree that the nature of the "force" in use in 1596 is the same as that used in 1946 (or in some other uses of force by the Tsars) to unite Uniates with Orthodoxy.

If we decry the "force" of the bishops of 1596, then we would also have to decry the "force" used by St Volodymyr the Great to baptize Rus' in 988.

Or the use of enticements to the Siberians to become Orthodox etc.

In those eras, the people followed their leadership, ecclesiastical or royal, period.

1946 and the use of secret police representing an atheist government to commit the sin of ecclesiacide is something altogether different.

In this, your view is not much different from that of the Moscow Patriarchate today.

Kissing your hand,

Alex

Dear Incognitus and Father Al,

If in any way I have been offensive to either of you, please forgive me an uncouthed sinner.

ROCOR was and always will be the standard of Orthodox liturgical worship and theology for both Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Catholics.

I once told Fr. Vladimir of Holy Trinity parish in Toronto that the Unia issue will be healed by God "in His way, not ours."

Fr. Vladimir turned to me with a big smile and said, "I thank God for you for having said that."

So I'm not such a bad person . . .

Alex

just remember that Russia has for centuries considered herself the Third Rome.the attitude was there under the Tsars, and was there under the Communists, especially Stalin. history is a continuum, regardless of the cloak it may appear in.
Much Love,
Jonn