Who is Vladimir Moss?

[Euthymios]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In Anastasios critique of Vladimir Moss' critique of the GOC-SIR union, he quotes Vladimir Moss as saying:

"[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I really waited too long to leave those heretics. This will totally not sound humble, but I have to speak the truth…I think God was preserving Grace in their jurisdiction just for my sake, until I figured out for myself that it was time to move on.”

Why does he think himself so important? Where does this grandiosity, narcissism and overblown sense of self-importance come from in old calendarist people? An overblown sense of self-importance and intelligence is a sign of a sociopath. I say this in charity.

I still believe we should use the old Church calendar, but I am now against the Old Calendarist movements.
[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

 

[buzuxi]

The GOC florinites were always moderates until Auxentios hijacked them only because the matthewites were cozying up with ROCOR did he decide to go strict.

This is why when they're last remaining bishop Chrysostomos of Florina when alive he never ordained new bishops. In fact he advised the laity on his death bed to to join the matthewites. What happened? The Florinite old calendarist never did! Instead they recruited a matthewite priest who defected and flew him to Chicago to be ordained by a new calendarist bishop under rocor. None of the florinite laity of that time ever agreed with such a strict ecclesiology and they always were the majority faction.

Pavlos churchin astoria did not even belong to the GOC. Their founder Petros was a member of the ROCOR synod ordained to the episcopacy by them. He only became archbishop of GOC- astoria because in 1969 ROCOR-GOARCH suspended communion with each other. At that point the 2 synods made a poilitical move to stick it to each the other. The ROCOR acknowledged the GOC old calendarists as the canonical greek church in America. Thats when Archbishop Petros was given a release and became the head of the greek old calendarists. The Goarch retaliated by accepting the OCA as the canonical church of the russians.. Yet both had one thing in common that would not allow official statements of condemnation. That is both vehemently opposed OCA autocephaly.

 

[Euthymios]

This is pure insanity. I think a person would have to have virtually lost their mind to still believe in this old calendarist system. It's too political and corrupt to be of God. I believe in the Church calendar (the old calendar), but there is no doubt in my mind anymore that the old calendarists movements are thoroughly schismatic. I do not believe they have given the world any good reason for why they should be taken seriously. Their contradictions, hypocrisy, disobedience, lies, disorganization and chaos almost destroyed my faith completely. A lot of the clergy are not in their positions for matters of faith, but for their own ambitions and passions.

 

[Ignatius21]

Wow...I started this thread a year before becoming Orthodox!

I've noticed that most of the discussion, including this unexpectedly renewed discussion, is focused on the man (which, I guess, was what I'd originally asked).

So I get he's an Old Calendarist guy with a bit of an axe to grind. And that even those who favor the use of the Old Calendar don't favor him and his sect.

Now...to his doctrine...I have to say, since beginning to explore Orthodoxy, I definitely do hear a lot of what he criticizes as "new soteriology." I have been told in a sermon, "God has no wrath." That there is absolutely no sense in which God punishes anyone, and that retributive justice is basically beneath God.

And I still have a very, very hard time reconciling this with Scripture. And Moss does pull together quite a lot of quotes from the Fathers that at least *seem* to acknowledge that justice has a retributive aspect.

I've also noticed that many Coptic Orthodox explanations of the atonement do include a sense of substitutionary punishment and an emphasis on satisfying Law and justice. I would hardly count the Copts as "western" and certainly not fundamentalist Protestants.

So...Vladimir Moss may be off his rocker and in schism when it comes to which church he identifies with. He may be arrogant and proud.

But is he wrong?

 

[ArmyMatt]

I have been told in a sermon, "God has no wrath." That there is absolutely no sense in which God punishes anyone, and that retributive justice is basically beneath God.

I think Fr Hopko said it best that in a sense we would say no, because God just IS, so He covers the righteous with what He covers the unrighteous: His love. in another sense however, the answer is yes because love in the presence of evil is wrath, it's just not wrath like Jonathan Edwards wrote about.

 

[Lukaris]

Wow...I started this thread a year before becoming Orthodox!

I've noticed that most of the discussion, including this unexpectedly renewed discussion, is focused on the man (which, I guess, was what I'd originally asked).

So I get he's an Old Calendarist guy with a bit of an axe to grind. And that even those who favor the use of the Old Calendar don't favor him and his sect.

Now...to his doctrine...I have to say, since beginning to explore Orthodoxy, I definitely do hear a lot of what he criticizes as "new soteriology." I have been told in a sermon, "God has no wrath." That there is absolutely no sense in which God punishes anyone, and that retributive justice is basically beneath God.

And I still have a very, very hard time reconciling this with Scripture. And Moss does pull together quite a lot of quotes from the Fathers that at least *seem* to acknowledge that justice has a retributive aspect.

I've also noticed that many Coptic Orthodox explanations of the atonement do include a sense of substitutionary punishment and an emphasis on satisfying Law and justice. I would hardly count the Copts as "western" and certainly not fundamentalist Protestants.

So...Vladimir Moss may be off his rocker and in schism when it comes to which church he identifies with. He may be arrogant and proud.

But is he wrong?

I would say he is not crazy or wrong & he is totally avoidable or adherable. The doctrine of hell may actually be rather expansive within Orthodoxy (universalism is rejected). Here is an article from an Orthodox priest re Orthodox hell:
What is Orthodox Hell? | Eclectic Orthodoxy


Personally I avoid the theologies of Moss, St. I. Brianchaninov, Seraphim Rose etc. but these are part of the mind of the church and must be respected. One can also choose to adhere more towards their teachings while another person is not bound to their teachings on toll houses, hell etc.



I find statements from (or of the teaching of) St. Maximos the confessor more hopeful & appreciative of natural law within the framework of the Gospel applicable to the Christian & non Christian like this:



"All, whether angels or men, who in everything have maintained a natural justice in their disposition, and have made themselves actively receptive to the inner principles of nature in a way that accords with the universal principle of well being, will participate totally in the divine life that irradiates them; for they have submitted their will to God's will. Those who in all thngs have failed to maintain a natural justice in their disposition, and have been actively disruptive of the inner principles of nature in a way that conflicts with the universal principle of well being, will lapse completely from divine life, in accordance with their dedication to what lacks being; for they have opposed their will to God's will. It is this that separates them from God, for the principle of well-being, vivified by good actions and illumined by divine life, is not operative in their will."

St. Maximos the Confessor, 4th c. of various texts #54, Philokalia vol. 2.

Philokalia vol.2 (faber & faber isbn # 0-571-15466-2) p. 249.





In sum the Lord says those who have done good will be saved & those who have done bad will be damned (see John 5:22-30 which seems clearly carried over from Daniel 12:1-4). <<<(just my observation in the last sentence).

 

[~Anastasia~]

Wow...I started this thread a year before becoming Orthodox!

I've noticed that most of the discussion, including this unexpectedly renewed discussion, is focused on the man (which, I guess, was what I'd originally asked).

So I get he's an Old Calendarist guy with a bit of an axe to grind. And that even those who favor the use of the Old Calendar don't favor him and his sect.

Now...to his doctrine...I have to say, since beginning to explore Orthodoxy, I definitely do hear a lot of what he criticizes as "new soteriology." I have been told in a sermon, "God has no wrath." That there is absolutely no sense in which God punishes anyone, and that retributive justice is basically beneath God.

And I still have a very, very hard time reconciling this with Scripture. And Moss does pull together quite a lot of quotes from the Fathers that at least *seem* to acknowledge that justice has a retributive aspect.

I've also noticed that many Coptic Orthodox explanations of the atonement do include a sense of substitutionary punishment and an emphasis on satisfying Law and justice. I would hardly count the Copts as "western" and certainly not fundamentalist Protestants.

So...Vladimir Moss may be off his rocker and in schism when it comes to which church he identifies with. He may be arrogant and proud.

But is he wrong?

I would not presume to answer as I still wrestle with this one, and no sign of complete resolution in sight, lol.

But a very good/interesting question and observation, I think.

I am reminded too of some teachings of the very respected ECFs that are considered "wrong". Just because one is a respected teacher does not make them infallible, according to the Orthodox Church, correct? Sometimes one is accepted and admired and appreciated, but the teaching which does not fit the others can be still held in suspicion?

 

[jckstraw72]

Ignatius, I agree with you. I think Moss does a great job of exposing the incompleteness of the New Soteriology. For instance, his "River of Fire Revisited" is far more Patristically supported than Kalomiros' "River of Fire"

 

[Euthymios]

Anathemas and Vladimir Moss - YouTube