Sister Vassa.... duuuuuude

[E.C.]

The Church of Antioch's view is having a Orthodox Council to resolve the situation, so I would refrain from thinking of anyone in Communion with the OCU as non-Orthodox.

Hold on, rusmeister did not say those who are in Communion with the so-called "OCU" are not Orthodox. Though he did point out that Antioch, your own jurisdiction per what's on the post there, does not recognize the OCU and is wondering why you would appear to reconize them when your own bishops do not.

 

[Not David]

Hold on, rusmeister did not say those who are in Communion with the so-called "OCU" are not Orthodox. Though he did point out that Antioch, your own jurisdiction per what's on the post there, does not recognize the OCU and is wondering why you would appear to reconize them when your own bishops do not.

My quote:
"You know the OCU is recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarch, Alexandria, Cyprus & Greece? So calling Sister Vassa "schismatic" is not accurate."

 

[rusmeister]

The Church of Antioch's view is having a Orthodox Council to resolve the situation, so I would refrain from thinking of anyone in Communion with the OCU as non-Orthodox.

I think we need to distinguish between “being Orthodox“ and being in schism. The only issue at stake is whether a given Church is schism or not. The default for the body in the Ukraine that the EP supports is that it is in schism. We are bound to hold that. We aren’t concerning ourselves about the salvation of any individual in that body. It’s only that that body is in schism, and the EP began behaving in a schismatic manner, which is defined by unilateral action in opposition to the other Churches.

So the only things we can say about the OP is that the woman in question has definitely and legitimately been defrocked by a Church acknowledged to be in the general Communion, and she has fled to a “Church” that is not so acknowledged.

I say this being extremely unthrilled by the actions of the Russian Church, which, like it or not, IS in our Communion.

 

[E.C.]

My quote:
"You know the OCU is recognized by the Ecumenical Patriarch, Alexandria, Cyprus & Greece? So calling Sister Vassa "schismatic" is not accurate."

And given that YOUR Patriarch does NOT recognize the OCU, you are technically no longer in good standing with Antioch by siding with the people whom YOUR OWN PATRIARCH view as schismatics.

 

[Not David]

And given that YOUR Patriarch does NOT recognize the OCU, you are technically no longer in good standing with Antioch by siding with the people whom YOUR OWN PATRIARCH view as schismatics.

What are you the KGB?
Antioch is in communion with people who recognize "schismatics" like the EP, Greece, Cyprus and Alexandria. Are they in bad standing by not considering them schismatics as well? lol

 

[rusmeister]

And given that YOUR Patriarch does NOT recognize the OCU, you are technically no longer in good standing with Antioch by siding with the people whom YOUR OWN PATRIARCH view as schismatics.

My sympathy with ND springs from the fact that we cannot always trust our bishops and Patriarchs. When they really go wrong, we have to go on believing anyway. The people who can screw up the witness of the Church are not its enemies, but its members, especially its leaders. And he is right that different Churches do not all recognize the same ones, making for a daisy chain of broken relations whereby a Church that has broken off still remains in communion with another one that hasn’t. That’s why some of us can (mistakenly) believe that the nationalist Ukrainian Church is legitimate, because to external appearances, it is in communion with a Church that is (mostly) in Communion.

However, the real issue here is that the nationalist Church of Ukraine was, before 2018, decidely schismatic, and making claims supported by no one UNTIL Pat Bartholomew decided to unilaterally “legalize” them IN SPITE of the fact that there was already a canonical Church on the territory which was formally under the Russian Church that he was already consciously breaking with. The powers of this world, the Western leaders and their puppet masters eagerly supported the move, rightly recognizing it as a move of political power, rather than the Holy Spirit leading us to unity.

This is why I have a problem with the whole idea of clergy of any level “jumping ship” and uncanonically moving of their own volition to a different Church. It’s bad enough when we, the laity, do it, though we are not canonically bound. When the clergy do it it becomes a protestant free-for-all, where everyone is talking about the Church, obedience, and hierarchy, while in reality doing their own thing of their own will, which is the negation of obedience and hierarchy. Heck, WE fled to the Balkans, and are now in the Serbian Church. In Russia, parallel churches, almost underground, are developing where those who object to both the government’s actions and the Church leaders’ eager support of those actions (I am ashamed of how Pat Kirill responded to that priest who raised an honest objection in a conference in Moscow several months ago)) can go to not have to bear the added prayers for victory to the Liturgy, seeing them as wholly illegitimate, and the government enforcement of government policies in the Church and the general mixing of the Kingdom of Heaven with the kingdom they happen to be in. That is why, taking the case of one of the better priests, Fr Alexei Uminsky, I have serious doubts that what he did was right, though I think it not my business to suggest that he should have stayed in Russia and suffered as a Confessor of the Faith. I take the better case because it is that of an unquestionably good priest doing a doubtful, and generally uncanonical thing. It helps make the case of a very questionable almost-nun clearer.

That’s why I think former “Sister” Vassa’s move was illegitimate. It was one of those jumps, to a Church that most of us don’t recognize, one that is involved in the persecution of the legitimate Church there and is doing the will of ITS nationalist masters, the business of this world shoved into what is supposed to be the Church.

 

[ZaidaBoBaida]

That's putting it a little too strongly.

But how else should I put it? What else is the point of staying a riasphore nun and outside of a monastery for decades?

 

[E.C.]

What are you the KGB?
Antioch is in communion with people who recognize "schismatics" like the EP, Greece, Cyprus and Alexandria. Are they in bad standing by not considering them schismatics as well? lol

As someone who was taught Orthodoxy by those who lost their families to the KGB, your comment is highly offensive.

And you are avoiding the question. If Antioch does not recognize the fascist OCU and you are under Antioch than you are disobedient. I, for the record, am part of the OCA which, like Antioch, does not recognize the fascist OCU. However, unlike you, I am not supporting a group which my own bishops call schismatic.

 

[Not David]

As someone who was taught Orthodoxy by those who lost their families to the KGB, your comment is highly offensive.

And you are avoiding the question. If Antioch does not recognize the fascist OCU and you are under Antioch than you are disobedient. I, for the record, am part of the OCA which, like Antioch, does not recognize the fascist OCU. However, unlike you, I am not supporting a group which my own bishops call schismatic.

You know what else doesn't recognize Antioch? OCA's autocephaly.

 

[prodromos]

You know what else doesn't recognize Antioch? OCA's autocephaly.

Antioch doesn't consider them schismatic or non canonical, so that is a pretty petty response.

 

[rusmeister]

As someone who was taught Orthodoxy by those who lost their families to the KGB, your comment is highly offensive.

And you are avoiding the question. If Antioch does not recognize the fascist OCU and you are under Antioch than you are disobedient. I, for the record, am part of the OCA which, like Antioch, does not recognize the fascist OCU. However, unlike you, I am not supporting a group which my own bishops call schismatic.

Hi EC!
While I generally agree with you, I would encourage a tone that seeks understanding and reconciliation as much as possible. I do agree that the violent actions of the OCU could be characterized as fascist, but it would be better just to get everyone, including ND, to agree at least that those violent actions are very wrong and not to be defended. Also, none of us are bishops, so our own “recognition” of the actions or status of people is not necessarily binding, and it is not impossible to disagree with one’s own bishop or Patriarch. That said, any such disagreement should be done VERY carefully, thoughtfully, and prayerfully. Ultimately, one view or another is ultimately the most correct view, and others are correspondingly mistaken to various degrees. Again, I think you are mostly right, I just hope we try to be as kind as we can to each other, and try not to offend ourselves, even if we ARE right.

There IS schism right now, denying it would be foolhardy, and it is a great sin and shame of those of our leaders who enabled or contributed to it. I think the greatest weakness in the arguments defending the OCU begin with the EP’s unilateral “recognition” of a group that ALL had previously admitted to be schismatic, AND in a territory in which a canonical Church, like it or not, already existed. That was the first great error precipitating the schism. The Russian Patriarch Kirill, while he may have initially reacted rightly, himself has descended into Sergianism and the prioritizing of a kingdom of this world over the kingdom of heaven, making it much harder to identify either side as “in the right”. He has supported a first-strike war against another nation which were like brothers, and punishes priests who call for peace. This is where I am in most sympathy with ND’s position.

Perhaps if we all admitted these truths we could manage to argue (discuss this) intelligently, politely, and considerately, and avoid quarreling, which is only to the devil’s advantage.

 

[Not David]

Hi EC!
While I generally agree with you, I would encourage a tone that seeks understanding and reconciliation as much as possible. I do agree that the violent actions of the OCU could be characterized as fascist, but it would be better just to get everyone, including ND, to agree at least that those violent actions are very wrong and not to be defended. Also, none of us are bishops, so our own “recognition” of the actions or status of people is not necessarily binding, and it is not impossible to disagree with one’s own bishop or Patriarch. That said, any such disagreement should be done VERY carefully, thoughtfully, and prayerfully. Ultimately, one view or another is ultimately the most correct view, and others are correspondingly mistaken to various degrees. Again, I think you are mostly right, I just hope we try to be as kind as we can to each other, and try not to offend ourselves, even if we ARE right.

There IS schism right now, denying it would be foolhardy, and it is a great sin and shame of those of our leaders who enabled or contributed to it. I think the greatest weakness in the arguments defending the OCU begin with the EP’s unilateral “recognition” of a group that ALL had previously admitted to be schismatic, AND in a territory in which a canonical Church, like it or not, already existed. That was the first great error precipitating the schism. The Russian Patriarch Kirill, while he may have initially reacted rightly, himself has descended into Sergianism and the prioritizing of a kingdom of this world over the kingdom of heaven, making it much harder to identify either side as “in the right”. He has supported a first-strike war against another nation which were like brothers, and punishes priests who call for peace. This is where I am in most sympathy with ND’s position.

Perhaps if we all admitted these truths we could manage to argue (discuss this) intelligently, politely, and considerately, and avoid quarreling, which is only to the devil’s advantage.

You are right. Apologies to @E.C. for any offense.

I already explained myself so I'm out of this topic since I got nothing more to say about Sister Vassa's situation.

 

[gzt]

But how else should I put it? What else is the point of staying a riasphore nun and outside of a monastery for decades?

Staying a riasophor for a long time is, while not the most common thing, a thing in the monastic tradition. She was sent out initially from the monastery for academic study as an obedience, not the most common thing for a monastic to be outside the monastery long-term, but not unprecedented, either. Happens more with priests.

 

[rusmeister]

Staying a riasophor for a long time is, while not the most common thing, a thing in the monastic tradition. She was sent out initially from the monastery for academic study as an obedience, not the most common thing for a monastic to be outside the monastery long-term, but not unprecedented, either. Happens more with priests.

What I have come to see over time is the overvaluing of academic study in the modern world. It has its place. (I’m a big fan of intellectual pursuit myself). But when those pursuing it come to challenge things that the Church has always taught, it has assumed an authority it does not have, overvaluing human reasoning against divine revelation. Obviously, whoever was responsible for overseeing S.V. failed horribly, and when she did cross the lines (such as the infamous advice to the mother of a teen claiming same-sex passion) the response of her superiors was clearly inadequate, leading to this mad and unauthorized flight to a Church whose legitimacy has the deepest doubts.

 

[prodromos]

Her name is Barbara, if people would like to add her name to their prayers. She could certainly use some.