Sister Vassa.... duuuuuude

[Lukaris]

I agree that ROCOR has an accountability problem and I'm quite vocal about it in other fora.

However, in the case of "Sr" Vassa, there are a few facts that are ignored here. For starters, riasaphore monks and nuns have not taken their final monastic vows. Most riasaphores are in that status for a couple years; she was one for several decades. ROCOR leadership had told her at the beginning of Lent this year that she needs to basically crap or get off the pot and affiliate with a women's monastery by Pascha, you know, like every other normal monastic in the world. She thumbed her nose at them saying that she can't because she has financial committments with her bookstore, blog-writing, apartments, etc. I'm sure that her openly critiquing the boss in Moscow isn't exactly a promotional bell-ringer, but I refuse to ignore the facts: she was given a deadline, she gave no reply by that deadline, therefore, she faced the consequences and has been laicized. That element of it ultimately falls under disobedience, and disobedience gets a lot of clergy and monastics removed from their positions.


She went to Constantinople's Ukrainian "Church". I say this because 1) they have their roots with the schismatic Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church which was formed by priests and laity sometime after Russia dropped out of WWI. Importantly, they had zero bishops with them, so they created their own and therefore have no Apostolic Succession and therefore no Grace. 2) The violent behavior of their hierarchs, clergy, and, people nullifies any complaint they may have against Metropolitan Onufriy's people. Metropolitan Onufriy has extended the negotiation olive branch to the schismatics many times on condition that they stop their violence against his own flock (this violence includes murder, harassment, forced takeover of churches, the vandalism of those same churches, desecration of relics and churches; the list goes on), yet "Metropolitan" Dumenko refuses to end the violence. That alone tells us what their priorities are.

I just want to clarify that I meant the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox under the MP have been harassed by schismatics. My words were a little clumsy.

 

[E.C.]

I just want to clarify that I meant the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox under the MP have been harassed by schismatics. My words were a little clumsy.

Ah, my apologies!

Yeah, she went to the schismatic side. It seems to be the thing that all the rebellious Russian-affiliated people do when they're made with their bishop these days. The so-called "Slavic Vicariate" under the Greeks here in the US? It is entirely made up of people who were held accountable by ROCOR for a variety of offenses.

 

[rusmeister]

(staff edit)
Hi!
EC said some of it; I would add a little.

But first, when people disagree, it takes a lot of words to wade through differences, misunderstandings, and nuances. I could write a really short post, for example:

”You’re a decent person who is mistaken about some things.”

That would be short, but would clarify nothing and get us nowhere in understanding each other. I just had an old friend accuse me of empty verbosity, and that is the only alternative I have. It takes words, and a thoughtful desire to understand and find common ground with those we disagree with. I read every word you say carefully, and think about it. I do not dismiss your ideas.

First of all, common ground: I think you are VERY right about pornography. It DOES warp our thinking, and as Steve Robinson eptly put it, teaches us to see man as meat, to see others as for our use and pleasure.

But I think the way you put the words “it is only due to her speaking in support of Ukraine…” that frames the issue wrongly. As Lukaris and EC pointed out, it is not support for the Ukrainian nation, but support for a schismatic local Church that is the issue. No one Patriarch can, in opposition to the consensus (clear majority) of the other Patriarchs, legitimately make a schismatic group canonical, as Patriarch Bartholomew has tried to do, unilaterally. He did not get the support of the Church worldwide. That means that the Church created in Ukraine remains schismatic, and that, plus disobedience, choosing to be a loose cannon and not complete monastic vows, are what rightly drew the laicization.

Your comments on women are a bit more confusing, as my experience and understanding point to a shortage more of men than of women in the Orthodox Church on the while (though certainly there may be specific localities where the opposite is true.

As to ”saying things that are pro-women”, I don’t know where this is coming from. We have the Theotokos, who is literally the greatest human who is not actually God, who we hold in highest honor in the Church. What exactly is “anti-woman” in the Church? What do you mean by “toxic”? That is a word nobody used in such a context even twenty years ago; it is a term of the modern world that is deliberately vague, meant to paint what one does not like negatively without specifying what exactly is “toxic”.

I have no idea where the young men you describe are. At any rate, I would probably agree that the ideas of some of the so-called “Orthobros” are excessive, and go off in odd and wrong directions, but I also think that many of those who disagree with them are going off in OPPOSITE odd and wrong directions. That’s what the devil loves to do to us, to get us, in fear of some evil, to run off to its opposite extreme.

A neo-Nazi is someone who literally believes that the Nazi Party of Germany and its famous leader were good. I don’t see any such people in the Church anywhere. Nor have I ever met a single Orthodox Christian who EVER suggested or thought that women are not true humans. Or who actually believes that the earth is flat. Misogyny means the actual hatred of women as such, which is a mark of complete insanity, and all of these labels are now being broadly, and wrongly applied to people. An actual misogynist is NOT a person who think that men and women have some God-given roles by their sex that are not interchangeable. A Nazi is NOT the same as a person who thinks national borders should be respected; and, not that you think so, but just for example, a person who is indignant at Russia’s invasion of Ukraine but not of the invasion of millions of immigrants (who did not migrate legally) across the US southern border, is guilty of cognitive dissonance. It is inconsistent application of the idea that borders should be respected.

In short, I think (perhaps mistakenly) you are trying to describe people you HAVE met, but are doing so quite wrongly. I may be wrong about that. But it is what I suspect from your words. I suspect you HAVE met people who think a traditional wife and homemaker is a good thing, or that it is good that women cover their heads in Church, whereas men should take off their hats, and perhaps see that as “misogynistic”. If I am wrong, I'd really appreciate better clarity on what exactly you mean by the words “toxic” (which actually means “physically poisonous”. I know people are using the word in a VERY un-Orthodox way. The Orthodox view is better described by saying that I need to recognize that I myself am ”toxic” and others as better than myself, whereas the modern usage teaches us to think the opposite, to elevate ourselves while demeaning those that we do not like, which is totally NOT what the Gospel and Church Tradition teach us.

Again, I am open to correction on anything I am mistaken about concerning what you actually think.

 

[rusmeister]

Ah, my apologies!

Yeah, she went to the schismatic side. It seems to be the thing that all the rebellious Russian-affiliated people do when they're made with their bishop these days. The so-called "Slavic Vicariate" under the Greeks here in the US? It is entirely made up of people who were held accountable by ROCOR for a variety of offenses.

That’s news to me. I have heard nothing about that “Vicariate”.

 

[Lukaris]

Ah, my apologies!

Yeah, she went to the schismatic side. It seems to be the thing that all the rebellious Russian-affiliated people do when they're made with their bishop these days. The so-called "Slavic Vicariate" under the Greeks here in the US? It is entirely made up of people who were held accountable by ROCOR for a variety of offenses.

No apology necessary; I wasn’t clear in my post. You made good points anyway.

 

[rusmeister]

Yes, she is. Whether one thinks she's right or wrong, Sr. Vassa is now with a church that is considered canonical by the EP and some other Orthodox churches. Of course, the MP and EP went into schism due to this, so the EP and the OCU are considered to be akin to Rome to the MP now. The MP, the last I looked, has forbidden their laity from communing in EP churches over this.

edit: Tons of little mini schisms going on with the EP, Alexandria, Church of Greece, and Church of Cyprus being on the outs with the MP. It's a mess, honestly.

This begs the question of whether canonicity means anything at all. The four Churches you point out are the only ones that recognize the autocephaly of the OCU, previously admitted by all to be a schismatic group. None of the other Churches do. Can a Church be made autocephalous without a consensus? Can it be done if it was previously canonical? If it was schismatic? You’re talking about one Bishop or Patriarch making a decision for the entire Orthodox Church worldwide. How is that not a papacy? How is that compatible with the conciliar model of the Church, the very basis on which we say that the Roman Catholic Church is wrong?

There are cases that can be argued. The OCA was previously canonical before 1970, but after 1970 not all Churches recognized its autonomy. But neither was the OCA a group in schism. Still, you could claim that the OCA is not fully canonical.

Likewise, there are priests like Fr Alexei Uminsky, with whom I have every sympathy, whom the Russian Church planned to defrock for speaking out against the war. He pre-empted them and ran to Constantinople, which is definitely not a canonical move. I’m not sure it was right to do at all, and am convinced that the Russian Church has gone very wrong in serving and doing the will of the Russian state and politically serving a kingdom of this world, just as I am sure that the EP was wrong to claim unilateral authority to make schismatics canonical AND create a rival Church structure in Ukraine, which looks like an act of open and willful discord to me. But you basically have to consider it acceptable to pit the EP and the Greek Church against the rest of the Orthodox world. If only the Russian patriarch obected to the replacement of the already existing canonical Church under Met Onuphry, and all other bishops opposed him, we would have a different ballgame. But we don’t. The consensus is against what the EP did, and Sr Vassa has long been urging things against the teachings of the Church in the name of love. In fearing truth without love, such people flee towards love without truth.

I do agree with you that the schism is a disgrace, and that the Russian Patriarch has himself behaved badly. But this really started with Patriarch Bartholomew and his desire to restore the glory and prestige of Constantinople, a ship that sailed more than 500 years ago.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Can a Church be made autocephalous without a consensus?

yes, Georgia was granted autocephaly by Antioch long before Constantinople recognized it.

 

[gzt]

Her side of the story -- make of it what you will -- can be found here: Vassa Larin

 

[Not David]

This begs the question of whether canonicity means anything at all. The four Churches you point out are the only ones that recognize the autocephaly of the OCU, previously admitted by all to be a schismatic group. None of the other Churches do. Can a Church be made autocephalous without a consensus? Can it be done if it was previously canonical? If it was schismatic? You’re talking about one Bishop or Patriarch making a decision for the entire Orthodox Church worldwide. How is that not a papacy? How is that compatible with the conciliar model of the Church, the very basis on which we say that the Roman Catholic Church is wrong?

There are cases that can be argued. The OCA was previously canonical before 1970, but after 1970 not all Churches recognized its autonomy. But neither was the OCA a group in schism. Still, you could claim that the OCA is not fully canonical.

Likewise, there are priests like Fr Alexei Uminsky, with whom I have every sympathy, whom the Russian Church planned to defrock for speaking out against the war. He pre-empted them and ran to Constantinople, which is definitely not a canonical move. I’m not sure it was right to do at all, and am convinced that the Russian Church has gone very wrong in serving and doing the will of the Russian state and politically serving a kingdom of this world, just as I am sure that the EP was wrong to claim unilateral authority to make schismatics canonical AND create a rival Church structure in Ukraine, which looks like an act of open and willful discord to me. But you basically have to consider it acceptable to pit the EP and the Greek Church against the rest of the Orthodox world. If only the Russian patriarch obected to the replacement of the already existing canonical Church under Met Onuphry, and all other bishops opposed him, we would have a different ballgame. But we don’t. The consensus is against what the EP did, and Sr Vassa has long been urging things against the teachings of the Church in the name of love. In fearing truth without love, such people flee towards love without truth.

I do agree with you that the schism is a disgrace, and that the Russian Patriarch has himself behaved badly. But this really started with Patriarch Bartholomew and his desire to restore the glory and prestige of Constantinople, a ship that sailed more than 500 years ago.

The EP doesn't consider the OCA an autocephalous body. Would you consider them part of Moscow since not all jurisdictions agree?

 

[rusmeister]

The EP doesn't consider the OCA an autocephalous body. Would you consider them part of Moscow since not all jurisdictions agree?

I think the issue is not “all jurisdictions”, but a general consensus, which means a clear majority. Hardly anything in our history has ever been unanimous, but everything that matters was agreed upon by consensus.

 

[rusmeister]

Her side of the story -- make of it what you will -- can be found here: Vassa Larin

Appreciated. I actually even agree that Patriarch Kirill is totally wrong to persecute priests who think this war should not be happening. She’s right about that.

But she is in a wholly different class from the priests in Russia who were punished and/or fled. She is in rebellion, plain and simple, and has been for a long time. She never respected authority, but has merely taught her own private conception of Orthodoxy which on some points is in direct contradiction to established Church Tradition. I think it dubious when a much less controversial priest like Fr Alexei Uminsky jumps on his own to Constantinople, and he was in a much more oppressive environment than she ever was. But in her case, there is little positive to be said, other than her good intentions (which pave the road to hell). And it is unnatural for her as an ostensible monastic to be a free loose cannon for life, claiming a title which no one should hold for long. The spirit driving her is not that of the Lord.

 

[prodromos]

In my not so humble opinion, if you are not in obedience to an elder, whether that be an Abbot, an Abbess or a Bishop, you can hardly claim to be a monastic.
It's a real shame because she comes from a family that has many priests, and now she is separating herself from their communion.

 

[ZaidaBoBaida]

So, riasphore nuns/monks are like novices, and aren't real nuns/monks because they haven't taken their final vows? So, she's never been a real nun and just likes the title of "sister" because it gives her some kind of legitimacy?

 

[gzt]

That's putting it a little too strongly.

 

[prodromos]

That's putting it a little too strongly.

How would you put it?

 

[Dorothea]

She never sat right with me.

I felt the same way.

 

[Dorothea]

She posted on her Facebook that she's now part of the Ukranian Orthodox Church - which I'm not sure what to make sure of that whole situation. Churches that are slavic say they're schizmatics and heretics, but they're recognized by other jurisdictions.

IMHO Vassa is just too liberal, a defacto Protestant, and a shining example of why women shouldn't be ordained.

She's part of the schismatic church in Ukraine called the OCU - Orthodox Church of Ukraine. The UOC is the canonical church of Ukraine.

 

[Dorothea]

Yes, she is. Whether one thinks she's right or wrong, Sr. Vassa is now with a church that is considered canonical by the EP and some other Orthodox churches. Of course, the MP and EP went into schism due to this, so the EP and the OCU are considered to be akin to Rome to the MP now. The MP, the last I looked, has forbidden their laity from communing in EP churches over this.

edit: Tons of little mini schisms going on with the EP, Alexandria, Church of Greece, and Church of Cyprus being on the outs with the MP. It's a mess, honestly.

she apostatized. I was hoping she would've repented and humbled herself, but she didn't. Her comments in that article are quite prideful/arrogant and very disrespectful. However, I still pray she returns to the church some day and reconciles with it through repentance. Former Sr. Vassa announces apostasy from canonical Orthodoxy, joins state-sponsored Ukrainian schismatics

 

[RileyG]

She's part of the schismatic church in Ukraine called the OCU - Orthodox Church of Ukraine. The UOC is the canonical church of Ukraine.

Since I’m not Orthodox, I’m a little confused. Aren’t most Ukrainians part of the OCU? So that means most Ukrainians aren’t part of canonical Orthodoxy? Isn’t UOC in communion with Moscow? Do they recognize Constantinople?

(Posting in fellowship)

 

[RileyG]

yes, Georgia was granted autocephaly by Antioch long before Constantinople recognized it.

I’m not Orthodox, but does autocephaly mean they are canonical or no?

(posting in fellowship)