I am interested in knowing WHO actually wrote the October 2000 Epistle of
the Sobor.  There were multiple signatures on that Epistle.  Did those who
signed it simultaneously pen the Epistle--or did they just sign it?  Who
signed the Metropolitan's signature to the October 2000 Epistle?

I did not see in Peter Budzilovich's statement any claim that someone else
wrote the Epistle of Vladyka Vitaly, but rather a defense of ANY Epistle
being written by numerous people.  It is clear that this Epistle of
Metropolitan Vitaly is fully and completely his--and it bears his signature.
Is it wrong for the Metropolitan to seek the input from trusted, loyal and
faithful clergy and friends?  Or, is it more wrong to question the
Metropolitan's integrity?

The issues are what are contained in the Epistle of the Metropolitan.  Why
aren't those issues being addressed?  Why all the prattle about whether or
not the Metropolitan wrote the epistle.  He signed it and for good and
faithful clergy and laity, that is quite enough.

For those who wish to discredit Peter Budzilovich, Fr. Anatoly Trepatchko,
Fr. Andrew Kencis, Fr. Deacon Mark Smith, and Gregory Ogden--please add my
name to your "list".

Fr. Seraphim Stephens

----- Original Message -----
From: "Fr. Alexander Lebedeff" <lebedeff@...>
To: <ORTHODOX@...>; <orthodox-tradition@yahoogroups.com>;
<orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com>; <rocaclergy@egroups.com>;
<orthodoxjurisdictions@egroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 11:23 AM
Subject: [orthodox-synod] Budzilovich Admits Met. Vitaly did NOT Write the
"Epistle"


> An amazing admission has now appeared on the Budzilovich Web Site (where
> the "Epistle" first appeared. See:
>
> http://www.russia-talk.com/otkliki/ot-97a.htm
>
> In Russian see: http://www.russia-talk.com/otkliki/ot-97.htm
>
> Here it is:
>
> "UPDATE: On June 26, 2001, Bishop Gabriel, Deputy Secretary of the Synod
of
> Bishops, posted at the official Synod web site a "Statement from the
> Chancery of
> the Synod of Bishops" in an attempt to prove that the Epistle presented
> below was not written by the Metropolitan. But this is completely
> IMMATERIAL! It is
> common knowledge that public statements by heads of governments and large
> organizations (including ecclesiastical) are often written by their staff.
> The leaders then go over statements written for them, make corrections,
and
> sign. The FACT that the Metropolitan was unhappy with the decisions of the
> October 2000 ROCOR Council of Bishops was clearly demonstrated by his
> Postsobor Epistle of December 4, 2000 (of which Bishop Gabriel is very
well
> aware). What matters is not WHO WROTE the Epistle, but WHO SIGNED it.
Let's
> note in passing that Bishop Gabriel does not give a link to the latest
> Epistle, although he does say that he read it on the Internet."
>
> ====================
>
> Now, let's get this straight.
>
> Mr. Budzilovich says: "it is completely IMMATERIAL" whether the
> Metropolitan actually wrote this "Epistle" or not.
>
> Mr. Budzilovich states again: "What matters is not WHO WROTE the Epistle,
> but WHO SIGNED it."
>
> Well, it makes all the difference in the world.
>
> Fr. Anatly Trepatchko just finished swearing on the Cross and Gospel that
> the Epistle was "penned personally by Metropolitan Vitaly" over the course
> of several days with "no influence" from anyone.
>
> This turns out to not be the case.
>
> It is certainly a **HUGE** difference whether the frail Metropolitan just
> **signed** a Statement written by someone else or whether he wrote it
> personally.
>
> And Fr. Anatoly, Fr. Andrew Kencis, Deacon Mark Smith, Gregory Ogden and
> others should be now aware that the document they are touting as the "most
> important statement" ever made by Metropolitan Vitaly turns out not to be
> his at all, and that the Statement of Bishop Gabriel from the Chancery of
> the Synod of Bishops and all of the other posters who have noticed grave
> errors casting doubt on the authorship of this document are correct.
>
> May the Lord forgive all who have, wittingly or unwittngly, led others
astray.
>
>
> With love in Christ,
>
> Prot. Alexander Lebedeff
>
>
>
>
> Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Is it the same name but different spelling, or it's a
two different names with correspondence to different
saints?
                         Subdeacon Kirill, ROCOR

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

Dear list,

              We are receiving a steady stream of letters in support of
Met.Vitaly.If you would like to add yours visit HERE now.

                                                         In Christ,

                                                         Gregory A. Ogden






---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year!
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear list,

            For some reason the link on my last post is not working.If you want
to send a letter of support for Met.Vitaly,see the link below.

                                     In Christ,

                                     Gregory A. Ogden


St.Vladimir Russian Orthodox Information Center


---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year!
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

snip
>
> "The FACT that the Metropolitan was unhappy with the decisions of the
> October 2000 ROCOR Council of Bishops was clearly demonstrated by his
> Postsobor Epistle of December 4, 2000 (of which Bishop Gabriel is very
well
> aware). What matters is not WHO WROTE the Epistle, but WHO SIGNED it."
>
> Of course, now that we know that the Metropolitan's public statements are
> not always really written by him but "often" by his unnamed "staff" and
> just signed by him, perhaps the actual authorship of the Pre- and
> Post-Sobor Epistles  is in question as well?...
>
> with love in Christ,
>
> Prot. Alexander Lebedeff

snip
Pardon me but I am getting very confused here.  On the one hand the epistle
is being attacked as not having been literally written, penned, typed, etc
by the Metropolitan and so puts "doubt" on it.  Then, on the other hand,
statements are often done by others and just signed by the Metropolitan
according to the above...so everything is doubtful, everthing devious.  Now
look, I remember reading where Paul thanked someone for writing down what he
dictated and then signed his name, I believe in large letters as he was
almost blind.  Do we doubt this letter of Paul's???  The Fathers
didn't...now how is this different?
Better we should say..'.yes, do let us come together and sit upon these
issues and find that which ROCA once had and seems to have lost.'  The only
thing I see here is that some , for whatever reasons, are afraid to have
this meeting...that is the real issue, is it not?  Should we not be deciding
whether we will choose to  build with bricks without straw or run from the
frogs?  Lord have mercy on us and help us....it seems no one else is.

Theodora in the mountains

The original Christian Saint is Apostle First Martyr Archdeacon
Stephen who is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles.

There are other saints in the Church who have the same name.

Spelling forms are different in different lands and hence the
variations in the way Stephen is spelled in America.

I was born in Austria and my documents from there and now mine here
have the German form: Stefan. I found that Americans usually pronounce
my name correctly when I use the German form. If I use Stephan, they
say Steven... in (Old) Russian it is Ste-FAN.

Archpriest STEFAN Pavlenko

Steven, Stephen, Stephan, Stefan, Stivie, Steve
Contempary Russian: Stepan

> Dear list,
>
> We are receiving a steady stream of letters in support of
Met.Vitaly.If you would like to add yours visit HERE now.
>
> In Christ,
>
> Gregory A. Ogden
>


I think that the support being solicited is not for His Eminence
Metropolitan Vitaly, whom every member of the Russian Orthodox Church
Outside Russia supports and prays for both formally and lovingly with
all their hearts and minds at every church service and in private prayer.

What this is in fact is a call to support a renegade group of clerics
and lay people (with censured Bishop Varnava as eldest clergy) who
have attempted to isolate the Metropolitan and are preparing to
present him again with more false and distorted information.

I have witnessed that in Council with >>>all his (our) Bishops with
him<<< at the sessions of the "Synod of Bishops", and by logical
deduction at the sessions of the Bishops Council/Archiiereiski Sobor,
the Metropolitan participates and shares in all the decisions and
formal Statements of such bodies. This governing system, with the
Metropolitan at its head is the only legal and binding Church Authority.

Everyone is free to express their support of Metropolitan Vitaly, his
Jubilee is going to be celebrated on the Feast of The Holy Apostles
Peter and Paul. He cannot but be gladdened by letters of
congratulation and expressions of appreciation for his prayers and
leadership. Expressing your support for The Jubilar be sure it is not
misconstrued as a support those who have united to divide the Church
Abroad.

Archpriest Stefan Pavlenko

Your Eminence, Metropolitan Vitaly:

Glory Be To Jesus Christ!

Your Eminence has given us great hope in this great time of struggle for the
Holy Truth.  So many of the Bishops seem to be given to the path toward the
Moscow Patriarchate.  Some of them have openly said that you did not write
the recent Epistle, even though it has your God-Protecting signature upon
it.

One of these bishops has laid claim to your Archepiscopal Oversight for the
Diocese of Eastern America and New York and has denounced your Epistle as a
forgery.  Your Eminence, your Holy throne has been usurped by the "pretender
council" and its shameless thieves who have lied about their positions in
our Holy Church.

I have always been under your omophorion, but I was recently informed that I
was under the omophorion of bishop gabriel.  I was not under the teaching
that he was a "ruling bishop" of any Diocese in our Church and therefore
there was no omophorion of his under which anyone could be received.

I am loyal and faithful to Your Eminence.  There are many faithful clergy
and laity that can no longer tolerate the lies and claims of the usurpers of
the TRUTH.  We support Your Eminence in this Holy Struggle for the TRUTH and
have been given strength by your courageous stand in the face of betrayal
and heresy.

Glory be to Jersus Christ for your Holy Apostolic witness in this terrible
time of apostacy and betrayal!

Sincerely in Christ, your loyal and faithful son of the Church Abroad who is
under your omophorion,
Fr. Seraphim Stephens
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregory A.Ogden" <gsnroc@...>
To: <orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 3:05 PM
Subject: [orthodox-synod] Letters to Met.Vitaly


>
> Dear list,
>
>              We are receiving a steady stream of letters in support of
Met.Vitaly.If you would like to add yours visit HERE now.
>
>                                                         In Christ,
>
>                                                         Gregory A. Ogden
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year!
> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Perhaps Father Seraphim is unaware of the fact that the Synod of
Bishops authorized Bishop Gabriel to administer the Eastern Diocese
due to the Metropolitan's incapacity.  It is the Council of Bishops
which is the supreme authority in our Church, it is the Council which
elects bishops and removes or retires them if the need be. To claim
that the Coucil "usurped" the throne of the Metropolitan is not only
factually incorrect, but impossible. The Council elects the
Metropolitan, not the other way around.

This whole episode surrounding the forged or otherwise irregular
epistle is very sad. Those misguided people who are attempting to use
the Metropolitan for their own shallow political ends are causing
grave harm to our Church. It is a grave sin to take advantage of our
aging First Hiearch's infirmities for such ends, and those who
effected this fraudulent "epistle" ought to be very much ashamed of
themselves.





>Your Eminence, Metropolitan Vitaly:
>
>Glory Be To Jesus Christ!
>
>Your Eminence has given us great hope in this great time of struggle for the
>Holy Truth.  So many of the Bishops seem to be given to the path toward the
>Moscow Patriarchate.  Some of them have openly said that you did not write
>the recent Epistle, even though it has your God-Protecting signature upon
>it.
>
>One of these bishops has laid claim to your Archepiscopal Oversight for the
>Diocese of Eastern America and New York and has denounced your Epistle as a
>forgery.  Your Eminence, your Holy throne has been usurped by the "pretender
>council" and its shameless thieves who have lied about their positions in
>our Holy Church.
>
>I have always been under your omophorion, but I was recently informed that I
>was under the omophorion of bishop gabriel.  I was not under the teaching
>that he was a "ruling bishop" of any Diocese in our Church and therefore
>there was no omophorion of his under which anyone could be received.
>
>I am loyal and faithful to Your Eminence.  There are many faithful clergy
>and laity that can no longer tolerate the lies and claims of the usurpers of
>the TRUTH.  We support Your Eminence in this Holy Struggle for the TRUTH and
>have been given strength by your courageous stand in the face of betrayal
>and heresy.
>
>Glory be to Jersus Christ for your Holy Apostolic witness in this terrible
>time of apostacy and betrayal!
>
>Sincerely in Christ, your loyal and faithful son of the Church Abroad who is
>under your omophorion,
>Fr. Seraphim Stephens
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Gregory A.Ogden" <gsnroc@...>
>To: <orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 3:05 PM
>Subject: [orthodox-synod] Letters to Met.Vitaly
>
>
>>
>>  Dear list,
>>
>>               We are receiving a steady stream of letters in support of
>Met.Vitaly.If you would like to add yours visit HERE now.
>>
>>                                                          In Christ,
>>
>>                                                          Gregory A. Ogden
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  ---------------------------------
>>  Do You Yahoo!?
>>  Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year!
>>  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>>
>>  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>>  Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
>>
>>
>>
>>  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>>
>>
>
>
>Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




Rev.Hieromonk Maximos
Ascension Monastery
Russian Orthodox Church
Outside of Russia (ROCOR)
706-277-9442 ( voice)
775-640-2325 ( fax)
http://www.monastery.org
http://shop.monasteryproducts.org


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Fr. Seraphim Stephens writes:

"I am interested in knowing WHO actually wrote the October 2000
Epistle of the Sobor.  There were multiple signatures on that
Epistle.  Did those who signed it simultaneously pen the Epistle--or
did they just sign it?  Who signed the Metropolitan's signature to
the October 2000 Epistle?"

Since the Sobor was held in accordance with the Canons and
regulations of the ROCA, and all the bishops present witnessed the
participation of the other bishops, the authorship and signatures of
the Sobor are not in doubt.

FrSS:

"I did not see in Peter Budzilovich's statement any claim that
someone else wrote the Epistle of Vladyka Vitaly, but rather a
defense of ANY Epistle being written by numerous people.  It is clear
that this Epistle of Metropolitan Vitaly is fully and completely his--
and it bears his signature. Is it wrong for the Metropolitan to seek
the input from trusted, loyal and faithful clergy and friends?  Or,
is it more wrong to question the Metropolitan's integrity?"

When an epistle is issued in the name of the Metropolitan contrary to
normal protocol and contrary to his own promises to his brother
bishops, it is completely appropriate to raise questions about it.

FrSS:

"The issues are what are contained in the Epistle of the
Metropolitan.  Why aren't those issues being addressed?"

Because they have already been addressed, and because it appears the
same people who have already been answered, and indeed suspended, are
behind this epistle.

-Fr. John Whiteford

I fully support Met. Vitaly. I cannot understand why his opponents that
claim his epistle is a forged text,

1. Do not ask the Metropolitan.
2. Do not elaborate as to what would be wrong, against Christ, against the
Church, against the faith, against sobornost, against the Holy Spirit,
against love in this epistle.

I remember Father Mikhail Rahr of the MP saying that he supported our Synod
in its efforts to "purify" the Church. I was naive enough to think that each
of us had to become more pure. I fear now that what he meant is that the
Church had to get rid of indesirable elements, too concerned about the
purity of the faith.

The Synod seems to be so irritated that our Metropolitan wants to unite us
all again, that one wonders whether he is not in agreement with father
Mikhail. In that sense, it gives the impression that it welcomed the
secession and gets infuriated when a uniting movement is taking shape.

Long live to our beloved metropolitan.

May Christ bless and reunite us all.

Vladimir Kozyreff

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregory A.Ogden" <gsnroc@...>
To: <orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:05 PM
Subject: [orthodox-synod] Letters to Met.Vitaly


>
> Dear list,
>
>              We are receiving a steady stream of letters in support of
Met.Vitaly.If you would like to add yours visit HERE now.
>
>                                                         In Christ,
>
>                                                         Gregory A. Ogden
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year!
> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

My letter is to the Metropolitan, not to the uninformed.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Father Maximos" <mga@...>
To: <orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 2:26 AM
Subject: Re: [orthodox-synod] Letters to Met.Vitaly


> Perhaps Father Seraphim is unaware of the fact that the Synod of
> Bishops authorized Bishop Gabriel to administer the Eastern Diocese
> due to the Metropolitan's incapacity.  It is the Council of Bishops
> which is the supreme authority in our Church, it is the Council which
> elects bishops and removes or retires them if the need be. To claim
> that the Coucil "usurped" the throne of the Metropolitan is not only
> factually incorrect, but impossible. The Council elects the
> Metropolitan, not the other way around.
>
> This whole episode surrounding the forged or otherwise irregular
> epistle is very sad. Those misguided people who are attempting to use
> the Metropolitan for their own shallow political ends are causing
> grave harm to our Church. It is a grave sin to take advantage of our
> aging First Hiearch's infirmities for such ends, and those who
> effected this fraudulent "epistle" ought to be very much ashamed of
> themselves.
>
>
>
>
>
> >Your Eminence, Metropolitan Vitaly:
> >
> >Glory Be To Jesus Christ!
> >
> >Your Eminence has given us great hope in this great time of struggle for
the
> >Holy Truth.  So many of the Bishops seem to be given to the path toward
the
> >Moscow Patriarchate.  Some of them have openly said that you did not
write
> >the recent Epistle, even though it has your God-Protecting signature upon
> >it.
> >
> >One of these bishops has laid claim to your Archepiscopal Oversight for
the
> >Diocese of Eastern America and New York and has denounced your Epistle as
a
> >forgery.  Your Eminence, your Holy throne has been usurped by the
"pretender
> >council" and its shameless thieves who have lied about their positions in
> >our Holy Church.
> >
> >I have always been under your omophorion, but I was recently informed
that I
> >was under the omophorion of bishop gabriel.  I was not under the teaching
> >that he was a "ruling bishop" of any Diocese in our Church and therefore
> >there was no omophorion of his under which anyone could be received.
> >
> >I am loyal and faithful to Your Eminence.  There are many faithful clergy
> >and laity that can no longer tolerate the lies and claims of the usurpers
of
> >the TRUTH.  We support Your Eminence in this Holy Struggle for the TRUTH
and
> >have been given strength by your courageous stand in the face of betrayal
> >and heresy.
> >
> >Glory be to Jersus Christ for your Holy Apostolic witness in this
terrible
> >time of apostacy and betrayal!
> >
> >Sincerely in Christ, your loyal and faithful son of the Church Abroad who
is
> >under your omophorion,
> >Fr. Seraphim Stephens
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Gregory A.Ogden" <gsnroc@...>
> >To: <orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com>
> >Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 3:05 PM
> >Subject: [orthodox-synod] Letters to Met.Vitaly
> >
> >
> >>
> >>  Dear list,
> >>
> >>               We are receiving a steady stream of letters in support of
> >Met.Vitaly.If you would like to add yours visit HERE now.
> >>
> >>                                                          In Christ,
> >>
> >>                                                          Gregory A.
Ogden
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>  ---------------------------------
> >>  Do You Yahoo!?
> >>  Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year!
> >>  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
> >>
> >>  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>  Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
> >
> >
> >
> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
> Rev.Hieromonk Maximos
> Ascension Monastery
> Russian Orthodox Church
> Outside of Russia (ROCOR)
> 706-277-9442 ( voice)
> 775-640-2325 ( fax)
> http://www.monastery.org
> http://shop.monasteryproducts.org
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Several posters have complained that in all the discussion regarding the
authorship of the "Epistle" attributed to Metropolitan Vitaly, the real
issues that it raises are not being addressed.

OK. Let's focus on the basic issue.

Why would the Metropolitan issue such an Epistle on the eve of a meeting of
the Council of Bishops, scheduled to take place in just two weeks?

If he were truly concerned with the decisions of the October Sobor
(although he signed them then and reiterated his support for them at the
Bishps' Meeting in February) and wished to have these matters reexamined
(although the Statutes of the Church Abroad do **NOT** permit reexamination
of issues previously decided by a Council of Bishops unless a material
change in the circumstances has occurred since, which is not the case
here), would he have not just **brought the issue up at** the Bishops'
Council meeting in two weeks, which is his prerogative as President of the
Council of Bishops, rather than cause huge disruption in the Church by
issuing an Encyclical meant to be distributed "urbi et orbi"in which he
directly denounces the decisions of the Council of Bishops which he is
sworn to uphold and execute?

Would it not make more sense to have these issues **privately* discussed at
the Bishops' Council, which would not cause inflamed passions among the
flock, already artificially agitated by those opposed to the decisions of
the October Sobor?

The Metropolitan is **not** the "Head of the Church." He is only the
President of the Coucil of Bishops and subject to its authority. His
mandate, as the Chief Executive, is to fulfill in exactness the decisions
of the Council of Bishops--not to abrogate or even publicly criticize them,
which can only cause tears in the perception of the conciliar nature of
decisions of the Council of Bishops, thus undermining its (and his own, by
extension) authority.

Why would he do such a destructive thing?

What possible benefit could there be for the flock in their seeing the
Metropolitan undermining the authority of the Council of Bishops, the
highest authority in the Church Abroad?

With love in Christ,

Prot. Alexander Lebedeff


With love in Christ,

Prot. Alexander Lebedeff

On 28 Jun 01, at 8:23, Fr. Alexander Lebedeff wrote:

[snip]

> "UPDATE: On June 26, 2001, Bishop Gabriel, Deputy Secretary of the Synod
> of Bishops, posted at the official Synod web site a "Statement from the
> Chancery of the Synod of Bishops" in an attempt to prove that the Epistle
> presented below was not written by the Metropolitan. But this is
> completely IMMATERIAL! It is common knowledge that public statements by
> heads of governments and large organizations (including ecclesiastical)
> are often written by their staff. The leaders then go over statements
> written for them, make corrections, and sign. The FACT that the
> Metropolitan was unhappy with the decisions of the October 2000 ROCOR
> Council of Bishops was clearly demonstrated by his Postsobor Epistle of
> December 4, 2000 (of which Bishop Gabriel is very well aware). What
> matters is not WHO WROTE the Epistle, but WHO SIGNED it. Let's note in
> passing that Bishop Gabriel does not give a link to the latest Epistle,
> although he does say that he read it on the Internet."
>
> ====================
>
> Now, let's get this straight.
>
> Mr. Budzilovich says: "it is completely IMMATERIAL" whether the
> Metropolitan actually wrote this "Epistle" or not.
>
> Mr. Budzilovich states again: "What matters is not WHO WROTE the Epistle,
> but WHO SIGNED it."
>
> Well, it makes all the difference in the world.

"All the difference in the world"?   Really?  Perhaps you should reconsider
that.    If the letter is genuine, it will stand along side the similar
letters of ROCA Metropolitans, not the least of which would be the "Sorrow
Epistles" of Metr. Vitaly's predecessor, Metr. Philaret.

The flock of Christ should brace themselves for a tragedy, where Metr
Vitaly discovers (a) he didn't mean it, (b) he was defrauded into signing
something he didn't realized, (c) his suffered from a 'mental lapse',~etc~.
May the Lord preserve him strong in his convictions from the onslaught that
will surely follow.

> Fr. Anatly Trepatchko just finished swearing on the Cross and Gospel that
> the Epistle was "penned personally by Metropolitan Vitaly" over the course
> of several days with "no influence" from anyone.

That would be for Pr. Anatoly Trepatchko's to answer, and we should wait to
hear his account before rendering judgment.  (I'm certain that *much* more
will be forthcoming on this matter). But the thoughtful Christian, not
mislead by this "straw man" tactic, should realize that it has no relevance
to the question at-hand.   A moment's consideration would make that clear.

> It is certainly a **HUGE** difference whether the frail Metropolitan just
> **signed** a Statement written by someone else or whether he wrote it
> personally.

If it's so "**HUGE**" , maybe you can try and tell us what it is?

If your allusion to the Metropolitan being "frail" is meant to convey that
he is physical limited, then all the more reason that he should avail
himself of some physical aid, and not be left as an old man to pass out his
days quietly and not disturb those exercising the "real power."

> And Fr. Anatoly, Fr. Andrew Kencis, Deacon Mark Smith, Gregory Ogden and
> others should be now aware that the document they are touting as the "most
> important statement" ever made by Metropolitan Vitaly turns out not to be
> his at all,

This is important, if you would, please pay attention:  if he signed it,
being of sound mind and body, of his own free will, not under duress or
fraud, then the statement is *his*.

My staff often writes correspondence for my signature, and they frequently
compose my message better than if I had written it myself.  Moreover, they
often advise me on my own drafts and suggest language.

Anyone with familiar with the functioning of a civilized society will
concede as much.

Moreover, given protopriest Alexander's position, the letters of St. Paul,
and even the Gospels themselves, could be dismissed as "not theirs"!

>  and that the Statement of Bishop Gabriel from the Chancery of
> the Synod of Bishops and all of the other posters who have noticed grave
> errors casting doubt on the authorship of this document are correct.

Does it not seem strange that the Chancery (i.e., the secretary of a
records office) can, and does, issue "statements" *apparently* on behalf of
the Synod, but the President of the Synod cannot?  It appears as though the
Chancery is parleying its office letterhead as though it were the official
mouthpiece of the whole Synod--issuing statements at will.    Regrettably,
the undiscerning reader sees that "of the Synod" in the  letterhead and
"that's it, the 'Synod has spoken'."  If a *secretary* were to do such
thing in any other context, that person would be out the door.

It is my understanding from reliable sources that the Metropolitan cannot
even gain control of the Synod web-site!  How sad.

If it were within my ability to offer the Metropolitan counsel, I'd
recommend to him that he resign in protest.  Thereby shielding himself from
the onslaught to follow and sealing this letter from its enemies,  allowing
it to stand forever.

> May the Lord forgive all who have, wittingly or unwittngly, led others
> astray.

Among which Ppt. Alexander's post much be counted

In Christ,

Polychroni

on 6/28/01 11:26 PM, Father Maximos at mga@... wrote:

>Perhaps Father Seraphim is unaware of the fact that the Synod of
>Bishops authorized Bishop Gabriel to administer the Eastern Diocese
>due to the Metropolitan's incapacity.  It is the Council of Bishops
>which is the supreme authority in our Church, it is the Council which
>elects bishops and removes or retires them if the need be. To claim
>that the Coucil "usurped" the throne of the Metropolitan is not only
>factually incorrect, but impossible. The Council elects the
>Metropolitan, not the other way around.

>This whole episode surrounding the forged or otherwise irregular
>epistle is very sad. Those misguided people who are attempting to use
>the Metropolitan for their own shallow political ends are causing
>grave harm to our Church. It is a grave sin to take advantage of our
>aging First Hiearch's infirmities for such ends, and those who
>effected this fraudulent "epistle" ought to be very much ashamed of
>themselves.

on 6/29/01 4:56 AM, The Stephens at fr.seraphim@... wrote:

> My letter is to the Metropolitan, not to the uninformed.

Dear Father Seraphim Stephens,

Father, bless.

The twists that you and others are using in "defense to the metropolitan"
are amazing and an incredible manipulation.  Do you intend to defend the
metropolitan by using a forged epistle regardless of content?  I think it is
a far greater cause to defend the metropolitan from those trying to take
advantage of him.

As far as your cheap shot on Father Maximos, he gave your side the respect
of being the first to post the epistle.  He is as informed as any on this
issue.

You left our church and then come back and rail us and insult Bishop
Gabriel, your bishop, and exercise no pastoral restraint in using words such
as "betrayal".  Bishop Gabriel is defending our metropolitan more than
anyone, he is extremely well informed and has not acted alone.  You have
inquired in the past and are also are aware that an ukaz was issued by all
of the bishops including the metropolitan which gives him the authority to
act.  If you intended your words to be only heard by the metropolitan, than
why post it?

If you are offended by my words, please read Fr. Alexander's post which are
very informative.

In Christ, Michael, subdaecon

>> Your Eminence, Metropolitan Vitaly:
>>
>> Glory Be To Jesus Christ!
>>
>> Your Eminence has given us great hope in this great time of struggle for the
>> Holy Truth.  So many of the Bishops seem to be given to the path toward the
>> Moscow Patriarchate.  Some of them have openly said that you did not write
>> the recent Epistle, even though it has your God-Protecting signature upon
>> it.
>>
>> One of these bishops has laid claim to your Archepiscopal Oversight for the
>> Diocese of Eastern America and New York and has denounced your Epistle as a
>> forgery.  Your Eminence, your Holy throne has been usurped by the "pretender
>> council" and its shameless thieves who have lied about their positions in
>> our Holy Church.
>>
>> I have always been under your omophorion, but I was recently informed that I
>> was under the omophorion of bishop gabriel.  I was not under the teaching
>> that he was a "ruling bishop" of any Diocese in our Church and therefore
>> there was no omophorion of his under which anyone could be received.
>>
>> I am loyal and faithful to Your Eminence.  There are many faithful clergy
>> and laity that can no longer tolerate the lies and claims of the usurpers of
>> the TRUTH.  We support Your Eminence in this Holy Struggle for the TRUTH and
>> have been given strength by your courageous stand in the face of betrayal
>> and heresy.
>>
>> Glory be to Jersus Christ for your Holy Apostolic witness in this terrible
>> time of apostacy and betrayal!
>>
>> Sincerely in Christ, your loyal and faithful son of the Church Abroad who is
>> under your omophorion,
>> Fr. Seraphim Stephens
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Gregory A.Ogden" <gsnroc@...>
>> To: <orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 3:05 PM
>> Subject: [orthodox-synod] Letters to Met.Vitaly
>>

If your letter is to the Metropolitan, then it should not appear where all can
see and comment on it.  Posting something here is an invitation to all it seems
to me, to comment and/or criticise.  Surely you realize this.
---  The Stephens <fr.seraphim@...> wrote:
> My letter is to the Metropolitan, not to the uninformed.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Father Maximos" <mga@...>
> To: <orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 2:26 AM
> Subject: Re: [orthodox-synod] Letters to Met.Vitaly
>
>
> > Perhaps Father Seraphim is unaware of the fact that the Synod of
> > Bishops authorized Bishop Gabriel to administer the Eastern Diocese
> > due to the Metropolitan's incapacity.  It is the Council of Bishops
> > which is the supreme authority in our Church, it is the Council which
> > elects bishops and removes or retires them if the need be. To claim
> > that the Coucil "usurped" the throne of the Metropolitan is not only
> > factually incorrect, but impossible. The Council elects the
> > Metropolitan, not the other way around.
> >
> > This whole episode surrounding the forged or otherwise irregular
> > epistle is very sad. Those misguided people who are attempting to use
> > the Metropolitan for their own shallow political ends are causing
> > grave harm to our Church. It is a grave sin to take advantage of our
> > aging First Hiearch's infirmities for such ends, and those who
> > effected this fraudulent "epistle" ought to be very much ashamed of
> > themselves.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >Your Eminence, Metropolitan Vitaly:
> > >
> > >Glory Be To Jesus Christ!
> > >
> > >Your Eminence has given us great hope in this great time of struggle for
> the
> > >Holy Truth.  So many of the Bishops seem to be given to the path toward
> the
> > >Moscow Patriarchate.  Some of them have openly said that you did not
> write
> > >the recent Epistle, even though it has your God-Protecting signature upon
> > >it.
> > >
> > >One of these bishops has laid claim to your Archepiscopal Oversight for
> the
> > >Diocese of Eastern America and New York and has denounced your Epistle as
> a
> > >forgery.  Your Eminence, your Holy throne has been usurped by the
> "pretender
> > >council" and its shameless thieves who have lied about their positions in
> > >our Holy Church.
> > >
> > >I have always been under your omophorion, but I was recently informed
> that I
> > >was under the omophorion of bishop gabriel.  I was not under the teaching
> > >that he was a "ruling bishop" of any Diocese in our Church and therefore
> > >there was no omophorion of his under which anyone could be received.
> > >
> > >I am loyal and faithful to Your Eminence.  There are many faithful clergy
> > >and laity that can no longer tolerate the lies and claims of the usurpers
> of
> > >the TRUTH.  We support Your Eminence in this Holy Struggle for the TRUTH
> and
> > >have been given strength by your courageous stand in the face of betrayal
> > >and heresy.
> > >
> > >Glory be to Jersus Christ for your Holy Apostolic witness in this
> terrible
> > >time of apostacy and betrayal!
> > >
> > >Sincerely in Christ, your loyal and faithful son of the Church Abroad who
> is
> > >under your omophorion,
> > >Fr. Seraphim Stephens
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Gregory A.Ogden" <gsnroc@...>
> > >To: <orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com>
> > >Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 3:05 PM
> > >Subject: [orthodox-synod] Letters to Met.Vitaly
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >>  Dear list,
> > >>
> > >>               We are receiving a steady stream of letters in support of
> > >Met.Vitaly.If you would like to add yours visit HERE now.
> > >>
> > >>                                                          In Christ,
> > >>
> > >>                                                          Gregory A.
> Ogden
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>  ---------------------------------
> > >>  Do You Yahoo!?
> > >>  Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year!
> > >>  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
> > >>
> > >>  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>  Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Rev.Hieromonk Maximos
> > Ascension Monastery
> > Russian Orthodox Church
> > Outside of Russia (ROCOR)
> > 706-277-9442 ( voice)
> > 775-640-2325 ( fax)
> > http://www.monastery.org
> > http://shop.monasteryproducts.org
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> > Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
>
>


=====
Catherine

When  the document suspending the French clergy was issued and signed by V.
Vitaly, Father Lebedeff showed that the important point was not who had
written the text, but that the metropolitan had signed it (see below).---

"In orthodox-synod@y..., "Fr. Alexander Lebedeff" lebedeff@w...> wrote:
regarding the comments of anonymous "commentators" on the Ukaz issued by the
Synod at its last meeting and the comments of the translator, George
Sprukts, I can only say that they are typically stupid comments by lay
people who are totally ignorant how the Church is administered. All this
speculation of whether the Metropolitan could read the 12pt print or not, or
if he signed something unwittingly is sheer nonsense.  The  Metropolitan
participated in the discussions and joined in the decision. He then signed
it when it was typed up. Period."

About Vl Vitaly's last epistle on the contrary, against P. Budzilovich,
Father Lebedeff shows that it is not important whether or not the
metropolitan signed it, but whether he has indeed written it (see below)

"Now, let's get this straight. Mr. Budzilovich says: "it is completely
IMMATERIAL" whether the Metropolitan actually wrote this "Epistle" or not.
Mr. Budzilovich states again: "What matters is not WHO WROTE the Epistle,
but WHO SIGNED it." Well, it makes all the difference in the world. "

In conclusion, authorship is important in documents of type A, and signature
is important in documents of type B.

Vladimir Kozyreff

----- Original Message -----
From: "Fr. Alexander Lebedeff" <lebedeff@...>
To: <ORTHODOX@...>; <orthodox-tradition@yahoogroups.com>;
<orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com>; <rocaclergy@egroups.com>;
<orthodoxjurisdictions@egroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 5:23 PM
Subject: [orthodox-synod] Budzilovich Admits Met. Vitaly did NOT Write the
"Epistle"


> An amazing admission has now appeared on the Budzilovich Web Site (where
> the "Epistle" first appeared. See:
>
> http://www.russia-talk.com/otkliki/ot-97a.htm
>
> In Russian see: http://www.russia-talk.com/otkliki/ot-97.htm
>
> Here it is:
>
> "UPDATE: On June 26, 2001, Bishop Gabriel, Deputy Secretary of the Synod
of
> Bishops, posted at the official Synod web site a "Statement from the
> Chancery of
> the Synod of Bishops" in an attempt to prove that the Epistle presented
> below was not written by the Metropolitan. But this is completely
> IMMATERIAL! It is
> common knowledge that public statements by heads of governments and large
> organizations (including ecclesiastical) are often written by their staff.
> The leaders then go over statements written for them, make corrections,
and
> sign. The FACT that the Metropolitan was unhappy with the decisions of the
> October 2000 ROCOR Council of Bishops was clearly demonstrated by his
> Postsobor Epistle of December 4, 2000 (of which Bishop Gabriel is very
well
> aware). What matters is not WHO WROTE the Epistle, but WHO SIGNED it.
Let's
> note in passing that Bishop Gabriel does not give a link to the latest
> Epistle, although he does say that he read it on the Internet."
>
> ====================
>
> Now, let's get this straight.
>
> Mr. Budzilovich says: "it is completely IMMATERIAL" whether the
> Metropolitan actually wrote this "Epistle" or not.
>
> Mr. Budzilovich states again: "What matters is not WHO WROTE the Epistle,
> but WHO SIGNED it."
>
> Well, it makes all the difference in the world.
>
> Fr. Anatly Trepatchko just finished swearing on the Cross and Gospel that
> the Epistle was "penned personally by Metropolitan Vitaly" over the course
> of several days with "no influence" from anyone.
>
> This turns out to not be the case.
>
> It is certainly a **HUGE** difference whether the frail Metropolitan just
> **signed** a Statement written by someone else or whether he wrote it
> personally.
>
> And Fr. Anatoly, Fr. Andrew Kencis, Deacon Mark Smith, Gregory Ogden and
> others should be now aware that the document they are touting as the "most
> important statement" ever made by Metropolitan Vitaly turns out not to be
> his at all, and that the Statement of Bishop Gabriel from the Chancery of
> the Synod of Bishops and all of the other posters who have noticed grave
> errors casting doubt on the authorship of this document are correct.
>
> May the Lord forgive all who have, wittingly or unwittngly, led others
astray.
>
>
> With love in Christ,
>
> Prot. Alexander Lebedeff
>
>
>
>
> Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

--- In orthodox-synod@y..., Kiril Bart <kirbart@y...> wrote:
> Is it the same name but different spelling, or it's a
> two different names with correspondence to different
> saints?
>                         Subdeacon Kirill, ROCOR

I asked my priest, and he said this:

"Stephan, Stephen, Stefan or Stevan is the same name spelled
differently."

Of course, there are more than one saint with that name.

Dear list,

             All those wishing to send letters of support to Met.Vitaly should do
so as soon as possible,as they will be forwarded to him personally before his
Jubilee celebration.Thank you.

                                         In Christ,

                                         Gregory A. Ogden



St.Vladimir Russian Orthodox Information Center

www.svroic.org



---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year!
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

We are answerable to God for what we say.  And if this is true - and we know
from Holy Scriptures that it is - this is even more the case when it comes to
the words we write and that we publish on the internet.

We have a duty to speak up for the truth as we see it.  But how accurate is
our sight? Ignatii Brianchaninov reminds us that all of us who have not been
illumined are in prelest/deception.  And who of us will claim to be illumined?

It is tragic that in various recent posts professing defense of the truth,
there is so little love.  In its place, one finds a thinly-veiled contempt
and hatred.  And for whom?  - fellow members of Christ's body.

How the devil must laugh at us!

This contempt and hatred is particularly scandalous when mixed with
disobedience.  We priests are not independent shamans.  We serve as delegates
and representatives of our bishop.  Our own authority comes because we are
ourselves under authority - something to reflect on as we read this Sunday's
Gospel.  It seems the pagan centurion understood something we priests can
forget.

We all support Metropolitan Vitaly in loving, filial prayer. But what can we
make of calls "to support him" that are coupled with language about his
brother bishops that borders on the indecent?  "Liars", "usurpers", a
"pretender Council" (one at which Vladika Vitaly presided, no less!),
"shameless thieves"??!

This intemperate language is worthy of a bolshevik agitator, not of a
Christian priest.  The direct result of it is to weaken and even destroy
faith.  We need at least to exercise self-control, if love for our
(perceived) enemies is simply beyond us.

Any priest who is convinced that his bishop is a heretic, can and must break
with him. (Note: not "liar" or even "shameless thief", but heretic. Bishops
go to confession  the same as we do.)  If he breaks for any other reason,
such a priest is subject to severe canonical penalties. Likewise, the priest
who breaks with his bishop must immediately stop serving any divine services
until he is canonically received by an Orthodox bishop.  He cannot simply
declare himself "under the omophorion" of another bishop.

God has not blessed us to live in easy times for the Church - but such times
have been few and far between.  He is, however, watching to see how we acquit
ourselves in the times He has given us.  But while we are spitting and
hurling insults at our bishops and each other, the devil  laughs (and smacks
his lips in anticipation.)

We have a tailor-made remedy: let us really pray "that He may deliver His
people from enemies visible and invisible, and confirm in us oneness of mind,
brotherly love, and piety".


Fr. Michael Carney
St. Herman Orthodox Church
Grand Rapids, Michigan








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:

>In conclusion, authorship is important in documents of type A, and signature
>is important in documents of type B.
>

Polychroni Moniodis wrote regarding my statement:

>> It is certainly a **HUGE** difference whether the frail Metropolitan just
>> **signed** a Statement written by someone else or whether he wrote it
>> personally.
>
>If it's so "**HUGE**" , maybe you can try and tell us what it is?
>
>


No problem.

We have a **conciliar** church--not an autocracy.

If the Metropolitan issues a statement that expresses and is supportive of
the conciliarly expressed opinion or viewpoint of the Church, then it does
not really matter whether he personally authored it or not.

Therefore, the Sorrowful Epistles of Metropolitan Philaret are genuine,
because they were issued with the support of the entire episcopate of the
Church and shared the views of that episcopate.

The same with the Metropolitan signing documents that have been discussed
and approved at Bishops' Council meetings, even though he did not himself
author them--again he is here participating in upholding the conciliarity
of the Church.

Every expression of the Metropolitan in support of, or expressing, the
conciliar stand of the bishops of the Church Abroad has a very positive
effect upon the flock and the unity of the Church.

If, however, a document appears with the signature of the Metropolitan,
that goes **against** the conciliar decisions of the Church, you have a
very different situation. Here, the actual authorship must be determined,
because the Metropolitan, if the statement is truly his own, is doing
something to the detriment of the perception of the oneness of mind of the
bishops of the Church, and thus, it is divisive.

I can testify (I did the photocopying and mailing myself) that Metropolitan
Philaret **always** circulated drafts of his Encyclical Epistles among all
of the bishops of the Church prior to issuing them, and would issue them
only after they had been reviewed and had received the concensus approval
of the entire episcopate.

This is conciliarty in action.

In the current case, there is something terribly wrong.

And an investigation into the circumstances of the production of this
Epistle is absolutely required.

In this type of situation, we **do** have a world of difference and the
determination of the actual authorship of a document, that, on its face,
has the Metropolitan denouncing the conciliar decisions of the Church, and
thus, encouraging rancor and divisiveness, is mandated.

With love in Christ,

Prot. Alexander Lebedeff

--- In orthodox-synod@y..., "Fr. Alexander Lebedeff" <lebedeff@w...>
wrote:
> Polychroni Moniodis wrote regarding my statement:
>
> >> It is certainly a **HUGE** difference whether the frail
> >> Metropolitan just **signed** a Statement written by someone else
> > >> or whether he wrote it personally.
> >
> >If it's so "**HUGE**" , maybe you can try and tell us what it is?
> >
>
> We have a **conciliar** church--not an autocracy.

I'm afraid you have confused the administration of the Church with
her governance.  We *do* have an autocracy--a Christocracy.  (Eph
5:23, Is not "Christ is the head of the Church"?)

It is this same constipated theology which lead to you advance that
heresies are local in nature, constrained to jurisdictional
boundaries, as if Truth were local, not universal.

> If the Metropolitan issues a statement that expresses and is
> supportive of the conciliarly expressed opinion or viewpoint of the
> Church, then it does not really matter whether he personally
> authored it or not.
>
> Therefore, the Sorrowful Epistles of Metropolitan Philaret are
> genuine, because they were issued with the support of the entire
> episcopate of the Church and shared the views of that episcopate.

I'm afraid you have confused "genuine" and "official".  As you have
it, if Metr Philaret would have penned his Sorrowful Epistles without
the support of the synod of bishops, they would not be genuinely
his!  What they wouldn't be is issued under the authroity of the
office, i.e., an official statement of the Synod.

Of course the question of whether they are TRUE or not, well, that's
seems to be too much to broach.

> The same with the Metropolitan signing documents that have been
> discussed and approved at Bishops' Council meetings, even though
> he did not himself author them--again he is here participating in
> upholding the conciliarity of the Church.
>
> Every expression of the Metropolitan in support of, or expressing,
> the conciliar stand of the bishops of the Church Abroad has a very
> positive effect upon the flock and the unity of the Church.

How is that possible if the expression is bad?  This is bad theology
because it supposes that God works through groups and not persons.
Did God become Man or a Council?  Did the Virgin Mary give birth to a
Synod?  Does He work through "group dynamics" or via the human
hypostasis?  Who stands down whom -- the Saint or the Council?  St.
Athanasios stand against many a gathering of bishops? Need I
enumerate others?  Do not Councils only meet to give evidence to
the "faith that was once delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3)-- and
not the other way around?

> If, however, a document appears with the signature of the
> Metropolitan, that goes **against** the conciliar decisions of the
> Church, you have a very different situation. Here, the actual
> authorship must be determined, because the Metropolitan, if the
> statement is truly  his own, is doing something to the detriment
> of the perception of the oneness of mind of the bishops of the
> Church, and thus, it is divisive.

A forgery is forgery -- whatever its position.

> I can testify (I did the photocopying and mailing myself) that
> Metropolitan Philaret **always** circulated drafts of his
> Encyclical Epistles among all of the bishops of the Church prior
> to issuing  them, and would issue them only after they had been
> reviewed and had received the concensus approval of the entire
> episcopate.
>
> This is conciliarty in action.

As well should be done.  But now the rub, what if the majority of
Metr Philaret fellow bishops did *not* concur with him?  Would that
have made his Sorrowful Epistles disingenuine, that is, not genuinely
his?  Would they have now have been false?  I'm afraid that their
truth stands or falls on their own.


> In the current case, there is something terribly wrong.
>
> And an investigation into the circumstances of the production of
> this Epistle is absolutely required.
>
> In this type of situation, we **do** have a world of difference and
> the determination of the actual authorship of a document, that, on
> its face, has the Metropolitan denouncing the conciliar decisions
> of  the Church, and thus, encouraging rancor and divisiveness,
> is mandated.

You may prevail on him to retract it, but you can never retract the
truth therein.


In Christ's love,

Polychroni

Why then were the clergy of the Southern Deanery told in November by Bp.
Gabriel that the "Sorrowful Epistles" were not "official" and were the
"personal opinions" of Metropolitan Philaret?
Fr. Seraphim Stephens
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fr. Alexander Lebedeff" <lebedeff@...>
To: <orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com>; <ORTHODOX@...>
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 2:02 PM
Subject: Re: [orthodox-synod] Budzilovich Admits Met. Vitaly did NOT Write
the "Epistle"


> Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:
>
> >In conclusion, authorship is important in documents of type A, and
signature
> >is important in documents of type B.
> >
>
> Polychroni Moniodis wrote regarding my statement:
>
> >> It is certainly a **HUGE** difference whether the frail Metropolitan
just
> >> **signed** a Statement written by someone else or whether he wrote it
> >> personally.
> >
> >If it's so "**HUGE**" , maybe you can try and tell us what it is?
> >
> >
>
>
> No problem.
>
> We have a **conciliar** church--not an autocracy.
>
> If the Metropolitan issues a statement that expresses and is supportive of
> the conciliarly expressed opinion or viewpoint of the Church, then it does
> not really matter whether he personally authored it or not.
>
> Therefore, the Sorrowful Epistles of Metropolitan Philaret are genuine,
> because they were issued with the support of the entire episcopate of the
> Church and shared the views of that episcopate.
>
> The same with the Metropolitan signing documents that have been discussed
> and approved at Bishops' Council meetings, even though he did not himself
> author them--again he is here participating in upholding the conciliarity
> of the Church.
>
> Every expression of the Metropolitan in support of, or expressing, the
> conciliar stand of the bishops of the Church Abroad has a very positive
> effect upon the flock and the unity of the Church.
>
> If, however, a document appears with the signature of the Metropolitan,
> that goes **against** the conciliar decisions of the Church, you have a
> very different situation. Here, the actual authorship must be determined,
> because the Metropolitan, if the statement is truly his own, is doing
> something to the detriment of the perception of the oneness of mind of the
> bishops of the Church, and thus, it is divisive.
>
> I can testify (I did the photocopying and mailing myself) that
Metropolitan
> Philaret **always** circulated drafts of his Encyclical Epistles among all
> of the bishops of the Church prior to issuing them, and would issue them
> only after they had been reviewed and had received the concensus approval
> of the entire episcopate.
>
> This is conciliarty in action.
>
> In the current case, there is something terribly wrong.
>
> And an investigation into the circumstances of the production of this
> Epistle is absolutely required.
>
> In this type of situation, we **do** have a world of difference and the
> determination of the actual authorship of a document, that, on its face,
> has the Metropolitan denouncing the conciliar decisions of the Church, and
> thus, encouraging rancor and divisiveness, is mandated.
>
> With love in Christ,
>
> Prot. Alexander Lebedeff
>
>
>
> Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Fathers and brothers and sisters:

We would do well to remember as we celebrate the memory of our
beloved Vladyka John that, faced with a potential rift within the
body of Christ, one saint stepped aside to deliver the chief
pastorship of our church into the hands of another, all but unknown.

We are in dark and dangerous days, and even those who may be "right"
(does anyone dare claim that?) are in grave danger of becoming tools
of the Evil One.

We would be wiser to keep a circumspect silence, remembering the
example of Our Lord and so many of His saints, and listen (a very
difficult thing to do while making a lot of noise) for the voice of
the Holy Spirit.  He has never failed the Church, and will not do so
now.

I do not pretend to know what is THE RIGHT course.  But it is not
very difficult to discern a lot of wrong ones, even amongst those
with whom I am most strongly inclined to agree.

Righteousness never promotes schism, or speaks with hatred or contempt.

By the example of our beloved Vladyka John, let us be instructed.
--
--Fr. Gregory Williams

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
1180 Orthodox Way
Liberty, TN 37095-4366 USA

Phone:  (615) 536-5239
FAX: (615) 536-5945
E-mail: frgregory@...

My thanks to all who responded, both privately and on the list, to my questions
on this issue of icons and the associated greek words and passages in
Revelation. It all helped immensely. In fact, I was away on business this past
week, and strangely enough, from my meetings, was able to comprehend this issue
in a new way. I was at an enormous gathering of management people, of varying
levels. Some are my current "bosses" and some were so in previous situations.
Many were my equals in position and authority. Many I had not seen in a long
time. I found myself nodding in respect to many, hugging with affection alot,
shaking hands, speaking to others highly of some, and even when I saw a past
respected mentor and superior from across the room, doing a slight "bow" to
acknowledge him, since I couldn't get to him. Some I am so close to that I would
have kissed their cheek or hand if such a thing were appropriate in the business
world, such was my respect and "love" for them. It was odd, because when I
caught myself doing these things almost unconsciously, I thought about this
whole icon and saints issue. I see it in a whole new "family" atmosphere, and it
seems totally right. I also understand now that there are different meanings to
the words in greek, just like there are for say, the english word justification,
in different settings. So I see now what the angel in Revelation was forbidding
is not the same thing Orthodox do with icons. I also made a comment about not
accepting anything a Council would say if it were against scripture. I stand by
that of course, but I see now that it is impossible for an Ecumenical Council to
speak contrary to scripture or holy Tradition, the Holy Spirit guiding into all
truth, so it is a moot point. Sorry to ramble so long, but it was very exciting
and important to me. My thanks again. Mark

Glory to God who reveals the truth to those who seek it.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.262 / Virus Database: 132 - Release Date: 6/12/01


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

May God grant you many years and may all our lessons be so merciful.  Yes,
it is truely great how our Faith and life are one and the lessons we can
find if we are open.  Thank you for sharing this.

Theodora in the mountains

Dear Father Michael,

Thank you for teaching us lessons. We need them.

Let me however advise you that, I never felt so much hatred than in those
who supported bishop Ambrose. I could not see any in those who felt they had
to disobey the bishop. I could produce for you a list of the insults that
have been thrown by the legitimists, they surpass far those that you
mention. When I implored the insulters to show more love to those whom they
should consider as wandering flock, they persisted. They said that they were
shepards throwing stones at wolves that were threatening the flock.

How can you ignore the fact that it is precisely because they perceived that
the bishop was communing with heretics (which is equivalent to being a
heretic) that the dissenters felt they had to break with him?

Nobody ever among the dissenters, disputed the fact that under normal
circumstances, the bishop should be obeyed. So please let us not dwell any
longer on this matter.

The question is that the circumstances are not normal. Anything should be
done to defend the purity of the faith, especially in our days. The bishop
said that the only obstacle remaining between us and the Moscow Patriarchate
is psychological. That is the heresies do not count. The bishop is suspected
of heresy. None of those who claim the suspicion is unsubstanciated never
bothered to refute it. The Synod kept silent except for threats and
suspensions. No judgement was ever granted.

The information among the believers is so poor that the lay people who
support the bishop say "the accusations have been disproven", but they are
totally ignorant as to how, when and in which document by whom.

I am convinced that the way out is in Metropolitan Vitaly's last epistle.
The devil hates it and shows it. I think I can see his style, orthography,
signature and authorship in many of the reactions that we see now.

In God,

Vladimir Kozyreff


----- Original Message -----
From: <frmichaelc@...>
To: <orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com>; <Anatolitis@...>
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 8:01 PM
Subject: [orthodox-synod] We are answerable


> We are answerable to God for what we say.  And if this is true - and we
know
> from Holy Scriptures that it is - this is even more the case when it comes
to
> the words we write and that we publish on the internet.
>
> We have a duty to speak up for the truth as we see it.  But how accurate
is
> our sight? Ignatii Brianchaninov reminds us that all of us who have not
been
> illumined are in prelest/deception.  And who of us will claim to be
illumined?
>
> It is tragic that in various recent posts professing defense of the truth,
> there is so little love.  In its place, one finds a thinly-veiled contempt
> and hatred.  And for whom?  - fellow members of Christ's body.
>
> How the devil must laugh at us!
>
> This contempt and hatred is particularly scandalous when mixed with
> disobedience.  We priests are not independent shamans.  We serve as
delegates
> and representatives of our bishop.  Our own authority comes because we are
> ourselves under authority - something to reflect on as we read this
Sunday's
> Gospel.  It seems the pagan centurion understood something we priests can
> forget.
>
> We all support Metropolitan Vitaly in loving, filial prayer. But what can
we
> make of calls "to support him" that are coupled with language about his
> brother bishops that borders on the indecent?  "Liars", "usurpers", a
> "pretender Council" (one at which Vladika Vitaly presided, no less!),
> "shameless thieves"??!
>
> This intemperate language is worthy of a bolshevik agitator, not of a
> Christian priest.  The direct result of it is to weaken and even destroy
> faith.  We need at least to exercise self-control, if love for our
> (perceived) enemies is simply beyond us.
>
> Any priest who is convinced that his bishop is a heretic, can and must
break
> with him. (Note: not "liar" or even "shameless thief", but heretic.
Bishops
> go to confession  the same as we do.)  If he breaks for any other reason,
> such a priest is subject to severe canonical penalties. Likewise, the
priest
> who breaks with his bishop must immediately stop serving any divine
services
> until he is canonically received by an Orthodox bishop.  He cannot simply
> declare himself "under the omophorion" of another bishop.
>
> God has not blessed us to live in easy times for the Church - but such
times
> have been few and far between.  He is, however, watching to see how we
acquit
> ourselves in the times He has given us.  But while we are spitting and
> hurling insults at our bishops and each other, the devil  laughs (and
smacks
> his lips in anticipation.)
>
> We have a tailor-made remedy: let us really pray "that He may deliver His
> people from enemies visible and invisible, and confirm in us oneness of
mind,
> brotherly love, and piety".
>
>
> Fr. Michael Carney
> St. Herman Orthodox Church
> Grand Rapids, Michigan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

How about the terms that were FIRST thrown by the "legitimists" like:
RENEGADE CLERGY; MIND-NUMB EXTREMISTS; LACKING PASTORAL RESPONSIBILITY; OUT
OF THE CANONICAL ORDER OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH; LEADERS OF THE
REBELLION; DISOBEDIENT; HE STOLE THE CROSS HE HAS AROUND HIS NECK; HE BURNED
THE CHURCH DOWN TO HIDE THE EVIDENCE; FAKE ACCENT; FAKE TEARS! MORE ZEALOUS
THAN KNOWLEDGEABLE; SCHISMATICS! If there had been proper pastoral
responsibility from those  with "oversight", shouldn't these "legitimists"
have been corrected--but NO--only those who have been supportive of Vladyka
Varnava, the French Clergy, those who signed the Canadian Appeal, those who
signed the various  OPEN LETTER'S --only they have gotten "called in " for
correction or received "letters of accusation and correction".  This is
quite a "one-sided" affair when it comes down to correcting folks.  AND, the
original requests from "those being disciplined" was that they be allowed to
participate in SOBORNOST! The "legitimists" can call it whatever they
want--the TRUTH is,  those troubled by the October 2000 Epistle and
supportive of the present Epistle Of the Metropolitan Vitaly, are being
dismissed as FANATICS WITH POLITICAL AGENDAS!

Maybe if the constant barrage of "punitive corrections" would come to a
halt, those who are being so wounded by this strife would have a chance to
be heard.  BUT, whenever we speak up--regardless of the "tone", BRICKS are
thrown at us as THE WOLVES WHO ARE GOING AFTER THE SHEEP!  People are not
free to ever make a mistake in judgement, go to Confession, receive
forgiveness--only to have their acknowledged former sins thrown in their
faces chiding that they have no right to speak out because of their past
sins--I might remind such detractors of the Lord's words "He that is without
sin among you, let him first cast a stone...(John 8:7)".

We've also been accused of "conflicting statements" and
inconsistencies--BUT, howabout the "Sorrowful Epistles"? The "legitimists"
are saying on the one hand that they are "official Epistles" and then on the
other hand saying they are not "official" but were merely the "personal
opinions" of Metropolitan Philaret of Blessed Memory. When those supportive
of the present Epistle of Metropolitan Vitaly refer to the "Sorrowful
Epistles" for documentation of the long-held "official" positions of the
Church Abroad--POOF! They vanish from "official" and are reincarnated as
"unofficial personal opinions".

AND NOW--we receive an Epistle from Metroplitan Vitaly that requests that it
be read from the amvon and distributed to the faithful--ONLY TO BE COUNTERED
with a "recommendation" from Bishop Gabriel that we disobey the
Metropolitan.  Inconsistencies seem to abound--Is anyone confused by all of
this?

Fr. Seraphim Stephens

----- Original Message -----
From: "Vladimir Kozyreff" <vladimir.kozyreff@...>
To: <orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com>
Cc: <Irene.GOOSSENS@...>
Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2001 7:35 AM
Subject: Re: [orthodox-synod] We are answerable


> Dear Father Michael,
>
> Thank you for teaching us lessons. We need them.
>
> Let me however advise you that, I never felt so much hatred than in those
> who supported bishop Ambrose. I could not see any in those who felt they
had
> to disobey the bishop. I could produce for you a list of the insults that
> have been thrown by the legitimists, they surpass far those that you
> mention. When I implored the insulters to show more love to those whom
they
> should consider as wandering flock, they persisted. They said that they
were
> shepards throwing stones at wolves that were threatening the flock.
>
> How can you ignore the fact that it is precisely because they perceived
that
> the bishop was communing with heretics (which is equivalent to being a
> heretic) that the dissenters felt they had to break with him?
>
> Nobody ever among the dissenters, disputed the fact that under normal
> circumstances, the bishop should be obeyed. So please let us not dwell any
> longer on this matter.
>
> The question is that the circumstances are not normal. Anything should be
> done to defend the purity of the faith, especially in our days. The bishop
> said that the only obstacle remaining between us and the Moscow
Patriarchate
> is psychological. That is the heresies do not count. The bishop is
suspected
> of heresy. None of those who claim the suspicion is unsubstanciated never
> bothered to refute it. The Synod kept silent except for threats and
> suspensions. No judgement was ever granted.
>
> The information among the believers is so poor that the lay people who
> support the bishop say "the accusations have been disproven", but they are
> totally ignorant as to how, when and in which document by whom.
>
> I am convinced that the way out is in Metropolitan Vitaly's last epistle.
> The devil hates it and shows it. I think I can see his style, orthography,
> signature and authorship in many of the reactions that we see now.
>
> In God,
>
> Vladimir Kozyreff
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <frmichaelc@...>
> To: <orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com>; <Anatolitis@...>
> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 8:01 PM
> Subject: [orthodox-synod] We are answerable
>
>
> > We are answerable to God for what we say.  And if this is true - and we
> know
> > from Holy Scriptures that it is - this is even more the case when it
comes
> to
> > the words we write and that we publish on the internet.
> >
> > We have a duty to speak up for the truth as we see it.  But how accurate
> is
> > our sight? Ignatii Brianchaninov reminds us that all of us who have not
> been
> > illumined are in prelest/deception.  And who of us will claim to be
> illumined?
> >
> > It is tragic that in various recent posts professing defense of the
truth,
> > there is so little love.  In its place, one finds a thinly-veiled
contempt
> > and hatred.  And for whom?  - fellow members of Christ's body.
> >
> > How the devil must laugh at us!
> >
> > This contempt and hatred is particularly scandalous when mixed with
> > disobedience.  We priests are not independent shamans.  We serve as
> delegates
> > and representatives of our bishop.  Our own authority comes because we
are
> > ourselves under authority - something to reflect on as we read this
> Sunday's
> > Gospel.  It seems the pagan centurion understood something we priests
can
> > forget.
> >
> > We all support Metropolitan Vitaly in loving, filial prayer. But what
can
> we
> > make of calls "to support him" that are coupled with language about his
> > brother bishops that borders on the indecent?  "Liars", "usurpers", a
> > "pretender Council" (one at which Vladika Vitaly presided, no less!),
> > "shameless thieves"??!
> >
> > This intemperate language is worthy of a bolshevik agitator, not of a
> > Christian priest.  The direct result of it is to weaken and even destroy
> > faith.  We need at least to exercise self-control, if love for our
> > (perceived) enemies is simply beyond us.
> >
> > Any priest who is convinced that his bishop is a heretic, can and must
> break
> > with him. (Note: not "liar" or even "shameless thief", but heretic.
> Bishops
> > go to confession  the same as we do.)  If he breaks for any other
reason,
> > such a priest is subject to severe canonical penalties. Likewise, the
> priest
> > who breaks with his bishop must immediately stop serving any divine
> services
> > until he is canonically received by an Orthodox bishop.  He cannot
simply
> > declare himself "under the omophorion" of another bishop.
> >
> > God has not blessed us to live in easy times for the Church - but such
> times
> > have been few and far between.  He is, however, watching to see how we
> acquit
> > ourselves in the times He has given us.  But while we are spitting and
> > hurling insults at our bishops and each other, the devil  laughs (and
> smacks
> > his lips in anticipation.)
> >
> > We have a tailor-made remedy: let us really pray "that He may deliver
His
> > people from enemies visible and invisible, and confirm in us oneness of
> mind,
> > brotherly love, and piety".
> >
> >
> > Fr. Michael Carney
> > St. Herman Orthodox Church
> > Grand Rapids, Michigan
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> > Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Thank you Fr. Michael.

What ever happened to "stiajaniye sviatago duha", i.e. the acquisition of the
Holy  Spirit  (I hope my translation is on the mark)?

Just think if  the tremendous amount of time and energy we expend to judge
and condemn was used for good works instead -- a kind smile, a helping hand.

This past Great Lent, to help keep check on ourselves, my family established
a fine of $1.00 whenever one of us would start to judge another.  The dollar
would go into a glass jar and the "proceeds" subsequently donated to charity.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]