You write: "So, anybody "leaving" ROCOR under the pretence of
changing relations with the MP did so rashly, passionately,
improperly, un canonically and incorrectly".
VK: The clergy of France did not do it improperly. They introduced a
perfectly correct canonical complaint. They promised in advance,
according to the canon law, to abide by the verdict of the Synod,
provided only the Synod would consider the matter.
As a consequence, hey were quickly suspended and then defrocked,
without hearing. This is a fact, independent of the opinion that one
may have on the outcome of the judgement of Vl. Ambrose.
Conversely, the Sobor who, in violation of the Holy
canons, "suspended and defrocked" the clergy of France, by virtue of
the Holy Canons themselves, is subject to the the very punishment
unjustly inflicted : is it is suspended and defrocked.
You write: "In my view, that is exactly what is happening now:
questions are being EXAMINED. The questions are hard. Why anyone
thinks they will be quickly resolved, I can't understand. Vl.
Hilarion said it will take years, maybe decades...
The problem is that, before even having "the hard questions
examined", we proclaim the grace, we exchange the kiss ..."
VK: It is not even possible anymore to examine anything, since the
first hand testimonies (the clergy suspended and defrocked) are no
more there to testify.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org
, "boulia_1" <eledkovsky@h...>
> --- In email@example.com, michael nikitin
> <nikitinmike@y...> wrote:
> > > The MP calls us schismatics, a sect and steals our parishes.
> > the real provocateurs. They are the ones who helped cause the
> recent schism
> > within ROCOR. Elizabeth doesn't see that?
> I don't recall making any public comments recently about the MP-
> question, so I am puzzled as to why what I "see" with regard to the
> MP is questioned. Just because I disagreed with your line of
> in a recent thread with Fr.John Shaw, Michael, doesn't mean I
> automatically diasgree with one party on everything or agree with
> someone else about EVERYTHING.
> >Yet our Bishops go running
> > to the Patriarch to kiss his hand.
> I would hardly call this delegation, happening some half a year
> an invitation was extended, "running".
> >Why not show the same brotherly love
> > to those who left because of imminent union with MP?
> This statement in itself succinctly captures the hypocrisy and
> of the schismatics. Who says that 'union' with the MP
> is 'imminent'?? It doesn't seem so to me.
> I could, MAYBE (maybe not, I'm not promising anything!), understand
> some division within ROCOR's "faithful" AFTER THE FACT of a
> if some staunch MP opponents simply could never live with being
> the MP and, in fact, a "union" in which ROCOR ceased to exist
> independently were to occur. But.... hello?... THAT HASN'T
> HAPPENED!! And it is highly doubtful that it WILL happen: all
> statements I've seen have indicated a desire for ROCOR to remain
> autonomous. So, anybody "leaving" ROCOR under the pretense of
> changing relations with the MP did so rashly, passionately,
> improperly, uncanonically and incorrectly. or is simply LYING
> it, as a cover for other reasons for leaving (such as: they just
> can't live within the Church's rules (can't stand the heat, get out
> of the kitchen), or they want to retain ownership of ROCOR real
> estate... for example...)
> I believe that the schisms (especially the Mansonville travesty)
> have caused GREAT HEARTACHE to Met. Laurus and to many clergymen,
> who have consistently begged for reason and propriety. I submit
> the really sincere "leavers" should show both some humilty and some
> brotherly love of their own, and should come back, beg for
> forgiveness, and stand by the Metropolitan and pray together with
> for him as he leads the church through a challenging but necessary
> >The French have
> > asked for dialogue only to get shunned. Does Elizabeth care?
> Yes, since you asked, I care, and have said so in the past!
> from my point of view, the French were given a chance to be heard
> recklessly and disobediently spat upon that chance. Others who
> to these public lists (M. Nikitin, V. Kozyreff, I. Pahlen,
> V.Grigorieva all come to mind) see this matter entirely
> I acknowledge. And I think we will never agree about it at this
> point, and must now agree to disagree on our view of what happened
> then. It is more important now to think about what should and could
> happen now to fix it.
> >Or are we
> > to be staunch against ROAC, HOCNA and ROCOR(V) but not MP?
> > Where is the Love that everyone talks about?
> There is no ROCOR (V)-- if you must, call them ROCIE, but they
> not exist and their abuse of the senile Metropolitan Vitaly's name
> a disgrace. It is hard to love them for that.
> > The enemies of ROCOR are those who push for union
> > with MP with disregard to the faithful and cause schisms.
> If you take the first and last words of this sentence, see how true
> it is: "The enemies of ROCOR cause schisms"
> I am sure that there are people in MP who rejoice at every
> away of the ROCOR base. Others laugh at it and mock it: a bunch of
> crazies, they think. All those who are staunch against MP and yet
> abandon and abuse ROCOR and her hierarchs and clergy just as she is
> facing the MP are hypocrites!
> Look, for the record, I am not blindly "pro-MP". I live in Germany
> where the MP has a strong and aggressively growing presence. A lot
> what I observe first-hand, smells BAD: an Archbishop who chats with
> foreign guests during Divine Liturgy, and attends a Friday night
> beach barbecue during a Fast, wearing Chinos and a sport
> shirt; "deloviy" (business-oriented, not flock-oriented) priests; a
> priest in Vienna who, one Bright Monday, responded to "Hristos
> Voskrese" with "Ya slishal" ("I heard"); funeral services
> (otpivaniyii) that last 20 minutes, from the first trisagion to
> lowering the coffin into the grave, all the faster to collect the
> remuneration... ... ... I could go on and on.
> And yet, the churches are full. The people are spiritually hungry.
> have a duty to share what we preserved. Many young priests (and
> older ones, I am sure, who struggled through unbelievable
> under communism) are earnest and love God. We cannot stand still
> time. The questions must be examined.
> In my view, that is exactly what is happening now: questions are
> being EXAMINED. The questions are hard. Why anyone thinks they
> be quickly resolved, I can't understand. Vl. Hilarion said it will
> take years, maybe decades....
> > Metr.Laurus stated the MP must leave ecumenism before any union
> > can be forthcoming, but partaking of Mysteries is allowed before
> they leave?
> > Shouldn't we not have any participation in Mysteries before the
> > ecumenism? My feeling is ROCOR(L) will keep on having communion
> with MP
> > regardless of MP's affiliation with ecumenism.
> > Michael N
> > boulia_1 <eledkovsky@h...> wrote: This thread is getting absurd!
> First of all, I thought this list did
> > not permit representations of third parties. If this Father
> > cares so much about this issue ("emphatically denies...."), let
> > get on-line, join this group, and speak for himself. Otherwise, I
> > wish mr. Nikitn would pleas drop it already.
> > Secondly, good for Fr. John for being staunch in his position
> > HOCNA. On a list of ROCOR "members and friends" this is as it
> > be. They are a source of embarrassment in the ROCOR's history and
> > some of their followers seem to continue to be provocateurs of
> > needless problems and schism.
> > Lord have mercy on us all.
> > Elizabeth
> > ---------------------------------
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Movies - Buy advance tickets for 'Shrek 2'
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]