Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

18908Re: [orthodox-synod] Re: Does "Canonical Release" Equal Recognition?

Expand Messages
  • michael nikitin
    Jan 4, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      This is not so. Under the tenure of Holy Metr. Philaret
      priests were not normally defrocked. The reason they weren't was
      because if priests wanted to come back there would not be a
      problem, just a repentance. Also, what is the sense of defrocking
      those who left the Church? To get back at the person?

      Could Fr.John please write us what priests were defrocked under
      Holy Metr. Philaret...my memory seems to fail me.

      The canonical transfers between the Greek Archdiocese and OCA,
      although the OCA autocephaly is not recognized by them, occur
      because these are administrative concerns, not because of any
      heresy. The two churches are exactly the same.

      We'll see how lenient Metr. Laurus will be when those who follow
      our New Russian Martyrs refuse to join the MP.

      Michael N

      --- "Fr. John R. Shaw" <vrevjrs@...> wrote:

      > --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. Anthony Nelson"
      > <fr.anthony@...> wrote:
      > > Which is problematic, I think, in this case...
      > JRS: The real problem was this:
      > When no canonical transfers were being given, a number of
      > priests, who had left without a
      > release, were suspended and then defrocked (especially in the
      > time of Fr. George/Bishop
      > Gregory Grabbe).
      > Then later, some reconsidered, and would have come back to
      > ROCOR; but they felt they
      > could not come back as priests.
      > After 1992, on the model of the Serbian Church, there have been
      > cases where previously deposed clerics were reinstated.
      > This year, the Moscow Patriarchate also followed that model in
      > one case.
      > But "defrocking and then restoring" could undermine church
      > discipline, in the eyes of some.
      > Metropolitan Laurus has been more lenient with canonical
      > releases, and has given
      > transfers even in some cases where a priest had already left
      > wilfully.
      > Thus for example, one priest had sought reception in the
      > Bulgarian Church without saying
      > a word to his diocesan ROCOR bishop.
      > But the Bulgarian bishop contacted Metropolitan Laurus about
      > this before taking any
      > action: and a canonical transfer was granted by ROCOR.
      > It is certainly true that many of the Greek Old Calendar
      > jurisdictions have been making
      > false claims (often at odds with one another)!
      > However, if Bishop Christodoulos taught that his hierarchy was
      > "the only remaining
      > Orthodox Church", he would hardly have bragged about the
      > canonical release from
      > ROCOR!
      > In Christ
      > Fr. John R. Shaw

      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
    • Show all 33 messages in this topic