5994Re: Rename the List?
- Jun 27, 2002
>>>>3. The clerics declared they were ready to commemorate the bishop,Until the hearing would take place. The Synod refused.<<<<
Father George Larin and my sinful person pleaded with the clerics to
commemorate the appointed ruling Bishop and >>>they<<< refused.
NOT AS STATED IN YOUR POINT #3!
>>>>2. The accused bishop - and only him - publicly proclaimed thatthe accusation against him was "not receivable".
When we met with the clergy one of the points we made was that they
were to commemorate the appointed ruling Bishop and he would be
submiting to a church investigation and trial. They refused.
Bishop Ambrose wanted and was willing to be tried by the
Ecclesiastical Court, any contrary information is a distortion of the
Archpriest Stefan Pavlenko
--- In orthodox-synod@y..., "vkozyreff" <vladimir.kozyreff@s...>
> Dear List,to
> Why does Rev David Straut write that "The clergymen in Europe were
> suspended by the Synod of Bishops for disobedience and the refusal
> commemorate their Diocesan Hierarch."? Why does he not ask himselfrefused
> why all of a sudden, 12 senior and respected clerics, refused to
> commemorate this bishop? What allows him to suggest that they
> to commemorate that bishop "because they did not like him"?Ecumenical
> The 12 clerics addressed an official, canonical complaint to the
> Synod, before the nomination of the bishop.
> In doing so they were encouraged by apostolic canon 74 : "A bishop
> accused of whatever guilt by credible people who are faithful shall
> necessarily be summoned by the bishops ..." and by the 2nd
> Council (6) : "But if persons who are neither heretics, northe
> excommunicated, who did not suffer condemnation and are not under
> accusation, believe they have reasons to complain about the bishopthese
> with respect to church matters, the saint council orders them to
> submit such complaints to the judgement of the gathered bishops of
> the province and to prove the accusations made ; and if the
> provincial bishops are unable to remedy the fault of that bishop,
> then the plaintiffs will address the ampler council of the diocese,
> which will gather and judge that matter".
> What followed ?
> 1. Individual and collective threats were made against each of
> 12 clerics, before any judgement; in particular, this complaint wasthe
> qualified as "revolt" before any judgement.
> 2. The accused bishop - and only him - publicly proclaimed that the
> accusation against him was "not receivable".
> 3. The clerics declared they were ready to commemorate the bishop,
> until the hearing would take place. The Synod refused.
> 4. The 12 clerics were suspended without judgement.
> 5. The clerics were summoned in another diocese, with a very short
> notice, at a gathering where not all the members of the Synod were
> present (but where non-synodal bishops where present) "in order to
> debate about their future".
> 6. The clerics, together with their bishop, were "defrocked", again
> without hearing.
> These was "Every effort was made to reach out".
> Father David, "Don't you fear God, since you [may] fall under the
> same sentence?" (Luke 23:40). "Does our law condemn anyone without
> first hearing him to find out what he is doing ?"(John 7, 52).
> In God,
> Vladimir Kozyreff
> > Dear List,
> > I cannot understand how this point of view is one of loyalty to
> Synod ofhim
> > Bishops of the ROCOR. The clergymen in Europe were suspended by
> the Synod
> > of Bishops for disobedience and the refusal to commemorate their
> > Hierarch. Even if I did not like my Bishop, and disagreed with
> > matters of principle, I am not at liberty to not commemorate
> As aHierarch.
> > priest, I cannot even serve without the permission of my
> > effort was made by our Synod of Bishops to reach out to these
> Clergy and
> > they refused to be obedient.
> > Is this really a List for those loyal to the ROCOR, or is a List
> for ROCiE
> > partisans and sympathizers?
> > Just wondering....
> > Priest David Straut
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>