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

5994Re: Rename the List?

Expand Messages
  • stefanvpavlenko
    Jun 27, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      >>>>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 that
      the 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
      truth.

      Archpriest Stefan Pavlenko



      --- In orthodox-synod@y..., "vkozyreff" <vladimir.kozyreff@s...>
      wrote:
      > Dear List,
      >
      > Why does Rev David Straut write that "The clergymen in Europe were
      > suspended by the Synod of Bishops for disobedience and the refusal
      to
      > commemorate their Diocesan Hierarch."? Why does he not ask himself
      > why all of a sudden, 12 senior and respected clerics, refused to
      > commemorate this bishop? What allows him to suggest that they
      refused
      > to commemorate that bishop "because they did not like him"?
      >
      > 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
      Ecumenical
      > Council (6) : "But if persons who are neither heretics, nor
      > excommunicated, who did not suffer condemnation and are not under
      the
      > accusation, believe they have reasons to complain about the bishop
      > 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
      these
      > 12 clerics, before any judgement; in particular, this complaint was
      > 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
      the
      > Synod of
      > > Bishops of the ROCOR. The clergymen in Europe were suspended by
      > the Synod
      > > of Bishops for disobedience and the refusal to commemorate their
      > Diocesan
      > > Hierarch. Even if I did not like my Bishop, and disagreed with
      him
      > on
      > > matters of principle, I am not at liberty to not commemorate
      him.
      > As a
      > > priest, I cannot even serve without the permission of my
      Hierarch.
      > Every
      > > 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
    • Show all 14 messages in this topic