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

6014Re: Rename the List?

Expand Messages
  • rdrjohn2000
    Jul 11, 2002
      Respectfully Fr. Stefan, your comments below do not pass the common
      sense test.

      You wrote:
      >Also one could assume that the Council of Bishops found the
      > original accusations to be unfounded or frivolous and saw no need
      >to pursue the case.

      Twelve clergymen refusing to commemorate a bishop and risking
      deposition can hardly be described as frivolous. I would think that
      NORMALLY any synod would take the charges of twelve priests and
      deacons seriously and investigate the matter.

      Some people are saying that in the old ROCOR we had great
      spriituality in spite of poor administration. Now some are saying we
      have great administration but no sprituality (much like the MP and
      the OCA!).

      Some questions for you:

      1. Did Bp. Amvrosie really state the accusations against him
      were "not receivable?"

      2. What does that mean?

      3. What were the charges by the French clergy anyway?

      I have great respect for you and Fr. George Larin (whose recovery I
      pray will be complete) but this event does not look like it was
      handled with love, charity and respect. We should leave heavy
      handedness to the MP. They are good at that sort of thing.

      In Christ,

      Rdr John

      --- In orthodox-synod@y..., "stefanvpavlenko" <StefanVPavlenko@n...>
      wrote:
      > I am not a privileged member of the Synod of Bishops so I do not
      know
      > why there was no trial. But simple logic would dictate that since
      all
      > the accusers entered into schism, there was no one to "cast the
      first
      > stone!" Also one could assume that the Council of Bishops found the
      > original accusations to be unfounded or frivolous and saw no need
      to
      > pursue the case.
      > Archpriest Stefan Pavlenko
      >
      >
      > --- In orthodox-synod@y..., Kiril Bart <kirbart@y...> wrote:
      > > Fr.Stefan, so what didn't let him to be tryied? Non
      > > commemoration of him by some clergy? It doesn't sound
      > > very solid.
      > > Subdeacon Kirill
      > > --- stefanvpavlenko <StefanVPavlenko@n...>
      > > wrote:
      > > > >>>>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
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      > >
      > > __________________________________________________
      > > Do You Yahoo!?
      > > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
      > > http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
    • Show all 14 messages in this topic