6031Re: [orthodox-synod] Re: Rename the List?
- Jul 15, 2002
>Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:Thank you for stating this so clearly.
>I am a simple believer. I know in part at least the content of the
>accusation. Many do. The accusation concerns apparent repeated cases
>of communion with heretics.
>The accusations seem to be serious to many who know them. If the
>Synod believes the accusations are unfounded, should it not explain
>why it is so to the believers? We are all ready to listen and we all
>beg our pastors to respond. Why this silence? We need the conclusion
>of the judgement, not to condemn priests, but to show to us,
>believers, why their position is erroneous.
>I think that even those who did not separate from the Synod should
>know why those disturbing repeated cases of apparent communion with
>heretics are considered as insignificant.
This makes the answer so simple as to be obvious to anyone.
The reason that the Synod of the Church Abroad would not consider as valid
any accusations made against a bishop or other clergyman of the ROCOR for
serving with Serbians or New Calendarists based on the premise that they
are heretics--is simply because the Synod of the Church Abroad does not
consider the Serbians or New Calendarists to be heretics, and never has.
The premise is false, so the accusation has no merit and must be dismissed.
See the following Statement by Metropolitan Vitaly, back in 1986, when
there were no doubts about his being subject to undue influence because of
"At the present time the majority of Local Orthodox Churches are wounded by
two terrible blows: the new calendar and ecumenism. However,
notwithstanding their calamitous predicament we dare not, and may the Lord
forbid us from doing so, declare them void of God's grace (emphasis
supplied)." (Nativity Epistle of Metropolitan Vitaly, Church Life, 1986,
#11-12, p. 199)
Now, that is the historical position of the Church Abroad.
With love in Christ,
Prot. Alexander Lebedeff
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>