6549Re: [orthodox-synod] Naming names
- Oct 3, 2002I understand why you you didn't put his name on, just
because behavior of the priest, who choose to become
an example to his parisheners in eating chicken on
Friday, despite presence of fish, or even I would
assume vegetables, would be scandalous for Orthodox
Sinful, subdeacon Kirill
--- Hristofor <hristofor@...> wrote:
> At 08:51 AM 10/3/2002, you wrote:just
> >Seeing as how the accusation of murder has
> been made,accuser
> >I say that it is certainly binding on the
> to check her factsago"
> >and take this immediately to the hierarchical
> authorities - not to
> >a public list. As this took place "long
> before there was acase
> >schism, what relevance does this have to the
> current situation?
> >Either this was proven at the time, (in which
> why was noare now
> >name provided in order to inform thise who
> >or it was not proven, or perhaps not even
> to the hierarchybishops
> >at the time - which is itself an issue the
> can address.names" when
> For the most part, I personally have no idea who
> these priests are. A
> dilemma does exist in whether to "name
> you post to a list suchthere
> as this. For example, assuming it to be true,
> is the possibilityknowledge"
> that the abortion story was "public
> either in the parish or in aAgain,
> limited geographic area. And, there is also the
> possibility that no
> punishment was meted out to the individual.
> assuming both the storybe
> to be true and the circumstances I mentioned to
> correct, I would feelsaid,
> uncomfortable posting the name of the priest.
> As a (much!) milder example, I recently posted a
> message regarding
> vespers-to-vespers fasting and what a priest
> in public, at a Stmy
> Herman's Conference. Since time tends to fade
> memories, I purposely did NOT
> state his name, since I may not have had all the
> facts correctly. I called
> him up and related the recent thread to him and
> post. He thanked me forThe
> not mentioning his name (!), since that may have
> been understood by some as
> de facto acceptability. In fact, Friday evening
> weddings, although allowed
> by the Church, are something that will be open to
> interpretation by local
> practice, the priest, bishop, jurisdiction etc.
> real issue is with thewould
> reception itself, since as he pointed out, it
> be next to impossiblecommon
> to have a totally lenten reception, given the
> expectations. Forit
> example, fish could be easily served, but unless
> was prepared by the__________________________________________________
> Sisterhood, but it be 100% lenten? What about a
> lenten wedding cake? Would
> music be played? Liquor served?
> Oops, I see I have gone out on a tangent!Sorry! I
> had better quit.
Do you Yahoo!?
New DSL Internet Access from SBC & Yahoo!
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>