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

6853Re: Praying with heretics – so what?

Expand Messages
  • boulia_1
    Oct 31, 2002
      Dear Serge, lurkers,

      First of all, I spell my name with a Z (English), not an "S" (German).

      I am sorry, but I still do not understand how your 'camp' fervently
      clings to the idea that a group of clergy, *directed* to meet with
      more senior clergy -- HIERARCHS -- was correct to respond in the
      manner which they did! By refusing to go to Munich, it seems they took
      it upon themselves to close dialogue in this matter. What right did
      they have to do this? If they so vehemently disagreed with the
      'verdict,' why not 'appeal'?

      And, by saying that April 24 is a fabricated date, you're publicly
      accusing Father Alexander of lying? Did I understand that correctly?
      That's a serious thing, a layman publicly charging a clergyman of
      prevarication.

      It is clear: the French clergy had a chance to meet with senior
      members of the Synod, if not the Synod in full, and the assigned
      assistant to the First Hierarch, then secretary of the Synod and the
      future First Hierarch. (Indeed, for those who dispute Met. Vitaly's
      opinion of Met. Laurus, I think the fact that the former dispatched
      the latter to handle such a delicate and important matter is telling
      of both his recognisance that he was already too weak to travel and
      deal with such matters, as well as his faith in his long-time Brother
      Hierarch... but I digress...).

      I'm not knoweldedgeable enough (at ALL) about the
      details, nor ecclesiastical "law" to assess the "legality" of what
      happened, prior to that. But I trust the Metropolitans (including
      Vitaly, who oversaw this at the time, no?) and Laurus, and such senior
      clergy as ArchPriests George (Larin), Stefan and Alexander, all of
      whom are far more educated in such matters than me or you, no?

      Bottom line; if those priests were *earnestly* seeking dialogue and to
      be heard, it seems to me they would have taken *any* opportunity they
      could. They didn't. If they had any seemly humility (as the
      glorious blessing of Mary to become Mother of God showed us is a trait
      most pleasing to God), they would have crawled on hands and knees to
      Munich.

      They did not. They responded not only negatively, but rudely. I
      still don't understand how that is defensible behavior of lower clergy
      toward hierarchs... !!!

      Finally, I also don't see how using the phrase "soviet" in reference
      to the hierarchs (or their defenders) is any way appropriate. It is
      extremely offensive, for reasons that are obvious. For shame.

      I am genuinely sorry for you and your like-minded brothers and
      sisters; it seems you are so wrapped up in anger and bitterness that
      you cannot see straight. Unfortunately, this negativity spreads like a
      cancer. May God bless you and help you, and all of us, find peace.

      In Christ's love,
      Elizabeth





      --- In orthodox-synod@y..., "sergerust2002" <sergerust@h...> wrote:
      > Dear Elisabeth,
      >
      > I refer to your post 6835.
      >
      > Fr Alexander's last post 6822 is the demonstration of what
      > Vladimir has been saying since a long time: THE « Munich meeting
      > » WAS NOT A TRIAL.
      >
      > You have now the proof in fr Alexander's own post : THE VERDICT
      > HAD BEEN RELEASED BEFORE THE MUNICH MEETING!
      >
      > Here are the dates:
      > The verdict = April 24 (a fabricated date – nobody received this
      > verdict on that date)
      > The Munich meeting = May 2.
      >
      > Do you call a Trial, a meeting where the accused are condemned in
      > advance?
      >
      >
      > Moreover, at the Munich meeting:
      >
      > - there was no appointed Ecclesiastical Court : the Synod is an
      > executive, not an judicial body in the Church.
      >
      > - there was no "Synod meeting" : non-synod members were
      > present and synod members were absent. In particular
      > the First Hierarch was absent; his absence was not fortuitous.
      >
      > - the invitation was not "to a Synod" but to meet one
      > particular member of the Synod. (The clergy proposed to attend a
      > previous Synod meeting, but this was refused)
      >
      > - the invitation was not to a judicial hearing but "to debate
      > about their future".
      >
      > - that particular synod member had previously taken one side and
      even
      > threaten the French clergy, which is incompatible with the role of o
      > judge.
      >
      >
      > Is this what you call the "hard evidence" provided by fr
      > Alexander?
      >
      > "Does it not touch your conscience or your intellect?"
      >
      >
      > CONCLUSION:
      >
      > The French clergy has indeed been sentenced without being heard. In
      > no way can you consider this "having received the opportunity of
      > a fair trial". Irrespective of the related responsibilities and of
      > the outcome of a potential serious trial, this is obviously
      > uncanonical and blatantly abusive.
      >
      > Denying this fact would be only an additional dishonesty and –
      > as you term it – a "divisive" discourse, a promotion of
      > soviet justice, rather than church justice.
      >
      > Why the MP [methods of a bygone time] apologetics?
      >
      >
      >
      > In Christ,
      > Serge Rust.
    • Show all 21 messages in this topic