6855Re: Praying with heretics so what?
- Nov 1, 2002Dear Elisabeth,
Thank you for this mail. I enjoyed the civilised and conciliatory
tone which I hoped for in our debate.
First of all, speaking for myself and quite another few, we are
absolutely not wrapped up in anger and bitterness. We were just
dreadfully sad and sorry of the situation, as children from a
divorced couple and wished desperately to mend it. But, and
sometimes we forgot, that nothing can be done without God.
Regarding Munich, Fr Alexander said that it is a few hours drive
from Belgium and France. Actually it is 10 hours drive minimum (it
is more or less the same by train). You should know as I understand
that you live in Germany.
In these circumstances, to receive a summoning 5 days in advance is
very short. Do not forget, that some members of the clergy work
and have obligations that could not be dropped right away. Anyone
with good sense could realise this.
But why was a trial already done before the summoning? Should it
not be the other way round?
I remember as well (and this was mentioned already several times on
this list) that the French Clergy begged to present their case in
New York long time before they were suspended, but their request was
When I started these discussions, I sincerely wished to clear up
matters and thought that a lot came from reciprocal misunderstanding
We understood all your arguments and in good faith replied to them.
When we made some mistake, we acknowledged them immediately. But
when you (or Father Alexander, or Father John, of Hristofor, etc.)
gave wrong informations, we never saw any acknowledgement (ex. house
situation of some priests, Vl Varnava's actions, and so on). You
just ignored our corrections.
To prove your points, you quoted concillar decisions, not giving
them at length. When you read them at length, any simple minded
people could see what they really meant.
None of our arguments were addressed in depth (why two priests are
allowed to not commemorate their bishop?, the autonomy (from whom?)
that Vl. Mark suggested in an interview, the refusal to judge Vl
Ambrose, why texts (from Fr Seraphim Rose) are truncated on the
ROCOR website? and I could go on up to the famous epistle of October
2000, where it was said that "we fervently welcome the prayer of
whole Russian people to all the holy New-martyrs of Russia, and
especially to the martyred Imperial Family, HENCEFORTH BECOMING
POSSIBLE THANKS TO THE RECOGNITION OF THEIR SANCTITY BY THE COUNCIL
OF BISHOPS OF THE MOSCOW PATRIARCHATE." When everybody knows
perfectly well that the glorification became possible thanks to the
Russian people who forced it upon the MP.
So we are back to square one!
What are we going to do now? I suggest that we go through all our
respective mails, read them carefully and see for ourselves who is
right, who is wrong.
With love in Christ,
--- In orthodox-synod@y..., "boulia_1" <eledkovsky@h...> wrote:
> Dear Serge, lurkers,
> First of all, I spell my name with a Z (English), not an "S"
> I am sorry, but I still do not understand how your 'camp'
> 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
> it upon themselves to close dialogue in this matter. What right
> 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
> That's a serious thing, a layman publicly charging a clergyman of
> 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
> future First Hierarch. (Indeed, for those who dispute Met.
> opinion of Met. Laurus, I think the fact that the former
> the latter to handle such a delicate and important matter is
> of both his recognisance that he was already too weak to travel
> deal with such matters, as well as his faith in his long-time
> 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
> 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
> be heard, it seems to me they would have taken *any* opportunity
> 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
> most pleasing to God), they would have crawled on hands and knees
> They did not. They responded not only negatively, but rudely. I
> still don't understand how that is defensible behavior of lower
> toward hierarchs... !!!
> Finally, I also don't see how using the phrase "soviet" in
> to the hierarchs (or their defenders) is any way appropriate. It
> 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
> you cannot see straight. Unfortunately, this negativity spreads
> cancer. May God bless you and help you, and all of us, find peace.
> In Christ's love,
> --- 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
> > verdict on that date)
> > The Munich meeting = May 2.
> > Do you call a Trial, a meeting where the accused are condemned
> > 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
> > threaten the French clergy, which is incompatible with the role
> > 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.
> > no way can you consider this "having received the opportunity of
> > a fair trial". Irrespective of the related responsibilities and
> > 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.
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>