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

Re: [orthodox-synod] Digest Number 1279

Expand Messages
  • Anna Voellmecke
    ... I guess you have not followed this thread. I had no question at all. I was responding to Paul Bartlett, reminding him that the rapproachment between the MP
    Message 1 of 6 , Jun 2, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      At 01:50 AM 6/2/2004, you wrote:
      > Anna, I'm just wondering what your question really is?

      I guess you have not followed this thread. I had no question at all. I was
      responding to Paul Bartlett, reminding him that the rapproachment between
      the MP and the ROCOR is important to all those in the Russian Church, both
      converts and Russian ethnics, as well as to Orthodoxy as a whole.

      Anna V.
    • vkozyreff
      Dear Dimitra, You write : All the ones I can think of left ROCOR of their own accord. Even in the case of France (where they voluntarily chose not to go to
      Message 2 of 6 , Jun 2, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Dimitra,

        You write : " All the ones I can think of left ROCOR of their own
        accord. Even in the case of France (where they voluntarily chose not
        to go to the meeting of bishops) and the Russian ROCOR bishops,
        wasn't it suspension and then later defrocking? That is something
        different from excommunication. What "mass excommunication" do you
        have in mind here, and does anyone from ROCOR care to comment?".

        VK:

        Can you think of me? I did not leave, I did not leave of my own
        accord, and I have constantly advocated reconciliation on this forum.
        This has been discussed many times on this forum. We know that we
        have different views, and I am convinced of your good faith. Please
        give me credit for my good faith as well. Just repeating again and
        again the same statements is useless, we return constantly to square
        1 of the discussion.

        Again, last Sunday, some of us met with our ROCOR(L) friends at the
        occasion of a marriage. Our ROCOR(L) friends repeated stubbornly that
        we were wrong because we "did not obey the bishop".

        Again and again, nobody disputes the principle, the question is about
        exceptions, when the bishop and the conscience come in opposition.
        The canons do provide for exceptions. What is astonishing, is that
        our ROCOR(L) friends did not even know this, and that personal
        enmities do play an awful role. Many of our ROCOR(L) friends are
        still convinced that there will be no union with the MP, and know
        nothing about the latest events.

        In God,

        Vladimir Kozyreff


        See, for instance: Message 8448

        The New Russian Martyr Metropolitan Cyril of Kazan wrote in
        1929: "church discipline can remain valid only as long as it is an
        actual reflection of the hierarchical conscience of the conciliar
        Church; discipline can never itself replace this conscience...

        The Church is not the hierarchs. The Church is the assembly of
        hierarchs, priests and believers. To appoint bishops without taking
        conciliarity into account or proceeding to mass excommunications is
        not conciliarity and is contrary to Church discipline. Believers are
        nothing without their bishops, bishops are nothing without the
        believers. The Orthodox Church is not a papist organisation.

        Message 7329

        … the synod has judged, condemned and proceeded to a mass exclusion
        that is a mutilation of our dear Church. I think that it might have
        been avoided and that it comes from the fact that the question has
        been managed as a purely disciplinary one.

        Message 8430

        As was already discussed, they had been summoned to Munich (at very
        short notice), but had not been advised that they would appear before
        an ecclesial tribunal to be judged. They had not been informed about
        the composition of a court that would judge them. If a regular
        judgement had taken place, the accused clerics might have use their
        right to challenge the judges («11.) The accused bishop or cleric
        has, at all judicial levels, the right to challenge the judges, of
        which he must inform the President no later than two weeks after
        receiving the summons to court»).



        --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, DDD <dimitradd@v...> wrote:
        > All the ones I can think of left ROCOR of their own accord. Even
        in the case of France (where they voluntarily chose not to go to the
        meeting of bishops) and the Russian ROCOR bishops, wasn't it
        suspension and then later defrocking? That is something different
        from excommunication. What "mass excommunication" do you have in
        mind here, and does anyone from ROCOR care to comment?
        >
        > --Dimitra
        >
        > On 2 Jun 2004 01:36:35 -0000, orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com wrote:
        > It is the anti-MP "extremists" who have been
        > subjected to mass excommunication.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.