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?".
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.
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.
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.
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 firstname.lastname@example.org, 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?
> On 2 Jun 2004 01:36:35 -0000, email@example.com wrote:
> It is the anti-MP "extremists" who have been
> subjected to mass excommunication.