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

Re: AN UKAZ CONCERNING THE BANNING OF THE CLERGY OF THE WESTERN-EUROPEAN EPARCHY

Expand Messages
  • frandrew@telusplanet.net
    The Council of ... Christ is Risen! Well I had hoped to just ignore all this stuff and spend a nice day rototilling the garden in preparation for planting our
    Message 1 of 38 , May 3, 2001
      The Council of
      > Bishops exercised their legitimate canonical authority in the matter
      > and chose to disregard the protests against the appointment and to
      > appoint Vladyka Ambrose as Ruling Bishop. This is within their
      > rightful discretion as arch-pastors of the Church. Those who oppose
      > this move now must either submit or accept the consequences of
      > failing to submit. This is the way things work in the Orthodox
      > Church. Because the clergy complained to the Synod does not mean the
      > Synod is bound to accept the judgement of those who made the
      > complaint, if this were the case the Hierarchs would have no real
      > authority, and we would have anarchy.
      >
      > The accusations are just that, accusations and the canon are very
      > clear about the Bishops authority to accept and disregard accusations
      > in such matters. As for our "right to know" it is non-existent, the
      > particular method of disposing of canonical disciplinary matters is
      > not a public event.
      >
      > I hope this clears up my point of view to you Vladimir.
      >
      > In Christ
      >
      > the sinful monk
      >
      > Maximos+
      >
      >
      > Rev.Hieromonk Maximos
      > Ascension Monastery
      > Russian Orthodox Church
      > Outside of Russia (ROCOR)
      > 706-277-9442 ( voice)
      > 775-640-2325 ( fax)
      > http://www.monastery.org
      > http://shop.monasteryproducts.org
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

      Christ is Risen!

      Well I had hoped to just ignore all this stuff and spend a nice day rototilling the garden in preparation for planting our next years supply of
      vegatables.
      There seems to be one point that some of our zealots of novelty are forgetting or perhaps just never learned. I will qoute from a book printed by
      Saint John of Kronstadt press "Letters from a Convert."

      page 7: "However, a council of Bishops is not necessarily infallible (although mistakes are very rare). Notice that in Acts, chapter 15, the letter to the
      Church did not state, "This is the truth, the final decision, the immutable law," but said that this seemed good to the Holy Spirit and the apostolic
      council. Byy this it can be inferred that the apostles were offering their decision for the Church's confirmation and approval, i.e. "it seemed good to
      us, do you agree?" For if their decision was final, surely the apostles would have made some statement such as, "The Holy Spirit told us so," or "If
      any disagree, let him be to you as an unbeliever."Considering the number of disrupters of the Church at this time, according to St. Pauls testimony,
      the apostles must have made as strong and as powerful a statement as possible. Therefore, their use of the word "seemed" indicates, as the Churches
      professes, that a council's decision is not valid if the Church as a whole rejects it. When approved by the consensus of the Church, a councils decisions
      become dogma and are to be followed by all Christians. Some were local councils held to suppress some local heresy or to decide local matters of
      order and discipline..."

      This is not the middle ages! We are not Roman Catholics. The October Sobor has brought turmoil and fear into the Church and it continues.

      Also I am going to attach a post I made on this list a few months ago that I think is still relevant... its in the archives.

      This "rejection" of a synodal decision is not without recent
      precedent. Wasn't Bishop Gabriel's initial appointment to Australia
      flatly rejected by the
      people down under, with them walking out of the Church in some
      parishes when he appeared? There was no canonical reason for this was
      there? Of
      course not! They probably just remembered him wearing shorts once as a
      young man. HoweverI don't know all the details on this ( I am NOT
      attacking Bishop Gabriel who I respected at one time) .

      But one point that I think is not well known, that perhaps the clergy
      of france will have no choice but to explain publicly, is that they
      HAD informed
      the Synod at least a year before the "October Sobor." They clearly
      said (even to Archbishop Lavr personally, who assured them not to
      worry) that
      they would not accept Bishop Ambrose's appointment and they gave
      several reasons both "personal" AND "Canonical." All this was and is
      absolutly
      documented and presented... So all this was pre-known and not a
      surprize. The only surprize I would say is the determination being
      shown. They are
      not trouble makers! Look at there service records! The point is that
      Archbishop Mark wants his man installed for his own purposes and will
      brook no
      opposition.

      The Synod when Bishop Gabriel was rejected did not "punish people" and
      send two archpriests out to "talk." But what do we see now, when they
      are
      faced with real objections based on Church law?

      Another point to remember is that the Church was in relative peace
      before October.

      Also is this list aware that Metropolitan Cyprian wrote a letter to
      the Synod beseeching them to return to there former path of
      confession? In effect
      that they are straying or have strayed from there path. Something
      along these lines. I hope to see it soon in English! Even our sister
      notices the
      change that some say did not happen.

      Rev Priest Andrew Kencis
    • catherine elaine sullivan
      Elizabeth- I m with you there. Sometimes Orthodox people (especially in this country) behave as if we were a Congregational church, where everything is up for
      Message 38 of 38 , May 7, 2001
        Elizabeth- I'm with you there. Sometimes Orthodox people (especially in this
        country) behave as if we were a Congregational church, where everything is up
        for majority vote!
        --- "Dr. Elizabeth W. Riggs" <ewriggs@...> wrote:
        > On 2 May 01, at 17:53, rsjmil wrote:
        >
        >
        > > What is missing from this situation is any information regarding their
        > > disagreement with their appointed Bishop. Could it be they have a
        > > factual case? If they do, there are better, more Canonical ways of
        > > dealing with it. There must be some reason why they are so opposed to
        > > Bishop Ambroise (spelling from the Directory.) What are the facts? And
        > > is he Bishop or Archbishop now?
        > >
        > > Jos M
        >
        > As Aslan would say, "that is not your story." This is a matter that
        > should not affect any except those directly involved - the clergy and
        > some of the laity in France and the Synod of Bishops. No one else is
        > involved. It is none of our business. The Synod of Bishops has spoken
        > and that's it.
        >
        > All this nosing around and looking for reasons for dissention is NOT
        > Orthodox. It is more like a bunch of American Protestants.
        >
        > How many Protestant churches are there in a town? One more than the
        > number of Protestants.
        >
        > If we don't take care our Orthodox Churches will end up with as many
        > splinter groups as the Protestants. Again, this is NOT Orthodox.
        >
        > We all need to grow up, get a life and involve ourselves in our OWN
        > parishes and not everyone else's parishes. If we work to build up the
        > Body of Christ at our own local level and avoid pointing fingers at
        > others, if we work on obedience to our Bishop and avoid looking for
        > reasons to dissent, we are more likely to see Orthodoxy thrive.
        >
        > The Synod of Bishops is not a body elected by "the peepul." They are
        > appointed by the rest of the Bishops through the grace of the Holy
        > Spirit. Could it be possible that the Bishops know some things that
        > "wee the peepul" don't know? Could it be possible that God is working
        > through our hierarchy to further His Kingdom? Absolutely.
        >
        > It's time to let all this stuff go and get on with helping each other
        > develop spiritually in an Orthodox manner.
        >
        > Just my $0.02 worth.
        >
        >
        > Yours in Christ,
        > Elizabeth Riggs, a sinner
        > and Perennial Student
        > **********************************************************
        > http://www.angelfire.com/ga/riggs/index.html
        > **********************************************************
        > Our Lady, the Joy of All Who Sorrow Church (ROCOR)
        > Cumming, GA USA (Atlanta, GA area)
        > http://www.churchabroad.org
        > **********************************************************
        > Glory to Jesus Christ! Glory Forever!
        > **********************************************************
        >


        =====
        Catherine
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.