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

One more comment re: Budzilovich statement

Expand Messages
  • Fr. Alexander Lebedeff
    One more comment: Budzilovich wrote: The FACT that the Metropolitan was unhappy with the decisions of the October 2000 ROCOR Council of Bishops was clearly
    Message 1 of 2 , Jun 28, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      One more comment:

      Budzilovich wrote:

      "The FACT that the Metropolitan was unhappy with the decisions of the
      October 2000 ROCOR Council of Bishops was clearly demonstrated by his
      Postsobor Epistle of December 4, 2000 (of which Bishop Gabriel is very well
      aware). What matters is not WHO WROTE the Epistle, but WHO SIGNED it."

      Of course, now that we know that the Metropolitan's public statements are
      not always really written by him but "often" by his unnamed "staff" and
      just signed by him, perhaps the actual authorship of the Pre- and
      Post-Sobor Epistles is in question as well?...

      with love in Christ,

      Prot. Alexander Lebedeff
    • Theodora
      snip ... well ... snip Pardon me but I am getting very confused here. On the one hand the epistle is being attacked as not having been literally written,
      Message 2 of 2 , Jun 28, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        snip
        >
        > "The FACT that the Metropolitan was unhappy with the decisions of the
        > October 2000 ROCOR Council of Bishops was clearly demonstrated by his
        > Postsobor Epistle of December 4, 2000 (of which Bishop Gabriel is very
        well
        > aware). What matters is not WHO WROTE the Epistle, but WHO SIGNED it."
        >
        > Of course, now that we know that the Metropolitan's public statements are
        > not always really written by him but "often" by his unnamed "staff" and
        > just signed by him, perhaps the actual authorship of the Pre- and
        > Post-Sobor Epistles is in question as well?...
        >
        > with love in Christ,
        >
        > Prot. Alexander Lebedeff

        snip
        Pardon me but I am getting very confused here. On the one hand the epistle
        is being attacked as not having been literally written, penned, typed, etc
        by the Metropolitan and so puts "doubt" on it. Then, on the other hand,
        statements are often done by others and just signed by the Metropolitan
        according to the above...so everything is doubtful, everthing devious. Now
        look, I remember reading where Paul thanked someone for writing down what he
        dictated and then signed his name, I believe in large letters as he was
        almost blind. Do we doubt this letter of Paul's??? The Fathers
        didn't...now how is this different?
        Better we should say..'.yes, do let us come together and sit upon these
        issues and find that which ROCA once had and seems to have lost.' The only
        thing I see here is that some , for whatever reasons, are afraid to have
        this meeting...that is the real issue, is it not? Should we not be deciding
        whether we will choose to build with bricks without straw or run from the
        frogs? Lord have mercy on us and help us....it seems no one else is.

        Theodora in the mountains
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.