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

Re: [orthodox-synod] Budzilovich Admits Met. Vitaly did NOT Write the "Epistle"

Expand Messages
  • The Stephens
    I am interested in knowing WHO actually wrote the October 2000 Epistle of the Sobor. There were multiple signatures on that Epistle. Did those who signed it
    Message 1 of 14 , Jun 28, 2001
      I am interested in knowing WHO actually wrote the October 2000 Epistle of
      the Sobor. There were multiple signatures on that Epistle. Did those who
      signed it simultaneously pen the Epistle--or did they just sign it? Who
      signed the Metropolitan's signature to the October 2000 Epistle?

      I did not see in Peter Budzilovich's statement any claim that someone else
      wrote the Epistle of Vladyka Vitaly, but rather a defense of ANY Epistle
      being written by numerous people. It is clear that this Epistle of
      Metropolitan Vitaly is fully and completely his--and it bears his signature.
      Is it wrong for the Metropolitan to seek the input from trusted, loyal and
      faithful clergy and friends? Or, is it more wrong to question the
      Metropolitan's integrity?

      The issues are what are contained in the Epistle of the Metropolitan. Why
      aren't those issues being addressed? Why all the prattle about whether or
      not the Metropolitan wrote the epistle. He signed it and for good and
      faithful clergy and laity, that is quite enough.

      For those who wish to discredit Peter Budzilovich, Fr. Anatoly Trepatchko,
      Fr. Andrew Kencis, Fr. Deacon Mark Smith, and Gregory Ogden--please add my
      name to your "list".

      Fr. Seraphim Stephens

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Fr. Alexander Lebedeff" <lebedeff@...>
      To: <ORTHODOX@...>; <orthodox-tradition@yahoogroups.com>;
      <orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com>; <rocaclergy@egroups.com>;
      <orthodoxjurisdictions@egroups.com>
      Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 11:23 AM
      Subject: [orthodox-synod] Budzilovich Admits Met. Vitaly did NOT Write the
      "Epistle"


      > An amazing admission has now appeared on the Budzilovich Web Site (where
      > the "Epistle" first appeared. See:
      >
      > http://www.russia-talk.com/otkliki/ot-97a.htm
      >
      > In Russian see: http://www.russia-talk.com/otkliki/ot-97.htm
      >
      > Here it is:
      >
      > "UPDATE: On June 26, 2001, Bishop Gabriel, Deputy Secretary of the Synod
      of
      > Bishops, posted at the official Synod web site a "Statement from the
      > Chancery of
      > the Synod of Bishops" in an attempt to prove that the Epistle presented
      > below was not written by the Metropolitan. But this is completely
      > IMMATERIAL! It is
      > common knowledge that public statements by heads of governments and large
      > organizations (including ecclesiastical) are often written by their staff.
      > The leaders then go over statements written for them, make corrections,
      and
      > sign. 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.
      Let's
      > note in passing that Bishop Gabriel does not give a link to the latest
      > Epistle, although he does say that he read it on the Internet."
      >
      > ====================
      >
      > Now, let's get this straight.
      >
      > Mr. Budzilovich says: "it is completely IMMATERIAL" whether the
      > Metropolitan actually wrote this "Epistle" or not.
      >
      > Mr. Budzilovich states again: "What matters is not WHO WROTE the Epistle,
      > but WHO SIGNED it."
      >
      > Well, it makes all the difference in the world.
      >
      > Fr. Anatly Trepatchko just finished swearing on the Cross and Gospel that
      > the Epistle was "penned personally by Metropolitan Vitaly" over the course
      > of several days with "no influence" from anyone.
      >
      > This turns out to not be the case.
      >
      > It is certainly a **HUGE** difference whether the frail Metropolitan just
      > **signed** a Statement written by someone else or whether he wrote it
      > personally.
      >
      > And Fr. Anatoly, Fr. Andrew Kencis, Deacon Mark Smith, Gregory Ogden and
      > others should be now aware that the document they are touting as the "most
      > important statement" ever made by Metropolitan Vitaly turns out not to be
      > his at all, and that the Statement of Bishop Gabriel from the Chancery of
      > the Synod of Bishops and all of the other posters who have noticed grave
      > errors casting doubt on the authorship of this document are correct.
      >
      > May the Lord forgive all who have, wittingly or unwittngly, led others
      astray.
      >
      >
      > With love in Christ,
      >
      > Prot. Alexander Lebedeff
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
      >
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
    • Kiril Bart
      Is it the same name but different spelling, or it s a two different names with correspondence to different saints? Subdeacon Kirill, ROCOR
      Message 2 of 14 , Jun 28, 2001
        Is it the same name but different spelling, or it's a
        two different names with correspondence to different
        saints?
        Subdeacon Kirill, ROCOR

        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
        http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
      • Fr. John Whiteford
        Fr. Seraphim Stephens writes: I am interested in knowing WHO actually wrote the October 2000 Epistle of the Sobor. There were multiple signatures on that
        Message 3 of 14 , Jun 28, 2001
          Fr. Seraphim Stephens writes:

          "I am interested in knowing WHO actually wrote the October 2000
          Epistle of the Sobor. There were multiple signatures on that
          Epistle. Did those who signed it simultaneously pen the Epistle--or
          did they just sign it? Who signed the Metropolitan's signature to
          the October 2000 Epistle?"

          Since the Sobor was held in accordance with the Canons and
          regulations of the ROCA, and all the bishops present witnessed the
          participation of the other bishops, the authorship and signatures of
          the Sobor are not in doubt.

          FrSS:

          "I did not see in Peter Budzilovich's statement any claim that
          someone else wrote the Epistle of Vladyka Vitaly, but rather a
          defense of ANY Epistle being written by numerous people. It is clear
          that this Epistle of Metropolitan Vitaly is fully and completely his--
          and it bears his signature. Is it wrong for the Metropolitan to seek
          the input from trusted, loyal and faithful clergy and friends? Or,
          is it more wrong to question the Metropolitan's integrity?"

          When an epistle is issued in the name of the Metropolitan contrary to
          normal protocol and contrary to his own promises to his brother
          bishops, it is completely appropriate to raise questions about it.

          FrSS:

          "The issues are what are contained in the Epistle of the
          Metropolitan. Why aren't those issues being addressed?"

          Because they have already been addressed, and because it appears the
          same people who have already been answered, and indeed suspended, are
          behind this epistle.

          -Fr. John Whiteford
        • StefanVPavlenko@netscape.net
          The original Christian Saint is Apostle First Martyr Archdeacon Stephen who is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles. There are other saints in the Church who
          Message 4 of 14 , Jun 28, 2001
            The original Christian Saint is Apostle First Martyr Archdeacon
            Stephen who is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles.

            There are other saints in the Church who have the same name.

            Spelling forms are different in different lands and hence the
            variations in the way Stephen is spelled in America.

            I was born in Austria and my documents from there and now mine here
            have the German form: Stefan. I found that Americans usually pronounce
            my name correctly when I use the German form. If I use Stephan, they
            say Steven... in (Old) Russian it is Ste-FAN.

            Archpriest STEFAN Pavlenko

            Steven, Stephen, Stephan, Stefan, Stivie, Steve
            Contempary Russian: Stepan
          • Polychroni
            On 28 Jun 01, at 8:23, Fr. Alexander Lebedeff wrote: [snip] ... All the difference in the world ? Really? Perhaps you should reconsider that. If the
            Message 5 of 14 , Jun 29, 2001
              On 28 Jun 01, at 8:23, Fr. Alexander Lebedeff wrote:

              [snip]

              > "UPDATE: On June 26, 2001, Bishop Gabriel, Deputy Secretary of the Synod
              > of Bishops, posted at the official Synod web site a "Statement from the
              > Chancery of the Synod of Bishops" in an attempt to prove that the Epistle
              > presented below was not written by the Metropolitan. But this is
              > completely IMMATERIAL! It is common knowledge that public statements by
              > heads of governments and large organizations (including ecclesiastical)
              > are often written by their staff. The leaders then go over statements
              > written for them, make corrections, and sign. 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. Let's note in
              > passing that Bishop Gabriel does not give a link to the latest Epistle,
              > although he does say that he read it on the Internet."
              >
              > ====================
              >
              > Now, let's get this straight.
              >
              > Mr. Budzilovich says: "it is completely IMMATERIAL" whether the
              > Metropolitan actually wrote this "Epistle" or not.
              >
              > Mr. Budzilovich states again: "What matters is not WHO WROTE the Epistle,
              > but WHO SIGNED it."
              >
              > Well, it makes all the difference in the world.

              "All the difference in the world"? Really? Perhaps you should reconsider
              that. If the letter is genuine, it will stand along side the similar
              letters of ROCA Metropolitans, not the least of which would be the "Sorrow
              Epistles" of Metr. Vitaly's predecessor, Metr. Philaret.

              The flock of Christ should brace themselves for a tragedy, where Metr
              Vitaly discovers (a) he didn't mean it, (b) he was defrauded into signing
              something he didn't realized, (c) his suffered from a 'mental lapse',~etc~.
              May the Lord preserve him strong in his convictions from the onslaught that
              will surely follow.

              > Fr. Anatly Trepatchko just finished swearing on the Cross and Gospel that
              > the Epistle was "penned personally by Metropolitan Vitaly" over the course
              > of several days with "no influence" from anyone.

              That would be for Pr. Anatoly Trepatchko's to answer, and we should wait to
              hear his account before rendering judgment. (I'm certain that *much* more
              will be forthcoming on this matter). But the thoughtful Christian, not
              mislead by this "straw man" tactic, should realize that it has no relevance
              to the question at-hand. A moment's consideration would make that clear.

              > It is certainly a **HUGE** difference whether the frail Metropolitan just
              > **signed** a Statement written by someone else or whether he wrote it
              > personally.

              If it's so "**HUGE**" , maybe you can try and tell us what it is?

              If your allusion to the Metropolitan being "frail" is meant to convey that
              he is physical limited, then all the more reason that he should avail
              himself of some physical aid, and not be left as an old man to pass out his
              days quietly and not disturb those exercising the "real power."

              > And Fr. Anatoly, Fr. Andrew Kencis, Deacon Mark Smith, Gregory Ogden and
              > others should be now aware that the document they are touting as the "most
              > important statement" ever made by Metropolitan Vitaly turns out not to be
              > his at all,

              This is important, if you would, please pay attention: if he signed it,
              being of sound mind and body, of his own free will, not under duress or
              fraud, then the statement is *his*.

              My staff often writes correspondence for my signature, and they frequently
              compose my message better than if I had written it myself. Moreover, they
              often advise me on my own drafts and suggest language.

              Anyone with familiar with the functioning of a civilized society will
              concede as much.

              Moreover, given protopriest Alexander's position, the letters of St. Paul,
              and even the Gospels themselves, could be dismissed as "not theirs"!

              > and that the Statement of Bishop Gabriel from the Chancery of
              > the Synod of Bishops and all of the other posters who have noticed grave
              > errors casting doubt on the authorship of this document are correct.

              Does it not seem strange that the Chancery (i.e., the secretary of a
              records office) can, and does, issue "statements" *apparently* on behalf of
              the Synod, but the President of the Synod cannot? It appears as though the
              Chancery is parleying its office letterhead as though it were the official
              mouthpiece of the whole Synod--issuing statements at will. Regrettably,
              the undiscerning reader sees that "of the Synod" in the letterhead and
              "that's it, the 'Synod has spoken'." If a *secretary* were to do such
              thing in any other context, that person would be out the door.

              It is my understanding from reliable sources that the Metropolitan cannot
              even gain control of the Synod web-site! How sad.

              If it were within my ability to offer the Metropolitan counsel, I'd
              recommend to him that he resign in protest. Thereby shielding himself from
              the onslaught to follow and sealing this letter from its enemies, allowing
              it to stand forever.

              > May the Lord forgive all who have, wittingly or unwittngly, led others
              > astray.

              Among which Ppt. Alexander's post much be counted

              In Christ,

              Polychroni
            • Vladimir Kozyreff
              When the document suspending the French clergy was issued and signed by V. Vitaly, Father Lebedeff showed that the important point was not who had written the
              Message 6 of 14 , Jun 29, 2001
                When the document suspending the French clergy was issued and signed by V.
                Vitaly, Father Lebedeff showed that the important point was not who had
                written the text, but that the metropolitan had signed it (see below).---

                "In orthodox-synod@y..., "Fr. Alexander Lebedeff" lebedeff@w...> wrote:
                regarding the comments of anonymous "commentators" on the Ukaz issued by the
                Synod at its last meeting and the comments of the translator, George
                Sprukts, I can only say that they are typically stupid comments by lay
                people who are totally ignorant how the Church is administered. All this
                speculation of whether the Metropolitan could read the 12pt print or not, or
                if he signed something unwittingly is sheer nonsense. The Metropolitan
                participated in the discussions and joined in the decision. He then signed
                it when it was typed up. Period."

                About Vl Vitaly's last epistle on the contrary, against P. Budzilovich,
                Father Lebedeff shows that it is not important whether or not the
                metropolitan signed it, but whether he has indeed written it (see below)

                "Now, let's get this straight. Mr. Budzilovich says: "it is completely
                IMMATERIAL" whether the Metropolitan actually wrote this "Epistle" or not.
                Mr. Budzilovich states again: "What matters is not WHO WROTE the Epistle,
                but WHO SIGNED it." Well, it makes all the difference in the world. "

                In conclusion, authorship is important in documents of type A, and signature
                is important in documents of type B.

                Vladimir Kozyreff

                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "Fr. Alexander Lebedeff" <lebedeff@...>
                To: <ORTHODOX@...>; <orthodox-tradition@yahoogroups.com>;
                <orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com>; <rocaclergy@egroups.com>;
                <orthodoxjurisdictions@egroups.com>
                Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 5:23 PM
                Subject: [orthodox-synod] Budzilovich Admits Met. Vitaly did NOT Write the
                "Epistle"


                > An amazing admission has now appeared on the Budzilovich Web Site (where
                > the "Epistle" first appeared. See:
                >
                > http://www.russia-talk.com/otkliki/ot-97a.htm
                >
                > In Russian see: http://www.russia-talk.com/otkliki/ot-97.htm
                >
                > Here it is:
                >
                > "UPDATE: On June 26, 2001, Bishop Gabriel, Deputy Secretary of the Synod
                of
                > Bishops, posted at the official Synod web site a "Statement from the
                > Chancery of
                > the Synod of Bishops" in an attempt to prove that the Epistle presented
                > below was not written by the Metropolitan. But this is completely
                > IMMATERIAL! It is
                > common knowledge that public statements by heads of governments and large
                > organizations (including ecclesiastical) are often written by their staff.
                > The leaders then go over statements written for them, make corrections,
                and
                > sign. 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.
                Let's
                > note in passing that Bishop Gabriel does not give a link to the latest
                > Epistle, although he does say that he read it on the Internet."
                >
                > ====================
                >
                > Now, let's get this straight.
                >
                > Mr. Budzilovich says: "it is completely IMMATERIAL" whether the
                > Metropolitan actually wrote this "Epistle" or not.
                >
                > Mr. Budzilovich states again: "What matters is not WHO WROTE the Epistle,
                > but WHO SIGNED it."
                >
                > Well, it makes all the difference in the world.
                >
                > Fr. Anatly Trepatchko just finished swearing on the Cross and Gospel that
                > the Epistle was "penned personally by Metropolitan Vitaly" over the course
                > of several days with "no influence" from anyone.
                >
                > This turns out to not be the case.
                >
                > It is certainly a **HUGE** difference whether the frail Metropolitan just
                > **signed** a Statement written by someone else or whether he wrote it
                > personally.
                >
                > And Fr. Anatoly, Fr. Andrew Kencis, Deacon Mark Smith, Gregory Ogden and
                > others should be now aware that the document they are touting as the "most
                > important statement" ever made by Metropolitan Vitaly turns out not to be
                > his at all, and that the Statement of Bishop Gabriel from the Chancery of
                > the Synod of Bishops and all of the other posters who have noticed grave
                > errors casting doubt on the authorship of this document are correct.
                >
                > May the Lord forgive all who have, wittingly or unwittngly, led others
                astray.
                >
                >
                > With love in Christ,
                >
                > Prot. Alexander Lebedeff
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
                >
                >
                >
                > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                >
                >
                >
              • mmalloy@pop.service.ohio-state.edu
                ... I asked my priest, and he said this: Stephan, Stephen, Stefan or Stevan is the same name spelled differently. Of course, there are more than one saint
                Message 7 of 14 , Jun 29, 2001
                  --- In orthodox-synod@y..., Kiril Bart <kirbart@y...> wrote:
                  > Is it the same name but different spelling, or it's a
                  > two different names with correspondence to different
                  > saints?
                  > Subdeacon Kirill, ROCOR

                  I asked my priest, and he said this:

                  "Stephan, Stephen, Stefan or Stevan is the same name spelled
                  differently."

                  Of course, there are more than one saint with that name.
                • Fr. Alexander Lebedeff
                  ... No problem. We have a **conciliar** church--not an autocracy. If the Metropolitan issues a statement that expresses and is supportive of the conciliarly
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jun 29, 2001
                    Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:

                    >In conclusion, authorship is important in documents of type A, and signature
                    >is important in documents of type B.
                    >

                    Polychroni Moniodis wrote regarding my statement:

                    >> It is certainly a **HUGE** difference whether the frail Metropolitan just
                    >> **signed** a Statement written by someone else or whether he wrote it
                    >> personally.
                    >
                    >If it's so "**HUGE**" , maybe you can try and tell us what it is?
                    >
                    >


                    No problem.

                    We have a **conciliar** church--not an autocracy.

                    If the Metropolitan issues a statement that expresses and is supportive of
                    the conciliarly expressed opinion or viewpoint of the Church, then it does
                    not really matter whether he personally authored it or not.

                    Therefore, the Sorrowful Epistles of Metropolitan Philaret are genuine,
                    because they were issued with the support of the entire episcopate of the
                    Church and shared the views of that episcopate.

                    The same with the Metropolitan signing documents that have been discussed
                    and approved at Bishops' Council meetings, even though he did not himself
                    author them--again he is here participating in upholding the conciliarity
                    of the Church.

                    Every expression of the Metropolitan in support of, or expressing, the
                    conciliar stand of the bishops of the Church Abroad has a very positive
                    effect upon the flock and the unity of the Church.

                    If, however, a document appears with the signature of the Metropolitan,
                    that goes **against** the conciliar decisions of the Church, you have a
                    very different situation. Here, the actual authorship must be determined,
                    because the Metropolitan, if the statement is truly his own, is doing
                    something to the detriment of the perception of the oneness of mind of the
                    bishops of the Church, and thus, it is divisive.

                    I can testify (I did the photocopying and mailing myself) that Metropolitan
                    Philaret **always** circulated drafts of his Encyclical Epistles among all
                    of the bishops of the Church prior to issuing them, and would issue them
                    only after they had been reviewed and had received the concensus approval
                    of the entire episcopate.

                    This is conciliarty in action.

                    In the current case, there is something terribly wrong.

                    And an investigation into the circumstances of the production of this
                    Epistle is absolutely required.

                    In this type of situation, we **do** have a world of difference and the
                    determination of the actual authorship of a document, that, on its face,
                    has the Metropolitan denouncing the conciliar decisions of the Church, and
                    thus, encouraging rancor and divisiveness, is mandated.

                    With love in Christ,

                    Prot. Alexander Lebedeff
                  • The Stephens
                    Why then were the clergy of the Southern Deanery told in November by Bp. Gabriel that the Sorrowful Epistles were not official and were the personal
                    Message 9 of 14 , Jun 29, 2001
                      Why then were the clergy of the Southern Deanery told in November by Bp.
                      Gabriel that the "Sorrowful Epistles" were not "official" and were the
                      "personal opinions" of Metropolitan Philaret?
                      Fr. Seraphim Stephens
                      ----- Original Message -----
                      From: "Fr. Alexander Lebedeff" <lebedeff@...>
                      To: <orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com>; <ORTHODOX@...>
                      Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 2:02 PM
                      Subject: Re: [orthodox-synod] Budzilovich Admits Met. Vitaly did NOT Write
                      the "Epistle"


                      > Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:
                      >
                      > >In conclusion, authorship is important in documents of type A, and
                      signature
                      > >is important in documents of type B.
                      > >
                      >
                      > Polychroni Moniodis wrote regarding my statement:
                      >
                      > >> It is certainly a **HUGE** difference whether the frail Metropolitan
                      just
                      > >> **signed** a Statement written by someone else or whether he wrote it
                      > >> personally.
                      > >
                      > >If it's so "**HUGE**" , maybe you can try and tell us what it is?
                      > >
                      > >
                      >
                      >
                      > No problem.
                      >
                      > We have a **conciliar** church--not an autocracy.
                      >
                      > If the Metropolitan issues a statement that expresses and is supportive of
                      > the conciliarly expressed opinion or viewpoint of the Church, then it does
                      > not really matter whether he personally authored it or not.
                      >
                      > Therefore, the Sorrowful Epistles of Metropolitan Philaret are genuine,
                      > because they were issued with the support of the entire episcopate of the
                      > Church and shared the views of that episcopate.
                      >
                      > The same with the Metropolitan signing documents that have been discussed
                      > and approved at Bishops' Council meetings, even though he did not himself
                      > author them--again he is here participating in upholding the conciliarity
                      > of the Church.
                      >
                      > Every expression of the Metropolitan in support of, or expressing, the
                      > conciliar stand of the bishops of the Church Abroad has a very positive
                      > effect upon the flock and the unity of the Church.
                      >
                      > If, however, a document appears with the signature of the Metropolitan,
                      > that goes **against** the conciliar decisions of the Church, you have a
                      > very different situation. Here, the actual authorship must be determined,
                      > because the Metropolitan, if the statement is truly his own, is doing
                      > something to the detriment of the perception of the oneness of mind of the
                      > bishops of the Church, and thus, it is divisive.
                      >
                      > I can testify (I did the photocopying and mailing myself) that
                      Metropolitan
                      > Philaret **always** circulated drafts of his Encyclical Epistles among all
                      > of the bishops of the Church prior to issuing them, and would issue them
                      > only after they had been reviewed and had received the concensus approval
                      > of the entire episcopate.
                      >
                      > This is conciliarty in action.
                      >
                      > In the current case, there is something terribly wrong.
                      >
                      > And an investigation into the circumstances of the production of this
                      > Epistle is absolutely required.
                      >
                      > In this type of situation, we **do** have a world of difference and the
                      > determination of the actual authorship of a document, that, on its face,
                      > has the Metropolitan denouncing the conciliar decisions of the Church, and
                      > thus, encouraging rancor and divisiveness, is mandated.
                      >
                      > With love in Christ,
                      >
                      > Prot. Alexander Lebedeff
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      >
                      >
                    • UPB_MONIODIS@ONLINE.EMICH.EDU
                      ... I m afraid you have confused the administration of the Church with her governance. We *do* have an autocracy--a Christocracy. (Eph 5:23, Is not Christ
                      Message 10 of 14 , Jun 29, 2001
                        --- In orthodox-synod@y..., "Fr. Alexander Lebedeff" <lebedeff@w...>
                        wrote:
                        > Polychroni Moniodis wrote regarding my statement:
                        >
                        > >> It is certainly a **HUGE** difference whether the frail
                        > >> Metropolitan just **signed** a Statement written by someone else
                        > > >> or whether he wrote it personally.
                        > >
                        > >If it's so "**HUGE**" , maybe you can try and tell us what it is?
                        > >
                        >
                        > We have a **conciliar** church--not an autocracy.

                        I'm afraid you have confused the administration of the Church with
                        her governance. We *do* have an autocracy--a Christocracy. (Eph
                        5:23, Is not "Christ is the head of the Church"?)

                        It is this same constipated theology which lead to you advance that
                        heresies are local in nature, constrained to jurisdictional
                        boundaries, as if Truth were local, not universal.

                        > If the Metropolitan issues a statement that expresses and is
                        > supportive of the conciliarly expressed opinion or viewpoint of the
                        > Church, then it does not really matter whether he personally
                        > authored it or not.
                        >
                        > Therefore, the Sorrowful Epistles of Metropolitan Philaret are
                        > genuine, because they were issued with the support of the entire
                        > episcopate of the Church and shared the views of that episcopate.

                        I'm afraid you have confused "genuine" and "official". As you have
                        it, if Metr Philaret would have penned his Sorrowful Epistles without
                        the support of the synod of bishops, they would not be genuinely
                        his! What they wouldn't be is issued under the authroity of the
                        office, i.e., an official statement of the Synod.

                        Of course the question of whether they are TRUE or not, well, that's
                        seems to be too much to broach.

                        > The same with the Metropolitan signing documents that have been
                        > discussed and approved at Bishops' Council meetings, even though
                        > he did not himself author them--again he is here participating in
                        > upholding the conciliarity of the Church.
                        >
                        > Every expression of the Metropolitan in support of, or expressing,
                        > the conciliar stand of the bishops of the Church Abroad has a very
                        > positive effect upon the flock and the unity of the Church.

                        How is that possible if the expression is bad? This is bad theology
                        because it supposes that God works through groups and not persons.
                        Did God become Man or a Council? Did the Virgin Mary give birth to a
                        Synod? Does He work through "group dynamics" or via the human
                        hypostasis? Who stands down whom -- the Saint or the Council? St.
                        Athanasios stand against many a gathering of bishops? Need I
                        enumerate others? Do not Councils only meet to give evidence to
                        the "faith that was once delivered to the saints" (Jude 1:3)-- and
                        not the other way around?

                        > If, however, a document appears with the signature of the
                        > Metropolitan, that goes **against** the conciliar decisions of the
                        > Church, you have a very different situation. Here, the actual
                        > authorship must be determined, because the Metropolitan, if the
                        > statement is truly his own, is doing something to the detriment
                        > of the perception of the oneness of mind of the bishops of the
                        > Church, and thus, it is divisive.

                        A forgery is forgery -- whatever its position.

                        > I can testify (I did the photocopying and mailing myself) that
                        > Metropolitan Philaret **always** circulated drafts of his
                        > Encyclical Epistles among all of the bishops of the Church prior
                        > to issuing them, and would issue them only after they had been
                        > reviewed and had received the concensus approval of the entire
                        > episcopate.
                        >
                        > This is conciliarty in action.

                        As well should be done. But now the rub, what if the majority of
                        Metr Philaret fellow bishops did *not* concur with him? Would that
                        have made his Sorrowful Epistles disingenuine, that is, not genuinely
                        his? Would they have now have been false? I'm afraid that their
                        truth stands or falls on their own.


                        > In the current case, there is something terribly wrong.
                        >
                        > And an investigation into the circumstances of the production of
                        > this Epistle is absolutely required.
                        >
                        > In this type of situation, we **do** have a world of difference and
                        > the determination of the actual authorship of a document, that, on
                        > its face, has the Metropolitan denouncing the conciliar decisions
                        > of the Church, and thus, encouraging rancor and divisiveness,
                        > is mandated.

                        You may prevail on him to retract it, but you can never retract the
                        truth therein.


                        In Christ's love,

                        Polychroni
                      • Vladimir Kozyreff
                        Dear Father Alexander, You write; Here, the actual authorship must be determined, because the Metropolitan, if the statement is truly his own, is doing
                        Message 11 of 14 , Jul 1, 2001
                          Dear Father Alexander,

                          You write;

                          "Here, the actual authorship must be determined, because the Metropolitan,
                          if the statement is truly his own, is doing something to the detriment of
                          the perception of the oneness of mind of the bishops of the Church, and
                          thus, it is divisive."

                          I completely disagree with your opinion.

                          What is divisive is the stubborn attitude of the bishops who refuse to see
                          that the conclusions of the October Council are refused or not understood by
                          a sizeable part of the Church, including her metropolitan, a few bishops, a
                          number of priests and lay peiople, among the most faithful servants of the
                          Church. This attitude of the Synod is perceived as a divisive lack of
                          humility and lack of sobornost.

                          What is unifying is the proposal of the Metropolitan. He proposes to
                          reconvene (what is more unifying than convening?) to talk again, to make
                          peace among ourselves, to forgive one another and elaborate a common
                          position in Christ, far away from human pride. Being humble is always a sign
                          of intelligence. Humility grants the respect of Christians.This is valid for
                          any person or group of people, including a Synod of bishops.

                          Sobornost is not forcing a minority of intelligent, pious and concerned
                          people to accept blindly the opinion of the majority and condemnations
                          without judgement. Sobornost is taking into account the opinion of
                          hierarchs, priests and lay people who are genuinely concerned about the
                          faith and who do not lack ecclesial culture, even if they are a minority.
                          Such minorities have already saved the faith in the past.

                          The people who do not agree with the conclusions of the October Council are
                          constantly reminded that they should not fall into prelest. I agree that it
                          should be a constant concern for all of us. We, orthodox people know however
                          that priests and hierarchs too are tempted by the devil and should beware of
                          prelest.

                          In Christ, very respectfully begging your prayers,

                          Vladimir Kozyreff



                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: "Fr. Alexander Lebedeff" <lebedeff@...>
                          To: <orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com>; <ORTHODOX@...>
                          Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 8:02 PM
                          Subject: Re: [orthodox-synod] Budzilovich Admits Met. Vitaly did NOT Write
                          the "Epistle"


                          > Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:
                          >
                          > >In conclusion, authorship is important in documents of type A, and
                          signature
                          > >is important in documents of type B.
                          > >
                          >
                          > Polychroni Moniodis wrote regarding my statement:
                          >
                          > >> It is certainly a **HUGE** difference whether the frail Metropolitan
                          just
                          > >> **signed** a Statement written by someone else or whether he wrote it
                          > >> personally.
                          > >
                          > >If it's so "**HUGE**" , maybe you can try and tell us what it is?
                          > >
                          > >
                          >
                          >
                          > No problem.
                          >
                          > We have a **conciliar** church--not an autocracy.
                          >
                          > If the Metropolitan issues a statement that expresses and is supportive of
                          > the conciliarly expressed opinion or viewpoint of the Church, then it does
                          > not really matter whether he personally authored it or not.
                          >
                          > Therefore, the Sorrowful Epistles of Metropolitan Philaret are genuine,
                          > because they were issued with the support of the entire episcopate of the
                          > Church and shared the views of that episcopate.
                          >
                          > The same with the Metropolitan signing documents that have been discussed
                          > and approved at Bishops' Council meetings, even though he did not himself
                          > author them--again he is here participating in upholding the conciliarity
                          > of the Church.
                          >
                          > Every expression of the Metropolitan in support of, or expressing, the
                          > conciliar stand of the bishops of the Church Abroad has a very positive
                          > effect upon the flock and the unity of the Church.
                          >
                          > If, however, a document appears with the signature of the Metropolitan,
                          > that goes **against** the conciliar decisions of the Church, you have a
                          > very different situation. Here, the actual authorship must be determined,
                          > because the Metropolitan, if the statement is truly his own, is doing
                          > something to the detriment of the perception of the oneness of mind of the
                          > bishops of the Church, and thus, it is divisive.
                          >
                          > I can testify (I did the photocopying and mailing myself) that
                          Metropolitan
                          > Philaret **always** circulated drafts of his Encyclical Epistles among all
                          > of the bishops of the Church prior to issuing them, and would issue them
                          > only after they had been reviewed and had received the concensus approval
                          > of the entire episcopate.
                          >
                          > This is conciliarty in action.
                          >
                          > In the current case, there is something terribly wrong.
                          >
                          > And an investigation into the circumstances of the production of this
                          > Epistle is absolutely required.
                          >
                          > In this type of situation, we **do** have a world of difference and the
                          > determination of the actual authorship of a document, that, on its face,
                          > has the Metropolitan denouncing the conciliar decisions of the Church, and
                          > thus, encouraging rancor and divisiveness, is mandated.
                          >
                          > With love in Christ,
                          >
                          > Prot. Alexander Lebedeff
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                          >
                          >
                          >
                        • Fr. Alexander Lebedeff
                          ... Let s see if I understand this. You have a strongly held opinion. The majority of the Bishops in the Synod have a different opinion. Because their opinion
                          Message 12 of 14 , Jul 1, 2001
                            At 11:46 PM 7/1/01 +0200, you wrote:
                            >Dear Father Alexander,
                            >
                            >You write;
                            >
                            >"Here, the actual authorship must be determined, because the Metropolitan,
                            >if the statement is truly his own, is doing something to the detriment of
                            >the perception of the oneness of mind of the bishops of the Church, and
                            >thus, it is divisive."
                            >
                            >I completely disagree with your opinion.
                            >
                            >What is divisive is the stubborn attitude of the bishops who refuse to see
                            >that the conclusions of the October Council are refused or not understood by
                            >a sizeable part of the Church, including her metropolitan, a few bishops, a
                            >number of priests and lay peiople, among the most faithful servants of the
                            >Church. This attitude of the Synod is perceived as a divisive lack of
                            >humility and lack of sobornost.

                            Let's see if I understand this.

                            You have a strongly held opinion.

                            The majority of the Bishops in the Synod have a different opinion.

                            Because their opinion is different than yours, this means they have a
                            "stubborn attitude."

                            Maybe, just maybe, it is **YOU** who has a "stubborn attitude"?

                            Did you ever think of **that** possibility?


                            >What is unifying is the proposal of the Metropolitan. He proposes to
                            >reconvene (what is more unifying than convening?) to talk again, to make
                            >peace among ourselves, to forgive one another and elaborate a common
                            >position in Christ, far away from human pride.


                            Fine. why can't he bring up his suggestion at the next Council of Bishops,
                            next week, away from public rancor and the inherent divisiveness it causes?


                            >Sobornost is not forcing a minority of intelligent, pious and concerned
                            >people to accept blindly the opinion of the majority

                            since you use no adjectives to describe the majority, we can then assume
                            that, in contrast, you belive them to be unintelligent, impious, and
                            unconcerned?


                            >and condemnations
                            >without judgement. Sobornost is taking into account the opinion of
                            >hierarchs, priests and lay people who are genuinely concerned about the
                            >faith and who do not lack ecclesial culture,

                            you consider statements made by them calling the majority bishops
                            "traitors" and the Sobor of Bishops a "robber council" a sign of "ecclesial
                            culture'?


                            >even if they are a minority.
                            >Such minorities have already saved the faith in the past.

                            Only if they were right. Being in the minority does not immediately give
                            your position legitimacy. On the contrary, people in th minority may be
                            there because they are absolutely **wrong**.



                            >The people who do not agree with the conclusions of the October Council are
                            >constantly reminded that they should not fall into prelest. I agree that it
                            >should be a constant concern for all of us. We, orthodox people know however
                            >that priests and hierarchs too are tempted by the devil and should beware of
                            >prelest.

                            Unfortunately, Fr. Konstantin Fedoroff's behavior has caused reasonable
                            people to become convinced that he is in prelest, long before the current
                            situation arose. And as to Bishop Varnava--his record in Russia stands for
                            itself--his participation in the notorious "avtoprobeg" (rolling
                            demonstration) all around Moscow with the Fascist "Pamyat'" organiziation,
                            replete with armbands and Nazi flags, his sending one of his clergymen to
                            participate in the onslaught on the offices of the newspaper "Moskovskii
                            Komsomolets," when the jackbooted and brown-shirted Pamyat' activists
                            terrorized the staff of this press office and ripped out their telephones,
                            as well as his attempt to join with the incredibly odious Filaret
                            Denisenko, are all witnesses to the quality of his intelligence and judgement.


                            With love in Christ,

                            Prot. Alexander Lebedeff
                          • The Stephens
                            Public rancor started with those who stubbornly disagree with the Metropolitan. Why can t the Metropolitan speak out in an effort to bring unity back to
                            Message 13 of 14 , Jul 2, 2001
                              Public "rancor" started with those who "stubbornly disagree" with the
                              Metropolitan. Why can't the Metropolitan speak out in an effort to bring
                              unity back to the Church Abroad without the myriad of rediculous accusations
                              of forgery and fragility?
                              Fr. Seraphim Stephens
                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: "Fr. Alexander Lebedeff" <lebedeff@...>
                              To: <orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 9:57 PM
                              Subject: Re: [orthodox-synod] Budzilovich Admits Met. Vitaly did NOT Write
                              the "Epistle"


                              > At 11:46 PM 7/1/01 +0200, you wrote:
                              > >Dear Father Alexander,
                              > >
                              > >You write;
                              > >
                              > >"Here, the actual authorship must be determined, because the
                              Metropolitan,
                              > >if the statement is truly his own, is doing something to the detriment of
                              > >the perception of the oneness of mind of the bishops of the Church, and
                              > >thus, it is divisive."
                              > >
                              > >I completely disagree with your opinion.
                              > >
                              > >What is divisive is the stubborn attitude of the bishops who refuse to
                              see
                              > >that the conclusions of the October Council are refused or not understood
                              by
                              > >a sizeable part of the Church, including her metropolitan, a few bishops,
                              a
                              > >number of priests and lay peiople, among the most faithful servants of
                              the
                              > >Church. This attitude of the Synod is perceived as a divisive lack of
                              > >humility and lack of sobornost.
                              >
                              > Let's see if I understand this.
                              >
                              > You have a strongly held opinion.
                              >
                              > The majority of the Bishops in the Synod have a different opinion.
                              >
                              > Because their opinion is different than yours, this means they have a
                              > "stubborn attitude."
                              >
                              > Maybe, just maybe, it is **YOU** who has a "stubborn attitude"?
                              >
                              > Did you ever think of **that** possibility?
                              >
                              >
                              > >What is unifying is the proposal of the Metropolitan. He proposes to
                              > >reconvene (what is more unifying than convening?) to talk again, to make
                              > >peace among ourselves, to forgive one another and elaborate a common
                              > >position in Christ, far away from human pride.
                              >
                              >
                              > Fine. why can't he bring up his suggestion at the next Council of Bishops,
                              > next week, away from public rancor and the inherent divisiveness it
                              causes?
                              >
                              >
                              > >Sobornost is not forcing a minority of intelligent, pious and concerned
                              > >people to accept blindly the opinion of the majority
                              >
                              > since you use no adjectives to describe the majority, we can then assume
                              > that, in contrast, you belive them to be unintelligent, impious, and
                              > unconcerned?
                              >
                              >
                              > >and condemnations
                              > >without judgement. Sobornost is taking into account the opinion of
                              > >hierarchs, priests and lay people who are genuinely concerned about the
                              > >faith and who do not lack ecclesial culture,
                              >
                              > you consider statements made by them calling the majority bishops
                              > "traitors" and the Sobor of Bishops a "robber council" a sign of
                              "ecclesial
                              > culture'?
                              >
                              >
                              > >even if they are a minority.
                              > >Such minorities have already saved the faith in the past.
                              >
                              > Only if they were right. Being in the minority does not immediately give
                              > your position legitimacy. On the contrary, people in th minority may be
                              > there because they are absolutely **wrong**.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > >The people who do not agree with the conclusions of the October Council
                              are
                              > >constantly reminded that they should not fall into prelest. I agree that
                              it
                              > >should be a constant concern for all of us. We, orthodox people know
                              however
                              > >that priests and hierarchs too are tempted by the devil and should beware
                              of
                              > >prelest.
                              >
                              > Unfortunately, Fr. Konstantin Fedoroff's behavior has caused reasonable
                              > people to become convinced that he is in prelest, long before the current
                              > situation arose. And as to Bishop Varnava--his record in Russia stands for
                              > itself--his participation in the notorious "avtoprobeg" (rolling
                              > demonstration) all around Moscow with the Fascist "Pamyat'" organiziation,
                              > replete with armbands and Nazi flags, his sending one of his clergymen to
                              > participate in the onslaught on the offices of the newspaper "Moskovskii
                              > Komsomolets," when the jackbooted and brown-shirted Pamyat' activists
                              > terrorized the staff of this press office and ripped out their telephones,
                              > as well as his attempt to join with the incredibly odious Filaret
                              > Denisenko, are all witnesses to the quality of his intelligence and
                              judgement.
                              >
                              >
                              > With love in Christ,
                              >
                              > Prot. Alexander Lebedeff
                              >
                              >
                              > Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                              >
                              >
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.