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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 14 , Jul 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 14 , Jul 1, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 14 , Jul 2, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          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.