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

Re: Fw: OK, Let's Focus on the Real Issue

Expand Messages
  • gsnroc@yahoo.com
    ... doing, why ... weight? ... potion ... Perhaps this miracle potion Fr.Alexander speaks of is having the humility to admit that you made a mistake.Christ s
    Message 1 of 12 , Jul 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In orthodox-synod@y..., "Fr. Alexander Lebedeff" <lebedeff@w...>
      wrote:
      > Regarding
      >
      > In that case, if they are too stupid to understand what they are
      doing, why
      > should any retraction that occurs by them months later carry any
      weight?
      > Did they somehow become more intelligent during those months?
      >
      > If they were morons in October, and their signatures on the Synod
      > resolutions and epistle were due to their stupidity, what miracle
      potion
      > has since been consumed by them to make them lose their denseness?
      >
      >
      > With love in Christ,
      >
      > Prot. Alexander Lebedeff

      Perhaps this "miracle potion" Fr.Alexander speaks of is having the
      humility to admit that you made a mistake.Christ's teaching on
      humility and repentance is one of the basic and more important tenets
      of our faith.It seems that when politics is the driving force,the
      truth often gets shoved aside.
    • Fr. John Whiteford
      ... Excuse me for insisting. The issue you discuss may be basic , but is still not the real issue. The real issue is the content of the epistle, which you do
      Message 2 of 12 , Jul 2, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        --- Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:
        "Excuse me for insisting. The issue you discuss may be "basic", but
        is still not the real issue. The real issue is the content of the
        epistle, which you do not address."



        OK... which issues are not addressed already in
        the following document... just to point to one
        example?

        http://www.rocor.org/documents/2001-03-15-appeal.html

        =====
        ********************************************************
        * Fr. John Whiteford IC -|- XC *
        * ----|---- *
        * St. Jonah of Manchuria Orthodox Mission | *
        * Serving the Spring, Woodlands, \| *
        * and Conroe, Texas area. |\ *
        * http://www.saintjonah.org/ NI | KA *

        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
        http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
      • The Stephens
        Who has declared our Metropolitan to be incompetent? Fr. Seraphim Stephens ... From: Fr. Alexander Lebedeff To:
        Message 3 of 12 , Jul 2, 2001
        • 0 Attachment
          Who has declared our Metropolitan to be incompetent?
          Fr. Seraphim Stephens
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Fr. Alexander Lebedeff" <lebedeff@...>
          To: <orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2001 10:09 PM
          Subject: Re: [orthodox-synod] Fw: OK, Let's Focus on the Real Issue


          > Regarding
          >
          >
          >
          > >I would like to add two remarks:
          > >
          > >- Concerning the enquiry on authorship, the hierarchs - specialists
          > >discuss the Metropolitan style, expressions, speeling etc., which they
          > >seem to know profoundly for having worked in close cooperation with him.
          > >The only thing they do not seem to be interested in is the thinking of
          the
          > >Metropolitan. The espistle is totally consistent with our Metropolitan
          > >thinking. Friends of mine who have privately visited the Metropolitan
          > >report that his conversation announced exactly the epistle he sent a few
          > >days later. One may be interested to know that the Metropolitan speaks
          > >also to lay people.
          >
          > That's fine, except for the fact that the Metropolitan often forgest what
          > he said or did only a half hour previously. So calling him or talking with
          > him later is of no consequence.
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > >- My understanding of sobornost is that, in case a Council produces an
          > >epistle which is not understood or not accepted by a sizeable part of the
          > >Church (including a first hierarch, a few bishops,
          >
          > How stupid do you think our hierarchs are?
          >
          > This Epistle was read and discussed, voted on, and approved and signed by
          > the Council of Bishops, including the First Hierarch, Archbishop Lazarus,
          > and Bishops Agathangel and Benjamin.
          >
          > Are you seriously telling me that they **did not understand** what they
          > were doing??
          >
          > In that case, if they are too stupid to understand what they are doing,
          why
          > should any retraction that occurs by them months later carry any weight?
          > Did they somehow become more intelligent during those months?
          >
          > If they were morons in October, and their signatures on the Synod
          > resolutions and epistle were due to their stupidity, what miracle potion
          > has since been consumed by them to make them lose their denseness?
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > >a great number of priests and lay people),
          >
          > I imagine we could find some examples of denseness there, no?
          >
          >
          >
          > >the Council should gather again and rework its conclusions. Statutes are
          > >less important than unity of the Church, justice and Truth. The Holy
          > >Spirit does not blow only on the majority of the Synod. We are not
          papists.
          >
          >
          > Nor is intelligence the exclusive possesion of dissenting clergy. Quite
          the
          > contrary.
          >
          >
          > 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/
          >
          >
        • Vladimir Kozyreff
          Dear Father John, The disputed last epistle of Vl. Vitaly proposes that a new Council should meet to take into account the meaning of those within the Church
          Message 4 of 12 , Jul 2, 2001
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Father John,

            The disputed last epistle of Vl. Vitaly proposes that a new Council should
            meet to take into account the meaning of those within the Church who think
            that the post October council poslanie should be re-written.

            What can one oppose to such a conciliatory programme, if one is genuinely
            concerned about sobornost?

            Sobornost, sobor, council, unanimity, meeting... What other concepts can I
            quote to stress the idea of oneness, that should inspire and guide us?

            The text you mention of course has a lot of positive aspects. In orthodoxy,
            what governs is not statements or texts, but experience, be it mystical,
            personal contacts or whatever. Nothing will replace personal meetings for
            people to reunite and reconcile with one another.

            What is to be gained by not meeting and not searching unanimity? Is loosing
            face more tragic than loosing one's soul?

            Father Alexander says that I call the attitude of the Synod "stubborn"
            because I do not like it. Not so. I call it stubborn because it persists in
            ignoring the calls of a sizeable part of the Church.

            Father Alexander asks which "magic potion" had those who signed the post
            October Council poslanie change their minds. "Gospod umudryaiet sleptsi".
            Did it never occur to you that you reconsidered a position that you had held
            for a time? Is a person not stubborn to refuse in principle to reconsider
            his position? Is it not a lack of humility and a risk to miss the Truth?

            In God,

            Vladimir Kozyreff




            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Fr. John Whiteford" <frjohnwhiteford@...>
            To: <orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Monday, July 02, 2001 12:55 PM
            Subject: [orthodox-synod] Re: Fw: OK, Let's Focus on the Real Issue


            > --- Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:
            > "Excuse me for insisting. The issue you discuss may be "basic", but
            > is still not the real issue. The real issue is the content of the
            > epistle, which you do not address."
            >
            >
            >
            > OK... which issues are not addressed already in
            > the following document... just to point to one
            > example?
            >
            > http://www.rocor.org/documents/2001-03-15-appeal.html
            >
            > =====
            > ********************************************************
            > * Fr. John Whiteford IC -|- XC *
            > * ----|---- *
            > * St. Jonah of Manchuria Orthodox Mission | *
            > * Serving the Spring, Woodlands, \| *
            > * and Conroe, Texas area. |\ *
            > * http://www.saintjonah.org/ NI | KA *
            >
            > __________________________________________________
            > Do You Yahoo!?
            > Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
            > http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod
            >
            >
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
            >
            >
            >
          • Father Maximos
            At the last regular Synod meeting the following document was issued, signed by His Eminance Metropolitan Vitaly. This meeting was only a few months ago, how
            Message 5 of 12 , Jul 2, 2001
            • 0 Attachment
              At the last regular Synod meeting the following document was issued,
              signed by His Eminance Metropolitan Vitaly. This meeting was only a
              few months ago, how does one reconcile this with the ideas expressed
              in the so-called epistle recently issued?



              Having assembled for a regular session of the Synod of Bishops, we
              found it necessary to bear witness again to our inner unity and
              unshakable stand in the truth of the Church. We are alarmed by the
              discord which has drawn in certain parts of our ecclesial organism.
              In connection with this, we affirm that all of us, the members of the
              Synod of Bishops, presided over by our president, His Eminence
              Metropolitan Vitaly, unanimously stand by the decisions and
              statements adopted at the Council of Bishops, and we cannot agree
              with any attempt to introduce a spirit of doubt and disagreement into
              our midst.


              Over the course of eighty years, we have sensed that our
              responsibility lies before the fullness of the Church of Russia, both
              abroad and in our much-suffering homeland. Our decisions and thoughts
              are always guided by this twofold responsibility.


              It is not because we deserve it that we have inherited all the
              richness of the Church of Russia; yet we strive to preserve it and to
              pass it on. And now also we continue to occupy the steadfast
              positions of our confession of the Faith before the whole world,and
              we therefore naturally rejoice when we perceive positive changed
              occurring among our much-suffering Russian people.


              The Constitution of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia
              itself defines our existence and binds our activities with
              responsibility before the entire Church of Russia. In our time, when
              it open persecution has ceased, our relations require interpretation
              and healthy assessment. With this aim in mind, the Council of Bishops
              which convened in the year 2000 set up several committees to study
              the paths of the Church of Russia, past and future. Such a step is
              not an innovation; rather it is organic, and consequently is an
              extension of our former path.


              Reminding all the faithful children of our Church that it is
              essential not to submit to the attempts of the enemy of our salvation
              to rend the seamless garment of the Church, we call upon you all
              henceforth to stand firmly in the truth of the Church and to preserve
              the unity of love.


              26 January/8 February 2001


              Metropolitan Vitaly [signature]
              President of the Synod


              Members of the Synod
              [signed:]
              Archbishop Laurus
              Archbishop Mark
              Archbishop Alypy
              Bishop Gabriel
              Bishop Kyrill
              Bishop Michael

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Anthony Bridges
              ... Metropolitan Vitaly. This meeting was only a ... issued? ... Father Maximos, asking your blessing, I want to try to answer your question. It appears to be
              Message 6 of 12 , Jul 3, 2001
              • 0 Attachment
                --- Father Maximos <mga@...> wrote:
                > At the last regular Synod meeting the following
                > document was issued,signed by His Eminance
                Metropolitan Vitaly. This meeting was only a
                > few months ago, how does one reconcile this with the
                > ideas expressed in the so-called epistle recently
                issued?
                >

                Father Maximos, asking your blessing, I want to try to
                answer your question. It appears to be true, as we
                have been told, that there is a difference between the
                Metropolitan's signature affixed to a document from
                the Synod, such as you have quoted, and a document
                which only he himself produces.

                While I do not wish to give an opinion one way or the
                other about the current controversy (believing that in
                time it will be clarified), what I have said above
                seems to be supported by Vladyka Vitaly's
                "Post-Conciliar Epistle," whose views are apparently
                not in sympathy with those of the October 2000
                Epistle, even though he signed that Synodal Epistle as
                well.

                I quote the Post-Conciliar Epistle here:

                Epistle
                from Metropolitan Vitaly
                First Hierarch
                of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia

                Beloved brothers and sisters

                Now that the meeting of the Bishops' Council, or
                Sobor, is over, I consider it my duty, as First
                Hierarch of the Holy Russian Orthodox Church Outside
                Russia, to assure all of you that our Church, which
                has followed along the straight path of Christ these
                80 years, will not turn aside into any dubious byways.
                On the other hand, we cannot be indifferent and silent
                as regards questions affecting what is happening on
                the spiritual level in Russia.

                The Moscow Patriarchate has now glorified the Royal
                Martyrs, whom we have glorified long ago, and we have
                sent thousands of icons of them throughout the whole
                of Russia. In this way the whole of Russia became
                aware of the activities of the Russian Orthodox Church
                Outside Russia. Now many people cannot help wondering
                why the Moscow Patriarchate did not simply recognize
                our glorification and adopt it for itself. The answer
                is very simple. To recognize our glorification would
                mean recognizing our Church Abroad as a lawful Church
                which had left the borders of the fatherland and
                existed these 80 years beyond the borders of Russia,
                with the blessing of the last lawful Patriarch of
                Russia, Patriarch Tikhon. This is something which the
                Moscow Patriarchate to this very day cannot and will
                not do. Meanwhile believers in Russia demand a
                glorification. So the Moscow Patriarchate decided to
                perform an act of political machination and undertake
                its own glorification, with the sole aim of quietening
                the voice of its believers and thereby managing to
                prolong its own existence. In other words, the Moscow
                Patriarchate, which is the direct heir of the Soviet
                executioners, arrayed in the fleece of an innocent
                sheep put on over its wolf's hide, is now glorifying
                the murdered and tormented victims of its own
                communist leaders. Before that, for years the Moscow
                Patriarchate was in full concord with the Bolsheviks
                and the rulers in the USSR who exterminated hundreds
                of thousands of believers. Despite this it was clear
                that the Russian people could not be torn away from
                the Church of Christ. That Pascha would always remain
                the peoples' greatest festivity. That red easter eggs,
                kulich and cheese-pascha would adorn everyone's table
                at Easter time and even the state bakeries would sell
                the special Easter kulich while calling it sweetened
                bread. Seeing all this, Stalin was brought to a state
                of wild fury and said, "Obviously we can't turn all
                Russians into Bolsheviks; so we and only we will give
                them a Patriarch, as well as all the reverend clergy
                they need, and we'll open churches, which we will sell
                to them and increase taxes the whole time until they
                have no more means to exist."

                The silent answer of believers in Russia to this was
                that they started to pray in their homes, and in each
                such apartment they made a house church with an
                iconostas and icons and even made their own incense
                using the resin from pine trees and drops of rose oil.
                Churches like this exist up to the present day.
                Despite the wonderful church buildings of the
                Patriarchate, the sumptuously arrayed clergy and
                splendid choirs, many believers prefer the crowded
                conditions of these apartments. Even at Pascha, when
                the processions are taking place in the official
                churches to the resounding peals of bells, there are
                people in apartment buildings, in corridors, quietly
                going in single file with candles in their hands, and
                singing in a whisper "Christ is Risen!" You cannot but
                ask yourself, "Who are these people?" They are
                believers who, while living in Russia alongside all
                the others, understand and feel precisely what the
                Moscow Patriarchate is, and what is its purpose and
                direction. These very people look to us, seeking our
                protection and understanding. Up to this day they have
                received this from us and I want to assure all the
                children of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia
                that nothing has changed. As we have continued
                fearlessly on our path these 80 years, so we shall
                continue further. Our path is a very lonely one,
                because we stand for the Truth, but fear not, little
                flock, the Lord is with us! And if the Lord be with
                us, who shall be against us?

                Now I want to return to the questions which are so
                disturbing to many of you. Firstly I want to express
                my profound gratitude to all of you for your trust and
                love towards me, and in order to reassure you I want
                to explain the following. The Epistle from the Council
                of Bishops, in accordance with the laws governing a
                Council - an Assembly, or Sobor (since the very word
                "Sobor" means a common decision) must be signed by
                all. If any of the bishops has his own personal
                opinion, he has the right to express it separately in
                writing. The fact that I signed the Epistle is far
                from meaning that I am in agreement with each and
                every statement in it and I know that there are other
                bishops who thought as I do, but to compose an Epistle
                with which all would be completely satisfied is
                virtually impossible.

                There is one further point which is of great concern
                to many of you. This is the establishment of a Synodal
                Committee to discuss questions of the unity of the
                Russian Church. I myself questioned what unity could
                be under consideration, when it should be quite clear
                to all that the Russian Orthodox Church Outside
                Russia, which has preserved its spiritual freedom
                these 80 years, will never proceed to unite with the
                Moscow Patriarchate.

                And so, faithful children of the Russian Orthodox
                Church Outside Russia, know that our Church has not
                betrayed its path and that we also, if we desire our
                salvation, must follow her path. There will be many
                trials and temptations, but remain as always faithful
                to the Lord and His Church, and do not forget that the
                most terrible thing for us is to depart from the Truth
                - which is to say, from Christ Himself.

                Metropolitan Vitaly
                Feast of the Presentation of the
                Mother of God in the Temple
                21 November / 4 December, 2000


                And here is the epistle from the Synod you had
                previously quoted. Reading this one, it is clear that
                it is from the entire Synod, not only the
                Metropolitan, and, as we have been told, all must sign
                this type of document.

                So there is no mystery here.

                Father Deacon Anthony
                Our Lady, Joy of All Who Sorrow
                Cumming, GA


                >
                >
                > Having assembled for a regular session of the Synod
                > of Bishops, we found it necessary to bear witness
                again to our inner unity and
                > unshakable stand in the truth of the Church. We are
                > alarmed by the
                > discord which has drawn in certain parts of our
                > ecclesial organism.
                > In connection with this, we affirm that all of us,
                > the members of the
                > Synod of Bishops, presided over by our president,
                > His Eminence
                > Metropolitan Vitaly, unanimously stand by the
                > decisions and
                > statements adopted at the Council of Bishops, and we
                > cannot agree
                > with any attempt to introduce a spirit of doubt and
                > disagreement into
                > our midst.
                >
                >
                > Over the course of eighty years, we have sensed that
                > our
                > responsibility lies before the fullness of the
                > Church of Russia, both
                > abroad and in our much-suffering homeland. Our
                > decisions and thoughts
                > are always guided by this twofold responsibility.
                >
                >
                > It is not because we deserve it that we have
                > inherited all the
                > richness of the Church of Russia; yet we strive to
                > preserve it and to
                > pass it on. And now also we continue to occupy the
                > steadfast
                > positions of our confession of the Faith before the
                > whole world,and
                > we therefore naturally rejoice when we perceive
                > positive changed
                > occurring among our much-suffering Russian people.
                >
                >
                > The Constitution of the Russian Orthodox Church
                > Outside of Russia
                > itself defines our existence and binds our
                > activities with
                > responsibility before the entire Church of Russia.
                > In our time, when
                > it open persecution has ceased, our relations
                > require interpretation
                > and healthy assessment. With this aim in mind, the
                > Council of Bishops
                > which convened in the year 2000 set up several
                > committees to study
                > the paths of the Church of Russia, past and future.
                > Such a step is
                > not an innovation; rather it is organic, and
                > consequently is an
                > extension of our former path.
                >
                >
                > Reminding all the faithful children of our Church
                > that it is
                > essential not to submit to the attempts of the enemy
                > of our salvation
                > to rend the seamless garment of the Church, we call
                > upon you all
                > henceforth to stand firmly in the truth of the
                > Church and to preserve
                > the unity of love.
                >
                >
                > 26 January/8 February 2001
                >
                >
                > Metropolitan Vitaly [signature]
                > President of the Synod
                >
                >
                > Members of the Synod
                > [signed:]
                > Archbishop Laurus
                > Archbishop Mark
                > Archbishop Alypy
                > Bishop Gabriel
                > Bishop Kyrill
                > Bishop Michael
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been
                > removed]
                >
                >


                __________________________________________________
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
                http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
              • Ascension Monastery
                ... This is certainly possible, but there are other possible answers as well. The main difference between these two types of documents is that the one he signs
                Message 7 of 12 , Jul 5, 2001
                • 0 Attachment
                  >--- Father Maximos <mga@...> wrote:
                  >> At the last regular Synod meeting the following
                  >> document was issued,signed by His Eminance
                  >Metropolitan Vitaly. This meeting was only a
                  >> few months ago, how does one reconcile this with the
                  >> ideas expressed in the so-called epistle recently
                  >issued?
                  >>
                  >
                  >Father Maximos, asking your blessing, I want to try to
                  >answer your question. It appears to be true, as we
                  >have been told, that there is a difference between the
                  >Metropolitan's signature affixed to a document from
                  >the Synod, such as you have quoted, and a document
                  >which only he himself produces.
                  >
                  >While I do not wish to give an opinion one way or the
                  >other about the current controversy (believing that in
                  >time it will be clarified), what I have said above
                  >seems to be supported by Vladyka Vitaly's
                  >"Post-Conciliar Epistle," whose views are apparently
                  >not in sympathy with those of the October 2000
                  >Epistle, even though he signed that Synodal Epistle as
                  >well.



                  This is certainly possible, but there are other possible answers as
                  well. The main difference between these two types of documents is
                  that the one he signs in his capacity as the President of the Council
                  of Bishops has the "force of law' as it were. It is the conciliar
                  voice of the Church ( I am not claiming it is infallible) whereas the
                  documents produced by himself alone are his considered opinions and
                  they do not have the authority to reverse the decision of the Council
                  of Bishops. Any reversal of the course chartered by the Council in
                  2000, must be done by the Council of Bishops which is the supreme
                  canonical authority. I am sure there will be an effort by some to do
                  so at the next Council meeting, and we must have faith that the right
                  and proper course will be pursued. May God grant strength to our
                  Hierarchs to do that which is well-pleasing to God, and to resist the
                  efforts of those who , though they may think they do well, are
                  tearing our Church apart.


                  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]
                • Anthony Bridges
                  Deacon Anthony wrote: It appears to be true, as we have been told, that there is a difference between the Metropolitan s signature affixed to a document from
                  Message 8 of 12 , Jul 5, 2001
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Deacon Anthony wrote:

                    It appears to be true, as we have been told, that
                    there is a difference between the Metropolitan's
                    signature affixed to a document from the Synod, such
                    as you have quoted, and a document which only he
                    himself produces.

                    While I do not wish to give an opinion one way or the
                    other about the current controversy (believing that in
                    time it will be clarified), what I have said above
                    seems to be supported by Vladyka Vitaly's
                    "Post-Conciliar Epistle," whose views are apparently
                    not in sympathy with those of the October 2000
                    Epistle, even though he signed that Synodal [should be
                    Conciliar] Epistle as well.
                    >

                    Father Maximos wrote:

                    >
                    > This is certainly possible, but there are other
                    > possible answers as well. The main difference
                    > between these two types of documents is
                    > that the one he signs in his capacity as the
                    > President of the Council
                    > of Bishops has the "force of law' as it were. It is
                    > the conciliar voice of the Church ( I am not
                    > claiming it is infallible) whereas the
                    > documents produced by himself alone are his
                    > considered opinions and they do not have the
                    > authority to reverse the decision of the Council
                    > of Bishops. Any reversal of the course chartered by
                    > the Council in 2000, must be done by the Council of
                    > Bishops which is the supreme canonical authority.

                    Deacon Anthony replies:

                    Father, with your blessing, let me say that what you
                    have stated above is not a different answer to what I
                    gave, as far as I can see, but an explanatory
                    expansion of that answer. Your original question, as I
                    recall, was how could the same person have signed both
                    the October 2000 Epistle and the recent controversial
                    Epistle. The answer is that one is part of the
                    procedure of the Council of Bishops and the other is
                    from the Metropolitan himself.

                    We know that the Metropolitan does not have the
                    authority to reverse the decision of a Council.


                    > I am sure there will be an effort by some to do
                    > so [i.e "reverse the course chartered by
                    > the Council in 2000",from above] at the next Council
                    meeting,
                    > and we must have faith that the right and proper
                    > course will be pursued.


                    According to both the Council and the Metropolitan, we
                    have not entered upon a new course, so there is no
                    need for reversal.


                    > May God grant strength to our Hierarchs to do that
                    > which is well-pleasing to God,
                    > and to resist the efforts of those who, though they
                    > may think they do well, are tearing our Church
                    apart.
                    >

                    From this it sounds as though you already know what
                    "that which is well-pleasing to God" is. Or am I
                    misunderstanding you?


                    deacon Anthony






                    __________________________________________________
                    Do You Yahoo!?
                    Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
                    http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
                  • Father Maximos
                    Dear Father Anthony, I think you are correct when you say there is no essential difference in what we both said. I think though there are those who wish to
                    Message 9 of 12 , Jul 5, 2001
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Dear Father Anthony,

                      I think you are correct when you say there is no essential difference
                      in what we both said. I think though there are those who wish to
                      create a scission between the Metropolitan and his fellow Hierarchs
                      and this is unfortunate.

                      You are very much correct when you say that the principles of the
                      2000 Sobor were not a "new course" but the historical course of the
                      Church Abroad, what I was attempting to say was the course as laid
                      out at the 2000 Sobor, forgive me if I was unclear or ambiguous.
                      Although you say you know that the Metropolitan cannot reverse the
                      decisions of the Council, there are many that do not appear to know
                      that is the case.

                      At 2:46 PM -0700 7/5/01, Anthony Bridges wrote:
                      >From this it sounds as though you already know what
                      >"that which is well-pleasing to God" is. Or am I
                      >misunderstanding you?


                      I hope that I do, and I hope you do too. If not why are we daring to
                      speak at all? I think following the traditional course of our Church
                      with respect and obedience to the norms of the Orthodox Church is
                      well pleasing to God. I think doing those things contrary to this is
                      not well pleasing to God.


                      In Christ

                      the least of monks

                      Maximos+
                    • Anthony Bridges
                      Father Deacon Anthony Bridges writes: I seem to have stuck my orarion in my diaconal mouth yet again! Most of my comments re the acrimony of orthodox lists do
                      Message 10 of 12 , Jul 5, 2001
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Father Deacon Anthony Bridges writes:

                        I seem to have stuck my orarion in my diaconal mouth
                        yet again!

                        Most of my comments re the acrimony of orthodox lists
                        do not apply to the orthodox-synod list, but mostly to
                        the orthodox-rocor list (if I have got them straight).
                        I get the two confused, because they are the two I
                        read on Yahoo!, and because there is a great deal of
                        cross-posting between the two.

                        However, I would reiterate the advice to stick to the
                        basics and avoid most of the Internet lists. A better
                        use for the Internet for new converts is to read the
                        doctrinal stuff on the various jurisdiction websites,
                        such as the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, and to read
                        the articles at orthodoxinfo.com, etc.

                        This advice is based on my own experience as a
                        convert. It takes a LONG time to get SOME perspective
                        and develop the patience required to deal with the
                        controversies on these lists. In fact, I can't claim
                        to have attained either, which is why I mostly stay
                        away from posting, and just read.

                        It is far more important to attend all the services at
                        church, to pay attention to what is being read, to
                        read the Fathers or good books by Metropolitan of
                        Nafpakthos, Hierotheos Vlachos, etc. (Ascension
                        Monastery Bookstore is a good place to buy some of
                        these wonderful books, www.mga.org, I believe). After
                        a few YEARS, one might start to gain some perspective,
                        if only a little.

                        The lists might be good for making contacts and asking
                        certain questions, and perhaps this orthodox-synod
                        list is intended for that, while avoiding the worst of
                        the controversy.

                        I apologize for any confusion I have caused, and I
                        retreat into the fast...

                        Deacon Anthony







                        __________________________________________________
                        Do You Yahoo!?
                        Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
                        http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.