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

Re: [orthodox-synod] Fw: OK, Let's Focus on the Real Issue

Expand Messages
  • The Stephens
    Who has declared our Metropolitan to be incompetent? Fr. Seraphim Stephens ... From: Fr. Alexander Lebedeff To:
    Message 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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.