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

RE: [orthodox-synod] Re: Rename the List?

Expand Messages
  • vladimir kozyreff
    Dear List, Further to father Stefan’ report ( When we met with the clergy one of the points we made was that they were to commemorate the appointed ruling
    Message 1 of 14 , Jun 29, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear List,

      Further to father Stefan’ report ("When we met with the clergy one of the
      points we made was that they were to commemorate the appointed ruling Bishop
      and he would be submitting to a church investigation and trial. They
      refused.")

      I give to you below the corresponding extract of the letter that the clerics
      wrote, to give their response to the Synod’s emissaries: (in French):

      " ...nous serions prêts à commémorer temporairement l'évêque Ambroise en
      attendant le jugement ecclésiastique au cous où nous recevrions du Synode
      une confirmation officielle de ce que ... aura bien lieu un jugement
      équitable ... "

      “We would be ready to commemorate temporarily bishop Ambrose while awaiting
      the ecclesiastic trial if we would receive from the Synod an official
      confirmation that an equitable trial will indeed take place”.

      I am sure Father Stefan will agree that this was the answer of the clerics.
      What was received is a statement from bishop Ambrose that no judgement would
      take place.

      In God,

      Vladimir Kozyreff



      -----Message d'origine-----
      De : stefanvpavlenko [mailto:StefanVPavlenko@...]
      Envoyé : jeudi 27 juin 2002 18:35
      À : orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com
      Objet : [orthodox-synod] Re: Rename the List?


      >>>>3. The clerics declared they were ready to commemorate the bishop,
      Until the hearing would take place. The Synod refused.<<<<

      Father George Larin and my sinful person pleaded with the clerics to
      commemorate the appointed ruling Bishop and >>>they<<< refused.
      NOT AS STATED IN YOUR POINT #3!

      >>>>2. The accused bishop - and only him - publicly proclaimed that
      the accusation against him was "not receivable".

      When we met with the clergy one of the points we made was that they
      were to commemorate the appointed ruling Bishop and he would be
      submiting to a church investigation and trial. They refused.
      Bishop Ambrose wanted and was willing to be tried by the
      Ecclesiastical Court, any contrary information is a distortion of the
      truth.

      Archpriest Stefan Pavlenko



      --- In orthodox-synod@y..., "vkozyreff" <vladimir.kozyreff@s...>
      wrote:
      > Dear List,
      >
      > Why does Rev David Straut write that "The clergymen in Europe were
      > suspended by the Synod of Bishops for disobedience and the refusal
      to
      > commemorate their Diocesan Hierarch."? Why does he not ask himself
      > why all of a sudden, 12 senior and respected clerics, refused to
      > commemorate this bishop? What allows him to suggest that they
      refused
      > to commemorate that bishop "because they did not like him"?
      >
      > The 12 clerics addressed an official, canonical complaint to the
      > Synod, before the nomination of the bishop.
      >
      > In doing so they were encouraged by apostolic canon 74 : "A bishop
      > accused of whatever guilt by credible people who are faithful shall
      > necessarily be summoned by the bishops ..." and by the 2nd
      Ecumenical
      > Council (6) : "But if persons who are neither heretics, nor
      > excommunicated, who did not suffer condemnation and are not under
      the
      > accusation, believe they have reasons to complain about the bishop
      > with respect to church matters, the saint council orders them to
      > submit such complaints to the judgement of the gathered bishops of
      > the province and to prove the accusations made ; and if the
      > provincial bishops are unable to remedy the fault of that bishop,
      > then the plaintiffs will address the ampler council of the diocese,
      > which will gather and judge that matter".
      >
      > What followed ?
      >
      > 1. Individual and collective threats were made against each of
      these
      > 12 clerics, before any judgement; in particular, this complaint was
      > qualified as "revolt" – before any judgement.
      >
      > 2. The accused bishop - and only him - publicly proclaimed that the
      > accusation against him was "not receivable".
      >
      > 3. The clerics declared they were ready to commemorate the bishop,
      > until the hearing would take place. The Synod refused.
      >
      > 4. The 12 clerics were suspended without judgement.
      >
      > 5. The clerics were summoned in another diocese, with a very short
      > notice, at a gathering where not all the members of the Synod were
      > present (but where non-synodal bishops where present) "in order to
      > debate about their future".
      >
      > 6. The clerics, together with their bishop, were "defrocked", again
      > without hearing.
      >
      > These was "Every effort was made to reach out".
      >
      > Father David, "Don't you fear God, since you [may] fall under the
      > same sentence?" (Luke 23:40). "Does our law condemn anyone without
      > first hearing him to find out what he is doing ?"(John 7, 52).
      >
      > In God,
      >
      > Vladimir Kozyreff
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > > Dear List,
      > >
      > > I cannot understand how this point of view is one of loyalty to
      the
      > Synod of
      > > Bishops of the ROCOR. The clergymen in Europe were suspended by
      > the Synod
      > > of Bishops for disobedience and the refusal to commemorate their
      > Diocesan
      > > Hierarch. Even if I did not like my Bishop, and disagreed with
      him
      > on
      > > matters of principle, I am not at liberty to not commemorate
      him.
      > As a
      > > priest, I cannot even serve without the permission of my
      Hierarch.
      > Every
      > > effort was made by our Synod of Bishops to reach out to these
      > Clergy and
      > > they refused to be obedient.
      > >
      > > Is this really a List for those loyal to the ROCOR, or is a List
      > for ROCiE
      > > partisans and sympathizers?
      > >
      > > Just wondering....
      > >
      > > Priest David Straut




      Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
    • Kiril Bart
      Fr.Stefan, so what didn t let him to be tryied? Non commemoration of him by some clergy? It doesn t sound very solid. Subdeacon Kirill ...
      Message 2 of 14 , Jul 1, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Fr.Stefan, so what didn't let him to be tryied? Non
        commemoration of him by some clergy? It doesn't sound
        very solid.
        Subdeacon Kirill
        --- stefanvpavlenko <StefanVPavlenko@...>
        wrote:
        > >>>>3. The clerics declared they were ready to
        > commemorate the bishop,
        > Until the hearing would take place. The Synod
        > refused.<<<<
        >
        > Father George Larin and my sinful person pleaded
        > with the clerics to
        > commemorate the appointed ruling Bishop and
        > >>>they<<< refused.
        > NOT AS STATED IN YOUR POINT #3!
        >
        > >>>>2. The accused bishop - and only him - publicly
        > proclaimed that
        > the accusation against him was "not receivable".
        >
        > When we met with the clergy one of the points we
        > made was that they
        > were to commemorate the appointed ruling Bishop and
        > he would be
        > submiting to a church investigation and trial. They
        > refused.
        > Bishop Ambrose wanted and was willing to be tried by
        > the
        > Ecclesiastical Court, any contrary information is a
        > distortion of the
        > truth.
        >
        > Archpriest Stefan Pavlenko
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In orthodox-synod@y..., "vkozyreff"
        > <vladimir.kozyreff@s...>
        > wrote:
        > > Dear List,
        > >
        > > Why does Rev David Straut write that "The
        > clergymen in Europe were
        > > suspended by the Synod of Bishops for disobedience
        > and the refusal
        > to
        > > commemorate their Diocesan Hierarch."? Why does he
        > not ask himself
        > > why all of a sudden, 12 senior and respected
        > clerics, refused to
        > > commemorate this bishop? What allows him to
        > suggest that they
        > refused
        > > to commemorate that bishop "because they did not
        > like him"?
        > >
        > > The 12 clerics addressed an official, canonical
        > complaint to the
        > > Synod, before the nomination of the bishop.
        > >
        > > In doing so they were encouraged by apostolic
        > canon 74 : "A bishop
        > > accused of whatever guilt by credible people who
        > are faithful shall
        > > necessarily be summoned by the bishops ..." and by
        > the 2nd
        > Ecumenical
        > > Council (6) : "But if persons who are neither
        > heretics, nor
        > > excommunicated, who did not suffer condemnation
        > and are not under
        > the
        > > accusation, believe they have reasons to complain
        > about the bishop
        > > with respect to church matters, the saint council
        > orders them to
        > > submit such complaints to the judgement of the
        > gathered bishops of
        > > the province and to prove the accusations made ;
        > and if the
        > > provincial bishops are unable to remedy the fault
        > of that bishop,
        > > then the plaintiffs will address the ampler
        > council of the diocese,
        > > which will gather and judge that matter".
        > >
        > > What followed ?
        > >
        > > 1. Individual and collective threats were made
        > against each of
        > these
        > > 12 clerics, before any judgement; in particular,
        > this complaint was
        > > qualified as "revolt" � before any judgement.
        > >
        > > 2. The accused bishop - and only him - publicly
        > proclaimed that the
        > > accusation against him was "not receivable".
        > >
        > > 3. The clerics declared they were ready to
        > commemorate the bishop,
        > > until the hearing would take place. The Synod
        > refused.
        > >
        > > 4. The 12 clerics were suspended without
        > judgement.
        > >
        > > 5. The clerics were summoned in another diocese,
        > with a very short
        > > notice, at a gathering where not all the members
        > of the Synod were
        > > present (but where non-synodal bishops where
        > present) "in order to
        > > debate about their future".
        > >
        > > 6. The clerics, together with their bishop, were
        > "defrocked", again
        > > without hearing.
        > >
        > > These was "Every effort was made to reach out".
        > >
        > > Father David, "Don't you fear God, since you [may]
        > fall under the
        > > same sentence?" (Luke 23:40). "Does our law
        > condemn anyone without
        > > first hearing him to find out what he is doing
        > ?"(John 7, 52).
        > >
        > > In God,
        > >
        > > Vladimir Kozyreff
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > > Dear List,
        > > >
        > > > I cannot understand how this point of view is
        > one of loyalty to
        > the
        > > Synod of
        > > > Bishops of the ROCOR. The clergymen in Europe
        > were suspended by
        > > the Synod
        > > > of Bishops for disobedience and the refusal to
        > commemorate their
        > > Diocesan
        > > > Hierarch. Even if I did not like my Bishop, and
        > disagreed with
        > him
        > > on
        > > > matters of principle, I am not at liberty to not
        > commemorate
        > him.
        > > As a
        > > > priest, I cannot even serve without the
        > permission of my
        > Hierarch.
        > > Every
        > > > effort was made by our Synod of Bishops to reach
        > out to these
        > > Clergy and
        > > > they refused to be obedient.
        > > >
        > > > Is this really a List for those loyal to the
        > ROCOR, or is a List
        > > for ROCiE
        > > > partisans and sympathizers?
        > > >
        > > > Just wondering....
        > > >
        > > > Priest David Straut
        >
        >
        >


        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
        http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
      • stefanvpavlenko
        I am not a privileged member of the Synod of Bishops so I do not know why there was no trial. But simple logic would dictate that since all the accusers
        Message 3 of 14 , Jul 5, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          I am not a privileged member of the Synod of Bishops so I do not know
          why there was no trial. But simple logic would dictate that since all
          the accusers entered into schism, there was no one to "cast the first
          stone!" Also one could assume that the Council of Bishops found the
          original accusations to be unfounded or frivolous and saw no need to
          pursue the case.
          Archpriest Stefan Pavlenko


          --- In orthodox-synod@y..., Kiril Bart <kirbart@y...> wrote:
          > Fr.Stefan, so what didn't let him to be tryied? Non
          > commemoration of him by some clergy? It doesn't sound
          > very solid.
          > Subdeacon Kirill
          > --- stefanvpavlenko <StefanVPavlenko@n...>
          > wrote:
          > > >>>>3. The clerics declared they were ready to
          > > commemorate the bishop,
          > > Until the hearing would take place. The Synod
          > > refused.<<<<
          > >
          > > Father George Larin and my sinful person pleaded
          > > with the clerics to
          > > commemorate the appointed ruling Bishop and
          > > >>>they<<< refused.
          > > NOT AS STATED IN YOUR POINT #3!
          > >
          > > >>>>2. The accused bishop - and only him - publicly
          > > proclaimed that
          > > the accusation against him was "not receivable".
          > >
          > > When we met with the clergy one of the points we
          > > made was that they
          > > were to commemorate the appointed ruling Bishop and
          > > he would be
          > > submiting to a church investigation and trial. They
          > > refused.
          > > Bishop Ambrose wanted and was willing to be tried by
          > > the
          > > Ecclesiastical Court, any contrary information is a
          > > distortion of the
          > > truth.
          > >
          > > Archpriest Stefan Pavlenko
          > >
          > >
          > >
          > > --- In orthodox-synod@y..., "vkozyreff"
          > > <vladimir.kozyreff@s...>
          > > wrote:
          > > > Dear List,
          > > >
          > > > Why does Rev David Straut write that "The
          > > clergymen in Europe were
          > > > suspended by the Synod of Bishops for disobedience
          > > and the refusal
          > > to
          > > > commemorate their Diocesan Hierarch."? Why does he
          > > not ask himself
          > > > why all of a sudden, 12 senior and respected
          > > clerics, refused to
          > > > commemorate this bishop? What allows him to
          > > suggest that they
          > > refused
          > > > to commemorate that bishop "because they did not
          > > like him"?
          > > >
          > > > The 12 clerics addressed an official, canonical
          > > complaint to the
          > > > Synod, before the nomination of the bishop.
          > > >
          > > > In doing so they were encouraged by apostolic
          > > canon 74 : "A bishop
          > > > accused of whatever guilt by credible people who
          > > are faithful shall
          > > > necessarily be summoned by the bishops ..." and by
          > > the 2nd
          > > Ecumenical
          > > > Council (6) : "But if persons who are neither
          > > heretics, nor
          > > > excommunicated, who did not suffer condemnation
          > > and are not under
          > > the
          > > > accusation, believe they have reasons to complain
          > > about the bishop
          > > > with respect to church matters, the saint council
          > > orders them to
          > > > submit such complaints to the judgement of the
          > > gathered bishops of
          > > > the province and to prove the accusations made ;
          > > and if the
          > > > provincial bishops are unable to remedy the fault
          > > of that bishop,
          > > > then the plaintiffs will address the ampler
          > > council of the diocese,
          > > > which will gather and judge that matter".
          > > >
          > > > What followed ?
          > > >
          > > > 1. Individual and collective threats were made
          > > against each of
          > > these
          > > > 12 clerics, before any judgement; in particular,
          > > this complaint was
          > > > qualified as "revolt" – before any judgement.
          > > >
          > > > 2. The accused bishop - and only him - publicly
          > > proclaimed that the
          > > > accusation against him was "not receivable".
          > > >
          > > > 3. The clerics declared they were ready to
          > > commemorate the bishop,
          > > > until the hearing would take place. The Synod
          > > refused.
          > > >
          > > > 4. The 12 clerics were suspended without
          > > judgement.
          > > >
          > > > 5. The clerics were summoned in another diocese,
          > > with a very short
          > > > notice, at a gathering where not all the members
          > > of the Synod were
          > > > present (but where non-synodal bishops where
          > > present) "in order to
          > > > debate about their future".
          > > >
          > > > 6. The clerics, together with their bishop, were
          > > "defrocked", again
          > > > without hearing.
          > > >
          > > > These was "Every effort was made to reach out".
          > > >
          > > > Father David, "Don't you fear God, since you [may]
          > > fall under the
          > > > same sentence?" (Luke 23:40). "Does our law
          > > condemn anyone without
          > > > first hearing him to find out what he is doing
          > > ?"(John 7, 52).
          > > >
          > > > In God,
          > > >
          > > > Vladimir Kozyreff
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > > Dear List,
          > > > >
          > > > > I cannot understand how this point of view is
          > > one of loyalty to
          > > the
          > > > Synod of
          > > > > Bishops of the ROCOR. The clergymen in Europe
          > > were suspended by
          > > > the Synod
          > > > > of Bishops for disobedience and the refusal to
          > > commemorate their
          > > > Diocesan
          > > > > Hierarch. Even if I did not like my Bishop, and
          > > disagreed with
          > > him
          > > > on
          > > > > matters of principle, I am not at liberty to not
          > > commemorate
          > > him.
          > > > As a
          > > > > priest, I cannot even serve without the
          > > permission of my
          > > Hierarch.
          > > > Every
          > > > > effort was made by our Synod of Bishops to reach
          > > out to these
          > > > Clergy and
          > > > > they refused to be obedient.
          > > > >
          > > > > Is this really a List for those loyal to the
          > > ROCOR, or is a List
          > > > for ROCiE
          > > > > partisans and sympathizers?
          > > > >
          > > > > Just wondering....
          > > > >
          > > > > Priest David Straut
          > >
          > >
          > >
          >
          >
          > __________________________________________________
          > Do You Yahoo!?
          > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
          > http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
        • rdrjohn2000
          Respectfully Fr. Stefan, your comments below do not pass the common sense test. ... Twelve clergymen refusing to commemorate a bishop and risking deposition
          Message 4 of 14 , Jul 11, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Respectfully Fr. Stefan, your comments below do not pass the common
            sense test.

            You wrote:
            >Also one could assume that the Council of Bishops found the
            > original accusations to be unfounded or frivolous and saw no need
            >to pursue the case.

            Twelve clergymen refusing to commemorate a bishop and risking
            deposition can hardly be described as frivolous. I would think that
            NORMALLY any synod would take the charges of twelve priests and
            deacons seriously and investigate the matter.

            Some people are saying that in the old ROCOR we had great
            spriituality in spite of poor administration. Now some are saying we
            have great administration but no sprituality (much like the MP and
            the OCA!).

            Some questions for you:

            1. Did Bp. Amvrosie really state the accusations against him
            were "not receivable?"

            2. What does that mean?

            3. What were the charges by the French clergy anyway?

            I have great respect for you and Fr. George Larin (whose recovery I
            pray will be complete) but this event does not look like it was
            handled with love, charity and respect. We should leave heavy
            handedness to the MP. They are good at that sort of thing.

            In Christ,

            Rdr John

            --- In orthodox-synod@y..., "stefanvpavlenko" <StefanVPavlenko@n...>
            wrote:
            > I am not a privileged member of the Synod of Bishops so I do not
            know
            > why there was no trial. But simple logic would dictate that since
            all
            > the accusers entered into schism, there was no one to "cast the
            first
            > stone!" Also one could assume that the Council of Bishops found the
            > original accusations to be unfounded or frivolous and saw no need
            to
            > pursue the case.
            > Archpriest Stefan Pavlenko
            >
            >
            > --- In orthodox-synod@y..., Kiril Bart <kirbart@y...> wrote:
            > > Fr.Stefan, so what didn't let him to be tryied? Non
            > > commemoration of him by some clergy? It doesn't sound
            > > very solid.
            > > Subdeacon Kirill
            > > --- stefanvpavlenko <StefanVPavlenko@n...>
            > > wrote:
            > > > >>>>3. The clerics declared they were ready to
            > > > commemorate the bishop,
            > > > Until the hearing would take place. The Synod
            > > > refused.<<<<
            > > >
            > > > Father George Larin and my sinful person pleaded
            > > > with the clerics to
            > > > commemorate the appointed ruling Bishop and
            > > > >>>they<<< refused.
            > > > NOT AS STATED IN YOUR POINT #3!
            > > >
            > > > >>>>2. The accused bishop - and only him - publicly
            > > > proclaimed that
            > > > the accusation against him was "not receivable".
            > > >
            > > > When we met with the clergy one of the points we
            > > > made was that they
            > > > were to commemorate the appointed ruling Bishop and
            > > > he would be
            > > > submiting to a church investigation and trial. They
            > > > refused.
            > > > Bishop Ambrose wanted and was willing to be tried by
            > > > the
            > > > Ecclesiastical Court, any contrary information is a
            > > > distortion of the
            > > > truth.
            > > >
            > > > Archpriest Stefan Pavlenko
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > > > --- In orthodox-synod@y..., "vkozyreff"
            > > > <vladimir.kozyreff@s...>
            > > > wrote:
            > > > > Dear List,
            > > > >
            > > > > Why does Rev David Straut write that "The
            > > > clergymen in Europe were
            > > > > suspended by the Synod of Bishops for disobedience
            > > > and the refusal
            > > > to
            > > > > commemorate their Diocesan Hierarch."? Why does he
            > > > not ask himself
            > > > > why all of a sudden, 12 senior and respected
            > > > clerics, refused to
            > > > > commemorate this bishop? What allows him to
            > > > suggest that they
            > > > refused
            > > > > to commemorate that bishop "because they did not
            > > > like him"?
            > > > >
            > > > > The 12 clerics addressed an official, canonical
            > > > complaint to the
            > > > > Synod, before the nomination of the bishop.
            > > > >
            > > > > In doing so they were encouraged by apostolic
            > > > canon 74 : "A bishop
            > > > > accused of whatever guilt by credible people who
            > > > are faithful shall
            > > > > necessarily be summoned by the bishops ..." and by
            > > > the 2nd
            > > > Ecumenical
            > > > > Council (6) : "But if persons who are neither
            > > > heretics, nor
            > > > > excommunicated, who did not suffer condemnation
            > > > and are not under
            > > > the
            > > > > accusation, believe they have reasons to complain
            > > > about the bishop
            > > > > with respect to church matters, the saint council
            > > > orders them to
            > > > > submit such complaints to the judgement of the
            > > > gathered bishops of
            > > > > the province and to prove the accusations made ;
            > > > and if the
            > > > > provincial bishops are unable to remedy the fault
            > > > of that bishop,
            > > > > then the plaintiffs will address the ampler
            > > > council of the diocese,
            > > > > which will gather and judge that matter".
            > > > >
            > > > > What followed ?
            > > > >
            > > > > 1. Individual and collective threats were made
            > > > against each of
            > > > these
            > > > > 12 clerics, before any judgement; in particular,
            > > > this complaint was
            > > > > qualified as "revolt" – before any judgement.
            > > > >
            > > > > 2. The accused bishop - and only him - publicly
            > > > proclaimed that the
            > > > > accusation against him was "not receivable".
            > > > >
            > > > > 3. The clerics declared they were ready to
            > > > commemorate the bishop,
            > > > > until the hearing would take place. The Synod
            > > > refused.
            > > > >
            > > > > 4. The 12 clerics were suspended without
            > > > judgement.
            > > > >
            > > > > 5. The clerics were summoned in another diocese,
            > > > with a very short
            > > > > notice, at a gathering where not all the members
            > > > of the Synod were
            > > > > present (but where non-synodal bishops where
            > > > present) "in order to
            > > > > debate about their future".
            > > > >
            > > > > 6. The clerics, together with their bishop, were
            > > > "defrocked", again
            > > > > without hearing.
            > > > >
            > > > > These was "Every effort was made to reach out".
            > > > >
            > > > > Father David, "Don't you fear God, since you [may]
            > > > fall under the
            > > > > same sentence?" (Luke 23:40). "Does our law
            > > > condemn anyone without
            > > > > first hearing him to find out what he is doing
            > > > ?"(John 7, 52).
            > > > >
            > > > > In God,
            > > > >
            > > > > Vladimir Kozyreff
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > >
            > > > > > Dear List,
            > > > > >
            > > > > > I cannot understand how this point of view is
            > > > one of loyalty to
            > > > the
            > > > > Synod of
            > > > > > Bishops of the ROCOR. The clergymen in Europe
            > > > were suspended by
            > > > > the Synod
            > > > > > of Bishops for disobedience and the refusal to
            > > > commemorate their
            > > > > Diocesan
            > > > > > Hierarch. Even if I did not like my Bishop, and
            > > > disagreed with
            > > > him
            > > > > on
            > > > > > matters of principle, I am not at liberty to not
            > > > commemorate
            > > > him.
            > > > > As a
            > > > > > priest, I cannot even serve without the
            > > > permission of my
            > > > Hierarch.
            > > > > Every
            > > > > > effort was made by our Synod of Bishops to reach
            > > > out to these
            > > > > Clergy and
            > > > > > they refused to be obedient.
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Is this really a List for those loyal to the
            > > > ROCOR, or is a List
            > > > > for ROCiE
            > > > > > partisans and sympathizers?
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Just wondering....
            > > > > >
            > > > > > Priest David Straut
            > > >
            > > >
            > > >
            > >
            > >
            > > __________________________________________________
            > > Do You Yahoo!?
            > > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
            > > http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
          • vkozyreff
            Dear Father Stefan, bless. I am a simple believer. I know in part at least the content of the accusation. Many do. The accusation concerns apparent repeated
            Message 5 of 14 , Jul 12, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Dear Father Stefan, bless.

              I am a simple believer. I know in part at least the content of the
              accusation. Many do. The accusation concerns apparent repeated cases
              of communion with heretics.

              The accusations seem to be serious to many who know them. If the
              Synod believes the accusations are unfounded, should it not explain
              why it is so to the believers? We are all ready to listen and we all
              beg our pastors to respond. Why this silence? We need the conclusion
              of the judgement, not to condemn priests, but to show to us,
              believers, why their position is erroneous.

              I think that even those who did not separate from the Synod should
              know why those disturbing repeated cases of apparent communion with
              heretics are considered as insignificant.

              Two repenting priests were recently pardoned and received back by the
              Church. Why are they still allowed not to commemorate the bishop?

              Please, dear in Christ Father Stefan, dear Priests, Bishops, sisters
              and brothers in Christ, we need you and your help. The salvation of
              our souls is at stake. You cannot abandon us that way.

              In God,


              Vladimir Kozyreff



              --- In orthodox-synod@y..., "stefanvpavlenko" <StefanVPavlenko@n...>
              wrote:
              > I am not a privileged member of the Synod of Bishops so I do not
              know
              > why there was no trial. But simple logic would dictate that since
              all
              > the accusers entered into schism, there was no one to "cast the
              first
              > stone!" Also one could assume that the Council of Bishops found the
              > original accusations to be unfounded or frivolous and saw no need
              to
              > pursue the case.
              > Archpriest Stefan Pavlenko
              >
              >
              > --- In orthodox-synod@y..., Kiril Bart <kirbart@y...> wrote:
              > > Fr.Stefan, so what didn't let him to be tryied? Non
              > > commemoration of him by some clergy? It doesn't sound
              > > very solid.
              > > Subdeacon Kirill
              > > --- stefanvpavlenko <StefanVPavlenko@n...>
              > > wrote:
              > > > >>>>3. The clerics declared they were ready to
              > > > commemorate the bishop,
              > > > Until the hearing would take place. The Synod
              > > > refused.<<<<
              > > >
              > > > Father George Larin and my sinful person pleaded
              > > > with the clerics to
              > > > commemorate the appointed ruling Bishop and
              > > > >>>they<<< refused.
              > > > NOT AS STATED IN YOUR POINT #3!
              > > >
              > > > >>>>2. The accused bishop - and only him - publicly
              > > > proclaimed that
              > > > the accusation against him was "not receivable".
              > > >
              > > > When we met with the clergy one of the points we
              > > > made was that they
              > > > were to commemorate the appointed ruling Bishop and
              > > > he would be
              > > > submiting to a church investigation and trial. They
              > > > refused.
              > > > Bishop Ambrose wanted and was willing to be tried by
              > > > the
              > > > Ecclesiastical Court, any contrary information is a
              > > > distortion of the
              > > > truth.
              > > >
              > > > Archpriest Stefan Pavlenko
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > > > --- In orthodox-synod@y..., "vkozyreff"
              > > > <vladimir.kozyreff@s...>
              > > > wrote:
              > > > > Dear List,
              > > > >
              > > > > Why does Rev David Straut write that "The
              > > > clergymen in Europe were
              > > > > suspended by the Synod of Bishops for disobedience
              > > > and the refusal
              > > > to
              > > > > commemorate their Diocesan Hierarch."? Why does he
              > > > not ask himself
              > > > > why all of a sudden, 12 senior and respected
              > > > clerics, refused to
              > > > > commemorate this bishop? What allows him to
              > > > suggest that they
              > > > refused
              > > > > to commemorate that bishop "because they did not
              > > > like him"?
              > > > >
              > > > > The 12 clerics addressed an official, canonical
              > > > complaint to the
              > > > > Synod, before the nomination of the bishop.
              > > > >
              > > > > In doing so they were encouraged by apostolic
              > > > canon 74 : "A bishop
              > > > > accused of whatever guilt by credible people who
              > > > are faithful shall
              > > > > necessarily be summoned by the bishops ..." and by
              > > > the 2nd
              > > > Ecumenical
              > > > > Council (6) : "But if persons who are neither
              > > > heretics, nor
              > > > > excommunicated, who did not suffer condemnation
              > > > and are not under
              > > > the
              > > > > accusation, believe they have reasons to complain
              > > > about the bishop
              > > > > with respect to church matters, the saint council
              > > > orders them to
              > > > > submit such complaints to the judgement of the
              > > > gathered bishops of
              > > > > the province and to prove the accusations made ;
              > > > and if the
              > > > > provincial bishops are unable to remedy the fault
              > > > of that bishop,
              > > > > then the plaintiffs will address the ampler
              > > > council of the diocese,
              > > > > which will gather and judge that matter".
              > > > >
              > > > > What followed ?
              > > > >
              > > > > 1. Individual and collective threats were made
              > > > against each of
              > > > these
              > > > > 12 clerics, before any judgement; in particular,
              > > > this complaint was
              > > > > qualified as "revolt" – before any judgement.
              > > > >
              > > > > 2. The accused bishop - and only him - publicly
              > > > proclaimed that the
              > > > > accusation against him was "not receivable".
              > > > >
              > > > > 3. The clerics declared they were ready to
              > > > commemorate the bishop,
              > > > > until the hearing would take place. The Synod
              > > > refused.
              > > > >
              > > > > 4. The 12 clerics were suspended without
              > > > judgement.
              > > > >
              > > > > 5. The clerics were summoned in another diocese,
              > > > with a very short
              > > > > notice, at a gathering where not all the members
              > > > of the Synod were
              > > > > present (but where non-synodal bishops where
              > > > present) "in order to
              > > > > debate about their future".
              > > > >
              > > > > 6. The clerics, together with their bishop, were
              > > > "defrocked", again
              > > > > without hearing.
              > > > >
              > > > > These was "Every effort was made to reach out".
              > > > >
              > > > > Father David, "Don't you fear God, since you [may]
              > > > fall under the
              > > > > same sentence?" (Luke 23:40). "Does our law
              > > > condemn anyone without
              > > > > first hearing him to find out what he is doing
              > > > ?"(John 7, 52).
              > > > >
              > > > > In God,
              > > > >
              > > > > Vladimir Kozyreff
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > >
              > > > > > Dear List,
              > > > > >
              > > > > > I cannot understand how this point of view is
              > > > one of loyalty to
              > > > the
              > > > > Synod of
              > > > > > Bishops of the ROCOR. The clergymen in Europe
              > > > were suspended by
              > > > > the Synod
              > > > > > of Bishops for disobedience and the refusal to
              > > > commemorate their
              > > > > Diocesan
              > > > > > Hierarch. Even if I did not like my Bishop, and
              > > > disagreed with
              > > > him
              > > > > on
              > > > > > matters of principle, I am not at liberty to not
              > > > commemorate
              > > > him.
              > > > > As a
              > > > > > priest, I cannot even serve without the
              > > > permission of my
              > > > Hierarch.
              > > > > Every
              > > > > > effort was made by our Synod of Bishops to reach
              > > > out to these
              > > > > Clergy and
              > > > > > they refused to be obedient.
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Is this really a List for those loyal to the
              > > > ROCOR, or is a List
              > > > > for ROCiE
              > > > > > partisans and sympathizers?
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Just wondering....
              > > > > >
              > > > > > Priest David Straut
              > > >
              > > >
              > > >
              > >
              > >
              > > __________________________________________________
              > > Do You Yahoo!?
              > > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
              > > http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
            • Fr. Alexander Lebedeff
              ... Thank you for stating this so clearly. This makes the answer so simple as to be obvious to anyone. The reason that the Synod of the Church Abroad would not
              Message 6 of 14 , Jul 15, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                >Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:
                >
                >I am a simple believer. I know in part at least the content of the
                >accusation. Many do. The accusation concerns apparent repeated cases
                >of communion with heretics.
                >
                >The accusations seem to be serious to many who know them. If the
                >Synod believes the accusations are unfounded, should it not explain
                >why it is so to the believers? We are all ready to listen and we all
                >beg our pastors to respond. Why this silence? We need the conclusion
                >of the judgement, not to condemn priests, but to show to us,
                >believers, why their position is erroneous.
                >
                >I think that even those who did not separate from the Synod should
                >know why those disturbing repeated cases of apparent communion with
                >heretics are considered as insignificant.


                Thank you for stating this so clearly.

                This makes the answer so simple as to be obvious to anyone.

                The reason that the Synod of the Church Abroad would not consider as valid
                any accusations made against a bishop or other clergyman of the ROCOR for
                serving with Serbians or New Calendarists based on the premise that they
                are heretics--is simply because the Synod of the Church Abroad does not
                consider the Serbians or New Calendarists to be heretics, and never has.

                The premise is false, so the accusation has no merit and must be dismissed.

                See the following Statement by Metropolitan Vitaly, back in 1986, when
                there were no doubts about his being subject to undue influence because of
                his frailty:

                "At the present time the majority of Local Orthodox Churches are wounded by
                two terrible blows: the new calendar and ecumenism. However,
                notwithstanding their calamitous predicament we dare not, and may the Lord
                forbid us from doing so, declare them void of God's grace (emphasis
                supplied)." (Nativity Epistle of Metropolitan Vitaly, Church Life, 1986,
                #11-12, p. 199)

                Now, that is the historical position of the Church Abroad.




                With love in Christ,

                Prot. Alexander Lebedeff
              • joeswaydyn2000
                The whole debate on the list concerning the issue of grace in the MP and grace in the New Calendar Churches is the work, in my opinion, of provocateurs who
                Message 7 of 14 , Jul 16, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  The whole debate on the list concerning the issue of grace in the MP
                  and grace in the New Calendar Churches is the work, in my opinion, of
                  provocateurs who wish to transform the whole debate of the MP into a
                  larger one of "true" and "false" Orthodoxy.

                  I personally respect and admire both the positions of Rdr John and Fr
                  Alexander on different issues. I personally believe that Rdr John is
                  correct concerning the MP, but that Fr Alexander is correct
                  concerning the New Calendarists. However, I will say the attempt to
                  link them together, and manipulate public opinion to that effect, is
                  the product of a propaganda campaign; there is sufficient evidence
                  for me, and I will show it.

                  The attempts of some to create a sort of 'world-polemic' is, in my
                  opinion, the creation of what I call the 'world-shifters' in
                  Traditional Orthodoxy (I will demonstrate this in a later posting):
                  people who are attempting to shape True Orthodoxy into their mold, a
                  mold which is based on the destroying the God-blessed history of the
                  ROCOR-- and involves destroying the ROCOR itself, which must preserve
                  until the restoration of Russia, no matter how small she may
                  be...they wish to bring about the end of the world for the sake of
                  their demented vision, a "zeal not according to knowledge"!

                  We must be careful to remember that even in the Catacomb Church, the
                  True Orthodox Church of Russia, our true-sister Church, opinions
                  concerning the Sergianist Patriarchate varied. Yet no judgments were
                  called upon the Churches outside the Patriarchate of Russia, and few
                  can say that ANYTHING happened between them until the anathema
                  against Ecumenism. THESE OPINIONS ARE, AND HAVE ALWAYS BEEN, VARIED
                  AND AS OLD AS THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH OUTSIDE RUSSIA.

                  REMEMBER that the majority of those who are currently the most vocal
                  proponents of an active, or *proper* enforcement of the anathema
                  against ecumenism were either not members of the Church Abroad when
                  it was promulgated, nor did they become members; or they left soon
                  after when it was not interpreted in the mind of the 'world-
                  shifters'....

                  Believe me when I say we must preserve all the traditions of
                  Orthodoxy until the end! From the glorification of St Joseph
                  (Petrovykh) to the God the Father icon to the toll-houses, we must
                  remain untouched the traditions of the Church. We are not in a
                  position to judge!

                  Again, opinions vary on the Moscow Patriarchate, but none of us
                  commune with it. And yet, such a careful effort was made to destroy
                  the ROCOR's unity, we have forced the Archbishop of Berlin to meet
                  with World Orthodox in an effort to retain his sanity, and believe
                  our BRETHREN in the Catacombs do not still exist! We have lost our
                  blessed First-Hierarch, and many good and pious people in this last
                  schism. Can it not be resolved? Have those 'in their midst' so
                  convinced them that schism is better than unity? Was not Bp Varnava,
                  the enemy of all these True Orthodox as ROCOR's Bishop in Russia,
                  suddenly their hero? No brothers! MORE IS GOING ON THAN WE GIVE
                  CREDIT FOR! I beg we do not blame the brethren who have left, in a
                  painful schism tearing apart yet more family from family: blame those
                  who led them down that path. We must repent of our sins...we allowed
                  this to happen...it is we who were not watchful, as enemies of the
                  Church we thought of as brothers now pick away at the weaker ones.

                  Believe me when I say that too many labelled "True Orthodox" see us
                  as worthy of destruction. To this I say: ROCOR is the free part of
                  the Russian Church! Try! The Church Abroad was given her Sacred
                  Exile by Christ our God, to chastise us and to give the saving power
                  of the Church to a fallen Diaspora!

                  But to you, my dear brothers in heart, as one awaiting return from
                  movements that came from our ROCOR: DO NOT BE CAUGHT UNAWARE!

                  A poor sinner who fears for the future, less than an Orthodox
                  Christian.

                  Joseph Suaiden

                  --- In orthodox-synod@y..., "Fr. Alexander Lebedeff" <lebedeff@w...>
                  wrote:
                  >
                  > >Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:
                  > >
                  > >I am a simple believer. I know in part at least the content of the
                  > >accusation. Many do. The accusation concerns apparent repeated
                  cases
                  > >of communion with heretics.
                  > >
                  > >The accusations seem to be serious to many who know them. If the
                  > >Synod believes the accusations are unfounded, should it not explain
                  > >why it is so to the believers? We are all ready to listen and we
                  all
                  > >beg our pastors to respond. Why this silence? We need the
                  conclusion
                  > >of the judgement, not to condemn priests, but to show to us,
                  > >believers, why their position is erroneous.
                  > >
                  > >I think that even those who did not separate from the Synod should
                  > >know why those disturbing repeated cases of apparent communion with
                  > >heretics are considered as insignificant.
                  >
                  >
                  > Thank you for stating this so clearly.
                  >
                  > This makes the answer so simple as to be obvious to anyone.
                  >
                  > The reason that the Synod of the Church Abroad would not consider
                  as valid
                  > any accusations made against a bishop or other clergyman of the
                  ROCOR for
                  > serving with Serbians or New Calendarists based on the premise that
                  they
                  > are heretics--is simply because the Synod of the Church Abroad does
                  not
                  > consider the Serbians or New Calendarists to be heretics, and never
                  has.
                  >
                  > The premise is false, so the accusation has no merit and must be
                  dismissed.
                  >
                  > See the following Statement by Metropolitan Vitaly, back in 1986,
                  when
                  > there were no doubts about his being subject to undue influence
                  because of
                  > his frailty:
                  >
                  > "At the present time the majority of Local Orthodox Churches are
                  wounded by
                  > two terrible blows: the new calendar and ecumenism. However,
                  > notwithstanding their calamitous predicament we dare not, and may
                  the Lord
                  > forbid us from doing so, declare them void of God's grace (emphasis
                  > supplied)." (Nativity Epistle of Metropolitan Vitaly, Church Life,
                  1986,
                  > #11-12, p. 199)
                  >
                  > Now, that is the historical position of the Church Abroad.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > With love in Christ,
                  >
                  > Prot. Alexander Lebedeff
                • vkozyreff
                  Dear Father Alexander, bless. Thank you for answering and for expressing appreciation for clarity. My thirst for it is still not satisfied, however. I wrote:
                  Message 8 of 14 , Aug 1 12:23 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dear Father Alexander, bless.

                    Thank you for answering and for expressing appreciation for clarity.
                    My thirst for it is still not satisfied, however.

                    I wrote: "I think that even those who did not separate from the Synod
                    should know why those disturbing repeated cases of apparent communion
                    with heretics are considered as insignificant".

                    You replied: "the Church Abroad does not consider the Serbians or New
                    Calendarists to be heretics, and never has".

                    How can you state such a thing, knowing the message of Patriarch Paul
                    to the Pope: «We cordially thank you for your kind invitation to come
                    to Assisi on January 19, 1993, in order to address our Lord in a
                    common prayer ... You communicated to us that this prayer will be
                    attended by representatives from the Roman Church and from other
                    European confessions, as well as by representatives from Islam and
                    other great religions ... You can be assured, Your Holiness, that
                    during this day, given by God, we will be in communion of prayer with
                    You ...». Is this not blatant ecumenism in its most naked form? Is
                    this not what our Church has anathematised?

                    Moreover, what I had in mind was not as much the communion with the
                    Serbian Church, as the communion of Vl Ambrose with the MP, which is
                    not less ecumenist and did evidently never renounce sergianism (see
                    quotation of the MP in my message of yesterday: "The
                    term "sergianism" has been used in the polemics lead by
                    representatives of the ROCOR with the MP and expresses an attitude
                    that is hostile to the actions of metropolitan Sergius (subsequently
                    Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia)...The use of the
                    term "sergianism" in the discussions is undesirable, as it is not
                    neutral, and in itself expresses a certain position").

                    In conclusion, dear Father Alexander, I am still more confused. So
                    many serious contradictions in our circles can express only a state
                    of deep spiritual disintegration that only sincere search for the
                    truth can heal, in my opinion.

                    I beg your prayers.

                    Vladimir Kozyreff
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.