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

Re: Rename the List?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 14 , Jul 12, 2002
      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 2 of 14 , Jul 15, 2002
        >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 3 of 14 , Jul 16, 2002
          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 4 of 14 , Aug 1, 2002
            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.