- To father Alexander Lebedeff
Dear father Alexander, bless.
Thank you for replying to my post.
I would like to ask you the following question, regarding your post:
When you voted in favour of defrocking the priests, did you decide
that Vl Ambrose did not have communion with the heretics and anathema
(that is: did you refute the evidence that was presented by the
or did you consider that this communion was not a sufficient reason
for the priests to break with the bishop?
If the first is true, I wonder how you could disprove their evidence.
Did you read the accusation and did you find it to be futile?
If the second is true, I am afraid your judgment was not orthodox. I
am sure you agree that:
"as for those persons, on the other hand, who, on account of some
heresy condemned by holy Synods, or Fathers, withdrawing themselves
from communion with their president, who, that is to say, is
preaching the heresy publicly, and teaching it bareheaded in church,
such persons not only are not subject to any canonical penalty on
account of their having walled themselves off from any and all
communion with the one called a Bishop before any conciliar or
synodal verdict has been rendered, but, on the contrary, they shall
be deemed worthy to enjoy the honour which befits them among Orthodox
Christians. For they have defied, not Bishops, but pseudo-bishops and
pseudo-teachers; and they have not sundered the union of the Church
with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue
the Church from schisms and divisions." (Canon XV of the 1st & 2nd)
As you know, Vl Ambrose has repeatedly stated in public and in
private that the only obstacle for our reunion with the MP
was "psychological", that is: sergianism and ecumenism are of no
importance (in spite of the anathemas). Vl Ambrose encouraged his
flock to adopt this position and to commune with the MP.
As S. Rust said in a recent post:
- "A bishop accused of whatever fault by credible people who are
faithful shall NECESSARILY be summoned by the bishops ..." (Apostolic
- "But if persons who are neither heretics, nor excommunicated, who
were not condemned and are not under some accusation, believe they
have reasons to complain about their Bishop about Church matters, the
Saint Council ORDERS them to submit their complaints to the judgement
of the gathered Bishops of the Province and to prove their
accusations; and if the provincial Bishops are unable to remedy the
fault of that bishop, then the plaintiffs will address the higher
Council of the Diocese, which will meet and judge that matter" (2nd
Ecumenical Council, 6).
Did you take these canons into account and, if yes, how do you
reconcile them with the action that was taken?
You will remind that, in this forum, I discussed with Father
Pavlenko, and showed that the priests were ready to commemorate the
bishop if the Synod gave a signal to the effect that it intended
genuinely to judge the matter.
In this post as in others that I have made, I have no aggressive
intentions whatsoever. I am just ardently wishing to see an end to
our schism, and all of us re-unite. With that in mind, I want to show
inconsistencies in the genesis of the schism and good reasons to
exert oikonomia both ways.
In God, and begging your prayers,