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

Defrocking priests

Expand Messages
  • vkozyreff
    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
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 9, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      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
      Canon 74)
      - "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,

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