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

Re: Thoughts on Discipline

Expand Messages
  • sergerust2002
    Dear in Christ Hristofor, In post 6131, I attempted to ask you, with Socrates, whether what you are about to tell about the French Fathers is something good ,
    Message 1 of 7 , Aug 9, 2002
      Dear in Christ Hristofor,

      In post 6131, I attempted to ask you, with Socrates, whether
      "what you are about to tell about the French Fathers is something
      good", if not true. You keep answering (post 6147) "What I
      said was a truth". My question, though, was : when and where did
      Varnava concelebrate with the MP (as you stated) ? You didn't
      this question. Instead, you deleted it, and another one, from the
      indented sections !

      Next, you suggest that the French Fathers were probably allowed by
      God to be persecuted by the Synod. I conclude that maybe God sent
      father Pablo Ivashevitch to persecute vl. Alypy and test his
      patience ! But you find my answer a "nice attempt to confuse the
      issue" and ask me "what on earth does Fr Pablo have to do
      with the situation in France?" The answer, though, is quite

      - when vladyka Alypy is abused by a trained kidnapper, than
      you "doubt that such a phrase is his", you infer that his
      letter comes "from the varnavite schism", and you deny that
      bishop Alypy is "fully cognizant and did indeed pen the

      - but when the European clergy is judged without being even heard
      (against Holy Gospel, see John 7.51) and when their canonical plea is
      ignored (as if in the MP universe), then you suggest that such abuse
      is coming straight from God and even is not severe enough !

      Maybe God or the Synod had their reasons for such methods; I only
      fear for you (and the List) that you be "judged with the same
      measure ...". Do not take my word badly : after all, all these
      dramatic events that we witness are for our salvation, aren't
      they ?

      A certain Nicolay in NY (post 6116) said that we should "let our
      appointed Hierarchs use whatever method of punishment as they deem
      necessary for the salvation of the flock". Permit me to predict
      that, when the abuse will fall on "his Honor", he will
      instantly post a protest at least as sophisticated as vl. Alypy's

      Then you ask a very pertinent question : "May I extrapolate from
      your words above, the reason the French fathers did not want to
      commemorate Vl Amvrosy, was because he was a heretic?"

      Rigorously, the past tense "was" cannot be used before a
      Court declares him heretic. Justly or wrongly, he was perceived as
      such by numerous, senior European clergy. This is a very serious
      matter, not necessarily related to bad intentions, on either
      part. "We fully understand the gravity of our action ... we are
      conscious of the risks that we entail ... We do not attempt to
      condemn bishop Amvrosy at any cost ..." did the plaintiffs write
      to vl. Lavr in one of their letters.

      If "you are not in France and do not have all the facts",
      then it is
      only sad that you spread to the whole List that "they
      agree with the appointment of their bishop". Incidentally, the
      was introduced before the said appointment. Refer to post 5993 for
      further basic facts.

      Finally, you ask if "Vladyka Amvrosy is perceived as having
      committed the same offenses as the Ecumenical Patriarch?" You add
      "As far as commemoration goes, in addition to being obedient, it
      also a matter of respect".

      Actually he is not literally "perceived", as you say, he is
      rather well known to have concelebrated, among others, with the Greek
      archbishop Damaskinos of Chambésy, one of the most prominent
      promoters of Ecumenism in Switzerland. Vl. Amvrosy does not deny it -
      on the contrary he asked himself 3 times to be judged. He also
      allowed some of his clergy to concelebrate with the MP and had clergy
      from the eulogian schism celebrate in his churches.

      Even for the "respected clergyman" of this List who find such
      concelebration "in line with the historical stand of the
      ROCOR" (thus preparing themselves to "rename the list"),
      such practice was indeed perceived by the French clergy as
      "disobedience" and "disrespect" to the very decrees
      of the Synod, who
      do prohibit such concelebration. This is why the matter would have
      been better discussed in a Court, rather than in this Forum.

      You are right in saying that "we have heard plenty from both
      sides about the matter [of the Holy Canons]". Alas, still, we do
      not know why vl. Amvrosy was not judged ! Even father Stefan Pavlenko
      confesses his ignorance in this respect, because he "is not a
      privileged member of the Synod" (post 6012). Nobody on this List
      has been more "privileged" ever since. And, interestingly,
      nobody seems to really care. In this situation, you will agree that
      we can hardly share your assertive and satisfied
      exclamation : "Period !".

      In Canon law, indeed none of us is a professional. I would suggest
      that father Alexander Lebedeff, who was a member of the Court which
      defrocked the French clergy, and who is an unremitting member of this
      List, explain to us why "the two clergy who have repented"
      – like you term them, without explaining of what they repented -
      still do not commemorate vl. Amvrosy ? I've seen this quiz in
      post 5998. No answer so far. Maybe everybody waits them to change
      their mind so that the question gets easier to answer?

      May our Lord forgive us,
      Serge Rust
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.