Re: [orthodox-synod] Re: Dealing with Heresy -- A Historical Perspective
- Vladimir wrote:
>Dear Father Alexander, bless.I don't acknowledge this at all. I read all of their written complaints to
>· If you acknowledged that you judged the priests without due
>understanding of the case, because you did not hear them and thus did
>not know exactly the facts about Vl Ambrose's actions (which seems to
>be a fair account of the reality);
the Synod regarding Bishop Ambrose and consider tehm to be baseless and
>· If you acknowledged that, having communed with the SerbianNot at all. I lived at the Synod in the middle sixties when Metropolitan
>Church yourself, you were prejudiced in a case regarding communion
>with anathematised heresies (which would be true);
Philaret concelebrated with clerics of the Serbian Patriarchate (Hieromonks
Maxim and Hrizistom) on a regular basis. I went to Seminary in Jordanville
with several Seminarians sent there by the Serbian Patriarchate--there is
one studying there even now.
I concelebrated with Bishop Jovan of the Serbian Church at his cathedral in
Los Angeles at the explicit direction of my Ruling Bishop, Archbishop
Anthony of San Francisco--together with him, in fact on Vidovdan a few
And, my current Ruling Bishop, Bishop Kyrill, has invited the Serbian
priest Fr. Ilia Balach to concelebrate with him every time Bishop Kyrill
has served in our Cathedral. (Fr. Ilia is the Architect in charge of our
How can you accuse me of error, when I am doing what my lawful bishops are
telling me to do and doing themselves?
>· If you acknowledged that you overlooked the fact that theAgain--totally wrong.
>priests had been restored in their right (and their duty) to
>celebrate by Vl Vitaly when you judged them (which is true);
Metropolitan Vitaly had no authority to overturn or rescind a decision of a
Ruling Bishop of any diocese of the Church Abroad, especially one that had
been confirmed by the Synod of Bishops (with Metropolitan Vitaly's
participation and with his signature on it). The First Hierarch has no
authority to overturn or rescind a decision of the Synod of Bishops, as it
is a higher authority than his.
>· If you acknowledged that Father Stephan Pavlenko did notIt has been made clear on this forum (by you, actually) that the mutinous
>understand exactly that the priests did accept to commemorate the
>bishop while waiting for a judgement (which appeared true on this
priests were placing **conditions** on their agreeing to commemorate their
Ruling Bishop--conditions that were rejected by the Synod of Bishops.
>· If you acknowledged that you were mistaken in believing thatI don't acknowledge that at all.
>obedience to the bishop was a prerequisite condition for the priest
>to keep their priesthood (which is evidently not the case).
When I was ordained to the diaconate and priesthood, I gave an oath before
the Holy Cross and Holy Gospel that I would be loyal and obedient to my
It is the bishop who places the epitrachelion on the neck of the priest and
gives him a blessing to serve.
If the bishop wishes to remove that blessing and tells me to hang up my
epitrachelion (i.e. places me under suspension), I in obedience and
humility must comply.
By being ordained and promising loyalty and obedience to my hierarchy, I
also agreed to have the hierarchy decide how and when to punish me,
including suspension and deposition from holy orders.
By being ordained and promising loyalty and obedience to my hierarchy, I
also accepted the consequences for my actions-- that if I would dare to
serve under suspension, I could be automatically deposed from holy orders.
When the errant clergy in France accept the same position, then maybe the
following could occur:
>Then the judgement would be annulled, unity and peace in God wouldHowever, Vladimir, you are focusing only on the issue of suspensions and
>return to our Church, the priests would be back in her fold, and the
>schism would be over (Some economia might be applied as needed).
>There is no shame in acknowledging an error, on the contrary. "If any
>one ... is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone..."
depositions and the question of commemoration of Bishop Ambrose with regard
to his concelebrations.
But, unfortunately, the problems are far deeper.
See the insulting tone and the crude and rude language of the latest
missive by the chief ideologist of the French schism, Protodeacon German
Do you think, Vladimir, after reading that article, that this type of
vitriol is conducive to mending the unfortunate rift in Europe among our
With love in Christ,
Prot. Alexander Lebedeff
- Fr Alexander (Lebedeff) wrote:
> how in the world could you and your people say, as they did,Well, your arithmetic is mistaken, father.
> again and again, that the "majority" of the clergy
> of the Western-European Diocese broke with Bishop Amvrossy?
The 2 Castelbajacs broke with bishop Amvrossy this was the very
matter discussed still you count them on "your side".
Moreover, 2 other priests not mentioned at all in your count
left communion with vl. Lavr and joined vl. Varnava / Met.
Vitaly, but somehow you want to hide the matter to the List.
Last but not least, you count priest Adrian Eschevarria among the
How come ?
I thought he had been banned, together with priest Paul Tsvetkov
(who, subsequently repented) as a result of their public letter of
October 1/14 2000 (1)
(1) It might be worth reading this public and instructive letter:
Geneva, October 1/14, 2000
On the eve of the XXth century, our parish is at a turning point of
Many persons among the responsible parish organs expressed their wish
on one hand not to stay away anymore from the ecclesial renewal in
the Russian Church (to which our community is historically linked)
and, on the other hand, to be able to fully commune with the orthodox
pleroma from now on.
In response to the desire expressed by a part of the clergy and by
the Parish Council to join the Church of Russia, we very recently
received a proposal of His Holiness Alexis 2, Patriarch of Moscow and
of all Russia, to receive us in the bosom of the Moscow Patriarchate,
and to grant to our Parish the stavropigical status, i.e. of total
administrative and financial independence. The building and the goods
of our church will not be alienated by an external power, and the
members of the clergy will keep their posts.
The Parish Council, nearly in its entirety, finds it opportune to
answer favorably to this proposal. It is time, indeed, that mistrust,
ignorance and resentment give place to confidence, comprehension and
love in Christ.
We are conscious that some of you will be shocked, or even indignant,
by this perspective. Alas, the recent positions taken by the ROCOR
Synod of Bishops do not leave us other choices if we want to remain
members of the universal Orthodox Church.
We wish however to consult you. You will find attached a
"Reminder of the main events of the Russian Orthodox Church since
reestablishment of the Patriarchate in 1917". With this
information, you are kindly invited to express your opinion in
written, in Russian or in French, and to mail it to us before October
31, at the Chancellery of the church (Fr Paul or fr Adrain, Russian
orthodox church, 18 Baumont street, 1206 Geneva). Your personal
notice will be read only by your priests, who will draw an anonymous
May our Lord ... by the intercession of ... by the prayers of ...
bless you and grant you the wisdom so that we may do the right choice.
Priest Adrien Echevarria Archpriest Paul Tzvetkoff