- Dear Father Stephan, bless. In Belgium (not in France), priests of recognised confessions get a salary from the State. In Belgium, the Orthodox Church isMessage 1 of 44 , Sep 7, 2002View SourceDear Father Stephan, bless.
In Belgium (not in France), priests of recognised confessions get a
salary from the State.
In Belgium, the Orthodox Church is represented at the Ministry of
Justice (which is in charge of religious cults) by Metropolitan
Panteleimon of the Constantinople Patriarchate. That is why all
orthodox priests deal with him when they have business with the
When Father Nicholas Semionoff had his salary taken away at the
request of bishop Ambrose, he talked indeed and corresponded with
Met. Panteleimon. The latter had advised the State that bishop
Ambrose wanted Father Nicholas's salary to be given to a new priest,
Father Yevgeni. As a consequence, Father Nicholas with his 4 children
remained without any other income than the gifts of his parishioners.
Father Nicholas never concelebrated with Met. Panteleimon. The
relationship he had with him was purely administrative, was never
very agreeable, and concerned Father Nicholas's salary.
Father Nicholas is totally faithful to our Church's position as far
as relationship with other "denominatons". That is why he could not
agree with Vl Ambrose's actions.
So, if you did believe that Father Nicholas did concelebrate with Met
Panteleimon, it is time now to know that this is not true.
In God, and asking your prayers,
--- In orthodox-synod@y..., "stefanvpavlenko" <StefanVPavlenko@n...>
> Bishop Ambrose is accused of celebrating with new calendarEcumenical
> Patriarchate clergy. Among those who condemn their lawfullyappointed
> ruling Bishop, is a cleric who himself has concelebrated with theserious
> Archbishop of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who governs the system by
> which clergy are paid by the government in which they fulfill their
> priestly duties. That clergyman must then recuse himself or admit
> that as had been done previously and regularly, this was NOT an
> infraction of ROCOR standard in Europe! Father Alexander L. has
> presented the fact that Archbishop St. John and ever memorable
> Archbishop Anthony ( Bartoshevich), both at one time ruling bishops
> on the same Cathedra on which Bishop Ambrose sits now have done
> Archpriest Stefan Pavlenko
> --- In orthodox-synod@y..., "sergerust2002" <sergerust@h...> wrote:
> > Father Alexander wrote :
> > > "Metropolitan Sergius subjugated the Church to the godless
> > > atheist authorities and basically renoinced the New Martyrs
> > > of Russia by claiming that noone had been persecuted for
> > > his faith--an extremely serious problem.
> > > Bishop Ambrose served with a clergyman of the Parisian
> > > Exharchate of the Ecumenical Patriarchate--as had his
> > > predecessors as Diocesan Bishops
> > > of the Western-European Diocese.
> > > Can the two "transgressions" be considered comparable
> > > by any reasonable human being?"
> > It would seem that father Alexander finally admits that bishop
> > Ambrose did transgress Church rules. The issue becomes how
> > these transgressions were, or whether these transgressionsBishop
> > are "comparable" with those of Metropolitan Sergius.
> > Indeed they are not comparable. Unlike Metropolitan Sergius,
> > Ambrose DID NOT HAVE A GUN IN HIS BACK. His contempt of ROCAconditions,
> > resolutions (and of his clergy's conscious) was deliberate.
> > Any "reasonable human being" would rather condemn a
> > deliberate
> > transgression, then a transgression forced by external coercion.
> > The enormity of Metropolitan Sergius's declarations proves the
> > coercion that was exerted on him. Such coercion discharges the
> > of the declarations. But it condemns those who, in FREE
> > deliberately proclaim that "sergianism" was the correctfounder
> > choice.
> > Father Alexander fails to mention that archbishop Evloghy,
> > the "Parisian Exarchate", while living in FREE France,
> > DELIBERATELY SIGNED METROPOLITAN's SERGIUS DECLARATION ! He did
> > that
> > after having left ROCA and joined the soviet church (without any
> > canonical release) !
> > Why does therefore father Alexander call it "the Parisian
> > Exarchate" and not, like everybody, "the Eulogian schism"
> > ?
> > Did these "old brothers" not do "something that the
> > Church considers to be **worse than heresy**--they have created a
> > schism, organized a pseudo-church--a parasynagogue, and are
> > misleading the flock of "little ones" ?
> > Apparently father Alexander reserves this frightening terminology
> > only to those who oppose the MP.
> > The "Parisian Exarchate" is not even an "Exarchate"
> > (since 1965, when "Patriarch" Athenagoras handed it over to MP
> > "Patriarch" Alexis). Bishop Ambrose simply communed with
> > prominent
> > members of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, that is with the
> > object of Metropolitan Philaret's sorrow (see post 6140). This
> > Parisian eparchy only went deeper in ecumenism ever since (as
> > evidenced by the protests from Mount Athos). It was the
> > heresies already rejected by ROCA. It openly supported and
> > Metropolitan Sergius's stand ; it recognises and communes withan
> > the
> > MP.
> > Therefore, is it not simpler to assume that such misplaced,
> > and unexplained intercommunion, "by which the scandal
> > arrives", is a cause (and bears the responsibility) of the events
> > that we have been discussing ? Does it not clearly appear that a
> > faction, having failed to impose this communion "de jure",
> > attempted
> > to impose it "de facto"?
> > Is the putsch i.e. "anyone who doesn't enter the sheep pen
> > by the door, but climbs in some other way" (John 10:1) an
> > acceptable method in the Church ?
> > Finally, is not justifying the unjustifiable (even with good
> > intentions) a violation of the 9th commandment, and consequently
> > un-"reasonable" and in-"human" provocation of schism?
> > In Christ,
> > Serge Rust
- ... Well, your arithmetic is mistaken, father. The 2 Castelbajacs broke with bishop Amvrossy – this was the very matter discussed – still you count them onMessage 44 of 44 , Dec 13, 2002View SourceFr 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