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

Re: Praying with heretics – so what?

Expand Messages
  • boulia_1
    Dear Serge, lurkers, First of all, I spell my name with a Z (English), not an S (German). I am sorry, but I still do not understand how your camp fervently
    Message 1 of 21 , Oct 31, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Serge, lurkers,

      First of all, I spell my name with a Z (English), not an "S" (German).

      I am sorry, but I still do not understand how your 'camp' fervently
      clings to the idea that a group of clergy, *directed* to meet with
      more senior clergy -- HIERARCHS -- was correct to respond in the
      manner which they did! By refusing to go to Munich, it seems they took
      it upon themselves to close dialogue in this matter. What right did
      they have to do this? If they so vehemently disagreed with the
      'verdict,' why not 'appeal'?

      And, by saying that April 24 is a fabricated date, you're publicly
      accusing Father Alexander of lying? Did I understand that correctly?
      That's a serious thing, a layman publicly charging a clergyman of
      prevarication.

      It is clear: the French clergy had a chance to meet with senior
      members of the Synod, if not the Synod in full, and the assigned
      assistant to the First Hierarch, then secretary of the Synod and the
      future First Hierarch. (Indeed, for those who dispute Met. Vitaly's
      opinion of Met. Laurus, I think the fact that the former dispatched
      the latter to handle such a delicate and important matter is telling
      of both his recognisance that he was already too weak to travel and
      deal with such matters, as well as his faith in his long-time Brother
      Hierarch... but I digress...).

      I'm not knoweldedgeable enough (at ALL) about the
      details, nor ecclesiastical "law" to assess the "legality" of what
      happened, prior to that. But I trust the Metropolitans (including
      Vitaly, who oversaw this at the time, no?) and Laurus, and such senior
      clergy as ArchPriests George (Larin), Stefan and Alexander, all of
      whom are far more educated in such matters than me or you, no?

      Bottom line; if those priests were *earnestly* seeking dialogue and to
      be heard, it seems to me they would have taken *any* opportunity they
      could. They didn't. If they had any seemly humility (as the
      glorious blessing of Mary to become Mother of God showed us is a trait
      most pleasing to God), they would have crawled on hands and knees to
      Munich.

      They did not. They responded not only negatively, but rudely. I
      still don't understand how that is defensible behavior of lower clergy
      toward hierarchs... !!!

      Finally, I also don't see how using the phrase "soviet" in reference
      to the hierarchs (or their defenders) is any way appropriate. It is
      extremely offensive, for reasons that are obvious. For shame.

      I am genuinely sorry for you and your like-minded brothers and
      sisters; it seems you are so wrapped up in anger and bitterness that
      you cannot see straight. Unfortunately, this negativity spreads like a
      cancer. May God bless you and help you, and all of us, find peace.

      In Christ's love,
      Elizabeth





      --- In orthodox-synod@y..., "sergerust2002" <sergerust@h...> wrote:
      > Dear Elisabeth,
      >
      > I refer to your post 6835.
      >
      > Fr Alexander's last post 6822 is the demonstration of what
      > Vladimir has been saying since a long time: THE « Munich meeting
      > » WAS NOT A TRIAL.
      >
      > You have now the proof in fr Alexander's own post : THE VERDICT
      > HAD BEEN RELEASED BEFORE THE MUNICH MEETING!
      >
      > Here are the dates:
      > The verdict = April 24 (a fabricated date – nobody received this
      > verdict on that date)
      > The Munich meeting = May 2.
      >
      > Do you call a Trial, a meeting where the accused are condemned in
      > advance?
      >
      >
      > Moreover, at the Munich meeting:
      >
      > - there was no appointed Ecclesiastical Court : the Synod is an
      > executive, not an judicial body in the Church.
      >
      > - there was no "Synod meeting" : non-synod members were
      > present and synod members were absent. In particular
      > the First Hierarch was absent; his absence was not fortuitous.
      >
      > - the invitation was not "to a Synod" but to meet one
      > particular member of the Synod. (The clergy proposed to attend a
      > previous Synod meeting, but this was refused)
      >
      > - the invitation was not to a judicial hearing but "to debate
      > about their future".
      >
      > - that particular synod member had previously taken one side and
      even
      > threaten the French clergy, which is incompatible with the role of o
      > judge.
      >
      >
      > Is this what you call the "hard evidence" provided by fr
      > Alexander?
      >
      > "Does it not touch your conscience or your intellect?"
      >
      >
      > CONCLUSION:
      >
      > The French clergy has indeed been sentenced without being heard. In
      > no way can you consider this "having received the opportunity of
      > a fair trial". Irrespective of the related responsibilities and of
      > the outcome of a potential serious trial, this is obviously
      > uncanonical and blatantly abusive.
      >
      > Denying this fact would be only an additional dishonesty and –
      > as you term it – a "divisive" discourse, a promotion of
      > soviet justice, rather than church justice.
      >
      > Why the MP [methods of a bygone time] apologetics?
      >
      >
      >
      > In Christ,
      > Serge Rust.
    • goossir
      Dear Elisabeth, Thank you for this mail. I enjoyed the civilised and conciliatory tone which I hoped for in our debate. First of all, speaking for myself and
      Message 2 of 21 , Nov 1, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Dear Elisabeth,

        Thank you for this mail. I enjoyed the civilised and conciliatory
        tone which I hoped for in our debate.
        First of all, speaking for myself and quite another few, we are
        absolutely not wrapped up in anger and bitterness. We were just
        dreadfully sad and sorry of the situation, as children from a
        divorced couple and wished desperately to mend it. But, and
        sometimes we forgot, that nothing can be done without God.

        Regarding Munich, Fr Alexander said that it is a few hours drive
        from Belgium and France. Actually it is 10 hours drive minimum (it
        is more or less the same by train). You should know as I understand
        that you live in Germany.
        In these circumstances, to receive a summoning 5 days in advance is
        very short. Do not forget, that some members of the clergy work
        and have obligations that could not be dropped right away. Anyone
        with good sense could realise this.

        But why was a trial already done before the summoning? Should it
        not be the other way round?

        I remember as well (and this was mentioned already several times on
        this list) that the French Clergy begged to present their case in
        New York long time before they were suspended, but their request was
        rejected.

        When I started these discussions, I sincerely wished to clear up
        matters and thought that a lot came from reciprocal misunderstanding
        and pride.

        We understood all your arguments and in good faith replied to them.
        When we made some mistake, we acknowledged them immediately. But
        when you (or Father Alexander, or Father John, of Hristofor, etc.)
        gave wrong informations, we never saw any acknowledgement (ex. house
        situation of some priests, Vl Varnava's actions, and so on). You
        just ignored our corrections.
        To prove your points, you quoted concillar decisions, not giving
        them at length. When you read them at length, any simple minded
        people could see what they really meant.
        None of our arguments were addressed in depth (why two priests are
        allowed to not commemorate their bishop?, the autonomy (from whom?)
        that Vl. Mark suggested in an interview, the refusal to judge Vl
        Ambrose, why texts (from Fr Seraphim Rose) are truncated on the
        ROCOR website? and I could go on up to the famous epistle of October
        2000, where it was said that "we fervently welcome the prayer of
        whole Russian people to all the holy New-martyrs of Russia, and
        especially to the martyred Imperial Family, HENCEFORTH BECOMING
        POSSIBLE THANKS TO THE RECOGNITION OF THEIR SANCTITY BY THE COUNCIL
        OF BISHOPS OF THE MOSCOW PATRIARCHATE." When everybody knows
        perfectly well that the glorification became possible thanks to the
        Russian people who forced it upon the MP.

        So we are back to square one!
        What are we going to do now? I suggest that we go through all our
        respective mails, read them carefully and see for ourselves who is
        right, who is wrong.

        With love in Christ,
        Irina P

        --- In orthodox-synod@y..., "boulia_1" <eledkovsky@h...> wrote:
        > Dear Serge, lurkers,
        >
        > First of all, I spell my name with a Z (English), not an "S"
        (German).
        >
        > I am sorry, but I still do not understand how your 'camp'
        fervently
        > clings to the idea that a group of clergy, *directed* to meet with
        > more senior clergy -- HIERARCHS -- was correct to respond in the
        > manner which they did! By refusing to go to Munich, it seems they
        took
        > it upon themselves to close dialogue in this matter. What right
        did
        > they have to do this? If they so vehemently disagreed with the
        > 'verdict,' why not 'appeal'?
        >
        > And, by saying that April 24 is a fabricated date, you're publicly
        > accusing Father Alexander of lying? Did I understand that
        correctly?
        > That's a serious thing, a layman publicly charging a clergyman of
        > prevarication.
        >
        > It is clear: the French clergy had a chance to meet with senior
        > members of the Synod, if not the Synod in full, and the assigned
        > assistant to the First Hierarch, then secretary of the Synod and
        the
        > future First Hierarch. (Indeed, for those who dispute Met.
        Vitaly's
        > opinion of Met. Laurus, I think the fact that the former
        dispatched
        > the latter to handle such a delicate and important matter is
        telling
        > of both his recognisance that he was already too weak to travel
        and
        > deal with such matters, as well as his faith in his long-time
        Brother
        > Hierarch... but I digress...).
        >
        > I'm not knoweldedgeable enough (at ALL) about the
        > details, nor ecclesiastical "law" to assess the "legality" of what
        > happened, prior to that. But I trust the Metropolitans (including
        > Vitaly, who oversaw this at the time, no?) and Laurus, and such
        senior
        > clergy as ArchPriests George (Larin), Stefan and Alexander, all of
        > whom are far more educated in such matters than me or you, no?
        >
        > Bottom line; if those priests were *earnestly* seeking dialogue
        and to
        > be heard, it seems to me they would have taken *any* opportunity
        they
        > could. They didn't. If they had any seemly humility (as the
        > glorious blessing of Mary to become Mother of God showed us is a
        trait
        > most pleasing to God), they would have crawled on hands and knees
        to
        > Munich.
        >
        > They did not. They responded not only negatively, but rudely. I
        > still don't understand how that is defensible behavior of lower
        clergy
        > toward hierarchs... !!!
        >
        > Finally, I also don't see how using the phrase "soviet" in
        reference
        > to the hierarchs (or their defenders) is any way appropriate. It
        is
        > extremely offensive, for reasons that are obvious. For shame.
        >
        > I am genuinely sorry for you and your like-minded brothers and
        > sisters; it seems you are so wrapped up in anger and bitterness
        that
        > you cannot see straight. Unfortunately, this negativity spreads
        like a
        > cancer. May God bless you and help you, and all of us, find peace.
        >
        > In Christ's love,
        > Elizabeth
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In orthodox-synod@y..., "sergerust2002" <sergerust@h...> wrote:
        > > Dear Elisabeth,
        > >
        > > I refer to your post 6835.
        > >
        > > Fr Alexander's last post 6822 is the demonstration of what
        > > Vladimir has been saying since a long time: THE « Munich meeting
        > > » WAS NOT A TRIAL.
        > >
        > > You have now the proof in fr Alexander's own post : THE VERDICT
        > > HAD BEEN RELEASED BEFORE THE MUNICH MEETING!
        > >
        > > Here are the dates:
        > > The verdict = April 24 (a fabricated date – nobody received
        this
        > > verdict on that date)
        > > The Munich meeting = May 2.
        > >
        > > Do you call a Trial, a meeting where the accused are condemned
        in
        > > advance?
        > >
        > >
        > > Moreover, at the Munich meeting:
        > >
        > > - there was no appointed Ecclesiastical Court : the Synod is an
        > > executive, not an judicial body in the Church.
        > >
        > > - there was no "Synod meeting" : non-synod members were
        > > present and synod members were absent. In particular
        > > the First Hierarch was absent; his absence was not fortuitous.
        > >
        > > - the invitation was not "to a Synod" but to meet one
        > > particular member of the Synod. (The clergy proposed to attend a
        > > previous Synod meeting, but this was refused)
        > >
        > > - the invitation was not to a judicial hearing but "to debate
        > > about their future".
        > >
        > > - that particular synod member had previously taken one side and
        > even
        > > threaten the French clergy, which is incompatible with the role
        of o
        > > judge.
        > >
        > >
        > > Is this what you call the "hard evidence" provided by fr
        > > Alexander?
        > >
        > > "Does it not touch your conscience or your intellect?"
        > >
        > >
        > > CONCLUSION:
        > >
        > > The French clergy has indeed been sentenced without being heard.
        In
        > > no way can you consider this "having received the opportunity of
        > > a fair trial". Irrespective of the related responsibilities and
        of
        > > the outcome of a potential serious trial, this is obviously
        > > uncanonical and blatantly abusive.
        > >
        > > Denying this fact would be only an additional dishonesty and –
        > > as you term it – a "divisive" discourse, a promotion of
        > > soviet justice, rather than church justice.
        > >
        > > Why the MP [methods of a bygone time] apologetics?
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > In Christ,
        > > Serge Rust.
      • Fr. Alexander Lebedeff
        This matter is so simple that it boggles the mind that someone can not understand. The Orthodox Church is **hierarchical**. This means that the lower clergy
        Message 3 of 21 , Nov 1, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          This matter is so simple that it boggles the mind that someone can not
          understand.

          The Orthodox Church is **hierarchical**.

          This means that the lower clergy are under obedience and subject to the
          discipline of their hierarchical superiors.

          If your superiors summon you to a meeting, be it in another city or no--you go.

          Period.

          If I were working as a manager at IBM in Los Angeles, and received a
          directive from the Chairman of IBM to appear at a meeting in Seattle in two
          days--I would have to be there.

          If I were an officer in the US Army, and received an order from the
          Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff to appear the next day in Washington
          for a meeting--I have no option to decline.

          As a priest of the Russian Church Abroad, if I receive a directive from my
          Ruling Bishop, or from the Synod of Bishops, to appear in such and such a
          place at such and such a time--I would be there,come what may.

          Again, this is so simple, it hardly needs to be explained.

          In the military, failure to obey orders of superior officers is one of the
          most serious of crimes, for obvious reasons--especially for junior
          officers, since they are required to set a good example for their troops.

          Mutiny is a capital offense in virtually every military organization, since
          it goes against the entire concept of a hierarchical structure--the chain
          of command, which requires obedience to orders and strict discipline.

          The Church is no different.

          Priests are like officers in a military organization. Although our battle
          is not against flesh and blood, but against the demonic powers, we are
          still all "warriors" in the army of God, as are the heavenly powers, who
          have a very clear hierarchical structure, with Archangel Michael--the
          Archistratig--Archstrategos--Taxiarch--Commander in Chief of the Heavenly
          Hosts.

          So, the willful disobedience of the European clergy to respond to a summons
          of the Holy Synod of the Church Abroad, to which they had given an oath of
          obedience and loyalty, is a gross violation of ecclesiastical discipline
          for which they must suffer the consequences.

          Next point.

          Serge calls the suspensions a "sentence," and complains about the injustice
          of these clergy being sentenced in absentia, without being heard or
          canonically tried.

          This is absolutely incorrect.

          A bishop, upon hearing of misbehavior by a clergyman, has the authority,
          and, in fact, the responsibility to suspend that clergyman--without a
          hearing or ecclesiastical trial.

          This is normal in most other fields.

          A policeman suspected of acting improperly can and would be suspended by
          his superiors--prior to a hearing.

          A teacher suspected of acting improperly can and would be suspended by his
          superiors--prior to a hearing.

          In the Church--it is the same.

          The clergyman (like the policeman or the teacher) has the right to demand a
          formal hearing on the matter, or one can be scheduled by his superiors.

          However, during the time of the suspension, prior to a hearing (or a
          trial)--the person in question is **suspended**--and forbidden to perform
          his normal duties. A policeman under suspension must turn in his badge and
          gun, for example, and is forbidden to perform police work.

          A clergyman under suspension must hang up his epitrachelion and may not
          perform any services as a clergyman--not even give a blessing.

          Those are the rules.

          And the rules also state that if a clergyman while under suspension dares
          to perform any services as a clergyman--then he is subject to immediate
          deposition from clerical orders--without any hearing or trial.

          All he has to do is perform a service or simply give a blessing--even
          once--and he is out.

          Period.

          So, the question is--did the European clergy who were disobedient to their
          hierarchical authorities and spurned a summons to a meeting with the Deputy
          First Hierarch and Secretary of the Synod, ignore the suspension placed on
          them, not just by their Ruling Bishop--who has the authority on his own to
          suspend any priest in his diocese--but by the entire Hierarchical Synod,
          and did they continue to serve?

          If the answer is yes, then they were rightfully and canonically deposed,
          even without a hearing or ecclesiastical trial.

          With love in Christ,
          Prot. Alexander Lebedeff
        • Fr. Alexander Lebedeff
          This is an addendum to my previous message. I just thought of another analogy. The Department of Motor Vehicles issues drivers licenses. It can suspend your
          Message 4 of 21 , Nov 1, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            This is an addendum to my previous message.

            I just thought of another analogy.

            The Department of Motor Vehicles issues drivers' licenses.

            It can suspend your driving privilege--even without a hearing.

            A friend of mine recently got a notice from the DMV that his license would
            be suspended in thirty days because he had failed to pay a fine.

            And the notice warned him that if he drove with a suspended license, he
            would immediately have his license totally revoked and would be subject to
            a large fine and jail time.

            A clergyman who would ignore his suspension and serve while suspended would
            lose his priesthood as a consequence.

            No?

            With love in Christ,

            Prot. Alexander Lebedeff
          • Reader John
            Fr. Alexander s military analogy does not hold up. He wrote: If I were an officer in the US Army, and received an order from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
            Message 5 of 21 , Nov 1, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Fr. Alexander's military analogy does not hold up. He wrote:

              "If I were an officer in the US Army, and received an order from
              the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff (sic) to appear the next
              day in Washington for a meeting--I have no option to decline."

              The reality is that if the Chairman of the JCS ordered an officer to
              report to him in Washington the next day, transportation would be
              expeditiously provided to the aforementioned officer.

              I am not involved in the disputes with the French clergy, I just read
              the list about these events in Europe. I do not live in Europe
              (though I did live there in the early 80's for four years) and
              thus am not a member of any European diocese (of course neither is
              Fr. Alexander). In fact, I live in Georgia, which according to Fr.
              Alexander's bizarre post (31183) on Paradosis qualifies me as

              "A … tatooed (sic) rock-music-loving red-neck cracker
              neo-Pharisees
              from Georgia…" This must be because I disagree with him.

              I make no judgment on the situation of the clergy in France, but,
              correct me if I am wrong, no transportation was given or offered to
              the clergy who were summoned to the meeting with Vl. Lavr. Why does
              Fr. Alexander avoid mentioning this important detail?

              Fr. Alexander:

              "In the military, failure to obey orders of superior officers is
              one of the most serious of crimes, for obvious reasons--especially
              for junior officers, since they are required to set a good example
              for their troops."

              You are mistaken in writing this statement Father. I wonder have you
              ever served in the military? Judging by your age, you would have
              been subject to the draft during the Vietnam War.

              The most serious offenses in the military are murder, rape and
              robbery. Anyone who commits these offenses will certainly be tried
              by a general court martial (the highest level court to try
              offenses). On the other hand, the punishment for disobeying a
              superior officer can range from verbal reprimand, to non-judicial
              punishment (Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), to a
              lesser court martial.

              Fr. Alexander:

              "Mutiny is a capital offense in virtually every military
              organization, since it goes against the entire concept of a
              hierarchical structure--the chain of command, which requires
              obedience to orders and strict discipline."

              Fr. Alexander implies that the French clergy are mutinous. Does he
              really think that their offense is so great that they should be
              executed? After all, a capital offense is one in which the death
              penalty may be imposed. Please explain your thoughts here Father.
              Or is this just another case of you overstating your position?

              In Christ,
              Rdr John

              --- In orthodox-synod@y..., "Fr. Alexander Lebedeff" <lebedeff@w...>
              wrote:
              > This matter is so simple that it boggles the mind that someone can
              not
              > understand.
              >
              > The Orthodox Church is **hierarchical**.
              >
              > This means that the lower clergy are under obedience and subject to
              the
              > discipline of their hierarchical superiors.
              >
              > If your superiors summon you to a meeting, be it in another city or
              no--you go.
              >
              > Period.
              >
              > If I were working as a manager at IBM in Los Angeles, and received
              a
              > directive from the Chairman of IBM to appear at a meeting in
              Seattle in two
              > days--I would have to be there.
              >
              > If I were an officer in the US Army, and received an order from the
              > Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of staff to appear the next day in
              Washington
              > for a meeting--I have no option to decline.
              >
              > As a priest of the Russian Church Abroad, if I receive a directive
              from my
              > Ruling Bishop, or from the Synod of Bishops, to appear in such and
              such a
              > place at such and such a time--I would be there,come what may.
              >
              > Again, this is so simple, it hardly needs to be explained.
              >
              > In the military, failure to obey orders of superior officers is one
              of the
              > most serious of crimes, for obvious reasons--especially for junior
              > officers, since they are required to set a good example for their
              troops.
              >
              > Mutiny is a capital offense in virtually every military
              organization, since
              > it goes against the entire concept of a hierarchical structure--the
              chain
              > of command, which requires obedience to orders and strict
              discipline.
              >
              > The Church is no different.
              >
              > Priests are like officers in a military organization. Although our
              battle
              > is not against flesh and blood, but against the demonic powers, we
              are
              > still all "warriors" in the army of God, as are the heavenly
              powers, who
              > have a very clear hierarchical structure, with Archangel Michael--
              the
              > Archistratig--Archstrategos--Taxiarch--Commander in Chief of the
              Heavenly
              > Hosts.
              >
              > So, the willful disobedience of the European clergy to respond to a
              summons
              > of the Holy Synod of the Church Abroad, to which they had given an
              oath of
              > obedience and loyalty, is a gross violation of ecclesiastical
              discipline
              > for which they must suffer the consequences.
              >
              > Next point.
              >
              > Serge calls the suspensions a "sentence," and complains about the
              injustice
              > of these clergy being sentenced in absentia, without being heard or
              > canonically tried.
              >
              > This is absolutely incorrect.
              >
              > A bishop, upon hearing of misbehavior by a clergyman, has the
              authority,
              > and, in fact, the responsibility to suspend that clergyman--without
              a
              > hearing or ecclesiastical trial.
              >
              > This is normal in most other fields.
              >
              > A policeman suspected of acting improperly can and would be
              suspended by
              > his superiors--prior to a hearing.
              >
              > A teacher suspected of acting improperly can and would be suspended
              by his
              > superiors--prior to a hearing.
              >
              > In the Church--it is the same.
              >
              > The clergyman (like the policeman or the teacher) has the right to
              demand a
              > formal hearing on the matter, or one can be scheduled by his
              superiors.
              >
              > However, during the time of the suspension, prior to a hearing (or
              a
              > trial)--the person in question is **suspended**--and forbidden to
              perform
              > his normal duties. A policeman under suspension must turn in his
              badge and
              > gun, for example, and is forbidden to perform police work.
              >
              > A clergyman under suspension must hang up his epitrachelion and may
              not
              > perform any services as a clergyman--not even give a blessing.
              >
              > Those are the rules.
              >
              > And the rules also state that if a clergyman while under suspension
              dares
              > to perform any services as a clergyman--then he is subject to
              immediate
              > deposition from clerical orders--without any hearing or trial.
              >
              > All he has to do is perform a service or simply give a blessing--
              even
              > once--and he is out.
              >
              > Period.
              >
              > So, the question is--did the European clergy who were disobedient
              to their
              > hierarchical authorities and spurned a summons to a meeting with
              the Deputy
              > First Hierarch and Secretary of the Synod, ignore the suspension
              placed on
              > them, not just by their Ruling Bishop--who has the authority on his
              own to
              > suspend any priest in his diocese--but by the entire Hierarchical
              Synod,
              > and did they continue to serve?
              >
              > If the answer is yes, then they were rightfully and canonically
              deposed,
              > even without a hearing or ecclesiastical trial.
              >
              > With love in Christ,
              > Prot. Alexander Lebedeff
            • boulia_1
              Dear John, To respond to only one point you made, since I am a amember of a ... read ... to ... does ... If you did live in Europe, you should realize it s not
              Message 6 of 21 , Nov 5, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear John,

                To respond to only one point you made, since I am a amember of a
                European ROCOR diocese (in good standing) and do live in Europe... :

                --- In orthodox-synod@y..., "Reader John" <rdrjohn2000@y...> wrote:

                >
                > I am not involved in the disputes with the French clergy, I just
                read
                > the list about these events in Europe. I do not live in Europe
                > (though I did live there in the early 80's for four years) and
                > thus am not a member of any European diocese (of course neither is
                > Fr. Alexander).



                > I make no judgment on the situation of the clergy in France, but,
                > correct me if I am wrong, no transportation was given or offered
                to
                > the clergy who were summoned to the meeting with Vl. Lavr. Why
                does
                > Fr. Alexander avoid mentioning this important detail?

                If you did live in Europe, you should realize it's not so important
                a detail. To get from Paris to Munich is like getting from Boston to
                NY, only easier, because Europe is WAY ahead of the U.S.
                (particularly, I'll submit, the southern U.S.) when it comes to
                transportation. You can fly round trip between to the two cities for
                under $100. Or take a train if you prefer to stay on the ground.
                Transportation is really not an issue Europe, so trying to make it
                one seems to be, with all due respect, really grasping at straws.

                In Christ's love,
                Elizabeth
                >
              • goossir
                Dear Elizabeth, Please let me correct you. I also live in Europe, Brussels and am very astonished about the information you give on travelling in Europe. How
                Message 7 of 21 , Nov 7, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Dear Elizabeth,

                  Please let me correct you.
                  I also live in Europe, Brussels and am very astonished about the
                  information you give on travelling in Europe.
                  How is it possible that you do not know that flight fares between
                  European big cities are very expensive. It is cheaper sometimes to
                  go to New York by plane than to go to Vienna, Stockholm, etc. You
                  certainly do not find return tickets between Paris and Munich at
                  USD100, even with promotion prices. They cost at least 5 times more.
                  Train travel between Paris and Munich is also expensive and very
                  long. You have to change at least twice. I know this perfectly
                  well, as I had to organise, last year, my daughter's travel from
                  France to Munich by train. The one way ticket cost approximately USD
                  200.
                  I am sorry for the list that we must go into travelling details in
                  Europe, but it is important to show that effectively, as John
                  mentioned, not only the French Clergy's summoning to Paris was at
                  very short notice but also quite costly.

                  With sisterly love
                  Irina Pahlen

                  --- In orthodox-synod@y..., "boulia_1" <eledkovsky@h...> wrote:
                  > Dear John,
                  >
                  > To respond to only one point you made, since I am a amember of a
                  > European ROCOR diocese (in good standing) and do live in Europe... :
                  >
                  > --- In orthodox-synod@y..., "Reader John" <rdrjohn2000@y...> wrote:
                  >
                  > >
                  > > I am not involved in the disputes with the French clergy, I just
                  > read
                  > > the list about these events in Europe. I do not live in Europe
                  > > (though I did live there in the early 80's for four years) and
                  > > thus am not a member of any European diocese (of course neither
                  is
                  > > Fr. Alexander).
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > > I make no judgment on the situation of the clergy in France, but,
                  > > correct me if I am wrong, no transportation was given or offered
                  > to
                  > > the clergy who were summoned to the meeting with Vl. Lavr. Why
                  > does
                  > > Fr. Alexander avoid mentioning this important detail?
                  >
                  > If you did live in Europe, you should realize it's not so important
                  > a detail. To get from Paris to Munich is like getting from Boston
                  to
                  > NY, only easier, because Europe is WAY ahead of the U.S.
                  > (particularly, I'll submit, the southern U.S.) when it comes to
                  > transportation. You can fly round trip between to the two cities
                  for
                  > under $100. Or take a train if you prefer to stay on the ground.
                  > Transportation is really not an issue Europe, so trying to make it
                  > one seems to be, with all due respect, really grasping at straws.
                  >
                  > In Christ's love,
                  > Elizabeth
                  > >
                • hoodpeters
                  ... Did they need champagne and caviar in order to go to Munich? http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/euraide/t0261par.htm Besides, if your Bishops tell
                  Message 8 of 21 , Nov 7, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In orthodox-synod@y..., "goossir" <irene.goossens@c...> wrote:
                    > I am sorry for the list that we must go into travelling details in
                    > Europe, but it is important to show that effectively, as John
                    > mentioned, not only the French Clergy's summoning to Paris was at
                    > very short notice but also quite costly.


                    Did they need champagne and caviar in order to go to Munich?
                    http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/euraide/t0261par.htm
                    Besides, if your Bishops tell you to go 500 miles for a meeting or be
                    defrocked, you go. Your line of reasoning to justify Varnavism "by
                    any means necessary" is ridiculous.
                    In Christ,
                    Dcn. John
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.