Re: Praying with heretics - so what
- Dear Father Alexander, bless.
You write: So, Vladimir, if you wish to attack Bishop Ambrose--do it
on the basis of his official statements--not on a personal opinion,
perhaps only a casual remark.
Who speaks about attacking Vl Ambrose?
Reporting incomprehensible statements that are in contradiction with
the position of the Church is not attacking anybody, even if the
statements are those of a bishop.
The statements in question might be an attack on the Church. They are
not a casual remark. Please read again the description of the
If a bishop says on one occasion that sergianism and ecumenism are
obstacles to our union with the MP, on another occasion that they are
not, the bishop contradicts himself. How can you obey a bishop that
If the bishop has, in a matter of faith, a personal opinion that is
opposite to that of the Church and that clearly defines what he
believes and how he conducts the Church affairs,
one can conclude that he does not believe in the position of the
Church, that he does not believe in the Church or is that he is not
in communion with the Church, whether priests are defrocked or not.
Again, this is not my opinion, but the opinion of the majority of the
clergy of the diocese.
--- In orthodox-synod@y..., "Fr. Alexander Lebedeff" <lebedeff@w...>
> Vladimir Kozyreff wrote:with
> >You quote me: "We are told that Bishop Ambrose has never said that
> >ecumenism and sergianism are no more an obstacle to our reunion
> >the MP, when in fact we have heard it with our own ears in speechand
> >we see it with our own eyes in deeds."the
> >You say: "Bishop Ambrose had said something quite different: that
> >obstacles to rapprochement with the MP are "only psychological".thus
> >I say: "In October 200, when returning from the Council, and in an
> >attempt to calm down the crisis that his conduct of church affairs
> >had caused, Bishop Ambrose stated, at the time of a parish assembly
> >meeting in Geneva, that the only obstacles that prevented us from
> >uniting with the MP are psychological ones. Vl. Ambrose did not
> >specify that it was as a private opinion of his.
> >How do we understand this?
> >Function: adjective
> >1 : unquestionably the best : PEERLESS
> >2 : alone in its class or kind : SOLE <an only child>
> >We deal here with meaning n°2, "alone in its class". This means
> >that, in Vl Ambrose's view, the "psychological obstacles" group isthe
> >alone in the class of obstacles that prevent us from uniting with
> >PM. This means that all other groups of obstacles are excluded fromprevent
> >the class of those that prevent our uniting with the MP, because
> >there is only one group in the class, the group of psychological
> >obstacles. Are thus excluded from the class of obstacles that
> >our uniting with the MP, the obstacles of dogmatic nature and thoseFather
> >related with anathema, like sergianism or ecumenism, if those
> >categories are not members of the psychological group, which is
> >I think Vl Ambrose's view is not the view of the Church. Is it
> >In God and asking your prayers,
> >Vladimir Kozyreff
> This pure casuistry.
> We should be dealing with what people actually say--not making
> of our own and then claiming that the person said what he did notactually say.
> If Bishop Ambrose had wished to say that Sergianism and Ecumenism
> longer obstacles to rapprochement with the Moscow Patriarchate, hewould
> have said it.putting words
> He didn't.
> So you are shooting here at a straw man of your own creation,
> into the mouth of a person who never said them.certainly his
> One more point.
> Whatever Bishop Ambrose said at the Geneva parish meeting is
> own personal opinion--even if he did not state explicitly that itwas his
> own personal opinion.Church
> You have never claimed that he said: "The official position of the
> Abroad is that the only obstacles to reunion with the MP arepsychological."
> And, in reality, even if he **had** said that--it would still be
> personal opinion.stated
> As far as the official opinion of the Church Abroad--it is clearly
> in the Address of the 2001 Sobor to the Hierarchy of the Moscowdeclared
> Patriarchate, in which Sergianism and Ecumenism are unambiguously
> to be obstacles to reunion.the
> And that Address was signed by Bishop Ambrose--so that is not only
> official position of the Church Abroad, but his, as well, as hissignature
> attests.basis of
> So, Vladimir, if you wish to attack Bishop Ambrose--do it on the
> his official statements--not on a personal opinion, perhaps only acasual
> remark.Sergianism and
> As far as my personal opinion goes, I am in full agreement with the
> official position of the Church Abroad, as declared in its official
> Conciliar Epistles, which, time and again, have pointed to
> Ecumenism as obstacles to rapprochement with the MP.Ambrose.
> And all of these Conciliar Epistles have been signed by Bishop
> Therefore, your justifications for separating from your bishop are
> and unfounded.
> With love in Christ,
> Prot. Alexander Lebedeff