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

Hanging around

Expand Messages
  • vkozyreff <vladimir.kozyreff@skynet.be>
    Dear List, Many are lapidating Vl Varnava, with the blessing of their priest and bishop. I have shown that the canons given as basis for his condemnation by
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 26, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear List,

      Many are lapidating Vl Varnava, with the blessing of their priest and
      bishop. I have shown that the canons given as basis for his
      condemnation by the synod are irrelevant (not only typos about
      deaconesses, baptising the dead, involuntary murder etc., but also
      those that do not really look like typos –who can be sure?-).

      Even to those who lapidate Vl Varnava might find it interesting to
      know whom they are hitting. I have summarised below some events of
      his Episcopal biography.

      We are told on this forum (by respected priests) that bishops are
      entitled to have their personal opinion, even when the latter
      contradicts the position of the Church. (Please note that this is
      against Vl Gregory Grabbe's concept: "Private opinions are
      permissible only to the extent that they do not contradict the
      doctrine of the Church").
      http://deltard.org/hocna/Unity.htm

      Thus, we heard no official objection at Vl Ambrose's claim that the
      only obstacles that separate us from the MP are psychological. Vl
      Mark, without official objection, may suggest in a publicized
      interview that we should request "autonomy" from the MP.

      Why can one not accept that Vl Varnava, along with a sizeable part of
      the Church and in line with the tradition of our Church, disagree
      with the accelerated process of union with the MP, before it
      renounces sergianism and ecumenism? Even if, as we hear a lot, there
      is no such acceleration, can one punish those who think there is one,
      and can document it?

      Fr. Dmity wrote (post 7163): "... and just WHY do you keep hanging
      around here?" Why do we hang around? Dear Father Dmitry, I hang
      around because I long for unity. I say this without shame, and I
      claim that any of us should long for unity, including you, if you are
      Christian.

      Archbishop Hilarion, (who had rejected the declaration of
      Metropolitan Sergius) said: "The principal truth of Christianity, its
      great mystery - the Incarnation of the Son of God - is acknowledged
      by all Christian creeds, yet this alone cannot fuse them into one
      Church.

      For, according to the Apostle James (2.19), the devils also believe;
      as attested by the Gospel, they confessed their faith like the
      Apostle Peter did (Matthew 16.16; 8.26; Mark 1.24; Luke 8.28). But do
      they belong to one Church of Christ? On the other hand, the Church
      community undoubtedly embraces people who do not know the dogmas of
      the Council of Chalcedon and who are unable to say much about their
      dogmatic convictions..."

      "Not only heretics but schismatics, too, separate themselves from the
      Church. The essence of the separation remains the same." (Remember
      the definition of schism. Those that have been excluded against their
      will are not schismatic).

      http://www.orthodox.net/russiannm/hilarion-archbishop-and-
      hieroconfessor-of-verey.html

      Do we have the right, under the eyes of Christ to enjoy a "unity"
      that is the result of banning those members of the Church that did
      not want to compromise about the Truth? (even if, as many believe,
      they are mistaken.)I read that some medieval lord used to exterminate
      the poor on his lands to fight poverty.

      In God,

      Vladimir Kozyreff


      Some landmarks of Vl Varnava's episcopal service.

      1982: In Russia, in the underground, under conditions of persecution,
      Vl Varnava consecrated, Catacombs bishop Lazar on order of the Synod.
      Who in those days of the communist persecutions against the Church
      would have accepted such a dangerous task? Any of those who shout
      now "Crucify him"?

      1992/1993: By decision of the Synod, Vl is given the task of
      organizing the ecclesial life in the country, with regard to parishes
      that had joined our Church in Russia. One of the difficult issues was
      the registration of our first diocese in Moscow, according to laws
      still poorly defined in the country. How could this be done in such
      conditions, without errors? Nobody, probably, would have been able to
      give a satisfactory answer in that time.

      1996/1997: Vl is appointed as representative of the Synod in the Holy
      land. This is the time of armed conflicts, marked by the seizure of
      our possessions in Hebron by the MP (in May, 1997). Vl did not
      receive any help from the Synod in the fight against the expansion of
      the MP. Moreover, the Synod decided to welcome Patriarch Alexis II
      with full honours in our Jerusalem monasteries. The Synod then
      punished all those who had opposed this visit. It moved Vl Varnava
      and his main co-workers from the most important positions in our
      Church. At that time was not Vl Varnava already a victim of the
      process of rapprochement between the Synod and the MP?

      2000: During the Council of October, Vl Varnava entered into a
      fundamental disagreement with most of the bishops, who had switched
      to the higher gear in the rapprochement with the MP. Vladyka refused
      to sign a symbolic act, the Message of the Council sent to the
      believers, in which he felt that the position of our Church with
      regards to the confession of the orthodox faith in the modern world
      was expressed in a double language.

      We think that Vl Varnava has served well our Church and the Russian
      people.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.