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

Re: Clergy were suspended

Expand Messages
  • sergerust2002
    Let s answer fr Alexander s posts one by one. Let s start with his post 8487 (May 28, 2003). AL writes: «the way in which Holy Canons are interpreted and
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 5 1:56 PM
      Let's answer fr Alexander's posts one by one.

      Let's start with his post 8487 (May 28, 2003).

      AL writes: «the way in which Holy Canons are interpreted and
      applied is within the realm of the authority of the particular
      Council of Bishops of the particular Orthodox Church in question».

      SR: Such view is unacceptable since it implies that the local
      councils have precedence over Ecumenical Councils.

      In reality, Canon 15 of the 1st Ecumenical confirms exactly the
      contrary:

      «... it is decreed that the custom prevailing in certain places
      contrary to the Canon, must be done away».

      On this subject, Mr Moss brought further interesting evidence (Jan
      17, 2003).

      We can conclude that, to the extend to which the «Statutes of the
      Spiritual Consistory» are contrary to the Holy Canons – and at
      times they are – not only do they yield to the Holy Canons,
      but they are anathema.

      NOTE : in much the same manner, some parts of the Apostolic
      Constitutions are reputed to contain certain heretical positions.
      These positions, where applicable, naturally yield to the orthodox
      teaching. You cannot boldly say "You may not like it, but if you are
      in the ROC you have no choice but to accept [them]".

      +++

      AL writes: «in the ROC, it is the **law** that a bishop, like any
      other ecclesiastic, is to be suspended **prior** to trial»

      SR: Then, why don't you suggest to apply this «law» to
      vl.Ambrose?

      Indeed, if we follow your reasoning, vl. Ambrose gave oath at his
      ordination to petrovian Statute 159 ("an ecclesiastic under
      investigation is henceforth prohibited from serving until such a time
      as he is completely exonerated"); therefore vl. Ambrose should have
      been suspended even before he was appointed to the Western European
      diocese!

      And this, would not have been a punishment – but «a protective
      measure to guard the flock from further detrimental action by a
      clergyman»!

      The dogmatic implications of such judicial distortion would be
      enormous. A minority could never be right against a majority.
      A «democratic» majority rule would be the measure of the truth.
      St Marc of Ephesus or St Maximus the Confessor - «and don't
      bother me with St Joseph de Petrograd» - would have been long ago
      buried by the bulldozer of subjugation. The Old Calendarists would
      have been justly deposed. The Esphigmenou brotherhood would be justly
      expulsed, etc.

      +++

      AL writes : «The solemn oath given at their consecration include
      the words: If I trespass anything from what I have promised...
      then let me **immediately** be deprived of my rank and power etc»

      SR: At no place within his oath does the clergy accept to be
      suspended without hearing.

      This would be an oath of «subjugation», which is alien to
      Church
      freedom and conscious.

      This would be only in line with the present pressure, inside the MP,
      to canonize Ivan the Terrible, whose political rehabilitation was
      already performed by Stalin.

      «Pastors are not simply called upon to implement of the orders
      of the higher Church authorities without personal responsibility,
      but they are in the first ranks of the servants of Christ and His
      children. They are not bureaucrats who can be directed only by
      orders and who can be held in submission with threats. They are
      servants of our Lord, as we all are. They are our life-force and
      we must protect them as the apple of our eye and never let them
      fall into despair and depart into schisms, lest we share with
      them the terrible responsibility for such a thing»
      (Metropolitan Vitaly, June 22, 2001).

      +++

      AL writes: «The Canons must be referred to in order to understand
      fundamental canonical principles that underlay the actual Canons
      themselves»

      SR: Absolutely. For instance, Canon 39 of Carthagina:

      «a bishop should not be called
      the chief of the priests».

      makes us understand - as a fundamental canonical principle – that
      your statement:

      «the orthodox church's structure is one of subjugation, at each
      level, to higher ecclesiastical authority»

      is not orthodox.

      We know that you believe that, in the army, if your superior
      tells you that 2+2=5, you have to answer «Yes, Sir». (Not all
      the military share your opinion). But you cannot conclude that,
      if a bishop (or Council) says that 2+2=5, this is automatically
      true because the statement comes from a bishop (or from a Council).

      However, this is what you do. Some bishops said: "Bishop Barnaba is
      to be convicted according to canon 8 of St Basil", which applies to
      involuntary murder (see post 7351, dated Jan 8, 2003).

      And your answer is: "Yes Sir".

      And if anybody, knowing the kindness of vl Varnava who would not kill
      a fly, dare to express some disbelief, then you boldly tax him
      of "abysmal lack of knowledge about Canon Law"!

      +++

      AL gives the example of «a teacher whom there is reason to believe
      that he committed sexual molestation».

      Your example is tendentious because it applies to a penal case.

      It would apply to vl Varnava if «there was good reason to
      believe»
      that he indeed committed murder, or married a deaconess, or visited
      widows (his well known faults).

      For your example to be fair, it should refer to a teacher accused to
      change the teaching principles of his school, with respect to the
      traditional stand of its founders. Certainly such teacher should be
      sanctioned, but not «suspended without hearing».


      I must say, in all respect, that I believe fr Alexander is such a
      teacher.


      Serge Rust
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.