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

Re: [orthodox-synod] Wrong Understanding of Schismatics

Expand Messages
  • Fr. Alexander Lebedeff
    Vladimir Moss quoted Bishop Agathangel regarding the situation of the five bishops. ... Dismal lack of understanding of some basic concepts here: 1) No
    Message 1 of 15 , Jun 26, 2003
      Vladimir Moss quoted Bishop Agathangel regarding the situation of the "five
      bishops."

      >We gradually came to understand that itwas not any canonical
      >transgression of the Russian Bishops (there was none),nor any disagreement
      >with the text
      >of the conciliar Act, nor, still less, any mythical ‘avaricious aims’
      >that
      >was the reason for the composition of this document, which, without any trial
      >or investigation, banned the five Hierarchs from serving.

      Dismal lack of understanding of some basic concepts here:

      1) "No canonical transgression of the Russian bishops"?

      How about the two Russian Bishops seceding from the lawful hierarchy that
      had consecrated them and setting up an unlawful ecclesiastical structure on
      their own?

      This is canonical?

      How about the two bishops consecrating three other bishops on their own,
      when the Canons and Statutes of the Russian Church Abroad require that
      **all of the Bishops of the Church** decide on the consecration of a new
      bishop?

      Can two bishops of the Church consecrate new bishops on their own?

      This is canonical?

      2) The Council of Bishops banning five bishops from serving "without any
      trial or investigation"

      How about the fact that the consecrations of three of the bishops were
      uncanonical since the other bishops of the Synod had not been polled, and
      this was also done without the knowledge of the First Hierarch and the
      members of the Synod of Bishops?

      How about the fact that bishops who usurp their authority and form an
      independent ecclesiastical structure and consecrate their own bishops are
      subject to canonical penalties--which, of course, fall both on the bishops
      who unlawfully consecrated new bishops and on those who were unlawfully
      consecrated?

      How about the fact that the Regulations of the Russian Church specifically
      give to the Synod the authority to place under ban any cleric, including
      bishops, **prior to investigation and trial** if they have been found to
      have committed a serious infraction?

      So--the justiifications given by Vladimir in his post are completely
      flawed, and the Synod of Bishops had every right to place these bishops
      under ban.

      And, if they dared to serve under ban--they could be and were, deposed of
      office, for that undisputed fact alone.

      Those are the rules.






      With love in Christ,

      Prot. Alexander Lebedeff
    • VladMoss@aol.com
      In a message dated 26/06/03 19:43:23 GMT Daylight Time, ... I could answer all those questions, but the fact is that they are quite irrelevant because all of
      Message 2 of 15 , Jun 26, 2003
        In a message dated 26/06/03 19:43:23 GMT Daylight Time,
        lebedeff@... writes:


        > Vladimir Moss quoted Bishop Agathangel regarding the situation of the "five
        > bishops."
        >
        > >We gradually came to understand that itwas not any canonical
        > >transgression of the Russian Bishops (there was none),nor any disagreement
        > >with the text
        > >of the conciliar Act, nor, still less, any mythical ‘avaricious aims’

        > >that
        > >was the reason for the composition of this document, which, without any
        > trial
        > >or investigation, banned the five Hierarchs from serving.
        >
        > Dismal lack of understanding of some basic concepts here:
        >
        > 1) "No canonical transgression of the Russian bishops"?
        >
        > How about the two Russian Bishops seceding from the lawful hierarchy that
        > had consecrated them and setting up an unlawful ecclesiastical structure on
        > their own?
        >
        > This is canonical?
        >
        > How about the two bishops consecrating three other bishops on their own,
        > when the Canons and Statutes of the Russian Church Abroad require that
        > **all of the Bishops of the Church** decide on the consecration of a new
        > bishop?
        >
        > Can two bishops of the Church consecrate new bishops on their own?
        >
        > This is canonical?
        >

        I could answer all those questions, but the fact is that they are quite
        irrelevant because all of that took place before the Lesna Sobor and was resolved
        at the Lesna Sobor, leading to MUTUAL repentance and forgiveness and resumption
        of full communion.

        What Bishop Agathangelus was referring to was supposed canonical
        transgressions of the Russian bishops SINCE the Lesna Sobor, because only such could be
        relevant to the expulsion of those bishops after the Sobor.

        Vladimir Moss


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • VladMoss@aol.com
        In a message dated 26/06/03 19:43:23 GMT Daylight Time, ... Those are not the rules, and your remarks are totally irrelevant, mixing up times and events in a
        Message 3 of 15 , Jun 26, 2003
          In a message dated 26/06/03 19:43:23 GMT Daylight Time,
          lebedeff@... writes:


          > 2) The Council of Bishops banning five bishops from serving "without any
          > trial or investigation"
          >
          > How about the fact that the consecrations of three of the bishops were
          > uncanonical since the other bishops of the Synod had not been polled, and
          > this was also done without the knowledge of the First Hierarch and the
          > members of the Synod of Bishops?
          >
          > How about the fact that bishops who usurp their authority and form an
          > independent ecclesiastical structure and consecrate their own bishops are
          > subject to canonical penalties--which, of course, fall both on the bishops
          > who unlawfully consecrated new bishops and on those who were unlawfully
          > consecrated?
          >
          > How about the fact that the Regulations of the Russian Church specifically
          > give to the Synod the authority to place under ban any cleric, including
          > bishops, **prior to investigation and trial** if they have been found to
          > have committed a serious infraction?
          >
          > So--the justiifications given by Vladimir in his post are completely
          > flawed, and the Synod of Bishops had every right to place these bishops
          > under ban.
          >
          > And, if they dared to serve under ban--they could be and were, deposed of
          > office, for that undisputed fact alone.
          >
          > Those are the rules.
          >

          Those are not the rules, and your remarks are totally irrelevant, mixing up
          times and events in a manner designed to mislead.

          You systematically and wilfully mix up events BEFORE the Lesna Sobor and
          events AFTER the Lesna Sobor. I could say a lot in justification of the
          consecration of the three bishops, but the fact is that it took place BEFORE the Lesna
          Sobor and was discussed and regulated at the Lesna Sobor.

          Of course, if the Russian bishops had then consecrated another three bishops
          AFTER the Lesna Sobor this might (or might not) have been a canonical
          transgression. In which case it would have been necessary to convene a trial and
          summon the consecrating bishops to the trial.

          But nothing of the sort happened. In fact, the Russian bishops had very
          little time to do anything after the Lesna Sobor because within weeks (literally)
          of that Sobor, and only shortly after they had returned to Russia, they had
          been kicked out of the ROCOR!

          One of the fastest about-turns, I would say, in Church history.

          Vladimir Moss


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.