Apology and question to Vladimir K.
- Dear Vladimir,
I did not wish to ridicule you or anyone. I was simply wondering why
the thread continued to bear the name of the late Abp Seraphim.
Perhaps I got carried away, and I apologize for my ad hominem
As for the letter of "Kazantsev," I respect his right to publish
such a statement and agree with many if not most of his points,
including where he says that those who left ROCOR made a serious
mistake, because opposing the course of union can be done only from
the inside. If I am not mistaken, you are one of those who left
ROCOR to join the new organization under Vl. Vitaly. This group
subsequently declared that "The apostates led by archbp. Lavr cannot
be considered as being within the enclosure of the Church."
Why worry about us now when you don't consider us to be part of the
church? Had the earlier schism not occurred, your "speaking out" at
this time would be better received and much more constructive. I am
trying to listen to all the voices within our church (as an example,
see M. Nazarov's article, recently posted by Fr. Dcn. Basil) but
please help me understand why I should be interested in what is said
by those who tell me my bishops are not Orthodox?
--- In email@example.com, "vkozyreff"
> Dear Father Daniel, bless.warned
> After I quoted « Nikolay Kazantsev's » letter in which he
> many parishes might leave, George ironically suggested that Ientitle
> the subject "why only 144 will be saved". This was ridiculingNicolay
> After his retirement, as far as I know, Vl Seraphim was very
> and declined to make any declaration. He nevertheless publishedhis
> solemn appeal under the pseudonym of Kazantsev a few days beforehis
> death. I reported this. Is this "adding to a long listyou
> of "authorities" used for people's advantage"? Whose advantage do
> have in mind? His? Mine? Did you read the last sentence of thethat
> letter, in which he requests the orthodox to speak out?
> I do not equate myself to the Saviour (I took the precaution to
> mention this explicitly). However (and again), "Meekness and
> humility...should not yield before manifest evil " (Vl Averky).
> Instead of a reply to the content of the letter, we have seen only
> mockery about numbers and "ad hominem remarks", which suggests
> the letter is really good.of
> Is the ROCOR hierarchy well informed about whom, even among the
> clergy, does support its MP policy?
> In God,
> Vladimir Kozyreff
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "orthodoxchurch_sg"
> <orthodoxchurch_sg@y...> wrote:
> > --- In email@example.com, "vkozyreff"
> > <vladimir.kozyreff@s...> wrote:
> > > Dear in Christ Father Daniel and George,
> > >
> > > Is the Truth on the side of those who ridicule, or on the side
> > > those who are ridiculed?He
> > >
> > > "Then Herod and his soldiers ridiculed and mocked him". (Luke
> > > 12)
> > >
> > > Please remember that you are not ridiculing me, but Archbishop
> > > Seraphim of blessed memory. Remember also that the number of
> > parishes
> > > was among Vl Mark's concerns as well.
> > Evlogeite!
> > So - you put yourself on the level of our Saviour? Interesting.
> > was mocked unjustly - this in no way shows that some ideas donot
> > deserve ridicule.is
> > Please indicate anywhere I ridiculed Archbishop Seraphim ~ this
> > unjust accusation.
> > Sadly it looks like Archbishop Seraphim will be added to a long
> > of "authorities" used for people's advantage. For years he is
> > mentioned or quoted - the moment he dies (and is conveniently
> > to confirm or deny) he is being quoted left right and centre and
> > saying this and that to support causes and positions.
> > God bless / Fr Daniel
- Dear Mr. Boitchenko,
The most important think for a captain is the safety of the ship and
crew. Captains can take whatever advice they want, but they should
take first the advice of their experienced and respected teachers and
colleagues before they embark for dangerous crossings by new routes
to new destinations.
They should also refer to the classical teaching that they followed
when they were trained. Examples of authoritative messages of caution
to innovative captains have been numerous on this forum recently (See
messages 9613, 9695, 9693, etc.etc).
The fact that those messages of caution are systematically denied,
ignored or deleted by the shipping company is worrying and seems to
sign a change in the latter's policy. The management's denial sounds
like a confirmation. A significant part of the fleet seems to have
been lost and more losses are predicted.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "V. Boitchenko"
> Should captains take advice from "concerned passengers" as well?
> >>As a rule, captains do take the weather warnings into account,
> because their duty is to protect the ship and the crew at any cost
> and because they know that they get severely condemned in case of
> avoidable accident. At sea, captains have an obligation of results,
> and they get condemned even if they took only one precaution when
> they might have taken two of them. I guess you would not be
> reassured, if you were on a ship commanded by a reckless captain,
> with your brothers, sisters and all those who are dear to you.
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]