尼古拉前执事 wrote:Euthymios wrote:Priest Siluan wrote:
I think that "we" are everybody less him. He even believes that Synods rightly confessing as GOC, ROCiE, ROAC etc are "schismatic", "heretics", "uncanonical" etc... but he a sole bishop (and not a Synod just as it should be do) "receives" a vagante "bishop", but he believes that he is the only one "canonical bishop rightly confessing" on the whole of the universe.
No he doesn't believe that at all. You've probably never even talked to him to hear his actual views. It is this kind of rumor and fabrication that is rendering the Church apart.
Again Euthymios, Batiushka Siluan was in regular contact with the then-bishop Gregory of Denver and Colorado before he (the then-Archbishop) was suspended, retired, and then excommunicated from the ROAC. We should not assume what contact those we do not know may or may have not had with Father Gregory and instead should be more charitable to one another and ask, being prepared to listen with an open mind.
I wonder how many people actually bother to take the time to do their own research and investigation on subjects before they draw their conclusions. Below is a copy of an e-mail exchange I had between a layman/associate of Dormition Skete, and an official of Metropolitan Valentine's ROAC. It was over the issue of excommunication. The associate of Dormition Skete addresses the false claims of the ROAC representive in capitals:
ROAC REPRESENTITIVE: "...Second, concerning your request for a copy of the document with the signatures on it, you will have to download and print #CEB 18 of the SUZDAL DIOCESAN BULLETIN from our national web page. What appeared in the diocesan bulletin is a reprint of the actual document signed. The document is written in Russian for the simple fact that it is the native language of the ROAC Bishops in Russia. Since all of the ROAC bishops living in Russia speak only Russian, why would they write anything in English? Nevertheless, (as you have already seen) a translation has been posted on our American web site for those who do not read Russian. >>
DORMITION SKETE ASSOCIATE/LAYMAN:
AGAIN I POINT OUT THAT IT IS A RE +++PRINT+++ - NO SIGNATURES, JUST SOME TYPED NAMES THAT IN FACT DID NOT EVEN APPEAR ON THE ONE THAT HE SENT US! THE CANONS REQUIRE DOCUMENTATION, THEY REQUIRE MULTIPLE BISHOPS OR RECOGNIZES REPRESENTATIVES OF THE SYNOD TO COME DELIVER THE SUMMONS - AN E-MAIL FROM A MERE SUZDAL ADDRESS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ANYTHING CANONICAL. AND IN FACT WE WROTE BACK AND ASKED FOR THE DOCUMENT WITH SIGNATURES AND NO RESPONSE CAME TO THAT. WE ALSO WROTE BACK THAT WE SIMPLY COULD NOT MAKE THE COURT DATE, BECAUSE HE STOLE OUR TRANSLATOR AND ONLY GAVE US LESS THAN A WEEK BY THE TIME WE LABORIOUSLY TRANSLATED HIS DOCUMENTS. ITS ALSO REQUIRED BY THE CANONS TO GIVE SOMEONE ONE MONTH TO APPEAR, AND IF HE DOESN'T APPEAR, THEN HE IS SENT A REPRESENTATIVE AND ASKED AGAIN TO COME, AND IF HE DOESN'T APPEAR AFTER ANOTHER MONTH, THEN AND ONLY THEN IS HE TRIED IN ABSENTIA. THAT'S FROM THE APOSTLES AND COUNCILS. CHURCH LAW APOSTOLIC LAW - NOT VALENTINE RUSANTSOV WHIM LAW. AGAIN, WE ASKED FOR HIS HELP TO TRANSLATE THEM, AND NO RESPONSE CAME. FINALLY, FOR THE THIRD DOCUMENT WE GOT FR. ANDREW HIMSELF TO TRANSLATE OUR CONDEMNATION! AND BY WHOM? NOTHING WAS DONE IN THE WAY SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO GIVE HIS OPPONENT A CHANCE AT APPEARING WOULD DO! SUAIDEN IS NO CANONIST AND HE'S FULL OF FILTHLY LIES AND HYPOCRISY - A VERITABLE PHARISEE OF THE GOSPEL!
BESIDES THAT, IT IS ABSOLUTELY FORBIDDEN BY THE CANONS FOR MET. VALENTINE TO BE THE JUDGE OF HIS OWN CASE AND HE PRESIDED IN HIS OWN CASE, IF THERE WAS EVEN ANYBODY THERE. TO BE SUMMONED TO BE TRIED BY HIM IS NOT A SUMMONS TO A CANONICAL TRIAL - ST JOHN CHRYSOSTOM REFUSED TO APPEAR AT THE SYNOD OF THE OAK, AS ITS RELATED IN HIS LIFE AND IN THE RUDDER, BECAUSE PATRIARCH THEOPHILUS HIS ACCUSER WAS TO BE ONE OF HIS JUDGES AND THEY TRIED AND CONDEMNED SAINT JOHN IN ABSENTIA, EXCOMMUNICATED, DEPOSED, AND EXILED HIM - ST JOHN CHRYSOSTOM! IF YOU ARE GOING TO TAKE THIS FILTH FROM JOE AND SLING IT AT US, YOU ARE SLINGING IT AT ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM TOO, BECAUSE WE DID NOTHING THAT HE DID NOT DO TOO, AND ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA'S CANONS ALSO SAY THAT NO ACCUSER CAN BE THE JUDGE OF HIS OWN CASE, ANY MORE THAN THE DEFENDANT CAN JUDGE THE CASE!
FURTHER, ARCHBISHOP ANTHONY OF YARANSK'S NAME WAS APPENDED TO THE VERTOGRAD/METRININA VERSION, BUT HE TOLD OUR RUSSIAN REPRESENTATIVE THAT HE HADN'T EVEN HEARD SUCH A THING HAPPENED, ALTHOUGH HE LIVED DOWN THE HALL IN THE SYNOD BUILDING IN SUZDAL. IT IS DOUBTFUL THERE EVER WAS EVEN A PSEUDO-TRIAL, AND HE AT LEAST WASN'T THERE WHEREAS MV CLAIMED HE WAS - A HORRIBLE LIE! RIGHT THERE! A FORGERY!
<<
E-mail 2 (on the forged subpoenas):
ROAC REPRESENTITIVE: On December 7, 2004 -- the day before the alleged "Grand Jury Hearing" of December 8, 2004 -- Igumen Andrew, Fr. Spyridon Schneider and Fr. Vladimir Shishkoff traveled once again to the Unites States Attorney's Office. They spoke to Mr. Robert J. Nardoza, a U.S. attorney who is also the Public Relations Officer for the Unites States Attorney's Office in Brooklyn. Mr. Nardoza said he would look into the matter. As they returned home, that very same day, Mr. Nardoza called Igumen Andrew to confirm that it was definitely a forgery. (his card is attached)
You must realize Euthymius that if any of this "story" purported by Gregory was true......our Government would NOT have allowed Metropolitan Valentin to leave the United States and most certainly would not have granted His Eminence a VISA to return to the United States the numerous times he has since that date. The simple fact is this: it is not illegal for anyone to take any amount of money out of the United States.
There was a spiritual court. Gregory was summoned. He did not appear. He did not give an explanation as to why he did not appear. He did not ask for an extension of time.
In the civil court system, when someone behaves like this, it's called Contempt Of Court and he automatically loses. Nevertheless, Gregory's letter was read at this court.
In the 3 intervening years, he has not protested to the Synod, made any explanation, or asked for any other consideration. He has, however, taken it upon himself to depose one of the bishops of our Synod and proclaimed the rest of them to be in schism from him. And he claims that he is the only legitimate bishop of ROAC. This is not to mention his other crimes of slander, libel, fraud, forgery, and false accusations.
This may not be how Gregory sees himself, but this IS how the rest of the ROAC bishops see him, like it or not.
DORMITION SKETE ASSOCIATE/REPRESENTATIVE:
IT IS A LIE TO SAY THAT WE FORGED ANY DOCUMENTS - IF THEY ARE FORGERIES THEN WE MERELY RECEIVED THEM IN GOOD FAITH FROM A PERSON THAT LATER PROVED UNRELIABLE AND THEN WE TOOK THEM DOWN. WE DID NOTHING WRONG, WE FORGED NOTHING, AND (NAME WITHHELD) IS DELIBERATELY LYING TO YOU TO HURT YOU.
ALSO, HE IS TWISTING THINGS WHEN HE SAYS ITS NOT A CRIME TO TAKE MONEY OUT OF THE COUNTRY. OF COURSE ITS NOT A CRIME, BUT THAT WASN'T WHAT FR. JOHN CLAYPOOL AND FR. DIONYSI ALLEGED WHICH WAS THAT MET. VALENTINE TRIED TO TAKE US CURRENCY OVER $5000 OUT OF THE COUNTRY WITHOUT PAYING THE REQUIRED IMPOSTS - AND THAT THIS IS A CRIME IS KNOWN TO EVERYBODY WHO HAS EVER FLOWN TO A FOREIGN COUNTRY OR HELPED A FOREIGNER COME AND GO FROM THIS COUNTRY - YOU MUST DECLARE ALL GOODS AND MONEY YOU ARE TAKING OUT OF THE COUNTRY ON A FORM THEY GIVE YOU FROM CUSTOMS. THEY DON'T LET YOU LEAVE UNTIL YOU SIGN THE DECLARATION AND IF YOU LIE ABOUT HOW MUCH MONEY YOU ARE TAKING OUT AND THE SUM IS OVER $5000 (THE AMOUNT AT WHICH IMPOSTS START BEING ASSESSED AFTER IT) THEN YOU ARE GUILTY OF A MINOR CRIME AND CAN BE PUNISHED WITH A FINE OR JAIL TIME FOR IT. SO JOE IS LYING TO YOU BECAUSE AS HE KNOWS HAVING TRAVELED BACK AND FORTH ACROSS THE ATLANTIC ONE HAS TO DECLARE THE AMOUNT OF CASH AND ALSO CERTAIN GOODS FOR THE SAKE OF COLLECTING IMPOSTS OR CUSTOMS DUTIES.
AND YES HE COULD HAVE DONE THIS CRIME AND SIMPLY PAID AN EXCESSIVE FINE FOR IT RATHER THAN HAVE ANY PROBLEMS COMING BACK HERE AGAIN, ALTHOUGH I DON'T KNOW WHEN THE LAST TIME IT WAS HE CAME - HE MADE FR. ANDREW BISHOP AND THEN NEVER CAME BACK AS FAR AS I KNOW. ITS NOT AT ALL IMPORTANT.
ALSO THIS IS A REPORT FROM WHOM{?} ABOUT A MR. NARDOZA WHO IS NOT THE AUTHOR AND SO ITS NOT HIS EXACT WORDS OR PERHAPS NOT EVEN HIS WORDS AT ALL WE ARE READING, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE SAID,....
BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER AT ALL EUTHYMIOS. THIS IS STUPIDLY SIDETRACKING YOU FROM THE REAL ISSUE, WHICH IS WAS THE CANONICAL CHURCH ORDER FOR INVESTIGATION AND PENALTIES FOLLOWED BY MV OR NOT. IN OTHER WORDS AGAIN, DID HE HAVE THE POWER TO DE FACTO DEPOSE AND DISPOSSESS THE ARCHBISHOP WITHOUT A CANONICAL TRIAL AND VERDICT OR WAS THAT UNCANONICAL - AND THUS A SCHISM ACCORDING TO THE CANONS WE DISCUSSED? THAT IS THE MAIN, CENTRAL, FOUNDATIONAL, AND REAL ISSUE - NOT WHETHER FR. JOHN CLAYPOOL PAWNED A FORGERY OFF ON GULLIBLE ARCHBISHOP GREGORY! WHAT A STUPID SIDESHOW! THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE CHURCH WERE BROKEN BY VALENTINE, BUT LET'S TALK ABOUT FR. JOHN CLAYPOOL (NOT ARCHBISHOP GREGORY, NOT EVEN WITH ARCHBISHOP GREGORY FOR YEARS NOW!) AND THE POSSIBILITY THAT HE FORGED A DOCUMENT - HOW CUNNINGLY EVIL A DETOUR! THEY FOCUS ON A NON-ISSUE AND MAKE A BIG DEAL ABOUT SOMETHING THAT IS NOT ARCHBISHOP GREGORY'S FORGERY IF IT IS A FORGERY, AND THEY PRETEND THIS AT ALL AFFECTS ARCHBISHOP GREGORY'S VALIDITY OR HONESTY OR ANYTHING - WHAT WICKED HYPOCRITES THEY ARE! AND ITS ALL JUST TO PUFF UP THEIR WORTHLESS PRIDE AND RECEIVE VAIN HONORS FOR THE EMPTY TITLES AND 30 PIECES OF SILVER THEY RECEIVED OR GAVE THEMSELVES AS BISHOPS (AA) AND DEFENDERS OF THE FAITH (JOE) AND TO TAKE OUT THEIR MIXTURE OF HATRED AND SHAME AGAINST THE MAN WHO EXPOSES THEIR CRIMES. IT IS THE WAY OF CRIMINALS TO TRY TO HIDE OR MAKE LIGHT OF THEIR CRIMES BY REFOCUSING ON ALLEGED PETTY CRIMES OF THEIR PRIOR-ACCUSER.
EUTHYMIOS DON'T GET SIDETRACKED BUT HOLD TO THE CENTRAL ISSUE THE MEANINGFUL QUESTION OF WHETHER VALENTINE HAD THE AUTHORITY FROM GOD AND CHURCH TO PUNISH WITHOUT TRIAL AND TO BE HIS OWN JUDGE AND TO VIOLATE ALL THE CANONS CONCERNING JUSTICE IN THE CHURCH LAW...AND SUAIDEN EVEN PARTLY ADMITS IT WHEN HE SAYS THAT VALENTINE REALLY DIDN'T HAVE A CANONICAL WAY TO DO THIS BUT HAD TO DO SOMETHING UNPRECEDENTED IN UNIVERSAL CHURCH LAW - THAT IS HE ADMITS HE BROKE THE LAW AND PUT HIMSELF ABOVE THE CANONS. ST. JOHN MAXIMOVITCH SAYS HE IS A BLASPHEMER OF CHRIST AND THE HOLY SPIRIT WHO SPOKE THE CANONS AND THAT HE WILL CERTAINLY GO WITH THE BLASPHEMOUS BAD THIEF TO HELL IF HE DOESN'T REPENT (SEE HIS SERMON ON THE SUNDAY OF ORTHODOXY IN THE BOOK 'MAN OF GOD').
I AM UPSET WITH THE WICKED TRICKSTERS HURTING YOUR SOUL (SUAIDEN ETC) AND FEARFUL FOR YOUR SOUL. IF I HAVE OFFENDED IN MY WORDS, IT WAS NOT INTENTIONAL AND PLEASE FORGIVE ME.
