Abp. Gregory's response to ROAC

Etienne · Post by **Etienne** » Tue 27 July 2004 7:03 pm

Who is served by all this? :ohvey:

Miriam · Post by **Miriam** » Tue 27 July 2004 8:07 pm

There is only one being that is served by all this and it ain't us or God... :ohvey:

Protopriest Dionysi · Post by **Protopriest Dionysi** » Wed 28 July 2004 8:27 am

anastasios wrote:
A cursory search of the GOA database shows there is no priest named Peter LaGruta in their database.anastasios

As the one who is accused of being the author of this letter, I would like to state that is a "fixed up" or "doctored" version.

I was told by our former bishop to write a statement concerning my trip to Fr. Vladimir's parish. I told him about some priest that we had never met before and he (bishop Gregory) has taken a the basic form of my letter and added and reworked it.

Fr. Fotios and I (the so called authors of this letter) do not accept it as ours. This idea of the priest being from the E.P. is the fruit of bishop Gregory's imagination wich seeks out the worst to destroy others.

Many of the the things that bishop Gregory has written in his letter are equally distorted and untrue. I (and my family) were the witnesses to many of these conversations between the Metropolitan and our former bishop. Sometimes, we were the only witnesses to it.

I was there when the Metropolitan accused our former bishop of his uncanonical acts and that the Synod has heard of them. So this idea that the Metropolitan was accused first, is another untru statement. According to our former bishop himself, bishop Gregory should have waited until "cleared" before acting further. But as too many have seen, the canons are only a tool for the Skete to get what they want, not something that binds or guides them in their life.

The "appeal" that bishop Gregory wrote, talks of somethings that bishop Gregory thought "needed to be fixed" in regards to the metropolitan, but never does he mention a trial. At the time, bishop Gregory was only saying that he was making the point to be the administrator of the Americas and those places that he has influence, but not that he thought anything should happen to the Metropolitan. He made it very clear to many that this was not to be seen as an accusation, but as a "State of the Church in America" type of report.

But, once the Metropolitan was away, and he (bishop Gregory) felt more confident about himself, the purpose of the "Appeal" was changed.

I would also like to distant myself from the "so called" telephone converstaion I supposedly had with fr. John in regards to the airposrt incident of our Metropolitan. I did call father John and tell him about it, but only that he was stopped and had some money that was undocumented. The idea that he was arrested was never shared. I still had no idea what had even occured. The so-called police report that they show ooks more like a type written text, not an official police report. If they had a copy, I think it strange that they would not scan it in. As for the Metropolitan leaving America with un paid medical bills, I do not see the problem. According to Fr. John's own statements, there will not be any medical bills. Fr. John also stated that if there were, by some chance, he (fr, John) would take care of it himself. No worry. This is the samething I was told about Bishop Gregory not fullfilling his part of the contract in regards to giving the deed to the house over to us. "No worry", fr, John said. He said he will, and he will. I guess he too thought more of amd trusted the man on the hill (Buena Vista) than we should have.

in Christ;
Archpriest Dionysi

Justin Kissel · Post by **Justin Kissel** » Wed 28 July 2004 10:22 am

Father Dionysi,

Father, Bless

Thank you for setting the record straight on those issues. I realise that this is all scandalous, and there is a temptation to not say anything. I respect this, and can see the virtue in such a position. However, I am nonetheless glad when someone does speak out, because otherwise many of us are left very confused, and are perhaps scandalized even more since no one seems to offer alternatives to what we are hearing.

Justin

Justin Kissel · Post by **Justin Kissel** » Wed 28 July 2004 10:32 am

Schultz

FWIW, Reader Jerjis posted this on a yahoo list, and also said that it was up on the ROAC America site, so it seems to be public information.

Schultz · Post by **Schultz** » Wed 28 July 2004 11:40 am

Justin Kissel wrote:
Schultz

FWIW, Reader Jerjis posted this on a yahoo list, and also said that it was up on the ROAC America site, so it seems to be public information.

Okay, fair enough. I was just asking as from the letter itself it seemed to be privileged information. Thanks.

scyldscefing · Post by **scyldscefing** » Tue 10 August 2004 11:09 am

I'm wondering though was the Kniga intended to replace the holy canons as an ecclesial authority? I have been reading writings and letters of Metropolitans Philaret and Anastassy making numerous references to the canons. I am also looking for evidence of the validity of this particular Kniga.
Even so it is very hard because within those writings I've yet to find one mention of the Kniga Consistorium.. (maybe it goes by another name??)

I have found a "statute of religious consistories" I haven't found a particular document of it but it was drafted in the 1880's and part of it gave right for orthodox russian people to marry non-orthodox without the spouse having to convert, Protomartyr Grand Duchess Elizabeth, who was a lutheran married Prince Sergei Alexandrovic but later converted herself, testifying to what St. Paul said about mixed marriages in that one Partner sanctified the other..

Canon 72 of the council at Trulo
(An Orthodox man is not permitted to marry an heretical woman, nor is an Orthodox woman to be joined to an heretical man. But if anything of this kind appear to have been done by any, we require them to consider the marriage null, and that the marriage be dissolved. For it is not fitting to mingle together what should not be mingled, nor is it right that the sheep be joined with the wolf, nor the lot of "sinners with the portion' of Christ!' ..... )

surely THIS document seems to override the Canons, if its the Kniga consistorium I've no Idea..