Statement of Comm Dir of ROCOR Synod

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

George,

If I reported to my wife that I was talking to someone on the internet and he said, "I know of someone in Rome who also claims to be the infallible oracle of the Church- which one of you is the true oracle?"; do you think it takes someone who is infallible to say this without starting it out with, "In my opinion".

I think it is clear enough that you made this statement, and I think it is clear enough that these other people in items 1-5 have said these things. I don't have to think of myself as being infallible to know they are relatively certain facts.

So lets not try to escape the issue with ad hominums or logical fallacies.

[George Australia]

If I reported to my wife that I was talking to someone on the internet and he said, "I know of someone in Rome who also claims to be the infallible oracle of the Church- which one of you is the true oracle?"; do you think it takes someone who is infallible to say this without starting it out with, "In my opinion".

I'm not sure I follow you. Is the second part of this paragraph a rhetorical question adressed to your wife, or a question addressed to me?

I don't have to think of myself as being infallible to know they are relatively certain facts.

These matters concern the Salvation of Souls. They need to be more that just "relatively certain". Relative to what?

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

I'm not sure I follow you. Is the second part of this paragraph a rhetorical question adressed to your wife, or a question addressed to me?

Maybe this example would better illustrate what I am trying to say. Today, it was announced by Marshall Fields Inc. that it is being bought by Federated Department Stores. I don't have to be infallible to know that it a relatively certain fact.

These matters concern the Salvation of Souls. They need to be more that just "relatively certain". Relative to what?

By "relative", I mean there is always a chance the information is incorrect. Perhaps the report I mentioned above was a hoax. I could verify the information against other sources and it becomes an even more certain fact, but still relative to the sources. So by relative I mean that I am as certain as anyone can resonably be. With regard to the statements of the ecumenists and the ecumenical councils I mentioned, abd which we are still talking about, I think, it is a reliable fact that it is true. I don't need to be infallible to know it and you don't have to be infallible to know you what I am writing to you here and now.

Which one of the points 1-5 do you think is questionable and reasonably subject to personal interpretation?

[尼古拉前执事]

OOD,

Your words seem a bit harsh. Was St. John Chrysostom being a predator when he lied to his friend (Treastise on the Priesthood, 1)? Do we not instead try to derive moral insight from this deception? Should Rahab the harlot be condemned as a predator for lying (Jos. 2:1-24)? Is not this deception in fact the only thing about her which is said to be praiseworthy (James 2:25; cf St. Gregory the Theologian, Oration 40:19)? Did not Nathan the Prophet use deception when speaking with King David (2 Sam. 12:1-7)? And was this not according to the Scripture the Lord's will?

To defame others and call them liars when all they are doing is preaching the truth and exposing your own lies is something far different than these examples I would say!