Archbishop GREGORY of Denver and Colorado

[Nathaniel Kapner]

Oh yes dear Spearadon and CDIG,

I was invited on to this INTERNET list by my very good friend and fellow-clergyman, Fr Nikolai Stanoscheck,Deacon of ROAC/Valentine.

If you object to my being ON THE INTERNET, then perhaps the two of you, my dear brother and sister in Christ, should help me not yield to 'INTERNET - Temptation' by no longer replying to my posts and asking me pointed and loaded questions.

Also, the INTERNET Euphrosynos Cafe', as it seems to me, is a letter-writing oppurtunity, that is the same as a stamped-envelope with something good inside. So let's accuratly define our Christian and God forbid, anti-Christian words and activities.

Much Love to both of you my brother and sister in Christ,

Sbn Nathaniel

[Nathaniel Kapner]

Dearest Spearydon,

You seem to fancy yourself a teacher and reprover of the likes of a Bildad the Shaulchite, who though he knew better than poor ol' Job the Long-suffering. Like Job, that holy man, I reply to all of your darts and arrows, "would that you would let me rest awhile!"

Its seems that those who are prone to sermonizing against someone they imagine to know the soul, psychology and experience of only from a 'virtual' vantage-point, would do best to heed the words of one who knows better than you, "My brethren, be not many teachers, knowing that the same shall receive the greater condemnation." (New Testament) My dearest Spearydon, I would spare you.

Your Christ-Loving Target,

Sbn Nathaniel Kapner

[Nathaniel Kapner]

Dear Orthodox6,

Fortunatly for you, dear 6, I do not wish to find myself amongst the "most of us." The conduct I chose to observe in this matter, (of which you have not enough information to play the role of 'counselor'), is that prescribed by someone with a little more understanding with respect to disputes between Christian brothers, "If your brother offend you...."(New Testament)

My advice to myself is to ignore advice from 'speck-finders.' My advice to you, is to clear your own vision of possible obstructions.

Yours for the Master Teacher - Christ Our God,
Sbn Nathaniel Kapner

[Nathaniel Kapner]

Dear Joasia,

You wish to play the role of "setting someone straight." You close by exhorting me to "self-judgment." The former is not your province. The latter is a universal necessity.

Your brother in Christ , the Head of the Holy Orthodox Church,

Sbn Nathaniel

[Nathaniel Kapner]

"EXPOSING ABP GREGORY" 1V

SBN /DR. JERJIS ALAJAJI PROTESTS ABP GREGORY"S "ABORT" OF SPIRTUAL COURT - PART 2

How are your disciples to instruct the Church of Christ in the future, without Canons or Scriptures? "For if one does not know to manage his own house, how shall he take care of a Church of God ?[1 Tim. 3:5]"

Saint Paul says that we are to mind our own business and walk in a manner becoming toward those outside [1 Thess. 4:11,12]; and that "we are to walk in wisdom toward those who are outside [Col. 4:5]" and that clerics are to have a good testimony from those outside [1 Tim. 3:7]. Does not calling in the Police defame the good name of the Skete and of Orthodoxy to those outside?

The Church is the Mother of your disciples, and is to be honored by them She is not to be dishonored and made an object of contempt and a laughing-stock to the outsiders. This is what needs to be imparted. Priest-monk Fr. Peter needed to wait and speak with you by telephone in Bulgaria, before pursuing runaway and vehement passions. Trying unsuccessfully to contact you for about half an hour is no excuse for calling in the Police.

I have talked at length with Brother Subdeacon Nathaniel concerning your Decision on the Charges he made against Hieromonk Peter (Wheeler), Subdeacon John (Watts) and Novice Lazarus (Keithley). He agrees that it is spiritually profitable for him to be contrite and struggle against his anger, and tovoluntarily accept afflictions, and even injustice, as the Foremost of the Apostles, St. Peter, teaches us, whom you quoted in your Decision:"For this is a grace if for the sake of conscience toward God anyone enduregriefs, suffering unjustly. For what kind of good report is it if, when yesin and are buffeted, ye shall endure? But if, when ye do good and suffer,ye endure, this is a grace from God. For to this ye were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving behind for you an example, that ye should follow His footsteps" [1 Pe. 2:19-21]

God has allowed this crisis to occur in order to teach all of us a spiritual lesson. We know that all the brotherhood under your care at the Skete are converts. They are the future of Orthodoxy in this vast continent. If they do not fully understand the seriousness of the canonical charges
broughtagainst them by Brother Subdeacon Nathaniel, they will not be prepared for future temptations, which we know must come. Let us follow the Holy Scriptures which teach us in the book of Proverbs the following:

Proverbs 13:24 - He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes.
Proverbs 22:15 - Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him.
Proverbs 23:13-14 - Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest himwith the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.
Proverbs 29:15 -The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame.

Just in the past few days, you yourself Vladyka have commended me on the good behavior of my son Naaman. I had told you that I reprove him with firmness and love and do not spare the rod with him. And you exclaimed that "it works"! I recall when you told me, dear Vladyka, how you came out to Buena Vista 26 years ago, being zealous and determined to follow the
canons strictly, and how disgusted you were with the ecumenists and canon breakers.

In addition, God teaches us that true sons are chastised for their own benefit, as St. Paul says in Hebrews:12:6-8 "For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not? But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye fatherless kids, and not sons."

Dear Vladyka, Brother Nathaniel admits that he transgressed in not returning the prostration that Fr. Peter gave to him even though Br. Nathaniel felt it was not genuine, which resulted in a chain of events precipitating this Crisis. He admits it and is repenting of his actions. It would behoove us however to now examine in turn the transgressions committed by priest-monk Fr. Peter and Brothers John and Lazarus.

It would be greatly beneficial for the souls of Fr. Peter and Brothers John (who cited to me a Canon of Antioch erroneously and irresponsibly, to justify their calling the Police) and Lazarus to fully understand the weight of the charges and Canonical Violations they have committed. In order for them to learn this lesson, and to avoid such mistakes in the future, more than a slap on the wrist is in order. Otherwise their emotional memory will not register this Crisis. I would recommend that they would be Canonized for a significant length of time (i.e. several months to a year at the least), in addition to the informal epitemias thatyou have imposed on them based on their confessions.

Brother Subdeacon Nathaniel has stated that he hopes that all the charges and complaints get out in the open, and that all, including himself, come to full Accountability. Though difficult for all, he wishes to pursue a peace that must be achieved through many labors and afflictions.

In order to remove Nathaniel from the property, Fr. Peter claimed the following to the Police. The Uniform Summons and Complaint reads as follows:

"Kapner did unlawfully and knowingly exercise control over a thing of value, to wit: monk uniform and keys--the property of Father Peter with a value of $100 or more without authorization and did knowingly use the things of value, in such a manner as to deprive the owner permanently of its use and benefit." There is no mention of violent or dangerous behavior, which was claimed by Fr. Peter afterward when he was before you, the bishop. Was the "uniform" the property of Father Peter? Was he "the owner," as claimed, deprived of its use and benefit? Was Fr. Peter's official complaint before the Police a truthful Testimony? According to the district attorney's Motion to Dismiss to the Court, he states that the property belonged to the Corporation.

END OF SBN /DR. JERJIS ALAJAJI PROTESTS GREGORY"S "ABORT" OF SPIRTUAL COURT - PART 2

[Nathaniel Kapner]

(This, Mother Mariam''s and Sbn Jerjis' Appeal - Abp Gregory held in Contempt - For It Fell On 'Deaf Ears.' )

EXPOSING ABP GREGORY IV
SBN/DR JERJIS ALAJAJI PROTESTS GREGORY'S 'ABORT' OF SPIRITUAL COURT - Part 3

I would humbly ask from your Eminence answers in writing to the following, in order that we understand the basic principles underlying these charges:

1- Your acknowledgment that, when Fr. Peter called the police, he transgressed God's Law as expressed in the following:

A) I Corinthians 6: "Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to the law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints?"

B) The 9th Canon of the 4th Ecumenical Council [p. 253] "If any clergyman has a dispute with another, let him not leave his own bishop and resort to secular courts, but let him submit his own case to his own bishop, or let it be tried by referees chosen by both parties and approved by the bishop. Letanyone who acts contrary hereto be liable to canonical penalties." C) The 14th Canon of Carthage [p.612] "... if anyone ... resorts for justification to civil courts ... he shall nevertheless lose his position."

) The 115th Canon of Carthage [p.671] "... whosoever shall apply to the Emperor for a trial in public courts of justice shall be deprived of his own honor."

2- Your acknowledgment that, when Fr. Peter stripped Brother Nathaniel of his credit card, he determined to abandon Nathaniel homeless and penniless, and he transgressed God's Law as expressed in the following:

A) 1 Corinthians 9:7,13 "Who goeth to warfare any time at his own charges? Who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock?"... "Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? "

B) Canon LIX (59) of the Apostles [p. 102] "If any bishop or presbyter fails to supply necessities when any of the clergy is in want, let him be excommunicated. If he persists, let him be deposed, as having murdered his brother."

C) Canon IV (4) of the Apostles [p. 7] "... It is understood that the Bishop and Presbyters shall distribute a fair share to the Deacons and other Clergymen."

3-Your acknowledgment that, when hieromonk Fr. Peter demanded the stripping of Sbn Nathaniel of his cassock by the Police - knowing that Nathaniel left the Skete a few months ago for an overnight excursion to cool off, and that he was not stripped of his black by the bishop at that time, which occurred when the bishop was present - he transgressed God's Law as expressed in the following:

A) Apostolic canon 38 [p.57] "Let the Bishop have the care of all ecclesiastical matters and let him manage them ..." (i.e. property).

B) Apostolic canon 39 [p. 59]: "Let presbyters and deacons do nothing without the consent of the bishop."C) Canons 24 and 25 of Antioch [p.548] "... the affairs of the Church should be governed with the judgment and authority of the Bishop...", and "A Bishop shall have authority over the property and funds of his church..."

C) Canon LVII (57)of Laodicea [p.574]: " That in villages and in small towns and country districts Bishops are not to be appointed, but circuitors, who,however, having been pre-appointed, may do nothing without the consent and approval of the Bishop."

4-Your acknowledgment that, when Fr. Peter returned a food order from Goldmine Food Co. (which you had given the blessing for Nathaniel to place),and when he said that "the cook no longer lives with us", he transgressed God's Law as expressed in the following:

A) Canon XXXIX (39) of the Apostles [p. 59]: "Let presbyters and deacons do nothing without the consent of the bishop."

B) Canon LVII (57)of Laodicea [p.574]: " That in villages and in small towns and country districts Bishops are not to be appointed, but circuitors, who, however, having been pre-appointed, may do nothing without the consent and approval of the Bishop."

5-Your acknowledgment that, if Fr. Peter sent all of Sbn Nathaniel's possessions to Lakeside motel, including his winter boots, without your blessing, he transgressed God's Law as expressed in the following:

A) Canon XXXIX (39) of the Apostles [p. 59]: "Let presbyters and deacons do nothing without the consent of the bishop."

B) Canon LVII (57)of Laodicea [p.574]: " That in villages and in small towns and country districts Bishops are not to be appointed, but circuitors, who,however, having been pre-appointed, may do nothing without the consent and approval of the Bishop."

There are however some unanswered issues concerning the expulsion of Sub Deacon Nathaniel's belongings:

1) We have an e-mail stating that Fr. Peter packed up Nathaniel's belongings before receiving a blessing from Despota. Did Despota, afterwards, ask Fr. Peter what items he had already collected and packed up?

(2) Did Despota tell him to return to Nathaniel all his belongings, including his books, or just some of them? (3) Did Despota need to approve the winter boots as already in the collection or did he tell Fr. Peter to add the winter boots to the collection? (4) Does this mean that
Despota already judged that Nathaniel was to be removed, even before hearing his testimony?

(3) If Fr. Peter solely moved out Sbn Nathaniel, did he have that authority?

(4) If he had that authority was the removal to be temporary, pending the bishop's return, or permanent based on Fr. Peter's sole assessment?

(5) If the removal was deemed permanent, was it proper before hearing Sbn Nathaniel's Testimony?

(6) Your acknowledgment that Fr. Peter, Sbn. John, and Novice Lazarus, proved their hypocrisy when they refused to grant Sub Deacon Nathaniel asylum on Mother Mariam's property after he implored them and the Police to ring Mother Mariam's doorbell for her to intercede on his behalf on her own property where he was seeking asylum (he was seeking protection on her land and not inside her convent, since it is inappropriate for a monk). Yet two hours later, the three beseeched her authorization to search for Sub Deacon Nathaniel's keys on the Convent grounds. They had no scruples about bringing the Police to the doors of the Convent and apprehending Sub Deacon Nathaniel without Mother Mariam's authorization, yet they shortly later hypocritically asked for permission to look for keys. This is like the Pharisees straining for a gnat and swallowing a camel.

(7 ) Your acknowledgment that, after Sub Deacon Nathaniel left the Skete grounds for the Convent, there was no need to call the Police.

8- Your acknowledgment that Father Peter, Sbn. John, and Novice Lazarus, committed a sacrilege, by asking the heterodox Police to assist them in executing a definitive excommunication of Sbn. Nathaniel, which is an ecclesiastical action taken without your Episcopal blessing, thus transgressing God's Law as expressed in the following:

A) Canon XXXIX (39) of the Apostles [p. 59]: "Let presbyters and deacons do nothing without the consent of the bishop."

B) Canon LVII (57)of Laodicea [p.574]: " That in villages and in small
towns and country districts Bishops are not to be appointed, but circuitors, who, however, having been pre-appointed, may do nothing without the consent and approval of the Bishop."

9- Your acknowledgment that Sbn. Nathaniel has indeed served the Cathedral well as subdeacon (diligently trimming the lamps, beginning at the altar at 4:30/5:00 am, etc...), as a chanter, and performing the functions of a Canonarch, and that has been a dependable cook a the Skete, despite his difficulties with restraining his anger betimes.

10- Your acknowledgment that it is incumbent upon hiermonk Father Peter, who is repenting of his uncanonical and evil act of calling the police, to prove his repentance with actions, as St. Iakovos says: "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only" (2:24), and to write a letter to Deputy William Vidmar in order to restore Sbn Nathaniel's good name and get if expunged from the police records, admitting that he made four false charges, which are namely: stealing the black cassock, trespassing on the property of both the Skete and Convent, stealing the Visa (which has Br. Nathaniel's name on it), and stealing the keys. Technically speaking he should have Br. Nathaniel's name and police report 'expunged from the records.'

11- Do you acknowledge that Fr. Peter broke the Ninth Commandment , "Thou shalt not steal," and St. Paul's commandment, "Defraud not one another", when he searched through Sbn Nathaniel's office drawers for his wallet, and opened his wallet, and took out of his wallet, the Visa Card you gave him with his name, "Br. Nathaniel" inscribed on the card? If you do not acknowledge this, please explain,. If you do, do you acknowledge that, if Fr. Peter is not reproved, the Skete is vulnerable to the curse of the flying sickle for thievery? (Zechariah 5)

I am afraid I have to express to you, dear Vladyka, that this affair has not been thus far, handled in a satisfactory and Canonical fashion, according to the mind of the Fathers.

HERE ENDS "SBN/DR. JERJIS ALAJAJI PROTESTS GREGORY'S "ABORT' - PART 3

[尼古拉前执事]

All of the topics by Subdeacon Nathaniel about Dormition Slete have now been move in to one thread for easier reading (or skipping) of the posting populace here at the Euphrosynos Cafe. Thank you for your patience.