Moderator: Mark Templet
Euthymios wrote:I believe Gregory "blesses" people and gives obediences to lie. I believe he often dictates what others should write. And I believe he purposesly maligns anyone who resists him.
Well, since you are busy wishing him many years, and up to a week ago were writing people of all jurisdictions to make peace with him, why should we believe in YOUR sincerity?
Euthymios wrote:I believe Gregory "blesses" people and gives obediences to lie. I believe he often dictates what others should write. And I believe he purposesly maligns anyone who resists him.
Well, since you are busy wishing him many years after multiple witnesses gave testimony concerning him to you, and up to a week ago were writing people of all jurisdictions to make peace with him, why should we believe in YOUR sincerity?
Gregory of Colorado "sends" people-- like John Claypool in the past-- to act like they have "changed their minds" on Gregory, get information, and then suddenly "repent" to him. You are acting very much like Claypool, and I will say, people have memories. This is an old trick and I am not fooled.
Euthymios wrote:I am sincere and I do wish Gregory many years (Jesus said love your enemies), though I do not consider him an enemy, and I wish the bishops would get their act together and unite. I think their disagreements are selfish and petty.
In other words, you wish Gregory many years, period, since you basically said "Jesus said love your enemies-- not that Gregory is one". I assume then, that WE are the enemies you are referring to? Or were you just shooting of biblical quotes?
Let this be my clarifying statement on you, and it will suffice.
You are a clear partisan of former Archbishop Gregory, and I fully believe your ONLY intent is to sow discord here to bring people under his control. You have no interest in asking questions, except to hopefully give Gregory some more things to rebut, and the proof for me is in the behaviors I have seen from you. After over a week of back and forth answering of your questions, you came back on this list and asked the EXACT SAME THINGS.
Thus, I don't believe you are questioning a single thing. I pointed to what the form of a canonical release was after John Watts lied about what it was-- and you took Mr Watts' deceptive response and posted it here, I assume because wasn't here, not having posted in a number of months.
LATEST AND HOPEFULLY LAST INSTALLMENT IN THIS ARGUMENT:
[name withheld] thinks I stopped writing you a week ago. He doesn't know I am writing you now or that I wrote you a letter a few days ago. I just now had a moment to read this e-mail, and well, I will see about calling you perhaps tomorrow or the next day when I find time. I doubt I will have time for an involved discussion. But I will call you.
If you are troubled by the fact that I know you grew up in an abusive environment, well, I heard that from [name withheld] 3 years ago when I was having phone conversations with you about baptism, papism, ecumenism, etc. He was trying to explain why you have a problem trusting people. If that's what you refer to when you write that I know things about you that only [name withheld] could know, that's why I know it.
One last thing. I care for your soul very much, but you have persisted in doing something which has to stop right now or else I am not going to respond to you again. It is supremely arrogant, insulting, and contrary to Christ's laws for you to go on asserting that I am a perjurer (and by implication an atheist) when I have sworn by Christ on my own salvation, on penalty of hell-fire eternal, that what I wrote you I know to be true firsthand (how dare you!), as you and Joe do not. Joe neither can nor would be willing to take a similar oath, but he would weasel out of it, because he knows he doesn't know the truth of these things firsthand like I do, and he knows that he's a liar too about some of these things, and so he can't solemnly swear honestly and without fear as I do. Even if I had been told to write this by [name withheld], which I wasn't and didn't, even still, I am not a souless zombie not to be fearful of hellfire or to believe [name withheld] is infallible - I wrote and swore what and how I did because I know firsthand its all true.
As for Joe's pseudo-reply to my letter, he either is truly ignorant of the canons or he expects that you are too lazy and naively-trusting toward him to go look them up for yourself, because lied to you about the canons I cited and I prove it below.
Apostolic Canon 85 lists all the texts of Scripture we are to consider "sacred and venerable" and to accept and includes at the end "and these 8 books of Constitutions transmitted by the hand of me, Clement" of Rome, co-laborer and fellow apostle with Ss. Peter and Paul. In fact, the 85 canons are taken from the 2nd to last section of the Constitutions and thus are doubly inseparable from them. Also St. Epiphanius of Cyprus (see his "Panarion" - see the index in the Brill edition under "Apostolic Constitutions" or its other name the "Didaskalia" - not to be confused with Didache - an excerpt from book 7 with some additions by another author) and many Fathers cite as these books as canonical and accepted by all the Church as the Order of the Church.
In the 8th book of these Constitutions, we read:
Apostolic Constitutions, Book 8, Section 1:
Simon the Canaanite Concerning the Number Necessary for the Ordination of a Bishop.
Euthymius - read that last part again - it says that the canonical need for two or more bishops in performing the consecration has a canonical exception - which is that if more bishops cannot come, the prior agreement by multiple bishops for the bishop's consecration is sufficient for a valid consecration of that bishop by the hand of a single bishop. Vladyka Gregory had Archbishop Makarios' blessing for his ordination of Archbishop Ambrose and thus we had the required two or three bishops involved as permitted by this Apostolic canon. Thus it is a valid consecration, contrary to Joe's ignorant or unprincipled denial thereof.
Second, regarding Canon 13 (XIII) of the 1 st and 2 nd Council, held in Constantinople in 861 A.D. under St. Photios the Great:
This below is all from the Rudder - the canon text and commentary. Note in the excerpt from Canon XIII here that presbyters, deacons, monks, and laymen can't break communion or cease commemorating their bishop before a canonical trial is held even if they condemn him for allegedly committing canonical crimes - if they do so, the Church excommunicates them from her as schismatics.
Euthymius, as you see from the above 13th canon (see below at the end of my letter for the canon's full text if interested), the Metropolitan did not have the right to unilaterally remove Archbishop Gregory from his diocese and steal his clergy without a canonical trial (and conviction), without even an investigation at that, which this canon clearly specifies must take place first, before anyone can leave their bishop. The Metropolitan created a schism by claiming power to do the contrary and all those that followed him over here made a schism according to this and other canons. Joe is a wicked liar to claim this canon supports his Metropolitan - it rather condemns him for trying to institute a new, contrary to God's law order in the Church and put himself above the canons and the Divinely-Inspired Councils that issued them - thus making himself a new pope and his followers new papists.
So, since, Joe proved to be a flat-out liar and simply claimed that these canons (like Apostolic Constitutions, 8:1:27) didn't exist or that the canons I cited rather supported him (like Canon 13 of the 1st and 2nd Council), I expect you not to take his word for things canonical anymore. I demand you look up his citations from now on and stop putting blind faith in anyone who claims something is wrong with Archbishop Gregory. I know the canons very well and I am very careful about my salvation - I would not be with him if he had erred in regard to dogmas or canons. Really you are ridiculously naive and blindly-accepting in your trust of anyone who attacks us and for no good reason, while you are suspicous approaching paranoid about what you think Archbishop Gregory and I capable of. I also demand that you read the website documents I gave you the address for, because pretty much every issue between Valentine and us is covered there already with canonical quotes and testimony and facts, and so you have no reason to bother me with Joe with rewritting these same arguments and facts all over again that I've already covered there. You have to take some responsibility for looking these things up on your own if someone points you the way. For me to type them all in because Joe simply says "it ain't so" when I don't have time even to breath here hardly with all my work and responsiblities is irresponsible and ridiculous for you to ask of me. I care for your soul, but I must take care of many other people and things besides trying to help you and you can't keep claiming my time without doing your share of the work. If you care about your soul, do your own homework and don't be slack at it or your else perish horribly out of your own negligence, being bamboozled by every unprincipled liar that comes along with puffed-up pseudo-arguments.
With love in Christ,
CANON XIII of the 1st&2nd Council under St. Photius the Great
The all-evil one having planted the seed of heretical tares in the Church of Christ, and seeing these being cut down to the roots with the sword of the Spirit, took a different course of trickery by attempting to divide the body of Christ by means of the madness of the schismatics. But, checking even this plot of his, the holy Council has decreed that +++henceforth if any Presbyter or Deacon, on the alleged ground that his own bishop has been condemned for certain crimes, before a conciliar or synodal hearing and investigation has been made, should dare to secede from his communion, and fail to mention his name in the sacred prayers of the liturgical services in accordance with the custom handed down in the Church, he shall be subject to prompt deposition from office and shall be stripped of every prelatic honor.+++ For anyone who has been established in the rank of Presbyter and forestalls the Metropolitan's judgment, +++and, judging matters before a trial has been held+++, insofar as lies in his power, condemns his own father and Bishop, he is not even worthy of the honor or name of Presbyter. Those, on the other hand, who go along with him, in case any of them should be among those in holy orders, they too shall forfeit their own rights to honor, or, in case they should be monks or laymen, +++let them be utterly excommunicated from the Church until such time as they spew upon and openly renounce all connection with the schismatics and decide to return to their own Bishop.+++
(Ap. c. XXXI; c. XVIII of the 4th; cc. XXXI, XXXIV of the 6th; cc. XII, XIV, XV of the 1st-and-2nd; c. V of Antioch; c. VI of Gangra: cc. X, XI, LX of Carthage.)
Interpretation
Both by means of the heretics and by means of the schismatics the devil endeavors to divide the body of Christ, or what is otherwise called His Church. On this account and for this reason, the present Canon decrees that if any presbyter or deacon separates from communion of his bishop, and does not mention the name of the latter in accordance with custom, before the Council or Synod has examined into the charges laid against him, and has condemned him, the presbyter or deacon guilty of doing this shall be deposed from office, since he is not worthy to have the dignity and name of presbyter or deacon, as the case may be, when, condemning his own bishop, who is his spiritual father, he anticipates the Metropolitan's judgment. For it is Metropolitans, and not clerics, that are entitled to pass judgment upon bishops. Those, on the other hand, who keep in line with such apostates, or succeders, i.e., such presbyters and deacons, shall, in case they be in holy orders, be promptly deposed from office; but in case they be monks or laymen, let them be excommunicated not merely from the divine Mysteries, but even from the Church herself, until they come to hate the erring presbyters and deacons, and decide to unite themselves with their own bishop.
You are right. This should be the last of it.... I will only answer the canons here.
Euthymios wrote:LATEST AND HOPEFULLY LAST INSTALLMENT IN THIS ARGUMENT:
Apostolic Canon 85 lists all the texts of Scripture we are to consider "sacred and venerable" and to accept and includes at the end "and these 8 books of Constitutions transmitted by the hand of me, Clement" of Rome, co-laborer and fellow apostle with Ss. Peter and Paul. .... In the 8th book of these Constitutions, we read:
No. We don't read. Canon 2 of the 6th Council reads, concerning this misuse:
"CANON 2
This too has appealed best to the this holy Council, as well as most
important, that the 85 Canons handed down to us in the name of the holy and glorious Apostles, and as a matter of fact accepted and validated by the holy and blissful Fathers preceding us, be henceforth retained and left firm and secure, for the cafe of souls and the cure of diseases. But inasmuch as we are ordered in these Canons to accept the Injunctions ("Constitutions") of the same holy Apostles (as trammitted) through Clemens, into some of which certain spurious passages destitute, of piety have been interpolated long ago by the heterodox to the detriment of the Church, and have tarnished the becoming and natural beauty ofthe divine dogmas, we have suitably weeded out such ordinances in furtherance of the edification and security uf the most Christian flock, not in the least way being minded to approve the fantastic inventions of heretical mendacity that hme been inserted in the genuine and uncorrupted didache (or teaching) of the Apostles. On the other hand, we ratify all the rest of the sacred Canons promulgated by our holy and blissful Fathers..."
Euthymios wrote:Euthymius - read that last part again - it says that the canonical need for two or more bishops in performing the consecration has a canonical exception - which is that if more bishops cannot come, the prior agreement by multiple bishops for the bishop's consecration is sufficient for a valid consecration of that bishop by the hand of a single bishop. Vladyka Gregory had Archbishop Makarios' blessing for his ordination of Archbishop Ambrose and thus we had the required two or three bishops involved as permitted by this Apostolic canon. Thus it is a valid consecration, contrary to Joe's ignorant or unprincipled denial thereof.
See the Synod statement. And furthermore, who is persecuting them in the mountains of Colorado?
Euthymios wrote:Second, regarding Canon 13 (XIII) of the 1 st and 2 nd Council, held in Constantinople in 861 A.D. under St. Photios the Great:
This below is all from the Rudder - the canon text and commentary. Note in the excerpt from Canon XIII here that presbyters, deacons, monks, and laymen can't break communion or cease commemorating their bishop before a canonical trial is held even if they condemn him for allegedly committing canonical crimes - if they do so, the Church excommunicates them from her as schismatics.
"....+++henceforth if any Presbyter or Deacon, on the alleged ground that his own bishop has been condemned for certain crimes, before a conciliar or synodal hearing and investigation has been made, should dare to secede from his communion, and fail to mention his name in the sacred prayers of the liturgical services in accordance with the custom handed down in the Church, he shall be subject to prompt deposition from office and shall be stripped of every prelatic honor. For anyone who has been established in the rank of Presbyter and forestalls the Metropolitan's judgment, +++and, judging matters before a trial has been held+++, insofar as lies in his power, condemns his own father and Bishop, he is not even worthy of the honor or name of Presbyter. Those, on the other hand, who go along with him, in case any of them should be among those in holy orders, they too shall forfeit their own rights to honor, +++or, in case they should be monks or laymen, let them be utterly excommunicated from the Church until such time as they spew upon and openly renounce all connection with the schismatics and decide to return to their own Bishop.+++
Again-- that is about sedition, not if the Bishop in question is violating the canon directly afterwards!
CANON XIV of the Same.
If any Bishop, on the allegation that charges uf crime lie against his own Metropolitan, shall secede or aposiaitize from him before a concliar or synodal verdict has been issued against him, and shall abstain, from communion with him, and fail to mention his name, in accordance with consuetude, in the course of the divine mystagogy~ (i. e., liturgical celebration of the Eucharistic
mystery), the holy Council has decreed that he shall be deposed from office, if merely by secedingfrom h i s own Metropolitan he shall create a schism. For everyone ought to know his own bounds, and neither ought a presbyter treat his own bishop scornfully or contemptuously, nor ought a bishop to treat his own Metropolitan so.
INTERPRETATION
In a similar vein as in the above Canon, the present Canon deposes
from office those bishops who separate themselves from the Joint communion of their Metropolitan, and refuse to mention his name in accordance with established custom; because neither ought any presbyter to scorn his bishop, nor ought any bishop to scorn his Metropolitan. See also Ap. c. XXXI.