Archbishop GREGORY of Denver and Colorado

Euthymios · Post by **Euthymios** » Wed 2 January 2008 11:22 pm

You have been consistently wrong about me Joseph, and I resent your false allegations. But I've been patient with you, and of course I forgive you. You didn't trust me before so you asked for my phone number twice via e-mail. I gave it to you thus proving I was who I claimed to be. Now you think I'm somekind of secret agent of Vladika Gregory here to confuse people and sow discord. These are all together signs of paranoia. The truth is I have (and am) searching for the truth. I have gone back and forth in my understanding of this issue and modifying my knowledge with knew data, and now due to recent discoveries I completely reject the lies and slanders. I think you have a conspiritorial mind that quite possibly makes you see negativity and conspiracy in people when there really is no negativity or conspiracy. I think you are a "debunker" by personality and are not necessarily concerned for the truth and facts, but your agenda is to debunk (of course I could be wrong and I apologize if I am). And I think you might like controversy. If there is no reason to be controversial, I think you might actually create a reason to be controversial. I also have conspiritorial and paranoid elements within myself. And by the way, I thought you were done here. Please forgive me Joseph for judging you, but I wanted to let others know my position.

Please understand I do not work for Vladika Gregory. I am just a simple layman searching for the truth. Don't assume that just because someone disagrees with you they are automatically by default an undercover spy of Colorado. There are more then two alternatives here. I know of atleast three (honest and simple layman, spy, enemy). I am not an enemy of Vladika or anyone. I am not a spy. I am a simple layman. I also thought it interesting that because I said I was not an enemy of Vladika Gregory, you automatically assumed I was your (and the people here) enemy. There are more then one or two alternatives. But you acted as if it was an "either/or." By the way, if I was secretly working for them, why would I be sending counter-arguments to John Watts as I have over the past couple weeks? E-mail me if you want copies of our correpondences. This applies to everyone here. Thank you.

Again, please forgive me if I have ever sinned against anyone here in word, deed or thought. Thank you.

Suaidan · Post by **Suaidan** » Thu 3 January 2008 1:42 am

Euthymios wrote:
The truth is I have (and am) searching for the truth. I have gone back and forth in my understanding of this issue and modifying my knowledge with knew data, and now due to recent discoveries I completely reject the lies and slanders.

And what lies and slanders are these? That I am a single man suffering over the loss of someone in Russia, writing on Paradosis to ease my pain? (Full disclosure: I married in 2007, quite happily, although Gregory thought otherwise in his letters.)

That I am a wife-beater and a drunk? (I have never beaten my wife, nor am I a drunk, nor did I end up in acoholic rehab, although Gregory thought otherwise in his letters)

That Gregory tried to save my former marriage? (I remained with my wife when I left ROAC for world Orthodoxy in 2002, and we separated in 2003, none of which had anything to do with him)

-- or you do mean supposed "lies and slanders" about HIM?

Euthymios wrote:
I think you have a conspiritorial mind that quite possibly makes you see negativity and conspiracy in people when there really is no negativity or conspiracy. I think you are a "debunker" by personality and are not necessarily concerned for the truth and facts, but your agenda is to debunk (of course I could be wrong and I apologize if I am). And I think you might like controversy. If there is no reason to be controversial, I think you might actually create a reason to be controversial. I also have conspiritorial and paranoid elements within myself. And by the way, I thought you were done here.

Stop talking about me, and I WILL be done here.

Euthymios wrote:
Please understand I do not work for Vladika Gregory. I am just a simple layman searching for the truth.

Your consistent choice of who is telling the truth is itself telling....

The rest I will not respond to. Unless you bring up my name again.

I doubt we will be talking about the canons any further, after its been pointed out the major "canon" Mr. Watts quoted was actually rejected by the Orthodox Synods. Thank you. I hope this is the end of this.

Euthymios · Post by **Euthymios** » Thu 3 January 2008 2:46 am

Joseph Stated: I doubt we will be talking about the canons any further, after its been pointed out the major "canon" Mr. Watts quoted was actually rejected by the Orthodox Synods. Thank you. I hope this is the end of this.

My Response: I'm sorry that is just not true. It has become clear to me that you really don't know the canons. Anyone can look that canon up for themselves. I'm sorry I couldn't resist.

GOCTheophan · Post by **GOCTheophan** » Thu 3 January 2008 12:39 pm

Euthymios wrote:
Joseph Stated: I doubt we will be talking about the canons any further, after its been pointed out the major "canon" Mr. Watts quoted was actually rejected by the Orthodox Synods. Thank you. I hope this is the end of this.

My Response: I'm sorry that is just not true. It has become clear to me that you really don't know the canons. Anyone can look that canon up for themselves. I'm sorry I couldn't resist.

It is not that important if a layman knows the canons.

It is important that everyone knows the Faith.

Is archbishop Gregory of Colorado Orthodox in his Faith?

Some have doubted this strongly. With good reason.

Why does the Lamian Synod want nothing to do with him?

Theophan.

Suaidan · Post by **Suaidan** » Thu 3 January 2008 7:13 pm

Euthymios wrote:
My Response: I'm sorry that is just not true. It has become clear to me that you really don't know the canons. Anyone can look that canon up for themselves. I'm sorry I couldn't resist.

Sometimes it's good to resist.

Find your so-called canon in the Rudder. The canon I cited condemning the use of the pseudo- canons of the Apostolic Constitutions is Canon II of the 6th Synod, which are also known as the canons of Trullo. In the Edition of the Rudder published in 1957 by "The Orthodox Christian Educational Society" and reprinted in 1983 in English, we find this canon on page 294.

Please find me the "Apostolic Canon" that Mr Watts cites-- specifically the one that "one bishop may consecrate, in cases of persecution and the like". You not only won't find it, not only because the use of those canons was condemned by the canon I cited above, but because it doesn't exist in any valid edition of the Rudder.

Perhaps "that's just not true" works for Dormition Skete.

It doesn't work in a public forum. Would you like me to read back the words of Mr Watts' --that you posted-- to you, or can you do it yourself?

Euthymios · Post by **Euthymios** » Fri 4 January 2008 8:57 pm

GOCTheophan wrote:
Euthymios wrote:
Joseph Stated: I doubt we will be talking about the canons any further, after its been pointed out the major "canon" Mr. Watts quoted was actually rejected by the Orthodox Synods. Thank you. I hope this is the end of this.

My Response: I'm sorry that is just not true. It has become clear to me that you really don't know the canons. Anyone can look that canon up for themselves. I'm sorry I couldn't resist.

It is not that important if a layman knows the canons.

It is important that everyone knows the Faith.

Is archbishop Gregory of Colorado Orthodox in his Faith?

Some have doubted this strongly. With good reason.

Why does the Lamian Synod want nothing to do with him?

Theophan.

They're joining him. I can't believe how much false information exists on the internet.

Euthymios · Post by **Euthymios** » Fri 4 January 2008 9:28 pm

Joseph claimed the canon prohibiting laymen to leave their bishops was rejected by Orthodox synods.

My Response: And which synod was that - Bozo, Porky Pig, and Bugs Bunny? Its just as fictional a 'synod' as they are. NO SYNOD ever rejected that canon. In fact, that Synod of St. Photios and the other Patriarchs of Christendom in the late 9th century is the very last that issued canons (rather than anathemas) that Orthodoxy uses (its also called "the 8th Ecumenical Council" by St. Mark of Ephesus and it was also accepted as such by Rome until the late 11th century), so it would be very interesting to see what synod you claim 'rejected' Canon 13 of the 1st-&-2nd Council. Please supply me with the Synod's name, date, and statement in exact quotation with proper citation. Either you will refuse because you can't supply a non-existent synod and statement, or you will fib and I'll be able to prove its a fib.

I'm finished with you Suaiden. You have completely discredited yourself. I can't take anything you say seriously. And they don't have me post here for them. This is a dishonest tactic on your part to even make that claim.