Moderator: Mark Templet
Like all of the Saints, I am sure Bishop Gregory eagerly awaits the repentance of anyone fallen away from the faith, so that he can one again embrace them and "slay the fattened calf". This is what the Fathers did with Bishops who momentarily fell to the Donatist, Iconoclast, and Arian heresy.
The opposite would be unthinkable as I am sure Father George would agree.
But it seems you might just stone the sinful woman out of an ego trip...
ORTHODOXIA I THANATOS!!!
R M Malleev-Pokrovsky
ADDRESS THE CONTENT OF THE POST!!! Or are you simply a slanderer?!
Fr. George wrote:
"And if gelsky would read the address by Bishop Gregory, he would learn that this is all instigated by the Moscow Patriarchate, and that if Metropolitan Valentine joined the MP, there would be no charges, there would be no conviction, and the case would be dismissed."
I am sorry, but simply READING what Bishop Gregory wrote-this "Address"-is not PROOF of anything, except that it appeared to us under Bishop Gregory's name, indicating that Bishop Gregory claims that he wrote it. Period. "He said," "they said," "she said," - this is called "hearsay." It is not admissable in a court of law; I realize that this is not a court of law, but, do we hold a lower standard for proof if someone is asking us to basically turn over our souls to them, than we do for simple offenses against the state, county, city, village, or municipality?
I thought this over when I read the "Address." "So-and-so said the Prosecutor said . . ." Is that so? Do we have any concrete proof of this alleged statement of this prosecutor? What is the prosecutor's name? Where does he reside? If he were to be asked about this statement, would he deny it? Then he would be a liar? EXCEPT when he said what someone told Bishop Gregory he said-because THEN he was telling the truth, right? And, to be quite honest, simply because a prosecutor "says" something, -uh- what exactly does that mean? Since "a prosecutor said it," does that mean IT IS THE TRUTH? HA HA now that's a real funny- ever read the newspapers? So, Bishop Gregory is telling us what? That all the Prosecutors who work for the Russian Federation always tell the truth, so that if one of them "said" something, therefore, that proves it is the TRUTH and NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH, SO HELP US PUTIN? Or what?
Also the acusation that "the MP was behind it" has some-uh-further implicatons. So, this prosecutor apparently does not work for the Russian Federation, but for the MP? Or, the MP dictates to prosecutors in the Russian Federation who will be charged for what? So the MP runs the judicial system in the Russian Federation? Or just part of it? Or just some of the time? Is there, by any chance whatsoever, any corroborating evidence of similar events happening in the Russian federation, either prior to this event, or after it? Is the "corroborating evidence" supported by actual PROOF, or more "he said, they said, she said" stuff?
Is what Bishop Gregory described as happening in this situation outside the realm of possibility? NO, I do not think it is. COULD it have happened? Possibly, yes, it could have.
But, just as "he said, they said, she said" do not make for "PROOF," neither do possibilities. Again, the only thing that the description of this incident in Bishop Gregory's "Address" proves is that there is a description of an alleged event in Bishop Greory's "Address." PERIOD. There is NO PROOF OF ANYTHING there.
As I mentioned in my comments on Fr. George's assertion that "Bishop Gregory is the most feared clergyman in America," hazy and unprovable statements do not convince anyone who "needs" convincing. If Bishop Gregory et al simply want to "preach to the choir," or possibly engage in self-congratulations over a well-turned phrase, well, that's swell. However, if the object is to actually convince anyone who has critical thinking capabilities of their position, it would seem to me that they are gonna have to do better than this! A lot better . . .
Michael Woerl
:ohvey: Still, for some, there is a need to dwell on a person and not to carefully examine the message. One could argue and conjecture just as well, that these voices opposed to +Bishop Gregory are arms of disinformation who have infiltrated ROCOR to subvert her message and lead her into disunion, but this in no wise advances discussion on the topic. Slander and ad hominem attacks are signs of an intellectually dishonest position. The question then becomes, why are you intentionally obfuscating? Why are you trying to deceive? Why can't you address the topic?
ORTHODOXIA I THANATOS!
Rostislav Mikhailovich Malleev-Pokrovsky
bogatyr wrote:
"Still, for some, there is a need to dwell on a person and not to carefully examine the message."
God forbid!
PART of the topic was exactly what I was referring to-the part where Fr. George said if gelsky would look he would see . . . etc., etc., etc. You know, where Bishop Gregory, in his "Address," is attempting (I think . . . ) to prove Metropolitan Valentin is legit, ok, a good guy, whatever, because a prosecutor said such and such and on and on-uh-just see my last post-read it again, ok? Or is that NOT part of the topic? Perhaps you need to take a deep breath and explain what it is you are trying to say a little more calmly . . .
To my way of thinking, the continual presentation of half baked statements and offering basically 'nothing' or 'because i said so' as "PROOF" seems to me to be "obfuscating" and "trying to deceive." But, hey, that's just me I guess . . . maybe some people go for that sort of thing, who knows? Trying to offer some advice here-but, like I said, if they only wanna preach to the choir, hey-go for it!
Let me put it in another way-if True Orthodox group "A" made a presentation for their case by showing indisputable proofs of involvement in ecumenism on the part of World Orthodoxy, then compared this involvement with examples of similar behavior in the canons, and illustrated the penalties provided for by the canons, and then went on to explain their own thoughts on the adherence to traditional orthodoxy in a clear and forthright fashion, while True Orthodox group "B" said you have to join our group because our 4 bishops and 1 parish are the only True Orthodox left in North America because all the other Orthodox have been taken over by the judeo-masonic conspiracy, but the masons will be in for a surprise when the jews make them get a bar-code of "666" tattoed on their foreheads and the jews wont have to get them because they are going to take over the world but since we are the only ones who know this you are safe with us (announcement! announcement! for anyone who is overly touchy-this is a hypothetical case-ok? hy-po-thet-i-cal! uh-that is kinda like make-believe, ok?). . . do you think true Orthodox group "A" or True Orthodox group "B" would gather more adherents to themselves? get the picture rosti?
Code: Select all
Michael Woerl:ohvey: The topic of this thread is ROCOR's ruinous union with the mp.
Secondly you could add multiple groups and form some sort of cacophonous mob, each at each others throats, but where does that serve the discussion? Stop obfuscating and trying to deceive by deflection.
Finally, I am no supporter of ANY of these groups. What do I know? +Bishop Gregory was one of the few people loyal to ROCOR when HOCNA split off and did its thing and tried to keep as many of those people as possible in ROCOR, despite Fr. Lebedeff's alienation of those people. He has firsthand knowledge of the irregularities in Boston and has tried on several occasions to develop a modus vivendi between himself and ROCOR. His personal ecclesiology eventually developed into a falling out, which he could never reconcile himself with and he really is not anti-ROCOR. He may hate my Bishops as he is a part of another era, but he would fall on a sword for ROCOR, given the right circumstances.
+Metropolitan Valentin, until whatever political maneuver failed, was a Bishop in good standing in ROCOR. Then there were charges of pedophilia, which turned out to be false. He was acquitted. So he is still a Bishop. Whether his Synodeia and its size is a legitimate topic to discuss, it really doesn't matter. I think your point would be less biased if you placed it under another thread and showed intellectual honesty. One could just as easily bring evidence forward that Mr. Denisenko was not alone in having a common law wife, styling herself as a schema-nun, and common law children. One only need look at his close protege, +pimen, A LIVING CHURCHMEN IF EVER THERE WAS ONE, who had the same circumstance. You could even go into +alexis II's bolshevik divorce so he could ascend to the episcopacy. But those scandals don't seem to interest you, for you are agendized.
The "lamia synod" was going off the deep end, but now seems to have calmed itself. Honestly, those of us interested in Patristic Orthodoxy have to even be able to maintain some sort of common cause, however basic, with groups as extreme as the matthewites to bring some sort of consensus about and moderation. No where and no how can the situation amongst the GOCs really be looked at in black and white, because of the infiltration of the masonic Greek secret police and disenfranchisement of GOCs in Greece and Cyprus and HERE. I would make the claim that something could be done with Milan and Fili with only a small amount of dialogue. Other groups like the Lamia Synod, ROCiE, ROAC, HOCNA, a little more effort. But I believe that this dialogue is more important, however, than dealing with sergianists and compromising the legacy of ROCOR. Then again, you lead by example. None of this is on topic, but I am less than lionizing the aforementioned groups in doing so, and I'm not particularly interested in scandal mongering. Got the point?
ORTHODOXIA I THANATOS!
Rostislav Mikhailovich Malleev-Pokrovsky
Bogatyr,
Are you implying there should be a union between ROCOR, ROCIE,ROAC,LAmia and all the other groups who have separated themselves to preserve the faith and avoid ecumenism etc...
I think that would be the more logical union if there must be one. At least everybody in these groups is basically on the same page. I may be wrong so please correct me if that is not so. What a wonderful thing it would be.