Monday, August 1, 2011

SIR has nothing to do with vigante Milan synod

Private sharing: Questions & answers, to & from SIR Archb. Chrysostomos of Etna, regarding 'Milan Synod' and various clergy connected with it, and their real or imagined relationship with the SIR, etc.

   Inbox 
Add star 

Dan Everiss

<oregdan@hotmail.com>
Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 1:14 PM
To: Daniel Everiss <oregdan@hotmail.com>



Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 12:49:59 -0700
To: sgpm@sisqtel.net
From: bpaux@ctosonline.org

God bless you. I am passing on the following from His Eminence, Archbishop Chrysostomos. He asked me to read it and distribute it as I saw fit. I would ask you not to send responses to this. It is, as H.E. says, simply informational.

Least among monks, + Bishop Auxentios


*


TO: Exarchate Clergy, Faithful, and Friends
FROM: Bishop Auxentios

Evlogia Kyriou. May God bless you.

The following note was sent to me by an Orthodox clergymen I (serving in a modernist jurisdiction) from one of his correspondents, a layman in a "traditionalist" group not in communion with our Church. As I have emphasized in other mailings, I have chosen of late to ignore vulgar and unedifying messages sent to me, even when they involve misrepresentations of the historical record and matters of distorted fact. However, the issues here are of such an egregiously foul nature as to demand a word of response, despite my reticence.

My comments are interspersed amidst excerpts from the text of the note in question, I have made necessary deletions with regard to inappropriate personal slurs and inapposite or irrelevant observations.

It goes without saying that my comments are informational and directed addressed to the clergyman  who sent them and to those of you whom I have copied. The writer of the note will not receive a response. That would be a fruitless effort.

------

Now the real story: Monk Cyprian and Monk Chrysostom consecrated Evloghy of Milan synod after   persistent accusations of simony..

------
Our Synod of Bishops did not, in fact, consecrate Metropolitan Evlogy. He petitioned our Synod for reception on grounds of conscience; namely, that he could not accept the extremist ecclesiology of the Old Calendar group that actually Consecrated him. I was, incidentally, not a Bishop at the time of his reception.

The issue of "simony," given the "real story," is obviously ludicrous.
------

 They knew that he was a [deletion] but didn't care because they were empire-building.

------
We receive (or ordain and consecrate) clergy into the Synod of Resistance on the basis of their confession of faith. In so doing, we either strengthen our witness or provide ecclesiastical refuge for those who are, after proper investigation, without canonical impediments to ordination, consecration, or reception, to the best of our knowledge. Our honest deliberations are not, of course, infallible.
------

They let him declare himself Metropolitan of the west and establish their western ritte vicariate and then dumped him when the scandals about him broke.

------
Metropolitan Evlogy of Milan, as he is now styled, was appointed to the See of Milan and Lombardy, when he joined the Holy Synod, with the title of "Bishop" and subject to the Holy Synod in Resistance. After the removal of his name from the Hierarchy of the Holy Synod on his departure from this appointment, he assumed his subsequent roles, independent of our Church.

These things occurred without any personal rancor, ugliness, or judgment, since our Bishops acted with absolute propriety and judicious discretion.

We have never had Western Rite parishes, or a Western Rite vicariate, under our jurisdiction. Nor have we ever had communion with, or in any way whatsoever recognized, the "Milan Synod."
------

 They ordained and consecrated the notorious Portuguese bishops who went to the Polish Orthodox after they dumped them too.

------
When two Portuguese Bishops, who were also consecrated by the Old Calendar group that consecrated Bishop Evlogy, petitioned to enter into our Synod, the Holy Synod declined to receive them. They were thus not consecrated by us or ever in communion with our Church.
------

 ...The real conclusion you can make is that Cyprian and his Cyprianites and his [deletion] American buddies and his liberal bishops started the whole betrayal of the old calendar movement.

------
Our jurisdiction operates on the basis of ecclesiological principles rooted in the historical, canonical, and Patristic witness, not on notions of political ideology ("liberality" or "conservatism," etc.).

If we adhere to any ideology, it is that of following the "Royal Path" of moderation in our actions and general policies. Our Hierarchs relate to one another as Orthodox Bishops, who are all equals. We show honor to the President of the Holy Synod and those holding administrative offices therein, in concord with Church tradition; however, we attribute to them no doctrinal authority over and beyond that of any bishop.

We hold in the highest esteem, with spiritual and personal affection of immensity, the holy example of Metropolitan Cyprian, who inspired and indeed groomed the majority of our present Bishops. However, these personal and spiritual ties exist within the context of shared traditional ecclesiastical authority. Likewise, we have neither a "buddy" system in the administration of our Church nor any agenda calculated to compromise other groups in resistance.

Responsibility attributed to us for putative errors and deviations by those who were at one time associated with us assumes that we operate on a papal system of assumed infallibility. We, like all humans, make errors, just as those formerly associated with us may make their errors. Responsibility for errors, whether ours of those of others, does not suggest any advocacy of such errors.
------

Why your loyalty to these creeps, ought to keep you up at nights.

------
Men of conscience sleep well; so well, indeed, that they need not concern themselves with the sleep habits or consciences of others. Our critic would do well to think about this fact, as well as the unrefined and un-Christian nature of his observation here.