registered by Bishop Ambrose of Methone (GOC)
Australian Charities and Not-for-profit Commission
FREE SERBIAN ORTHDOOX CHURCH DIOCESE FOR AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND
Free Serbian Orthodox Church Diocese
St Nicholas Monastery
South Brisbane QLD 4101
Address For Service email:
Who the charity helps:
Adults - aged 65 and over
Children - aged 6 to under 15
People from a culturally and linguistically diverse background
Youth - 15 to under 25
Migrants, refugees or asylum seekers
27 June 2016
Next report due:
30 June 2019
Financial Year End:
Basic Religious Charity Status:
Summary of activities
Provided religious services (including christenings/baptisms, wedding services, funeral services, memorial services, blessings services) religious education, children's camps, cultural festivals, folkloric dance festivals and other general community & sporting events.
Where the charity operates
VIC NSW QLD SA ACT
Related Post: Free Serbs in Australia forced to move, property stolen (2017)
Eternal memory: Priest Alexander Khitrov
This morning, November 7, 2018, after a long and serious illness, the priest of the Moscow parish in Salarievo departed to the Lord in honor of the Holy Royal Martyrs and their faithful servants
from the directory:
Bishop Nicholas, Iversky and Prichernomorsky.
Compound of the Black Sea Diocese in the Russian Federation
Moscow, Salaryevo. Parish of the Holy Royal Martyrs and their faithful servants. Pastor Bishop Nikolay, Iversky and Prichernomorsky. Priest Alexander Khitrov.
Bishop Nicholas, Iversky and Prichernomorsky.
Priest Alexander Khitrov. Moscow, Salaryevo, st. Moscow 15.
• The Marketing Miracle of Coconut Oil
• LHM: OCA monk stabbed by drunk in California 1November
Author: Metropolitan Agafangel. Date of publication: November 04, 2018 . Category: ROCOR .
October 28, Sunday, Bishop John of Melbourne led the Divine Liturgy at the parish of St. Nicholas and the Miracle-Worker in Lyon (France).
He was co-served by the abbot Archpriest Hristo and Archpriest George (CPI of Greece), as well as Protodeacons German Ivan the Thirteenth and Yevgeny Doroshin.
There were many children in the service. The choir sang perfectly under the direction of German Ivanov Thirteenth Junior. After the service, the sisterhood offered a great dinner in the parish hall.
CLICK FOR MORE EXTRAORDINARY PHOTOS
Author: Metropolitan Agafangel. Date of publication: . Category: ROCOR
Hegumen Pankraty was buried on November 1, 2018.The rite of burial was made by Archpriest Alexander Gasich.
Father Pankraty lived very poorly in a small house of his mother in the village of Rasokhi, Derazhnyansky district of the Khmelnitsky region in Ukraine. Locals loved him and revered: "holy lyudyna", talked about him. The whole village came to the burial. The funeral was held in a small chapel at the local cemetery, in which Fr. Pankrati served.He was buried near this chapel.
from On the Law of God, by St. Philaret NY, Jordanville, 2002
(This version is taken from the actual book which uses the King James Bible. Otherwise, the online version would be identical except for a few minor word changes.
Remember that Marx and Lenin both admit that Socialism is a stepping stone to Communism. jh)
Chapter XXV. Christianity and Communism
Let us now examine the question of the relationship of Christianity with Communism – more precisely, to that particular form of communism which has now appeared as an attempt to realize the ideas of socialism. This form of communism emerged in history as a sworn and bitter enemy of Christianity. For its part, Christianity recognizes it as completely alien to and inimical with itself.
The history of the Church in apostolic times reveals that, in those times, it had its own Christian communism and the faithful held everything in common, as the Acts of the Apostles says. Even now, this Christian communism exists in the form of cenobitic monasticism. Both the concept and reality of communal property is a bright, idealistically elevated type of Christian inter-relationship, examples of which have always existed in the Orthodox Church.
How great is the difference between such Christian communism and Soviet communism! One is as far from the other as the heavens are from the earth. Christian communism is not an independent self-motivated goal to which Christianity might strive. Rather, it is an inheritance bred of that spirit of love by which the Church has breathed from the first. Moreover, Christian communism is totally voluntary. No one says, “Give us what is yours, it belongs to us.” Rather, Christians themselves sacrificed so that neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own.
The communalism of property in Soviet communism is a self-motivated goal which must be attained no matter what the consequences and regardless of any considerations. The builders of this type of communism are attaining it by purely-violent means, not balking at any measure, even the slaughter of all those who do not agree... The foundation of this communism are not freedom, as in Christian communism, but force; not sacrificial love, but envy and hatred.
In its struggle against religion, Soviet communism goes to such excesses that it excludes even that most elementary justice which is recognized by everyone. In its class ideology, Soviet communism tramples on all justice. The object of its work is not the common good of all the citizens of the state, but only the interests of a single class. All the remaining state and social groupings of citizens are “thrown overboard,” outside the care and protection of the communist government. The ruling class has no concern for them.
In speaking of its new order, its “free” state, communism constantly promises a “dictatorship of the proletariat.” It became clear long ago, however, that there is no sign of this promised dictatorship of the proletariat, but instead, there is a bureaucratic dictatorship over the proletariat. Moreover, there is no manifestation of ordinary political freedom under this system: neither freedom of the press, nor freedom to assemble, nor the inviolability of the home. Only those who have lived in the Soviet Union know the heaviness and intensity of the oppression which reigns there. Over all this, there reigns a political terror such as has never before been experienced: executions and murders, exiles and imprisonment in unbelievably harsh conditions. This is what communism has given to the Russian people instead of the promised freedom.
In its political propaganda, communism claims that it is attaining the realization of freedom, equality (i.e., justice) and brotherhood. We have already spoken of the first and second. The idea of “brotherhood” was borrowed from the Christians who call each other “brother.” Apostle Peter said, Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. In practice, communism exchanged the word “brother” for the word “comrade.” This is very indicative, since comrades can be co-participants (but not brethren) in any activity. But one cannot really speak of “brotherhood” anyway, where class struggle, envy and hatred are preached...
All these cited differences between Christianity and communism do not yet exhaust even the very essence of the contradiction between them. The fundamental difference between communism and Christianity lies deeper still, in the religious ideology of both. No wonder, then, that the communists struggle so maliciously and stubbornly against our faith.
Communism is supposedly an atheistic system which renounces all religion. In actual fact, it is a religion – a fanatical, dark and intolerant religion. Christianity is a religion of heaven; communism, a religion of earth. Christianity preaches love for everyone; communism preaches class hatred and warfare and is based on egoism. Christianity is a religion of idealism, founded on the faith of the victory of God’s truth and love. Communism is a religion of dry, rational pragmatism, pursuing the goal of creating an earthly paradise (a paradise of animalistic satiety and spiritual reprobation). It is significant that, while a cross is put on a Christian’s grave, the grave of a communist is marked by a red stake. How indicative and symbolic for both. With the one – faith in the victory of life over death and good over evil. With the other – ignorant darkness, gloom and emptiness, without joy, comfort or hope for the future. While the sacred relics of the holy ascetics of Christ’s faith blossom with incorruptibility and fragrance, the rotting corpse of the often-embalmed Lenin is the best symbol of communism.
(previous post: What our Church says about Nationalism)
from On the Law of God, by St. Philaret NY, Jordanville, 2002
(taken from the actual book and not from the online version which was edited, apparently for youth study)
Chapter XXIII. Family and Society: Patriotism
A strong and healthy family is the first and basic unit of society and of the state. The strongest and most well organized state will come to a condition of decline and disintegration if its family unit falls apart and there are no bases of family life and upbringing. If, on the other hand, the family unit is strong and the upbringing is healthy, then in the event of a major external destruction of the forms of state life, the people remain capable of carrying on life and can reestablish the strength and unity of the state.
A Christian family must not lock itself up within itself or turn itself into a “chicken coop.” Such a life is family egoism. A person who lives in it has no interests outside his own family, does not want to know of the joys and sorrows of the surrounding world and does not serve it in any way. Such a life is not a Christian life and s uch a family is not a Christian family. A Christian family, as a cell or unit of society, is a part of it which is inseparably united with its whole. It actively participates in the society’s life and serves its neighbors.
According to the clear teaching of the Gospel, moreover, the living relationship of the Christian must not be locked up within the framework of the family, but must be expressed also in the framework of the national state. Christian love is pan-human. For a Christian, each person, no matter to what nation he may belong, is his neighbor whom he must love according to the commandment of the Saviour, regardless of what nation the person might belong to. We are clearly told this by the parable of the merciful Samaritan, and especially by its categorical conclusion. In this parable, the Saviour showed the pharisee the degree of mercy and love which the good Samaritan bestowed upon the robbed and wounded Jew – a man from a nation inimical to his own. Further He told the pharisee, “Go and do likewise.” Such is the law of Christian love.
But if we Christians are called to such an all-embracing love, then are we not compelled to accept cosmopolitanism – that teaching of the brotherhood of all people, according to which man is a “citizen of the universe,” and not of his own state? According to this teaching, mankind must become one family, without any state or national differences and divisions.
We do not doubt that the positive part of cosmopolitanism’s teaching approaches close to Christianity. It undoubtedly took its appeals for brotherhood, love and mutual help directly from Christianity. These appeals are purely Christian. It is, however, only these Christian ideas which are of value in cosmopolitanism. Cosmopolitanism has, however, added much distorted falsehood and error to this element of truth. Because of this, its teaching has become narrowly one-sided and artificial, and thus not vital. Such errors include all the tenets of cosmopolitanism which speak against feelings of patriotism and the duty of service to one's native land, its good estate and safety.
One can, in fact, observe that the lives of the verbose preachers of cosmopolitanism are dry and incapable of sincere, compassionate relationships. With foaming at the mouth they cry about their love for mankind, but cannot love their neighbor as is necessary. Christianity does not teach this false, one-sided cosmopolitanism. Christ commanded us to have, not an artificial “love for mankind,” but real love for neighbor. For a Christian, such a neighbor is every person (therefore, a Christian must love everyone), and in particular, each person with whom he meets in daily life. Christian life is manifested most of all in precisely these personal encounters, in living mutual intercourse, mutual support and compassion. How distant from this is the one-sided teaching of cosmopolitanism with its appeals for an artificial “love for mankind”; a love which is removed from the realities of life.
As a child, a person’s neighbors are his parents, brothers, sisters, and other relatives. At this time, it is sufficient if one is a good, loving, responsive and dedicated member of the family. The child does not yet have vital relationships with those outside the family. Gradually growing up through childhood and adolescent years, one develops personal, vital relationships with many other people and they become “one’s own.” Good upbringing must teach the child to treat these new “neighbors” in a Christian manner – to be friendly, of good will, to have a sincere readiness to help, and to render as much service as possible. As a person matures, his horizons expand and every human being becomes one’s “neighbor,” regrardless to what nation or race they may belong.
Naturally, one will love one’s own family and the relatives he grew up with, most of all, and secondly, the whole country, the people to which one belongs. One is tied to this people both by state and civil obligations and by culture and customs. One is bound to one’s people, to one’s own homeland, and one loves them. This love for homeland is that Christian patriotism which cosmopolitanists so strongly struggle against.
Christian patriotism is, of course, alien to those extremes and errors into which “super-patriots” fall. A Christian patriot, while loving his nation, does not close his eyes to its inadequacies, but soberly looks at its properties and characteristics. He will never agree with those “patriots” who are inclined to elevate and justify everything native (even national vices and inadequacies). Such “patriots” do not realize that this is not patriotism at all, but puffed-up national pride – that very sin against which Christianity struggles so strongly. No, a true patriot does not close his eyes to the sins and ills of his people; he sees them, grieves over them, struggles with them and repents before God and other peoples for himself and his nation. In addition, Christian patriotism is completely alien to hatred of other peoples. If I love my own people, then surely I must also love the Chinese, the Turks or any other people. Not to love them would be non-Christian. No, God grant them well-being and every just success for we are all people, children of one God.
The most important information which we find on patriotism is in the Holy Scripture. In the Old Testament, all the history of the Jewish people is filled with testimony of how the Jews loved their Sion, their Jerusalem, their temple. This was a model of true patriotism, of love for one’s people and its sacred things. Significantly, our Christian Church has adopted this glorification of holy things by the Jews for our own services (although with a slightly different, Christian understanding) and chants, Blessed is the Lord out of Sion, Who dwelleth in Jerusalem. Alleluia. The prophet Moses showed an especially striking example of love for his people. On one occasion, immediately after having received the testament from God, the Israelite people betrayed their God and worshipped a golden calf. Then, the justice of God’s Truth became strongly inflamed. Moses began to pray for his people which had sinned. He remained on the mountain for forty days and forty nights in prayer. The Lord told him, let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them. In these words of God there is remarkable testimony about the power of the prayer of a righteous person, by which he, in the bold words of St. John Chrysostom, in some way binds God. The great prophet began to pray even more fervently and finally exclaimed, And now if Thou wilt forgive their sin, forgive it; and if Thou wilt not, blot me out of Thy book, which Thou hast written. And the Lord hearkened to Moses. Is this not the highest struggle of self-denying patriotism?
We see a similar example in the New Testament in the life of the great Apostle Paul. No one hindered his work of preaching more wrathfully and stubbornly than did his fellow countrymen. They hated Paul and considered him to be a betrayer of the faith of their fathers. Nevertheless, the Apostle says, For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh. From these words, we see his love for his native people. This love was so great that, like Moses, he was prepared to sacrifice even his personal, eternal salvation for the salvation of his people.
We have an example in the life of the Saviour Himself. In the Gospel we read that He came only to His own people and spoke to them first of all. On another occasion, He said, turning to Jerusalem, O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings... When He rode into Jerusalem to the cries of “Hosannah,” when all the people rejoiced, the Saviour wept. He did not weep for Himself, but for this, His city, and because of the ruin of those who were now crying to Him, “Hosannah!” but in few days would cry, “Crucify Him!” Thus did He love His own people with a profound and moving love.
The feeling of Patriotism, therefore, is not rejected and condemned by Christianity. It does not condemn, despite the false views of cosmopolitanists, the righteousness of the preeminent love for one’s neighbors. We already know the words of the Apostle, If any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied faith, and is worse than an infidel.
Once more we emphasize that such love and care must not be an egoistic, self-enclosing love. While caring for those with whom one comes into a direct contact, a Christian must never forget other people in his Christian love – his neighbors, and brothers in Christ. In conclusion, let us cite these words of Apostle Paul (from the Epistle to the Galatians): As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially to them who are of the household of faith.
(next post: What our Church says about Socialism)
Eternal memory: Hegumen Pankraty
Author: Metropolitan Agafangel. Date of publication: October 31, 2018 . Category: ROCOR .
October 30, about 3 o'clock in the afternoon went to the Lord
Hegumen Pankraty is one of the first Russian clergymen of the ROCOR. Born on May 10, 1959. In 1990, being a hierodeacon in the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, due to the ecumenism of its hierarchy, he left the Moscow Patriarchate and joined the ROCOR. Ordered to the priesthood in 1991 by Archbishop Lazar (Zhurbenko) and is determined to serve in our parish in Sevastopol. After the death of his mother, he moved to her home in the village of Rassokhi, Khmelnytsky region, where he worked to the present.
At the last Council of Bishops, he was awarded the right to wear a club.
Hegumen Pankraty in recent years suffered from diabetes, ulcers formed on his legs. He died in hospital from blood poisoning.
Hieromonk Pankraty and hieromonk Agafangel serve in Chersonesos (Crimea), 1992.
Prayer List: Departed in November
IN NOVEMBER the prayer memory of the departed clergy, hegumeness and laity of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (dates before the present day) is accomplished:
1. 11 - Priest VALENTIN Levai († 1970),
Priest SIMEON Volkov († 1980).
3. 11 - Archpriest MITROFAN Sivoraksha († 1937),
Archpriest NIKOLAY Korobkov († 1970),
Priest EVGENY Arakin († 1957).
4. 11 - Archbishop MITROFAN (Abramov), Sumy († 1945),
Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky († 1988).
5. 11 - Archpriest SERAFIM Slobodskoy († 1971).
7. 11 - Archpriest Alexander Krischuk († 1957),
Archpriest JOHN Grigor-Klochko († 1973),
Abbess Mariya (Robinson), Gethsemane nunnery († 1969).
8. 11 - Archbishop NAFANAIL (Lviv), Vienna and Austrian († 1986).
9. 11 - Protopresbyter Tikhon Kirichuk († 1973).
11. 11 - GRIGORY Mesnyaev († 1967), SERGIY Yuryev († 1961).
13. 11 - Bishop of Vasily (Pavlovsky), Vienna and Austrian († 1945),
Archpriest VLADIMIR Savitsky († 2008),
Archpriest EVGENY Panormov († 1930),
Protodeacon Alexander Chromonogues (1937).
14. 11 - Abbess NONNA (Ruzskaya), Novo-Diveevo nunnery († 1992).
15. 11 - Schefi-Archimandrite FEOFAN (Shishmanov) († 1987).
16. 11 - Archbishop AFANASII (Martos), Argentine-Paraguayan († 1983),
Archpriest Nikolay Rudakovsky († 1954),
Deacon SERGY Sabyanin († 1931).
18. 11 - Archpriest SERGIY Panteleyev († 1968),
hieromonk SERAPION (Karpov) († 1967).
20. 11 - Protopresbyter SERGY Orlov († 1944),
Archimandrite SERAPHIM (Verbin) († 1965),
Protodeacon DIMITRY Anisimov († 1961),
Deacon DIMITRY Popovitsky († 1942).
21. 11 - Archpriest ALEXY Nelyubov ( +1937 ).
22. 11 - Archpriest JOHN Lupish († 1977).
23. 11 - Protopresbyter Vasily Shaposhnikov († 1952).
24. 11 - Archbishop SERAFIM (Dulgov), Geneva and Western Europe († 2003),
Protopresbyter Ioan Shachnev († 1994),
Archpriest PAUL Parishkov († 1967),
Hieromonk CALLIST (Pazalos) (1992) (USA).
25. 11 - Archpriest Nikolay Oshchanko († 1986),
Nikolai Borzov († 1955).
26. 11 - Archbishop IOASAF (Skorodumov), Argentine and Paraguayan († 1955),
Archimandrite Constantine (Zaitsev) († 1975).
27. 11 - Archimandrite LAZAR (Moore) († 1992).
28. 11 - Archpriest ALEXANDER Kargon († 1989),
Archpriest Theodore Milyanovsky († 1932), and
priest Theodore Mishchenko († 1963).
29. 11 - Archimandrite NAFANAIL (Belonogov) († 1992),
Archpriest PHILIP Osipov († 1960).
30. 11 - Archpriest IOANNIKIY Poletayev († 1942).
Also died in November:
Hegumen SERAPHIM (Filimonov) († 1988),
archpriest PETR Pankratov († 1962),
priest BORIS Cantemir († 1942).
Request to anyone who can add or clarify this list, present their proposals.
reference to recent previous post letter to the Breakaway
Our Synod tried again to call back the schismatics, and again the call falls on deaf ears. But they are getting weary of hearing us calling them back. One of their leaders, Fr. Andrei Erastov, says of our latest call to them:
Never have such words ever been uttered or heard from the ROCOR synod under Metr. Agafangel. Never have we wanted to "forget" our brothers. What the schismatics say was a "bad dream," we remember as the sweetness of walking in oneness of mind.
This also happened after the ROCOR-MP union schism. The ROCOR-MP members were told to forget us, to ignore us, to not have anything to do with us, to not be bothered with us. They had been provided with factory-made canned answers to all of our objections designed to end all further discussion of any of our points.
All of our points except one: and even Vladimir Moss admits he can not figure this one: OUR SISITER CHURCHES. The Mountainview Schism approached each of the Sister Churches trying to persuade them to join their schism. Each of them said no. Each of them recognizes our Vladyka Agafangel as the sole continuation of the ROCOR.
As much as the devil wants the true Church to disappear, it never will. It will seem to be gone. The false Church will be all that is left visible. But the true Church will not be gone. It will still be here.
Here is a message to us from our Vladyka Agafangel posted on Internet Sobor today:
Metropolitan Agafangel: Another attempt to settle with the schismatics
Author: Metropolitan Agafangel. Date of publication: November 01, 2018
Unfortunately, the decisions of our last Council of Bishops and its “Message to the Breakaway” did not arouse in the schismatics the desire for reconciliation and the achievement of harmony in church life.
It has long been clear that, in resisting the truth, they, apart from untruth and the distortion of facts, cannot put forward anything as arguments to justify their split. I would like to ask, in connection with this, a rhetorical question: is it possible by means of a lie to approach the Truth?
Again forbidden in the ministry, abbot Andrei Erastov (signing as a the bishop) tried to use the false interpretation of the Canons and the distortion of the facts that had taken place in their struggle with the Church.
His latest creation, "The Cathedral in Odessa," from beginning to end, contradicts what is reality. Written, in general terms, again devoted to his favorite assertion that in our day one should not live according to the Canons of the Church (although in this case he already declares this not so openly). This topic is not new to a banned cleric; he raises it whenever it is necessary to justify his split (they have no other excuse, except for “not living according to the Canons”). Outlined his usual, already cited earlier, unconvincing arguments.
Andrei Erastov personally accuses me not even of direct violation of certain church canons, but in general terms - “systematic violation of canons and moral precepts, which distorts the whole course of church life and gives it the opposite character of the Gospel.” It is difficult to understand how it is possible at the same time not to find on our side a single case of contradiction to the Canons, but at the same time try to accuse me of “systematic violation of canons”? And, at the same time, "moral commandments" - like the canons and moral precepts, the essence is not the same thing? This obvious contradiction between "not a violation of the Canons" on the one hand, and on the other - a "systematic violation of them," can be explained, perhaps, only by the contradictory consciousness of Fr. Andrei.
We see the next futile attempts of Hegumen Andrew to prove that you can leave your bishop not only in the case of a heresy openly preached by him, but practically for any reason that rebellious clerics will come up with in relation to him. Rules 13-15 of the Council of Two clearly state that from a bishop (a metropolitan or a patriarch) one can be separated without a Council Decree only in the case of open preaching to them already convicted and obvious heresy, and for any other reason the separation is punished by eruption from the dignity (“to be completely alien any priesthood "), despite the strenuous efforts of Fr. Andrei prove what the rules are not even talking about.
One of the evidence of his alleged rightness about. Andrei gives the example of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), who, according to the word of Fr. Andrew, "did not preach any heresy." In his opinion, “to save the Church” by methods of slander and renunciation of martyrs and betrayal of the Church into the hands of the God-fighting is not heresy in relation to the doctrine of the Church and disbelief in our only Savior? Not to mention the many other violations of the Canons by this dummy head of the church administration.
Another statement Fr. Andrei, who does not correspond to reality: "Using his position as first-hierarch, he (ie, I am + MA) formed a synod in which his supporters constituted the overwhelming majority." I have never seen my supporters or opponents in the people around me, but in my personal actions I always proceeded from the good of the Church. The first ordained bishops were Andronicus and Sofrony, who soon, unfortunately, became the first traitors and dissenters. Who, on the version of. Andrew, was then and is now a worthy candidate member of our Synod? I am sure that there will be no answer to this question.
The following statements are not true either.
- that I allegedly established a dictatorship in our Synod (of all our bishops, only two of them who were now defrocked declared this without reason; for what reason they stated it - clearly reflected in the Synodal Protocols);
- that I, allegedly, wanted to “seize control” of the diocese of the former lord Andronicus (on the contrary, he was initially determined to be the Bishop of Canada, I, by my own will, gave him parishes in the US, except for two that are needed to maintain legal status Synod, but he demanded to get everything that is impossible without the destruction and elimination of the Synod in the United States);
- that the “all-foreign council” allegedly convened the schismatics (on the contrary, they rejected our proposal to convene the legitimate All-Diaspora Council, because they were afraid of its decisions, and instead convened a meeting of their group, deceptively calling this self-assembly ”
“ All-Diaspora Council ”.
And other arguments Fr. Andrei in the same untruthful and non-Orthodox spirit.
From the positive in his reasoning, in fairness, it should be noted that the schismatics openly admit that our bishops "do not preach any heresy." And thanks to that, as they say.
I think those who are following the situation that has arisen in our country are already tired of reading and hearing the same untenable arguments repeated over the course of four years by our former brethren.
Therefore, I offer Fr. Andrei to take a specific action, and not in vain to try by all means to generalize the situation to such an extent that the details are not needed. I suggest that he should not point out unfoundedly the “systematic violation of canons and moral precepts” on my part, but give at least ONE example of such a violation (not a stream of unsubstantiated transfers, but ONE example worthy of careful consideration and discussion). As much as I did not ask my opponents for this, I never heard a single intelligible answer.
I also inform him once again that the Bishops' Council invites the abbot Andrei (Erastov), banned in the ministry, to come to our Synod of Bishops, which will be held at the Synodal Representation in Odessa from 1/14 May to 3/16 May 2019 in order to convincingly or substantiate your actions, or repent of them.
Sincerely wishing abbot Andrei and all who profess Christ of salvation
+ Metropolitan Agafangel