DISCLAIMER

This is a privately owned blog. It is not and has never been an official organ of any ecclesiastical organization.

"No one man, or group of men, can himself speak for the Church of Christ. It is nonetheless possible to speak from within the Church, in conformity with Orthodox tradition; and it is this that we shall attempt to do." Fr. Seraphim Rose Orthodox Word #1 Jan-Feb 1965 p. 17

Banner of Russia - the PKK - Our Country ~ One Script

Daily Courier
http://daily-courier.livejournal.com/


Banner of Russia - the PKK - Our Country ~ One Script 

Jan. 8th, 2010 at 4:07 PM

DC Comment:

In the following documents, as in a mirror otrazhenii found contemporary confrontation Church Action provocateurs who seek the destruction of the ROCOR.

Since these events took place almost forty years, have changed names, but the essence remains unchanged.
 
We offer the readers themselves to determine how edentichna current role of the newspaper "Our Country" with the newspaper "The Banner of Russia, however edentichna role of H. Chertkov, NI Kazantsev and efesbeshnikov group PKK and Ivanova-13th - Klestova - Al Enchante to the activities of subversives provocateurs H . Chuhnova - V. Sokolsky.

We are also in Vem this affects not only the equally mendacious their loud, not only the similarity of names, but equally despicable methods of their subversive activities in the ROCOR.

Especially blatant in its frank presentation of the forces of evil in the light of new unification initiatives Metropolitan. Agathangel was published recently by agents of the Federal Security Service, the PKK http://al-enchante.livejournal.com/ call to them to actively processed Bishop Joseph (Grebinka), Stefan (Marsh Cinquefoil), Gregory (Petrenko) and Andrew (Maklakov) to inaugurate the division and create more one unlawful assembly under the name of the Church Abroad.




"Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia

Protopresvitera George Grabbe

L O C A L D.

In addition to my brief report of the Synod of 9 / 22 May this year I beg to present the specific charges against Nikolai Nikolaevich Chuhnova as editor of the Banner of Russia ".

Anticanonical campaign waged NN Chuhnovym against the Synod of Bishops and its employees can be divided into three kinds of statements: 1. Specific slanderous accusations against the bishops and clergy, 2. Defamation with crude expressions and unfounded assumptions defamatory and 3. Collusive workers against the Synod of Bishops and the call for the formation of self-appointed gatherings.

Under SLANDER I mean the accusation, the falsity of which must be known to the person who had provided his or repeat it without checking. Of defamation are sweeping accusations expressed without adjustment even though the false reason for them to smear the person in the eyes of society. Presentations NN Chuhnova against the hierarchs and clergy of these two types of crimes are usually well connected that it is difficult to distinguish. This, however, there is little need as sin in both cases, the same moral and canons of these are the same. Therefore, in this report, I combine in one department presentation of the first and second kind.

Libel and defamation.

1. In the March issue of The Banner of Russia "for 1972 on the first page N. Chukhnov in the rough, mocking the form of writing about our First Hierarch, His Eminence Metropolitan Filaret. Speaking about the cost of his official trips to visit his flock in different countries, he condemns him for what he goes "for the church account." NN Chukhnov did not seem to understand that travel agreed to pay the sum of institutions for which they are committed. However, Metropolitan Bishop does not burden the Synodal travel budget, covering a significant portion of the cost of their drugs or those who have invites. The prosecution Hierarch in the quest for luxury at the expense of the Church is a libel NN Chuhnova, compounded by rudeness, when he wrote: "manage the Russian Church Abroad is not as interesting as the fish or fish in Mahopac on every occasion to swim in the luxurious cruise ships in Europe, Australia, Jerusalem and back in through the church.

2. It is distorted NN Chuhnovym for an attack on the Synod has happened in Australia (№ of March 1972). The rioters are registered there the cathedral parish is not on the basis of the normal statute of the parish, as he wrote, but as a secular society outside of the general system of church government and they have done so not with the blessing of the Archbishop, and behind him, taking advantage of his illness.

3. In the same March issue for 1972 N. Chukhnov accuses ecclesiastical authority that "the most honored members of the board of the St. Peter and Paul parish in Sydney, built the cathedral, were excluded from the Eucharist, and two" prominent priest "were disrobed and had moved to some overseas jurisdiction. " As indicated in paragraph 2 of this report, these persons are transferred to the new Cathedral of secular society, replacing the parish charter new statute, and therefore the trial is conducted, as "outstanding priests, the alleged Russian patriots and monarchists, were tried for the fact that no canonical leave transferred to the Polish Church to the bishop, who is famously modernism and polonization. For this they were tried defining the Bishops' Council. False imagining Thus situation in Australia, NN Chukhnov accuses synod in "disarray, nepotism and hypocrisy" (ibid.). It connects to the slander defamation. Such also is the statement that the transfer of the Australian Diocese of Sydney Cathedral Church Abroad would mean "to give your namolenny temple in Bolshevik hands" (ibid.). This is a defamation and slander against the diocese.

4. In the same article, in connection with official travel Hammers Metropolitan NN Chukhnov wrote: "By the way, and financial affairs recovered: lease of historical excavation of the Imperial Palestinian Society in Jerusalem in two - the Israeli Ministry of Education and the Americans - it is not just a loss-making" (March 1972). Slander is very clear: it is well known that the excavation is not to let anybody put, but they fit our mission and the Office of the Palestinian Society. The Israeli Ministry took the building in another part of Jerusalem, captured in 1948 and then transferred to them by the Moscow authorities.

5. This is a slander is the following statement in the article by NN Chuhnova in the April issue of The Banner of Russia in 1973: "discontinued, sending valuable books uniq collected from monastic libraries from Jerusalem to New York to mail in their suitcases for sale by local antiquarians, appraising them up to 10 thousand for instance "(p. 1). Enough to know that in the Jerusalem Mission of such books was not. If you have valuable books, the building seized by the Soviets in 1948 No book of the Mission or monasteries in America for the sale has not been sent. This is pure fabrication. "

6. Defamation is connected to the mockery of the elderly Archbishop of Article V. Sokolsky in the May issue of The Banner of Russia in 1973: "In our country, during dvunadesyati languages, and now a communist hard times, the temples of God are often turned into stables. And here , at large, some of us quietly listen to that and agree that the modern garages and stables converted into a temple of God. There have been better to them, rather than the consent of the herd to recommend "His Eminence" most apartments are arranged in a stable, but for temporary temple of God, bring him into the chambers of a better place "(p. 8-9). Here is a mockery of the Bishop, based on some hearsay and gossip, underlined by the fact that the words" His Eminence "printed in bold type and placed in quotation marks.

7. In the June issue of "The Banner of Russia" for 1973 published an article by N. Chuhnova (1 page) under the title "Christian. Save me from the Cathedral Church Abroad in 1974. In this article, defamation applies indiscriminately to all members of the Pre-Council of the Commission, including: the Archbishop, two protopresviterom, Archimandrite, Mitred Archpriest, three priests and eight laymen. NN Chukhnov calls them "the sworn enemies of the Church Abroad" and wrote that, as such, "they are well known to the Russian people." He says about them, that they are "people of very low moral level, as accomplices of the notorious Grabbe, who is counting for a miter ... and who is simply on cash handouts. Among these persons of the parish, which belongs to N. Chukhnov. In the same article of the Synod of Bishops called "black Synod.

8. With great exasperation NN Chukhnov systematically hunt down Protopresbyter H. Grabbe and his family. In the March issue of The Banner of Russia "for 1973, he wrote about him as a" root in the Church Abroad "- until 1945," an invisible civil servant Synod Office in Belgrade, which departure of the Synod in USA "Demanded the appointment of the Chief Metropolitan Office of the Synod. Meanwhile, everyone who follows the church life, we know that protopr. H. Grabbe, at the option of Metropolitan Anthony of 12/25 August 1931 was not a "petty officer" and the Governing Synod Office, and after the introduction of the life of the Provisional Regulations of 1936, according to onym, renamed in his office Synod Office of preserving them for the same duties. Thus or on the "implementation, or on the" demand "for such an appointment in 1950, after 19 years of service, there can be no question.

9. In the same article NN Chukhnov wrote that at the end of World War II "Metropolitan Anastasius of his way, accompanied by Grabbe to the Swiss border and on the way to their train something happened ... In general, Grabbe was in Salzburg, as the Metropolitan did not become" . The reader the impression that his office had bothered to evacuate Mtropolita, did not save him and left him. Enough is known, in particular the Archbishop Averky, who was riding in a car with protopr. H. Grabbe, that the Metropolitan then to the Swiss border is not his way, and by agreement between his office and the gene. Vlasov was evacuated, accompanied by the AP Rudko from Carlsbad to the south of Bavaria, together with his staff. His secretary was driving with Metropolitan Seraphim, Bishop Basil, Archimandrite. Averky, Archimandrite. Job and the Synod Office in a freight car, arriving in Austria, together with the archives of the Synod and the supply of the liturgical books, which were then fitted with the church in Germany.

10. Metropolitan Serafim presented in the same article as hostile to protopr. H. Grabbe, which does not correspond to reality. He was always with him in the best of terms and he also ordained him a priest.

11. NN Chukhnov in the same article repeats the version of the Soviet newspapers that Mitropa. Seraphim was allegedly strangled to do with this crime are somehow linked with the name of Metropolitan Anastasia and protopr. H. Grabbe. In the words of N. Chuhnova that "Russian refugees differently discussing the details of this terrible crime" after mentioning the name protopr. H. Grabbe, provided a clear hint of a character with the insinuation of Soviet sources. In fact, the attack on the Metropolitan Seraphim, who died a natural death occurred much earlier. Metropolitan had died from diseases that have a long time.

12. NN Chukhnov ibid. wrote later in the form of reproachfully: "Grabbe was the first arrivals to the body of the Metropolitan, made a thorough search of the papers strangled Archbishop and took with him some papers, and Panagia, despite protests lived in the house of the hostess." His office of course tried to remove the most important papers from the hands of the landlady, who were suspected of Communications with the Bolsheviks. This suspicion was then justified: Ms. Mathern arrange RESIDENCES FOR SOVIET BISHOP Irenaeus ZUZEMIL.

13. NN Chukhnov tries to blame protopr. H. Grabbe of abuse in the distribution of parcels for refugees (ibid.). In fact, the Synod of such parcels have been few and usually with a purpose, a certain sender. In isolated cases, the group distributed a parcel in the manner indicated handed them over to Broker: Church Ворлд Service and Tolstoy Fund. Protopr. H. Grabbe himself does not do so, as was done by the Office of the Charity Committee.

14. Job Resettlement Committee at the Synod is NN Chuhnovym as associated only with the relocation to Argentina, allegedly not having success, and the money left over from the register, said: "Money, uplochennye for the promised visas remained unknown who ... Months passed , but the Argentine ship does not appear, and Di-Pi still sitting in the camps "(ibid.). Here again, a slander. Despite the obstacles encountered are independent transports in Argentina in less-than-expected number, still went out of Germany, Austria and Italy. Of these, and composition of the current Russian colony in Argentina. Join the rest of the refugees had been used to obtain afidevitov and visas in USA Assistance in this Synod Resettlement Committee was commended for working in this area RA SD.

15. NN Chukhnov accuses protopr. H. Grabbe in malicious prosecution of those who disagree with him: "Many brave men protesting the location Grabbe in the senior management of the church, had suffered greatly: some were excommunicated from the Church, others from the parish priests were trapped in those parishes that out of their voice is not heard, third, to move from country to country gave their souls to God, by the grace of. Protopresbyter "(ibid., p. 2). NN Chukhnov does not name a single name of those clerics and can not point to any priest, the displaced "by sadistic revenge" protopr. H. Grabbe. Thus and there is a clear defamation. "

'16. Referring to the same issue of wedding Goleniewski NN Chukhnov presents it as a kind of conspiracy, regardless of the fact that protopr. Grabbe immediately refuted in the press try to use their wedding pretender as the alleged recognition of his claim. Synod proved that this was not crowned and that he was not under the name "Heir Tsarevich". Wedding essentially added nothing to strengthen the claim of the pretender, because he had already preceded by a civil marriage. In terms of the local church wedding was "the second ceremony» (second ceremony). None at the wedding, no recording of course, no title was not mentioned. On the report protopr. H. Grabbe entry in the register has been supplemented by the following Synodal definition: "In the register to make a note that Romanov also called the Goleniewski, living under different names and birth of his surname, as the name ION At Baptism is not installed." On same was notified civil authorities. Adoption of the alleged receipt of prot. H. Grabbe $ 500 for the wedding - imaginary. Goleniewski, complaining to the Lord Metropolitan prot. H. Grabbe incidentally mentioned that not a single penny from him he did not take. Synod of Bishops twice discussed the case in an enlarged, the first time under the chairmanship of Archbishop. John and did not find in any malicious intent. However, lack of care, which was used as an impostor, G. Grabbe protopresbyter been penalized.

17. Slander is the adoption of NN Chuhnova if prot. H. Grabbe his two zyatyam "provided the best parishes" (ibid.). It is well known that about. V. Shishkov received the longest running small and poor parish. Now, if this parish is one of the "best", it is the result of a large pastoral work of his abbot. As Fr. B. Shatilova, it is not coming at all, as an associate priest of the Synodal Cathedral paid less than in the poorest parish.

18. By sweeping accusations are such statements NN Chuhnova of protopr. H. Grabbe:

a) "Perturbation of the leadership of the Church Abroad, so happily begun its existence under the omophorion Metropolitan Anthony, is closely linked with the name of Count Grabbe infiltrated this church and lies, deception, bribery, threats and open debauchery led her to a disastrous situation" (Banner of Russia, March 1973, p. 1). Not a single case that meets these sweeping slanderous accusations, not given.

b) In the same article about protopr. H. Grabbe, it says: "In this and found all the negative features of its heinous nature: choler, ill-will to men, greed, cunning and sadistic revenge" (p. 2).

c) defamation, not only in respect protopr. H. Grabbe, and the bishops is the following: "But the cowardly complaints Grabbe at the Synod were in vain: the rule of bishops replied shyly" we need it "and quickly erected it, against all church rules, the archpriest, bestow a miter, and finally built his in San protopresbyter. Thus began a new family Grabbe period of life, life in a hundred horsepower in a luxury home in a beautifully decorated apartment, with trembling before him by the bishops "(ibid.). Here defamation not only in respect protopresbyter, but also bishops, ostensibly to him "trembling" and illegally awarded to him.

19. Same slander is the assertion that the Archimandrite. Anthony has no education. Enough to know that he has completed a full course of the Holy Trinity Spirit. Seminary. Similarly, the position of Director of St. Sergiyevskaya gymnasium, he was not in favor, but because he created it on his own initiative.

One could continue listing of slander and defamation, in particular in an article by V. Sokolsky in the journal "The Banner of Russia" for the current year, but listed more than enough.

This can not but note a great similarity of opposing cons. G. Grubb BY N. CHUHNOVA and Soviet authors, attack him in their press (Izvestia, For the Motherland), and especially in the book "DIVERSION WITHOUT Dynamite" (Moscow, 1973). There are accusations and involvement in the murder Mitropa. Seraphim and close to Chuhnovsky characteristic prot. H. Grabbe as a man (p. 170-172). "



"Collusive AGAINST WORKERS Synod of Bishops and the call for EDUCATION unauthorized gatherings.

1. On the pages of the edited NN Chuhnovym magazine is calling for a split by convening "FIRST Catacomb Cathedral" from disgruntled Synod (May 1973, p. 8).

2. In the April number Banner of Russia for 1973 N. Chukhnov clearly states that the purpose of his speeches is an appeal to public opinion for the "liquidation" Grabbe. In other words, it tries to create such an opinion.

3. Calling the Synod of Bishops' Synod of the black ", Banner Russia appeals to the public, ie the canonical expression of "the people" to oppose the church authorities to "throw the combined efforts of Azefs from our ranks."

A to Z O N.

Paul, listing the major sins in Romans, among them indicates slander and libel (Rom. 1, 30). Not only direct slander, but even unproven charges of 145 Ave Carthage council member of the Church deprives the right to bring other charges, if he has several. Slanderer as of 6 Ave P Uni. Council subject to the same punishment to which the defendant would be subject to them, if the prosecution was fair. Thus in the case of the clergyman in charge than either, leading to him defrocked, - the slanderer of the laity in such a case subjected to excommunication. However, this rule is referring to a complaint brought before the court in due course. It protects the bishops and clergy of the slanderous charges caused by personal hatred or other motives, deprive a person of fairness and objectivity. In the case of NN Chuhnova that he produced his slanderous accusations are not in a spiritual court, not in the Synod of Bishops, in a defamatory manner and put them into print, still applicable and what it means in 6 M Uni Ave. Cathedral of the many who, wishing to lead to confusion and overthrow the ecclesiastical decorum, hostile and slanderous to invent the ruling bishops of the Orthodox Church nekiya guilt, not with any other intention, as the only, so pomrachiti good reputation of the priests and make confusion in the peace among the people " . Permanent staff Chuhnova for such a course of action is subject to excommunication, but he himself became an accomplice of his sin, for its part, adding to it a lot of slander and rudeness.

Bishop Nicodemus Milash relates to defamation and libel following the Apostles:

55. - If anyone from the clergy to annoy the bishop let him be deposed. Prince Po of people do not let your recheshi evil.

56. - If anyone from the clergy to annoy presbyter or deacon: let him be excommunicated from the communion tserkovnago.

84. - If anyone annoy the king or prince is not the truth, but be punished. And If ye will any of the clergy, let him be deposed from svyaschennago rank: if as a layman, let him be excommunicated from the communion tserkovnago.

Bishop John Smolenski on the first of these three rules wrote: "The rules do not mention the lay people: but from the other monuments can be seen that in the first century, they were punished for such crimes as excommunication, and the next, and civil death." About 84 Ave Bishop Nicodemus wrote that it exposes any layman excommunication and deprivation of dignity of every clergyman to rude words, curses cause insult the monarch as well as any person engaged in the community rulers situation "(state right, Mostar, 1911, p. 488).

The above rules are supplemented by 121 Ave Nomocanon with Vel. Missal: "Yako not worthy Prost ukoriti priest, or biti, or ponashati or klevetati, or condemn a person ashche DRC and true essence. Ashche sotvoriti he understands these things, but damn Mirsky, yes otmeschetsya of the Church, Bo is separated from the Holy Trinity and will be sent in place of Judas. Pizano bo is: prince of thy people not recheshi Evil: takozhde and abbot bezchestvuyay.

This rule can be seen that E. John and En. Nicodemus properly extends 55, 56 and 84 Aposto. Regulation and the laity, bishops and clergy offend. The word "annoy" E ". John translates the word "hurt".

In the latter category of statements NN Chuhnova, ie collusive against the Synod of Bishops and its employees and attempts to create confusion - it applies to the 18 Ave 1U Uni. Cathedral: "collusive, or drawing swarms, like a crime, it is forbidden and foreign laws: how much more should vozbranyati in the Church of God, so this was not. Ashche DRC nekii of the clergy or monastics, will be obligating each other oath or make up a crowd, or lie in wait stroyuschimi bishops, or their soprichetnikam: just let them be deposed from his degree. " The same is repeated at 34 Ave U1 Uni. Cathedral. The call to convene anti-Diaspora Council and to the device "FIRST Catacomb Cathedral" should be attributed to the creation of a split or self-appointed gatherings, which are defined as follows 1 pr of St. Basil the Great. He writes that St.. fathers called schismatics, "to share views on certain subjects on matters of church and allow healing of: a self-appointed gatherings, meetings, sostavlyaemyya recalcitrant elders, or bishops, and nenauchennym people."

W A K A S H E N and E.

From the foregoing it is clear that Nikolai Chukhnov subject to the spiritual court, and if you do not repent and did not refute them in the press just published - must undergo the church square, in accordance with the above rules:

Sts. Apostles 55, 56 and 84.
P Uni. Cathedral 6.
1U Uni. Cathedral 18.
U1 Uni. Cathedral 34.
Nomocanon 121.

8 / 21 June 1973

Synod of Bishops humble novice


Protopresbyter George Grabbe.



COPY Synodal DEFINITIONS

Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of 10/23 August 1973

HEARD: Report protopresbyter George Grabbe, which contains a series of quotations from the many issues of the journal "The Banner of Russia", edited by Nikolai Nikolaevich Chuhnovym, parishioner patristic church in the mountains. New York. In the cited papers contain a number of libel, defamation of the Synod of Bishops, the bishops and clergy, as well as calls for a self-appointed gatherings. Attached to the report logs provide an opportunity to ensure the accuracy of the report's passages. Protopresbyter George Grabbe petitioned for the appointment of NN Chuhnovym ecclesiastical court.

RESOLVED: The slanderous and defamatory articles of both the NN Chuhnova and articles published over the signature of other authors, including the unchurched V. Sokolsky, so plain text that is not required in this case, deliberate investigation or hearing. NN Chuhnova should only call to repent and renounce their statements. In the case of his impenitence, imposing on him rebuke on the basis of the sacred canons within the competence of his diocesan bishop, which is the Eminence Metropolitan Filaret.

Therefore, the Synod of Bishops DETERMINES: Send a memo Protopresbyter George Grabbe C of the annex rooms of the journal "The Banner of Russia" His Eminence Metropolitan Filaret for decision in accordance with the sacred canons of belonging. In the case of disapproval of his decision, NN Chukhnov may appeal to the Synod of Bishops. "

"CHAIRMAN Synod RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH ABROAD
R E S O L S T I O N № 1
Determination of the Synod of Bishops on the 10/23 August should be declared NN Chuhnovu.
Pursuant to this definition, it is also necessary to declare the following: In a number of issues published and edited his magazine "The Banner of Russia" NN Chukhnov took the fight against the Synod of Bishops, urging readers and their participation in it. It offends our hierarchy, and in the June issue of grossly insulted all members of the Pre-Council of the Commission. Speaking Thus He particularly singled out for. Protopresbyter George Grabbe and his family, brutally and falsely defames their highly valued by the ministry of the Holy Church. It also tries to conspire against the Synod of Bishops, calling to oppose the convening of the Council in 1974, denouncing the Synod, and even go so far absurd assumption CREATE ABROAD "Catacomb CATHEDRAL", in circumstances where there is complete freedom and "Catacombs" ANYONE NOT REQUIRED. What is worse, that NN Chukhno timed his campaign just in time, WHEN IN THE USSR PROCLAIMED Moscow Patriarchate intensified struggle by all means OUR Synod of Bishops In general, the Church Abroad. Much of what he writes about PROTOPR. G. Grubb LITERALLY Matches a reproach Latest In an article signed LIVANTOVA In the newspaper "for your country, ETC. Soviet publications. Those with their performances and especially slander, NN Chukhnov commit grave sin and makes Seduction in CHURCH. The acts condemned by his priest. Canons: Holy Apostles 55, 56 and 84; P Uni. Cathedral 6; 1U Uni. Council 18 and the U1 Uni. Cathedral 34. Especially applicable to him 121 Ave Nomocanon condemning the layman, who before all reproaches, defy the priest and his slanders. To such a person usually signified by the following features menacing rebuke: "If he understands these things sotvoriti, YES curse Mirsky, YES OTMESCHETSYA of the Church, Cursed CD is from the Holy Trinity And he sent Judah BE IN PLACE."
NN Chukhnov call to repentance, so that it is written with publication in the pages of his magazine has expressed regret that the bishops slandered, Pre-Council members of the Commission, Protopresbyter H. Grabbe and Archbishop Anthony, and called for the Synod of Bishops and the Anti - split. If NN Chukhnov not change his mind during the week from the date of the announcement to him of this resolution, it will be subjected to excommunication, in accordance with the above church rules. Diocesan Office will take care of declaring NN Chuhnovu present resolution under the bill, and will report to me of late. August 29 / September 7, 1973

Metropolitan Filaret CHAIRMAN Synod RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH ABROAD
R E S O L S T I O N № 2
NN Chukhnov instead of repent, wrote a note in which he requests the preparation of the court over him and at the same address indicates his lack of repentance, making new attacks against the Church authorities. The caller of the nature of this statement highlights the publication of new articles in the December issue of The Banner of Russia ". The Holy Synod of Bishops has already made trial NN Chuhnovym conditionally convicting him if he does not bring repentance. The Holy Synod recognized that the judicial investigation and trial with the interrogation of the accused and listening to his explanation, according to church rules, in this case does not seem necessary: NN CHUHNOVYM COMMITTED CRIMES AGAINST THE CHURCH, AS PUBLISHED IN THE PRESS, SO EXPRESSLY nature that there be doubted, and absolutely nothing can not be justified.
Slander refers to his business, which directly are well known to the Synod, and severe reproach NN Chuhnovym bishops and priests does not require a hearing with listening to new evidence and explanations. Explains known canonist Bishop Nicodemus Milash, the court remains in such a case, but note the guilt of the accused and render a decision in a declarative manner (executed right, p. 140-141). In this way it once made its determination of excommunication of Leo Tolstoy's Holy Synod in Russia. He was not summoned to a hearing, for the whole of Russia was a witness of his printed statements, as now, all readers of "The Banner of Russia" are witnessing gross vilification NN Chuhnovym ecclesiastical authority, the bishops and clergy. In both cases, the conviction is made conditional: if you do not repent. NN Chukhnov not only responded to the call to repentance, made it in determining the Synod from 10-23 August this year and in our resolution of 24 August / 7 September, but in his address to us, he again opposed the hierarchy.
 
Therefore - because impenitence NN Chuhnova in violation of church rules for clergy slander, defamation of bishops and clergy, and call to rebellion against ecclesiastical authority - he was excluded from the communion of the Holy Communion on the basis of the rules: Sts. Apostles 55, 56, 84, 2 nd Uni. Cathedral; 6 4 th Uni. Cathedral 18; 6 th Uni. Council 34 and Nomocanon 121. Such a measure is necessary for the spiritual benefit of the NN Chuhnova, because you can not take Sv.Prichastie without great harm to himself a man embittered and filled with condemnation of neighbors, and especially bishops and pastors. For the word of Ap. Paul "who eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord" (1 Cor. 11, 27-29). Partake of Holy Communion can only be being at peace with all. Diocesan Office of the Eastern American Diocese declared the resolution NN Chuhnovu and the diocese. 2 / 15 December 1973 Metropolitan Filaret "

Source: Orthodox publication "Illuminator"