Музей форума дьякона Кураева (1999 - 2006)

Прошу у всех прощения, что в очередной раз вынужден приводить текст на английском языке. Ниже следует рассказ о. Александра Лебедева (РПЦЗ), самого свидетеля всего происходившего в Нью-Йорке на 93-й улице, где он анализирует то, что на размещено на сайтах Будзиловича, MONASTERYPRESS и Вертоградъ. Текст длинный, но исключительно содержательный. Настоятельно рекоммендую :) -------- As one who was present at the Synod of Bishops building on E. 93rd Street throughout the entire period of the Sobor, I would like to share some comments about things I was a personal witness to, since most of the “eyewitness descriptions” posted so far are from the side of the opposition. I will comment on some statements found in these materials. 1) In the “Budzilovich” description of events, found at: http://www.russia-talk.com/otkliki/ot-153.htm we read: “. . .only two policemen were allowed to enter [the Synod building] on the condition that they would be allowed to ask the Metropolitan two questions: 1) How was he feeling? and 2) Did he want to leave?” Remember, the police were being told that a man was being held against his will, and that his physical well-being was in question. Actually, one of the policemen said that they had been told that there was a “man down” and that they were obligated to do a “welfare check” to see if the person was all right. And one of the “opposition's” eyewitness accounts states that they were concerned whether the Metropolitan “was alive.” This is what they were telling the police. See: http://www.russia-talk.com/otkliki/ot-154.htm In his own account, Budzilovich continues: “Soon after that [when the police went upstairs] the police came out and said to the group that the Metropolitan said that he feels fine, and that he has no desire to go anywhere” [Mitropolit skazal, chto on chuvstvujet sebya khorosho, i jekhat' nikuda ne zhelayet]. Should be case closed, no? This were the words of the Metropolitan, in the privacy of his own quarters to two policemen, who were obviously not on anybody's side, before the group outside (Rosnianskaya and Fr. Vladimir Shishkoff, etc.) was able to exert any influence on him. 2) Budzilovich writes, “When the Metropolitan, agitated by the visit of the police, came out of the Synod building. . .” Well, of course, the elderly Metropolitan was agitated--two policemen in uniform, armed with guns, enter into the Metropolitan's private quarters--why wouldn't he be agitated? But let us remember that it was Rosnianskaya, Fr. Shishkoff and Budzilovich who called the police and insisted that the police go and check on the welfare of the Metropolitan, after falsely accusing the bishops of the Synod that they were holding him against his will. 3) Budzilovich describes the actions of the opposition in this way: “one of the supporters of the Metropolitan . . . had to shout at the Synodal protodeacon. . .” and “Liudmilla Rosnianskaya, when she saw the Metropolitan. . . shouted to him. . .” At the same time, another anonymous eyewitness, (probably Fr. Paisios, since the account's author mentions that he was there photographing the event, and the only one there with a camera was Paisios) writes at: http://www.russia-talk.com/otkliki/ot-154.htm (where he also confirms that the policemen who had entered the Synod building returned about 15 minutes later and announced that the Metropolitan said he was feeling well and had no desire to leave anywhere) The author writes (this was already outside: “Bishops Gabriel and Michael began with meek and quiet voices to persuade the Metropolitan to stay and not leave. . .” So here we see the contrast: the “opposition” forces are shouting, while the other bishops are talking quietly and meekly. Remember, this is from the “oppositions” own accounts. 3) Take a good look at the photographs taken by Fr. Paisios outside the Synod building, especially the sixth, seventh and eighth photos down at the site: http://www.monasterypress.com/statements.html#Anchor-42424 (Click on Photo Gallery) In the 6th photo down, labeled MVC00079, we see the Metropolitan with his back to us talking to Bishop Michael. Bishop Gabriel is also right there, with Bishop Kirill in the background. At the left you can see Deacon Dimitry Temidis and at the extreme left, part of the head of Ludmilla Rosniansky. At the far right is Archpriest Vladimir Shishkoff. As anyone can plainly see, Fr. Shishkoff is holding the Metropolitan's left arm, pulling the Metropolitan towards himself. In the next (7th photo down, labeled MVC00080) you can see just a bit of Liudmilla's hair at the left, but now Fr. Shishkoff has both his hands around the Metropolitans elbow, clearly to pull him or prevent him from moving away. Bishop Michael, by the way, has just about the saddest expression I have ever seen on his face. In the next (8th photo down, labeled MVC0081) you now see at the far right that it is Liudmilla Rosnianskaya that has her arm around the Metropolitan's elbow (it's her bare arm with watch that is clearly visible in other photos--everyone else had long-sleeves). Actually, a woman having close physical contact with a bishop or any monk is expressly forbidden by the Canons, and no bishop I know of ever would tolerate being held by the arm by any woman. It is perfectly clear from the photos and statements presented by the “opposition” itself, that in no way were the bishops of the Synod holding the Metropolitan against his will--and that quite the contrary they were asking him to stay. 4) Former Bishop Valentine of Suzdal “just happened” to be there, in front of the Synod building, sitting in Fr. Shishkoff's car. “Just a coincidence.” Yeah, right. And in his own “eyewitness” account, found at: http://www.vertograd.ru/2001-09-71/vn00141001.html former Bishop Valentine writes: “Concluding my pastoral visit to the United States, and being in New York, without meaning to, I became a witness to the heartless banishment of the Starets-Metropolitan from the builsing of the Hierarchical Synod. Vladyka Vitaliy was literally pushed out onto the street, without his podriassnik, panagia, skufia, and with almost no money. . . ” Now, please, let's get real. Look at the pictures. Do they show the elderly Metropolitan being pushed out onto the street by the mean bishops in just his underwear? The pictures clearly show that the Metropolitan is wearing his riassa. Why write such a blatant lie? The opposition's eyewitness accounts, except for this ludicrously inaccurate one by “accidental eyewitness” former Bishop Valentine, make it clear that the whole scene on the street took a long time. That after the first round, Metropolitan Vitaly went back into the Synod building and emerged again some fifteen minutes later for another round of discussions after which he was whisked away by Fr. Shishkoff and Liudmilla Rosniansky to Fr. Shishkoff's house, where there was a two hour meeting between the Metropolitan and former Bishop Valentine, whom Metropolitan Vitaly had, together with the other bishops of the Synod, personally defrocked. Rumor has it that at this meeting at Fr. Shishkoff's house was present also former Archimandrite Anthony (Grabbe) (Fr. Shishkoff's brother-in-law) and that Metropolitan Vitaly was persuaded to sign a paper that accepted Anthony Grabbe under Metropolitan Vitaly's jurisdiction in full episcopal rank, even though Metropolitan Vitaly had personally defrocked former Archimandrite Anthony. Strange bedfellows. 5) And it should be known that the eviction from the Synod building of Liudmilla Rosnianskaia was done in full keeping with the law regarding termination of employees: she was handed a formal letter informing her that she was no longer an employee of the Synod and that she had to leave the premises immediately. This is standard practice in the case of the termination of an employee, who had access to important information. A security guard walks you out of the building, and you are not allowed to ge back to your desk. The Bishops of the Synod had good reason to believe that Liudmilla Rosnianskaia, who had access to all sorts of important Church documents, would take some of them or destroy some of them. She asked to be given her purse, which was in the Metropolitan's private apartments on the 3rd floor. The Priest of the Synod went to get the purse, which was open and contained not only her wallet, but two wallets of the Metropolitan, one of which contained $20,000 in cash, and the Metropoltan's passport. The personal belongings of the Metropolitan were removed from the purse and left with him, and the purse and other wallet were returned to Rosnianskaya. Later that evening, it was found that Liudmilla Rosnianskaya had already packed her bags and those of the Metropolitan and that is was clear that she intended to remove Metropolitan Vitaly, probably later that same night, from the Synod building and leave with him--which is basically what occurred the next day. In conclusion, I have to state that I was there throughout the whole “siege” of The Synod, and can categorically state that Metropolitan Vitaly was never thrown out, or held against his will, and that all measures to preserve his dignity and well-being were taken, including the appointment of two “cell-attendants”--Fr. Alexander Iwaschewicz (who had served as cell attendant to Metropolitan Vitaly previously) and Subdeacon Vladimir Barros, who has lived at the Synod for some thirty years. I spoke with Metropolitan Vitaly personally twice during the day preceding this scandal, and he seemed very kind, but quite confused. Although he has known me for 35 years, he did not recognize me or my name, nor did he know that we have more that one parish in Los Angeles. He was very good-natured and kind--a sort of blessed Starets. Later that same day I met him again, and he again had no clue who I was, and asked me again to explain who I was and where I was from. The Priest at the Synod said that he had been there a whole year and the Metropolitan was always asking who he was. I also was present when a physician was called in to review Metropolitan Vitaly's medications ( a large boxfull) and found there many very serious drugs--hydrocodone, orthocodone and other narcotics. When one considers that the Metropolitan always consumed alcohol with his meals (wine with the meal and then a shot or two of fine brandy or Metaxa afterwards, one must really be concerned about how this combination affected his physical and mental condition. The doctor determined that Liudmilla Rosnianskaya, who controlled the Metropolitan's medications actually had them prescribed by two different physicians concurrently, and they were dispensed by two different pharmacies, so no adverse interactions between medications could have been determined by the prescribing physicians. Let us also remember that the Metropolitan has been unable to serve Liturgy since November 1998--a full three years. According to the Canons and the Regulations of the Russian Church, a priest or bishop who is unable to serve or perform the duties of his office for six months, must be placed on leave, and a temporary replacement must be assigned. Standing before the Holy Altar of Our Lord is without question one of the chief responsibilities of the First Hierarch of a Church--if he cannot serve, he cannot ordain, he cannot elevate in rank or reward. And this has been the state of affairs for not just six months, but a full three years. Out of respect of the dignity of the office of the Metropolitan, the Bishops and clergy of the Church who knew the true situation, hid the on-and-off lucidity of the old Metropolitan from the faithful But it is perfectly clear that he has been incapable of, by himself, writing any significant document for years--all of these Pre-Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Epistles and the latest documents published under his signature are all the work of others. There is also the well-known psychological dependence that an elderly person develops on his primary care-giver, especially when that care-giver has, for many years, been able to convince the elderly person that he is surrounded by enemies that want to poison or destroy him, and that only the care-giver is protecting the elder from harm. This is what actually was the situation. And now we see the results. With love in Christ, Prot. Alexander Lebedeff