Holy Transfiguration Monastery's History and Life - for the Curious about American Monasticism
sp...@erols.com
Unknown
I'm curious why Ware & al chose HTM for their work in
translating the Philokalia (Faber edition). I've asked this many
times and never really got a satisfactory answer. [Those familiar
with my complaints (kenodoxia, Iveropontian..) about that translation
might kid that "they're Brits - they liked that 'old Scottish mansion' bit"]
- = -
Vasos-Peter John Panagiotopoulos II, Columbia'81+, Bioengineer-Financier, NYC
BachMozart ReaganQuayle EvrytanoKastorian http://WWW.Dorsai.Org/~vjp2
vjp2@{MCIMail.Com|CompuServe.Com|Dorsai.Org}
---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}---
sp...@erols.com
Vasos Panagiotopoulos +1-917-287-8087 Bioengineer-Financier wrote:
> I'm curious why Ware & al chose HTM for their work in
> translating the Philokalia (Faber edition). I've asked this many
> times and never really got a satisfactory answer. [Those familiar
> with my complaints (kenodoxia, Iveropontian..) about that translation
> might kid that "they're Brits - they liked that 'old Scottish mansion' bit"]
>
Father Panteleimon was a Byzantine scholar of some reputation at the time he left
graduate studies and went to Athos. This I had from a resident scholar at
Dunbarton Oaks. Certainly, one of the first things that was done at that
monastery when they were first in Jamacia Plains was translations into English
from the Synaxarion. Then when they had the second house, and the nuns began at
Holy Nativity, they were assisting Constantine Cavarnos who was doing beautiful
work. For many years, too, there was inter communion with the Russian Synod and
there was in general more unity than today, with some collaboration with some of
the faculty at Holy Cross, for example. Who else was doing this commitment and
level of work for years? The choice was very compatible, I would think, with
each supplementing the work of the others. Together with the iconography of Monk
Gregory, who moved to start a new monastery in Arizona (?), and the parallel work
in Platina, California and Father Niketas's own work, many of the Orthodox
materials we have in English and knowledge of iconography were brought to us. We
owe all of these people a great debt.
As for the British mansion bit, it was my understanding that the entire compound
was an anonymous gift and that it was once a Roman Catholic convent. I do not
know if it is still true, but I have seen a statue of Francis of Assisi on the
grounds. The other thing that was surprising form the web site is that they do
not identify themselves as HOCNA, which I thought they were, but rather with the
True Orthodox Church of Greece. I have never been able to discern the various
jurisdictions nor have I yet to read a rationale of the split between Holy
Transfiguration and ROCOR, only heard innuendo of the worst kind.
Michael Vezie
In article <34F59EC1...@erols.com>, <sp...@erols.com> wrote:
>each supplementing the work of the others. Together with the iconography of Monk
>Gregory, who moved to start a new monastery in Arizona (?), and the parallel work
>in Platina, California and Father Niketas's own work, many of the Orthodox
>materials we have in English and knowledge of iconography were brought to us. We
>owe all of these people a great debt.
Well said. Someone in a different thread asked about an icon of
St. Elizabeth. I checked their web site, and they sell it. Their
icon collection is, I think, without equal.
>As for the British mansion bit, it was my understanding that the entire compound
>was an anonymous gift and that it was once a Roman Catholic convent. I do not
>know if it is still true, but I have seen a statue of Francis of Assisi on the
I've walked around their grounds, and don't recall ever seeing it.
Where did you see it (it wouldn't surprise me if it was taken down
long ago)?
>grounds. The other thing that was surprising form the web site is that they do
>not identify themselves as HOCNA, which I thought they were, but rather with the
>True Orthodox Church of Greece. I have never been able to discern the various
>jurisdictions nor have I yet to read a rationale of the split between Holy
>Transfiguration and ROCOR, only heard innuendo of the worst kind.
From their web site home page:
Holy Transfiguration Monastery is under the Bishops of the
Holy Orthodox Church of North America (HOCNA), and they, in
turn, are members of the Holy Synod of the True Orthodox
Church of Greece.
The body of bishops in North America in communion with HTM are
collectively called "HOCNA". There are two dioscese here, Boston
and all America, under Metr. Ephreim (who, by the way, was trained
at Holy Cross, and is a fully licensed "theologian" (I put that in
quotes so as not to put him at the level of the Theologians of the
Church)) and Toronto and all Canada under Metr. Macarius.
I hope this clears things up some.
In Christ,
michael
sp...@erols.com
Michael Vezie wrote:
> >and that it was once a Roman Catholic convent. I do not know if it is still true,
> but I have seen a statue of Francis of Assisi on the
>
> I've walked around their grounds, and don't recall ever seeing it.
> Where did you see it (it wouldn't surprise me if it was taken down
> long ago)?
>
It is entirely possible. It WAS there, but this dates me. And I was told by a monk
there that they had decided to let it remain even though it was RC becuase of Saint
Francis's beautiful connection with nature which was seen to be close to that of Saint
Sergius of Radonezh.
> >grounds. The other thing that was surprising form the web site is that they do
> >not identify themselves as HOCNA, which I thought they were, but rather with the
> >True Orthodox Church of Greece. I have never been able to discern the various
> >jurisdictions nor have I yet to read a rationale of the split between Holy
> >Transfiguration and ROCOR, only heard innuendo of the worst kind.
>
> From their web site home page:
>
> Holy Transfiguration Monastery is under the Bishops of the
> Holy Orthodox Church of North America (HOCNA), and they, in
> turn, are members of the Holy Synod of the True Orthodox
> Church of Greece.
>
OK, but how and why did the split happen with the Church Abroad?
> The body of bishops in North America in communion with HTM are
> collectively called "HOCNA". There are two dioscese here, Boston
> and all America, under Metr. Ephreim (who, by the way, was trained
> at Holy Cross, and is a fully licensed "theologian" (I put that in
> quotes so as not to put him at the level of the Theologians of the
> Church)) and Toronto and all Canada under Metr. Macarius.
>
> I hope this clears things up some.
>
some
> In Christ,
> michael
nick cobb
sp...@erols.com wrote:
>
> http://kalypso.cybercom.net/~htm/flyer.htm
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Dear Friends,
>
> Thank you for your inquiry concerning our monastery. We have
> prepared the present short letter in response to such inquiries. If it
> does not answer your questions, we invite you to inquire further.
>
> We appreciate your interest. There are many excellent books
> available in English that deal with monasticism. A catalogue of books
> on monasticism and many other spiritual subjects is available from St.
> Nectarios Press, 10300 Ashworth Ave. N., Seattle, WA, 98133. May God
> bless you and guide you on the path of eternal salvation.
>
> Holy Transfiguration Monastery
----------------------------------------------------
Wonderful; and under which canonical bishop are these monks subject?
sp...@erols.com
nick cobb wrote:
I do not know. I am not in that jurisdiciton
nick cobb
The answer is: NONE.
Xbhamilton
That is a trick question, someone get in the timemachine and kill Karl Marx,
Stalin, Hitler and whoever else causes all of these schisms! Oh, darn, I think
we would all be dead if someone did that. Oh, well. I am starting to see that
killing is a very, very limited profession.
Sinner, Troyen.
For an Orthodox Education:
Rose Hill College
Michael Vezie
In article <34F5ACD7...@erols.com>, <sp...@erols.com> wrote:
>> From their web site home page:
>>
>> Holy Transfiguration Monastery is under the Bishops of the
>> Holy Orthodox Church of North America (HOCNA), and they, in
>> turn, are members of the Holy Synod of the True Orthodox
>> Church of Greece.
>>
>
>OK, but how and why did the split happen with the Church Abroad?
After the repose of Metr. Philaret of blessed memory, sufficient
changes in the ecclesiology of the Church Abroad forced ties to
be severed.
You should ask them for more information.
In Christ,
michael
Michael Vezie
In article <34F612...@cris.com>, nick cobb <ni...@cris.com> wrote:
>Wonderful; and under which canonical bishop are these monks subject?
Here we go again...
Metr Ephreim was canonically consecrated, and has always followed
the Holy Canons.
But that obviously wasn't your question.
No, he is not in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and
if you were to ask him, he would give you some very compelling
reasons why he is not. I'm still waiting for compelling reasons
why it is important to be so (quote from the fathers).
With Love in Christ,
michael, a sinner
sp...@erols.com
Michael Vezie wrote:
So you don't know either? I think we re not supposed to ask
Michael Vezie
In article <34F6F0AE...@erols.com>, <sp...@erols.com> wrote:
>Michael Vezie wrote:
>> After the repose of Metr. Philaret of blessed memory, sufficient
>> changes in the ecclesiology of the Church Abroad forced ties to
>> be severed.
>>
>> You should ask them for more information.
>
I have some other things written down at home (letters, etc).
But I don't have enough committed to memory to be able to give
a good answer to your question. I wasn't around when all that
was happening. I think they will be able to answer the question
much better than I can.
Why would we not be supposed to ask?
In Christ,
michael, a sinner
sp...@erols.com
Michael Vezie wrote:
I have asked, but the feeling was not to push it . No answers.
Michael Vezie
In article <34F7008C...@erols.com>, <sp...@erols.com> wrote:
>> Why would we not be supposed to ask?
>
That seems strange.
In any event, I am working on getting you a good answer, and
will forward it to you when I get it.
In Christ,
michael
Xbhamilton
I think this thread has to do with the whole uncannonical thing.
Shemennen has written on this, about thirty years ago, and his words are still
very pertinent, I will try to find and post his work.
THE CZAR
DearNick:under what cannonical bishops are you and your synod under and prove this by cannon references;furthermore prove your points instead of using a tar brush to paint ereryone you know nothing about.Your STUPIDITY shines through as do your 4 word ssentences. k cobb wrote: sp...@erols.com wrote:
>
> nick cobb wrote:
>
> > sp...@erols.com wrote:
> > >
> > > http://kalypso.cybercom.net/~htm/flyer.htm
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Dear Friends,
> > >
> > > Thank you for your inquiry concerning our monastery. We have
> > > prepared the present short letter in response to such inquiries. If it
> > > does not answer your questions, we invite you to inquire further.
> > >
> >
> > > We appreciate your interest. There are many excellent books
> > > available in English that deal with monasticism. A catalogue of books
> > > on monasticism and many other spiritual subjects is available from St.
> > > Nectarios Press, 10300 Ashworth Ave. N., Seattle, WA, 98133. May God
> > > bless you and guide you on the path of eternal salvation.
> > >
> > > Holy Transfiguration Monastery
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Wonderful; and under which canonical bishop are these monks subject?
>
Xbhamilton
Here we go throwing the Cannonical things around. I believe that the group in
question is in FULL Communion with the Serbs, but anyway.
sp...@erols.com
Xbhamilton wrote:
The Serbs have three jurisdicitons. Which one?
nick cobb
Xbhamilton wrote:
>
> Here we go throwing the Cannonical things around. I believe that the group in
> question is in FULL Communion with the Serbs, but anyway.
>
> Sinner, Troyen.
>
> For an Orthodox Education:
> Rose Hill College
"Catholicity," the Body of Christ is ONE, is an absolute for being a
true Orthodox Christian. Unless an Orthodox church, group is in
communion with ALL the Orthodox bishops and patriarchs, including Pat.
Bartholomew, they cannot be considered fully Orthodox.
Nicholas Skovran
Michael Vezie wrote in message <6dfcum$gql$1...@shell5.ba.best.com>...
>>
>In any event, I am working on getting you a good answer, and
>will forward it to you when I get it.
>
>In Christ,
>michael
Michael: Instead of getting us a "good answer", get us an ..."honest
answer". Slick Willy has a cadre of high priced advisors putting
out..."good answers" but so far, an "honest answer" seems to be buried
somewhere in the White House.
nick cobb
E.Jacko wrote:
>
> Yes Nick,
> but you have yet to answer the question previously
> posed that you seem to be avoiding:
>
> Using cannonical references, which cannonical bishops and synod are
> YOU under?
>
> It's only fair that you respond without your usual wise cracks.
> Jacob
---------------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't avoid you. Have you ever heard of the Hierarchical Exiled
Church of Lower Slobodovia?
Xbhamilton
I have no idea, I think I mistook ROCOR with HOCNA though.
We really need to do something about this mess. America is uncannonical!!!
What precedent do we have to have so many Bishops presiding over people by
ethnicity and the happenstance of converts?
Bulgaria comes to mind when thinking about this mess.
Xbhamilton
Wow, what a nice thread. Mention the Canons and Communion in the same thread
and people start acting like jerks.
For the record I am not Bulgarian. That was an historical refrence, glad to
see it flushed the jerk in you out onto the NG.
I am American, All the Way, AirBorne!
Now that I am motivated, can someone tell me why so many Bishops preside by
ethnicity? Diaspora? I am 25% Polish and none of ever had any desire to go
"home," because "here" is home. Whatever.
Sometimes this crap gets rediculous, the knowitall's have to be jerks and know
it all!
Who was ever in Communion with every other Bishop? Are the Aryans included in
this question? (THAT was For you NICK!)
THE CZAR
To answer the bottom part of the message they are fully Orthodox .To flee from
heresy such as the E/P,W.C.C.,POPE,AND ALLTHOSE WHO COMMUNE OR COMMEMORATE THEM.Or
are Sts.Athanasius the Great and Mark of Efesus not considered cannonical or
Orthodox although they were of both .They fought the heresies of there time these
are of our E/P,W.C.C,POPE...... .nick cobb wrote:
> Xbhamilton wrote:
> >
> > Here we go throwing the Cannonical things around. I believe that the group in
> > question is in FULL Communion with the Serbs, but anyway.
> >
> > Sinner, Troyen.
> >
> > For an Orthodox Education:
> > Rose Hill College
Michael Vezie
In article <34fca...@news1.ibm.net>,
Nicholas Skovran <pap...@ibm.net> wrote:
>
>Michael Vezie wrote in message <6dfcum$gql$1...@shell5.ba.best.com>...
>>>
>>In any event, I am working on getting you a good answer, and
>>will forward it to you when I get it.
>>
>>In Christ,
>>michael
>
>Michael: Instead of getting us a "good answer", get us an ..."honest
>answer".
Of course. Is there any other real definition of "good answer"?
Since I was not around at the time, I can't really give any answer.
Nicholas Skovran
>>>
>>
>>Michael: Instead of getting us a "good answer", get us an ..."honest
>>answer".
>
>Of course. Is there any other real definition of "good answer"?
>
>>
Michael: Not to drag this thread into ....forever?? In many cases a "good
answer" would be to obfuscate the question so that the issue is more
confusing than before the answer was given. It's done all the time. As I
stated in my previous note, Clinton's advisors are constantly working to
present "good answers" to the media to try to stall the Starr investigation.
To the extent that they have been successful to date proves the point that
they are giving "good answers".
I am not saying that you would have done this, of course. I have a high
regard for the Holy Transfiguration Monastery. Several years ago when I
ordered incense to send to an Orthodox priest inEastern Slovakia, I
mentioned it to the monk who took my phone order. I was pleasantly surprised
upon receiving the package that he included a large number of very beautiful
icon cards (at no charge) which I sent along to Slovakia.
Michael Vezie
In article <34fe0...@news1.ibm.net>,
Nicholas Skovran <pap...@ibm.net> wrote:
>>>Michael: Instead of getting us a "good answer", get us an ..."honest
>>>answer".
>>
>>Of course. Is there any other real definition of "good answer"?
>>
>Michael: Not to drag this thread into ....forever?? In many cases a "good
>answer" would be to obfuscate the question so that the issue is more
>confusing than before the answer was given. It's done all the time. As I
>stated in my previous note, Clinton's advisors are constantly working to
>present "good answers" to the media to try to stall the Starr investigation.
>To the extent that they have been successful to date proves the point that
>they are giving "good answers".
Granted. Sadly, that is how many define "good answer". But we know
that's not really a good answer.
>I am not saying that you would have done this, of course. I have a high
>regard for the Holy Transfiguration Monastery. Several years ago when I
>ordered incense to send to an Orthodox priest inEastern Slovakia, I
>mentioned it to the monk who took my phone order. I was pleasantly surprised
>upon receiving the package that he included a large number of very beautiful
>icon cards (at no charge) which I sent along to Slovakia.
I'm still waiting. It is hard to get them to do things this first
week of Lent, since they are focusing on more important things (like
I should be, I suppose).
In Christ,
michael
sp...@erols.com
Z and ALTR wrote:
>
> There has been a lot of discussion in this thread (and on the various Orthodox
> boards) about cannonical and uncannonical with regards to Church laws. I'm
> puzzled. Are you all discussing canons of the Holy Orthodox Church which are
> its ecclesiastical laws, or
> cannons which are large, mounted weapons that fire projectiles?
>
> Cannons destroy that which they hit, canons guide us in our religious life..
> Which are you all advocating here?
>
> Yiasas,
> Zoe
Zoe, we are discussing jurisdictional splits in the Greek and Slavic
churches. One in particular, several periodically.
Z and ALTR
ku...@mystics.bungi.com
In article <34FCA2...@cris.com>, nick cobb <ni...@cris.com> wrote:
>Xbhamilton wrote:
>>
>> Here we go throwing the Cannonical things around. I believe that the group in
>> question is in FULL Communion with the Serbs, but anyway.
>>
>> Sinner, Troyen.
>>
>> For an Orthodox Education:
>> Rose Hill College
>-----------------------------------------------------
>
>"Catholicity," the Body of Christ is ONE, is an absolute for being a
>true Orthodox Christian. Unless an Orthodox church, group is in
>communion with ALL the Orthodox bishops and patriarchs, including Pat.
>Bartholomew, they cannot be considered fully Orthodox.
And how often in history are all Orthodox in communion with one another?
When the Moscow Pat and the Ecumen Pat broke communion a few years back
(I think it's restored, but I might be wrong), was the Moscow Pat
automagically suddenly 'not fully Orthodox' or the Ecumenical Pat
automatically suddenly 'not fully Orthodox'?
That's a silly definition of canoncity - sounds Latin.
--
:-:-alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:
:-: ku...@mystics.bungi.com - NJ Rational Mystics BBS 908/241-8528 :-:
:-: Waffle 1.65 - FX-UUCICO/32-bit - Amanda1j - YARN 0.91 -:
:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-: :
It is later than you think.
nick cobb
ku...@mystics.bungi.com wrote:
> When the Moscow Pat and the Ecumen Pat broke communion a few years back
> (I think it's restored, but I might be wrong), was the Moscow Pat
> automagically suddenly 'not fully Orthodox' or the Ecumenical Pat
> automatically suddenly 'not fully Orthodox'?
They never broke communion. From time to time issues might occur to
strain relations, but a break in communion hasn't happened. If you refer
to Estonia, only praying for one another was temporarily suspended (a
liturgical spat).
Fr. John Morris
>When the Moscow Pat and the Ecumen Pat broke communion a few years back
>(I think it's restored, but I might be wrong), was the Moscow Pat
>automagically suddenly 'not fully Orthodox' or the Ecumenical Pat
>automatically suddenly 'not fully Orthodox'?
>
>That's a silly definition of canoncity - sounds Latin.
>
What is your definition of canoncity? If there are no standards, anyone we
have to recognize anyone who calls himself Orthodox as being Orthodox. That
does not make any sense. Is a group that was started by a bishop who was
deposed, or went into schism from the canonical Church canonical?
I am always amazed the way that some people rant and rave about the canons
and accuse anyone who does not share their private interpretations of the
canons of betraying the Orthodox Faith, or write volumes about the lack of
grace outside of the Orthodox Church, yet are very lax in their
interpretations of the canons concerning schism except of course for those
they consider to be in schism from them. You cannot have it both ways,
literal adherence to the canons in one area and loose interpretation in
another. One must be consistent and try to interpret the canons as the
Church has interpreted them. Just as the Church guides us in interpreting
the Scriptures, the Church also guides us in interpreting the canons. What
we must seek is the mind of the Church not a kind of fundamentalism when it
comes to canon law. There are canons that are subject to interpretation.
There are also canons that are no longer followed by the Church.
Archpriest John W. Morris
ku...@mystics.bungi.com
In article <wMjM.3167$gg.26...@news3.atl.bellsouth.net>,
"Fr. John Morris" <frj...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>When the Moscow Pat and the Ecumen Pat broke communion a few years back
>>(I think it's restored, but I might be wrong), was the Moscow Pat
>>automagically suddenly 'not fully Orthodox' or the Ecumenical Pat
>>automatically suddenly 'not fully Orthodox'?
>>
>>That's a silly definition of canoncity - sounds Latin.
>>
>What is your definition of canoncity? If there are no standards, anyone we
>have to recognize anyone who calls himself Orthodox as being Orthodox. That
>does not make any sense. Is a group that was started by a bishop who was
>deposed, or went into schism from the canonical Church canonical?
>I am always amazed the way that some people rant and rave about the canons
>and accuse anyone who does not share their private interpretations of the
>canons of betraying the Orthodox Faith, or write volumes about the lack of
>grace outside of the Orthodox Church, yet are very lax in their
>they consider to be in schism from them. You cannot have it both ways,
Well, I don't know who exactly you're referring to in this.
I am in the Carpatho-Rusyn diocese under the Ecumenical Patriarcate.
I'm not talking about throwing away canons, about being strict in some
and forgetting others, about starting up a fake church with the
smell-and-bells of Orthodoxy but without any connection, etc.
I'm asking: How do you know when a Church is Orthodox?
When the Ecumenical Pat. and the Moscow Pat. were out of communion
with each other, did one of them automatically become non-Orthodox?
How many Churches does it take for a local Church to be Orthodox?
I mean, the way things are at this moment (the various communions),
there approx 14 or 15 Churches in communion with each other. But
politics ensue, or geographical boundries get trampled on, arguments etc.,
and then what is one to do?
Let's say 10 years down the line, the Church of Serbalt.religion.christian.east-orthodoxia breaks communion
from the Ecumenical Pat. and the Moscow Pat., just as an example.
Will they cease to be Orthodox? I want to know this because I really
don't understand the whole issue of canoncity. I'm not 'baiting' -
it should be a simple question and answer thing, unless I'm missing
something...
-Kenneth
--
:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:
Fr. John Morris
>
>I'm asking: How do you know when a Church is Orthodox?
>
>When the Ecumenical Pat. and the Moscow Pat. were out of communion
>with each other, did one of them automatically become non-Orthodox?
>
No, because neither actually broke communion with the rest of Orthodoxy. For
example, both were in communion with Antioch, Serbia, Romania, etc. during
the entire crisis.
I would say, however, that a group that organizes a "Church" in opposition
to the local canonical Church or which is not in communion with the
autocephalous Orthodox Churches is not canonical.
Archpriest John W. Morris
Michael Vezie
In article <6dmmha$gmp$1...@shell5.ba.best.com>, I wrote:
>I'm still waiting. It is hard to get them to do things this first
>week of Lent, since they are focusing on more important things (like
>I should be, I suppose).
I have an answer. It is actually as to why St. Nectarios American
Orthodox Church in Seattle left the Synod, but the reasons are the
same:
(It's an excerpt from their history)
That spiritual steadfastness was to change for the Synod when Metropolitan
Philaret of blessed memory reposed in November of 1985. With the ascent of
Archbishop Vitaly of Montreal to the position of First Hierarch of the ROCOR,
a new more liberal church policy, contrary to Metropolitan Philaret's was
inaugurated and was to lead to a separation from the ROCOR of several
monasteries and parishes in the United States, Canada, and France, including
St. Nectarios of Seattle.
This group protested the reports of nearly 20 con-celebrations of ROCOR
clergy with ecumenist clergy of the "canonical" jurisdictions. That the
Synod repeatedly ignored these ecumenist actions convinced us that Synodal
bishops would not reprimand those guilty. The protesting clergy then
petitioned two Greek hierarchs, Metropolitan Gabriel and Metropolitan
Akakios, who were inactive members of Archbishop Auxentius' Synod, to be
received by them. They did accept us in December, 1986. In July, 1987,
we chose to go directly under Archbishop Auxentius, since he was the
First Hierarch of the Old Calendarist Orthodox Church in Greece. He
received us most graciously. The following year in anticipation of our
parish's 20th anniversary, Fr. Ephraim of Holy Transfiguration Monastery,
was ordained to the episcopate as Bishop of Boston.
I also have a letter written by one of our priests to Metr. Vitaly
explaining why he and his parish left. It goes into much more detail.
If anyone is interested, I'll email it (or if there is a lot of interest,
I'll post it).
sp...@erols.com
Michael Vezie wrote:
>
>
>
> I also have a letter written by one of our priests to Metr. Vitaly
> explaining why he and his parish left. It goes into much more detail.
> If anyone is interested, I'll email it (or if there is a lot of interest,
> I'll post it).
>
Since there have been long threads on all the Orthodox lists and newsgroups,
it would be good to post it here. Innuendo and supposition clarifies
nothing, and that is much of what has been previously put.
> With Love in Christ,
> michael, a sinner
May God bless you, Michael, may the Lord save and protect us all,
Galina
sp...@erols.com
David Wright wrote:
>
>
>
> For anyone interested please check out the Orthdoxox List Archives at
> <http://listserv.indiana.edu> - search under the phrase "musical
> omophorions"
OK, here is the URL:
or a text search for Holy Transfiguration Monastery or
> Panteleimon. There is a wealth of hard evidence there, particularly from
> Fr. Alexander Lebedeff who posted actual documents and letters from the
> very same Neketas Palassis to show the bogus nature of their claims (his
> post is found under the heading "SOME FACTUAL INFORMATION"
OK, there is one article. Here it is:
>
>
>
> Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 16:24:24 -0700
> Reply-To: Orthodox Christianity <ORTH...@LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU>
> Sender: Orthodox Christianity <ORTH...@LISTSERV.INDIANA.EDU>
> From: "Fr. Alexander Lebedeff" <lebe...@WESTWORLD.COM>
> Subject: Some Factual Information on the HOCNA schism
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Recently, there has been a flood of postings regarding the origins of the
> HOCNA schism. Many of these postings have contained serious misstatements
> and distortions of fact.
>
> In the interest of historical accuracy, I would like to share with the
> members of the list some of the contemporaneous documentation on this issue
> that will allow them to make their own judgments. All of the documents
> mentioned are authentic, and I have copies of the originals, on their
> respective letterheads, with signatures.
>
> 1) What were the true reasons for leaving the Russian Orthodox Church
> Outside of Russia and going under the omophorion of Bishops Gabriel and
> Akakios of Greece?
>
> An answer to this can be found in the correspondence of two of the most
> senior priests of the Boston group at that time, Fr. Neketas Palassis of
> Seattle, WA, and Fr. Anthony Gavalas, of Astoria, both of whom had been in
> the ROCOR for many years. These priests played key roles in the departure
> of the clergy and faithful, and their statements of that time must be
> considered very significant.
>
> In his letter to Fr. Neketas Palassis dated June 20/ July 3 1987, Fr.
> Anthony Gavalas writes:
>
> "My position when we left the Synod was that we should commemorate no one
> until we saw our way clearly in the confusion. I was told that while this
> would be possible for the monastery, it would be destructive to the
> Parishes. Then, within a few hours, we were told that we must all go under
> Abp. Akakios immediately so that the monastery would be covered in the face
> of suspensions and depositions of Frs. Panteleimon and Isaac, and I, of
> course, cooperated."
>
> Setting aside the incredible statement of an educated clergyman suggesting
> that parishes should commmemorate no bishop at all(?!), the other part of
> this statement is perfectly clear: the parishes scurried in haste under the
> omophorion of Abp. Akakios **to cover the monastery in the face of
> suspensions and depositions of Frs. Panteleimon and Isaac**. Not a word
> here of the purported ecumenism of the Synod--just flight in the face of
> suspensions.
>
> 2) What were the true reasons for leaving Archbishop Akakios and joining
> the Synod of Archbishop Auxentios?
>
> We find the answer in the letter of Fr. Neketas Palassis to Fr. Anthony
> Gavalas dated June 15/28, 1987:
>
> "Frankly, we were stunned and sorrowed by Metropolitan Gabriel's departure.
> Actually, it appeared we had been detoured and led into a dead-end street.
> Without a second bishop to give us support and credibility, we face the
> prospect of being one of the hundreds of vaganti groups which flood our
> nation. Without at least a second bishop we can have no hope that the
> clergymen who are watching us so carefully will ever join with us.
> Conversations with several of them have confirmed that fact. They are not
> attracted to us with a single bishop. "
>
> Here Fr. Neketas reveals that the true reason that they were leaving
> Akakios was that the Boston group needed to be aligned with someone who
> could give them Bishops--even if it meant to go to the Synod of Auxentios,
> who had been consistently attacked by Fr. Panteleimon and the rest of the
> Boston group for many years. In fact, the Boston group had, several years
> previously, published a lengthy document, called "A Clarification" in which
> it accused Auxentios and his synod of simony, deceit, uncanonical and
> secret consecrations, and doing anything for monetary gain. This document
> was signed by Fr. Panteleimon, Fr. Isaac, Fr. Neketas Palassis, Fr. Anthony
> Gavalas, and many other "Bostonites." It concluded with the words: "we
> state again that we have no intention of leaving the Russian Synod Abroad
> and seeking communion with any of the groups in Greece." So much for being
> true to one's word. . .
>
> With Bishop Gabriel pulling out of the coalition (Fr. Neketas's letter
> reveals that that occurred in February of 1987--a scant two months after
> the Boston Group had been accepted by Bishops Gabriel and Akakios), they
> were left with only one bishop--Akakios. Not good enough for them, if they
> wished to go "independent" at some time in the future.
>
> So, while still under the ecclesiastical authority of Archbishop Akakios,
> to whom they had pledged fealty and full obedience, the Boston group opened
> secret negotiations with Archbishop Auxentios.
>
> When Archbishop Akakios heard of this, he sent the following letter:
>
> "THE SACRED METROPOLITAN DIOCESE OF ATTICA AND DIAVLEIA
> See: Sacred Monastery of Saint Nicholas
> Paiania, Attica, Greece
>
> Tel. 66-42-3671
> Protocol No. 287
> In Paiania, Attica on July 1, 1987
>
>
> Fathers and Brethren:
>
> Bless!
>
> While we were preserving vividly and indelibly the wonderful image of all
> that we saw and heard during our recent visit to your Orthodox parishes,
> suddenly, thc information came, like a lightning bolt out of a clear sky,
> that a few of your spiritual leaders are thinking of going under the
> irrevocably fallen former archbishop Auxentios.
>
> We hope that it is only some malicious rumor designed to defame your
> Orthodox ecclesiastical communities before all Orthodox everywhere and to
> render futile the struggle you have waged in behalf of exactness of
> Orthodoxy. That is what we believe, for only the utmost madness and morbid
> recklessness would otherwise explain the subjugation of a Movement in
> behalf of piety and the preservation of the traditional genuineness of our
> Holy Orthodoxy under a leader who so tragically failed and brought the
> Church of the true Orthodox in Greece into contempt and disrepute.
>
> A multitude of uncanonical actions and illegal ordinations done with
> summital disdain for the authority of our Holy Church, the ungodfearing
> trampling down of the Sacred Canons, and the devious manner of the
> "ordination to the episcopacy" of the piteous and miserable Dorotheos
> Tsakos render k. Auxentios guilty before divine and human justice, as well
> as before the impartial and unbribable judgment of history itself.
>
> Can it be that you seek refuge in such a wreckage of a house?
>
> Shudder, O Sun and groan, O Earth! If that be the case, with your own
> hands, you will destroy your own work and raze your spiritual edifices to
> the ground. Moreover, you will offer to your enemies unexpected arguments
> against yourselves. These are much more shaking than the arguments with
> which they presently seek to sully the reputation of pious and virtuous
> clergymen who, at the present moment, head up your struggle!
>
> And, above all, such a thoughtless and frivolous action will sever the
> unity of your ecclesiastical communities because those among you whose
> souls hove a more acute sense of smell will not be able to tolerate the
> stench of that devious failure k. Auxentios's condemned and illegal actions.
>
> It is out of a pained heart that we write the above so that the beacon of
> Orthodoxy will not be so ignominiously extinguished, the beacon which is
> kept lit by the exactness of your Orthodoxy and your blameless
> ecclesiastical ethos.
>
> And beyond all that we've said previously, as long as you came freely and
> unconstrained by anyone and committed the episcopal supervision of your
> parishes to me, I condemn any discussions with Auxentios as divisive acts
> and I advise you to cut them off completely.
>
> Do not forget that "he who acts in secret from his bishop serves the devil,
> " according to Saint Ignatius the Godbearer.
>
> Moved by love and respect, we propose that a Congress of all the parishes
> be called for the purpose of discussing a number of matters, among which is
> also the ecclesiastical-episcopal organization of your Godloving parishes.
> At a Congress of this type, which is the only appropriate one that can make
> r. decision regarding the above matter, we would have no objection to
> responsibly presenting our views.
>
> With fatherly caution against suicidal solutions and with prayers and
> blessings, we remain,
>
> +Akakios of Attica and Diavleia"
>
> The Bostonites paid absolutely no attention to this letter, and proceeded
> to summarily break relations with Archbishop Akakios, and go under the
> omophorion of the much-maligned (by them as well) Archbishop Auxentios.
>
> This was ironic, because, as Fr. Anthony Gavalas's letter reveals,
> Archbishop Akakios was working on an exoneration of Fr. Panteleimon at the
> time he was abandoned:
>
> Fr. Anthony wrote:
>
> "At this point, Abp. Akakios has initiated a sober and useful defense of
> the monastery and its Fathers to remove once an [sic] for all the
> rediculous [sic] charges against them, and to neutralize the sanctions
> uncanonically imposed by the Russian Synod. This will involve an opinion of
> a Canon Law professor and will be an iron-clad defense against our
> detractors. He told me that he plans to have this whole thing wrapped up by
> Transfiguration, when he will bring it himself to America, and serve with
> all the fathers for the Feast, that is, if what he has already heard from
> others that we are going elsewhere hasn't sabotaged this sensible and noble
> attempt. Although we who know the monastery give no credence to the charges
> of immorality, the fact is that they are widely believed in Greece. Was not
> Abp. Akakios's initial acceptance of us and his coming over to see us and
> serve with us a heroic gesture of support? Is this how we repay him? Given
> Abp. Auxentios's toleration, at least, of homosexuals in his own
> jurisdiction, of what use will be a [sic] exoneration signed by him? Will
> it not allow our enemies to say that the monastery is guilty and so placed
> itself in a jurisdiction tolerant of such violations?"
>
> Well, Fr. Anthony voice was ignored. And there seems to have been another
> reason than just needing bishops--when Archbishop Akakios came to visit his
> flock in the States, he did the unpardonable: he refused to serve together
> with Fr. Panteleimon!
>
> Here is how Fr. Neketas Palassis writes about this in his letter to Fr.
> Anthony:
>
> "Archbishop Akakios' refusal to celebrate the Divine Liturgy with the Elder
> certainly sent out a very misleading message to our adversaries. In fact,
> the dignity of Fr. Panteleimon himself was compromised by the unfortunate
> action of the Archbishop. Only the Lord knows what is being said about his
> not serving with the Elder."
>
> Of course, no one is paying any attention to the fact that only a few
> months before, the Boston group, in justifying their uncanonical departure
> from the Synod, stated "urbi et orbi" that the only reason one can leave
> one's bishop is if he is "openly and bare-headedly preaching heresy in
> Church." Yet no one could accuse Archbishop Akakios of having a "soft"
> stand on ecumenism or "concelebrating with new calendarists." So, the
> Boston group made yet another uncanonical departure from the bishop they
> had pledged obedience to, and ended up with the Synod of Archbishop Auxentios.
>
> Now, of course, the Boston group is once more splitting away--from the
> Synod of Archbishop Auxentios and his lawful successor, Archbishop Maximos,
> who was described in such glorious terms in the "Orthodox Christian
> Witness" upon his enthronization. Of course, now the Boston group has
> plenty of bishops, so it will be no problem for them. They will have
> finally achieved their goal of full independence.
>
> To get there, most of them have made *four* changes in allegiance:
>
> Once, when they left the Greek Archdiocese; twice, when they left the Synod
> Abroad; thrice, when they left Metropolitans Gabriel and Akakios; and for
> the fourth time by leaving Archbishop Maximos.
>
> Not a very good track record for their spiritual leadership, is it? When
> one sees a man who has had one failed marriage, one is able to be
> compassionate--he made a bad choice, he should have another chance. A man
> with two failed marriages is looked upon with with reasonable caution--is
> there something wrong here? A man with three failed marriages is
> undoubtedly a serious problem. What do you say to a man who is now going
> for a fifth?
>
> When I wrote my two open letters to Fr. Neketas Palassis regarding the
> Boston schism, I had some strong remarks about ecclesiastical
> merry-go-rounds and "bishop-of-the-month-clubs." Time has proven me
> correct, unfortunately. At the time I was writing my letters, I was even
> unaware that Metr. Gabriel had already pulled out of this sordid affair,
> and that Archbishop Akakios was soon to go.
>
> One final point. In his letter to Fr. Neketas Palassis, Fr. Anthony Gavalas
> comments on the direction being given by the Boston monastery regarding
> admitting to the mysteries members of Synod (ROCOR) parishes. After
> expressing concern about a document that was disseminated by the Boston
> monastery, he writes:
>
> "The same reservations could be voiced about another letter sent from our
> monastery to a lay woman in which it was said that while we do not give
> Communion to people who come to us from ecumenist jurisdictions, we do
> communicate people who come to us from the Synod. And the question arises:
> If the Synod is not ecumenist, why did we leave it?"
>
> Good question, Fr. Anthony! Every member of HOCNA should ask it of themselves.
>
> With love in Christ,
>
> Archpriest Alexander Lebedeff
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
regarding the
> Panteleimonite schism. I'll post this information a bit later... it poses
> a question no-one in that schism can answer.
>
> In Christ,
> Rd. Constantine
>
> --
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> + Reader Constantine Wright 446 Myers Hall, Athens GA 30609 +
> + 706-357-1482 cons...@arches.uga.edu ear...@hotmail.com +
> + Personal Web Page - http://www.arches.uga.edu/~constans +
> +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
> + Our Lady the Joy of All Who Sorrow Russian Orthdox Church (ROCOR) +
> + Church Web Site - http://www.avana.net/~fralexis +
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
I suppose now we will see something....even though I think I remember every
single word he ever spoke that I heard?
May the sweet Ord have mercy on us all,
Galina
sp...@erols.com
David Wright
Michael Vezie (d...@shell5.ba.best.com) wrote:
:
: I have an answer. It is actually as to why St. Nectarios American
: same:
:
: (It's an excerpt from their history)
:
: <RED HERRINGS DELETED>
Once again we see the Panteleimonite spin... the Synod has never chnaged
its ecclesiology. I think *anyone* on this list who has any experience at
all with Synod parishes, with what out hierarchs write and the ROCOR as a
whole has accepted, can see fro themselves how absurd such a claim is.
The real reason Panteleimon left... he was running as fast as he could
from a canonical spiritual court. Guilty conscience, from the evidence.
For anyone interested please check out the Orthdoxox List Archives at
<http://listserv.indiana.edu> - search under the phrase "musical
omophorions" or a text search for Holy Transfiguration Monastery or
Panteleimon. There is a wealth of hard evidence there, particularly from
Fr. Alexander Lebedeff who posted actual documents and letters from the
very same Neketas Palassis to show the bogus nature of their claims (his
post is found under the heading "SOME FACTUAL INFORMATION" regarding the
David Wright
wy-go-rounds and "bishop-of-the-month-clubs." Time has proven me
correct, unfortunately. At the time I was writing my letters, I was even
unaware that Metr. Gabriel had already pulled out of this sordid affair,
and that Archbishop Akakios was soon to go.
One final point. In his letter to Fr. Neketas Palassis, Fr. Anthony
Gavalas
comments on the direction being given by the Boston monastery regarding
admitting to the mysteries members of Synod (ROCOR) parishes. After
expressing concern about a document that was disseminated by the Boston
monastery, he writes:
"The same reservations could be voiced about another letter sent from our
monastery to a lay woman in which it was said that while we do not give
Communion to people who come to us from ecumenist jurisdictions, we do
communicate people who come to us from the Synod. And the question arises:
If the Synod is not ecumenist, why did we leave it?"
Good question, Fr. Anthony! Every member of HOCNA should ask it of
themselves.
With love in Christ,
Archpriest Alexander Lebedeff
Tikhon Henderson
Anyone who is even remotely familiar with the HOCNA schism knows the
official spin supported by Fr. Lebedeff and others is an extremely
shallow evaluation of the facts. It should first be noted that *anyone*
can isolate quotes out of context to make *anything* sound suspicious.
Fr. Lebedeff, unfortunately, stooped to the tactics of the National
Inquirer to make his point.
The move away from the isolationist postion of Metropolitan Philaret was
first detected not by Holy Transfiguration Monastery, but by the leaders
of the ROCA French Mission. Archimandrite Ambrose led *all* of the
Synodal parishes in France into the arms of the Greek Old Calendarists
well before Fr. Panteleimon was suspended. And in the end, almost two
dozen clergy had left the ROCA for the same reason. They were not
mindless robots following the example of their "elder." They were
priests, deacons, and monks who could no longer consciously remain under
bishops who unapologetically gave the Holy Mysteries to Orthodox
Christians whose hierarchs were supposedly anathematized by the 1983
Sobor of Bishops.
And even after Holy Transfiguration Monastery had left, you see
respected clergy such as Fr. Michael Azkoul, Ph.D., and Fr. Seraphim
Johnson, choosing to join the Greek Old Calendarists for the same reason
- not because of any attatchment to the monastery, but because their
convictions were no longer shared by their Synodal bishops.
Undoubtedly, the moral charges against Fr. Panteleimon played a large
role in the departure of many from the Russian Synod. But to claim that
the *only* reason for *all* those who left the ROCA in the mid-late
1980's was to provide unconditional support for the former abbot of Holy
Transfiguration Monastery is a purposeful misrepresentation of facts.
- Tikhon
Michael Vezie
In article <wMjM.3167$gg.26...@news3.atl.bellsouth.net>,
Fr. John Morris <frj...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>What is your definition of canoncity? If there are no standards, anyone we
>have to recognize anyone who calls himself Orthodox as being Orthodox. That
Our standards are the Orthodox Faith itself. If someone confesses the
faith, and has been properly received into the Orthodox Church, then
they are Orthodox.
>does not make any sense. Is a group that was started by a bishop who was
>deposed, or went into schism from the canonical Church canonical?
It depends on why he "went into schism". And what does "canonical"
mean -- I think it's simply a way to confuse the issues. Canonical
should mean, "follows the canons", but that certainly isn't the
definition used today.
>I am always amazed the way that some people rant and rave about the canons
>and accuse anyone who does not share their private interpretations of the
>canons of betraying the Orthodox Faith, or write volumes about the lack of
>grace outside of the Orthodox Church, yet are very lax in their
>interpretations of the canons concerning schism except of course for those
>they consider to be in schism from them. You cannot have it both ways,
Schism is of course a valid concern. But if group A accuses group B
of apostasy and separates, then group B should not just say, "group
A is in schism!", but should answer the charges of group A. Now if
you take me as in group A and you as in group B, then stop saying,
"He's in schism. He's not canonical", and start answering the charges
made against you (by quoting Church Fathers).
>they consider to be in schism from them. You cannot have it both ways,
>literal adherence to the canons in one area and loose interpretation in
>another.
But I thought Nick just posted something recently saying that that was
the way it should be (not that I buy that, mind you)?
>There are also canons that are no longer followed by the Church.
Name 1.
In Christ,
michael
Michael Vezie
In article <350581D6...@erols.com>, <sp...@erols.com> wrote:
>Michael Vezie wrote:
>>
>> I also have a letter written by one of our priests to Metr. Vitaly
>> explaining why he and his parish left. It goes into much more detail.
>> If anyone is interested, I'll email it (or if there is a lot of interest,
>> I'll post it).
>
>Since there have been long threads on all the Orthodox lists and newsgroups,
>it would be good to post it here. Innuendo and supposition clarifies
>nothing, and that is much of what has been previously put.
Here it is.
With Love in Christ,
michael, a sinner
encl.
-----------------------------------------------------------
St. John of Kronstadt 1987
Most Reverend Metropolitan Vitaly
Synod of Bishops
75 East 93 Street
New York N.Y. 10128
Dear Metropolitan Vitaly:
I am writing this letter to you with a heavy heart. Since 1970 I have
been a member of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, being
baptized in it when I converted to Orthodox. I have many friends in the
Church and have been fortunate to have known several of our bishops
well.
It was difficult for me to leave my earlier affiliation with the
Episcopal Church, to which I was tied by family and by sentiment; but
the truth of Orthodoxy was more important to me than those ties, hard as
they were to break. My wife and I joined the Russian Orthodox Church
Outside Russia because it offered the purest expression of Orthodoxy,
free of the compromises made by the other jurisdictions in this
country. My parishioners have similarly chosen the Synod Church because
of its uncompromising Orthodoxy: they have come from Judaism and the
Protestant and Catholic Churches, and also from other Orthodox
jurisdictions which no longer were teaching and practising the Orthodox
Faith. For all of us, the Faith has been more important than earthly
ties or convenience. For many of us, also, the monastery in Boston and
the parishes inspired by it have been important teachers and
influences. We have learned from the fathers there and found they were
teaching the same things we heard from such teachers as Metropolitans
Anthony and Philaret, Archbishop St. Ilarion, Archbishop Averky, Bishop
Gregory, and you, Vladika Vitaly.
The events of the last year have been a great shock to us all. We have
been puzzled by many things we saw in our bishops' dealing with
accusations of sin, but we assumed that these were human failings, not
something which truly affects the Faith. We were horrified when a
number of parishes and the Holy Transfiguration Monastery withdrew from
the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia last winter At that time we
were very confused, since our spiritual guides seemed to be going in
different directions. We prayed that God would guide us, and for the
time we felt that He wanted us to stay in the Russian Orthodox Church
Outside Russia. We decided to wait and watch both sides, trusting that
God would not abandon us, but would show us the way we should go. We
decided as a parish to dedicate our Great Lent this year to asking for
His guidance and enlightenment. We believed that He would make clear to
us what we should do; we would see which Church He was blessing, which
Church was sound, and then we would know what He wanted us to do.
The results of our patience have not been at all what we expected. You
and many of your bishops and priests have written statements and
clarifications to present the view of the Russian Orthodox Church
Outside Russia on the questions which have been raised about Orthodoxy,
the heresy of Ecumenism, and the role of economy in the life of the
Church. And every time we have read an explanation, it has made things
harder to understand; every clarification has muddied things more. Let
me list a few of the things which we have been dismayed and amazed to
learn:
a. Concelebrations. The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia is now
said to be in full communion with the Serbian and the Jerusalem
Patriarchates, even though both are very active in the ecumenical
movement. In addition, we have learned of concelebrations with the
Finnish Church (which not only uses the New Calendar, but even
celebrates Pascha with the non-Orthodox), the Ecumenical Patriarchate
(both with Greek parishes in this country and with its Russian priests
in Europe), and others. We have heard of parishioners going back and
forth to Moscow Patriarchate parishes in Europe with their bishop's
blessing. Right here we have seen how, several years ago, the Kursk
icon - the Synod's greatest holy treasure - came to Washington and was
taken by a local Synod priest to the OCA cathedral for a moleben,
although we were given no opportunity to have it visit our own parish.
Among my parishioners are several who left the Ecumenical Patriarchate;
they made written promises, at Bishop Gregory's direction, saying they
would not receive the Mysteries in churches of the Patriarchate; they
endured family conflicts and separation from friends by leaving their
Patriarchate parishes. You can hardly imagine how they have been
distressed by concelebrations with the church they left; now they ask
why they had to leave, and what can I say? It seems they made a foolish
choice and grieved themselves for nothing in the eyes of many of your
bishops and priests. You have personally told me not to give Holy
Communion to members of other jurisdictions; how can you then permit
your clergy to concelebrate with their priests? How does it help bring
someone to a correct under-standing of the errors in his church, if he
sees your clergy concelebrating with his own?
b. Strange Teaching. We thought we understood the Orthodox Faith and
that the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia was a careful teacher of
that Faith. But we have been unsettled by things which have been
written in the last six months.
1) The teaching in your Nativity Epistle effectively denies the
1983 anathema and states that all the local Orthodox Churches are
grace-bearing. It says that the anathema has no general meaning, but
only applies to members of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia
who hold ecumenical views - for the rest it is only a warning; but that
is not what an anathema is. It is the Church's statement that anyone
holding those views is cut off from the Church of Christ'. When you cut
someone off from the Church, you do not cut them off from just the
Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, but from the whole Church of our
Lord Jesus Christ.' And even if we were to grant that it applies only to
our Church, how then can members of our Church serve with those
condemned by it? At the very least, the members of our Church should
follow the direction and ..warning" of the anathema. When I read this
Epistle to my congregation, the reaction was one of shock; it was only
with difficulty that I was able to persuade some of my parishioners not
to leave the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia at that moment;
several initially doubted that they could continue to receive the
Mysteries in our parish as long as it was a part of the Russian Orthodox
Church Outside Russia. Those who had come to the Synod from other local
Churches came to me in sorrow and asked why they had bothered to leave
them, if there was still grace in them. My flock agreed that this was
not the Orthodox Faith they had been taught in the past.
2) An amazing ecclesiology has been presented by Fr. Alexander Lebedev
in his two Open Letters. I might have been able to dismiss this as his
own personal misunderstanding of the Faith, except that you and the
other bishops have adopted his letters as "official" answers to those
leaving the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. I received my copy
of his first letter at the direction of Bishop Hilarion. You and
Archbishop Laurus have printed and distributed copies extensively, the
Synod of Bishops (as reported in the most recent issue of Tserkovnia
Zhizn', the official Synod journal) has publicly gone on record as
thanking Fr. Alexander for his letters, and now the second letter has
been printed in Orthodox Life, thereby making these letters the public
position of your Church. Fr. Alexander offers an ecclesiology which I
had known well as an Anglican, but which I never expected to see in the
Orthodox Church. He states that in the question of which Churches one
is in communion with, each diocese can decide for itself. He says that
one diocese can be strict, another lenient, but all can be in the same
Church; therefore, the Los Angeles diocese is not in communion with any
other local Orthodox Churches; the Midwest diocese is in communion with
the Serbs and the Constantinople Patriarchate; your diocese is in
communion with some Serbian bishops, but not others (an impossible
situation in itself); the Western European diocese is in communion with
all local Orthodox Churches. This is not Orthodoxy.' All I can think
of when I read such things is the poor Episcopalians: for them, one
diocese has women priests, another does not recognize such priests; in
one parish the Holy Communion is the Body and Blood of Christ, while in
another it is just a memorial, etc. And now I am told that the Russian
Orthodox Church Outside Russia follows the same principle of
ecclesiology.
3) In both your Nativity Epistle and Fr. Alexander's letters there is
also a novel understanding of "economy." The theological textbooks
which I have consulted define economy as a waiving of the strictness of
the Church's rules to facilitate the admission of people to the Church
and the Mysteries. As Fr. Alexander says, by economy you might admit
someone to Holy Communion even though he had not kept the full fast
beforehand for some weighty reason. But to turn around and use this as
an excuse for concelebrating with those one has in fact anathematized,
even if one pretends that the anathema is only a warning, is not
acceptable. That does not help to bring anyone to the Church, but
rather drives them away and confirms them in their error. Fr. Alexander
disingenuously argues that by accepting clergymen from the other local
Orthodox Churches, you have acknowledged that those Churches still have
grace: but he fails to mention that those clergymen were received
without observing the canonical rules, precisely because their churches
were considered to be In heresy'. It was an act of economy to receive
them as priests; but if their churches were truly Orthodox, then you and
your bishops have violated canonical procedure in accepting such
clergymen without releases from their former bishops and have made
yourselves schismatics. The concept of economy does not mean that a
priest or bishop can do anything he feels like, although Archbishop
Anthony of Geneva says this in a letter to his flock; economy is
strictly limited in application and purpose, and the teaching we have
seen from you and Fr. Alexander is a novelty with no place in the
Orthodox Church.
Certainly it is possible that we have been misinformed on these points
in the past. We have done much reading and study in the last nine
months to see if this is so. I have even asked Fr. Alexander for
enlightenment on "economy and for sources for his teaching of it, but
have received no reply from him. But whether we are right or wrong, we
have concluded that we do not agree with the doctrines being taught now
by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. Unless we can be shown
by something other than invective and unsupported statements that we
are in error in our understanding, we must continue to believe as we
have in the past and as we have been taught by your predecessors.
c. Admission to the Mysteries in Synod Parishes. We have long been
aware that in specific parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside
Russia, the stated policy of the Church in regard to admission to the
Mysteries has not been followed. We have seen and heard of cases of
non-Synod Orthodox being admitted to the Mysteries, e.g. at
Jordanville. This has been particularly distressing when it has
involved members of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Orthodox Church in
America, since in those cases there are explicit prohibitions by the
Council of Bishops of such actions. I have found it awkward to have to
turn away New-Calendarists in my parish (at your direction, Vladika),
while I know they will be admitted to Holy Communion at the Russian
parish of St. John the Baptist in Washington, D.C. In fact, my parish
would be much larger if I had been willing to admit New Calendarists to
the Mysteries; it now seems that I have injured my parish in vain by
turning them away when I need not have. But now the question of
receiving the Mysteries has gone even beyond this. In western
Massachusetts there is an open follower and propagandist for the
teachings of Apostolos Makrakis, a Greek philosopher who was condemned
as a heretic by the Churches of Greece, Russia, and Serbia; Bishop
Gregory would not admit this man to membership in the Synod on the
grounds that he was a heretic; but his own son testifies that he has
been admitted to Holy Communion in the monastery in Jordanville.
Additionally, a case has come to light recently of the admission of a
Monophysite Copt to Holy Communion in the Synod parish in Houston. This
act occurred repeatedly, with the knowledge of the priest and also of
Bishop Hilarion, who refused to stop it, saying that he could not, since
it had been going on for a long time already.
d. Canonical Disorder. As if the above-mentioned items were not
sufficient indication of canonical disorder in the Russian Orthodox
Church Outside Russia, we have had several additional manifestations of
this problem.
1) After the Synod parishes in both Mt. Holly Springs and Atlanta joined
the Greek Old Calendar Church, Bishop Hilarion advised those who wished
to remain in the Synod to attend parishes of the Orthodox Church in
America; this was done despite the prohibition on any communion in
prayer or mysteries with the OCA.
2) The Synod had generally maintained cordial relations with
Metropolitan Cyprianos of Oropos and Fili in Greece; his views on grace
in the New Calendar jurisdictions generally agree with those now being
proposed by the Synod. But last spring the Russian Orthodox Church
Outside Russia has directed its Greek parish in Thessalonica to join a
different Old Calendar jurisdiction, that of Archbishop Chrysostomos.
The Synod argues that geographical integrity requires the Greek parish
to transfer its allegiance, but neglects to comment on the fact that one
member of Archbishop Chrysostomos's synod is Bishop Petros of Astoria,
Long Island, New York. Is Bishop Petros to become a member of the Synod
of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia on the same
grounds of geographical integrity?
3) The Synod of Archbishop Chrysostomos has deposed Metropolitan
Cyprianos for Ecumenism because he teaches that the New Calendar
churches have grace. How can the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia
have entered into communion with this synod (by handing over a parish to
it), when you maintain in your teachings and actions that there is
certainly full grace in the New Calendar churches? This action has an
appearance of opportunism, aimed at preventing the establishment of a
hierarchy in North America for those parishes which have left the
Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia in recent months.
4) In the Second Open Letter of Fr. Alexander Lebedev, published in the
March-April 1987 issue of Orthodox Life (Vol. 37, No 2), he quotes with
full approval a statement that the Synod of Metropolitan Cyprianos is
the only valid Old Calendar hierarchy in Greece and that "with two or
three possible exceptions" all other Greek Old Calendar bishops are "an
absolutely astonishing collection of erratic cranks, defrocked
renegades, self-important gurus, half-baked dabblers in theology, and
other characters so bizarre, so fantastic, that, to discover parallels,
one would be compelled to draw from the more exotic or comical specimens
of fictional literature" [page 41]. If this is so, how can you hand
over your Greek flock to these latter bishops, ignoring Metropolitan
Cyprianos and his "valid" synod? And if this is not the view of the
Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia on the Old Calendar bishops in
Greece, why did Archbishop Laurus and Bishop Bilarion publish it in your
at least semi-official English-language magazine?
The end result of all the attempts to explain the issues raised by those
who left the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia in recent months has
been confusion and the revelation of heretical and disordered thinking
in theology and the administration of the Mysteries of Christ in the
Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia.
We have contrasted this with what we have seen from those who left the
Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia and organized themselves under
the omophorion of Archbishop Auxentius of Athens. Certainly there have
been human weaknesses, with mistakes made and, sometimes, harsh words
spoken; but on this earth we will find no perfection, and who among us
could honestly say that he had never said or done anything which he
later came to regret? But with these mistakes, we also see a firm
commitment to the Orthodox Faith and a clear statement of the dangers of
Ecumenism, the latest and most dangerous heresy yet. I am enclosing a
copy of the oath which all priests have to sign when they join with
Archbishop Auxentius; if only the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia
had such an oath and enforced it.' Then there would be no question of
its opposition to Ecumenism.
We have waited and watched with prayer for a correction of the Synod's
course, but all that we have seen is further progress on the way of
accommodation. And then we read Archbishop Auxentios's clergy oath, and
we saw the Orthodox Faith being taught without compromise or
equivocation. You cannot imagine how my heart was moved when I finally
saw an Orthodox bishop speaking the truth of the Faith in opposition to
what you have rightly called the ..pan-heresy - of our time: Ecumenism.
Now we must act as God has shown us. Therefore, with earthly sorrow, I
must inform you that my parish of St. Cosmas of Aitolia in Riverdale,
Maryland and I have been received under the omophorion of Archbishop
Auxentios. It gives me greater grief than you can believe to do this,
Viadika, but what else can I do, except follow the Orthodox Faith where
it is taught most fully and clearly.
Please be assured that we bear you no personal ill-will and will
continue to pray for you and your brother bishops as long as we all
live. It is our greatest hope and prayer that you will be able to
correct the problems which have arisen in the Russian Orthodox Church
Outside Russia, and that someday soon we may once again be united in
receiving the Body and Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
With love in Christ,
Priest Seraphim Johnson
Romanos777
>I would say, however, that a group that organizes a "Church" in opposition
>to the local canonical Church or which is not in communion with the
>autocephalous Orthodox Churches is not canonical.
>
>
Fr. John, this sounds as though autocephalous Churches cannot fall into heresy,
but there are countless examples in history where this did happen.
--Frank Emmert
Miami, Florida, USA
Fr. John Morris
>
>Fr. John, this sounds as though autocephalous Churches cannot fall into
heresy,
>but there are countless examples in history where this did happen.
That is not what I mean. However, the way that the Church has determined
that someone or even a local church has fallen into heresy has always been
through councils of canonical bishops not by everyone deciding for
themselves what is heretical. The Holy Spirit guides the Church to preserve
the truth. Under normal circumstances that means that we must be guided by
the mind of the Church and not presume that we know more than the Church as
expressed in council of canonical bishops. The alternative is chaos.
Archpriest John W. Morris
nick cobb
Michael Vezie wrote:
>
> >they consider to be in schism from them. You cannot have it both ways,
> >literal adherence to the canons in one area and loose interpretation in
> >another.
>
> But I thought Nick just posted something recently saying that that was
> the way it should be (not that I buy that, mind you)?
>
> >There are also canons that are no longer followed by the Church.
>
> Name 1.
>
> In Christ,
> michael
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael:
What I posted was about the canons and interpreting them. Some canons
cannot be changed (dogmatic in nature) others are for church order and
can be changed. One must know the difference.
Michael, Fr. John is right and I wish you would listen to him. I realize
you are with a factionist group, but the Church is "ONE" not two, three,
etc. All being in communion with one another IS the Church. Those who
have divorced themselves from this communion, need to repent and return.
Accusations about this hierarch, that Patriarch, etc. really is between
the bishops. Most of the time these feuds are stupid, childish and born
out of misunderstanding, stubbornness and pride. These separations can
go on for centuries and are just plain unChristian. Don't be part of
this dumbness.