Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

13715Re: Documents Concerning the HOCNA Separation?

Expand Messages
  • vkozyreff
    Mar 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Dear Father John, bless.

      You write:

      "This gave them the idea of claiming that "ROCOR has fallen under its
      own anathema" (i.e. the "anathema of 1983", which appears to have
      been authored by the Panteleimon-coterie)".

      We do not understand any longer whether ROCOR condemns or does not
      condemn ecumenism.

      The anathema of 1983 was never rescinded, but you keep suggesting
      that it does not have real power, because it was not authored by the
      right people. So, finally, is the anathema in force or is it not? If
      it is, than ROCOR clergy should act and write accordingly. If it is
      not, the anathema should be rescinded. If the anathema is rescinded,
      those who denounce ROCOR as becoming open to ecumenism are right.

      If the situation remains ambiguous as it is now, it will continue
      creating confusion, which is opposite to the Church calling.

      You write: "Similar claims have been made by various groups (the
      Matthewites, HOCNA, ROAC, ROCiE) over the years -- but in them, the
      date of ROCOR's supposed downfall was updated more than once, to suit
      individual interests.

      What is the basis for your stating that dates were mentioned "to suit
      individual interests"? Maybe dates were genuinely mentioned in
      relationship to various events suggesting that ROCOR was becoming
      more lenient towards to ecumenism, or sergianism.

      As seen in message 13708, even on Mt Athos, some are wondering.

      "Never refer to an enemy using scandalous names, but use respectful
      ones; on hearing this, your soul will learn from the tongue, become
      accustomed and undergo a change of heart towards him." St. John
      Chrysostom

      In God,

      Vladimir Kozyreff


      --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, "Fr. John R. Shaw"
      <vrevjrs@e...> wrote:
      > Paul Bartlett wrote:
      >
      > > On another forum someone has asked if anyone know a source
      for the
      > > (or a) document in which those who formed HOCNA set out their
      reasons
      > > for taking their action to separate from ROCOR. The only
      material I
      > > have seen on the matter was some material largely from the ROCOR
      side,
      > > although it purported to reproduce some letters or other materials
      > > coming from the HOCNA party.
      >
      > JRS: HOCNA produced an "information packet" that at one point was
      about a ream of paper.
      > They sent it to me -- twice I think, back in early 1987, before the
      real heyday of the internet.
      >
      > Their "rationale" for separating from ROCOR was a claim that ROCOR
      had fallen into
      > ecumenism.
      >
      > Needless to say, that was not the "reason" -- the real reason was
      that Archimandrite
      > Panteleimon had been suspended, after the Synod had spent months
      investigating moral
      > accusations against him.
      >
      > The bishops assigned to the investigation were Archbishop Anthony
      of Los Angeles and the
      > present Archbishop Alypy, who was then Bishop of Cleveland.
      >
      > But in March of 1986, Vl. Alypy and I were present at a Vesper
      service in the Serbian Holy
      > Resurrection cathedral in Chicago, on the Sunday of Orthodoxy. We
      did not vest, participate,
      > or at any time go behind the iconostas; we were merely present.
      >
      > But that was enough.
      >
      > The Panteleimonites were informed of this, by a certain Greek Old
      Calendar cleric phoning
      > them that very evening, perhaps before we even got home from the
      Serbian church.
      >
      > This gave them the idea of claiming that "ROCOR has fallen under
      its own anathema" (i.e. the
      > "anathema of 1983", which appears to have been authored by the
      Panteleimon-coterie).
      >
      > An important contribution to this rationale had come a few years
      before, from a series of
      > open letters written by Vladimir Moss and sent to most of the ROCOR
      clergy, in which he
      > made similar allegations.
      >
      > In that first series of letters from V. Moss, the claim was that
      ROCOR had "fallen at the Sobor
      > of 1974".
      >
      > Similar claims have been made by various groups (the Matthewites,
      HOCNA, ROAC, ROCiE)
      > over the years -- but in them, the date of ROCOR's supposed
      downfall was updated more
      > than once, to suit individual interests.
      >
      > The main key to the influence of such accusations has always been
      people's lack of familiarity
      > with ROCOR's history.
      >
      > In Christ
      > Fr. John R. Shaw
    • Show all 19 messages in this topic