13715Re: Documents Concerning the HOCNA Separation?
- Mar 1, 2005Dear Father John, bless.
"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
The anathema of 1983 was never rescinded, but you keep suggesting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not, the anathema should be rescinded. If the anathema is rescinded,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
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
--- In email@example.com, "Fr. John R. Shaw"
> Paul Bartlett wrote:for the
> > On another forum someone has asked if anyone know a source
> > (or a) document in which those who formed HOCNA set out theirreasons
> > for taking their action to separate from ROCOR. The onlymaterial I
> > have seen on the matter was some material largely from the ROCORside,
> > although it purported to reproduce some letters or other materialsabout a ream of paper.
> > coming from the HOCNA party.
> JRS: HOCNA produced an "information packet" that at one point was
> They sent it to me -- twice I think, back in early 1987, before thereal heyday of the internet.
>had fallen into
> Their "rationale" for separating from ROCOR was a claim that ROCOR
> ecumenism.that Archimandrite
> Needless to say, that was not the "reason" -- the real reason was
> Panteleimon had been suspended, after the Synod had spent monthsinvestigating moral
> accusations against him.of Los Angeles and the
> The bishops assigned to the investigation were Archbishop Anthony
> present Archbishop Alypy, who was then Bishop of Cleveland.service in the Serbian Holy
> But in March of 1986, Vl. Alypy and I were present at a Vesper
> Resurrection cathedral in Chicago, on the Sunday of Orthodoxy. Wedid not vest, participate,
> or at any time go behind the iconostas; we were merely present.Calendar cleric phoning
> But that was enough.
> The Panteleimonites were informed of this, by a certain Greek Old
> them that very evening, perhaps before we even got home from theSerbian church.
>its own anathema" (i.e. the
> This gave them the idea of claiming that "ROCOR has fallen under
> "anathema of 1983", which appears to have been authored by thePanteleimon-coterie).
>before, from a series of
> An important contribution to this rationale had come a few years
> open letters written by Vladimir Moss and sent to most of the ROCORclergy, in which he
> made similar allegations.ROCOR had "fallen at the Sobor
> In that first series of letters from V. Moss, the claim was that
> of 1974".HOCNA, ROAC, ROCiE)
> Similar claims have been made by various groups (the Matthewites,
> over the years -- but in them, the date of ROCOR's supposeddownfall was updated more
> than once, to suit individual interests.people's lack of familiarity
> The main key to the influence of such accusations has always been
> with ROCOR's history.
> In Christ
> Fr. John R. Shaw
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>