13725Re: [orthodox-synod] Documents Concerning the HOCNA Separation?
- Mar 1, 2005Fr.George Kochergin stated that three times a contingent went to the Synod in New York to have a statement written by ROCOR that it did not serve with the Serbs who are in WCC and ecumenism. This statement was never written.
And it was B.Alipy who ordained Fr.Gregory, now B.Gregory of Colorado, when monk Gregory was an accuser, although Monk Gregory says nothing like that happened to him personally and he was not an eye witness either.
"Fr. John R. Shaw" <vrevjrs@...> wrote:Paul Bartlett wrote:
> On another forum someone has asked if anyone know a source for theJRS: HOCNA produced an "information packet" that at one point was about a ream of paper.
> (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.
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
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
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.
Fr. John R. Shaw
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>