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

RE: [orthodox-synod] Re: Documents Concerning the HOCNA Separation?

Expand Messages
  • Fr. Alexis Duncan
    Well, fortuantely, neither you nor I make that decision. :) _________________________________________________ Fr. Alexis Duncan Joy of All Who Sorrow Russian
    Message 1 of 19 , Mar 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Well, fortuantely, neither you nor I make that decision. :)

      _________________________________________________
      Fr. Alexis Duncan
      Joy of All Who Sorrow Russian Orthodox Church
      Atlanta, GA
      www.orthodoxinfo.biz



      Dear Fr. Alexis (bless),

      I read your post and it makes a perfect sense. Except that
      it seems that no one has ever challenged the validity of the
      anathema (within or outside ROCOR). Therefore why would
      anyone want to have it rescinded? The question is, "Does
      ROCOR fall under its own anathema?" and "Who is to decide
      where this anathema applies?"

      viatcheslav
    • DDD
      Odd? Here is an excerpt from an article written by [then] Archbishop Vitaly (Ustinow), printed in Orthodox Life in 1984, No. 4, shortly after the 1983
      Message 2 of 19 , Mar 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Odd? Here is an excerpt from an article written by [then] Archbishop Vitaly (Ustinow), printed in Orthodox Life in 1984, No. 4, shortly after the 1983 Anathema Against Ecumenism appeared:

        "By proclaiming this anathema, we have protected ****our flock**** from this apocalyptic temptation and, at the same time, have reluctantly put before the conscience of all the local Churches a serious issue, which sooner of later they must resolve in one way or the other. The future spiritual fate of the universal Orthodox Church depends on the resolution of this problem. *****The anathema we have proclaimed is *de jure* a manifestaton of a purely local character of the Russian Church Abroad, but *de facto* it has immense significance for the history of the universal Church, for ecumenism is a heresy on a universal scale....******" [small emphasis (*=italics) his, large emphasis (******) mine]

        Some things to note here:

        1) This appeared right after the Anathema, in 1984, and matches exactly what he said later in his 1986 (O.S.)/1987 (N.S.) Nativity Epistle. So, Metr. Vitaly did not take a new stance on the interpretation of the Anathema in 1987, as some claim.

        2) He does say that "de jure" (by law, as far as its force of law goes) it is "a manifestation of a **purely local character*** ***of the Russian Church Abroad***. He also says at the beginning of this paragraph that the other local Churches must resolve this "serious issue" (not Anathema, not decree of the Church, but only an "issue") [themselves], implying it is *not* resolved *for* them by us, the ROCOR.

        3) He then says that *de facto*(in actual fact, or in actual practice), it has immense significance for the history of the universal Church. He says it has significance, but not legal power. He mentions it as something "put before the conscience" of the local Churches. Now an Anathema is not something "put before the conscience" of someone, for them to decide themselves the way he is saying here.

        If Metr. had felt that "the anathema must necessarily speak for the Church as a whole," then he would never have mentioned that "de jure it is a manifestation of a **purely local character*** of the Russian Church Abroad. He is, in fact, precisely saying that the Russian Church Abroad *cannot* speak for the Church as a whole, but only offer an example to "put before the conscience" of the Local Churches.

        ust my 2c/.

        --Dimitra Dwelley




        _________________________________________________________________
        �From: "Fr. Alexis Duncan" <7848@...>�Subject: RE: Re:
        �Documents Concerning the HOCNA Separation?

        �A terribly odd sentiment that I have heard expressed at other times
        �is that the Anathema of 1983 is only for our Church Abroad and her
        �faithful children. It is odd because if we believe our bishops in
        �congregation are led by the Holy Spirit, then the anathema must
        �necessarily speak for the Church as a whole.
      • for4z@aol.com
        There is new website that was started by former victims of Fr. Panteleimon, to warn others of the dangers they feel exist at his monastery . One should be
        Message 3 of 19 , Mar 1, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          There is new website that was started by former victims of Fr. Panteleimon, to warn others of the dangers they feel exist at his monastery . One should be warned, some articles on the site are verbally graphic in nature, as they are personal accounts of the victims themselves. http://hocna.info/

          -Nick Zaharov
        • (matushka) Ann Lardas
          Dear Nick, ... Panteleimon, to warn others of the dangers they feel exist at his monastery . One should be warned, some articles on the site are verbally
          Message 4 of 19 , Mar 1, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear Nick,

            --- In orthodox-synod@yahoogroups.com, for4z@a... wrote:
            > There is new website that was started by former victims of Fr.
            Panteleimon, to warn others of the dangers they feel exist at his
            monastery . One should be warned, some articles on the site are
            verbally graphic in nature, as they are personal accounts of the
            victims themselves.

            I am no defender of HOCNA, but I wouldn't send people to the site you
            mention, not just because it's amazingly graphic and judgemental, but
            also because there is nothing to indicate who sponsors it. Sometimes
            there are things people have to know, in order to be wary. Statements
            by our bishops tend to include such material. This particular site
            gives more information than anyone needs, much of it in a petty and
            judgemental manner. It's not conducive to peace and almost takes away
            from the gravity of the issues which are really at stake here.

            The late Met. Philaret, upon receiving and destroying an unsigned
            letter, remarked that an anonymous letter "is written by a charlatan -
            - and believed by a fool." I would not go so far as to say that this
            statement pertains to the site you mention, but enough of the
            material there is already available at pokrov.org (say what you will
            of it, you know who runs it) that one doesn't have to take any
            chances.

            While the sexual allegations against Fr. Panteleimon receive the most
            notice, various of the faithful had asked our bishops also to look
            into controversial liturgical practices which Holy Transfiguration
            Monastery enaged in, contrary to the directives of the Synod of
            Bishops, such as receiving "converts" from new calendar jurisdictions
            by Chrismation rather than by confession and communion, their
            distribution and propagation of Lev Puhalo's theory on the soul after
            death, and other such matters. The flight of the HOCNA clergy before
            such things could come to pass means that so very much remains
            unresolved, or has never been disputed or discussed.

            From the lives of the Saints, we learn that in everything they
            encountered, no matter how unseemly, they looked for something to
            admire and emmulate. And so we should here. How different church life
            could be if we showed the same sort of love and loyalty to our
            bishops, who deserve it, that the followers of Fr. Panteleimon into
            schism and beyond show him -- refusing to believe ill of him,
            unwilling to discuss his faults in public and in private working on
            forgiving them in their hearts. May God enlighten them and lead them
            back to the Church. The whole thing is extremely sad and continues to
            split families to this day. We can only love and pray.

            In Christ,
            Matushka Ann Lardas
          • Fr. John R. Shaw
            ... JRS: Are you saying that then-Archbishop Vitaly, when he wrote in 1984 that it was only a local measure, was offering twisted logic ? ... JRS: Perhaps it
            Message 5 of 19 , Mar 2, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Fr. Alexis Duncan wrote:

              > At best only a local "measure" of a local church? That seems
              > to be somewhat twisted logic.

              JRS: Are you saying that then-Archbishop Vitaly, when he wrote in 1984 that it was only a
              local measure, was offering "twisted logic"?

              > An anathema isn't a "measure";

              JRS: Perhaps it was a mistake to represent this as an anathema. The bishops, after all, did not
              really hurl any anathemas; they simply heard Vl. Afanassy say in his speech that "we ought to
              include the ecumenists and modernists among those anathematized in the Sunday of
              Orthodoxy service".

              In Christ
              Fr. John R. Shaw
            • Fr. Alexis Duncan
              You completely miss the point Dimitra. Certainly the Church Abroad has only the power to act within Her boundaries. However, if what She has to say is an
              Message 6 of 19 , Mar 2, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                You completely miss the point Dimitra. Certainly the Church Abroad has only the power to act within Her boundaries. However, if what She has to say is an immutable truth, then is most surely applicable to the entire Church. For example, when the Church of Greece glorified St. Nectarios, they were acting only on behalf of the local church. However, it is apparent to all that St. Nectarios is a saint glorified in heaven. Therefore, the entire chorus of the Orthodox Church sings his praises. If some local Orthodox Church chooses not to glorify him as a saint, they have that right I suppose. But they would be wrong, would they not?

                _________________________________________________
                Fr. Alexis Duncan
                Joy of All Who Sorrow Russian Orthodox Church
                Atlanta, GA
                www.orthodoxinfo.biz



                Odd? Here is an excerpt from an article written by [then] Archbishop Vitaly (Ustinow), printed in Orthodox Life in 1984, No. 4, shortly after the 1983 Anathema Against Ecumenism appeared:

                "By proclaiming this anathema, we have protected ****our flock**** from this apocalyptic temptation and, at the same time, have reluctantly put before the conscience of all the local Churches a serious issue, which sooner of later they must resolve in one way or the other. The future spiritual fate of the universal Orthodox Church depends on the resolution of this problem. *****The anathema we have proclaimed is *de jure* a manifestaton of a purely local character of the Russian Church Abroad, but *de facto* it has immense significance for the history of the universal Church, for ecumenism is a heresy on a universal scale....******" [small emphasis (*=italics) his, large emphasis (******) mine]

                Some things to note here:

                1) This appeared right after the Anathema, in 1984, and matches exactly what he said later in his 1986 (O.S.)/1987 (N.S.) Nativity Epistle. So, Metr. Vitaly did not take a new stance on the interpretation of the Anathema in 1987, as some claim.

                2) He does say that "de jure" (by law, as far as its force of law goes) it is "a manifestation of a **purely local character*** ***of the Russian Church Abroad***. He also says at the beginning of this paragraph that the other local Churches must resolve this "serious issue" (not Anathema, not decree of the Church, but only an "issue") [themselves], implying it is *not* resolved *for* them by us, the ROCOR.

                3) He then says that *de facto*(in actual fact, or in actual practice), it has immense significance for the history of the universal Church. He says it has significance, but not legal power. He mentions it as something "put before the conscience" of the local Churches. Now an Anathema is not something "put before the conscience" of someone, for them to decide themselves the way he is saying here.

                If Metr. had felt that "the anathema must necessarily speak for the Church as a whole," then he would never have mentioned that "de jure it is a manifestation of a **purely local character*** of the Russian Church Abroad. He is, in fact, precisely saying that the Russian Church Abroad *cannot* speak for the Church as a whole, but only offer an example to "put before the conscience" of the Local Churches.

                ust my 2c/.

                --Dimitra Dwelley




                _________________________________________________________________
                From: "Fr. Alexis Duncan" <7848@...>Subject: RE: Re:
                Documents Concerning the HOCNA Separation?

                A terribly odd sentiment that I have heard expressed at other times
                is that the Anathema of 1983 is only for our Church Abroad and her
                faithful children. It is odd because if we believe our bishops in
                congregation are led by the Holy Spirit, then the anathema must
                necessarily speak for the Church as a whole.





                Archives located at http://www.egroups.com/group/orthodox-synod


                Yahoo! Groups Links
              • Fr. Alexis Duncan
                No Fr. John. The synod of bishops published an anathema to be appended to the service for those who have gone astray, sung on the Sunday of Orthodoxy. You know
                Message 7 of 19 , Mar 2, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  No Fr. John. The synod of bishops published an anathema to
                  be appended to the service for those who have gone astray,
                  sung on the Sunday of Orthodoxy. You know that well and I am
                  sure you have a copy of it. It wasn't just a "hearing" of a
                  report or suggestion of Vladika Afannassy. Why would you
                  suggest such an obvious misrepresentation? I have noticed
                  that often when arguments find no substantive response, we
                  frequently hear bits and pieces of nonsensical "infobytes"
                  that may or may not be true, bearing no relation to the
                  current discussion.

                  Fr. John, let me ask. Are you saying that the anathema was
                  wrong and should be rescinded? Are you saying that what is
                  states represents a falsehood? If not, then why are you
                  attempting to make strides in discrediting it? Just curious.

                  _________________________________________________
                  Fr. Alexis Duncan
                  Joy of All Who Sorrow Russian Orthodox Church
                  Atlanta, GA
                  www.orthodoxinfo.biz

                  JRS: Perhaps it was a mistake to represent this as an
                  anathema. The bishops, after all, did not
                  really hurl any anathemas; they simply heard Vl. Afanassy
                  say in his speech that "we ought to
                  include the ecumenists and modernists among those
                  anathematized in the Sunday of
                  Orthodoxy service".
                • Fr. John R. Shaw
                  ... JRS: It isn t a misrepresentation -- it s a fact. The bishops, including Metropolitan Philaret, never had any intention of publishing an anathema . We
                  Message 8 of 19 , Mar 2, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Fr. Alexis Duncan wrote:

                    > No Fr. John. The synod of bishops published an anathema to
                    > be appended to the service for those who have gone astray,
                    > sung on the Sunday of Orthodoxy. You know that well and I am
                    > sure you have a copy of it. It wasn't just a "hearing" of a
                    > report or suggestion of Vladika Afannassy. Why would you
                    > suggest such an obvious misrepresentation?

                    JRS: It isn't a "misrepresentation" -- it's a fact.

                    The bishops, including Metropolitan Philaret, never had any intention of "publishing an
                    anathema". We have been over this a thousand times.

                    What happened is that, unexpectedly for all, Vl. Afanassy made that remark in his speech.

                    It was not on the agenda at all.

                    There was also no vote taken on it, no motion that it be made part of the acts of the Sobor.
                    But Bishop Gregory added it to the minutes, and Metropolitan Philaret almost always deferred
                    to Bishop Gregory's views.

                    If you don't believe that, there is the amazing fact that the text was written, not in Russian or
                    Slavonic, but *in English* -- at a time when there was not a single ROCOR bishop whose
                    native language was English.

                    If this "anathema" had been part of the program, it would either have been prepared in
                    advance, and in Slavonic, or else it would have been composed by one or more of the
                    bishops at the Sobor -- in their own language, not in English.

                    The text had to be translated from English into Russian and Slavonic, which is pretty
                    convincing proof that the bishops did not create it.

                    Subsequently, there was also no announcement of this "anathema", until Fr. Neketas Palassis
                    announced it in his "Orthodox Christian Witness".

                    If this had been something planned by the bishops, it would have been on the front page of
                    Pravoslavnaya Rus' immediately after the Sobor.

                    > I have noticed
                    > that often when arguments find no substantive response, we
                    > frequently hear bits and pieces of nonsensical "infobytes"
                    > that may or may not be true, bearing no relation to the
                    > current discussion.

                    JRS: In this case, I am simply telling the FACTS of the case -- a case that is so stubbornly
                    misrepresented by those whose only purpose is to attack ROCOR.

                    > Fr. John, let me ask. Are you saying that the anathema was
                    > wrong and should be rescinded? Are you saying that what is
                    > states represents a falsehood? If not, then why are you
                    > attempting to make strides in discrediting it? Just curious.

                    JRS: Note that you never answered my question: are you saying that Vl. Vitaly was "twisting"
                    when he said that it applied only to ROCOR?

                    I am not "attempting to make strides" in discrediting it.

                    Also I have repeatedly answered your other questions above before you asked them.

                    No, the contents are not false; what is false, is the way this text is represented: as if it were
                    an ecumenical anathema hurled against the other Orthodox Churches, and therefore falling
                    upon ROCOR, for having even the least contacts with them.

                    Please note also: that when such anti-ROCOR arguments are thrown at us, you remain silent.
                    But when someone like Fr. Alexander, Fr. Stefan or myself sets the record straight -- then
                    you are concerned, and "reply" to the defenders of ROCOR!

                    In Christ
                    Fr. John R. Shaw
                  • Fr. John R. Shaw
                    ... act within Her boundaries. However, if what She has to say is an immutable truth, then is most surely applicable to the entire Church. For example, when
                    Message 9 of 19 , Mar 2, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Fr. Alexis Duncan wrote:

                      > You completely miss the point Dimitra. Certainly the Church Abroad has only the power to
                      act within Her boundaries. However, if what She has to say is an immutable truth, then is
                      most surely applicable to the entire Church. For example, when the Church of Greece
                      glorified St. Nectarios, they were acting only on behalf of the local church. However, it is
                      apparent to all that St. Nectarios is a saint glorified in heaven. Therefore, the entire chorus of
                      the Orthodox Church sings his praises. If some local Orthodox Church chooses not to glorify
                      him as a saint, they have that right I suppose. But they would be wrong, would they not?

                      JRS: All Saints were first glorified (or even accepted without any formal glorification) by the
                      local Churches in which they lived.

                      Many such Saints were not in the calendars of the other Churches, at least not till recently:
                      thus for example till a few years ago, "Edward" was thought not to be an Orthodox name.

                      But local anathemas are not cast by the universal Church, and even if what they say is in
                      accordance with the teaching of the Church, they do not automatically place anyone outside
                      the Church.

                      If an anathema is accepted by an Ecumenical Council, this means that it expresses what the
                      Church has always taught.

                      It does not mean, even in that case, that the anathema takes on a life of its own, and that
                      unsuspecting victims who think they are still Church members, or clergy who are still
                      outwardly "in good standing", cease to be such without any action by the hierarchy.

                      If that were the case, nobody could be sure they really belonged to the Church at all.

                      In Christ
                      Fr. John R. Shaw
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.