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

Re: Documents Concerning the HOCNA Separation?

Expand Messages
  • (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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.