Dear to Christ N.,
Evlogeite! Greetings in the Lord!
I received your letter dated January 18, 2013. It is not clear if you received my letter to you dated December 12/25 yet and I know you have not yet received my letter dated January 6/19, 2012.
N., Fr. Isaac told me on August 20 in front of a witness (Fr. Barsanuphius) that if he had told me the truth about Fr. Panteleimon sexually harassing and abusing monks in 1986 when the first flush of accusations came out I would have left Holy Transfiguration Monastery. That is correct.
Fr. Isaac has admitted to all of the fathers of Holy Transfiguration Monastery assembled in a formal meeting on September 12 that he had covered-up and lied about Fr. Panteleimon’s transgressions. He has admitted this to the assembled clergy of New England also. I did not tell you Fr. Panteleimon abused me or harassed me, I told you that he touched me in ways I found disturbing and could make one suspicious, but at the time I rationalized it away …with Fr. Isaac’s help…who knew the full truth of what Fr. Panteleimon was capable of.
Your admonitions and speculations are irrelevant in the face of Fr. Isaac’s admissions in front of dozens and dozens of witnesses. Furthermore, several fathers made admissions to many of us after August 20 that the abuse and harassment was far worse than we had initially thought. I will spare you the unedifying details.
At this same meeting on August 20, in front of a witness, I told Fr. Isaac that I could no longer trust him and that I would from that point consider Bishop Demetrius my spiritual father, with whom I had already been sharing confidentialities with Fr. Isaac’s blessing for over a year. I told Fr. Isaac that for as long as he was abbot I would be obedient to him in day to day issues for the time being. Fr. Isaac said, with tears, that this was fine with him.
N., the issue of Name-worship has been a cause of debate in Holy Transfiguration since Bishop Gregory Lourie (an ardent apologist for Bulatovich and his beliefs) took Holy Communion in the altar at Holy Transfiguration Monastery.[1] That was in the fall of 2011. It became even more a concern when Metropolitan Ephraim, Fr. Panteleimon, Fr. Isaac, and bishop-elect Gregory tried to justify the incident and show open sympathy to the heresy at the monastery Corporate Meeting in November of 2011.
I wrote a letter to Metropolitan Ephraim in March of 2012 warning him that if he pushed the episcopal consecration of Hieromonk Gregory through it would fracture the diocese and monastery. Many of the fathers in the monastery and New England clergy did the same. Bishop Demetrius bitterly repents that he acquiesced to Hieromonk Gregory’s consecration after bishop-elect Gregory wrote him [Bishop Demetrius], at his specific request, a document that promised that he [bishop-elect Gregory] would drop the issue of vindicating the Name-Worshippers, which Bishop Gregory did not abide by. Likewise Metropolitan Ephraim also assured Bishop Demetrius that the issue of the Name-worshippers would be dropped.
Father Issac asked me to come to his office on numerous occasions to give me new proof of the validity of the Name-worshipper’s arguments. I would briefly counter him, first and foremost that the issue had been settled long ago by the Church and we had no business revisiting it. If Father Isaac wished to discuss it more I would then engage him theologically, after which he would just say that he did not understand the issues and we should just leave it alone…but obviously he did not. The issue was not and is not a “red herring.” And since you were not there, how would you know anyway?
In a formal meeting of the monastery on September 3, n.s., the entire community told Fr. Isaac that we wished to try to keep the community together. We wished him to tell the Metropolitan to confirm the synodical decisions of the entire Church on the Name-worshipping controversy and to drop the issue. He agreed, but then later reneged to our utter dismay. The Holy Fathers with one voice tell us to depart from Bishops and spiritual fathers that sympathize with condemned heretics and heresies.
I personally witnessed Bishop Demetrius pleading with Fr. Isaac many times to sympathize with the majority of his monks and keep the monastery brotherhood intact and not cave into the pressure being put on him by Metropolitan Ephraim, Bishop Gregory, and Fr. Panteleimon, which would divide the community.
Now, please allow me to address your assertions about our motives being “worldly and ambitious.”
We are living in very rustic, even primitive conditions. We do not know when and how God will provide for us to finish the church and monastery. It may be a few a years, or a few decades or not at all. The difference between 278 Warren Street and 521 Cold Brook Road as far as convenience, “creature comforts” and economic stability are radical. It is not a picnic. But we trust in God.
Bishop Demetrius went from being Bishop #3 in HOCNA to being Bishop #15 in the GOC. We have joined the Church in Greece that our Hierarchs recognized as Orthodox and canonical in 2010. Almost all the bishops (in particular Metropolitan Athanassios of Larissa who was Locum Tenens for a brief time after the repose of Archbishop Auxentios and Metropolitan Akakios of Diavlia who was the first bishop we went under when we left ROCOR on trumped-up charges in 1986 to avoid the matter of Fr. Panteleimon being investigated), clergy, monastics, and laity in Greece that were once with Archbishop Auxentios are now with Archbishop Kallinikos and the GOC. Have you read Metropolitan Moses’ excellent paper on this that he wrote in 2010?
I never told you that HOCNA was the last and only Orthodox Church. I told you that there are many True Orthodox Churches in Orthodox Homelands and that they are separated by minor issues of administration and practice and that for the most part the laity could receive Holy Communion in any of these churches. It was with great joy that I saw HOCNA fully recognize the GOC in 2010, even though they have not fully and completely eradicated the practice of certain clergy not being careful about giving Holy Communion to simple New Calendar laity (even though Archbishop Auxentios did this, i.e. commune simple New Calendarist laity, as well as four-fifths of the hierarchy, including St. John Maximovich, of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad during Holy Transfiguration Monastery’s entire time with them , and even some HOCNA clergymen have). To decry this as a major matter of faith as HOCNA now does is revisionist history and hypocrisy.[2]
I do not believe you have read my March 2012 letter to Metropolitan Ephraim, nor my August 6/19 letter to Fr. Isaac which was read to Fr. Isaac on August 20 in front of a witness and then discussed in a completely unsatisfactory way with Metropolitan Ephraim on August 21 with four witnesses present (Bishop Demetrius, Fr. Isaac, Fr. Haralampos, and Fr. Barsanuphius). I do not think you have seen my letter to Metropolitan Ephraim of August 21 in which I expressed the witnesses’ (with the exception of Fr. Isaac) and my complete dismay with his obfuscating.
We did not threaten a lawsuit, but we calmly discussed in an official corporate meeting on September 11 with the entire brotherhood of the monastery present what the fathers staying at 278 Warren Street would be willing to give us since Fr. Isaac wished us to depart. Fr. Hesychius said that they were giving us a “gift” and at that I point stood up and made it clear that we were giving HTM a gift also because we could, if we wished, take them to court on several issues which did not even involve the immorality of Fr. Panteleimon and that we had received assurance from both lawyers and some of our dads who were corporate executives that it would not go well for HTM at all. It remains to be seen if the fathers will honor their agreement since we did not insist on a notarized legal document.
For you to preach to me about monastic poverty and how wrong it is ask for anything from men who lied outrageously to me for most of my adult life would be like me telling you to just passively accept your fate in prison as God’s will and to just die there in repentance for your sins.
Considering the wealth of Holy Transfiguration Monastery, we have only received a pittance to help get us started. Since they are not legally bound we have simply taken them at their word. At this point it seems that that the property in Maine is going to be sold at almost half a million less than its market value. When Father Isaac offered the property in Maine to us at the official special meeting of the community on September 11 (I repeat we did not ask or demand anything) we thought it would be best if they simply gave us the deed and we would sell it since it would be in our best interest to get the best possible price. Many in the community saw nothing wrong with our request. Fr. Hesychius remonstrated with us that it seemed we did not trust them, and that it would be easier for them to sell the property since they were closer and they would try to get the best possible price for it.
…. In a few cases one of the monks that left took liberties, and when this was pointed out to us we made it right immediately, returning to them whatever they asked returned… In the consequent months the fathers remaining in Boston have become more and more difficult to deal with. They seem to be angry that they are left with a more than half-empty monastery that is proving to be ever more difficult to sustain.
….I will be happy to send you any of the above documents, but I think it would be best to let it rest for a year. Let the dust settle and your emotions quiet down. You obviously want to return and stay in HOCNA. Well, stay and God bless, preserve, and enlighten you. At present it makes no sense for either us to waste any more time on this.
You remain in my prayers, unworthy though they be.
With love in Christ,
P.S. Today (January 28 N.S.) I received your letter postmarked January 22. There are no directions in it about where you want us to send your wooden baptismal cross and baptismal robe. I assume you still have not received my short letter about this yet.
N., we need to look at the Russian in the quotes of St. John of Kronstadt very carefully. The meanings Bulatovich and the Name-worshippers wish to ascribe St. John’s words are not Orthodox. One must always be careful to take everything written by the saints in context. St. John the Solitary says, “God is silence.” So are we to adore silence? Are we to consider silence to be the Energy of God? Certainly God’s Energies can be found in silence and silence is very conducive to experiencing God’s Energies…but silence is not “God!” Nothing created, not even our Lord’s human nature, or His Name can be ontologically God’s energies.
You will note that St. John says that in that Name you have the Lord’s whole being…I agree…but the Name is not His very Being. The name holds His grace, It does not become His grace.
The quote that St. John looked on the Name of the Trinity as the very substance of God is very suspect; because that is saying that in seeing the Name St. John sees the essence of God. That is either a bad translation or a mistake of the moment in St. John’s diary.
Regardless, individual Saints can make mistakes, even grave ones. St. John reposed in 1908, so he was not around in 1913 to explain what he exactly meant or to repent if he had made a mistake in the moment. Frankly, jotted down thoughts in what was at the time a personal diary hardly constitutes the basis for formal dogmatic statements of such magnitude. St. Justin Martyr believed in the millennium, St. Gregory of Nyssa appears to have believed in Universal Salvation, as well as St. Isaac the Syrian, but these great and holy Fathers of Fathers mistakes are not taken over the collective voice of the Church.
I will repeat—not only the cream of the Russian Orthodox Church condemned Bulatovich and his followers, but the entire Orthodox Church. Not one bishop and not one Local Church openly went into dissent over these decisions for a century. It was a historical footnote.
This became an issue in some parishes composed of Russians and converts that were in the GOC and the GOC confirmed the decisions made by the entire Church a century ago. Thus matter was quickly put rest in the GOC several years before it came to blow up HOCNA. We may venerate and worship the name of God but not adore it.
We do the same with all the Holy things of the Church. We adore the consecrated Eucharist because in a unique way God is totally present in an unconfused union with the Bread and Wine in the Liturgy and in a reserved Communion Service. However, we must take note that the Church does not worship the Eucharist outside the Liturgy like the Roman Catholics. His Essence is present everywhere, but unknowable to creatures, His Energies are present everywhere, but communicated only by His Mercy to those whom He alone knows are worthy.
Finally, Fr. Panteleimon is not “gone” but is still very active unfortunately. It is fairly obvious that he is on the phone giving directives. He has been at the monastery in Boston, even overnight several nights in a row, eating in the dining room at the head of the table, standing in the altar, chanting in the services, etc. Fr. Panteleimon served a memorial service and then proceeded to try to serve the funeral, but Bishop Gregory told him not to.
Metropolitan Ephraim and Fr. Isaac are subject to same canonical penalties as Fr. Panteleimon, but since they recognize no other Orthodox bishops in the whole world (even though they did in recent memory) they are accountable to no one except Metropolitan Makarios and Bishop Gregory, who cannot even judge their case for reasons I have told you elsewhere.
N., as painful as it was for me, I had to admit to myself that the grace and blessings I received those 27 years were by God’s mercy in spite of HOCNA’s being in schism from their lawful hierarchs since we separated very prematurely from ROCOR. We see many times in Church history when there are faithful who have been misled and God’s grace does not immediately abandon them.
Fr. Panteleimon and Fr. Isaac were canonically suspended in 1986 and deposed in 1987 by Orthodox bishops from whom they fled because they did not want to face up to Fr. Panteleimon’s problems. Would you like to see copies of the documents?
Metropolitan Ephraim was ordained by two bishops who had been canonically deposed by their synod of 20 bishops (15 for deposing Archbishop Auxentios for refusing to appear before a spiritual court of his peers and 5 against), so his ordinations are highly irregular and need to be regularized by a canonical synod of Orthodox bishops. We who do not speak Greek or have access to all the periodicals and documents were lied to about this too by men we trusted. Not only have I come to this conclusion, but three bishops, 37 clergy, and thousands of faithful have also.
The time finally came by a series of events God permitted in His mercy to allow us to open our eyes and to repent. By acknowledging and returning to the GOC we have healed a schism, not created one (just as the vast majority of bishops, clergy, and faithful have in Greece). If those still in HOCNA want to accuse us of schism that is their prerogative. You must know that none of the canonical Traditional Orthodox Synods in the world takes HOCNA’s claims seriously. You really must read Metropolitan Moses’s official presentation on this.
I told Fr. Isaac on August 21 in front of a witness that I feared we were on the brink of schism, heresy, and sectarianism. As things developed further I saw that we were not on the brink, but had fallen into the abyss. There are many bishops, even those formerly from HOCNA and from HTM and/or American converts (Metropolitan Moses is both from HTM and a convert from Roman Catholicism and Bishop Sergios is an American convert from Protestantism who was a priest for decades in the “OCA” who sat at the feet of some of the most noteworthy theologians in the New Calendar churches i.e. Fr. Alexander Schmemann, Fr. John Meyendorff, and Fr. Georges Florovsky) who extended their arms to pull us out. Some of us have humbly and gratefully grasped their hands, and some have not. God forces no one. But I warn you, it takes much prayer, much pain, and much God-given humility. Without God’s grace we will only seek to justify ourselves.
Again, let us let this rest a year or so my friend. Until then you remain in my prayers, unworthy though I be.
P.P.S. N., I have received your letter dated 1/28/13. I will send your cross and robe to Fr. A.
I would like you to read the papers I have enclosed, which include primary documents, very carefully. I think you should read the extended lives of St. Sabbas the Sanctified (December 5), St. Theodosius the Cenobiarch (January 11), St. Euthymius the Great (January 20), St. Maximus the Confessor (January 25, August 13, September 20) and St. Theodore the Studite (November 11, January 26) because your understanding of monastic obedience is not correct.
The complete lives of the first three written are by Cyril of Scythopolis (The Lives of the Monks of Palestine, Cistercian Press isbn 0879079142). The others are in the Great Collection of the Lives of the Saints that you have there. These would be more to your profit to read and quote than religious novels (the two volumes of “Fr. Arsenie”) fabricated by the deeply corrupt Sergianist and ultra-Ecumenist Moscow Patriarchate….
You qualified that a monk can only be disobedient in the face of “blatant heresy” and you continue to shut your eyes to the fact that this heresy and its propagator Bulatovich have been condemned by the whole Church and furthermore our very own fathers from whom the True Orthodox Church in Greece (and HOCNA for many years was an organic part of the Church of Greece—see Metropolitan Moses’s excellent paper on this indisputable fact) has received its Apostolic succession, most of whom are glorified or un-glorified saints in the Church.
You also seem to be unaware that a monk may, furthermore, leave his place of obedience if there is sexual immorality in the monastery lest he become corrupted either by being victimized, tempted, or become an accomplice.
These are the reasons why I am living in a barn in the mountains now and not in a rather nice suite of rooms on an estate in one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the country (I am not exaggerating, because it was my obedience to know what the assets of the monastery in Brookline were.) That is why I left a monastery where I was, despite my sins, a respected senior father who was almost unconditionally trusted and had many privileges with everything and anything I wanted or needed within reason and have come to a monastery where I have placed myself in obedience to men young enough to be my children.
Another one of the most senior fathers of HTM, and one of the most respected clergymen in HOCNA, Priestmonk Haralampos, has been asked to leave HTM. He does not want to stay there anymore anyway and has not even received antidoron and holy water from HOCNA, let alone Holy Communion since October 2012. They gave him a deadline to get out and he is moving to Holy Ascension Monastery. At least Fr. Isaac did not give a deadline us this fall; he just wanted to leave as soon as possible.
My dear friend, brother, and spiritual son, your assertions of us having “worldly and ambitious motives” could be laughable in the face of these facts. However, they are not laughable because of the tragedy of the shipwreck of so many souls. This is because of the stubborn pride of men I still try to love and pray for but can no longer trust, respect, or be in obedience to, because they refuse to answer to the Church and be healed of the festering spiritual wounds and sicknesses that have been revealed to our horrified eyes.
Please try to understand that if HOCNA’s bishops recognized the GOC as being Orthodox and blessed its flock to receive the Holy Mysteries from them, they are accountable to them. HOCNA relinquished all ecclesiastical claims in Greece and told the few parishes and monastic communities that still commemorated the bishops in North America to go under their local bishops since there was no impediment.
Metropolitan Ephraim’s novel theory of recognizing another Local Church and yet reserving the right to arbitrarily determine one’s accountability to that Church, especially when it comes to matters of faith or deep corruption of many years standing just does not stand up to the historical record on how the Orthodox Church operates. To suddenly find them heretical (when they are not) or to find practices that make them no longer truly Orthodox (the Holy Communion issue) when it is no longer convenient is disingenuous.
We have now heard that HOCNA wishes to approach the Synod under Archbishop Makarios of Greece. They are desperate to be in communion with someone or anyone who will recognize their claims. This Synod, like the GOC, does have parishes that have the “Trinity” icon. They have some clergymen who give Holy Communion to simple New Calendar laity. They have some clergymen that will not give Holy Communion to the Faithful on Sundays (because you cannot fast from oil on Saturdays). These are some of Metropolitan Ephraim’s favorite “straw men” he sets up to cast mud at the GOC, even though he was well aware that all of these practices existed in the GOC since time immemorial…and all except the no Communion on Sundays because of the fasting rules [also existed] in ROCOR as well.
The Synod of Archbishop Makarios was started by two bishops, one of them (Euthymius of Thessalonica) had fled from the GOC because he was going to be investigated on charges of immorality involving minors. Ah…and they do, however, have a bishop who has written a book very sympathetic to Bulatovich and his errors. They are known to have toleration for immorality in the clergy and subsequently have attracted men who have a history of scandal. They hardly represent the consensus of the Traditional Orthodox Christians of Greece.
You wrote in your letter postmarked January 7, and I quote, “Please do not visit with us any longer here at SCI Dallas.” I have heard you say countless times that P. is “nominal” and I do not know what right you have to speak for M., Q., R., or S. I am not sure why, at this point, we would have much to say to one another. If I have understood your letters of late you consider me a liar and a conspirator, a person consumed by greed and ambitious, and an ungrateful pseudo-monk. Well, God bless you, for the holy fathers have taught me to accept whatever anyone one wants to say about me save two, and that is I am not a heretic or a schismatic. I will not justify a heresy condemned by the Church; I will not consider the Name of Jesus Christ or the Holy Trinity to be Divine Energies. I have gone to bishops that the HOCNA bishops fully recognized as Orthodox and a jurisdiction that HOCNA faithful were given permission to commune in. We gave their faithful Communion as well. Then it became “sour grapes.”
Please tell me exactly what the GOC does officially that I once fought vehemently against? Is it the Holy Communion issue? Well, I cover that issue above. Yes, I can recall going over and over with you the problems with the New Calendar Churches, but we rarely spoke about the other True Orthodox Churches and I never taught you that HOCNA is the ONLY bastion of True Orthodoxy and I was never, ever taught that in all the years I was in HOCNA and I can bring forth dozens of witnesses to confirm this.
N., Fr. Y. and I think you are in way over your head. I cannot blame you for being a victim of misinformation. You simply do not have the knowledge of recent Church history, of what our legacy from the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is, of the lives of the saints who lived in times of dogmatic and moral crisis, and of some very basic dogma. The mere fact that you would quote St. John of Kronstadt saying he sees “the substance of God” in a note in his diary is a case in point. Not only does that contradict the hapless Metropolitan Ephraim and Bishop Gregory (for they claim the Name of God is the energy and not the substance (essence) of God), it contradicts one of the most basic theological truths of Orthodoxy.
Finally, you may wonder and ask how it was that I could be so mistaken about the leaders of HOCNA and their motives all those years. Allow me to defer to the humble thoughts of St. Nikolai Velimirovic found in his Reflection on page 90 in Volume One of The Prologue of Ochrid. You have it in your library. If some of the greatest luminaries of the Church could be fooled, why should I be surprised at my unwitting mistaken judgment?
You may keep me on your visitor’s list if you wish, but I really think we should let this rest for a year as I have written above. In the mean time I do not see why P., Q., M., or R. should be deprived of the consolation of quarterly visits.
Time reveals all things. Let us beseech God to respond with humility and truthfulness to what is revealed.
Enclosed:
1. March 2012 Letter from Fr. Sergius to Metropolitan Ephraim
2. August 29, 2012 Letter from Fr. Nicholas to Bishop Gregory of Concord (now Bishop Gregory of Brookline)
3. September 3, 2012 Letter from Fr. Nicholas to the New England Monks and Clergy
4. The History of the Local Eparchal (Regional) Synod of H.O.C.N.A. in the Light of the 34th Apostolic Canon
5. Holy Tradition, the Canonical Order of the Church, and the Good Witness of the Orthodox Christian Faith—A Position Paper by Metropolitan Moses of Portland
6. Addendum to the Position Paper
7. September 13 E-mail from Metropolitan Moses to Fr. Basil
8. September 13 E-mail from Fr. Parthenius to Fr. Basil
9. A Plea Presented to the Hierarchs of HOCNA by a HOCNA clergyman (who is now with the GOC) at the October 2012 Clergy Synaxis
10. Letter to Anastasia
11. An Excurses on the HOCNA Statements of October 8 and 10
Showing posts with label Schism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Schism. Show all posts
Monday, October 21, 2013
From Fr. Parthenius to Fr. Basil
From: Fr Parthenius
Subject: Fwd: reply to Fr. Basil
Date: September 13, 2012 1:27:30 PM EDT
To: monks@thehtm.org
Father Basil has been spreading a great deal of misinformation about the Synod of the GOC under Archbishop Kallinikos.
First of all, HOCNA recognized the GOC as the canonical church of Greece in October 2010. In so doing, it simply recognized what was already the reality: namely, that the vast majority of the Old Calendarists in Greece belong to the GOC. And why is that? Obviously, because the GOC is the linear continuation of the Old Calendar Church of Greece. Archbishops Chysostomos (Kiousis) and Kallinikos are the successors to Arch. Auxentius, and there is no rival claimant to the throne of Athens who possesses any canonical legitimacy. This should all be obvious, because the Synod of Auxentius ceased to exist as a separate body, and almost all of its churches, clergy, and bishops were incorporated into the GOC.
It is not necessary to bring up here the fact that Archbishop Auxentius of blessed memory himself stood on weak ground after 1985. After all, the Holy Synod's vote carried 15 (for Chrysostomos Kiousis) to 5 (for Auxentius). This was the case because apart from his misadministration, it is no secret that Arch. Auxentius did in fact ordain immoral men to the episcopacy – witness Paisius, Vikentius, and Euthymius. Whatever was left of the synod of Auxentius joined up with the GOC under Chysostomos, because the GOC has no toleration for immorality (unlike HOCNA, whose founding members were engaged in immoral behavior over a period of decades.)
The “ecumenist” statements you mention from the GOC bishops are mostly hearsay and are completely out of context, to the point that they have no force or meaning. You know very well that the GOC bishops are not ecumenist, and would not defend any such statement from an ecumenist point of view. None of your quotes which you are so obsessive to track down can change the clear fact that the bishops of the GOC are unshakable in their confession of the Orthodox faith and their opposition to ecumenism. This is easily proven from the official documents of the Synod, such as the anathemas against ecumenism of 1998; the statements from the dialogue with the Cyprianites; and the statements from the dialogue with the Tikhonites. All these documents are crystal clear in their exposition of an Orthodox anti-ecumenist ecclesiology.
Furthermore, your accusations against the GOC are really just hypocrisy, because the same sort of statements and actions which you so oppose in the GOC were occurring during the time of Archbishop Auxentius--but not a word was said. Specifically, Fr Panteleimon called him a "semi-ecumenist" and published it in "The Orthodox Christian Witness," just a little while before joining with him.
There was never a recantation.
Moreover, it was Archbishop Auxentius who accepted the Portuguese bishops, and the Free-Serb bishops (thanks to Paisios of NY) who were masons.
Do people know that when Metropolitan Makarios served in Petroupouli (the residence of Archbishop Auxentius) and made an announcement that only those who follow the traditional calendar can come forward to take Communion, the nuns told him, "PLEASE do not make that announcement again"!
Also, a very faithful archimandrite of the Archbishop who was a very reliable source told us that Abbess Xenia herself (the abbess of the aforementioned convent) took Communion in the new-calendarist Churches. When asked "did the Archbishop know," he said, "of course he knew"!
Or perhaps you didn't see the article which was written by Archbishop Auxentius' official periodical in Greece praising the Patriarch of Jerusalem with his entourage, and welcomed them to Greece after their arrival.
On the other hand, maybe you do remember that after St Photios the Great was exiled, when he returned to Constantinople he went to the "adulterer bishop" Ignatius and made a full prostration to him! It was the same St Photios who said "let God consign all previous events to oblivion."
Not to mention as well the differences of opinion concerning strictness and leniency throughout the centuries. For example, Archbishop Demetrius Homatianos of Bulgaria was the one who (during the 13th century) said that we allow the Latins to take Communion "for their enlightenment." Not because such a thing is correct, it clearly is not, but, according to your mentality, the Church should have ceased to exist centuries ago.
Finally, you praise Archbishop Tikhon to the skies, while overlooking the fact that his Synod espoused a Cyprianite ecclesiology until 2010, when they deliberately changed their ecclesiology at the insistence of the GOC, as a precondition for entering into communion with the GOC. In any case, if you wish to join Archbishop Tikhon, keep in mind that he has name-worshippers in his Church as well.
It would be wiser if you kept your criticisms to a minimum Father, because you may be forced one day to join the Synod of the GOC, which is the canonical Church of Greece.
Subject: Fwd: reply to Fr. Basil
Date: September 13, 2012 1:27:30 PM EDT
To: monks@thehtm.org
Father Basil has been spreading a great deal of misinformation about the Synod of the GOC under Archbishop Kallinikos.
First of all, HOCNA recognized the GOC as the canonical church of Greece in October 2010. In so doing, it simply recognized what was already the reality: namely, that the vast majority of the Old Calendarists in Greece belong to the GOC. And why is that? Obviously, because the GOC is the linear continuation of the Old Calendar Church of Greece. Archbishops Chysostomos (Kiousis) and Kallinikos are the successors to Arch. Auxentius, and there is no rival claimant to the throne of Athens who possesses any canonical legitimacy. This should all be obvious, because the Synod of Auxentius ceased to exist as a separate body, and almost all of its churches, clergy, and bishops were incorporated into the GOC.
It is not necessary to bring up here the fact that Archbishop Auxentius of blessed memory himself stood on weak ground after 1985. After all, the Holy Synod's vote carried 15 (for Chrysostomos Kiousis) to 5 (for Auxentius). This was the case because apart from his misadministration, it is no secret that Arch. Auxentius did in fact ordain immoral men to the episcopacy – witness Paisius, Vikentius, and Euthymius. Whatever was left of the synod of Auxentius joined up with the GOC under Chysostomos, because the GOC has no toleration for immorality (unlike HOCNA, whose founding members were engaged in immoral behavior over a period of decades.)
The “ecumenist” statements you mention from the GOC bishops are mostly hearsay and are completely out of context, to the point that they have no force or meaning. You know very well that the GOC bishops are not ecumenist, and would not defend any such statement from an ecumenist point of view. None of your quotes which you are so obsessive to track down can change the clear fact that the bishops of the GOC are unshakable in their confession of the Orthodox faith and their opposition to ecumenism. This is easily proven from the official documents of the Synod, such as the anathemas against ecumenism of 1998; the statements from the dialogue with the Cyprianites; and the statements from the dialogue with the Tikhonites. All these documents are crystal clear in their exposition of an Orthodox anti-ecumenist ecclesiology.
Furthermore, your accusations against the GOC are really just hypocrisy, because the same sort of statements and actions which you so oppose in the GOC were occurring during the time of Archbishop Auxentius--but not a word was said. Specifically, Fr Panteleimon called him a "semi-ecumenist" and published it in "The Orthodox Christian Witness," just a little while before joining with him.
There was never a recantation.
Moreover, it was Archbishop Auxentius who accepted the Portuguese bishops, and the Free-Serb bishops (thanks to Paisios of NY) who were masons.
Do people know that when Metropolitan Makarios served in Petroupouli (the residence of Archbishop Auxentius) and made an announcement that only those who follow the traditional calendar can come forward to take Communion, the nuns told him, "PLEASE do not make that announcement again"!
Also, a very faithful archimandrite of the Archbishop who was a very reliable source told us that Abbess Xenia herself (the abbess of the aforementioned convent) took Communion in the new-calendarist Churches. When asked "did the Archbishop know," he said, "of course he knew"!
Or perhaps you didn't see the article which was written by Archbishop Auxentius' official periodical in Greece praising the Patriarch of Jerusalem with his entourage, and welcomed them to Greece after their arrival.
On the other hand, maybe you do remember that after St Photios the Great was exiled, when he returned to Constantinople he went to the "adulterer bishop" Ignatius and made a full prostration to him! It was the same St Photios who said "let God consign all previous events to oblivion."
Not to mention as well the differences of opinion concerning strictness and leniency throughout the centuries. For example, Archbishop Demetrius Homatianos of Bulgaria was the one who (during the 13th century) said that we allow the Latins to take Communion "for their enlightenment." Not because such a thing is correct, it clearly is not, but, according to your mentality, the Church should have ceased to exist centuries ago.
Finally, you praise Archbishop Tikhon to the skies, while overlooking the fact that his Synod espoused a Cyprianite ecclesiology until 2010, when they deliberately changed their ecclesiology at the insistence of the GOC, as a precondition for entering into communion with the GOC. In any case, if you wish to join Archbishop Tikhon, keep in mind that he has name-worshippers in his Church as well.
It would be wiser if you kept your criticisms to a minimum Father, because you may be forced one day to join the Synod of the GOC, which is the canonical Church of Greece.
Letter to Metropolitan Ephraim
Dear and most respected Metropolitan Ephraim,
Holy Master Bless!
I wished to share some thoughts with you confidentially. I know that you have carried the heavy cross of the episcopacy for almost 25 years. I do not wish to add to your burden by being anything but supportive and constantly asking the Holy Trinity to guide and enlighten you in these difficult times.
Nevertheless, in times past, when you have ordained or elevated laymen or clergy to higher positions, and then found yourself to have problems on your hands, you have wondered why the faithful and clergy did not come forward to inform you of their reservations.
I have known Fr. Gregory for many years now. I find him an agreeable person for the most part, though rather eccentric in some of his views. I remember being somewhat shocked when he told me that he thought Nazi Germany had been made to look much worse than it actually was and a lot of our perceptions were formed by negative propaganda. Also, from time to time over the years he told me that he was of the opinion that the Name Worshippers had been wrongly condemned and had been misunderstood. On the subject of the Name Worshippers I took his comments into account, but I had never read any first-hand material on the subject.
I have now read Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky's paper on this subject and also the 1913 decision of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The Patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch also confirmed this decision.
The story that has been told so often that Metropolitan Anthony never even read any of the positions of the Name Worshippers, but relied on second and third hand sources, is a lie that has been repeated so often that it has taken on a life of its own. It is very clear that some of the Name Worshippers were confused in their simplicity at best and were openly deceitful and duplicitous at worse, as Metropolitan Anthony's paper so eloquently and clearly demonstrates.
Regardless, it is edifying that both Saint Anatoly and Saint Barsanuphius of Optina read Schemamonk llarion's n the Mountains of the Caucasia with interest and found edifying things in it, but they also had some reservations and after the Holy Synod had condemned the book they neither defended it nor read it again.
It goes without saying what Metropolitan St. Philaret and Bishop Gregory Grabbe of Blessed Memory thought of this issue. I think one can safely assume St. John Maxomovitch was also of one mind with Metropolitan Anthony on this issue.
Who are we, and furthermore, who is a young Hieromonk Gregory to question these theological giants of recent times? And furthermore, to what point? Does anyone doubt that the Name of Jesus sanctifies and is to be held in uttermost reverence? Is anyone saying that the Jesus Prayer is not a channel of uncreated and divine grace? But as the Synodicon of Orthodoxy points out a distinction must be made between essence and energy. Even the Body of the Lord Jesus is not "God" according to the Synodicon let alone His Name. If we are to make a confusion of it we become Pantheists just as the Latins accused the Orthodox of because the Latins said God is simple and cannot be divided. But the Orthodox position is an unmingled union, an unconfused union, a distinction between essence and energy, and that the material world is sanctified but not deified by the uncreated energies.
The Name of God is not essence nor is it an operation of the essence. It is a name above all names. But to say that the name partakes of the essence or becomes an operation in and of itself is Platonic and not Christian.
Regardless, it is now a dead issue. What point is there is resurrecting it to the scandal of the faithful. If this issue is ever to be addressed again, it must be addressed by not only the Russian Church, but the Ecumenical Church. I hardly think that Bishop Gregory Lourie and those with him constitute the plentitude of the Church.
And we know that Bishop Gregory Lourie has other peculiar ideas as well. His sermon on the "conglomerate" St. Nicholas, his unilateral glorifications of Frs. Antony Bulatovitch and Seraphim Rose, his declarations of the theological incompetence of Metropolitan Anthony and Bishop Gregory Grabbe, and his attitude towards The Dogma of Redemption and God knows what else should raise eyebrows to say the least.
Yes, Bishop Gregory is not an Ecumenist, nor does mince words on the sorry state of the "Official Churches" and likes our publications and opinions on many issues ... but does that excuse everything else? It is extremely disquieting and distressing to observe that our Fr. Gregory is enamored of the person and writings of Bishop Gregory Lourie. Fr. Gregory's mindset is, frankly, alarming to not a few of us who live with him day in and day out.
I do not know what the solution is, dear Vladyka. I know you are in a difficult position and that there is a need for more bishops and there are few candidates. I do not want to see us do something that will cause problems in the future. Fr. Gregory's consecration is premature at best. I wish my heart was not troubled on this issue, but it is and continues to be after much prayer and reading first hand sources. If things go awry in the future my last wish is to say to you, the Elder, and Fr. Isaac, "Well, we told you so!"
Vladyka, I have been here for 31 years. I came here from Jordanville because, though being of Russian ancestry, I wished to be in an English speaking monastic community that was established and had fairly good order. I have seen not only a disrespectful attitude of Fr. Gregory towards Metropolitan Anthony, but animus, and now, to my utter dismay I have seen Fr. Isaac, under Fr. Gregory's influence, prefer Thesis papers from St. Vladimir's Seminary, Fr. Georges Florovsky's scalding critiques of Metropolitan Anthony, and the arrogant and presumptuous writings and opinions of a rather young, eccentric, and acedemic Bishop Gregory Lourie over Metropolitan Anthony and Bishop Gregory Grabbe. This is more than dismaying for me.
Again, who are we to be suddenly gainsaying our fathers to whom we owe everything? We are cutting off the branch we are sitting on. Do we have more discernment than these saints and bishops of blessed memory, or for that matter, the blessed Elders Anatoly and Barsanuphius of Optina, who after they had heard the decisions of both their local church and the consensus of the other Churches lay this issue of the controversial opinions of Schemamonk Ilarion, Fr. Antony Bulatovich and their disruptive disciples aside?
Usually I am not in agreement with our Fr. Basil because I find his opinions usually extreme and myopic, but in this regard I agree with what he wrote to Fr. Isaac a few months ago. He wrote:
Unfortunately, Vladyka, Fr. Gregory's views are not unknown. It has become controversial both within the community and without. Fr. Haralampos and Fr. Basil were told not to say anything in the talk after the Corporate Meeting this past year while the Elder tried to put his own spin on the Name Worshippers Controversy. The meeting ended with the brotherhood dissatisfied and perplexed. Our questions were not addressed nor was there a fair and open dialogue.
I have mentioned to Fr. Isaac that the only way to lay this to rest is to have a public debate between Fr. Gregory and Fr. Haralampos and Fr. Basil and any other clergyman who may care to be involved on this issue. Fr. Isaac said that the Elder cannot handle stuff like that. As a matter of fact, Fr. Isaac was floored and dismayed that members of the brotherhood even made a peep during the Corporate Meeting. The fathers were respectful and clear, but wanted clarification. It was not forthcoming. So the Elder cannot handle it, and what will the outcome be? The community and even the diocese will become fractured within because this issue is being swept under the carpet. Is it just going to be a "No ask no tell" policy? But it is too late for that.
It is not enough for many of us that he holds this opinion privately in a Gnostic type of way. He should repudiate his views publicly and in writing until the Pan-Orthodox Decision on the issue of Name Worshippers is, if ever, revisited by the entire Church. Obviously the present times will not allow that, but until that time, to think that Bishop Gregory Lourie or HOCNA or even a few Synods of the True Orthodox Church of Russia represent the plentitude of the Church is ludicrous. Lord have mercy!
I never thought, after all we have been through that an internal crisis of conscience like this would come upon the monastery brethren and the diocese as a whole. I know the Holy Synod wrote that very good notice distancing yourself from Bishop Gregory Lourie's controversial views, but now we are about to consecrate a man who makes no secret of his full sympathies with these very same controversial views and their author.
Also, if the consecration goes through, I have heard that Fr. Gregory's title will be "Brookline." Please forgive me beloved Vladyka, but why "Brookline?" There are no parishes or a cathedral in Brookline, only the Monastery and Convent; why not "Roslindale" since we already have a precedent for that, or "Concord" or "Ipswich?" Not a few of us think that will make us look ridiculous.
It looks odd enough that 3 of the 4 bishops of HOCNA will be living in the monastery ... no doubt, too many will say, under the vigilant eye of Elder Panteleimon. In the past we have been so careful of things like this. Yes, I know that St. Katherine's Monastery has its own bishop, but that is because of its own unique isolation, especially in ancient times. When there was a bishop resident at Jordanville it was "Syracuse and Holy Trinity." Bishop Sergius was "Loch Lomond" but I assume that was because there was not another parish even remotely close to Kelseyville. But here we have many parishes and faithful nearby.
My beloved Archpastor, I have expressed most of these thoughts to Fr. Isaac, but not all. I have opened my heart in the secrecy of confession to you. I am one of your humble sheep whose heart is, to my grief, troubled at what should be a cause of rejoicing and expectation. Fr. Gregory is pleasant enough man, and I have nothing personal against him. I am just afraid that his eccentricities could cause great scandal in the future. I know that out of the clergy of the monastery 6 have great reservations. Many of the monks do too.
Please forgive me for troubling you,
Asking your holy prayers,
sinful Sergius, monk
Holy Master Bless!
I wished to share some thoughts with you confidentially. I know that you have carried the heavy cross of the episcopacy for almost 25 years. I do not wish to add to your burden by being anything but supportive and constantly asking the Holy Trinity to guide and enlighten you in these difficult times.
Nevertheless, in times past, when you have ordained or elevated laymen or clergy to higher positions, and then found yourself to have problems on your hands, you have wondered why the faithful and clergy did not come forward to inform you of their reservations.
I have known Fr. Gregory for many years now. I find him an agreeable person for the most part, though rather eccentric in some of his views. I remember being somewhat shocked when he told me that he thought Nazi Germany had been made to look much worse than it actually was and a lot of our perceptions were formed by negative propaganda. Also, from time to time over the years he told me that he was of the opinion that the Name Worshippers had been wrongly condemned and had been misunderstood. On the subject of the Name Worshippers I took his comments into account, but I had never read any first-hand material on the subject.
I have now read Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky's paper on this subject and also the 1913 decision of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The Patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch also confirmed this decision.
The story that has been told so often that Metropolitan Anthony never even read any of the positions of the Name Worshippers, but relied on second and third hand sources, is a lie that has been repeated so often that it has taken on a life of its own. It is very clear that some of the Name Worshippers were confused in their simplicity at best and were openly deceitful and duplicitous at worse, as Metropolitan Anthony's paper so eloquently and clearly demonstrates.
Regardless, it is edifying that both Saint Anatoly and Saint Barsanuphius of Optina read Schemamonk llarion's n the Mountains of the Caucasia with interest and found edifying things in it, but they also had some reservations and after the Holy Synod had condemned the book they neither defended it nor read it again.
It goes without saying what Metropolitan St. Philaret and Bishop Gregory Grabbe of Blessed Memory thought of this issue. I think one can safely assume St. John Maxomovitch was also of one mind with Metropolitan Anthony on this issue.
Who are we, and furthermore, who is a young Hieromonk Gregory to question these theological giants of recent times? And furthermore, to what point? Does anyone doubt that the Name of Jesus sanctifies and is to be held in uttermost reverence? Is anyone saying that the Jesus Prayer is not a channel of uncreated and divine grace? But as the Synodicon of Orthodoxy points out a distinction must be made between essence and energy. Even the Body of the Lord Jesus is not "God" according to the Synodicon let alone His Name. If we are to make a confusion of it we become Pantheists just as the Latins accused the Orthodox of because the Latins said God is simple and cannot be divided. But the Orthodox position is an unmingled union, an unconfused union, a distinction between essence and energy, and that the material world is sanctified but not deified by the uncreated energies.
The Name of God is not essence nor is it an operation of the essence. It is a name above all names. But to say that the name partakes of the essence or becomes an operation in and of itself is Platonic and not Christian.
Regardless, it is now a dead issue. What point is there is resurrecting it to the scandal of the faithful. If this issue is ever to be addressed again, it must be addressed by not only the Russian Church, but the Ecumenical Church. I hardly think that Bishop Gregory Lourie and those with him constitute the plentitude of the Church.
And we know that Bishop Gregory Lourie has other peculiar ideas as well. His sermon on the "conglomerate" St. Nicholas, his unilateral glorifications of Frs. Antony Bulatovitch and Seraphim Rose, his declarations of the theological incompetence of Metropolitan Anthony and Bishop Gregory Grabbe, and his attitude towards The Dogma of Redemption and God knows what else should raise eyebrows to say the least.
Yes, Bishop Gregory is not an Ecumenist, nor does mince words on the sorry state of the "Official Churches" and likes our publications and opinions on many issues ... but does that excuse everything else? It is extremely disquieting and distressing to observe that our Fr. Gregory is enamored of the person and writings of Bishop Gregory Lourie. Fr. Gregory's mindset is, frankly, alarming to not a few of us who live with him day in and day out.
I do not know what the solution is, dear Vladyka. I know you are in a difficult position and that there is a need for more bishops and there are few candidates. I do not want to see us do something that will cause problems in the future. Fr. Gregory's consecration is premature at best. I wish my heart was not troubled on this issue, but it is and continues to be after much prayer and reading first hand sources. If things go awry in the future my last wish is to say to you, the Elder, and Fr. Isaac, "Well, we told you so!"
Vladyka, I have been here for 31 years. I came here from Jordanville because, though being of Russian ancestry, I wished to be in an English speaking monastic community that was established and had fairly good order. I have seen not only a disrespectful attitude of Fr. Gregory towards Metropolitan Anthony, but animus, and now, to my utter dismay I have seen Fr. Isaac, under Fr. Gregory's influence, prefer Thesis papers from St. Vladimir's Seminary, Fr. Georges Florovsky's scalding critiques of Metropolitan Anthony, and the arrogant and presumptuous writings and opinions of a rather young, eccentric, and acedemic Bishop Gregory Lourie over Metropolitan Anthony and Bishop Gregory Grabbe. This is more than dismaying for me.
Again, who are we to be suddenly gainsaying our fathers to whom we owe everything? We are cutting off the branch we are sitting on. Do we have more discernment than these saints and bishops of blessed memory, or for that matter, the blessed Elders Anatoly and Barsanuphius of Optina, who after they had heard the decisions of both their local church and the consensus of the other Churches lay this issue of the controversial opinions of Schemamonk Ilarion, Fr. Antony Bulatovich and their disruptive disciples aside?
Usually I am not in agreement with our Fr. Basil because I find his opinions usually extreme and myopic, but in this regard I agree with what he wrote to Fr. Isaac a few months ago. He wrote:
Dear Fr Isaac,
Please, why we should bother entering ourselves in a new controversy? !Nameworshiping or Name-venerating or whatever is more fitting to call it is a dead issue. If 'name-worshipers' are orthodox,fine! they are members of the Church and glory be to God! Nevertheless, given that most people in the whole world consider today (rightly or wrong) that it is a heresy, why are we suppose to undertake the responsibility to give an account on behalf of them, (when even many official contemporaries at the beginning of 20th century where reluctant to do so), to prove they are orthodox. Don't we give in this way a serious cause, for the people that disagree, to be separated from us? and I mean, people that are still with us: those that remain with our bishops after the still fresh schism of last May.
To those that accuse us we can simply say that we are not the Name-worshipers they think; we are Orthodox and every one knows or can testify our orthodoxy. However, what actually our smart enemies want is to get us involved in an new, unending conflict that only harm will bring to the Church.
There are quite enough labels they stick on us up to the moment (anti-triadics, neoiconoclasts, 666, Macracists, .. .). They would be happy to add 'Name-worshipers' in the list (with our contribution!).
The Elder is going to give a talk, precisely on this subject (defending the 'Nameworshipers'!), this Sunday evening in the Metropolis house here in Toronto ... Good luck!
I kiss your hand, forgive me
Fr Basil
Unfortunately, Vladyka, Fr. Gregory's views are not unknown. It has become controversial both within the community and without. Fr. Haralampos and Fr. Basil were told not to say anything in the talk after the Corporate Meeting this past year while the Elder tried to put his own spin on the Name Worshippers Controversy. The meeting ended with the brotherhood dissatisfied and perplexed. Our questions were not addressed nor was there a fair and open dialogue.
I have mentioned to Fr. Isaac that the only way to lay this to rest is to have a public debate between Fr. Gregory and Fr. Haralampos and Fr. Basil and any other clergyman who may care to be involved on this issue. Fr. Isaac said that the Elder cannot handle stuff like that. As a matter of fact, Fr. Isaac was floored and dismayed that members of the brotherhood even made a peep during the Corporate Meeting. The fathers were respectful and clear, but wanted clarification. It was not forthcoming. So the Elder cannot handle it, and what will the outcome be? The community and even the diocese will become fractured within because this issue is being swept under the carpet. Is it just going to be a "No ask no tell" policy? But it is too late for that.
It is not enough for many of us that he holds this opinion privately in a Gnostic type of way. He should repudiate his views publicly and in writing until the Pan-Orthodox Decision on the issue of Name Worshippers is, if ever, revisited by the entire Church. Obviously the present times will not allow that, but until that time, to think that Bishop Gregory Lourie or HOCNA or even a few Synods of the True Orthodox Church of Russia represent the plentitude of the Church is ludicrous. Lord have mercy!
I never thought, after all we have been through that an internal crisis of conscience like this would come upon the monastery brethren and the diocese as a whole. I know the Holy Synod wrote that very good notice distancing yourself from Bishop Gregory Lourie's controversial views, but now we are about to consecrate a man who makes no secret of his full sympathies with these very same controversial views and their author.
Also, if the consecration goes through, I have heard that Fr. Gregory's title will be "Brookline." Please forgive me beloved Vladyka, but why "Brookline?" There are no parishes or a cathedral in Brookline, only the Monastery and Convent; why not "Roslindale" since we already have a precedent for that, or "Concord" or "Ipswich?" Not a few of us think that will make us look ridiculous.
It looks odd enough that 3 of the 4 bishops of HOCNA will be living in the monastery ... no doubt, too many will say, under the vigilant eye of Elder Panteleimon. In the past we have been so careful of things like this. Yes, I know that St. Katherine's Monastery has its own bishop, but that is because of its own unique isolation, especially in ancient times. When there was a bishop resident at Jordanville it was "Syracuse and Holy Trinity." Bishop Sergius was "Loch Lomond" but I assume that was because there was not another parish even remotely close to Kelseyville. But here we have many parishes and faithful nearby.
My beloved Archpastor, I have expressed most of these thoughts to Fr. Isaac, but not all. I have opened my heart in the secrecy of confession to you. I am one of your humble sheep whose heart is, to my grief, troubled at what should be a cause of rejoicing and expectation. Fr. Gregory is pleasant enough man, and I have nothing personal against him. I am just afraid that his eccentricities could cause great scandal in the future. I know that out of the clergy of the monastery 6 have great reservations. Many of the monks do too.
Please forgive me for troubling you,
Asking your holy prayers,
sinful Sergius, monk
Reply to Fr. Basil
From: Fr P.
Subject: Fr Basil's False Assertions
Date: September 13, 2012 12:49:37 PM EDT
To: monks@thehtm.org
Reply of Metropolitan Moses to Fr. Basil's false assertions:
We were ordained as bishops of the Church of Greece. That is our canonical Mother Church. The priests were ordained by bishops of the Church of Greece.
When we went under the omophorion of Archbishop Auxentius the Church in Greece was in schism. The legitimate way of describing this schism is GOC-Auxentius and GOC-Chrysostomos Kiousis.
Archbishop Auxentius did not grant any official status of autonomy to the Church in North America.
Everyone in Greece knows that Maximos of Cephalonia ordained Tsakos, the homosexual. Maximos denied this and lied to his Holy Synod and vowed on his panagia, the symbol of his episcopate. For this Maximos was defrocked and excommunicated.
Archbishop Auxentius was summoned to spiritual court three times to defend himself regarding the ordination of Tsakos and he refused to appear. Archbishop Auxentius was defrocked for ignoring the authority of the Holy Synod.
I ask Fr. Basil, do the canons give the authority to a Holy Synod to defrock an Archbishop who ignores the canons? It is my understanding that an Archbishop of a Holy Synod is not an unassailable personality that is above the canonical order of the Church. Perhaps Fr. Basil has a different understanding.
At the time of Archbishop Auxentius' defrockment, Metropolitan Chrysostomos Kiousis had withdrawn from participating in the actions of the Holy Synod. He did not participate in the defrocking of Archbishop Auxentius. He was later asked to lead the GOC and accepted.
At the time of the schism in 1985 only 4 bishops went with Archbishop Auxentius, one of which was Maximos. The 17 other bishops did not follow Archbishop Auxentius. ( A rational person would ask, why did Archbishop Auxentius have so few who remained with him?) Metropolitan Maximos, the ordainer of Tsakos did follow Archbishop Auxentius.
Metropolitan Maximos, the ordainer of Tsakos was the second ordaining bishop of Metropolitan Ephraim, with Archbishop Auxentius. All of the GOC-HOCNA ordinations are from Metropolitan Ephraim's ordination.
Archbishop Auxentius reposed in 1994. Maximos was made the Archbishop and subsequently "ordained" men "bishops," with the help of Demetrios Bifas, a man from Alexandria who was not a bishop of any Church and some say he was not even a priest.
The Holy Synod consisting of Metropolitan Ephraim, Metropolitan Makarios and Metropolitan Athanasios of Larissa summoned Archbishop Maximos to spiritual court in order to investigate and try the case. After Archbishop Maximos was summoned three times and he refused to appear before this Holy Synod, they defrocked him.
I ask Fr. Basil, did this action of defrocking Archbishop Maximos automatically make Metropolitan Ephraim, Metropolitan Makarios and Metropolitan Athanasios of Larissa schismatics or did they actually have the authority to form a spiritual court to judge Maximos?
All of the ordinations in HOCNA come from the ordination of Metropolitan Ephraim, who was ordained by Maximos. The reason why chierothesia was performed over Bishop Sergios and me was "so as to remove all doubt."
We were told that if Metropolitan Ephraim's ordination was by the hand of Archbishop Auxentius and Metropolitan Athanasios of Larissa, things would have been otherwise.
I was never told by any of the bishops in Greece that we were viewed as "graceless schismatics." We were treated as separated brethren who were encouraged to return to unity. I have been treated as a brother bishop during the whole process of my joining the GOC and to this day. There is a camaraderie among the bishops of our Church that has been a source of consolation to me.
The canonical penalties, etc. have been removed form Archbishop Auxentius and his name is in the dyptics of the GOC. I commemorate him at every liturgy.
The canonical penalties against Maximos have not been lifted either by the GOC in Greece or the synod of Metropolitan Ephraim. I was very willing to have the prayer read over me, especially because I knew I was not given the whole history of the Auxentius synod or Maximos before I was ordained.
Fr. Basil speaks in ignorance. He stays in his room at the monastery and constructs a theoretical world that does not exist in reality. In his world the Church has ceased to exist in Greece. His writings on this issue have a veneer of rationality and he uses the word "canonical," when in fact he seems to have an obsession with the personality of the reposed Archbishop Auxentius and a great dislike of being Greek or perhaps of things Greek.
The GOC-Chrysosotmos Kiousis and the GOC-Auxentius both had the same culture and spirituality when we joined Archbishop Auxentius. The only difference was that Archbishop Chrysotomos Kiousis reestablished canonical order and his Holy Synod was actually functioning as a Holy Synod. Archbishop Auxentius was a notoriously bad administrator. I was in Aegina on 7 September and I visited the hermitage of the Elder Ieronymos. While I was there, Mother Eupraxia was talking about the past and, without my prompting, said that the Elder Ieronymos said that "Archbishop Auxentius had the face of a saint, but did not know how to lead." I know that this is a quote from a man who reposed in 1966, but it is the type of quote that one would remember, at least the substance of what was said.
I could point out that Archbishop Auxentius ignored his Holy Synod, when he unilaterally and uncanonicaly "established" the autonomous Metropolis of Portugal, Spain and Western Europe. This group, now called the Milan Synod has a sorry history of serving with anyone and has been a source of confusion to many. I saw a letter from the early 1980's addressed to Archbishop Auxentius, signed by Metropolitan Akakios, Metropolitan Gabriel and Metropolitan Chrysostomos, imploring Archbishop Auxentius to work with and through the Holy Synod and stop by passing them, making unilateral decisions.
Archbishop Chrysostomos provided stability to the Church. The Holy Synod functions as a Holy Synod. The GOC is the largest and only legitimate Old Calendar Group in Greece. I think that the clergy who are moving away from HOCNA should look to the example of Metropolitan Athanasios of Larissa, who united himself to the GOC in 2008 and ended the schism in Greece, rather than a monk who resides in the United States and ponders the fate of Churches from his library.
In Christ,
+Moses
A Letter to Father A.
A letter written by a monk of Holy Ascension Monastery, formerly a senior father at Holy Transfiguration Monastery, at the beginning of the second week of the Holy Fast, 2013. The recipient was a priest in the Holy Orthodox Church of North America,, referred to here as Fr. A. The letter refers to two inmates in a state prison. Here they have been assigned the names N. and M. A letter quoted within the letter mentions two monks who left Holy Transfiguration Monastery. They have been assigned the names Fr. X. and Fr. Y.
Dear to Christ Fr. A,
Blagslovite!
Enclosed you will find N.’s Baptismal Robe and Baptismal Cross. He requested that I send it to you. Also enclosed is Poland by James A. Michener which you kindly loaned to me a few years ago. I enjoyed it and learned quite a bit about Polish history of which I was largely ignorant.
My dear father and friend, I must confess that I am very disappointed that you never replied to any of my letters or emails, nor did you respond to my offer to meet you in person. Even if we were to disagree, I thought we had a stronger bond than that. Apparently I was mistaken.
In a letter postmarked February 28, I received a letter from M., a catechumen incarcerated in the same prison with N. It was you who read the catechumen prayer over him. In the letter, M. wrote:
After receiving my letter, N. wrote me a letter dated February 27 in which he states:
While N. may be sincere in his sentiments, I and the other fathers who painfully uprooted themselves from their home, in some cases of many decades, can only say that we certainly did give God time to act, and God revealed the canonical, dogmatic, and moral reasons why we could no longer remain at Holy Transfiguration Monastery or in the Holy Orthodox Church in North America.
In closing let me sum up everything in three statements: First, no one can convince me that the Optina Elders, St. Tikhon, St. Philaret, St. John Maximovich, St. Nikolai Velemirovic, St. Justin Popovic, St. Ieronymos of Aegina, Bishop Gregory Grabbe, Vladyka Averky, Vladyka Nikon, Vladyka Nectary, or Elder Joseph the Hesychast would have given Metropolitan Ephraim, Bishop Gregory, or Fr. Panteleimon any credence on their spin of what Bulatovich and his followers “really believed” nor their incredibly tenuous interpretation of St. Tikhon’s Nativity Epistle.
Secondly, I am at a loss how the bishops in HOCNA can recognize the GOC as being Orthodox, yet be completely arbitrary in what ways they are accountable to another Orthodox Church.
Thirdly, like it or not, we left ROCOR in 1986 primarily to avoid the case of Fr. Panteleimon being investigated by ROCOR. Fr. Panteleimon, the then monk Ephraim, Fr. Isaac, and a few others were able to convince us that ROCOR was quickly going very soft on Ecumenism and the MP. I read more and more information about what we so bitterly complained about in ROCOR in 1986 and found that the vast majority of them were things we had lived with and even justified for decades. We could have stayed in ROCOR another 10-15 years. Only in 2007, 21 years later, did the union with the MP take place.
What happened in 1986 was schism. It is a pity that Fr. Isaac and the then Monk Ephraim did not have enough integrity to ask for a canonical release from ROCOR and to also rectify Fr. Panteleimon’s problems by seeing that he was deposed and retired and received the proper spiritual remedies to help him repent. We then would have been on a solid foundation.
I also recall reading a statement in the HTM archives that Bishop Gregory Grabbe was bewildered and disappointed “why we did not join the larger and much more decent synod under Archbishop Chrysostom II instead of Archbishop Auxentios.”
I pointed out to Fr. Isaac the thing that literally made me ill was that we had gone into schism and perpetuated schism to cover Fr. Panteleimon. This is much larger than just “covering someone’s sins.” The leadership in 1986 were able to convince us that the whole case against Fr. Panteleimon was a shameless smear campaign to discredit the monastery. It is evident now that they actually had hidden motives unknown to us. And there are many victims, some of whom left monasticism or even left the church. That is a very heavy thing. Of course Fr. Isaac now claims that Fr. Panteleimon’s misdeeds have been “exaggerated,” but please give a good reason why I should believe Fr. Isaac since he has been so dishonest? Furthermore individual fathers, some of who are strangely still at HTM (classic Stockholm Syndrome?) told me absolutely shocking things that had happened to them.
There was no possible way I could continue to have Fr. Isaac, Metropolitan Ephraim, and Bishop Gregory as my spiritual leaders. Our Saviour commands us to love all and to have no one in contempt, and I struggle to do that with the help of His grace. But I would lie if I did not say I have complete and utter contempt for their pretensions to spiritual authority and I fear for their souls' salvation if they do not repent. HOCNA has absolutely no room to point fingers at whatever “problems” or “corruption” exists in the GOC real or imagined.
Both you and I know how severely our Saviour censured self-righteousness and hypocrisy. My baba was a very simple and pious peasant woman. She had an earthy and honest way of speaking. Once she said to me, “Honey, there is sh…. here and there is sh… there, there is sh…. everywhere, but it is better to deal with the sh…within the Church than outside of it.”
The final thing for me, dear father, was that the scandal and the immorality and the heresy were bad enough, but we were in schism and were perpetuating schism because of it, and that is the most serious sin of all. HOCNA may say they do not believe they are the only Orthodox Church left in the world, but they certainly act like it, and actions speak louder than words.
One last thing is that I have attended the Divine Liturgy at St. Marcella’s twice. I saw strangers being questioned at the chalice and gently being denied if they were not with the Old Calendar. A woman also came up to me trapeza and spontaneously related how she and her mother were estranged for years over the issue of the calendar, but in the end she came around, went to confession, and received Holy Communion with the Traditionalists. Fr. Agathangelos and Fr. Theologos have been to Greece several times. They saw the same thing there. So I have seen with my own eyes and heard from completely credible witnesses that it is not “open house” as Metropolitan Ephraim likes to claim. I know that even Fr. Panteleimon and Fr. Isaac (and others) would use “pastoral discretion” in this matter.
As for Fr. Basil’s rants, know that I have a whole file of emails showing him to be all over the place. When he thought we would be able to expel “the two bishops and the two archimandrites” from the monastery he was on our side 100%. When he saw that he would lose his precious library because we had opted to leave at Fr. Isaac’s request rather than commence on a long ugly fight, he did a classic “180 degree turn.” Also Fr. Basil seems unaware of Archbishop Paul’s repentance and clarifications he made to the Holy Synod in Greece after some unguarded remarks to the press about “World Orthodoxy” and Patriarch Bartholomew.
Father A., I will continue to pray for you. I love you and your family dearly in the Lord. I fervently hope that with time cordial contact will resume between us, just as you have with various clergy in ROCOR and Bishop Anthony Gavalas. I sincerely ask your forgiveness as we enter the Holy and Great Fast.
Here follows an edited version of the letter I wrote to N. This is for your information since you are now essentially his new spiritual father.
Dear to Christ Fr. A,
Blagslovite!
Enclosed you will find N.’s Baptismal Robe and Baptismal Cross. He requested that I send it to you. Also enclosed is Poland by James A. Michener which you kindly loaned to me a few years ago. I enjoyed it and learned quite a bit about Polish history of which I was largely ignorant.
My dear father and friend, I must confess that I am very disappointed that you never replied to any of my letters or emails, nor did you respond to my offer to meet you in person. Even if we were to disagree, I thought we had a stronger bond than that. Apparently I was mistaken.
In a letter postmarked February 28, I received a letter from M., a catechumen incarcerated in the same prison with N. It was you who read the catechumen prayer over him. In the letter, M. wrote:
N. told me the “New Story” of why HOCNA had this mishap. In N.’s own words this is what HOCNA instilled to his head:In the meantime, N. received the attached letter along primary documents from me in which an exact chronology is given of the events that transpired at Holy Transfiguration Monastery from the autumn of 2011 to September of 2012. The entire letter follows this brief introduction. Since N.’s letter was public knowledge even before I received it, it is only fitting that I should share my reply with you. …..
“Fr. X and the others who broke away from HOCNA and went to the GOC tried to get HOCNA to switch to the GOC for several years now. When they saw their attempts to sway the leaders was not working, they had to do something. So they made up false accusations to break HOCNA apart and in the process broke all their vows to Christ.”I can’t even start to believe this conspiracy theory! Hearing such a blasphemous prosecution (sic) my decision was made on the spot to follow the GOC with Fr. Y and yourself. I can’t see all the monks leaving the monastery on false accusations, especially with how much prayer was put into the decision….
On the 17th, I met with N. and asked him to respect my decision to follow the GOC. We agreed that we will not pass judgment on each other and will continue to meet to praise our Lord together with all differences aside. There will be no falling out between us 3, we are in a controlled environment and need each other as brothers…
After receiving my letter, N. wrote me a letter dated February 27 in which he states:
Perhaps you are right. I am in way over my head. I told you from day one I do not like religious controversy….I don’t like trouble for trouble’s sake…I humbly prostrate before you and ask your forgiveness…and all those who journeyed to Holy Ascension Monastery—if I have offended in my manner or said anything untrue. I simply cannot fathom this entire situation….What I cannot comprehend, that as learned as he is, is that Fr. A. remains faithful to HOCNA. So…I must take that into account. I will remain faithful to the jurisdiction of my baptism until God dissolves it. If the HOCNA is wrong, God will dissolve it, not man. If God takes HOCNA out of existence I will find my way to another jurisdiction…You have NOT become my enemy. I don’t agree with you and what steps you and the others took. I believe you could have all humbled yourselves as monks and allowed God to act.
While N. may be sincere in his sentiments, I and the other fathers who painfully uprooted themselves from their home, in some cases of many decades, can only say that we certainly did give God time to act, and God revealed the canonical, dogmatic, and moral reasons why we could no longer remain at Holy Transfiguration Monastery or in the Holy Orthodox Church in North America.
In closing let me sum up everything in three statements: First, no one can convince me that the Optina Elders, St. Tikhon, St. Philaret, St. John Maximovich, St. Nikolai Velemirovic, St. Justin Popovic, St. Ieronymos of Aegina, Bishop Gregory Grabbe, Vladyka Averky, Vladyka Nikon, Vladyka Nectary, or Elder Joseph the Hesychast would have given Metropolitan Ephraim, Bishop Gregory, or Fr. Panteleimon any credence on their spin of what Bulatovich and his followers “really believed” nor their incredibly tenuous interpretation of St. Tikhon’s Nativity Epistle.
Secondly, I am at a loss how the bishops in HOCNA can recognize the GOC as being Orthodox, yet be completely arbitrary in what ways they are accountable to another Orthodox Church.
Thirdly, like it or not, we left ROCOR in 1986 primarily to avoid the case of Fr. Panteleimon being investigated by ROCOR. Fr. Panteleimon, the then monk Ephraim, Fr. Isaac, and a few others were able to convince us that ROCOR was quickly going very soft on Ecumenism and the MP. I read more and more information about what we so bitterly complained about in ROCOR in 1986 and found that the vast majority of them were things we had lived with and even justified for decades. We could have stayed in ROCOR another 10-15 years. Only in 2007, 21 years later, did the union with the MP take place.
What happened in 1986 was schism. It is a pity that Fr. Isaac and the then Monk Ephraim did not have enough integrity to ask for a canonical release from ROCOR and to also rectify Fr. Panteleimon’s problems by seeing that he was deposed and retired and received the proper spiritual remedies to help him repent. We then would have been on a solid foundation.
I also recall reading a statement in the HTM archives that Bishop Gregory Grabbe was bewildered and disappointed “why we did not join the larger and much more decent synod under Archbishop Chrysostom II instead of Archbishop Auxentios.”
I pointed out to Fr. Isaac the thing that literally made me ill was that we had gone into schism and perpetuated schism to cover Fr. Panteleimon. This is much larger than just “covering someone’s sins.” The leadership in 1986 were able to convince us that the whole case against Fr. Panteleimon was a shameless smear campaign to discredit the monastery. It is evident now that they actually had hidden motives unknown to us. And there are many victims, some of whom left monasticism or even left the church. That is a very heavy thing. Of course Fr. Isaac now claims that Fr. Panteleimon’s misdeeds have been “exaggerated,” but please give a good reason why I should believe Fr. Isaac since he has been so dishonest? Furthermore individual fathers, some of who are strangely still at HTM (classic Stockholm Syndrome?) told me absolutely shocking things that had happened to them.
There was no possible way I could continue to have Fr. Isaac, Metropolitan Ephraim, and Bishop Gregory as my spiritual leaders. Our Saviour commands us to love all and to have no one in contempt, and I struggle to do that with the help of His grace. But I would lie if I did not say I have complete and utter contempt for their pretensions to spiritual authority and I fear for their souls' salvation if they do not repent. HOCNA has absolutely no room to point fingers at whatever “problems” or “corruption” exists in the GOC real or imagined.
Both you and I know how severely our Saviour censured self-righteousness and hypocrisy. My baba was a very simple and pious peasant woman. She had an earthy and honest way of speaking. Once she said to me, “Honey, there is sh…. here and there is sh… there, there is sh…. everywhere, but it is better to deal with the sh…within the Church than outside of it.”
The final thing for me, dear father, was that the scandal and the immorality and the heresy were bad enough, but we were in schism and were perpetuating schism because of it, and that is the most serious sin of all. HOCNA may say they do not believe they are the only Orthodox Church left in the world, but they certainly act like it, and actions speak louder than words.
One last thing is that I have attended the Divine Liturgy at St. Marcella’s twice. I saw strangers being questioned at the chalice and gently being denied if they were not with the Old Calendar. A woman also came up to me trapeza and spontaneously related how she and her mother were estranged for years over the issue of the calendar, but in the end she came around, went to confession, and received Holy Communion with the Traditionalists. Fr. Agathangelos and Fr. Theologos have been to Greece several times. They saw the same thing there. So I have seen with my own eyes and heard from completely credible witnesses that it is not “open house” as Metropolitan Ephraim likes to claim. I know that even Fr. Panteleimon and Fr. Isaac (and others) would use “pastoral discretion” in this matter.
As for Fr. Basil’s rants, know that I have a whole file of emails showing him to be all over the place. When he thought we would be able to expel “the two bishops and the two archimandrites” from the monastery he was on our side 100%. When he saw that he would lose his precious library because we had opted to leave at Fr. Isaac’s request rather than commence on a long ugly fight, he did a classic “180 degree turn.” Also Fr. Basil seems unaware of Archbishop Paul’s repentance and clarifications he made to the Holy Synod in Greece after some unguarded remarks to the press about “World Orthodoxy” and Patriarch Bartholomew.
Father A., I will continue to pray for you. I love you and your family dearly in the Lord. I fervently hope that with time cordial contact will resume between us, just as you have with various clergy in ROCOR and Bishop Anthony Gavalas. I sincerely ask your forgiveness as we enter the Holy and Great Fast.
Here follows an edited version of the letter I wrote to N. This is for your information since you are now essentially his new spiritual father.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)