The Relevant Portion of Fr. Nicholas’s Email
From: Father Nicholas
Showing posts with label Fr. Panteleimon Metropoulos. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fr. Panteleimon Metropoulos. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Chronology: Document 7
From: Father Nicholas
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
The HOCNA Statements of October 8 and 10
Revised 10/20/12.
On October 8, Bishop Gregory of the Holy Orthodox Church in North America (HOCNA) issued a statement on behalf of the synod criticizing Bishop Demetrius for the manner in which he left the synod.
On October 10, the three bishops of HOCNA issued a statement contending that they are not name-worshippers but asserting that all Orthodox Christians must accept their beliefs concerning the name of God. They also issued a statement finding fault with the synod of Archbishop Kallinikos of Athens for accepting refugees from HOCNA.
These documents can only be understood in context. The New England clergy of HOCNA learned on August 22 and August 25, 2012, that Fr. Panteleimon, the founder and elder of Holy Transfiguration Monastery, the spiritual center of HOCNA, had abused monks in his care over a long period of time. They learned that the leaders of the monastery and the diocese, Fr. Isaac and Metropolitan Ephraim, knew this for many years, and decided to deny and conceal it.
These revelations were important not because they exposed Fr. Panteleimon's sins, but because the commitment by Fr. Isaac and Metropolitan Ephraim, spiritual leaders of HOCNA, to deny and hide his sins took priority over the spiritual wellbeing of the Church. Together with Fr. Panteleimon, they made decisions which shaped HOCNA and led to its current isolation and disintegration. These revelations also explain why they lost their spiritual vision, and led their flock into crisis after crisis in recent years.
The actions in the following list have a common thread -- putting the need to protect Fr. Panteleimon from investigation and potential punishment ahead of the spiritual needs of the synod. In essence, this is a new form of Sergianism. Where Metropolitan Sergius acquiesced to identify the joys and sorrows of the Russian Orthodox Church with the joys and sorrows of the Soviet state, the leaders of HOCNA identified the good of the monastery and parishes, and later the synod, with the good of Fr. Panteleimon.
Barely a few months later, Metropolitan Ephraim was already planting the seeds for the name-worshipping controversy that has gripped HOCNA since November of 2011. He insisted that Bishop Demetrius visit "Bishop" Gregory Lourie, a schismatic bishop of questionable consecration and the main proponent of name-worshipping, on a trip to Russia in September of 2011. Metropolitan Makarios, the ruling bishop of the HOCNA parishes in Russia, objected to anyone having even a casual meeting with Lourie, yet Bishop Demetrius felt compelled to carry out the orders of his ruling bishop, Ephraim. He met with Lourie. After the meeting, he concluded that HOCNA could not have any relations with Lourie unless Lourie were regularized by another jurisdiction. Unknown to him, Lourie had already planned a trip to HOCNA parishes in Georgia. He left on this trip within a day of meeting Bishop Demetrius. On instructions from their ruling bishop, Metropolitan Ephraim, the Georgian parishes received him as a bishop and communed with him.
Several weeks later, Lourie was received at Holy Transfiguration Monastery as a true Orthodox bishop and was allowed to commune during the Divine Liturgy, igniting the controversy over name-worshipping that is devastating HOCNA now. To date, Bishop Demetrius, some fifteen monks and laymen from the monastery, seven parishes with their clergy, two additional clergy, and a growing number of laity have left HOCNA for the synod of Archbishop Kallinikos (GOC).
This is the context in which the three documents issued by the HOCNA hierarchs last week must be analyzed.
In a letter from Bishop Gregory dated October 8 (n.s.), the synod complains that Bishop Demetrius didn't seem to think name-worshipping was a heresy when he asked for a friendly farewell letter or even a canonical release from the other HOCNA bishops:
In the last paragraph of the letter, Bishop Gregory enumerates all the factors that should have bound Bishop Demetrius to HOCNA, "the Church in which he was brought up, tonsured as a monastic, ordained as a deacon, as a priest and finally as a bishop." Then he suggests that opposition to name-worshipping was just a cover to justify leaving HOCNA. He undermines his own assertions. A bishop with such strong ties to HOCNA and with such a meek character would have to have a serious and substantive reason to leave.
Finally, in a footnote, Bishop Gregory refers to an incident during Bishop Demetrius's trip to Russia and the Ukraine in the fall of 2011. A deacon whom he ordained to the priesthood allegedly asked Bishop Demetrius whether he believed name-worshipping is a heresy. The deacon allegedly only accepted ordination because Bishop Demetrius replied, "No." While the then-deacon, Fr. Martinian, may sincerely believe such a conversation took place, it is unlikely that his question was ever understood, because the two men were not fluent in any common language, and their interpreter, Fr. Yakov Tseitlin, never translated any such question. Further, had the question been posed, Bishop Demetrius knew little about name-worshipping at the time, since it had not yet been raised as a significant issue in HOCNA.
The real motive behind this document seems to be to remove any doubts that might have been cast on name-worshipping by Bishop Demetrius's departure: Bishop Demetrius (allegedly) lied, therefore name-worshipping is not a heresy. The equation doesn't add up.
In their statement of October 10 (n.s.), the HOCNA bishops laud themselves for nearly a page for reaching out to the Synod of Archbishop Kallinikos (GOC) in October of 2010, before they finally get to their complaint against the GOC:
In the remaining three paragraphs of their statement, the HOCNA hierarchs cast mud at the GOC, annul their decisions of October of 2010, and profess a desire for God to bring about unity in the Church where sinful humans are unable. They should beware what they wish! It seems God is indeed bringing about the union of the GOC and what formerly was HOCNA, against their will.
In their October 10 (n.s) statement titled "Divergent Teachings," the HOCNA hierarchs set forth their beliefs about the name of God and condemn those who do not hold those beliefs.
The fact that name-worshipping was never discussed in HOCNA until Lourie communed at Holy Transfiguration Monastery last fall is a clue to how sadly and deeply the HOCNA hierarchs have fallen from the truth, that they would stake their Orthodoxy and everyone else's on this issue. Virtually no one in HOCNA had heard of or cared about name-worshipping until a year ago. Suddenly it is the yardstick by which Orthodoxy is to be measured.
In "Divergent Teachings," the HOCNA hierarchs first define four criteria for detecting a name-worshipper:
They then cite a number of quotations from the Holy Fathers which in no way support them, and use linguistic sleight-of-hand to deduce the desired conclusion:
In the last two sections of "Divergent Teachings," the HOCNA hierarchs condemn the resolutions against name-worshipping by Patriarchs Joachim III and Germanus of Constantinople and by the Holy Synod of Russia. They also try to invalidate any decisions of the Russian Synod with a quote from Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky, the leading opponent of name-worshipping. Metropolitan Anthony deplores the fact that the synodal system was forced upon the Russian Orthodox Church to eliminate the competition a strong Patriarch might pose to the tsar. But Metropolitan Anthony himself participated in the Holy Synod for five years, and in the absence of a ruling patriarch, the decisions of the synod were accepted in Russia from the time of Peter the Great until the election of Patriarch Tikhon. In order to cast doubt on the validity of the Russian Synod's condemnation of name-worshipping in 1913, the HOCNA hierarchs are willing to invalidate more than 200 years of decisions by the synod, although those decisions were accepted and obeyed by the saints, hierarchs, monastics, clergy, tsars and laity of the Russian Church.
The obsession of the HOCNA hierarchs with defending name-worshipping, yet insisting that they are not name-worshippers, is the latest manifestation of their loss of spiritual vision, the consequences of their new Sergianism. They continue to put the protection of one man ahead of the spiritual wellbeing of their last remaining, shrinking diocese, without seeming to consider that their course does not even benefit him spiritually. Recognizing this, HOCNA clergy and laity continue to flee to the GOC. Holy Transfiguration Monastery has been divided. Parishes are being divided, and so are families. There is only one way for HOCNA's leaders to end this tragedy: to publicly repent of their wrongdoing and heretical teachings, and to step down. Only then can their flock be united again under truly Orthodox bishops.
On October 8, Bishop Gregory of the Holy Orthodox Church in North America (HOCNA) issued a statement on behalf of the synod criticizing Bishop Demetrius for the manner in which he left the synod.
On October 10, the three bishops of HOCNA issued a statement contending that they are not name-worshippers but asserting that all Orthodox Christians must accept their beliefs concerning the name of God. They also issued a statement finding fault with the synod of Archbishop Kallinikos of Athens for accepting refugees from HOCNA.
These documents can only be understood in context. The New England clergy of HOCNA learned on August 22 and August 25, 2012, that Fr. Panteleimon, the founder and elder of Holy Transfiguration Monastery, the spiritual center of HOCNA, had abused monks in his care over a long period of time. They learned that the leaders of the monastery and the diocese, Fr. Isaac and Metropolitan Ephraim, knew this for many years, and decided to deny and conceal it.
These revelations were important not because they exposed Fr. Panteleimon's sins, but because the commitment by Fr. Isaac and Metropolitan Ephraim, spiritual leaders of HOCNA, to deny and hide his sins took priority over the spiritual wellbeing of the Church. Together with Fr. Panteleimon, they made decisions which shaped HOCNA and led to its current isolation and disintegration. These revelations also explain why they lost their spiritual vision, and led their flock into crisis after crisis in recent years.
The actions in the following list have a common thread -- putting the need to protect Fr. Panteleimon from investigation and potential punishment ahead of the spiritual needs of the synod. In essence, this is a new form of Sergianism. Where Metropolitan Sergius acquiesced to identify the joys and sorrows of the Russian Orthodox Church with the joys and sorrows of the Soviet state, the leaders of HOCNA identified the good of the monastery and parishes, and later the synod, with the good of Fr. Panteleimon.
The New Sergianism Takes Shape
- Holy Transfiguration Monastery and the parishes which later formed HOCNA left the Russian Church Abroad in 1986, saying that the ROCOR was turning a blind eye to ecumenist practices of some bishops and that the ROCOR was headed for union with the Moscow Patriarchate. The monastery and the parishes left ROCOR separately. The parishes which left ROCOR acted only on their concerns regarding matters of faith, which over time were proven correct.
However, it seems clear now that the ROCOR rightly accused the leaders of the monastery of leaving its jurisdiction when they did (some weeks before the parishes) to escape an investigation on charges of immorality and impending sanctions against Fr. Panteleimon and Fr. Isaac.
The parish clergy and laity did not believe the accusations against Fr. Panteleimon; they considered the investigation to be an attack by ROCOR in retaliation for the monastery's criticisms of ROCOR bishops. They believed ROCOR bishops were trying to silence the monastery so they could continue their ecumenistic practices without interference.
The same could be said of most of the monks at Holy Transfiguration Monastery. They had pushed for the anathema against ecumenism which was proclaimed by the ROCOR in 1983, and they did not believe in the allegations against Fr. Panteleimon. They followed their leaders based on their stance on ecumenism. Only the monastery leaders had hidden motives.
- After the monastery and parishes had joined the synod of Archbishop Auxentius of Athens, Hieromonk Ephraim was chosen to be suffragan Bishop (later Metropolitan) of Boston. He has admitted that he chose not to investigate the allegations against Fr. Panteleimon. In retrospect, it seems clear his commitment to protect Fr. Panteleimon was essential to his being chosen as bishop.
- Hieromonk Makarios (Katre) was chosen to be suffragan Bishop (later Metropolitan) of Toronto, and consecrated in 1991. The perpetual contrast between his sharp, patristic words and his unwillingness to stand up for those words in the face of opposition from Metropolitan Ephraim and Fr. Panteleimon strongly suggests that he also was chosen for his unswerving allegiance to the leaders of Holy Transfiguration Monastery.
- Archbishop Auxentius reposed in 1994, and gradually his synod fell apart, until only the HOCNA members were left. While they continued to maintain the synod of Archbishop Auxentius with Metropolitan Makarios as a locum tenens, they voted in 2001 to establish the Holy Orthodox Church in North America as an eparchial synod of the Church of Greece. Until then, HOCNA had existed only as a corporation, a legal vehicle for the parishes and monasteries in America. The eparchial synod was supposed to serve as a forum for administering local affairs. However, the eparchial synod quickly eclipsed the Church of Greece. Its president, Metropolitan Ephraim, gained significant control over the work of the synod. He effectively blocked any move that might threaten his ability to protect Fr. Panteleimon.
- Metropolitan Moses was removed from the see of Seattle in 2007 without canonical due process, allegedly because his divisive leadership was on the verge of destroying the cathedral parish of St. Nectarios. In fact, the brouhaha erupted after his brother, formerly a monk at Holy Transfiguration Monastery, secretly filed a complaint against Fr. Panteleimon with the Holy Synod. As president of the HOCNA synod, Metropolitan Ephraim presided over the removal of Metropolitan Moses from his see and disposed of the complaint against Fr. Panteleimon.
- Shortly after the October 2010 decision of the HOCNA synod to pursue closer relations with the synod of the new Archbishop Kallinikos of Athens (GOC), Metropolitan Ephraim began a solo campaign to reverse that decision, describing HOCNA as orphaned by the repose of Archbishop Auxentios, "newborn," yet in no need of relations with any other bishops, particularly none from outside America. In fact, pursuing closer relations and possible unity with the GOC opened the possibility that Greek bishops might gain authority in HOCNA and might use that authority to investigate and take measures against Fr. Panteleimon.
- Metropolitan Moses and Bishop Sergios, who opposed Metropolitan Ephraim's attempts to reverse the synod's decision, were persecuted by him and his allies and finally driven out of HOCNA in April of 2011. Fr. George Kochergin, dean of the east coast clergy, was also driven out for his refusal to accept Metropolitan Ephraim's position.
Effects of the New Sergianism
In 2010, this effects of this long-festering corruption began to be seen: a questionable teaching suddenly came to dominate public discussion and to wreak havoc in the Church. Metropolitan Ephraim began promoting in talks, in print and in e-mails his "Awake Sleeper" theory, the idea that Christ will give each person a chance to choose the Orthodox Christian faith, if not in this life, then after death. He made it clear this was his personal interpretation of passages from the lives of the saints, but he also would not tolerate any criticism. His campaign was aggressive and persistent. As a result of his refusal to drop it, the clergy and vast majority of the faithful of the diocese of Toronto departed from HOCNA in May of 2011.Barely a few months later, Metropolitan Ephraim was already planting the seeds for the name-worshipping controversy that has gripped HOCNA since November of 2011. He insisted that Bishop Demetrius visit "Bishop" Gregory Lourie, a schismatic bishop of questionable consecration and the main proponent of name-worshipping, on a trip to Russia in September of 2011. Metropolitan Makarios, the ruling bishop of the HOCNA parishes in Russia, objected to anyone having even a casual meeting with Lourie, yet Bishop Demetrius felt compelled to carry out the orders of his ruling bishop, Ephraim. He met with Lourie. After the meeting, he concluded that HOCNA could not have any relations with Lourie unless Lourie were regularized by another jurisdiction. Unknown to him, Lourie had already planned a trip to HOCNA parishes in Georgia. He left on this trip within a day of meeting Bishop Demetrius. On instructions from their ruling bishop, Metropolitan Ephraim, the Georgian parishes received him as a bishop and communed with him.
Several weeks later, Lourie was received at Holy Transfiguration Monastery as a true Orthodox bishop and was allowed to commune during the Divine Liturgy, igniting the controversy over name-worshipping that is devastating HOCNA now. To date, Bishop Demetrius, some fifteen monks and laymen from the monastery, seven parishes with their clergy, two additional clergy, and a growing number of laity have left HOCNA for the synod of Archbishop Kallinikos (GOC).
This is the context in which the three documents issued by the HOCNA hierarchs last week must be analyzed.
Letter Regarding Bishop Demetrius
In a letter from Bishop Gregory dated October 8 (n.s.), the synod complains that Bishop Demetrius didn't seem to think name-worshipping was a heresy when he asked for a friendly farewell letter or even a canonical release from the other HOCNA bishops:
In his statement of September 16, 2012, Bishop Demetrius, formerly of Carlisle, tries to convince the clergy and the faithful of HOCNA, that he departed from the Communion with his fellow bishops for matters of faith. In his own words:
"Since my responsibility is to protect and defend the purity of our Confession of Faith, I can no longer remain a hierarch on the Synod of Bishops of the Holy Ortbodox Church in North America."
In other words, the synod finds it hard to believe that Bishop Demetrius would believe that name-worshipping is a heresy, yet soft-pedal his position to the bishops he was leaving. Yet in the context of the underlying motive of the leaders of HOCNA, to protect Fr. Panteleimon from investigation, it becomes clear that in choosing Bishop Demetrius to become a bishop, the deciding element was precisely that the HOCNA leaders felt they could count on him not to stand up to them. Hypocritically, they criticize him for exactly the approach they had always counted on him to take -- to not make waves, to not boldly state his position in opposition to theirs, to not become an adversary.We find it extremely difficult to take Bishop Demetrius' statement seriously, because in his correspondence with our Synod (September 11, 2012), he claimed that the reason for his departure were certain "differences", and not only did he not mention any lack of "purity of Confession of Faith" of HOCNA bishops, but in his second letter to us (September 12, 2012), he was even willing to receive a letter of release from the self-same Synod of HOCNA.
In the last paragraph of the letter, Bishop Gregory enumerates all the factors that should have bound Bishop Demetrius to HOCNA, "the Church in which he was brought up, tonsured as a monastic, ordained as a deacon, as a priest and finally as a bishop." Then he suggests that opposition to name-worshipping was just a cover to justify leaving HOCNA. He undermines his own assertions. A bishop with such strong ties to HOCNA and with such a meek character would have to have a serious and substantive reason to leave.
Finally, in a footnote, Bishop Gregory refers to an incident during Bishop Demetrius's trip to Russia and the Ukraine in the fall of 2011. A deacon whom he ordained to the priesthood allegedly asked Bishop Demetrius whether he believed name-worshipping is a heresy. The deacon allegedly only accepted ordination because Bishop Demetrius replied, "No." While the then-deacon, Fr. Martinian, may sincerely believe such a conversation took place, it is unlikely that his question was ever understood, because the two men were not fluent in any common language, and their interpreter, Fr. Yakov Tseitlin, never translated any such question. Further, had the question been posed, Bishop Demetrius knew little about name-worshipping at the time, since it had not yet been raised as a significant issue in HOCNA.
The real motive behind this document seems to be to remove any doubts that might have been cast on name-worshipping by Bishop Demetrius's departure: Bishop Demetrius (allegedly) lied, therefore name-worshipping is not a heresy. The equation doesn't add up.
HOCNA Bishops on Synod of Archbishop Kallinikos
In their statement of October 10 (n.s.), the HOCNA bishops laud themselves for nearly a page for reaching out to the Synod of Archbishop Kallinikos (GOC) in October of 2010, before they finally get to their complaint against the GOC:
By accepting, on four occasions, the breakaway bishops and the clergy from HOCNA, by calling us schismatics (schismatics from whom? we never belonged to the Kiousis group) and now by adding the false accusation of heresy against us, we have come to the sad conclusion that nothing has changed in that group since its uncanonical inception in 1985. The cunning tactics and arrogance that they used against the blessed Archbishop Auxentius, not only have not been abandoned, but are fully implemented even now.The GOC accepted Metropolitan Moses, Bishop Sergios and the clergy and laity with them in April of 2011. It accepted Fr. George Kochergin in May of 2011, and it accepted the clergy and laity of Toronto in June of 2011. In September of 2012, the GOC received Bishop Demetrius and the parishes, clergy and laity with him. The GOC continues to receive those who are fleeing HOCNA. According to the statement of the HOCNA hierarchs, the GOC used cunning tactics and arrogance to bring this about. However, the minutes of the synod meeting in October of 2010 clearly recognize:
...this Synod is the closest Synod to us, since our Church in North America was established by the Church of Greece under the Presidency of His Beatitude, Archbishop Auxentios. The two Synods found themselves separated in 1984, but this separation had nothing to do with matters of Faith and both Synods officially have an identical ecclesiology.The HOCNA hierarchs set their seal of approval on this synod, before backtracking to protect Fr. Panteleimon. This is why those who have separated themselves from HOCNA have asked to be accepted into the GOC. The GOC itself played a passive role: it did not encourage the refugees to leave HOCNA, it simply accepted them.
In the remaining three paragraphs of their statement, the HOCNA hierarchs cast mud at the GOC, annul their decisions of October of 2010, and profess a desire for God to bring about unity in the Church where sinful humans are unable. They should beware what they wish! It seems God is indeed bringing about the union of the GOC and what formerly was HOCNA, against their will.
HOCNA Bishops on Name-Worshipping
The fact that name-worshipping was never discussed in HOCNA until Lourie communed at Holy Transfiguration Monastery last fall is a clue to how sadly and deeply the HOCNA hierarchs have fallen from the truth, that they would stake their Orthodoxy and everyone else's on this issue. Virtually no one in HOCNA had heard of or cared about name-worshipping until a year ago. Suddenly it is the yardstick by which Orthodoxy is to be measured.
In "Divergent Teachings," the HOCNA hierarchs first define four criteria for detecting a name-worshipper:
I. Name-worshippers believe:These four points are borrowed from St. Patriarch Tikhon's Nativity Epistle of 1921. Patriarch Tikhon did not use them to define name-worshipping, but only called on his clergy to be sure that anyone who wished to repent of the name-worshipping heresy and be received back into the Orthodox Church did not hold any of these heretical beliefs. These four points do not encompass all name-worshipping beliefs, some of which the HOCNA hierarchs have snuck into their following definition:
1) That God’s Name is his Essence.
2) That God’s Name is separate from Him.
3) That God’s Name is another deity.
4) That created letters, sounds and random or accidental thoughts about God may be deified, or be used for occult or magical purposes
II. Orthodox Christians believe:The astute reader will note that these are nearly the same four points that the HOCNA hierarchs claim to have distilled from St. Patriarch Tikhon's Navitiy Epistle of 1921. Yet in adding the word "not" to each of Patriarch Tikhon's points to express Orthodox belief, they also have added considerably more to the first point. While they reject that God's Name is His Essence, they declare that it is uncreated, His Energy and His Grace. This is heretical, as the fathers of Holy Transfiguration Monastery showed in their examination of name-worshipping. So the HOCNA hierarchs are insisting that to be Orthodox, a person must hold this heretical belief.
1) That God’s Name is not His Essence, but rather is the revealed truth about Himself, that is, His Uncreated Energy, His Uncreated Grace, His Providence, His Glory. In fact, His Essence is unknowable and has no name.
2) That God’s Name is not separate from Him.
3) That God’s Name is not another deity.
4) That created letters, sounds and random or accidental thoughts about God must not be deified. Further, they believe that these letters or sounds must not be used for occult or magical purposes.
They then cite a number of quotations from the Holy Fathers which in no way support them, and use linguistic sleight-of-hand to deduce the desired conclusion:
This makes matters perfectly clear, because, as Orthodox Christians, we know and believe that the only Entity that is eternal, holy, supremely-holy, and the source of sanctification by nature is God Himself! This can only mean that His Name is indeed God Himself — again, not in His Essence, but in His Grace.The logic is absurd. The Holy Fathers did use the phrase "the Name of God" to refer to God, in a poetic attempt to express the inexpressible, just as the Psalms refer to "the face of God," "the voice of the Lord," the "right hand" of the Lord and other physical attributes. That does not mean that an actual name or word, however holy, is the uncreated energy and grace of God. Language is created, for it did not exist eternally. As Orthodox Christians we are taught that blessed water and oil are holy, that icons are holy, that the altar, antimension, and consecrated vessels are holy, that the relics of saints are holy, and so on. God's grace may abide in them, but they are not God. In the same way, the names that we use to refer to God are holy, but they are not God. The HOCNA hierarchs quote St. John of Kronstadt as saying,
... when you pronounce to yourself in your heart the Name of God, of the Lord, or that of the most Holy Trinity, or of the Lord of Sabaoth, or of the Lord Jesus Christ, then in that Name you have the Lord’s whole being; in it is His infinite mercy, His boundless wisdom, His inaccessible light, omnipotence, and immutability....In other words, pronouncing in your heart the name of God, you bring Him to mind in the same way as you might upon seeing an icon. The word expresses God to you insofar as you can conceive of Him, but His energies and grace are not inherent in the word, they are a gift God freely bestows in responding to your prayer.
In the last two sections of "Divergent Teachings," the HOCNA hierarchs condemn the resolutions against name-worshipping by Patriarchs Joachim III and Germanus of Constantinople and by the Holy Synod of Russia. They also try to invalidate any decisions of the Russian Synod with a quote from Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky, the leading opponent of name-worshipping. Metropolitan Anthony deplores the fact that the synodal system was forced upon the Russian Orthodox Church to eliminate the competition a strong Patriarch might pose to the tsar. But Metropolitan Anthony himself participated in the Holy Synod for five years, and in the absence of a ruling patriarch, the decisions of the synod were accepted in Russia from the time of Peter the Great until the election of Patriarch Tikhon. In order to cast doubt on the validity of the Russian Synod's condemnation of name-worshipping in 1913, the HOCNA hierarchs are willing to invalidate more than 200 years of decisions by the synod, although those decisions were accepted and obeyed by the saints, hierarchs, monastics, clergy, tsars and laity of the Russian Church.
The obsession of the HOCNA hierarchs with defending name-worshipping, yet insisting that they are not name-worshippers, is the latest manifestation of their loss of spiritual vision, the consequences of their new Sergianism. They continue to put the protection of one man ahead of the spiritual wellbeing of their last remaining, shrinking diocese, without seeming to consider that their course does not even benefit him spiritually. Recognizing this, HOCNA clergy and laity continue to flee to the GOC. Holy Transfiguration Monastery has been divided. Parishes are being divided, and so are families. There is only one way for HOCNA's leaders to end this tragedy: to publicly repent of their wrongdoing and heretical teachings, and to step down. Only then can their flock be united again under truly Orthodox bishops.
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Chronology of Name-Worshipping in HOCNA
Updated 11/19/12
— All dates in the chronology below are civil calendar dates. —
November 3 or 4, 2011 — Name-worshipper Bishop Gregory Lourie (or Lourje), visiting from Russia, was communed at a midnight Liturgy at HTM. Metropolitans Ephraim and Makarios and Bishop Demetrius consented to communing Bishop Gregory Lourie. Afterwards, Bishop Demetrius regretted his assent and then asked forgiveness of the monastic fathers.
November 5, 2011 — Fr. Christos Constantinou has a conversation, in the HTM office, with Metropolitan Ephraim in which Name-worshipping is first mentioned between the two of them, called the "’Name of Jesus’ controversy" in Fr. Christos’s first written communication on the subject. Metropolitan Ephraim did not mention that Bishop Gregory Lourie was given Holy Communion. Instead, Metropolitan Ephraim stated he did not know the man and the Synod would investigate him as time goes on. (See Document 1 below.) As it happens, Metropolitan Ephraim was given information on Bishop Gregory Lourie as far back as 2001. (See the chronology entry below for August 27, 2012.)
November 12, 2011 — Fr. Christos Constantinou sends the first written communication protesting the communing of Name-worshipper Bishop Gregory Lourie. (See, again, Document 1 below.)
On or about November 14, 2011 — Metropolitan Ephraim summons Fr. Christos Constantinou to the Dedham, MA, HOMB offices to discuss the contents of Document 1; also present were Fr. John Fleser and hieromonk Gregory (now Bishop Gregory of Concord). Among the subjects raised were the controversies around Bishop Gregory Lourie. Metropolitan Ephraim had with him and cited documentation concerning these controversies, among which were Bishop Gregory Lourie’s advocacy of Name-worshipping, his use of "punk rock" as a missionary tool, and his association with a nun who does not wear monastic garb. (The Metropolitan had a photo of that nun in civilian attire.) Fr. Christos repeated his positions noted in Document 1: the synod bishops must fully examine other bishops before communing them and present a report to the Church, to which the bishops are accountable, and there needs to be a Church-wide council, to which for years the Metropolitan has been adamantly opposed, to discuss such doctrinal issues and the governance of the Church.
November 15, 2011 —Metropolitan Makarios was implored by clergy to work with Bishop Demetrius to put an end to the present crisis that was gripping HOCNA and threatening to tear it apart.
November 1, 2011 - April 8, 2012 — Fr. Yakov Tseitlin expressed in many written and verbal communications to the HOCNA hierarchs his serious objections to (a) HOCNA ties with Bishop Gregory Lourie because of his support of Name-worshipping and (b) rumored future ordination of hieromonk Gregory because of his support of Name-worshipping. (See Document 2 below for one example of Fr. Yakov’s statements.)
Mid-November 2011 — In another conversation with Fr. Christos Constantinou on the Name-worshipping issue, Metropolitan Ephraim called Anthony Bulatovich an "aggressor" rather than a "confessor" as Bishop Gregory Lourie views that chief proponent of the Name-worshipping doctrine.
November 25 & 30, 2011 — With the blessing of Metropolitan Ephraim, hieromonk Gregory sent a broadcast email containing Fr. Gregory’s opinion that the synodal decisions against Name-worshipping were motivated by other than doctrinal considerations and cast doubts on the decisions’ validity. (See Document 3 below.) This engendered increased and openly expressed objections from clergy and laity.
December 2, 2011 — The HOCNA synod issued a qualified apology for communing Bishop Gregory Lourie and stated the Name-worshipping teaching is a matter for the Russian Church. When the HOCNA synod said the issue has been raging for 100 years and the bishops do not wish to "take sides," the synod effectively denied the synodal decisions that had, in fact, made a determination against Name-worshipping. (See Document 4 below.) Clergy and laity objected that the bishops did not plainly state that they accept the synodal decisions regarding Name-worshipping as all of Orthodoxy has done.
On or about December 19, 2011 — Fr. Panteleimon was intent on giving a talk on Name-worshipping in Toronto, but Metropolitan Makarios prevailed on Father to comply with the synod’s directive and not discuss the issue.
Throughout December 2011 — Many broadcast emails, from people within and without HOCNA, were sent all over the USA and abroad regarding the communing of Bishop Gregory Lourie and the introduction of the Name-worshipping doctrine within HOCNA, and the HOCNA hierarchs were in receipt of these emails. Both Frs. John Fleser and Yakov Tseitlin were encouraging Metropolitan Ephraim to convene a Church council to deal with the Name-worshipping issue, the election of a bishop, and other matters concerning the governance of the Church, but the Metropolitan was opposed.
January 21, 2012 — Fifteen laity, among whom were Diaconissa Panagiota Houlares and at-torney Athanasios George, met with Metropolitan Ephraim and hieromonk Gregory, by then bishop-elect, and Frs. John Fleser and Isaac requesting a postponement of Fr. Gregory’s ordination due, in part, to his support of Name-worshipping, and asking for assurances, given his negative views of the synodal decisions against Name-worshipping, that he would abide by the HOCNA synod’s decision not to discuss the matter. Both the Metropolitan and hieromonk Gregory assured the laity gathered there that the Name-worshipping issue would be dropped and neither of them would continue to be involved in the issue. (See Document 5, A & B, below.)
March 23, 2012 — Metropolitan Ephraim met with Fr. Yakov, in the presence of Bishop Demetrius, Fr. John Fleser, and Fr. Christos Constantinou, to have Fr. Yakov cease from his publicly expressing his objections to HOCNA’s equivocal stance regarding Name-worshipping and Fr. Gregory’s impending ordination. Both Metropolitan Ephraim and Fr. Yakov had documentation with them concerning Name-worshipping and read from them during this meeting, Fr. Yakov citing texts against Name-worshipping, Metropolitan Ephraim citing texts he took to cast doubts on the history and the validity of the decisions.
May 9, 2012 — In violation of the HOCNA synod’s directive, Fr. Panteleimon referenced Name-worshipping in a sermon at HNC. Priestmonk Menas, who was serving with Fr. Panteleimon protested. From months before, there was a controversy at HTM over Name-worshipping, and many monks, among whom were Frs. Haralampos and Basil, were disconcerted that the HOCNA and HTM administrations did not come down on the issue with full support for the synodal decisions.
June 19-26, 2012 — In violation of his own synod’s decision and his promise to the laity in the January meeting, Metropolitan Ephraim sent a limited-broadcast email to a select group of clergy and laity in the USA which contained his response to a man in Russia who asked about Name-worshipping. The Metropolitan expressed his view that he was uncertain about the issue, and he cast doubt on the validity of the synodal decisions against Name-worshipping, using some of the arguments employed by both Bishops Gregory. (See Document 6 below.) Fr. Christos Constantinou wrote the Metropolitan that, by sending the email around, he was violating the HOCNA synod’s decision not to get into the matter and was disturbing the peace of the flock and creating serious doubt in the minds of some clergy and laity regarding HOCNA’s Orthodoxy. The Metropolitan heard similar objections from others, but, in all cases, he rebuffed the criticisms, saying he had permission from his brother bishops to send the email to the individual in Russia.
Mid-June – mid-August 2012 — Clergy and laity, as well as HTM monastics, were expressing grave concerns regarding the deepening rift in HOCNA over the Name-worshipping doctrine and the HOCNA synod’s refusal to put an end to the matter with an unequivocal acceptance of the synodal decisions. Fr. Haralampos of HTM produced a treatise that explained the history and theology undergirding the Orthodox position regarding the Name-worshipping heresy.
August 20, 2012 — Twelve New England clergy decided to meet together 5 days later (10 actually made it) to discuss as brothers in Christ the turbulence in the Church due to the Name-worshipping doctrine and to see if they could come to an agreement how to approach the issue with the Metropolitan in order to preserve the Orthodoxy and unity of the Church.
August 22, 2012 — The decades-long cover-up of the HTM scandal was revealed to the non-monastic clergy.
August 25, 2012 — The 10 clergy met and, along with the Name-worshipping teaching, dis-cussed the HTM cover-up. Concerning Name-worshipping, the clergy agreed that the HOCNA synod needed to declare its oneness of mind with the definitive position of all of Orthodoxy in accepting the decisions against the heresy and its supporters. Concerning the HTM scandal, the clergy agreed that the synod needed to take immediate and decisive action to protect the Church. Then and there, the clergy went to Metropolitan Ephraim to present their views regarding both matters. Fr. Barsanuphius was present, and Fr. Isaac was also present and acknowledged to the clergy as a group that the allegations, from many years ago and more recent years, against Fr. Panteleimon were true and that he and Fr. Panteleimon agreed to the cover-up. Metropolitan Ephraim stated that, when he heard about the allegations, he chose not to investigate them. The clergy protested that the Church, the victims, and all the people were used and abused and betrayed in this manner. The clergy also said that the Metropolitan has lost his moral authority to govern the Church, and, at the very least, resignations were in order, and the Name-worshipping matter had to be put to rest once and for all because HTM was now permanently divided, and clergy and parishes were being torn asunder by both scandals. The 10 non-monastic clergy who participated in this meeting were: Frs. John Fleser, Vassily Mihailoff, Alexander Buterbaugh, John Knox, Michael Knox, Christos Constantinou, George Kamberidis, Demetrios Houlares, George Liadis, and Jacob Wojcik.
August 27, 2012 — In an email to Bishop Demetrius and copied to Fr. John Fleser, Fr. Nicholas of HTM set the record straight concerning Metropolitan Ephraim’s and Fr. Panteleimon’s knowledge of Bishop Gregory Lourie. This email was forwarded to the clergy, as well, so they would know the facts regarding the Metropolitan’s insistence he knew nothing about Bishop Gregory Lourie. According to the record, as far back as 2001, Fr. Nicholas presented both Metropolitan Ephraim and Fr. Panteleimon with a nine-page report regarding Bishop Gregory Lourie and his involvement with the Name-worshipping heresy. (See Document 7 below.)
August 26-31, 2012 — Clergy from beyond New England were voicing their concerns over HOCNA’s handling of both issues. Some clergy saw a direct spiritual connection between the two issues and voiced this view. Specifically, the decades-long cover-up morally compromised the hierarchs and the HTM administration, leading to the turbulent series of recent crises and controversies, one after the other, eventually weakening the defense of the Faith and culminating in the introduction of foreign, even synodically condemned, doctrine.
September 1, 2012 — Eighteen clergy, Fr. Isaac, and the 3 local bishops, met at the HOMB offices to press for the resolution of both matters and to urge the hierarchy to speak out against libelous charges being hurled against the clergy. Fr. Isaac again acknowledged the longstanding cover-up of the numerous instances of the HTM scandal. Metropolitan Ephraim would not agree to accept without reservations the synodal decisions, as has all of Orthodoxy for 100 years, against Name-worshipping. The Metropolitan stated the synod would convene before the October Clergy Synaxis and produce a clearer statement regarding Name-worshipping and, further, the matter would be placed on the agenda of the Synaxis for discussion by all the clergy, and everyone should wait until then. Most of the clergy reiterated that the Metropolitan has lost his moral authority to govern the Church and ought to retire. Metropolitan Ephraim was also told HOCNA was on the verge of losing every-thing that was built up over the last 40-50 years, and his legacy would be in shambles. Bishop Gregory praised the Metropolitan and said his would be "one of the greatest legacies" ever. The 18 non-monastic clergy who participated in this meeting were: Frs. John Fleser, Dimitry Kukunov, Otari Deisadze, Christopher Catanzano, Vassily Mihailoff, Andrew Snogren, Alexander Buterbaugh, John Knox, Michael Knox, James Graves, Christos Con-stantinou, George Kamberidis, Demetrios Houlares, George Liadis, Michael Marcinowski, Jacob Wojcik, Andrew Boroda, and David Ruffner.
September 3, 2012 —In a quick and direct violation of his statement above that everyone should wait until the Clergy Synaxis, Metropolitan Ephraim sent a broadcast email containing two documents the Metropolitan intended as support for his position regarding Name-worshipping. One of the papers was a resend of the Metropolitan’s June 2012 email to a man in Russia. (See the chronology entry above for June 19-26, 2012 and Document 6 below.) The other paper, titled "Excursus," was yet another presentation of arguments by Metropolitan Ephraim with the goal of undermining the validity of the synodal decisions against the Name-worshipping heresy. (See Document 8 below.)
September 6, 2012 —In another violation of his statement above, Metropolitan Ephraim, with Bishop Gregory, held a meeting at the Kukunovs’ home with laity in which they discussed their views that the Russian synods against Name-worshipping were not valid synods and that, because of internal theological errors, the decisions are not acceptable as they stand. Scandalous accusations, known not to be true, were made by some of the laity against some of the clergy, but neither hierarch refuted the charges.
September 10, 2012 — Metropolitan Makarios agreed to meet with the Boston Metropolis clergy, but cancelled the meeting. Frs. George Liadis, Demetrios Houlares, and Christos Constantinou met with Metropolitan Makarios, anyway, and impressed on him that, without an unconditional statement from HOCNA accepting the synodal decisions against Name-worshipping, HOCNA would begin losing some clergy and parishes who were having strong doubts about the integrity of HOCNA’s confession of Faith. At the request of Metropolitan Makarios, the clergy faxed the text of a declaration that, if signed by the synod bishops, would preserve the Orthodoxy of HOCNA’s confession of Faith. (See Document 9 below.) Also, again in violation of his statement above for everyone to wait until the Clergy Synaxis for Name-worshipping to be discussed there, Metropolitan Ephraim sent out broadcast emails in which he once more pushed his position that the synods and the decisions against Name-worshipping are of questionable validity. (See, for one example, Document 10 below, in which the Metropolitan disparages the Russian synods from the time of Czar Peter to the twentieth century with the intent of thereby discrediting their decisions, aiming right for the decisions against Name-worshipping.)
September 11, 2012 — Because of the intransigence of the HOCNA synod regarding the Name-worshipping heresy, Bishop Demetrius of Carlisle resigned from the synod and withdrew from HOCNA for reasons of Faith in accordance with Canon 15 of the First and Second Council. (See Document 11 below for Bishop Demetrius’s statement and Document 12 below for Canon 15.) A petition bearing the signatures of over 40 lay men and women and urging the HOCNA synod to issue a declaration as described above and to retire Met-ropolitan Ephraim was faxed to the Dedham, MA, HOMB offices for consideration at that day’s synod meeting. The HOCNA synod did, in fact, meet but did not issue a statement as described above. Instead, the bishops addressed five clergy, "categorically demand[ing]" that they state their views concerning purported internal theological errors in the 1913 decision of the Russian Synod. The bishops’ action was consistent with their oft-repeated stance, adopted from the Name-worshippers, to deflect attention from what has been the sole issue all along, that the decisions, themselves, condemning the heresy of Name-worshipping are valid and universally accepted by the Orthodox Church.
September 15, 2012 — Although the bishops, at the September 11 synod meeting, had agreed among themselves to cease from circulating Name-worshipping material, Metropolitan Ephraim sent a broadcast email containing two additional documents the Metropolitan intended as support for his position regarding Name-worshipping. The one file was titled "The Name of God in the Psalms," about the contents of which there is no contention anyway. The other file, "The Orthodox Veneration of the Name of God" (17 pages in length), however, plainly promoted the Metropolitan’s view in the opening "Prelude." (See Document 13 below.)
September 16, 2012 — At the St. Mark parish meeting, Metropolitan Ephraim’s position was accurately represented by non-parishioners Thomas Deretich and Michael Vagianos. A number of parishioners stated they felt they were lied to by Metropolitan Ephraim and Bishop Gregory because the two bishops did not adhere to their synod’s decision and their promise to the laity not to pursue the Name-worshipping issue. When there was a consideration to ask the Metropolitan to come to the meeting, Michael Vagianos stated clearly that the Metropolitan was willing to come, but his position on the Name-worshipping issue would be the same as circulated in his recent statements: he would not accept the synodal decisions against Name-worshipping without qualifying reservations and conditions. The clergy reiterated the Orthodox position on the matter: the Orthodox Church Universal has upheld the decisions against Name-worshipping and its adherents without reservations; any purported internal theological errors do not negate the validity of the decisions.
September 18, 2012 — A statement was issued by the HOCNA synod declaring that those bishops would never agree to accept, without reservations, the synodal decisions against Name-worshipping and will not associate with any hierarchy or church that does. (See Document 14 below.)
September 22, 2012 — Metropolitan Ephraim called for a meeting at St. Anna’s parish with the Metropolitan and Bishop Gregory. Present were Fr. Dimitry Kukunov and laity from St. Anna and St. Mark. The meeting was presided over by Judge Leonid Ponomarchuk of Seattle, WA, and only clergy who were commemorating Metropolitan Ephraim were permitted to attend. In this meeting, libelous charges against some clergy were again brought up and, though known not to be true, were not refuted by the hierarchs. It was here in this meeting where Metropolitan Ephraim stated that it was only one or two weeks before this meeting that he was made aware of the clergy’s concern regarding the Name-worshipping heresy. Despite frequent attempts by laity for the Metropolitan to clarify this remark, given all the history presented above, Metropolitan Ephraim did not modify this statement.
he foregoing chronological record is irrefutable evidence that the Name-worshipping heresy was openly introduced into HOCNA approximately one year ago, and its supporters openly have been pushing it on the Church since then. Early in the twentieth century, three synods condemned Name-worshipping as a heresy, and the entirety of the Orthodox Church has accepted these decisions without reservations for the last 100 years. The Church has spoken concerning that teaching and its adherents. Orthodox Christians are faithful to the decisions of councils the Church has accepted. Therefore, faithful Orthodox Christians cannot sit idly when their hierarchs, or anyone else for that matter, teaches or allows to be introduced into the Church doctrines already determined to be heretical.
It is out of this faithfulness to the Church’s doctrines, then, that clergy and laity, over the past year protested this incursion of the Name-worshipping heresy into the HOCNA synod. The clergy were accused by some of violating the canons when the clergy met without their bishop. However, the relevant canons address insurrections against a bishop, conspiracies and plots to undermine the bishop, the setting up of an administration within an administration, the issuance of decisions without episcopal authority, etc. Under no circumstances are brothers in Christ forbidden to gather together to discuss issues important to the Church family and to come up with proposals to solve problems. That is one of the things concerned members of a family do. And what greater problem is there than a violation of Church doctrine?
Some have said the latest Protocol #2917 (Document 14 below) is "what we’ve been waiting for" because the bishops say they are not Name-worshippers. However, this document is none other than an official, synodal restatement of all that Metropolitan Ephraim and those with him have been writing and saying for a while now. The only really "new" thing is they make it very clear—in writing—they just will not accept the synodal decisions against Name-worshipping, as has all of Orthodoxy so peacefully for 100 years, without qualifications. This has been the fundamental issue all along, and it is this that puts them in opposition to Orthodoxy and St. Tikhon, who, himself, made it clear, in the very Nativity encyclical they cite, that the decisions stand unchanged at least until the Russian church ever cares to re-examine the matter, which that Church has not done. Effectively, HOCNA’s position is it and Bishop Gregory Lourie’s group are the only Orthodox synods in the world since all other Orthodox Churches accept the synodal decisions against Name-worshipping without reservations.
Had HOCNA never gotten involved in what was up until then a non-issue, this would not be of concern now. Once HOCNA unnecessarily thrust itself into this matter, having realized the turmoil it created, it could have honored its own resolutions and been silent, leaving the matter alone since, as HOCNA correctly said, this was the affair of the Russian Church. Instead, the hierarchy kept hammering away with the same arguments of the Name-worshippers, casting doubts in the minds of the faithful about the validity of the Russian synods and the syn-odal decrees, the purpose of which doubts is to invalidate the decisions against Name-worshipping.
Unfortunately, relying on St. Tikhon’s Nativity Encyclical as a means to bring peace is nothing other than a compromise, a vain attempt to bring together two irreconcilable teachings, Orthodoxy and Name-worshipping, because of the history how that document is understood by the Orthodox and manipulated by the Name-worshipping advocates. To illustrate this point, it is as if, in the midst of the Arian heresy, the synod of bishops said we fully support and uphold everything that the Holy Gospels and Prophecies say concerning Jesus Christ. That is a perfectly sound Orthodox position, which, nonetheless, the Arians would also accept and put their names to, only to manipulate the Sacred Scriptures to suit their doctrine. This is exactly what is happening with St. Tikhon’s encyclical. He said, without qualifiers, the decisions stand. Why do not the HOCNA hierarchs say the same?
ADDENDUM
As of September 27, 2012, the following faithful have separated themselves from HOCNA, for reasons of Faith in accordance with Canon 15 of the First and Second Council, and have been received into the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece under the omophorion of Bishop Demetrius of Boston: Demetrius, former Bishop of Carlisle, now Bishop of Boston; Fr. Nicodemos Gayle and St. Seraphim of Sarov Orthodox Church in Glen Allen, VA; Frs. Michael Marcinowski and Jacob Wojcik and St. Philaret Mission Orthodox Chapel in Chicopee, MA; Fr. George Liadis and Ascension of our Saviour Orthodox Mission in Carver, MA; Frs. Christos Constantinou, George Kamberidis, and Demetrios Houlares and St. Mark of Ephesus Orthodox Cathedral in Boston, MA; Fr. Vassily Mihailoff and St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco Orthodox Mission in Kennebunk, ME; Fr. George Kochergin and family; and Fr. Yakov Tseitlin and family. (See Document 15 for the HOCNA synod’s official and publicly proclaimed recognition of the Orthodoxy and Canonicity of the GOC and Document 16 for the St. Mark of Ephesus Orthodox Cathedral clergy and parish withdrawal from HOCNA and appeal to the GOC.)
Update as of 11/19/12: Since this document was published, Frs. Andrew Snogren and Alexander Buterbaugh and the Dormition of the Theotokos Church in Concord, NH; Fr. Michael Azkoul and St. Katherine of Sinai Mission Church in St. Louis, MO; Holy Trinity Orthodox Church in Albany, GA; Fr. John Knox, Fr. Michael Knox, Fr. James Graves and St. John the Confessor Church in Ipswich, MA; Fr. Christopher Catanzano and family; and Fr. Christos Patitsas have also been received under the omophorion of Bishop Demetrius.
LIST OF SOME ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE CHRONOLOGY ABOVE
Chronology of Name-Worshipping in HOCNA
as of September 14/27, 2012
Universal Exaltation of the Precious Cross
Assertions have been made that the HOCNA hierarchs were unaware of the clergy’s concerns regarding the Name-worshipping heresy until about the first or second week of September 2012. Below is a chronology of events that clearly shows that Metropolitan Ephraim and the other hierarchs have been well aware of the clergy’s and others’ concerns since at least as early as autumn 2011.
The clergy and laity who have spoken out against the introduction of the Name-worshipping heresy are also accused of instigating this issue and promoting turmoil and dissension in the Church. However, as the facts below unambiguously demonstrate, the entire matter and the related turmoil have been instigated, promoted, and advanced by the supporters of the Name-worshipping doctrine. In this regard, HOCNA was peaceful until the Name-worshippers raised and pushed their teaching on the Church.
The same clergy and laity are further accused of acting rashly and rushing forward, not allowing the HOCNA synod ample time to work through this matter. But the historical record outlined below makes it abundantly obvious that the clergy and laity, for nigh unto a year, were patiently working with the HOCNA synod to bring this issue to a conclusion consistent with the Orthodox confession of Faith. Some suggested that those speaking against Name-worshipping wait until the completion of the HOCNA Clergy Synaxis in early October 2012 in case the HOCNA bishops would change their stance. However, as the record below makes sadly mani-fest, from any rational and reasonable perspective, this suggestion, however well-intended, was in vain since, as late as the third week in September 2012, the HOCNA synod publicly declared it would never accept the synodal decisions against Name-worshipping without conditions.
The clergy and laity who have spoken out against the introduction of the Name-worshipping heresy are also accused of instigating this issue and promoting turmoil and dissension in the Church. However, as the facts below unambiguously demonstrate, the entire matter and the related turmoil have been instigated, promoted, and advanced by the supporters of the Name-worshipping doctrine. In this regard, HOCNA was peaceful until the Name-worshippers raised and pushed their teaching on the Church.
The same clergy and laity are further accused of acting rashly and rushing forward, not allowing the HOCNA synod ample time to work through this matter. But the historical record outlined below makes it abundantly obvious that the clergy and laity, for nigh unto a year, were patiently working with the HOCNA synod to bring this issue to a conclusion consistent with the Orthodox confession of Faith. Some suggested that those speaking against Name-worshipping wait until the completion of the HOCNA Clergy Synaxis in early October 2012 in case the HOCNA bishops would change their stance. However, as the record below makes sadly mani-fest, from any rational and reasonable perspective, this suggestion, however well-intended, was in vain since, as late as the third week in September 2012, the HOCNA synod publicly declared it would never accept the synodal decisions against Name-worshipping without conditions.
— All dates in the chronology below are civil calendar dates. —
November 3 or 4, 2011 — Name-worshipper Bishop Gregory Lourie (or Lourje), visiting from Russia, was communed at a midnight Liturgy at HTM. Metropolitans Ephraim and Makarios and Bishop Demetrius consented to communing Bishop Gregory Lourie. Afterwards, Bishop Demetrius regretted his assent and then asked forgiveness of the monastic fathers.
November 5, 2011 — Fr. Christos Constantinou has a conversation, in the HTM office, with Metropolitan Ephraim in which Name-worshipping is first mentioned between the two of them, called the "’Name of Jesus’ controversy" in Fr. Christos’s first written communication on the subject. Metropolitan Ephraim did not mention that Bishop Gregory Lourie was given Holy Communion. Instead, Metropolitan Ephraim stated he did not know the man and the Synod would investigate him as time goes on. (See Document 1 below.) As it happens, Metropolitan Ephraim was given information on Bishop Gregory Lourie as far back as 2001. (See the chronology entry below for August 27, 2012.)
November 12, 2011 — Fr. Christos Constantinou sends the first written communication protesting the communing of Name-worshipper Bishop Gregory Lourie. (See, again, Document 1 below.)
On or about November 14, 2011 — Metropolitan Ephraim summons Fr. Christos Constantinou to the Dedham, MA, HOMB offices to discuss the contents of Document 1; also present were Fr. John Fleser and hieromonk Gregory (now Bishop Gregory of Concord). Among the subjects raised were the controversies around Bishop Gregory Lourie. Metropolitan Ephraim had with him and cited documentation concerning these controversies, among which were Bishop Gregory Lourie’s advocacy of Name-worshipping, his use of "punk rock" as a missionary tool, and his association with a nun who does not wear monastic garb. (The Metropolitan had a photo of that nun in civilian attire.) Fr. Christos repeated his positions noted in Document 1: the synod bishops must fully examine other bishops before communing them and present a report to the Church, to which the bishops are accountable, and there needs to be a Church-wide council, to which for years the Metropolitan has been adamantly opposed, to discuss such doctrinal issues and the governance of the Church.
November 15, 2011 —Metropolitan Makarios was implored by clergy to work with Bishop Demetrius to put an end to the present crisis that was gripping HOCNA and threatening to tear it apart.
November 1, 2011 - April 8, 2012 — Fr. Yakov Tseitlin expressed in many written and verbal communications to the HOCNA hierarchs his serious objections to (a) HOCNA ties with Bishop Gregory Lourie because of his support of Name-worshipping and (b) rumored future ordination of hieromonk Gregory because of his support of Name-worshipping. (See Document 2 below for one example of Fr. Yakov’s statements.)
Mid-November 2011 — In another conversation with Fr. Christos Constantinou on the Name-worshipping issue, Metropolitan Ephraim called Anthony Bulatovich an "aggressor" rather than a "confessor" as Bishop Gregory Lourie views that chief proponent of the Name-worshipping doctrine.
November 25 & 30, 2011 — With the blessing of Metropolitan Ephraim, hieromonk Gregory sent a broadcast email containing Fr. Gregory’s opinion that the synodal decisions against Name-worshipping were motivated by other than doctrinal considerations and cast doubts on the decisions’ validity. (See Document 3 below.) This engendered increased and openly expressed objections from clergy and laity.
December 2, 2011 — The HOCNA synod issued a qualified apology for communing Bishop Gregory Lourie and stated the Name-worshipping teaching is a matter for the Russian Church. When the HOCNA synod said the issue has been raging for 100 years and the bishops do not wish to "take sides," the synod effectively denied the synodal decisions that had, in fact, made a determination against Name-worshipping. (See Document 4 below.) Clergy and laity objected that the bishops did not plainly state that they accept the synodal decisions regarding Name-worshipping as all of Orthodoxy has done.
On or about December 19, 2011 — Fr. Panteleimon was intent on giving a talk on Name-worshipping in Toronto, but Metropolitan Makarios prevailed on Father to comply with the synod’s directive and not discuss the issue.
Throughout December 2011 — Many broadcast emails, from people within and without HOCNA, were sent all over the USA and abroad regarding the communing of Bishop Gregory Lourie and the introduction of the Name-worshipping doctrine within HOCNA, and the HOCNA hierarchs were in receipt of these emails. Both Frs. John Fleser and Yakov Tseitlin were encouraging Metropolitan Ephraim to convene a Church council to deal with the Name-worshipping issue, the election of a bishop, and other matters concerning the governance of the Church, but the Metropolitan was opposed.
January 21, 2012 — Fifteen laity, among whom were Diaconissa Panagiota Houlares and at-torney Athanasios George, met with Metropolitan Ephraim and hieromonk Gregory, by then bishop-elect, and Frs. John Fleser and Isaac requesting a postponement of Fr. Gregory’s ordination due, in part, to his support of Name-worshipping, and asking for assurances, given his negative views of the synodal decisions against Name-worshipping, that he would abide by the HOCNA synod’s decision not to discuss the matter. Both the Metropolitan and hieromonk Gregory assured the laity gathered there that the Name-worshipping issue would be dropped and neither of them would continue to be involved in the issue. (See Document 5, A & B, below.)
March 23, 2012 — Metropolitan Ephraim met with Fr. Yakov, in the presence of Bishop Demetrius, Fr. John Fleser, and Fr. Christos Constantinou, to have Fr. Yakov cease from his publicly expressing his objections to HOCNA’s equivocal stance regarding Name-worshipping and Fr. Gregory’s impending ordination. Both Metropolitan Ephraim and Fr. Yakov had documentation with them concerning Name-worshipping and read from them during this meeting, Fr. Yakov citing texts against Name-worshipping, Metropolitan Ephraim citing texts he took to cast doubts on the history and the validity of the decisions.
May 9, 2012 — In violation of the HOCNA synod’s directive, Fr. Panteleimon referenced Name-worshipping in a sermon at HNC. Priestmonk Menas, who was serving with Fr. Panteleimon protested. From months before, there was a controversy at HTM over Name-worshipping, and many monks, among whom were Frs. Haralampos and Basil, were disconcerted that the HOCNA and HTM administrations did not come down on the issue with full support for the synodal decisions.
June 19-26, 2012 — In violation of his own synod’s decision and his promise to the laity in the January meeting, Metropolitan Ephraim sent a limited-broadcast email to a select group of clergy and laity in the USA which contained his response to a man in Russia who asked about Name-worshipping. The Metropolitan expressed his view that he was uncertain about the issue, and he cast doubt on the validity of the synodal decisions against Name-worshipping, using some of the arguments employed by both Bishops Gregory. (See Document 6 below.) Fr. Christos Constantinou wrote the Metropolitan that, by sending the email around, he was violating the HOCNA synod’s decision not to get into the matter and was disturbing the peace of the flock and creating serious doubt in the minds of some clergy and laity regarding HOCNA’s Orthodoxy. The Metropolitan heard similar objections from others, but, in all cases, he rebuffed the criticisms, saying he had permission from his brother bishops to send the email to the individual in Russia.
Mid-June – mid-August 2012 — Clergy and laity, as well as HTM monastics, were expressing grave concerns regarding the deepening rift in HOCNA over the Name-worshipping doctrine and the HOCNA synod’s refusal to put an end to the matter with an unequivocal acceptance of the synodal decisions. Fr. Haralampos of HTM produced a treatise that explained the history and theology undergirding the Orthodox position regarding the Name-worshipping heresy.
August 20, 2012 — Twelve New England clergy decided to meet together 5 days later (10 actually made it) to discuss as brothers in Christ the turbulence in the Church due to the Name-worshipping doctrine and to see if they could come to an agreement how to approach the issue with the Metropolitan in order to preserve the Orthodoxy and unity of the Church.
August 22, 2012 — The decades-long cover-up of the HTM scandal was revealed to the non-monastic clergy.
August 25, 2012 — The 10 clergy met and, along with the Name-worshipping teaching, dis-cussed the HTM cover-up. Concerning Name-worshipping, the clergy agreed that the HOCNA synod needed to declare its oneness of mind with the definitive position of all of Orthodoxy in accepting the decisions against the heresy and its supporters. Concerning the HTM scandal, the clergy agreed that the synod needed to take immediate and decisive action to protect the Church. Then and there, the clergy went to Metropolitan Ephraim to present their views regarding both matters. Fr. Barsanuphius was present, and Fr. Isaac was also present and acknowledged to the clergy as a group that the allegations, from many years ago and more recent years, against Fr. Panteleimon were true and that he and Fr. Panteleimon agreed to the cover-up. Metropolitan Ephraim stated that, when he heard about the allegations, he chose not to investigate them. The clergy protested that the Church, the victims, and all the people were used and abused and betrayed in this manner. The clergy also said that the Metropolitan has lost his moral authority to govern the Church, and, at the very least, resignations were in order, and the Name-worshipping matter had to be put to rest once and for all because HTM was now permanently divided, and clergy and parishes were being torn asunder by both scandals. The 10 non-monastic clergy who participated in this meeting were: Frs. John Fleser, Vassily Mihailoff, Alexander Buterbaugh, John Knox, Michael Knox, Christos Constantinou, George Kamberidis, Demetrios Houlares, George Liadis, and Jacob Wojcik.
August 27, 2012 — In an email to Bishop Demetrius and copied to Fr. John Fleser, Fr. Nicholas of HTM set the record straight concerning Metropolitan Ephraim’s and Fr. Panteleimon’s knowledge of Bishop Gregory Lourie. This email was forwarded to the clergy, as well, so they would know the facts regarding the Metropolitan’s insistence he knew nothing about Bishop Gregory Lourie. According to the record, as far back as 2001, Fr. Nicholas presented both Metropolitan Ephraim and Fr. Panteleimon with a nine-page report regarding Bishop Gregory Lourie and his involvement with the Name-worshipping heresy. (See Document 7 below.)
August 26-31, 2012 — Clergy from beyond New England were voicing their concerns over HOCNA’s handling of both issues. Some clergy saw a direct spiritual connection between the two issues and voiced this view. Specifically, the decades-long cover-up morally compromised the hierarchs and the HTM administration, leading to the turbulent series of recent crises and controversies, one after the other, eventually weakening the defense of the Faith and culminating in the introduction of foreign, even synodically condemned, doctrine.
September 1, 2012 — Eighteen clergy, Fr. Isaac, and the 3 local bishops, met at the HOMB offices to press for the resolution of both matters and to urge the hierarchy to speak out against libelous charges being hurled against the clergy. Fr. Isaac again acknowledged the longstanding cover-up of the numerous instances of the HTM scandal. Metropolitan Ephraim would not agree to accept without reservations the synodal decisions, as has all of Orthodoxy for 100 years, against Name-worshipping. The Metropolitan stated the synod would convene before the October Clergy Synaxis and produce a clearer statement regarding Name-worshipping and, further, the matter would be placed on the agenda of the Synaxis for discussion by all the clergy, and everyone should wait until then. Most of the clergy reiterated that the Metropolitan has lost his moral authority to govern the Church and ought to retire. Metropolitan Ephraim was also told HOCNA was on the verge of losing every-thing that was built up over the last 40-50 years, and his legacy would be in shambles. Bishop Gregory praised the Metropolitan and said his would be "one of the greatest legacies" ever. The 18 non-monastic clergy who participated in this meeting were: Frs. John Fleser, Dimitry Kukunov, Otari Deisadze, Christopher Catanzano, Vassily Mihailoff, Andrew Snogren, Alexander Buterbaugh, John Knox, Michael Knox, James Graves, Christos Con-stantinou, George Kamberidis, Demetrios Houlares, George Liadis, Michael Marcinowski, Jacob Wojcik, Andrew Boroda, and David Ruffner.
September 3, 2012 —In a quick and direct violation of his statement above that everyone should wait until the Clergy Synaxis, Metropolitan Ephraim sent a broadcast email containing two documents the Metropolitan intended as support for his position regarding Name-worshipping. One of the papers was a resend of the Metropolitan’s June 2012 email to a man in Russia. (See the chronology entry above for June 19-26, 2012 and Document 6 below.) The other paper, titled "Excursus," was yet another presentation of arguments by Metropolitan Ephraim with the goal of undermining the validity of the synodal decisions against the Name-worshipping heresy. (See Document 8 below.)
September 6, 2012 —In another violation of his statement above, Metropolitan Ephraim, with Bishop Gregory, held a meeting at the Kukunovs’ home with laity in which they discussed their views that the Russian synods against Name-worshipping were not valid synods and that, because of internal theological errors, the decisions are not acceptable as they stand. Scandalous accusations, known not to be true, were made by some of the laity against some of the clergy, but neither hierarch refuted the charges.
September 10, 2012 — Metropolitan Makarios agreed to meet with the Boston Metropolis clergy, but cancelled the meeting. Frs. George Liadis, Demetrios Houlares, and Christos Constantinou met with Metropolitan Makarios, anyway, and impressed on him that, without an unconditional statement from HOCNA accepting the synodal decisions against Name-worshipping, HOCNA would begin losing some clergy and parishes who were having strong doubts about the integrity of HOCNA’s confession of Faith. At the request of Metropolitan Makarios, the clergy faxed the text of a declaration that, if signed by the synod bishops, would preserve the Orthodoxy of HOCNA’s confession of Faith. (See Document 9 below.) Also, again in violation of his statement above for everyone to wait until the Clergy Synaxis for Name-worshipping to be discussed there, Metropolitan Ephraim sent out broadcast emails in which he once more pushed his position that the synods and the decisions against Name-worshipping are of questionable validity. (See, for one example, Document 10 below, in which the Metropolitan disparages the Russian synods from the time of Czar Peter to the twentieth century with the intent of thereby discrediting their decisions, aiming right for the decisions against Name-worshipping.)
September 11, 2012 — Because of the intransigence of the HOCNA synod regarding the Name-worshipping heresy, Bishop Demetrius of Carlisle resigned from the synod and withdrew from HOCNA for reasons of Faith in accordance with Canon 15 of the First and Second Council. (See Document 11 below for Bishop Demetrius’s statement and Document 12 below for Canon 15.) A petition bearing the signatures of over 40 lay men and women and urging the HOCNA synod to issue a declaration as described above and to retire Met-ropolitan Ephraim was faxed to the Dedham, MA, HOMB offices for consideration at that day’s synod meeting. The HOCNA synod did, in fact, meet but did not issue a statement as described above. Instead, the bishops addressed five clergy, "categorically demand[ing]" that they state their views concerning purported internal theological errors in the 1913 decision of the Russian Synod. The bishops’ action was consistent with their oft-repeated stance, adopted from the Name-worshippers, to deflect attention from what has been the sole issue all along, that the decisions, themselves, condemning the heresy of Name-worshipping are valid and universally accepted by the Orthodox Church.
September 15, 2012 — Although the bishops, at the September 11 synod meeting, had agreed among themselves to cease from circulating Name-worshipping material, Metropolitan Ephraim sent a broadcast email containing two additional documents the Metropolitan intended as support for his position regarding Name-worshipping. The one file was titled "The Name of God in the Psalms," about the contents of which there is no contention anyway. The other file, "The Orthodox Veneration of the Name of God" (17 pages in length), however, plainly promoted the Metropolitan’s view in the opening "Prelude." (See Document 13 below.)
September 16, 2012 — At the St. Mark parish meeting, Metropolitan Ephraim’s position was accurately represented by non-parishioners Thomas Deretich and Michael Vagianos. A number of parishioners stated they felt they were lied to by Metropolitan Ephraim and Bishop Gregory because the two bishops did not adhere to their synod’s decision and their promise to the laity not to pursue the Name-worshipping issue. When there was a consideration to ask the Metropolitan to come to the meeting, Michael Vagianos stated clearly that the Metropolitan was willing to come, but his position on the Name-worshipping issue would be the same as circulated in his recent statements: he would not accept the synodal decisions against Name-worshipping without qualifying reservations and conditions. The clergy reiterated the Orthodox position on the matter: the Orthodox Church Universal has upheld the decisions against Name-worshipping and its adherents without reservations; any purported internal theological errors do not negate the validity of the decisions.
September 18, 2012 — A statement was issued by the HOCNA synod declaring that those bishops would never agree to accept, without reservations, the synodal decisions against Name-worshipping and will not associate with any hierarchy or church that does. (See Document 14 below.)
September 22, 2012 — Metropolitan Ephraim called for a meeting at St. Anna’s parish with the Metropolitan and Bishop Gregory. Present were Fr. Dimitry Kukunov and laity from St. Anna and St. Mark. The meeting was presided over by Judge Leonid Ponomarchuk of Seattle, WA, and only clergy who were commemorating Metropolitan Ephraim were permitted to attend. In this meeting, libelous charges against some clergy were again brought up and, though known not to be true, were not refuted by the hierarchs. It was here in this meeting where Metropolitan Ephraim stated that it was only one or two weeks before this meeting that he was made aware of the clergy’s concern regarding the Name-worshipping heresy. Despite frequent attempts by laity for the Metropolitan to clarify this remark, given all the history presented above, Metropolitan Ephraim did not modify this statement.
he foregoing chronological record is irrefutable evidence that the Name-worshipping heresy was openly introduced into HOCNA approximately one year ago, and its supporters openly have been pushing it on the Church since then. Early in the twentieth century, three synods condemned Name-worshipping as a heresy, and the entirety of the Orthodox Church has accepted these decisions without reservations for the last 100 years. The Church has spoken concerning that teaching and its adherents. Orthodox Christians are faithful to the decisions of councils the Church has accepted. Therefore, faithful Orthodox Christians cannot sit idly when their hierarchs, or anyone else for that matter, teaches or allows to be introduced into the Church doctrines already determined to be heretical.
It is out of this faithfulness to the Church’s doctrines, then, that clergy and laity, over the past year protested this incursion of the Name-worshipping heresy into the HOCNA synod. The clergy were accused by some of violating the canons when the clergy met without their bishop. However, the relevant canons address insurrections against a bishop, conspiracies and plots to undermine the bishop, the setting up of an administration within an administration, the issuance of decisions without episcopal authority, etc. Under no circumstances are brothers in Christ forbidden to gather together to discuss issues important to the Church family and to come up with proposals to solve problems. That is one of the things concerned members of a family do. And what greater problem is there than a violation of Church doctrine?
Some have said the latest Protocol #2917 (Document 14 below) is "what we’ve been waiting for" because the bishops say they are not Name-worshippers. However, this document is none other than an official, synodal restatement of all that Metropolitan Ephraim and those with him have been writing and saying for a while now. The only really "new" thing is they make it very clear—in writing—they just will not accept the synodal decisions against Name-worshipping, as has all of Orthodoxy so peacefully for 100 years, without qualifications. This has been the fundamental issue all along, and it is this that puts them in opposition to Orthodoxy and St. Tikhon, who, himself, made it clear, in the very Nativity encyclical they cite, that the decisions stand unchanged at least until the Russian church ever cares to re-examine the matter, which that Church has not done. Effectively, HOCNA’s position is it and Bishop Gregory Lourie’s group are the only Orthodox synods in the world since all other Orthodox Churches accept the synodal decisions against Name-worshipping without reservations.
Had HOCNA never gotten involved in what was up until then a non-issue, this would not be of concern now. Once HOCNA unnecessarily thrust itself into this matter, having realized the turmoil it created, it could have honored its own resolutions and been silent, leaving the matter alone since, as HOCNA correctly said, this was the affair of the Russian Church. Instead, the hierarchy kept hammering away with the same arguments of the Name-worshippers, casting doubts in the minds of the faithful about the validity of the Russian synods and the syn-odal decrees, the purpose of which doubts is to invalidate the decisions against Name-worshipping.
Unfortunately, relying on St. Tikhon’s Nativity Encyclical as a means to bring peace is nothing other than a compromise, a vain attempt to bring together two irreconcilable teachings, Orthodoxy and Name-worshipping, because of the history how that document is understood by the Orthodox and manipulated by the Name-worshipping advocates. To illustrate this point, it is as if, in the midst of the Arian heresy, the synod of bishops said we fully support and uphold everything that the Holy Gospels and Prophecies say concerning Jesus Christ. That is a perfectly sound Orthodox position, which, nonetheless, the Arians would also accept and put their names to, only to manipulate the Sacred Scriptures to suit their doctrine. This is exactly what is happening with St. Tikhon’s encyclical. He said, without qualifiers, the decisions stand. Why do not the HOCNA hierarchs say the same?
ADDENDUM
As of September 27, 2012, the following faithful have separated themselves from HOCNA, for reasons of Faith in accordance with Canon 15 of the First and Second Council, and have been received into the Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece under the omophorion of Bishop Demetrius of Boston: Demetrius, former Bishop of Carlisle, now Bishop of Boston; Fr. Nicodemos Gayle and St. Seraphim of Sarov Orthodox Church in Glen Allen, VA; Frs. Michael Marcinowski and Jacob Wojcik and St. Philaret Mission Orthodox Chapel in Chicopee, MA; Fr. George Liadis and Ascension of our Saviour Orthodox Mission in Carver, MA; Frs. Christos Constantinou, George Kamberidis, and Demetrios Houlares and St. Mark of Ephesus Orthodox Cathedral in Boston, MA; Fr. Vassily Mihailoff and St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco Orthodox Mission in Kennebunk, ME; Fr. George Kochergin and family; and Fr. Yakov Tseitlin and family. (See Document 15 for the HOCNA synod’s official and publicly proclaimed recognition of the Orthodoxy and Canonicity of the GOC and Document 16 for the St. Mark of Ephesus Orthodox Cathedral clergy and parish withdrawal from HOCNA and appeal to the GOC.)
Update as of 11/19/12: Since this document was published, Frs. Andrew Snogren and Alexander Buterbaugh and the Dormition of the Theotokos Church in Concord, NH; Fr. Michael Azkoul and St. Katherine of Sinai Mission Church in St. Louis, MO; Holy Trinity Orthodox Church in Albany, GA; Fr. John Knox, Fr. Michael Knox, Fr. James Graves and St. John the Confessor Church in Ipswich, MA; Fr. Christopher Catanzano and family; and Fr. Christos Patitsas have also been received under the omophorion of Bishop Demetrius.
LIST OF SOME ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE CHRONOLOGY ABOVE
HOCNA = Holy Orthodox Church in North America, presided over by Metropolitan Ephraim of Boston
HOMB = Holy Orthodox Metropolis of Boston, a diocese of HOCNA under Metropolitan Ephraim
HTM = Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Brookline, MA
HNC = Holy Nativity Convent in Brookline, MA
GOC - Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece, presided over by Archbishop Kallinikos of Athens
HOMB = Holy Orthodox Metropolis of Boston, a diocese of HOCNA under Metropolitan Ephraim
HTM = Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Brookline, MA
HNC = Holy Nativity Convent in Brookline, MA
GOC - Genuine Orthodox Church of Greece, presided over by Archbishop Kallinikos of Athens
See supporting Documents on the following pages.
This Chronology is the product of the collaboration of several members of:
St. Mark of Ephesus Orthodox Cathedral
Boston, MA
St. Mark of Ephesus Orthodox Cathedral
Boston, MA
Chronology: Document 12
The Entire Canon 15 of the First-and-Second Council Which Met in Constantinople in 861 AD
The portion pertinent to this Chronology is italicized.
CANON XV
The rules laid down with reference to Priests and Bishops and Metropolitans are still more applicable to Patriarchs. So that in case any Priest or Bishop or Metropolitan dares to se-cede or apostatize from the communion of his own Patriarch and fails to mention the latter’s name, in accordance with custom duly fixed and ordained, in the divine Mystagogy, but, before a synodal verdict has been pronounced and has passed judgment against him, creates a schism, the holy Synod has decreed that this person shall be held an alien to every priestly function if only he be convicted of having committed this transgression of the law. Accordingly, these rules have been sealed and ordained as respecting those persons who under the pretext of charges against their own presidents stand aloof and create a schism and disrupt the union of the Church.
But, as for those persons, on the other hand, who, on account of some heresy condemned by holy Synods or Fathers, withdrawing themselves from communion with their president who, that is to say, is preaching the heresy publicly and teaching it bareheaded in church, such persons not only are not subject to any canonical penalty on account of their having walled themselves off from any and all communion with the one called a Bishop, before any synodal verdict has been rendered, but also, on the contrary, they shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among Orthodox Christians. For they have defied not Bishops, but pseudo-bishops and pseudo-teachers; and they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism but, on the contrary, have been sedu-lous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions.
The Rudder, p. 470-471.
, pp. 470-471.
Chronology: Document 1
October 30/November 12, 2011
SS. Cleopas and Artemas, the Apostles
Most Rev. Ephraim, Metropolitan of Boston; Most Rev. Makarios, Metropolitan of Toronto; and Rt. Rev. Demetrius, Bishop of Carlisle
Beloved Holy Masters:
I kiss your right hands and ask your blessings.
Beloved Masters, do you grasp the scandal and ecclesiological inconsistency and undermining of our own canonical and confessional integrity?
As for Bishop Gregory, by your own standards, either you have to produce—for the whole Church to see—the evidence of your study of him and his situation and his canonical and confessional integrity or you publicly have to repeal communing him until an unhurried and thor-ough evaluation and a proper and correct decision can be made. After all, you have an entire Church to answer to. Sad to say (for us), but even the Kallinikos Synod, its shortcomings not-withstanding, took longer in its deliberations and response time before accepting into commun-ion our departed hierarchs, clergy, and parishes.
And this brings us—yet again—to the beyond lamentable manner in which we govern the affairs of our Church. You have objected to the description of our Synod as dysfunctional. Fine; I’m not wedded to that specific word. But please tell me what word you would use to describe a group of people who do not adhere to their own policies, who act impulsively (in contradiction to their oft-declared "cautiously"), and who, in the face of ongoing, self-inflicted damage to our Church, steadfastly make momentous decisions without full, well-rounded consultation and deliberation.
As for inconsistency with our Synod’s policies and impulsivity, so as not to belabor these points, the several paragraphs prior to the one before this constitute ample evidence. Surely, given all of our past communications, I do not have to repeat prior instances. If you simply had adhered to your own policies and to your purported caution, Bishop Gregory receiving Holy Communion would not now be an issue. And this brings us to the third point, advice and guidance, beyond whatever you may or may not be obtaining now.
Our Synod appears to make decisions as if our hierarchs are in a vacuum, as if there is no rest of the Church which has a say in the Church’s governance and to whom our hierarchs must give account. The three citations immediately below, I hope, will help illustrate what I mean:
In a paper you distributed at this year’s Clergy Synaxis, Fr. Haralampos noted how even the Holy Apostles gathered in council with all of the people present, including laymen, and everyone expressed his view. (Father even remarked on the "Mediterranean" character of the proceedings.)
When we were searching for an Orthodox hierarch in 1987, follow-ing ROCOR’s departure from the Confession of Faith of St. Philaret, the whole church was involved—yes, even laymen. Further, we took several months to make our decision, and, when Archbishop Auxentios came increasingly into view, we actually met with him more than once, asked him anything and everything we wanted, answered any and all of his questions, and then decided the matter together, as the whole Body of Christ.
On and off over the last six years or so, the clergy have urged that you seek full counsel before deciding issues with serious ramifications. One suggestion has been the establishment of a standing board of advisors composed of parish clergy and perhaps laity. Another suggestion has been the convening, from time to time, of a Church-wide council. In both cases, their function would be to study carefully and to give you direction on how to handle serious pastoral and administrative issues and controversial matters of con-sequence. Both approaches have been applied in the Church throughout the centuries.
These three examples stand in sharp contrast to the way our Holy Synod, especially these last several years, determines how to handle situations with significant repercussions or arrives at decisions with far-reaching consequences. Unfortunately, our history gives the impression either we are not aware of either of these potential outcomes or we just do not care. Indeed, I posit that because, to date, you have effectively ignored the suggestions above regarding advisors and councils, some of your more significant decisions and courses of action have increased the tension, turmoil, and division in our Church. Our Synod’s handling of weighty matters and decisions appears to be less thoughtful and open and conciliar within the context of an entire Church and more, I’m sorry to say, impetuous and private and personal, with the too-frequent aura of backroom deals. I know we are capable of conducting the business of the Church much better than that.
You have seen as recently as the end of this September in a meeting with clergy with His Eminence Ephraim and, again, at the last Synaxis that a number of clergy share this concern. In fact, some said they were relieved to learn that other clergy have the same understanding of our conduct and the same concerns addressed in this letter and in previous communications with you and that these concerns have been raised with you, but they are thus far disappointed in our Synod’s overall response. They said they would receive, on occasion, material from our hierarchs showing support for how our Synod was handling a controversial matter, but the same clergy never were made aware by our hierarchs that there were serious opposing views to how our Synod was handling things. I, too, was reassured to learn that others of my brother clergy are of a similar mind.
Are you not tempting God by willfully (after all, you are not in ignorance here) continuing to preside over this self-inflicted destruction? And if you are, for how long will our Lord forbear? You know He allowed His people to be defeated in war in order to teach them to have faith in Him and to be obedient to His will. Clergy, laity, and parishes have departed, a sizable number of our remaining clergy and laity are in dismay and are having temptations, and all of our mon-asteries (what’s left of them) are, at best, on shaky ground and/or divided. (This includes Holy Transfiguration; just pay honest attention to what is going on around you.) And all of this is re-lated to our Synod’s conduct. Are we to lose, perhaps irretrievably, everything built up by di-vine grace and our decades-long labor before we mend our ways?
Kissing, again, your right hands, I remain your unworthy servant in our Lord Jesus Christ.
Father Christos Constantinou
P.S. Some of those same clergy asked that they be "kept in the loop" concerning matters such as these. Thus, whereas in the past I have not sent my communications with you broadly to others, I am sending this letter and similar others in the future to those who asked to be kept up on such things.
SS. Cleopas and Artemas, the Apostles
Most Rev. Ephraim, Metropolitan of Boston; Most Rev. Makarios, Metropolitan of Toronto; and Rt. Rev. Demetrius, Bishop of Carlisle
Beloved Holy Masters:
I kiss your right hands and ask your blessings.
In both written and verbal communications with you over the years, I have said to you that, if a son really loves his father, then, when a son sees his father in error, the son—precisely because he loves his father—corrects him. So I communicate again now with you in this same spirit because I love our Savior and His Church and you, my fathers in the Faith.
Over the last week or so, it has been established that Bishop Gregory Lourje of one of the non-State Church Orthodox jurisdictions in Russia, with the consent of the three of you, received Holy Communion with His Eminence Ephraim during the Divine Liturgy at Holy Transfiguration Monastery sometime near the close of Bishop Gregory’s very recent visit there. I am astounded by how muddled and inconsistent this decision has rendered our ecclesiology and by the entire manner by which you came to this decision.
When I arrived at the Monastery for the Saturday Divine Liturgy approximately two weeks ago, it happened to be right at the time of Bishop Gregory’s departure. Fr. Panteleimon asked me to greet Bishop Gregory, whom I did not even know was in town (which, of course, does not matter) and briefly introduced me to the bishop. I asked Father if the bishop is one of ours, and he said yes. Shortly after greeting the bishop, I approached His Eminence Ephraim, who was seated in his usual spot in the office, and inquired about this bishop.
His Eminence took the time to provide me with a brief background, told me we were reaching out to this man in the spirit of trying to establish an ongoing relationship that might eventually lead to a Sister Churches type of intercommunion, said that we advised this bishop to attempt to join the Tikhon Synod, noted that there were conflicts between this man and that Synod, and remarked that he (His Eminence Ephraim) did not fully comprehend all of the issues, part of which centered on the "Name of Jesus" controversy in the Russian Church. His Eminence gave me the very distinct impression that we would cautiously proceed to evaluate Bishop Gregory and the situation in Russia, which seemed fine to me. And then, this past week, I learned about the bishop’s receiving the Mysteries, which would have had to happen before His Eminence and I had the aforementioned
conversation.
How, I ask, is it proper to commune with a bishop whom we are still evaluating and the controversies around whom we do not understand? Such a weighty decision—bishops com-muning with one another—is made on the basis of an impromptu phone call while the jury is still out on Bishop Gregory’s trustworthiness? How do we jump so fast to communion with this man, whom we truly barely know, while exercising all due caution, for example, with a bishop from another jurisdiction who has been in direct communication with us for over a year and with whom you have met and held discussions in person on more than one occasion? You write, laudably, in your recent "A Historical Clarification" that it is our desire to be in communion with those who, in effect, have canonical and confessional integrity. Where have you estab-lished that this Bishop Gregory meets this criterion?
And here is one glaringly obvious way in which you have seriously confused our ecclesiology. If you can commune with a hierarch whose canonical and confessional integrity we have not thoroughly studied and the controversies around whom we do not adequately comprehend, then, by your own unanimous decision of a little over a year ago when you officially recognized the Kiousis/Kallinikos Synod as the legitimate True Orthodox Church of Greece and turned over your responsibility for Athens to that Synod, you must forthwith commune with each and every one of the hierarchs on that Synod, whose canonical and confessional integrity you have determined and publicly proclaimed.Beloved Masters, do you grasp the scandal and ecclesiological inconsistency and undermining of our own canonical and confessional integrity?
As for Bishop Gregory, by your own standards, either you have to produce—for the whole Church to see—the evidence of your study of him and his situation and his canonical and confessional integrity or you publicly have to repeal communing him until an unhurried and thor-ough evaluation and a proper and correct decision can be made. After all, you have an entire Church to answer to. Sad to say (for us), but even the Kallinikos Synod, its shortcomings not-withstanding, took longer in its deliberations and response time before accepting into commun-ion our departed hierarchs, clergy, and parishes.
And this brings us—yet again—to the beyond lamentable manner in which we govern the affairs of our Church. You have objected to the description of our Synod as dysfunctional. Fine; I’m not wedded to that specific word. But please tell me what word you would use to describe a group of people who do not adhere to their own policies, who act impulsively (in contradiction to their oft-declared "cautiously"), and who, in the face of ongoing, self-inflicted damage to our Church, steadfastly make momentous decisions without full, well-rounded consultation and deliberation.
As for inconsistency with our Synod’s policies and impulsivity, so as not to belabor these points, the several paragraphs prior to the one before this constitute ample evidence. Surely, given all of our past communications, I do not have to repeat prior instances. If you simply had adhered to your own policies and to your purported caution, Bishop Gregory receiving Holy Communion would not now be an issue. And this brings us to the third point, advice and guidance, beyond whatever you may or may not be obtaining now.
Our Synod appears to make decisions as if our hierarchs are in a vacuum, as if there is no rest of the Church which has a say in the Church’s governance and to whom our hierarchs must give account. The three citations immediately below, I hope, will help illustrate what I mean:
In a paper you distributed at this year’s Clergy Synaxis, Fr. Haralampos noted how even the Holy Apostles gathered in council with all of the people present, including laymen, and everyone expressed his view. (Father even remarked on the "Mediterranean" character of the proceedings.)
When we were searching for an Orthodox hierarch in 1987, follow-ing ROCOR’s departure from the Confession of Faith of St. Philaret, the whole church was involved—yes, even laymen. Further, we took several months to make our decision, and, when Archbishop Auxentios came increasingly into view, we actually met with him more than once, asked him anything and everything we wanted, answered any and all of his questions, and then decided the matter together, as the whole Body of Christ.
On and off over the last six years or so, the clergy have urged that you seek full counsel before deciding issues with serious ramifications. One suggestion has been the establishment of a standing board of advisors composed of parish clergy and perhaps laity. Another suggestion has been the convening, from time to time, of a Church-wide council. In both cases, their function would be to study carefully and to give you direction on how to handle serious pastoral and administrative issues and controversial matters of con-sequence. Both approaches have been applied in the Church throughout the centuries.
These three examples stand in sharp contrast to the way our Holy Synod, especially these last several years, determines how to handle situations with significant repercussions or arrives at decisions with far-reaching consequences. Unfortunately, our history gives the impression either we are not aware of either of these potential outcomes or we just do not care. Indeed, I posit that because, to date, you have effectively ignored the suggestions above regarding advisors and councils, some of your more significant decisions and courses of action have increased the tension, turmoil, and division in our Church. Our Synod’s handling of weighty matters and decisions appears to be less thoughtful and open and conciliar within the context of an entire Church and more, I’m sorry to say, impetuous and private and personal, with the too-frequent aura of backroom deals. I know we are capable of conducting the business of the Church much better than that.
You have seen as recently as the end of this September in a meeting with clergy with His Eminence Ephraim and, again, at the last Synaxis that a number of clergy share this concern. In fact, some said they were relieved to learn that other clergy have the same understanding of our conduct and the same concerns addressed in this letter and in previous communications with you and that these concerns have been raised with you, but they are thus far disappointed in our Synod’s overall response. They said they would receive, on occasion, material from our hierarchs showing support for how our Synod was handling a controversial matter, but the same clergy never were made aware by our hierarchs that there were serious opposing views to how our Synod was handling things. I, too, was reassured to learn that others of my brother clergy are of a similar mind.
Are you not tempting God by willfully (after all, you are not in ignorance here) continuing to preside over this self-inflicted destruction? And if you are, for how long will our Lord forbear? You know He allowed His people to be defeated in war in order to teach them to have faith in Him and to be obedient to His will. Clergy, laity, and parishes have departed, a sizable number of our remaining clergy and laity are in dismay and are having temptations, and all of our mon-asteries (what’s left of them) are, at best, on shaky ground and/or divided. (This includes Holy Transfiguration; just pay honest attention to what is going on around you.) And all of this is re-lated to our Synod’s conduct. Are we to lose, perhaps irretrievably, everything built up by di-vine grace and our decades-long labor before we mend our ways?
Kissing, again, your right hands, I remain your unworthy servant in our Lord Jesus Christ.
Father Christos Constantinou
P.S. Some of those same clergy asked that they be "kept in the loop" concerning matters such as these. Thus, whereas in the past I have not sent my communications with you broadly to others, I am sending this letter and similar others in the future to those who asked to be kept up on such things.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)