Talk:Holy Orthodox Church in North America

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. See also the Eastern Christianity Portal. (with unknown importance)
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Although I am not judging the merits of this article, and although for all I know its statements may be true, it is filled with the church's POV. If it were alone, I could remove a sentence such as "Since 1965, most of the Orthodox Churches have violated the canons which forbid common worship with the non-Orthodox and imparting the sacred Mysteries (sacraments) to them." However, rendering it NPOV will require a complete overhaul. This church's rejection of most Orthodox churches alone makes it worthy of an article; hopefully it can be made high-quality in time. Nyttend 03:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I would wish to comment on "Since 1965, most of the Orthodox Churches have violated the canons which forbid common worship with the non-Orthodox and the imparting of the sacred Mysteries to them (sacrements) to them." The canons of the Orthodox Church are a fact, and any local Church or Bishop is free to either remain faithful to the canons under discussion or not. It is a fact that the Orthodox Church's involvement in the Ecumenical Movement has been the source of great controversy that has not been resolved at the present time. One can find the permission for Orthodox priests to impart the Sacraments to non-Orthodox in various publications that are approved by their Patriarchs and bishops which is, again, without serious precident in the Orthodox Church. I can provide the names of those publications if needed. Finally, in the history of the Orthodox Church there are many examples of a small remnant refusing to accept violations to what the Orthodox Church has always believed and practiced. It is a venerable and well known occurance in the lives of the Saints for those who find the practice or beliefs of a Patriarch or bishop questionable to break communion with them until assurance is made that the issues have been resolved.Fr. Sergius Gordon 04:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Clarification about HOCNA not being in Communion with most Orthodox churches 2 Canons and Violations 3 Facts and Convictions, not Allegations 4 A Question of Focus 5 Restored links 6 Reliable Published Sources 7 Suggestion 8 A first step 9 The First Paragraph 10 A Few Minor Changes 11 Previous version 11.1 History 11.1.1 History of Holy Transfiguration Monastery 11.2 Bibliography 11.3 External links 11.3.1 Official HOCNA Sites 11.3.2 Anti-HOCNA publications: 11.3.3 HTM's Defense 12 Footnotes and sources 13 This article is a MESS

[edit] Clarification about HOCNA not being in Communion with most Orthodox churches

I would wish to comment on "Since 1965, most of the Orthodox Churches have violated the canons which forbid common worship with the non-Orthodox and the imparting of the sacred Mysteries to them (sacraments) to them."

The canons of the Orthodox Church are a fact, and any local Church or Bishop is bound to remain faithful to the canons under discussion. At his consecration, an Orthodox bishop makes a public oath to abide by the Sacred Canons. It is a fact that the Orthodox Church's involvement in the Ecumenical Movement has been the source of great controversy that has not been resolved at the present time. One can find the permission for Orthodox priests to impart the Sacraments to non-Orthodox in various publications that are approved by their Patriarchs and bishops which is, again, without canonical precedent in the Orthodox Church. I can provide the names of those publications if needed.

In the history of the Orthodox Church there are many examples of a small remnant refusing to accept violations to what the Orthodox Church has always believed and practiced. It is a venerable and well known occurrence in the lives of the Saints for those who find the practice or beliefs of a Patriarch or bishop questionable to break communion with them until assurance is made that the issues have been resolved. Many of the greatest saints of the Orthodox Church were not in communion, or in intermittent communion, with their local bishops because of doctrinal disputes. There are no canons or declarations in councils accepted by the Orthodox Church that stipulate that one must be in communion with a particular See, Patriarchate, or bishop to be an Orthodox Christian. The Roman Catholic Church believes that communion with Rome is what makes one a member of the Church. The Orthodox Church has always taught that integrity in the historical belief and practice of the Orthodox Church is what makes one an Orthodox Christian.Fr. Sergius Gordon 17:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Recently someone deleted the entire article and replaced it with an article currently on the Orthodox Wikipedia site. The article there is currently under revision. We are happy to discuss facts and to make the article as neutral as possible. However, if one wants to claim we were members of the Greek Archdiocese or fled a canonical investigation or a canonical trial for charges of immorality they had better be prepared to present documented evidence in the form of affidavits and official statements from a properly constituted canonical or civil court.Fr. Sergius Gordon 00:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Concerning neutrality, I wish to challenge Fr Sergius to cite these violations of the canons by the various Orthodox Christian Churches. If such statements are going to be made, then the specific canons that have been violated should be cited, along with documentation of the violations. Otherwise Fr Sergius is using generalizing propaganda not appropriate for a neutral encyclopedic article.

Are there other Orthodox churches with whom HOCNA *is* in communion or are they completely isolated? I couldn't find this information in the article, and the extent of their isolation or communion with others seems relevant to the other topics it discusses at present. Wesley 16:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Although the HOCNA clergy do not concelebrate with other Traditional Orthodox Churches in Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, and Russia at this point in time because of some canonical and administrative difficulties, it recognizes them as valid Churches. Our clergy, in certain circumstances, with the permission of their bishop, will minister to the laity in these other Traditional Orthodox Churches if requested. We also maintain ties with the Monastery of Esphigmenou on Mount Athos and many monastics in the Sketes who are not commemorating the Patriarchate of Constantinople for reasons of Faith in the same way as the Traditional Orthodox Churches mentioned above. So, to answer your question, we are not completely isolated. Furthermore, we are well known to the clergy and faithful in the Jerusalem Patriarchate, the Church of Cyprus, the Church of Mount Sinai, and the Monastery of Vatopaidi on Mount Athos, all of whom with we have a very cordial relationship , although we are not in communion.Fr. Sergius Gordon 04:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canons and Violations

If you read the appended articles one, two, and three, there is sufficient documentation. The second are the Sorrowful Epistles of Metropolitan Philaret of New York, the third are the documents that show why the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia received many clergy from various Orthodox Jurisdictions without a canonical release because those Jurisdictions were very involved with the Ecumenical Movement. The canons that have been consistently violated on the hierarchal level by those Orthodox Churches involved in the Ecumenical Movement are Apostolic Canons 10, 11 ,45 ,46 ,47 , and Canon 1 of the Local Council of Carthage. All of these Canons were accepted by the Ecumenical Council held in Trullo or also known as Quinisext. In Orthodox Christianity and the Spirit of Contemporary Ecumenism by Fr. Daniel Degyansky (ISBN 0-911165-20-7, Center for Traditional Orthodox Studies), who is a priest in the Orthodox Church of America, a jurisdiction that follows the Gregorian Calendar and is very active in the Ecumenical Movement, he mentions on pg.44 a directive that was put out by the Bishops of the Standing Conference of Orthodox Bishops in America (SCOBA)[[1]] that gives very specific outlines of how to interact with the heterodox. The Apostolic Canons 10, 11 , and 45 are referred to. Unfortunately this directive was later ignored, especially after the "Lifting of the Anathemas of 1054" in 1965. As we know, common prayers with the heterodox has become a common occurrence as anyone who wishes to read the various official publications of the various Orthodox Churches that participate in the WCC and other Ecumenical prayer services clearly demonstrate. In the Balaamand Agreed Statement that was issued in June 1993, the Orthodox delegates fully recognize the priesthood and sarcaments of the Roman Catholic Church, despite the fact the Roman Catholic Church has not renounced its beliefs that the Orthodox Church has considered heretical for hundreds or even a thousand years. The Thyatiera Confession issued in 1975 with complete endorsement by the Patriarch and Holy Synod of Constantinople recognizes the validity of heterodox priesthood and sacraments and allows inter- communion. It has never been retracted. The list could go on for pages. For further reading let me recommend Fr. Degyansky's book mentioned above, The Struggle Against Ecumenism (ISBN 0-943405-09-2, Holy Orthodox Church in North America, 1998), Against False Union(ISBN 0-913026-70-0, Alexander Kalomiros, 1978) and The Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Movement During the Period 1920-1969(ISBN 0-913026-74-3, Fr. George Macris, 1987). Fr. Sergius Gordon 02:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Facts and Convictions, not Allegations

The main issues that were the concern of the eight clergy and 27 monks of Holy Transfiguration Monastery and the 22 married clergy throughout North America that were to become HOCNA was the failure of the bishops of ROCOR to take the Anathema Against Ecumenism that they had all signed in 1983 seriously [[2]].Fr. Sergius Gordon 22:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Question of Focus

Recently someone has sought to address not the issues of the relevance of the canons of the Orthodox Church, but to bring up issues of a personal nature. I wish to clarify a few things. First, the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia has done exactly as the the senior clergy of HOCNA said they would 20 years ago when they saw the first signs of rapprochement with the Moscow Patriarchate and the other Orthodox Churches that justify their involvement in the World Council of Churches and other ecumenical activities. If someone wishes to debate the merit of this involvement or the relevance of the canons in question, fine. Secondly, one will look in vain for even one mention of any irregularities or scandal in the civil records of the State of Massachusetts or the Town of Brookline or in the local or national press concerning Holy Transfiguration Monastery. Thirdly, the monastery is full and thriving, as well as the convent in its care one mile away. The two communities are full to capacity and the monastic communities in HOCNA have tripled in the past 20 years. The parishes of HOCNA have tripled and so has the number of its clergy. Fourthly, why have those who have claimed irregularities in the monastery not turned to the civil authorities rather than simply have a defamation campaign where there is no accountability or penalty if one is caught committing perjury? If anyone continues to call attention to unsubstantiated allegations I will challenge them on it, but only if they sign their names, otherwise I will just delete the comment. There were two official statements, one from the ROCOR bishops and one from the Synod of Archbishop Auxentios on personal issues regarding the monastery. That is the only official documentation and the only thing that should be presented in a Wikipedia forum, if needed. I deleted the last two things that were added to this site because they are irrelevant here, especially links to a site that is anonymous, libelous, and salacious.Fr. Sergius Gordon 05:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restored links

With all due respect, Fr Sergius seems to only be willing to permit material which agrees with the official HOCNA POV. This seriously compromises the neutrality of this article. The restored links document the allegations, as well as responses to the allegations. This is entirely appropriate to Wikipedia, regardless of whether or not they are added anonymously.

Perhaps Fr Sergius should reread WP:NPOV and WP:A before removing any material critical of his organization. In particular, I would remind him that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true." In this case, the linked sites are the best source available for both the allegations and their refutation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.23.217.123 (talk) 23:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

This article has serious, serious POV issues. As noted multiple times on this Talk page, it seems that POV-pushing in favor of HOCNA is the only possibility allowed by certain editors. The article needs a total rewrite. 71.241.121.64 21:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable Published Sources

Again, with all due respect, I do not think that two of the sites are reliable. Fr. John Whiteford's site, though we would disagree, is better in presenting his POV . I repeat what I said above, the two reliable documents regarding to any personal allegations would be the official statements from the ROCOR bishops and the bishops of the Synod of Archbishop Auxentios. The statement published by the ROCOR bishops is very critical of HOCNA. Unsubstantiated allegations such as found on some sites critical of HOCNA are personal attacks made without accountability. Again, the official statement of the ROCOR bishops names the allegations and the document of Archbishop Auxentios refutes them on the basis of canon law. That would seem the most neutral presentation of the controversy. Please give me a few days to put links to those two documents. Please reread the section on Using Questionable or self-published Sources in the Attributions guidlines. Is that fair enough?Fr. Sergius Gordon 03:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

There is much that can be done to improve this article. (For example, the current opening sentence ("The Holy Orthodox Church in North America or HOCNA is composed of laity and clergy who wish to remain faithful to the apostolic and patristic dogmas, canons, and customs of the Orthodox Church.") could be said of every single local Orthodox Church — in other words, it does not define HOCNA per se.)

First, though, I think that we can all agree on the following:

1. HOCNA is an Orthodox Christian church.
2. Its formation centered around the departure (from ROCOR) of Holy Transfiguration Monastery (HTM) in 1986 to the Old Calendarists in Greece, followed by incorporation in 1987 with a group of former-ROCOR clergy.
3. HOCNA views itself as an uncompromising upholder of "apostolic and patristic dogmas, canons, and customs of the Orthodox Church" and that its departure was on account of growing ecumenism in ROCOR.
4. There is an alternate view that the departure of HTM from ROCOR and the subsequent formation of HOCNA was to avoid church discipline for improper and scandalous behavior.

(Whether or not either of these views is accurate is not within the scope of this article. The fact is that both views exist, and the fact of their existence is within the scope of the article, as is any documentation of their existence.)

In order to improve the article, I suggest that we begin by addressing each of these points in as straightforward and non-polemical a manner as possible. For example, the introduction could begin:

The Holy Orthodox Church in North America or HOCNA is an Eastern Orthodox Christian church located primarily in the United States and Canada, with additional communites in Europe and Africa. Originally part of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR), it was incorporated in 1987 from the community of Holy Transfiguration Monastery in Brookline, Massachusetts (which had left ROCOR in 1986) and a group of former ROCOR clergy, initially under the authority of the Greek Old Calendarists.

Then a "History" section, a "HOCNA Communites worldwide" section (a better place for the numbers of communities and clergy in various countries), a "Stance on Ecumenism" section, a "Relations with other Orthodox churches" section, and perhaps a "Controversy" section. In all of these, we should restrict ourselves as much as possible (at least at first) to names and dates and bald statements of undisputed fact (for example, "Some HOCNA clergy have been accused of sexual abuse" and "HOCNA rejects any concelebration with non-Orthodox" are perfectly acceptable (if properly documented), while "Some HOCNA clergy have been maliciously accused of sexual abuse" and "HOCNA foolishly rejects concelebration with non-Orthodox" are not). Throughout, phrases such as "he apparently felt that it impugned his authority", "the reason for their departure was vindicated", and "uncanonical and irregular handling of slander" should be avoided. Whether truthful or not, they give undue weight to the pro-HOCNA POV, and are therefore unacceptable.

While much of the information that Fr Sergius has provided is relevant, it tends to clog the article and make it much harder to read. I would suggest, therefore, that (A) the HTM material be used as the core of a separate Holy Transfiguration Monastery (Brookline, MA) article and (B) that the first seven or eight paragraphs of the current "History" section should be condensed into a "Background" subsection of the new "History" section.

Thoughts? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.23.224.70 (talk) 01:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Most of this looks quite good and much more balanced. I would note, though, that HOCNA did not originate in ROCOR but was originally part of the Greek Archdiocese of America. Indeed, HTM itself was founded to be a "companion" of sorts to Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology in Brookline, literally about 5 minutes' walk away. It would be useful to cover the history of the monastery's departure from the GOA into the ROCOR, as well. 71.245.4.149 15:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

HTM's origins would be more appropriate to a separate Holy Transfiguration Monastery article. As I understand it, HTM was within ROCOR at the time of its departure; any prior history is probably not directly relevant to the formation of HOCNA. We can, however, link directly to a "History" subsection within the HTM article —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.23.224.70 (talk) 19:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for your suggestions and I will be happy to show them to the other people involved. We appreciate any help to make this article as NPOV. I have sent messages to your talk pages, and I will be interested in your response. I wish to correct you though on the issue that Holy Transfiguration Monastery was at one time part of the Greek Archdiocese. It was not. It was a metochion (dependancy) of New Skete on Mount Athos and was never administratively part of the Greek Archdiocese. Also, the monastery first started in Haverhill, MA in 1960. Fr. Panteleimon lost that first estate because he could not make the payments since he was not receiving any donations from the Greek Archdiocese. In 1960 the brotherhood purchased a modest home and property on Orchard Street in Jamaica Plain, MA. Because the brotherhood had increased to a size that desperately needed more room, the present property was acquired in 1970 with half the funds being provided by a pious Greek couple from Chicago and some friends in Greece. The other half was paid off by the funds earned from the brotherhood's handicrafts in several years. It was not planned to be next door to Holy Cross Seminary, but was providential. Over the years hundreds of seminarians have visited us to purchase icons, incense, and publications. We always give them a courtesy discount. I agree that all of this should be in the separate article on Holy Transfiguration Monastery. By the way, would a link to PDF of the original document of Holy Transfiguration Monastery's acceptance into ROCOR which notes that the request to be received into ROCOR was being requested by St. Paul's Monastery be appropriate? How does this sound?

Beginnings from Mount Athos and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad

Archimandrite Panteleimon (Metropolous), the senior clergyman of HOCNA, was born into a Greek family in Detroit, Michigan in 1935. When he was 11 years old he began to attend Services at a Greek Parish that followed the traditional liturgical calendar (the Julian calendar). Archimandrite Auxentios, who was to become the future Archbishop of the True Orthodox Church of Greece, heard his first confession and received him into the TOCG. He had been tonsured as a monastic on Mount Athos at St. Panteleimon’s Monastery in 1957 and was a disciple of the Elder Joseph the last two years of Elder Joseph’s life from 1958 to 1959. In obedience to his Spiritual Father, Elder Joseph the Hesychast and Cave Dweller of Mount Athos he founded Holy Transfiguration Monastery as a metochion of New Skete which is attached to St. Paul’s Monastery on Mount Athos. In 1964 he was advised to be ordained a priest by Elder Arsenios, co-ascetic of the Elder Joseph and was ordained priest in late 1964 by the Jerusalem Patriarchate at the request of Archimandrite Andrew, Abbot of St. Paul’s Monastery. In 1965 he was advised by his spiritual brother Elder Joseph the Cypriot (now the Elder of Vatopaidi Monastery) on Mount Athos, who was acting as the spokesman for Elder Arsenios and the other members of the Synodia at New Skete, to be received by Metropolitan Philaret, Chief Hierarch of ROCOR because of the “Lifting of the Anathemas of 1054” by Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople. And so in the mid-1960s Fr. Panteleimon and his small monastery of five monks joined ROCOR.Fr. Sergius Gordon 21:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

All this good info, but much better for an HTM article and/or perhaps one on Fr Panteleimon. Let's keep this article strictly focussed on HOCNA itself. By the way, regarding "the other people involved" (whoever they may be), please remember that Wikipedia content is only subject to Wikipedia rules, not to outside approval by any other body or person(s). Feel free to consult others, by all means, but remember that any additions, deletions, or other changes to the article's content are to be determined solely by consensus of all editors to this article. Please consult the relevant sections of the Help guides, especially those under WP:EQ. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.23.224.70 (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] A first step

I've reorganized the article along the lines described above. Let's take it forward bit by bit.

[edit] The First Paragraph

On the whole the first paragraph is good, but HOCNA was not really formed from Holy Transfiguration Monastery per se. It was the whole group of the 32 clergyman, most of them married clergy with parishes, that acted together and appealed to be received by bishops of the Old Calendar Church of Greece. Granted, the monastery was the nucleus for meetings, but the monastery was not making the directives and the clergy simply following. As a matter of fact, when we left ROCOR in 1986 Fr.Panteleimon was in Greece and a large group of clergy met at the monastery. It may surprise some, but Fr. Panteleimon was the last person to be convinced to leave ROCOR, regardless of the the way the bishops were treating his personal case. Could we reword that please? Again, thank you for your help. One last thing is that I would really like to replace the three links to hocna.info, pokrov, and Fr. John Whiteford's site with just the Decree of the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia issued in 1987 because it covers all of the personal and ecclesiastical allegations in an official document. Not everything in this document is true, but it is an official document. I think that the sites mentioned are questionable sources and self-published sources and also violate the precautions one should take with statements about living persons as outlined in the guidelines for reliable sources. I should have that in our url archive shortly and I can show it to all of you and you can tell me what you think.Fr. Sergius Gordon 06:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll address this below, in a new "Footnotes and sources" section.

The point of the new first paragraph is that HOCNA formed from the combination of the 32 clergy and HTM (at least, that is how it appears from the outside), which I think the current wording makes fairly clear. Feel free to tweak it, though, for greater accuracy & clarity.

Yes, that is better.

I would certainly support adding a link to the decree of the ROCOR synod. However, the current links to hocna.info, pokrov.org, and Fr. John Whiteford's site are relevant and necessary (even if distasteful) as evidence of the current existence and views of the anti-HOCNA camp. The disadvantage of the ROCOR decree is that it is twenty years old, whereas the other three sites are reasonably up-to-date. Note too that neither these sites nor the pro-HOCNA sites are given as evidence of the truth or falsehood of any allegations, but as evidence of the controversy and debate (which often extends beyond "official" channels).

What would you think if we had a heading between the "Anti-HOCNA" and "HOCNA Defence" that was, let's say The Two Official Statements from Church Chanceries?

See "Footnotes and sources" below.

Yes, they were put up at relatively recent dates, but the allegations contained therein are 21 years old (from 1986) and 15 years old (from 1992). Also, the main author of the article, who is not myself, thought your suggestion of having a separate article about the monastery and even a separate article about Fr. Panteleimon was good. However, he thought that the personal allegations about the monastery should just be there, whereas allegations of integrity of faith should be on the HOCNA article. Although the monastery plays an important part in the spiritual life of HOCNA, HOCNA and Holy Transfiguration Monastery are not interchangeable. They are two separate things, and, as you suggested, they should be separate articles that reference one another. Also, I though the bibliography was simply that. I did not know that it should contain specific citations, which is more like footnotes rather than a bibliography. That will take some work.--Fr. Sergius Gordon 14:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Allegations of abuse at HTM should certainly go on the HTM page, but not only there. Since it is commonly alleged that HOCNA was formed to avoid responsibility for such abuse, that is certainly relevant to this page, as would be any allegations of recent or current abuse. However, that does not preclude allegations of integrity of faith, which should also be in this article. That's how NPOV works: neutrally describe all sides, without taking sides.

A question, when is it appropriate to have direct links to primary documents that are not published to substantiate the article? Or does that sort of thing only belong in the discussion page? Are references only to printed materials permitted in the main article? Are unprinted items considered too POV such as most of the links (but not all) we had in the article before? I am unclear on this, obviously.

It is possible to have direct links in the body of the article itself, but many editors find that footnotes are much better, since you include basic information in the footnote (author, title, etc) as well as a link to the document itself. To include all this information in the article text makes the article much harder to read.

For information about how to create footnotes, see Wikipedia:Footnotes. The main style guide on citations is Wikipedia:Citing sources. You may also find Wikipedia:Attribution answers most of your questions about what is a good source for an article and what isn't.

See "Footnotes and sources" below.

Also, we have decided to create a page that will answer, point by point, the assertions made in the Decree from the ROCOR Bishops and have that be the main thing in the defense. It will be link to a substantial amount of information in the form of primary documents and letters that will be easily accessible on line. Before, people would have to write us and we would send photocopies, but this much easier. The best thing is to be as transparent and dispassionate as possible.

I assume that you mean to create a non-Wikipedia page to cover this information! Doing that on Wikipedia is what's called a "POV fork" (as in, " a fork in the road", not the eating utensil), and is generally considered unacceptable (see WP:POVFORK for more information). However, if your own page has these documents online, it could be a good resource for attribution (as noted above).

Yes, we will make our own page and not a wikipage. It will an archive of primary documents to have HOCNA's side of the story.

[edit] A Few Minor Changes

I changed "condemn" in the section on Relations with Other Orthodox Churches to "subject to the Anathema Against Ecumenism, etc. and reorganized the headings on the external links and added a reference--Fr. Sergius Gordon 00:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Previous version

For the sake of not losing any material in a planned abridgement, I've moved the bulk of the previous version here. As necessary and according to consensus, we can move some or all of this material back to the article.

BEGIN PREVIOUS VERSION. PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS SECTION.

The Holy Orthodox Church in North America or HOCNA is composed of laity and clergy who wish to remain faithful to the apostolic and patristic dogmas, canons, and customs of the Orthodox Church. Believing and affirming the patristic maxim that there can be no compromise in matters of the Faith, HOCNA opposes Ecumenism. Since 1965, most of the Orthodox Churches have violated the canons which forbid common worship with the non-Orthodox (Apostolic Canons 10, 11, 45) and imparting the sacred Mysteries (sacraments) to them (Apostolic Canons 46, 47, and Canon 1 of the Local Council of Carthage). These Orthodox Churches have also adopted declarations and confessions of faith agreeing with the heterodox but contravening Orthodox confessions (Lifting of the Anathema of 1054 in 1965, The Thyateira Confession in 1975, Balamand Agreed Statement in 1993, Agreed Statement of the Joint Commision of the Theological Diologue between the Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodox Church Chambesy, Geneva; 23-28 September, 1990). HOCNA, therefore, is no longer in communion with Orthodox Churches in the World Council of Churches (WCC), and the National Council of Churches (NCC), which participate in joint prayers with non-Orthodox. [3]

Today, HOCNA consists of seven monastic communities and thirty-one parishes, missions and chapels throughout the United States; one monastic community and six parishes and missions in Canada; one convent, one hermitage and two parishes in Greece; one hermitage and three parishes in the republic of Georgia; one convent and three parishes in Russia; two churches in the Ukraine; one chapel in Byelorussia; one parish in Switzerland; six churches in Uganda; eight parishes and missions in Kenya. These monastic communities and parishes are served by five bishops and eighty-six clergymen.

[edit] History

In 1965, the Ecumenical Patriarch, Athenagoras I, unilaterally lifted the Anathema against the Roman Catholic Church. In Orthodox canon law and ecclesiology, this is in effect a declaration of dogmatic union. No autocephalous or autonomous Orthodox Church objected officially, except for the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR).[4]

ROCOR was the only Orthodox Church in America-if not the world-which declared these actions and statements of Patriarch Athenagoras as being contrary to Orthodox truth and doctrine. Thus, in 1966, Holy Transfiguration Monastery of Boston, Massachusetts #History of Holy Transfiguration Monastery sought refuge in and was accepted by ROCOR. The Monastery was accepted without a canonical release from any ecclesiastical authority, since ROCOR considered this action as a confession of the Faith. The Monastery, a dependency of New Skete of St. Paul's Monastery on Mount Athos, had from its founding followed the Old Calendar and maintained a firm conviction in patristic Orthodoxy and a respect for the Canons.

Over a period of time, laymen and clergy from various jurisdictions joined ROCOR for conscience's sake since Ecumenistic statements and joint prayers were increasing in the other jurisdictions. They were received without a canonical release [5] since they left their former bishops for matters of faith. These new adherents to ROCOR became known to each other because their concerns were the same. They helped each other in writing and publishing articles defending the Orthodox Faith against uncanonical innovations. The Monastery and these people were the nucleus of the future HOCNA. Under the inspiring presidency of the saintly Metropolitan Philaret-who was also committed to defending Orthodoxy-many more faithful, within ROCOR and without, became conscious of the inroads made by Ecumenism. ROCOR had always been aware of the Moscow Patriarchate's compromises with the Soviet authorities, but being refugees, fleeing wars and betrayals, self-involved, and in extreme poverty, they were not aware of the progress of Ecumenism in subverting Orthodoxy.

During the 1970's and 1980's, nostalgia for Russia burgeoned in ROCOR, fed especially by sympathy for publicized dissidents in the Soviet Union. This sympathy engendered the belief that all must be united to help these people and that other concerns were of lesser importance. Many ROCOR clergy held joint prayers with clergy of other jurisdictions, who were members of the WCC or NCC and were "committed"-in their own words-to the Ecumenical movement. Despite the admonishments of Metropolitan Philaret, concelebrations did not completely cease, although the frequency was greatly lessened. These concelebrations or joint prayers often included clergy of the Moscow Patriarchate, who had been anathema to ROCOR from the time of the declaration of Metropolitan Sergius in 1927. [6]

Such infractions were often brought to the attention of the Synod of ROCOR by those who had joined ROCOR to avoid such violation of the Canons. In order to clarify the matter and lay down clear boundaries, the 1983 All-Church Sobor of ROCOR held at Holy Transfiguration Skete in Mansonville, Quebec, Canada, unanimously condemned and anathematized Ecumenism as a heresy and absolutely forbade communion of prayer under pain of excommunication. All the bishops signed this declaration. [7]

After the repose of the blessed Metropolitan Philaret in 1985 and the election shortly thereafter of Metropolitan Vitaly, violations of joint prayers and concelebrations increased without any regard. If any complaint were made to the Synod, it was generally ignored or rebuffed with the statement that these were the bishops concern only and the complainants should be obedient and silent.

In 1986, Ecumenistic concelebrations continued and became more frequent and remained uncorrected by ROCOR authorities, even though the Synod was always informed by the faithful that the official anathema had been violated. During this year, dozens of clergy, and scores of the laity made written and personal protests to the bishops of ROCOR against the trend of concelebrations with jurisdictions involved in the Ecumenical movement. Three delegations of clergy from New England at different times went to New York to personally petition Metropolitan Vitaly concerning concelebrations with Orthodox involved in Ecumenism. At the second meeting on August 29/September 11, Metropolitan Vitaly asked the clergymen to write a factual report listing all the infractions of the Anathema of 1983. [8]

At the third meeting Metropolitan Vitaly refused to meet with all the delegation, but only with one Russian clergyman. The Metropolitan then refused to meet with any more of those clergy or anyone from the Monastery. After he had received the requested report, he called all the clergymen disobedient and rebels since he apparently felt that it impugned his authority. After this reaction to the report, the clergy lost hope in Metropolitan Vitaly's integrity.

The Monastery brethren, wearied by ROCOR's silence concerning the increasing violations of concelebrations, voted to depart from ROCOR and to find shelter with the Old Calendarists of Greece on November 25/December 8. The same day, Metropolitan Vitaly was notified by a registered letter. [9]

Other clergymen and parishes followed them over the succeeding month, and the reason for their departure was vindicated especially after the revelatory 1986 Nativity Epistle of Metropolitan Vitaly. [10] All the above clergymen together with the Monastery joined to form HOCNA in 1987. A letter from the Monastery to Bishop Hilarion in 1987, gives a complete chronology of the events of 1986. [11]

The priests who were to form HOCNA first approached two bishops of the Synod of Archbishop Auxentius, because of tumultuous administrative controversies then raging among the Old Calendarists of Greece; they finally petitioned Archbishop Auxentius and were accepted. In 1987 HOCNA incorporated and consisted of about 30 clergymen. They had all been defrocked on August 19/September 1, 1987 by ROCOR for "disobedience and schism," in complete violation of canonical order which requires three summons to a spiritual court. [12]

In 1988, Monk Ephraim (Spanos) of Holy Transfiguration Monastery was ordained hierodeacon, hieromonk and then as bishop for HOCNA. He is now Metropolitan of Boston [13]. Bishop Makarios (Katre) was ordained for Toronto in 1991, and later was elevated to Metropolitan.

Also in 1991, a group of Catacomb Russian Orthodox Christians scattered throughout Russia led by Archimandrite Gury (Pavlov) made contact with the HOCNA bishops. They were known as "The Passportless" because of their refusal to take Soviet Passports. These Russian Orthodox faithful had never accepted the bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate that had compromised with the Soviet Authorities. Fr. Gury had been received warmly by ROCOR and was even lionized by them because he was a well- known clergyman among the True Orthodox Russians of Russian and his credentials were known to be impeccable. Fr. Gury was made an Archimandrite by ROCOR and was a bishop-elect. Archimandrite Gury and his flock were also very concerned that ROCOR had accepted Moscow Patriarchal clergy who had left the Catacomb Church to be ordained and even had some of these clergy consecrated bishops. Also, after extended contact with ROCOR in 1990 Fr. Gury understood, as did the HOCNA faithful five years earlier, that ROCOR was concelebrating with Orthodox Churches involved in the Ecumenical Movement. In July of 1991 Fr. Gury was consecrated to the episcopacy by Metropolitan Maximos of Cephalonia, Metropolitan Ephraim of Boston, and Metropolitan Makarios of Toronto with the consent of Archbishop Auxentius.

Bishop Moses (Mahaney) was consecrated in 1996 as a suffragan of Metropolitan Ephraim, and was later elevated to Metropolitan of Seattle.

In 1997 a group of prominent clergy and laity from the Georgian Orthodox Church left Patriarch Elias in protest over the Georgian Church's involvement in Ecumenism and was received by HOCNA.

In 2000, a group of Orthodox Christians in Uganda was received by the bishops of HOCNA and in 2003 a group of Orthodox Christians from Kenya was received.

Bishop Sergios (Black) was consecrated on July 26/August 8, 2004 as Suffragan Bishop of Loch Lomond, California and Bishop Demetrius (Kiriacou) was consecrated on August 21/September 3, 2006 as Suffragan Bishop of Carlisle, Pennsylvania.

The bishops of HOCNA are all men who were monastics. Metropolitans Ephraim, Makarios, Moses, and Bishop Demetrius were monks at Holy Transfiguration Monastery for five years or more. Bishop Sergios is the abbot of St. Gregory of Sinai Monastery, Kelseyville, California.

+Ephraim, Metropolitan of Boston, Massachusetts

+Makarios, Metropolitan of Toronto, Canada

+Moses, Metropolitan of Seattle, Washington

+Sergios, Suffragan Bishop of Loch Lomond, California

+Demetrius, Suffragan Bishop of Carlisle, Pennsylvania

[edit] History of Holy Transfiguration Monastery

The Monastery was an important inspiration for the formation of HOCNA, since from its foundation it had always loved and honored the holy theology and apostolic tradition of the Orthodox Church.

The founder of the Monastery is Archimandrite Panteleimon, born in 1935 of Greek parentage in the United States and named John Metropoulos. He evidenced his love for Orthodox tradition when, being eleven years old, he became a confirmed member of an Old Calendarist Greek parish in Detroit, Michigan. The parish had been served for a time by Archimandrite Auxentius, the late archbishop.

Fr. Panteleimon went to Mount Athos and served his novitiate at St. Panteleimon's Monastery, where he was tonsured in 1957. In that year, he became the disciple of Elder Joseph the Cave-dweller [14], and was under his spiritual direction until the latter's repose in 1959. He was blessed by Elder Joseph and then later by Elder Arsenius, his co-ascetic and heir, to establish a monastery in America and to be ordained a priest.

The Monastery was incorporated in 1961 and became a metochion of New Skete, a dependency of St. Paul's Monastery on Mount Athos. A modest property was acquired in Jamaica Plain, MA. The Monastery was never a part of the Greek Archdiocese. From 1961-64, since the Monastery had no priest of its own, it was served by Fr. George Florovsky and by Fr. Danilo Krstic, [15] who later became the Serbian Bishop of Budim.

Fr. Panteleimon was ordained a priest by the Jerusalem Patriarchate in 1964. From that time until the Monastery was accepted by ROCOR in 1965, it commemorated the Patriarch of Jerusalem.

Since the Monastery was growing in numbers, more space was required. In 1970, the present property in Brookline, MA was bought. The Monastery supports itself with the painting of icons, and the manufacture of incense as well as mounted icon prints. Since the founding of the community, the monks have dedicated themselves to producing translations of texts necessary for Orthodox Church life. Many books of the lives of the Saints and concerning matters of the Faith have been published. Especially, out of desire to benefit the Church, liturgical books of primary importance have been translated into English and published by Holy Transfiguration Monastery: The Pentecostarion, The Great Horologion, the complete 12-volume set of The Menaion and The Psalter According to the Seventy. Some patristic works have also been translated and published, most notably The Ladder of Divine Ascent, The Ascetical Homilies of Saint Isaac the Syrian, and The Synodicon of Orthodoxy.

When the Monastery moved in 1970, Holy Nativity Convent was organized under the auspices of Holy Transfiguration Monastery and occupied its former property in Jamaica Plain. The Convent soon required larger quarters and the nuns moved into their present building located in Brookline in 1984.

The monastics maintained their loyalty to Orthodox doctrine and practice and were in concord with Metropolitan Philaret and the synodal policy regarding Ecumenism. However, after the election of Metropolitan Vitaly, ROCOR policy unexpectedly changed, and the increase of Ecumenistic activities was tacitly accepted. Indeed, protests at these violations were ignored by the Synod of ROCOR as tiresome. Towards the beginning of 1986, the Synod continually disseminated allegations of sexual misconduct concerning Fr. Panteleimon without, however, calling a spiritual court. As a result, the continually increasing infractions of the Anathema Against Ecumenism of 1983 and the uncanonical and irregular handling of slander against Fr. Panteleimon compelled the Monastery to sever relations with ROCOR and find refuge with the Old Calendarists of Greece. [16] Since 1988, the Monastery, clergy, and parishes of like principles have been part of the Synod of Archbishop Auxentius where they continue in faithful adherence to the dogmas and canons of the Orthodox Church.

[edit] Bibliography

This article or section includes a list of references or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks in-text citations. You can improve this article by introducing more precise citations.

Barnes, Patrick, The Non-Orthodox, Regina Orthodox Press, 1999, ISBN 0-9649141-6-6.

Cavarnos, Constantine, Ecumenism Examined, Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 1996, ISBN 1-884729-18-5.

____________________, Victories of Orthodoxy, Institute for Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies, 1997, ISBN 1-884729-30-4.

Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, The Balamand Union, 1993.

Degyansky, Father Daniel, Orthodox Christianity and the Spirit of Contemporary Ecumenism, Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies, 1992, ISBN 0-911165-20-7.

Dunlop, John B, Recent Activities of the Moscow Patriarchate Abroad and in the USSR, St. Nectarios Press, 1974.

Holy Orthodox Church in North America, The Struggle Against Ecumenism, 1998, ISBN 0-943405-09-2.

Kalomiros, Alexander, Against False Union, St. Nectarios Press, 1990, ISBN 0-913026-70-0.

Kokkinakis, Athenagoras, Archbishop of Thyateira and Great Britain, The Thyateira Confession, The Faith Press, 1975. SBN 7164 0375 7.

Macris, Father George, The Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Movement During the Period 1920-1969. St. Nectarios Press, 1986.

Metallinos, Father George D, I Confess One Baptism, St. Paul's Monastery, 1994, ISBN 960-85542-0-9.

Orthodox Life:

"The Announcement of the Extraordinary Joint Conference of the Sacred Community of the Holy Mount Athos," Sept.-Oct., 1980, p. 8.

"Are the Terms 'Christian' and 'Orthodox' Accurate In Our Times?," Archbishop Averky, May-June, 1975, p. 4.

"The Challenge of Ecumenism-The Rise of Sectarianism Among the Orthodox," Father Michael Azkoul, Nov.-Dec., 1973, p. 22.

"Humanistic Ecumenism," Father Justin Popovich, Jan.-Feb., 1979, p. 26.

"The Julian Calendar-A Thousand-Year Icon of Time in Russia," Ludmilla Perepiolkina, Sept.-Oct., 1995, pp. 7-37.

"Roman Catholic Ecumenism in Relation to the Orthodox Church," Protopresbyter George Grabbe, July-Aug., 1973, p. 20.

"The Seventieth Anniversary of the Pan-Orthodox Congress in Constantinople," Bishop Photios of Triaditsa, Part One, Jan.-Feb., 1994, pp. 36_45; Part Two, March-April, 1994, pp. 36_48.

The Orthodox Word:

"The Decline of the Patriarchate of Constantinople," Archbishop John Maximovitch, July-Aug., 1972, p. 166.

"A Desperate Appeal to the Ecumenical Patriarch," Father Philotheos Zervakos, Jan.-Feb., 1968, p. 4.

"The Ecumenical Patriarchate," Father Theokletos, Jan.-March, 1966, p. 31.

"Ecumenism," Archbishop Vitaly of Montreal, July-Aug., 1969, p. 145.

Epistles of St. Cyril of Kazan, July-Aug., 1977, pp. 175-189.

"The 'Great Synod' of Patriarch Athenagoras: The Response of Genuine Orthodoxy," Nov.-Dec., 1968, p. 259.

"The Orthodox Mission Today: Saint Nectarios Orthodox Church in Seattle," Father Neketas Palassis, Sept.-Oct., 1969, p. 183.

"The Sunday of Orthodoxy," Father Sebastian Dabovich, Jan.-March, 1966, p. 20.

"Two More Greek Priests Leave the Greek Archdiocese for the Russian Synod," Nov.-Dec., 1969, p. 232.

"A Voice of Conscience in the Greek Archdiocese," Jan.-Feb., 1968, p. 37.

"The Zealots of Mount Athos: Leaven of True Orthodoxy Today," Sept.-Oct., 1972, p. 219.

Patelos, Constantine G., Ed., The Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement, World Council of Churches, 1978, ISBN 2-8254-0573-6.

Popovic, Archimandrite Dr. Justin, The Orthodox Church and Ecumenism, Lazarica Press, 2000, ISBN 0948298 170.

St. Nectarios Press, History of the Russian Church Abroad: 1917-1971, 1972, ISBN 0-913026-04-2.

Storman, C. J., SJ, Towards the Healing of the Schism, Paulist Press, ISBN 0-8091-2910-8.

The True Vine:

"Archbishop Auxentius - In Memoriam," No. 23, p. 42.

Becoming Orthodox, a book review, No. 5, p. 64.

"Becoming Orthodox-the Sequel," No. 12, p. 5.

Biography of Archbishop Auxentius of Athens, No. 23, pp. 13-46.

Biography of Bishop Gury of Kazan, No. 11, pp. 21-37.

Broken, Yet Never Sundered, a book review, No. 1, p. 80.

"The Creed," Father Michael Gelsinger, No. 15, p. 42.

"Declaration and Confession of the True Orthodox Christians," No. 27-28, p. 83.

"Did St. Cyprian Change the Doctrine of the Church," Protopresbyter George Grabbe, No. 32-33. p. 61.

"Encyclical Concerning Holy Baptism," Bishop Ephraim of Boston, No. 2, p. 2.

"Fern-Seed and Elephants," C.S. Lewis, No. 18, p. 64.

"The Filioque: A Reply to the Agreed Statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation," Fr. Michael Azkoul, No. 35-36, p. 28.

"The Form of Holy Baptism," Bishop Ephraim of Boston, No. 2, p. 8.

The Life: The Orthodox Doctrine of Salvation, a book review, No. 32-33, p. 82.

“Metropolitan Philaret of Blessed Memory,” The True Vine staff, No. 30, p. 3.

The Old Calendar Church of Greece, a book review, Priestmonk Haralampos, No. 21, p. 56.

The Orthodox Study Bible: New Testament and Psalms, a book review, No. 18, p. 20.

"A Pastoral Encyclical on Freemasonry," Bishops Ephraim of Boston and Makarios of Toronto, No. 21, p. 48.

"A Pastoral Encyclical on the Primary Reason for the Existence of an Orthodox Christian Parish," Bishop Ephraim of Boston, No. 13, p. 9.

"A Pastoral Encyclical on the True Homeland of Orthodox Christians," Bishop Ephraim of Boston, No. 1, p. 21.

"On the Reception of the Tennessee Faithful," Archbishop Auxentius of Athens, No. 12, p. 18.

"The Synodicon of the Holy and Ecumenical Seventh Council for Orthodoxy," No. 27-28, p. 35.

“The Synodicon of the Holy Spirit,” No. 27-28, p. 85.

The Truth: What Every Catholic Should Know About the Orthodox Church, a book review, No. 35-36, p. 115.

"The Unity and Uniqueness of the Church," Protopresbyter George Grabbe, No. 32-33, p. 21.

Troitsky, Archbishop Ilarion, Unity of the Church and the World Conference of Christian Communities, Monastery Press, 1975.

[edit] External links

[edit] Official HOCNA Sites

• HOCNA Metropolis of Boston (Also here)
• About Us provided by Ss Peter and Paul Orthodox Church, where Metropolitan Moses serves. Parish listing on the same page.
• HOCNA & The Orthodox: a publication of The Byzantine & Antiquities Studies Institute - formerly the official website of HOCNA, now an independent publication.
• St. Gregory of Sinai Monastery
• Holy Transfiguration Monastery

[edit] Anti-HOCNA publications:

• A website created by former members of Holy Transfiguration Monastery
• Allegations against HOCNA on Pokrov website
• Fr John Whiteford's articles about HOCNA

[edit] HTM's Defense

Holy Transfiguration Monastery has made available to following documents in order to refute some of the accusations made against them: Official Decision of the Investigating Committee of the Synod of Archbishop Auxentios: Decision of Auxentian Synod Concerning the Allegations Made Against Holy TransfigurationMonastery.pdf

Additionally, they wish to publish the following letters from senior bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad in regard to Fr. Panteleimon, Holy Transfiguration Monastery, and the clergy and faithful that became HOCNA after leaving ROCOR.

• Letter of Bishop Gregory (Grabbe) in March, 1987 [[17]]
• Letter of Archbishop Seraphim of Chicago in January 1987 [[18]]
• Excerpt from a Letter of Bishop Gregory (Grabbe) to Metropolitan Vitaly in March 1994 [[19]]

• Who Are the Real Victims? (Part I)
• Who Are the Real Victims? (Part II)
• On Monastic Divorce

END PREVIOUS VERSION

[edit] Footnotes and sources

Fr Sergius asked above about linking to the two official statements, as well as about linking to outside sources. Let's move that discussion here.

Per the suggestion above, I suggest that we format references according the style guide in Wikipedia:Footnotes. The footnotes can contain links to any specific external sources, and we should also have "External links" sections to sites that are of more general interest.

Regarding the Decree of the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, we should definitely do the following:

1. Mention it in this article, in the "History" section,
2. Include it as a source in any relevant footnotes, and
3. Link directly to it in the "External links" section, preferably at an official ROCOR site (since it is a ROCOR document.

The statement of the synod of Archbishop Auxentios should be similarly mentioned, included, and linked.

(Speaking of the latter synod, clarification is needed. The article currently states that HOCNA was formed "initially under the authority of the Greek Old Calendarists." Is HOCNA still under such authority, and if not, at what point(s) did HOCNA move to a different authority and/or become self-governing? This information would be good for the "History" section.")

[edit] This article is a MESS

This is one of the worst organized articles that I've ever seen. The External links section is a mess, it seems like there is just a bunch of links with statements and then rebuttals, etc. Why isnt this incorporated into the article and then simply referenced? Grk1011 (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)