Questions on the "Response to Ukaz 130"

[Justin Kissel]

Recently Father John of ROAC wrote a response to Ukaz 130. It brought many questions to mind, which I will submit here; I doubt that I am the only one who has these questions, so I hope that someone can help with some answers.

• Paragraph 8 brings up a point that's been brought up a number of times: why did Met. Valentine elevate Gregory to Archbishop if he was so bad. According to one possibility, Archbp. Gregory started acting differently after he had been made Archbishop. Is this true? And even if it is, does it still account for all the charges made about Archbp. Gregory, or were some of the canonical violations present even before being elevated, and if so, what did Met. Valentine say about them at that time?

• Paragraph 9 discusses what area Archbp. Gregory has jurisdiction over. According to Fr. John, the synod affirms that he has jurisdiction over not just CO but over all that he would personally convert. Can someone--and preferrably someone who hasn't come out strongly supporting one party or the other--explain what exactly the synod's position is, and mention why they know what they are saying to be so (ie. what is your source)?

• Paragraph 10 says: "Reader Jerjis discovered that you erroneously think that everybody is Baptized today and that Chrismating Orthodox Christians who were Baptized in the Church, then apostatized, then repented and came back to the Church, is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. ...He withdrew the money because you violated the Canons and you have heretical views." I'm not sure what exactly the charge of heresy is? Is it that Met. Valentine disagreed with whether someone should be christmated in the type of instance mentioned above? Or is it just that Met. Valentine considers "everyone baptized," and if so, how is "everyone" to be interpreted? In other words, by "everyone" did he mean all the Orthodox (OCA, Matthewites, etc.), or every Christian (Protestant, Catholic, etc.)?

• Paragraph 12 discusses canons that seemingly give rights to bishops to rule over larger areas if there is no other bishop present. However, perhaps I am dense, but I don't see how the canons given give the right that is being claimed by Fr. John. On the other hand, I have to ask, why elevate Gregory to Archbishop if he was (still?) going to be restricted to a very small section of land (not that Colorado is small for a state, but speaking relative to the world, it is) What was the purpose of elevating Gregory to Archbishop?

• Regarding Paragraph 21, again, I do not understand how the canon given applies to the situation at hand. Could someone explain this to me?

• Paragraph 26 raises a good point... why was Gregory elevated if he had done such bad things and had such a bad mindset? Saying that he changed after being elevated may explain some things, but many of the charges against Archbp. Gregory seemed to have happened before he was elevated (e.g., finding that he was using a copied Seal).

• Paragraph 28 says that Met. Valentine cannot create any orders or give any orders regarding Archbp. Gregory "by canonical decree". Who's decree was this, and what exactly does it say?

[尼古拉前执事]

- Paragraph 8 brings up a point that's been brought up a number of times: why did Met. Valentine elevate Gregory to Archbishop if he was so bad. According to one possibility, Archbp. Gregory started acting differently after he had been made Archbishop. Is this true? And even if it is, does it still account for all the charges made about Archbp. Gregory, or were some of the canonical violations present even before being elevated, and if so, what did Met. Valentine say about them at that time?

Metropolitan Valentine was following a Ukase that had been written before the visit, and he, even as Metropolitan could not defy the will of the Synod if he had second thoughts on this being done.

- Paragraph 9 discusses what area Archbp. Gregory has jurisdiction over. According to Fr. John, the synod affirms that he has jurisdiction over not just CO but over all that he would personally convert. Can someone--and preferrably someone who hasn't come out strongly supporting one party or the other--explain what exactly the synod's position is, and mention why they know what they are saying to be so (ie. what is your source)?

Archbishop Gregory, before he was temporarily suspended/retired, initially was the bishop of Denver when he was a vicar of the Synod, and then when he became a bishop with voting rights on the Synod, he became Bishop of Denver and Colorado, which is an amount of space larger than some of the dioceses in Russia. Now if Archbishop Gregory himself converted a person, they have an option of being part of his diocese, if they so will and petition the Synod for this. Likewise, someone in his physical diocese could petition the Synod to be placed under another bishop. I was told this by the Metropolitan himself, before this all came to a head.

- Paragraph 10 says: "Reader Jerjis discovered that you erroneously think that everybody is Baptized today and that Chrismating Orthodox Christians who were Baptized in the Church, then apostatized, then repented and came back to the Church, is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. ...He withdrew the money because you violated the Canons and you have heretical views." I'm not sure what exactly the charge of heresy is? Is it that Met. Valentine disagreed with whether someone should be christmated in the type of instance mentioned above? Or is it just that Met. Valentine considers "everyone baptized," and if so, how is "everyone" to be interpreted? In other words, by "everyone" did he mean all the Orthodox (OCA, Matthewites, etc.), or every Christian (Protestant, Catholic, etc.)?

Metropolitan Valentine thought that chrismating Igumen Andrei (who had been Baptized and ordained in ROCOR) when he came from the Matthewite GOC was wrong. Likewise, those Baptized by the Matthewite GOC were being Baptized by Bishop Gregory and the Metropolitan did not agree with this. The Metropolitan also did not believe in having people Chrismated who came from your GOC. The Holy Synod has not condemned any of the Old Calendar groups. Archbishop Gregory's opinions on his ROAC America of who has grace and who does not, are his personal opinions alone, as he has had me, in the past, post to the Paradosis list.

- Paragraph 12 discusses canons that seemingly give rights to bishops to rule over larger areas if there is no other bishop present. However, perhaps I am dense, but I don't see how the canons given give the right that is being claimed by Fr. John. On the other hand, I have to ask, why elevate Gregory to Archbishop if he was (still?) going to be restricted to a very small section of land (not that Colorado is small for a state, but speaking relative to the world, it is) What was the purpose of elevating Gregory to Archbishop?

Also of note the first bishop of ROAC given jurisdiction in America was Metropolitan Valentine himself. Then-Archimandrite Gregory was not part of ROAC even when ROAC started expanding in America. Some parishes in America were still under the Metropolitan so I cannot see how the canon applies to giving Archbishop Gregory the entire North American continent either. Archbishop Gregory gave Igumen Andrei to the Synod as he wanted to see Igumen Andrei made a bishop for Eastern America since he speaks Russian. With 2 bishops residing in America, they wanted to give the one ordained first the title of Archbishop.

- Regarding Paragraph 21, again, I do not understand how the canon given applies to the situation at hand. Could someone explain this to me?

Archbishop Gregory gave Igumen Andrei to the Synod. The Synod placed him in New York to be with the people he has been proposed to be made bishop for. Archbishop Gregory wanted hims to stay at the Skete and be a monk under obedience to Archbishop Gregory and to be the Spiritual son of Archbishop Gregory. He likewise wanted the same done when he proposed Archimandrite George be the bishop for California and Western America. The Synod did not agree and since there was housing available in New Jersey, moved him out there to meet those that would be in his diocese if he was chosen to be elevated by the Synod of the ROAC.

- Paragraph 26 raises a good point... why was Gregory elevated if he had done such bad things and had such a bad mindset? Saying that he changed after being elevated may explain some things, but many of the charges against Archbp. Gregory seemed to have happened before he was elevated (e.g., finding that he was using a copied Seal).

Again, the UKAZ making him Archbishop was written well in advance of MEtropolitan Valentine making the visit to America. The Metropolitan cannot defy a UKAZ of the Synod. I am under the impression that when Bishop Gregory said it was a mistake that the Metropolitan believed him, but when the other charges came up, he had second thoughts whether it was an accident or not. I, myself will make no judgments on the seal. I am just trying to present the facts as I know them here.

- Paragraph 28 says that Met. Valentine cannot create any orders or give any orders regarding Archbp. Gregory "by canonical decree". Who's decree was this, and what exactly does it say?

I have no idea. The Metropolitan talked with the synod before issuing UKAZes. Of course when I was present when he would do this, I have no idea what was being said, only that he was talking to the other bishops.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Justin,

I just wanted to add one unbiased ( )comment:

Chrismating Orthodox Christians who were Baptized in the Church, then apostatized, then repented and came back to the Church, is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit

Although I know there are priests who do re-Chrismate, there are no canons or anything I could ever find that would justify this. In fact, everything I read, is that Holy Chrismation is our "baptism in the Spirit", and cannot and should not be repeated.

[Justin Kissel]

Father Nicholas,

Thank you for your response. There are still a few points I am curious about, if you should happen to have some extra time to respond again.

Metropolitan Valentine was following a Ukase that had been written before the visit, and he, even as Metropolitan could not defy the will of the Synod if he had second thoughts on this being done.

I understand this, but I have to ask to what extent it is applicable. What I mean is... let us suppose--just as a hypothetical of course!-- that Met. Valentine arrived in CO, only to find that Gregory was promoting Arian beliefs in his monastery, kept multiple women as "wives," and was doing and saying other unChristian things. Would Met. Valentine still elevate Bp. Gregory, saying "well, I cannot defy the synod"? Or would Met. Valentine quickly call the synod to report what he has witnessed? I guess what I'm saying is that I would expect that Met. Valentine would have the power to delay the elevation if a very serious error or accusation came up?

Now if Archbishop Gregory himself converted a person, they have an option of being part of his diocese, if they so will and petition the Synod for this. Likewise, someone in his physical diocese could petition the Synod to be placed under another bishop.

While I would not dare say that such a practice is wrong, I must admit that I am confused by it. Wouldn't this seem to go against the spirit (if not the letter) of the canons which talk about one bishop for one area? I can understand having such an exceptional allowance in case something goes wrong... but--forgive me if this is presumptuous--isn't it a bit... chaotic? to have each parish (and even each individual convert) picking and choosing which bishop to be under?

The Holy Synod has not condemned any of the Old Calendar groups.

As an aside--if you have heard anything--how much will the Vladimir Moss situation hinder a possible communion between ROAC and the GOC?

[尼古拉前执事]

1. I do not like speculating what-ifs here, but I guess he would issue an UKAZ that temporarily suspended him until he could be tried in a spiritual court of the Holy SOBOR.

2. Well, as in other threads, this was shown to be the norm in ROCOR too. But with the Holy Synod having to make the decision if this is okay for a parish to be in a different diocese, this helps keep it in check I think.

3. Ugh, politics. I would hope not at all, but only God knows what he would chose to do in this situation. The priest he had such issue to, was with love given many chances and made many promises to change his teachings and in the end was removed from our Church. His other idea and one that is being used by others to try and 'prove' heresy is when he asked, through a translator, Archbishop Theodore if he thought, if he was given Holy Chrism of Saint Tikhon from a MP bishop if it could be used and have the Grace of the Holy Spirit. Archbishop Theodore said that he thought,in his personal opinion, the chrism made by a saint and given back to the Church would have the Grace of the Holy Spirit and could be used, but that this is only his personal opinion and he would consult the Synod were this to happen however. This has been misunderstood by those wanting to find a heresy it seems. When the Metropolitan was asked to clarify it in America he told us the same thing, that this was the opinion of Archbishop Theodore. Those in attendance to this explanation had no problem with it then, and found all of his answers to be totally Orthodox and of spiritual profit to those that heard his words, but now there are those using these words now to falsely claim that the Metropolitan believes the Chrism of the MP has Grace.