Ukaz 130, some thoughts

[Seraphim Reeves]

I've read the Ukaz, and it seems to be stated very in a very sloppy manner - perhaps it's the translation.

Accusation 1: I have some serious doubts that Vladyka Gregory would have claimed to be the "only" Orthodox Bishop in the world. Also, the OTHER version of this I've heard, is that Vladyka Gregory thought he should be in charge over those peoples his ministry converts by default, until such time as the Synod either would create a new diocese for them, or they would be formally placed as a part of his diocese. The whole world does not by default belong to the Synod of ROAC, or even less Metropolitan Valentin.

Accusation 2: How is it "uncaonical" to try and convince the president of the Holy Synod of ROAC to work towards the establishment of communion with another GOC? Can such petitioning be annoying? Tiresome? Of course, but I fail to see how it's "uncanonical."

Accusation 3: There is a lot being left out here. First, there are issues about just whose territory is where, or where it terminates. But beside those issues (which do need to be sorted out) the question of Archpriest Vladimir Shishkoff is more problematic than the ukaz is letting on. I do not want to drag an elderly Priest's name through the mud - but suffice it to say, Archbishop Gregory has some good reasons for being critical of this Priest and what he involves himself in.

Accusation 4: This particular accusation left me scratching my head. Of course Vladyka Gregory recognizes the uniqueness of canonical ORTHODOX Baptism. Since ROAC doesn't formally recognize any other groups that I'm aware of, this is being left up to the discretion of the individual Bishops. However, the import of this accusation is that anyone who is "baptized" is in fact actually Baptized in the singular, unique manner only the Orthodox Church can.

Accusation 7: How does putting forward a heiromonk's candidacy place him in the juristiction of "the Synod"? Which Canons dictate such as being the case? Vladyka Gregory is Fr.Andre's Bishop and Abbot, last I was aware.

Accusation 8: While it remains to be seen if Archbishop Gregory actually CLAIMED to have covered Metropolitan Gregory's medical bills (which as far as I know he hasn't), he DID arrange for those bills to be largely (though not all of them have been) forgiven. He did this not simply by contacting the physicians involved trying to convince them to consider their work here a charitable donation, but also by partially compensating these physicians - by considering the value of their work as a charitable donation to Dormition Skete, and in turn issuing them charitable tax receipts. Perhaps this is being confused with a claim to have paid the bills personally, (or this could just be misrepresentation.) As for the four thousand dollars, much is being left out here. Vladyka Gregory had given Fr.Andre (who acted as Metropolitan Valentin's caretaker/translator) a credit card to use to look after the Metropolitan. Rather than staying at the Monastery, Metropolitan Valentin stayed with Fr.Dionysi at his home with his family. In the process, $4,000 dollars in charges were wracked up on this credit card. After some of the events leading to the current (unfortunate) contraversy were already breaking out, Vladyka Gregory (who thought the charges were excessive to begin with) asked the Metropolitan to repay this amount, particularly given that the Metropolitan had received other monies while in America (as his arrest at the airport and confiscation of funds demonstrates - he was not leaving the country broke.) What was repaid, was aprox. $933 - the Ukaz gives the impression (without saying so obviously) that the full amount was repaid. It was not.

1. A serious charge, but Fr.John Claypool seems to offer a reasonable justification for this. Vladyka was not using the personal seal of Metropolitan Valentin, but a seal the same as used (in his understanding) of the ROAC Holy Synod. In other words, as a member Bishop, he assumed he could seal his own documents in such a manner. This would seem to be a serious misunderstanding, which was corrected (and at one time doesn't seem to have been considered a huge issue, since Metropolitan Valentin after this came up went ahead and make Vladyka his own personal seal.) Either way this, and all of the other accusations will have to be looked at seriously.

After accusation #9, it says that Metropolitan Valentin is personally suspending Vladyka Gregory. But this is the weird thing - it says Vladyka Gregory is "temporarily suspended", but then says that he is being placed "in retirement". Huh?

My own concern at this point, is that the charges made by Vladyka Gregory are not going to get a hearing at all - in which case the ROAC Holy Synod is going to give itself the appearance of being a kangaroo court (since equity would seem to demand all such complaints be taken seriously, and that no one is above examination or judgement.) Obviously, we shall have to wait and see.

I'm hoping someone can provide some clarificaton on accusation #4 in particular.

Seraphim

[romiosini]

Let me post what I read in a Gerontikon some time ago:

At a monastery, (Now it really doesn't matter, I don't really remember), the Fathers came together to discuss about some issues. And there was a holy Father (Of course, the exceptional holy one who do not take part in the meetings) wasn't present in for an issue the others Fathers were discussing. They had an issue with Melchisedek (Now it really doesn't matter what), and they brought in the Elder, and asked him what he thought. The Elder has peacefully declared out to the others father, why wouldn't they interest themselves in something that might help their souls, and lead them to the blessed life.

Now I would say the same things to you guys.

Do something that will lead you to Eternity, not leave you here worrying about earthly matters. If it is true from what I read from most of your posts, and you are all mostly spiritual, keep yourselves interested in spirituality, and not wall off, beacuse the devil can easily drop a mortal easily to fall into sin, just in caring for issues, that we cannot do a thing.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Seraphim,

I'm sure you by now know my bias on the whole matter. Having read the arguments on both sides I am afraid if this involved any other bishop other than Gregory, I might be left wondering, but even then would reach the same conclusions. But as it is, this is Gregory, the person who launched his very ecclesiastical carrier with the discovery that the appearance of a pretext for schism is never in the lack.

Which of these issues justifies a schism?

The Sixth Canon of the Second Ecumenical Synod says, “We call heretics those...who, though pretending to confess the sound faith, have schismatically separated and have gathered congregations in opposition to our canonical bishops."

Gregory uses this very canon to say HOCNA is heretical, “because they schismatically separated from canonical bishops.”

Then by Gregory’s own measure, if the canonical Synod of the ROAC, which Gregory recognizes even now, returns an unfavorable decision, and he separates and sets up congregations in opposition to them, he is self-condemned by his own words.

[尼古拉前执事]

Can we maybe keep this all in one thread since many of this points have been addressed already? We know have what, three or four threads on this same subject?

The whole world does not by default belong to the Synod of ROAC, or even less Metropolitan Valentin.

By default anyone not in a diocese that is part of the ROAC is under the Synod.

Can such petitioning be annoying? Tiresome? Of course, but I fail to see how it's "uncanonical."

It was not just the annoying petitioning itself that was mentioned in the UKAZ.

How does putting forward a heiromonk's candidacy place him in the juristiction of "the Synod"? Which Canons dictate such as being the case? Vladyka Gregory is Fr.Andre's Bishop and Abbot, last I was aware.

It did so in the agreement that Archbishop Gregory signed, one that I have seen with my own eyes. Archbishop Gregory told me he wanted Father Andrei to be a bishop of Eastern America while continuing to be a monk of Dormition Skete, but signed him away to the Synod reluctantly.

While it remains to be seen if Archbishop Gregory actually CLAIMED to have covered Metropolitan Gregory's medical bills (which as far as I know he hasn't), he DID arrange for those bills to be largely (though not all of them have been) forgiven. He did this not simply by contacting the physicians involved trying to convince them to consider their work here a charitable donation, but also by partially compensating these physicians - by considering the value of their work as a charitable donation to Dormition Skete, and in turn issuing them charitable tax receipts. Perhaps this is being confused with a claim to have paid the bills personally, (or this could just be misrepresentation.) As for the four thousand dollars, much is being left out here. Vladyka Gregory had given Fr.Andre (who acted as Metropolitan Valentin's caretaker/translator) a credit card to use to look after the Metropolitan. Rather than staying at the Monastery, Metropolitan Valentin stayed with Fr.Dionysi at his home with his family. In the process, $4,000 dollars in charges were wracked up on this credit card. After some of the events leading to the current (unfortunate) contraversy were already breaking out, Vladyka Gregory (who thought the charges were excessive to begin with) asked the Metropolitan to repay this amount, particularly given that the Metropolitan had received other monies while in America (as his arrest at the airport and confiscation of funds demonstrates - he was not leaving the country broke.) What was repaid, was aprox. $933 - the Ukaz gives the impression (without saying so obviously) that the full amount was repaid. It was not.

It has ben claimed that all were paid, I would suggest looking at some of the past sermons to see this. As for the credit card, Archbishop Gregory placed Father Andrei under an obedience not to let the Metropolitan pay for anything and then did present the bill to be asked to be paid in full. In discussions it was decided that he would only have to pay for his medicines and other medical costs. As for who went and spoke on behalf of the Metropolitan at the hearings for waiving of fees, that was Father Andrei.

On the arrest, again, he was detained by American and Russians at customs who had been called in advance. This and the moneys that he ended up claiming and was taxed upon have been greatly exaggerated quite sadly.

Vladyka was not using the personal seal of Metropolitan Valentin, but a seal the same as used (in his understanding) of the ROAC Holy Synod. In other words, as a member Bishop, he assumed he could seal his own documents in such a manner. This would seem to be a serious misunderstanding, which was corrected (and at one time doesn't seem to have been considered a huge issue, since Metropolitan Valentin after this came up went ahead and make Vladyka his own personal seal.) Either way this, and all of the other accusations will have to be looked at seriously.

Actually the forged seal said President of the ROAC on it! Again see my reply in one of the many other threads on this topic please.

After accusation #9, it says that Metropolitan Valentin is personally suspending Vladyka Gregory. But this is the weird thing - it says Vladyka Gregory is "temporarily suspended", but then says that he is being placed "in retirement". Huh?

Yes the document clearly says it is temporary until the SOBOR meets. suspended and retired are one word in Russian. IOW he cannot act as a bishop, he cannot serve, he may not ordain, etc. But this has already been broken as one can see on the ROAC America site!

My own concern at this point, is that the charges made by Vladyka Gregory are not going to get a hearing at all - in which case the ROAC Holy Synod is going to give itself the appearance of being a kangaroo court (since equity would seem to demand all such complaints be taken seriously, and that no one is above examination or judgement.) Obviously, we shall have to wait and see.

They already have Seraphim. They started being investigated after he emailed the Synod his appeal even though electronic mail is not acceptable for formal appeals or accusations. So the synod went above and beyond their duties to start investigations on this before they even had to according to the bylaws of the Holy Synod!

But the thing is, canonically if one makes an accusation to the synod about another and even one of the charges are proven false, then all charges are thrown out. Also, if one charges another of something and it is proven to be false, the punishment that would befall the accused befalls the accuser. In the appeal that Archbishop Gregory sent to the synod and personally gave to me when I visited him last, says that the Metropolitan received a deposed priest in Father Spyridon. Archbishop Gregory knows that ROCOR did at one time depose him but then lifted the deposition. So he is not a deposed priest! Archbishop Gregory, in the appeal, also asked that he be made Metropolitan of America in an autonomous American Church and that the Metropolitan give all of his American flock to him and that the Metropolitan will have no power, influence, leadership or control over even one single soul in America. So if the accusations is proved false this punishment he asks against Metropolitan Valentine should canonically be leveled against him; no power, influence, leadership or control over even a single soul in America!

You should have Father Dionysi's phone number now, so I would suggest you call him since he was present for all the meetings that people keep discussing after, often in third person, hearing of it.