physicsgirl wrote:My priest, who is VERY CLOSE to the Chicago situation, says that the accusations against Bp Peter are utterly preposterous..
DOCUMENT: Letter of Fr. Victor Potapov (ROCOR) disclosing scandalous
episcopal ordination of archimandrite Piotr Lukyanov
- (The present letter was sent to the Internet-conference for ROCOR
clergy)
Dear Fathers and Brethren,
A little more than a week ago Fr. John Shaw sent members of this and
other lists a short account of the consecration of Archimandrite Peter
Lukianov. On July 14, the anti-ROCOR info website www.portal-credo.ru
(associated with the self-styled Metropolitan Valentin of Suzdal, head
of one of numerous "Synods" that our ROCOR directly or indirectly
helped create in Russia) carried a word-for-word Russian translation
of Fr. John's reportage, and identified the author as its
correspondent in Chicago. The report was repeated on another
anti-ROCOR website, www.vertograd.ru, with the addition that the
person crying "anaxios" wanted to clarify the ecclesiology of the
candidate, who was reputedly a "moderate ecumenist." I know that Fr.
John is not in fact Portal-Credo's or "Vertrograd" correspondent, but
found it curious that the folks in Moscow somehow quickly got and used
his report on the consecration.
In his dispatch from Chicago, Fr. John informed us that there "was one
heckler, who seems to have come to church specially to try and disrupt
the service. He was asked to leave." Accepting that report on its
face, one would think that the "heckler" (who, incidentally, was
dressed in a cassock) was politely asked to leave the church.
This was not the case. In fact, in the presence of hundreds of
worshippers, the new bishop's two older brothers and others literally
manhandled and dragged away the so-called heckler. The "heckler" spent
the rest of the day in a hospital emergency room, where he was treated
and had one of his arms placed in a sling. On the grounds that they
were treating a victim of assault, the hospital medical staff called
the police, who interviewed the "heckler" and filed a report. On July
15, the "heckler" was readmitted to a hospital in Minneapolis for
treatment of neck and shoulder pain, and was told that he had
sustained damage to two cervical vertebrae as well as a shoulder
dislocation. He spent two days in the hospital.
By now everyone on this list knows that the "heckler" whom Fr. John
steadfastly refused to identify by name is Valentin Scheglowski.
Valentin, who lives with his family in Minneapolis, is a 63-year-old
ordained subdeacon who serves on the Parish Council of the St.
Panteleimon Church. He is a lifelong, widely respected member of ROCOR
who for years has labored tirelessly to build up the Russian Orthodox
Scout Camp in Rock City, Illinois that was founded by the late
Archbishop Seraphim. I have personally known subdeacon Valentin for at
least 40 years.
Why was he forcibly removed from the Protection of the Mother of God
Cathedral? Because he had dared to exercise his right as an Orthodox
Christian in good standing to thrice exclaim "Anaxios" i.e.
"unworthy." He was removed because he had dared to openly state before
the Church that the person being consecrated a bishop was unworthy of
that office.
Fr. John Shaw, who to my knowledge did not speak to Mr. Scheglowski
during or after the consecration, repeatedly claimed that the
"heckler" exclaimed "Anaxios" because he disagreed with Bishop
Peter's
views on ecclesiology. I spoke with Mr. Scheglowski several times
after the incident in Des Plaines. Contrary to Fr. John's claim,
he
did not exclaim "Anaxios" because of differences in ecclesiology, but
because he is convinced of the veracity of the charges that
Archimandrite Peter has moral irregularities that render him unworthy
of his office. In other words, Valentin Scheglowski pronounced
"Anaxios" out of concern for the moral purity of his Church!
This is what, in a message to Fr. Vladimir Boikov, he has to say in
his own words:
"I take no pride in stepping forward - it was a duty not to keep
silent at the last moment's opportunity when, according to my
understanding of the Holy Canons, one could challenge the ill-fated
and imposed decision by a group of our bishops on the rest. I have no
regrets about it and, in spite of various difficulties and
complications that are just beginning to develop, I would have done it
again... It is a terrible shame and a travesty our bishops of
yesterday would not have allowed to take place.
You ask, what is the opinion of the people who know me in Chicago? You
mean those that, not to be not noticed, attended the "bright
festivities" and subsequent gala celebration? A few openly shun away
from me lest I might contaminate them, while others say one thing to
the face and seem to do the opposite. Even a couple of my close
friends (40+ years of friendship) here in Mpls/StPaul area began to
behave as though I have caused pestilence or even worse; and that is
just two days after the "event"! I will be ostracized; I feel this
coming already. From time to time, I am reminded of the very sorrowful
words by Tsar-Martyr Nicholas (on the day of his forced abdication):
Krugom izmena, trusost' i obman. ("All around there is betrayal,
cowardice and deceit") I say this as a matter of fact, without
sadness, even with some humor. I am, however, heartbroken by the fact
that all of the attempts to prevent the disgrace proved to be
unsuccessful. May our Lord God have mercy on all of us!
With love in Christ,
Valya"
Valentin Scheglowski is hardly a deranged individual heavily
influenced by a certain "senior archpriest," as implied by some
clergymen on this list. He is far from being alone in questioning the
moral integrity of the new bishop. He was sincere in his action, and
took seriously his right and obligation to express his objection to
the consecration. Ordination to the ministry of the Orthodox Church
requires not only the laying on of hands by a bishop, but also the
consent of the entire Church - the people of God. During the rite of
ordination/consecration, the laity pronounce their assent to the
ordination by declaring that the
candidate is worthy, by proclaiming "Axios!" three times.
But what if one opposes the consecration, tries to get the attention
of the Church authorities to hear one's opinion, but is ignored?
What
recourse is left to him but to come to the Church and proclaim
"Anaxios!" Valentin Scheglowski did this not only for himself, but for
all those in ROCOR who are opposed to Fr. Peter's consecration.
On the
various mailing lists, subdeacon Valentin was derided for proclaiming
"Anaxios." What about the physical persecution that took place within
the walls of a cathedral? Why was there no condemnation of that
shameful behavior?
Indeed, in the official article on the consecration posted on ROCOR's
website the "Anaxios!" incident is not even menioned, though much is
said about the beautiful singing of the Trisagion and the thundering
proclamations of "Axios!" This is hauntingly reminiscent of the kind
of reporting we read in days gone by on the pages of the "Journal of
the Moscow Patriarchate."
Aside from the short, above-cited post, Valentin Scheglowski was in
too much pain to write anything more substantive about why he did what
he did. A more detailed personal explanation will be forthcoming.
I will not be surprised to hear that some of you would have preferred
not to hear what I have to say, but to remain oblivious to the fact
that our Church, - the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia - is
in a state of deep crisis. Only the blind would deny the existence of
the crisis, yet not too many seem to realize its depth and scope. The
consecration in Des Plaines is but a major manifestation of this
crisis. The temptation is always to prefer "peace" to truth,
efficiency to rectitude, human success to the will of God.
It is the sacred duty of the clergy to defend the purity of the Church
in this world even when doing so is not considered "opportune."
Let us now turn to the substance of the matter at hand. Archimandrite
Peter's candidacy for the episcopate had already been discussed
while
Metropolitan Vitaly was First Hierarch, but it was shelved because the
Metropolitan was adamantly opposed to it; he publicly declared that
he, Metropolitan Vitaly, would not allow such a consecration to take
place during his lifetime.
The record shows that this year, five bishops (Gabriel, Agapit,
Amvrossy, Evtikhy, Agathangel) of our tiny Sobor of Bishops voted
against the candidacy of Archimandrite Peter and that one (Seraphim)
abstained. It would seem reasonable to ask: Why did almost half of the
Sobor of bishops either vote no or abstain from voting? A number of
clergymen have commented that if there was any testimony to be given
in opposition to Archmandrite Peter's elevation to the
episcopate, it
should have been presented long before his consecration took place.
IT WAS! Years ago several priests, myself included, came forward. On
more than one occasion I spoke about this matter with Metropolitan
Vitaly, Bishops Gregory (Grabbe), Mark, Hilarion, Alypy and Gabriel.
Prior to the consecration, bishops, priests and laymen called and
wrote to Metropolitan Laurus, pleading with him to call off the
consecration. Their requests were ignored. In a letter to the
Metropolitan which I faxed and FedExed to him a few days before the
ordination, I urged His Eminence to gather the accusers of Fr. Peter
together and hear them out. I said that if it were found that they are
lying, the Synod of Bishops could and should punish them to the
fullest extent of ecclesial jurisprudence. I never received an answer.
The rite of consecration proceeding despite the proclamation of
"Anaxios" casts serious doubts on its canonicity.
The 9th Canon of the 1st Ecumenical Council states:
If some persons have been promoted to Presbyters without due
examination, or when given a hearing confessed their sins to them, and
after they confessed, the men, acting contrary to the Canon, laid hand
upon such persons, the Canon will not admit them. For the catholic
Church insists upon irreproachability.
In the interpretation of this Canon we read:
"… the catholic Church demands and wants priests to be
irreproachable,
or, in other words, exempt from the charge of sins, just as St. Paul
commands that a bishop be, by saying: "A bishop then must be
irreproachable" [mistranslated in the Authorized Version "blameless"]
(I Tim. 3: 2), or, in other words, not only unchargeable at law, but
also entirely unimpeachable and free from every accusation, as
touching his moral character."
Canon LIX (59) (Canon 61 in the Russian rendition) of the 141 Canons
of the Council of Carthage states: It is decreed that if at any time
we proceed to choose a bishop and some objection should arise, since
such contingencies have been dealt with among us, it is overbold for
only three persons to be required for the purpose of purifying one
about to be ordained; but to the said number let there be added one
and two; and in the presence of the laity for whom he is to be
ordained let the persons objecting to him be investigated first, for
later the evidence against him shall be weighed: and when he proves
clean in public sight, may he then be ordained.
The interpretation of this canon is equally a propos:
"…If any objection is raised by others in the way of accusations
against the candidate (as such eventualities have often been dealt
with, or, more explicitly speaking, investigated by us), those three
persons alone ought not to judge and acquit him, but, besides them,
one or two other bishops ought to be added. And first before the laity
with respect to whom the candidate is to be ordained they ought to
scrutinize the persons of the accusers as to what sort of reputation
they have (concerning which Ap. C. LXXIV), and if they turn out to be
free from aspersions, then let the accusations before the eyes of the
laity, let him then be ordained a bishop. Read also Ap. c. LXI." (The
Rudder, pp. 638-639) What has changed between the time that
Metropolitan Vitaly was First-Hierarch and denied Archmandrite Peter
consecration, and now? Is all the testimony that was presented then no
longer valid today?
Let us for a moment revisit a page of recent ROCOR history: our foray
into Russian Church life in the former Soviet Union. How excited and
eager were our bishops at that time to establish a new, independent
hierarchy. Archmandrite Valentin of Suzdal was chosen to become
ROCOR's second bishop in Russia (Lazarus had been the first), and
was
soon elevated to the episcopacy. Our hierarchs quickly cooled to the
new bishop of Suzdal, and took very seriously charges of sodomy that
were brought against him. Nothing resembling an investigation of
Valentin and the charges against him was ever launched. Nevertheless,
he was ostracized and, without a spiritual trial, he was stripped of
his rank and defrocked in absentia. Two of the bishops who
participated in Valentin's consecration later remarked to me that
they
had been against the consecration. Then why did they participate in it
in the first place?
When Jose Munoz-Cortes, custodian of the myrrh-streaming Iveron Icon,
was murdered in Athens, how quickly many of our hierarchs and
clergymen chose to believe the slander, published in one single brief
article in a Greek tabloid, about the ascetic keeper of the sacred and
beloved icon, who had never given even a hint of scandalous behavior!
Why is it that some of the clergy of our Church who were so quick to
believe charges against Valentin of Suzdal and Brother Jose, and who
are aware of the immoral tendencies of Archimandrite Peter, are
prepared to "look the other way" now? Why? Is it a perception that
Valentin of Suzdal is a homo sovieticus and not a real Russian, that
Brother Jose is just some strange foreigner instead of a real Russian?
Is the perception that, as "one of us," Archmandrite Peter should be
held to a different, more lenient standard?
In the past few weeks it has been stated on the internet lists that we
should not air our differences in public, because this will play into
the hands of the enemies of ROCOR. I submit that the consecration in
Des Plaines is what the enemy will use, what he already is using. I
refer you to two articles, under the headings "Pedophilia in ROCOR
(L)," and "Metropolitan Vitaly: The Consecration of Archimandrite
Peter (Lukianoff) Is Invalid," posted on Listok, the vehemently
anti-ROCOR website and, most recently, to an article on Budzelovich's
website "Russia-Talk" entitled "Anaxios Is Risky To One's Life."
Who is the enemy anyway? Where should we look for him? Is he in
Moscow, Istanbul, or perhaps in Syosset, New York? More likely he is
in our midst, is operating as a cancerous tumor to slowly but surely
destroy our Church from within.
One could speculate about why individual bishops could privately
express their reservations about Fr. Peter's consecration but
nonetheless publicly vote for it, why certain priests could
acknowledge that they knew about impediments to the consecration but
nonetheless could defend the consecration not only as proper, but as
an accomplished fact that cannot be challenged. Orthodox teaching
warns the Christian that he is to live according to a higher standard,
that in the end we should forsake church politics, friendships of our
youth if they impede our moral vision. We must be faithful to Christ
and His Church. It is the duty of all of His children to do His will
in all things and let the chips fall where they may.
It is an accomplished fact that Fr. Peter was consecrated to the
episcopate. It is also an accomplished fact that charges against Fr.
Peter's fitness for consecration had been made well before the
consecration, and that as of today, they have not been resolved
according to the canons of the Church. It is an accomplished fact that
in defiance of the Tradition of the Church, Fr. Peter's
consecration
to the episcopate took place despite public charges that he was not
worthy of that rank. It is an accomplished fact that until those
charges are resolved, his episcopal authority will be questioned and
his reputation tainted. If innocent of the charges made against him,
he should have requested a halt to the consecration and demanded an
investigation to clear his name. This can still be done. Let the
bishops of our Church gather in Council, summon all of the witnesses
and in the presence of the newly consecrated bishop hear out the many
accusers (most of whom are clergymen) and the accused. This would be
fair, would be in the best interests of the new bishop and, most
importantly, would be in the best interests of the ROCOR.
May God help us.
In Christ,
Fr. Victor Potapov
