Talk:Holy Orthodox Church in North America

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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 ever 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. I agree that it 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)