Romanian Orthodox for Enquiry in America

Guardians of the Vatra

Orthodox Brotherhood Documents

ROAA/BOR Documents

No ROAA/BOR Answers Forthcoming

Author: Administrator
February 12, 2012
ROEA/OCA Due Diligence Questions sent to ROAA/BOR are without satisfactory responses 2 years later, yet ROAA still desires a concrete answer in the near future as to whether or not we want fusion/merger with them under BOR!

Find below a few decisions taken at the Jan. 30, 2012 Eparchial Council meeting of the Romanian Orthodox Archdiocese in the Americas (ROAA) under the chairmanship of Archbishop Nicolae.


We cite from the decisions by ROAA’s Eparchial Council (italics) and our Comment follows:

1-“… the Eparchial Council [ROAA/BOR] will request the Parish Councils to update the movable and immovable inventory of the parish…”
Isn’t this request somehow linked to the necessity of refinancing their Cathedral mortgage in Chicago? ROAA/BOR Parishes with paid up buildings and money in the bank should be very careful…

2-“… The 2011 Financial Report of the Holy Archdiocese was considered along with the draft budget for 2012…”
For at least two years our ROEA/OCA “Due Diligence” Committee has been asking for these types of reports and it has yet to receive audited statements by an exterior accounting auditor. Why would that be?

3-“… A topic of interest was the discussion on the Dialogue with the Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of America. It was underlined the desire of a concrete answer on the development of this dialogue in the near future.
ROAA/BOR has not even satisfactorily answered the ROEA/OCA Due Diligence
questions asked more than two years ago, but it wants “a concrete answer” in the “near future” regarding merger/unity under BOR? What impudence! What insolence? Do they really not understand that the ROEA/OCA, as a legal entity, must ask those types of questions and that they should answer, and that if they do not in a satisfactory manner, they alone are guilty of stopping the dialogue?

4-“… It was set the time and place for the coming Archdiocesan Congress [ROAA/BOR]. This year the Congress will be hosted by St. John the Baptist Cathedral in Montreal, QC on June 28-July 1, 2012…”
It seems that the “near future” in which the ROAA/BOR wants “a concrete answer” from the ROEA/OCA regarding merger/unity under BOR, might mean before their Congress, that is this summer. But, without satisfactory answers to our “Due Diligence” and other questions, it will be very difficult to progress the dialogue with them.

At our 2011 ROEA/OCA Congress a report was presented regarding where we are at with the ‘Due Diligence’ activity. (You can read about this report in the Sep.-Oct. 2011 Solia or excerpts presented on this website under the title ‘ROEA 2011 Congress’.) “Psa./Attorney Mary Lynn Pac-Urar summarized the activity of the Due Diligence Committees (DDC). She explained that the Congress voted to have these committees because the Proposal seeks the legal merger of two corporations, and the Episcopate has a fiduciary duty to engage in Due Diligence. The DDC does not deal with ecclesiastical or policy issues. The DDC has received some responses from the Archdiocese [ROAA/BOR]. The DDC needs to analyze what was received and what needs to be done…”

It should be noted that these questions and others, have been asked before, but we have never received complete and satisfactory answers from the ROAA/BOR. Our 2010 Cleveland Congress showed its unrelenting desire for ROEA Due Diligence to be satisfactorily completed before any merger/unity decision is taken in this resolution passed: “That the Congress hereby supports the efforts of the Due Diligence committee in requesting information from the ROAA and urges the ROAA to provide such information in a timely manner, but not to exceed 90 days from the date of the request and this resolution will be included in the due diligence requests. If any further information is requested of the ROEA, please make such request and it will be provided in a timely manner by our Due Diligence committee.” This statement underlines ROEA frustration with the lack of ROAA compliance with our Due Diligence requests.

The Solia report on the ROEA 2011 Congress clearly states that until now: “The DDC has received some responses from the Archdiocese.” At least two years have passed and nothing more definitive from the ROAA-BOR. They don’t want to fully answer? Why not? Can we proceed without these complete answers? NO! That would be irrational - totally unacceptable - legally, morally.

After they do not respond to our questions, the ROAA dares ask for “a concrete answer” in the “near future” regarding merger/unity under BOR? The only possible ROEA response is, given that after more than two years we remain without satisfactory answers to our “Due Diligence” questions, among others, it is impossible to progress the dialogue with the ROAA, let alone the necessary internal dialogue, release from the OCA and the complex voting procedures that would follow… let alone the fact that our past is represented by BOR from there, but that our present and future is OCA from here, most especially for our children born here … and the fault is their’s alone.

17 Comments to “No ROAA/BOR Answers Forthcoming”

  1. Viorel Says:

    Ei nu raspund la intrebarile noastre de mai mult de doi ani dar ne cer noua daca ne fuzionam/unim cu ei sub BOR acum? Obaznicia bine cunoscuta ajunge si aici… Rusine! Nu mai avem ce discuta. Dialogul s-a terminat.

  2. Matt Says:

    How can we possibly answer whether or not we in the ROEA are even interested in any merger with an organization that refuses to fully answer our questions? Is the ROAA afraid of the truth? The only answer we can give now is a firm NO!

  3. Adrian Says:

    The people of this Episcopate want to get this over with and be done with it. We want unity under the BOR.

    And if this is not done soon…..we will just leave ourselves. Beginning with the largest Romanian community parishes to the new missions. Its that simple.

  4. Administrator Says:

    Adrian, you cannot speak for the “people of this Episcopate”. No vote has been taken recently regarding the ROEA/OCA and ROAA/BOR merger/unity issue. However, we do know that since WWII and again since 1990, every priest or lay person coming to North America has had the choice to join either under the ROEA-Vatra or the ROAA. The result is that people have voted with their feet overwhelmingly for the ROEA-Vatra, with ROAA-BOR representing the minority of parishes, missions, parishioners, members and clergy here in North America.

    You threaten to leave the ROEA/OCA? The real question is why did you join the Vatra ROEA in the first place when the ROAA/BOR (which you seemingly prefer) was available to you? Were you among those sent by Bucharest like Anania and Plamadeala to destroy this Episcopate from the outside, or were you sent like XXX and YYY to infiltrate the Vatra and destroy it from within? One thing is certain. You have no business being in the Vatra-ROEA.

  5. Anonymous Says:

    What concerns me as a read more about the history is a greater question — if OCA is and always has been the way to go, then why have there been those who when ROEA went with OCA refused to join ROEA, instead choosing to be independent, and viciously attacking our Archbishop Valerian as a nazi, etc? What has changed? Can somebody answer that?

  6. Administrator Says:

    Anonymous, you should know that outside post WWII Romania there were two main Orthodox Church communities, both anti-communist ones, the ROEA (Romanian Orthodox Episcopate in America) and the Romanian Orthodox Episcopate in Western Europe. The third group present was like a chameleon with changing names, natures, places and people, but always under the Romanian Patriarchate and the long arm of the Romanian Government which controlled it. This group always wanted to manipulate “it’s Diaspora” by controlling the Romanian church communities outside Romania as pro-Romania foreign policy pressure groups. This is well documented (read Pacepa, Goma, etc.)

    The first group, the ROEA, had the fortune of being in America, where emigration history from the late 1800’s and early 1900’s showed that national ties were short term in nature and over generations, as Romanians became Americanized, too many of these children lost their Orthodoxy. The OCA idea of starting as a regrouping of ethnic churches and transforming into an American Church (language, administratively, culturally, etc.) was being forged, and the ROEA was one of the first to participate in this unique solution.

    The second group, the ROEWE, was organized at the end of WWII in Paris, under the leadership of Metropolitan Visarion Puiu, the only Romanian Hierarch outside Romania at the end of WWII. There were only a couple of pre- WWII Romanian communities in Western Europe and Paris was the oldest and most important worldwide. No OCA idea existed in Western Europe. As well, this Western European anti-communist Romanian exile group did not benefit from the massive 1900’s emigration and the harsh lesson of children losing their Orthodoxy. They were hopeful that they could help America free Romania from Soviet rule in the coming years and that many would then return “home”. Given post WWII emigration, some in this group emigrated to North America (particularly Canada) and elsewhere, and remained faithful to the ROEWE. The ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia) model was more to their liking – an independent Romanian Orthodox Metropolia outside Romania, canonically linked to ROCOR (which itself was under Constantinople protection at the time), comprising of Bishops in the USA, Canada and Western Europe, all administratively divorced from Romania. This was the preferred option of the group. The ROEA did not agree, and the ROEWE stayed as a group within ROCOR until it also started being infiltrated and overtaken by Bucharest manipulation, parish by parish, in Western Europe. Seeing ROCOR beginning to fall under the Moscow Patriarchate, and seeing ROEWE parishes in Western Europe fall under BOR, and being appalled at the loss of new generations of Orthodox over the years, those in Canada joined the ROEA/OCA as the best solution for the future.

    The third group, those supported by Bucharest, are the ones to point fingers at. Remember, the differences between the two anti-communist groups described above, were more about tactics than strategy, more about approach than direction, timing differences, etc. – more akin to disagreements among brothers. However, those in the third group, sponsored by Bucharest, are among those that accused Archbishop Valerian of being a Nazi and worse (all of which led to his demise) and are among the very same ones we are negotiating ‘merger/unity’ with today. They have nothing to do with the former ‘brother’ groups presented above. They are the communist agents sent by the Romanian government and BOR(some to infiltrate the ROEA) and include many past and present ROAA/BOR clerics, some of whom were even made BOR Metropolitans after 1990 and before, like Anania and Plamadeala, traitors some ROEA people somehow write nice things about even today. These Romanian ‘agents in cassocks’, made their pro-communist reputations in North America bringing down Archbishop Valerian, and they were richly rewarded for their subversive actions. To this day the ROEA suffers attacks from within and from the outside, including those in the ROAA/BOR who have not even acknowledged their wrongdoings, yet who continuously insult us, but they want us to join the ROAA under BOR. Unbelievable! Today, all that is left outside BOR worldwide is the ROEA/OCA with almost all other Romanian Orthodox communities in Western Europe and around the world, including Australia, under Bucharest rule…

  7. Carmen D.Valentino Says:

    At this point after so many years , it should be perfectly clear to the administration and laity of the ROEA that any attempt of rational dialogue or conciliation with neo-communist church organizations such as the ROAA and its old world parent BOR , is a total waste of time. During this entire period, a relentless war of intimidation, and carrots on sticks (e.g. “maximal autonomy” =subjugation ) have been used by the ROAA and BOR ,not to mention of course the heaps of public lies and rantings of clergymen/laity in both Romania and North America. The Vatra administration would best serve its own interests and that of the OCA by separating itself from the notion of “Unire”, as well as cleaning up its own ranks of unpatriotic Romanian immigrant clergymen, filled with un-American ideals and poisonous notions towards both their adopted land and OCA Romanian-American episcopate.
    Unire delenda est !

    (Mr.) Carmen D.Valentino
    Descent of the Holy Spirit Romanian Orthodox Church, Elkins Park, PA (1913)
    Officer & Museum Curator, Societatea Banatiana-V.Alecsandri Elkins Park, PA. (1906)
    Pennsylvania Ethnic Heritage Commissioner (1991-1994)
    Fulbright Scholar (Vienna,1968-9 ; Bucharest,1971-2 )

  8. Alexandru Nemoianu Says:

    Those who are unhappy with the OCA, and with the Vatra Episcopate being part of it, should not have joined it in the first place. It is totally absurd to enter a house and start changing its rules. If you are unhappy, leave. So, dear Adrian, good riddance!

  9. Anonymous Says:

    Thank you Administrator for your lengthy reply, but I’m still left wondering. The ROEA/OCA has been around for decades, throughout the cold war, etc., and the formerly “independent” Canadian parishes (the “independent” label that they trumpeted being un-Orthodox in itself) refused to join it. The OCA was NOT the way to go for them for decades. Why now all of a sudden? Desperation?

    And I should note that among ROCOR circles it is a very different story of how the relationship with our “independent” Romanian brothers ended. It is sad to see your claim that reconciliation is akin to “infiltration”. If that is the case, then what do you consider forgiveness - torture?

    From what I know about that period, it was not quite a “brotherly” relationship either. Why is it when the “independents” insulted Archbishop Valerian it was brotherly, but now we’re being told that the ROAA “are the ones to point fingers at”? I’m sorry, but to me it stinks of old politics and personalities.

  10. Administrator Says:

    Anonymous, as alluded to in response to your previous comment on this topic, the OCA idea was a difficult one to accept for many Romanian post-WWII emigrants, in that it implied the permanent nature of residing forever away from the homeland. It meant reneging on the idea of viewing some of us as a “community in exile” that will “shortly” return home to Romania when the oppressor would be defeated. Remember, not all Romanians outside their homeland, immediately after WWII, considered that they would permanently reside in these new countries, these “exile camps in waiting”. So, the OCA idea meant settling down in the USA, Canada, etc., permanently. It meant giving up on the main short term goal of helping the Americans free Romania from Communist rule, after which most would return home to Romania. Thus, the ROCOR model was more adapted to the short term “Romanian in exile” view, and for this reason it was ROEWE’s preferred option. Remember, most in ROEWE were new emigrants without children born in these new lands. For them, having a Synod of Bishops in a Romanian Metropolia outside Romania, independent of Romania, but canonically linked to ROCOR, that was itself covered by Constantinople at the time, seemed a more acceptable solution than trying to solve the American problem of our youth losing their Orthodoxy as they adopted their newfound Americanism. Decades later, no return home, and finally 1990 with all those false promises and hopes, and very few actually uprooted their lives here and returned “home”. Thus, better to focus on our lives here, which meant the OCA option.

    The ROCOR capitulation is a story that has not been fully written yet. It is still developing. However, certain things can be said. Prior to any change in ROCOR status there were two camps or options in ROCOR: one against having it join under the Moscow Patriarchate, headed by Metropolitan Vitaly, and the one which prevailed, headed by Metropolitan Laurus, which meant having it join under Moscow. The first camp is with whom the ROEWE was affiliated and when Metropolitan Vitaly saw that some in the leadership of his own church had been infiltrated by pro-Moscow forces and that he could no longer hold back the wave, ROCOR and ROEWE parted ways. This was done so ROEWE would be given a chance not sink as ROCOR would. It can also be said that ‘reconciliation’ has yet to have happened in the ROCOR case, certainly given the number of pieces it has broken into since Moscow got involved. And of course, we see the ever-present call to forgiveness, even when there isn’t the slightest notion of repentance. How silly! How can you forgive someone who claims no wrongdoing? Please. Forgiving such a person would be viewed as an insult! This is NOT the point of Christian forgiveness.

    Finally, on your statement of “old politics and personalities” remember that the ROAA/BOR brought the ROEA to court in the 1950’s and continues the propaganda war against us to this day. Also, never forget that BOR’s Metropolitan Bartholomew Anania headed the frontal attack on Archbishop Valerian Trifa. The ROEWE had nothing to do with these travesties. However, some of those we are today negotiating merger/unity with in ROAA/BOR, are tainted by these attacks, for which they continue to claim no wrongdoing. And we want to forgive these unrepentant traitors? Really!

  11. Adrian Says:

    Thats right, a vote has not been taken yet. And a vote should be taken. Whatever priests/parishes want to remain under OCA - fine. Whatever parishes do not - then they can leave. Just as you say “administrator”. Let the vote be taken. And if that means 3/4 of the parishes of this Episcopate leave, fine! And be done with this.

    As for the comment Carmen Valentino made. Great. You do that, clean up the clergy who you say “are filled with un-american ideals.” So just because, priests and the lay want to unite into one metropolitan under BOR, that means “they have un-american ideals”. You forget, as it was said here before, 99% of the priests in this Episcopate are Romanians, schooled in BOR, brought here “by our bishops” to serve our parishes. As for “the dialogue is a waste of time” comment; obviously the assembly of this Episcopate does not think so, or else they wouldn’t have voted “for it” at the Congress. Obviously our hierarchs “want it to continue” or else they would have stopped it by now.

    But again, a vote should be taken and those parishes/priests who want to unite with ROAA under one Metropolinate should. The rest who do not (the 10 - 15 left) can stay. Sa terminam odata cu vorbaria. [Let’s finish with the talking.]

  12. Administrator Says:

    Adrian, when a man builds a house, he builds it for himself and his children, and not for his co-nationals across the sea! That he opens its doors to you does not give you the privilege to enter, take over and then kick him out of it. Now that you were received in OUR house please follow OUR family rules. If not, build your own house and follow your own rules.

    As mentioned a few times now, proportionately as many clergy have left Romania as have the laity and they have overwhelmingly chosen the ROEA/OCA over the ROAA/BOR. No one brought them. They came and we opened our doors to them under the proviso that they understood that they were leaving BOR in order to join ROEA/OCA – and to this they swore signed allegiance. Do not now ask them to now break their word!

    It is more than likely that no vote will be taken on this until “Due Diligence” is satisfactorily completed. It is also more than likely that no vote on merger/unity under ROAA/BOR will take place unless an overwhelming majority is the likely result. If not, we will see a split Episcopate and all that might imply. In the meantime, this matter is more and more relegated to the backburner as more and more post- 1990 children become Americanised, and the pressure from Romania to make this happen falls on less and less fertile soil, as the number of emigrants hitting these shores is overtaken by more and more children being born here.

  13. Nicholas Says:

    Mr. Administrator,

    I see you are so smart, so well prepared when it comes to speaking about the history and “what we should do.” You were at the 2012 Congress. Why didn’t you speak your mind? You sat down and said nothing! Absolutely nothing. Oh, or didn’t you want to embarrass yourself with XOXO … Put your actions where your mouth is. You like to comment, from what I read on this site, about everyone. Everyone is wrong. Your the right one. Bishops are stupid, Patriarchs are stupid, you, a lay person who thinks he knows everyone and everything, is the smart one. I’m tired. The people in my parish are tired of this unity matter dragging on and on. We know the truth. We know most of the people want unity. We know that. And if you want a vote to prove that, great. I am all for that because this has dragged on for too long. Oh and don’t comment back about “ROAA is the one who is stalling - they didn’t answer the questions - bla bla.” Those questions were a joke. We are not stupid. The truth is - we are the ones that are stalling.

    One last thing. As of right now your parents “who you say built these parishes etc., they left this life. They do not own our parishes. Like it or not, like them or not, the newcomers do fill most of our churches, they support them. Yes there are many left related to the old generation. And that’s great! But stop saying “you were accepted in ROEA when you came to this country, why didn’t you go to ROAA, bla bla.” Listen, because I will say this once. Newcomers who came here, and come here, to America did not, and do not, pick their churches according to OCA jurisdiction, BOR jurisdiction, etc. They chose their church:
    1. Because it is Orthodox (Christ’s jurisdiction)
    2. Services are in Romanain (if thats important for them)
    3. That’s the closest Church to them

    The Church does not belong to “your mother or father” just because they built it. Great, we thank them (who were Romanian too). But the members of this Episcopate, do not have to base their decisions on the fact that “your mother and father built the churches” and on the fact that they were received into a church which “your mother and father, - grandfather” built. Newcomers were received in the church by Christ not by you. The head of the church is Christ - not you, or your relatives, or whoever else. Stop talking as if people owe something to the founding generation. What we owe is to Christ and that’s unity. Unity is about combining all Romanians into one - as the Greeks are, the Antiohians, as everyone else. Those against have the right be. But those for also have the right be. And if those for it are the majority, well then you, Mr. Administrator, or anyone else, has no right to stop this. Don’t tell me “how do I know most of our people are for unity” because you very well know that’s true also. And if you really want a vote to prove that - as many others have said, one should be taken.

  14. Administrator Says:

    Nicholas, as you know, ROEA Due Diligence questions have yet to be satisfactorily answered, yet you want us to go ahead and choose whether or not we want to leave the OCA and merge/unite with the ROAA under BOR? Shouldn’t we wait and find out what the implications of doing so are before we do it? Afterwards it will be too late. Sorry, the truth is “we are not stupid”.

    As happened with every emigration wave, our parishes here consistently opened their doors to newcomers, and they integrated well into Church life here. Remember that since the 1950’s every major city where the ROEA has a church has seen an ROAA one appear not too far away. The competitive nature of this can only be explained by political motives, otherwise the churches would have complemented each other in Christian-like fashion. I agree that some people might choose their church the way you suggest, but that would not explain the overwhelming popularity of ROEA churches in North America. I suggest that having no ties to Romania and belonging to American Orthodoxy here is a far greater reason why most people choose our Vatra ROEA/OCA over the ROAA/BOR.

    As mentioned above to Adrian, “when a man builds a house, he builds it for himself and his children, and not for his co-nationals across the sea! That he opens its doors to you does not give you the privilege to enter, take over and then kick him out of it. Now that you were received in OUR house please follow OUR family rules. If not, build your own house and follow your own rules.” What is so complicated to understand? Remember, had it not been for the sacrifices of our parents here, you would have had nothing to fight over! How sad. And please stop trying to coerce us into doing something we are simply not yet comfortable with, and might not ever be, depending on the full and satisfactory answers to our “Due Diligence” questions.

  15. Nicholas Says:

    1. When a man builds a house (church), he “builds it for God and his church” not for his/her children. Learn orthodoxy. If not, keep you protestant ideologies to yourself … I was recieved in Gods house – not your house… Your parents (who were immigrants from Romania-not American born like you) did not put a name-stamp on our churches because they did not personally belong to them and surely don’t belong to you. So stop referring to our churches as your personal possessions because one day you will be judged for that.

    2. I’m not coercing you into doing something you are not comfortable with but what is for the well-being of the church - what the majority of our laity want. God will bring unity – not you. Because God wants unity not separation like we are now.

    3. How do we know that those answers were “unsatisfactory” according to who? Your friends in the due dilligance commitee who are all “against unity” in the first place? Nobody is stupid!!! Those questions were a joke!!! If you want due - process meet with them directly…..don’t use long formalities to prolong the process. Convoke monthly meetings, weekly meetings……and the answers they give in the meeting should be put into writing. Stop using the mail when you can meet them directly!!!

    4. Again I repeat. Your biggest fear is that vote. That vote with should be taken by every church/general assembly on weather or not the laity want unity. You know the answer. But [I assure you: ‘You cannot escape from what you fear’ Don’t always be against this unity but work towards the unity of Romanians, because you are part of the “The Romanian Orthodox Episcopate in America” not Russian, Greek, Serbian or other. Do not be against and do not try to stop this unity. Maybe now, for a short period of time, you can postpone it. But one day this unity of Romanians (with autonomy in America) under BOR will happen. And you will be on the outside.] … Te asigur: “de ce ti-e frica nu scapi”. Nu te mai tot pune impotriva unirii ci lucra spre unitatea romaniilor, ca faci parte din “Episcopia Ortodoxa Romana din America” nu rusa, greaca, sarba sau alta. Nu te mai importrivii si nu mai incerca sa opresti unitatea. Ca poate acuma, pe timp scurt, o prelungesti. Dar intr-o zi aceasta unire a romaniilor (cu autonomie in america) sub BOR tot o sa fie. Si tu o sa ramai pe din afara.

  16. Administrator Says:

    1. Of course you were received in God’s house, erected by the founders in praise of the Lord. However, no founding father would deny wanting his offspring to follow in his religious footsteps, and many have. It is however incumbent upon those entering the temple to not only thank God but also be appreciative of the sacrifices made by the founders and supporters of the Church without which no temple would be there to walk into. That is why we pray for the founders and the supporters of the church at every service. This is common sense and decency, taken for granted and accepted by most, but an opening chapter in Orthodoxy 101 for some, or so it seems …

    2. I’m sure you are not coercing me, but please stop claiming that the majority of Episcopate members want to abandon the OCA and be subjected to BOR rule. The last vote we have is people overwhelmingly choosing the ROEA/OCA over the ROAA/BOR, and this for most immigrants, including those arriving post 1989. And then you again dare speak in God’s name claiming that God wants unity … How happy would he be if going under BOR means that our children will walk away …

    3. The Due Diligence answers from the ROEA/BOR were “unsatisfactory” according to ROEA/OCA representatives, otherwise we would have had a different report from them at our last Congress. Since 2010 we are awaiting satisfactory responses to our questions, and this has been noted in our Congress presentations. By the way, we have not yet seen the official list of questions sent, yet you claim they are a joke. Please enlighten us. Also, meetings and exchanging words is nice, but documents and financial statements are what is required in any Due Diligence process. Where’s the beef??

    4. Again, no one should vote on anything until Due Diligence is satisfactorily completed. Anything else leaves the administration of the Episcopate, including the Episcopate Council, liable to court proceedings. As previously mentioned in a response to Adrian “this matter is more and more relegated to the backburner as more and more post- 1990 children become Americanised, and the pressure from Romania to make this happen falls on less and less fertile soil, as the number of emigrants hitting these shores is overtaken by more and more children being born here.” And finally, understand that unity is not the real question even if it makes fiduciary sense. The real question is under whom this unity/merger should take place: under the local American OCA or the foreign Romanian BOR.

  17. Gary Says:

    The above exchange of comments between the Administrator and others reminds me of certain works by Shakespeare. For example, in Julius Caesar, Act III, Scene 1, Marc Antony expressed the following:

    “And Caesar’s spirit, raging for revenge,
    With Atë by his side come hot from hell,
    Shall in these confines with a monarch’s voice
    Cry “Havoc,” and let slip the dogs of war;
    That this foul deed shall smell above the earth
    With carrion men, groaning for burial.”

    Through that passage Marc Antony predicted that war would follow Caesar’s assassination. If Shakespeare were composing his masterpiece today, in place of the Marc Antony character he might cast this website’s Administrator warning us of the “Havoc” that was to occur subsequent to the ROEA’s original dialog outreach. Caesar’s spirit could be written out of the script and replaced with the BOR raging for revenge for the ROEA severing ties in 1951. The Atë character (the Greek goddess of mischief, delusion and folly) might be replaced with BOR surrogates hot from Bucharest lauding subjugation through reunification. It’s a perfect fit.

    The ROEA must surely now regret not realizing, when reunification dialog commenced, that the BOR would “let slip the dogs of war.” The BOR’s approach to “joint dialog” is consistent with tactics employed throughout its 61-year conquest to retake ROEA. Look at the pattern of foul deeds and deception. Originally the BOR was complicit in the 30-year conspiracy to assassinate the character of Archbishop Valerian. Later, the “maximal autonomy” gambit was pursued. Then it was the withholding of documents stratagem. Now, as BOR’s latest ploy, its surrogates suggest contrary to ROEA by-laws that each Parish be allowed by simple vote to immediately choose between ROEA/OCA and ROAA/BOR. “Havoc,” indeed.

    The BOR is obviously now running out of schemes and getting desperate—its surrogates’ volume increases on this website. So, how does the ROEA successfully end the “Havoc?”

    “Ay, there’s the rub….” (Hamlet, Act III, Scene 1).

    I agree with the Administrator–enough with BOR’s chicanery. Further dialog by the ROEA has been conditioned on ROEA’s favorable analysis of ROAA data and documentation which the ROAA chooses not to produce or that BOR has instructed be withheld. Seize this opportunity! Such withholding gives ROEA cover to immediately tighten “the dogs,” halt the gears of useless discourse and move toward the future. To me, focusing our energies trying to recreate a 1935-style relationship with Bucharest is tantamount to “groaning for burial.”

    The ROEA should instead focus all of its energies and resources toward forging the ultimate unification of all Orthodox Christians of 21st century America into a single Patriarchate. That’s no easy task, but it’s foreseeable. See Ann Rodgers entry, dated April 15, 2012 on this site.

    What’s already happened merely sets the scene for the really important stuff, which is the stuff upon which greatness will be made. Or, as Shakespeare so aptly put it, “What’s past is prologue.” (The Tempest, Act II, Scene 1).

Leave a Comment;

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for e-mail notifications.
Not all of your comments are necessarily displayed on this website.
Comments are not necessarily those of