As well, four years ago, SCOBA, the committee of Orthodox Canonical Bishops in America, was barely having meetings, let alone talking about the unity of all Orthodox eparchies in America in order to form a multi- ethnic American Orthodox Church.  This has changed in the past two years as SCOBA has been replaced by the “Episcopal Assembly” which has been mandated by several important Patriarchates (including the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Moscow Patriarchate) to solve the “Diaspora” issue, not only in North America, but worldwide.   Progress in this regard has been positive of late and there is real hope that the “Episcopal Assembly” may succeed where SCOBA failed.

The reality of a multi-ethnic American Orthodox Patriarchate, led by an American Patriarch, to which all ethnic eparchies here - spiritually and administratively - would become subordinated to, is closer than ever before.  This new reality should bring to final conclusion any further discussions regarding the ROEA leaving the OCA, and through unity/ merger with the ROAA, submit itself under the authority of the BOR - because both eparchies would be in the American Patriarchate, which itself would have new territorial structures.

The Ann Rogers article on this website (dated April 15, 2012) presents a situation that is closer to reality than anyone could imagine.  Everyone is urged to read and re-read that complete and compelling article about Orthodoxy in America.  Consequently, we in the ROEA do not need a 1935 solution to a 21^st century problem.  Rather, we must all move forward and promote an American Patriarchate. The ROEA’s Archbishop Nathaniel is involved directly, being seated on an “Episcopal Assembly” committee, and the ROEA’s Bishop Irineu sits on another.  Indeed, things are quickly moving ahead.  A great example of this new reality is that both Archbishop Nicolae of the ROAA and the leader of the OCA, Metropolitan Jonah, sit on the same “Episcopal Assembly” committee.  It seems that the Hierarchs understand the new reality and are striving to bring all Christian Orthodox here together, spiritually and administratively, into one American Orthodox Patriarchate, led by one American Patriarch.

Because things are at an impasse given the lack of satisfactory ROAA answers to ROEA Due Diligence questions and we do not want to bore you repeating the same discussion themes, and since progress at the “Episcopal Assembly” level isn’t quite that fast, it seems to be a good time to take a break in the regular web activities of “roeanews.info”.  Comments sent to the website during this time will only be read by the Administrator and not posted here.  If something important happens, it will be posted on this website.  For those in the ROEA wanting to keep informed, the “roea.org” and the “oca.org” web sites are the official organs.  On the “Episcopal Assembly” level regarding a multi-ethnic Orthodox American Patriarchate, the “assemblyofbishops.org” website is the definitive resource.  As well, the “ocl.org” website has news regarding Orthodoxy in North America.

The “roeanews.info” website will continue to be available to its readers, with all articles and comments from the beginning of the site, fully retrievable. A message regarding “roeanews.info” web activity will be posted monthly on this site.

Skeptics say unity can be achieved immediately if the bishops really want it and that details could be worked out later. The bishops assembly “is a façade,” said Cal Oren, a layman from Baltimore.  “They want us to believe that they are working together and are really unified. If they are really unified, where is the real unity? Why do we have nine bishops of New York? We don’t need more joint commissions on youth work. That just creates an excuse for never really unifying.”

Orthodoxy is the Eastern wing of a Christian church that split into the Catholic and Orthodox churches in 1054. Its spiritual leader, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople in modern-day Turkey, is first among equals. He has no authority to tell any other patriarch what to do.  This system of governance that they trace to New Testament times broke down in the New World. Immigrants started churches and then sought priests from the Old Country, giving rise to multiple, overlapping jurisdictions. The Russian Orthodox Church sent a bishop to serve all ethnic groups, but that ended after the communist Revolution of 1917.

In 1970 the Moscow Patriarchate set free its daughter diocese in the United States to become the Orthodox Church in America. But that wasn’t recognized by the other patriarchs, who still govern dioceses here. There are now 13 Orthodox jurisdictions in North America, with 800,000 members. The Pittsburgh region is a stronghold, with perhaps 25,000 adherents.

In 1994, when all of the Orthodox bishops in the Americas gathered near Ligonier and called for unity, the ecumenical patriarch accused them of rebellion. “When we started this work 20 years ago it was anathema to talk about the possibility of administrative unity. Now we’re not only talking about it, but hopefully the hierarchs will be looking at what is necessary to accomplish it,” said Charles Ajalat, a retired lawyer from Southern California, chairman of the pan-Orthodox social service agency FOCUS.  Planning for a Great Council to redraw boundaries started in 1961. Little progress was made until the Iron Curtain fell. That freed the largest churches from persecution, and sent new waves of emigrants to the West. In 2009 the patriarchs asked the Orthodox bishops in 12 regions of the globe to plan for unity. The American bishops have asked the patriarchs to let them break into separate groups for Canada, the United States and Mexico-Central America.  “The United States is the laboratory where this will work out, because we are the biggest and most developed and most complicated,” said Andrew Walsh, a Greek Orthodox layman who is associate director of the Leonard Greenberg Center for the Study of Religion in Public Life at Trinity College in Hartford, Conn.

Both supporters and skeptics of the Bishops Assembly say the problem isn’t merely bureaucratic, but spiritual.  In 1872 the idea of one bishop planting an ethnic church in another bishop’s territory was condemned as a nationalist heresy. “These divisions are not authentic to our faith and should not be tolerated,” said the Rev. Josiah Trenham, an Antiochian priest from Riverside, Calif., the media relations officer for the Assembly of Bishops.  “If this doesn’t work, nothing will,” he said of the assembly. “The mother churches are requiring us to come together. They said we’ll give you an opportunity to draw the road map and present it to us, or we will do it for you. That’s like lighting a fire under the clerical leadership in America. We don’t want someone else solving our problems from elsewhere.”

Skeptics believe the assembly will be undermined by rivalry between the overseas patriarchates, particularly Moscow and Constantinople. The latter, with 3,000 resident members, is so constricted by the Turkish government that it needs parishes elsewhere to survive. Moscow, the largest patriarchate with 164 million members, is asserting renewed strength since the fall of communism. George Matsoukas, executive director of Orthodox Christian Laity, which advocates American unity, said he was once promised that the Great Council would convene by 2000. “Now, you read that they are in disagreement about convening it because they can’t agree about who should convene it,” he said.  The American assembly “is a step in the right direction, but they’re not doing anything. It’s mired in the affairs of the Old World.”  Metropolitan Savas, the Greek Orthodox bishop of Pittsburgh, said the patriarchs aren’t trying to delay the Great Council.  “There are several reasons why it has taken so long. The first is that we don’t have an emperor to summon it. That’s how they were all called in the past” when there was still an emperor, he said. “There are questions such as does each bishop get one vote, or do we vote in blocks? Does the Moscow Patriarchate have one vote or 750? They’ve got something like 500 dioceses.”  The Rev. Radu Bordeianu, associate professor of theology at Duquesne University and president of the Orthodox Theological Society in America, believes that Americans sometimes see overseas resistance where none exists. Father Bordeianu, a Romanian Orthodox priest who serves a Greek Orthodox parish, used to accept the axiom that churches overseas want to keep financial support from America.  But after talking to some bishops “I realized that the so-called mother churches are materially supporting the small jurisdictions in the United States,” he said. “I was very surprised.”

There are tensions between converts — who have entered the priesthood in large numbers — and ethnic Orthodox. There has been conflict in and between jurisdictions here. In 2010, the Antiochian diocesan bishops were demoted to auxiliaries stripped of most of their power. Thirty years after declaring the Orthodox Church in America self-governing, the Russian Orthodox Church began planting parishes in the United States and reunited with the formerly schismatic Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia.

At the Assembly, “a lot of the work right now is simply getting to be comfortable with each other’s presence,” said Metropolitan Savas. It includes “three different churches that came out of the Russian experience but didn’t acknowledge the legitimacy of one another. The fact that they are present and sitting around the same table and communicating is a major advance.”  Committees are examining jurisdictional differences in matters from church government to liturgy. They commissioned a study that found they had less than one-third of the 3 million members they once claimed.  Although no one rejoiced, “this means that we might start planning for the real Orthodox Church, not the fantasy Orthodox Church,” Mr. Walsh said.

Such work isn’t a stalling tactic, Metropolitan Savas said.  “Defining our task is important. What is it we want to achieve? How can we better demonstrate our unity of faith? Does it mean that we have to speak the same liturgical language?” he said.  Metropolitan Savas hopes the bishops will begin to form regional synods and work together.  “Right now we are on parallel tracks. We pretty much ignore one another. That has implications for church planting,” he said.  Father Trenham says a united church would cut many overall administrative costs by a factor of 10, saving millions of dollars.  “We’ve done some things to try to collaborate, but it’s nothing compared to what it would be if we were one church. This is an incalculable waste of resources that no business would ever tolerate,” he said.  Unity is crucial to the church’s ability to carry out Christ’s mission in America, Mr. Ajalat said.  “Right now people see all of these jurisdictional divisions and they get confused. They think that all of them are separate churches, like Protestant denominations, but they’re not,” he said. “The Orthodox see themselves as one church. They are one church in doctrine and worship and episcopacy. It’s this administrative problem that needs to be solved.”

In this context, which Church can best respond to the religious needs of our American children/ grandchildren, the American Church from here - OCA, under which we find our Vatra - ROEA (with the majority of parishes and faithful), or the Romanian Church from there - BOR, under which we find the ROAA? On the one hand, the ROEA-Vatra is run following a more American style, being within the OCA, administered by people from here, in a manner Americans are accustomed to, and in the language from here as well as Romanian. Isn’t this the Church that corresponds more to the needs of those who have been here for a long while and their children/ grandchildren born and raised here, not to mention those from mixed marriages and converts? On the other hand it is clear that the ROAA is run following a Romanian style being within BOR, administered by people from there, in the language from there, that is everything from Romania and like in Romania. Isn’t it obvious that this can only correspond to the needs of the recent arrivals (until they integrate here) and not the children/ grandchildren born and raised here, not even mentioning converts and those from mixed marriages?

Our forefathers began the changes towards our church integration here, beginning with our breaking away from BOR and our entering the Mitropolia, the eventual OCA started in 1960. But old habits repeated themselves too often and the religious needs of the children/grandchildren were not fulfilled. Wouldn’t a Romanian episcopate in the OCA, which increasingly uses their language (English), administrated in line with customs from here and not there, by people from here and not there, have a better chance of answering the religious needs of our children/ grandchildren, than an Episcopate ruled by the foreign BOR? The children/ grandchildren of Romanian immigrants have already spoken twice (in the 1940’s and 1980’s) and they voted with their feet, refusing an ethnic ghetto life, and abandoning the Romanian- style Orthodoxy run by people from there who refused to integrate into the style of life over here, and all in Romanian - a language these children/ grandchildren no longer understood. Isn’t it time to learn from our past? How many generations must we lose from our churches here before we understand that our children/ grandchildren who were born here will not be Romanians, but Americans? And if they will no longer speak Romanian, but the services continue on in Romanian, and everything is administered in a manner foreign to them, they will no longer come to church and many will lose their Orthodox faith! Remember that we are now playing with their religious future - the greatest treasure received from our forefathers. If we do not take proper decisions now, many of our children/ grandchildren will no longer believe in anything, and this will be our fault … Thus, the choice between OCA and BOR must be made with our children/ grandchildren in mind.

Remember that another wave of immigrants from Romania to North America is not on the horizon. Western Europe is now too close and offers many opportunities for Romanians. Asia is growing too quickly … and so, we that are here, cannot risk any further mistakes. Isn’t it better to prepare the Orthodox future of our children/ grandchildren by giving them the OCA Church, in their language, following their American customs, run by people from here with whom they are able to get along? Our Romanian Episcopate in the OCA can evolve with their changing needs as they integrate into the North American fabric. It is difficult to imagine how our Episcopate, if subjected to BOR rule, could respond to their needs in the future. For these reasons, our past here clearly indicates that the OCA is the answer for our children/ grandchildren, and not BOR. Anything else means egotism for the first generation that might enjoy bathing itself in the past. But this would also mean indifference towards the future generations born here. Now is the time to learn from our over 100 year past on this continent, and adapt, parish by parish, given each ones particular future needs, knowing that in the OCA we can evolve at our own pace, going from ethnic parishes with traditions and style from there, to American Orthodox parishes with traditions and style from here.

We, Romanian Orthodox immigrants and children/ grandchildren of these immigrants, are today obliged to choose between the ‘Church of our Fathers’ and the ‘Church of our Children’. This is a unique phenomenon for those who definitively change their homeland - where the children born in these countries chosen by their parents - now have a new homeland, where everything is different: language, culture lifestyle, tradition, etc. If we want an Orthodox life for future generations here, in North America, isn’t the OCA from here, the best choice?

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.

But the names identified as former collaborators include some who spoke out publicly against the church being scrutinised by the Dossier Commission - including Varna Metropolitan Kiril, recently also caught up in controversy about the expensive hybrid car that he had been using.

The other top clergy identified by the commission were metropolitans Galaktikon of Stara Zagora, Dometian of Vidin, Ignatii of Pleven, Yoanikii of Sliven, Grigorii of Veliko Turnovo, Yosif [Joseph] of the United States, Canada and Australia, Kaliniki of Vratsa, Nataniel of Nevrokopski, Simeon of Western and Central Europe and Neofit of Rousse.

Galaktikon was agent Misho; Domitian, agent Dobrev; Ignatii, agent Penev; Yoanikii, agent Kirilevich; Grigorii, agent Vanyo; Yosif, agent Nikolov; Kalinik, agent Rilski; Kiril was a secret collaborator with the code name Kovachev and was an agent code-named Vladislav; Nataniel was a collaborator code-named Blagoev; Simeon of Western and Central Europe was a collaborator, as Toris, and an agent, code-named Hristov; Neofit’s code name as an agent was Simeonov.

The process of check-ups among top clergy of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church was continuing, the commission said. The commission is checking clergy of senior rank including metropolitans and heads of monasteries and theological seminaries.

The Dossier Commission said that Georgi Yovchev, bishop of the Roman Catholic eparchy of Sofia and Plovdiv from July 31 1988, was agent Petar. Among Muslims, chief mufti Moustafa Alish Hadji was named as agent Andrei…

The article abounds in  cavernous clichés, and full of cheap shots like; the church was  founded out of “yearning for the old country”, the “Church is part of Romania”(?!) and so on.  In my opinion these cheap clichés are nothing more than putrid hot air!  But the article had a purpose. Its purpose was to disseminate confusion. The author bends head over heels to flatter the parish priest and his “assistants” but says nothing about whose canonical jurisdiction the church is under and never mentions the name of its Hierarch, the Most Reverend Archbishop Nathaniel. In my opinion this is a real scandal!

It is a scandal because it has become the rule of the cleptocratic Patriarchate and its cronies to ignore, to treat as non existent and as irrelevant, the ruling Hierarch of the “Vatra”.  Obviously this is part of the cleptocratic Patriarchate’s policy of “fait accompli”; the policy of considering the subordination (or unity as some say in bad faith) of the “Vatra” to the said cleptocratic institution as a done deal.  As I have previously mentioned, this policy is consistent with the attitude of the cleptocratic Patriarchate since 1950. It is the policy of irrational hate.

However, what is really disturbing is the benevolent silence of the “Vatra”s representatives in the JDC toward such repeated, systemic insults.  These individuals (the “Vatra” representatives in the JDC), who should promote the “Vatra” interests, do not dare mention a word of protest. When they open their mouths it is to apologize and even to justify the insults hurled towards the “Vatra” and its Hierarch. (Such was the case when the memory of Archbishop Valerian was insulted in a 2011 issue of the “Altarul Banatului” and when such a representative of the “Vatra” rushed to justify it.)

Why such gross mistreatment of the “Vatra”‘ interests are tolerated is anyone’s guess. But in my opinion both those who insult the Vatra, as well as the members of the JDC that apologize for them, [auto-identify themselves] …

1)- Phyletism, which means organizing the Orthodox Church along ethnic lines is not canonical in Universal Orthodoxy because its organizational structure must be based on territoriality from the geographic perspective.  We see that BOR has “600 clerics (of whom 13 are Bishops and metropolitans)… 500 parishes and 40 monasteries, chapels in jails and hospitals” throughout the Diaspora, organized along strictly ethnic lines under BOR control.   Here is the problem by way of an example :  What are BOR’s Archbishop Nicolae and his clerics doing in the USA, on the geographic territory already occupied by Archbishop Nathaniel of the Vatra Episcopate, a part of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA)?  Hasn’t BOR seen that the Romanian phenomenon reduces significantly after 2-3 generations, but that the Orthodox one can continue and even grow, but only if it is well integrated in the society of adoption, that is an American Church where services are held in English here?  In other words, is the goal of BOR to promote orthodoxy accross the globe, or does BOR reduce itself to the position of being but a tool in the hands of the Romanian government, promoting their policies and Romanianism in order to control the Romanian Diaspora and as such influence those countries, even while it naturally shrinks as it is assimilated in the foreign lands of adoption, where Romanians have immigrated?

2)- Romanian neighbours, that is those that are Orthodox on the one hand and those that are not on the other, who, after generations and generations, continue to live a Romanian life.  Bessarabia on the one hand, which is in present day Moldova, is seen by the Russians, who at one time controlled it, as a part of their canonical territory.  Not only did Bessarabia constitute an informal part of Greater Romania before European nationalism took root and created these countries with formal borders, but here the Romanian language has always been spoken.  And so, Bessarabia is more a part of the Romanian Patriarchate than it is of the Russian Patriarchate.  And it is in this way that territorial disputes between Orthodox neighbours should be resolved, but unhappily for Romania, Russia is politically much more important than Romania on the world scene, and consequently, this dispute might drag on ad infinitum…  On the other hand, we have the example of non-orthodox neighbours, like the Hungarians, where it is easier to have Orthodox Romanian national eparchies which are BOR dependent, for the Romanian neighbours who find themselves on foreign territory.  But this can only occur until an Hungarian Orthodox Church emerges, where surely room will be made for those who, after so many generations, continue to live Romanian. Anything else is hard to argue.

3)- Jericho is the example of what not to do as an Autocephalous Orthodox Church.  BOR entered the canonical territory of the Jerusalem Patriarchate and without obtaining their approval, built a church in Jericho under BOR.  This is inadmissible in Universal Orthodoxy (what would BOR say if the Antiochian Patriarchate would open a church under Antioch in Bucharest, without BOR’s authorization?)  In this context, the Jerusalem Patriarchate  broke off communion with BOR and a schism in Orthodoxy now exists because of the pride of certain individuals.  A sin difficult to justify …

Pr. Ion Armasi tells us how important it is that “the Romanian Patriarchate has constantly been preoccupied with ensuring Romanians across all meridians a place for the soul, where they could participate in a service held in the Romanian language, officiated by a Romanian priest…” Yes, we’ve understood.  Outside Romania, BOR has room only for immediate neighbours living in Romanian, Romanian migrants and first generation Romanian immigrants.  There is no place for the children of immigrants who no longer speak Romanian after 2-3 generations.  (We have proof of this reality in our communities in the USA, Canada, France, Germany, England, wherever a Romanian immigration occurred focussing on Romanianism, and where we can speak with those of the 2-5 generation born in these foreign lands of Romanian immigrant parents.)   As well, BOR is preoccupied mostly with Romanian Orthodoxy and does NOT accentuate promoting orthodoxy in foreign lands, in local languages, even for Romanian offspring who now only speak English, French, etc., let alone promoting Orthodoxy among the local population who finds Orthodoxy to be something strange, even an aberration. By its words and actions it is clear that BOR promotes Bucharest control and Romanianism, and not the spreading of Orthodoxy across the globe, in the respective local languages and cultures.  Can this be the policy of an Orthodox Church?  This is what phyletism brings and yet another reason why Universal Orthodoxy condemns it.  This is BOR’s chosen path.  What a huge sin…

Finally, the referees of this doctoral presentation recommended this work not only to professors and students, but also for Romanian “politicians in diplomatic missions outside the countries’ borders.”  And with this last recommendation we understand more… Welcome to the State Church; used for the needs of the State, paid for and controlled by the Romanian government… and not by the American or Canadian governments here which refuse this type of relationship.

And we from Vatra ROEA/OCA should abandon our American Orthodox Church and subject ourselves to BOR, a foreign Church controlled by a foreign State?  Let’s think this one through carefully … very carefully.  There is no road back.  Even if we become an autonomous Metropolitanate, a “maximal” one, we will not be able to leave BOR without BOR’s approval.  And once we sellout, turning our backs on the OCA, no one would want us in any case …!  And for what reason would we do this?  Enough.

Fr. Ion Armaşi presented … the canonically accepted criteria for an Autocephalous Church to expand beyond its national jurisdictional borders and to organize its own Diaspora, the context in which the Romanian Orthodox Church Diaspora was organized and its evolution, and a presentation of Romanian Orthodox Diaspora eparchies, the Romanian communities from around the Romanian borders, as well as the Romanian monastic settlements in the Holy Lands.

Fr. Ion Armaşi showed that the Romanian Orthodox Diaspora is one of the largest and best organized of all Diaspora’s belonging to Orthodox Churches.  ” The Romanian Diaspora is served by approximately 600 clerics (of which 13 are Bishops and Metropolitans) organized in three Metropolitanates (with 6 ruling Bishops, an Archdiocese, 4 Episcopates, 500 parishes and 40 monasteries, jail and hospital chapels.”

As well, the candidate … emphasized that “it is important that each community receive religious assistance in its own language.  The Romanian Patriarchate has constantly been preoccupied with ensuring Romanians across all meridians a place for the soul, where they could participate in a service held in the Romanian language, officiated by a Romanian priest… [and this] for the over 4 million in the Diaspora”…

… The referees … recommended that this work become required reading, a necessary tool for theologians, professors, students and politicians in diplomatic missions outside the countries’ borders…

“The Exile of Bishop Policarp Morusca of America” by Adrian N. Petcu

“It might seem strange, but Bishop Policarp Morusca of America was exiled in his own country.  He was exiled because, from 1939 on, he was no longer permitted to pastor those he received as his flock upon being ordained to the episcopacy. Yet, as had happened in 1939 and for the same reasons, the bishop could not go to his Romanians in America after 1945.  The same political considerations directed the path of Policarp Morusca’s episcopacy.  After 1939, the bishop was kept in the homeland because, in a discourse, it seems that he made an allusion to the immoral situation that King Carol II was indulging in. Just like what had happened in the case of Metropolitan Gurie of Bessarabia. After 1945, the political element had changed, and it did not look well upon a man of the past pastoring over the Romanians across the ocean. Thus, Policarp the hierarch, remained in an exile imposed by politics which not for the first time would impose its abusive decisions upon the organization and operations of the Church. Bishop Policarp remained in his native Craiova, served at the Cathedral in Alba Iulia and lived in the “St. John the Baptist” Skete that oversees the capital of The Great Union.” (Source: www.ziarullumina.ro) June 9 2011, unofficial translation.

In the October 13, 2011 edition of the ‘Ziarul Lumina’ (ziarullumina.ro) an article entitled ‘From the Correspondence of Bishop Policarp to his flock across the ocean’ also by Adrian N. Petcu affirms that: “Beyond the problems regarding Autonomy written into the text of the Episcopate’s Bylaws, in 1939 Bishop Policarp was kept in the homeland due to intrigues launched from America…  The war came, and it appears that Bishop Policarp had no further hope of a quick return to the midst of his faithful.  In America, problems arose caused by certain priests who, lacking canonical responsibility, tried to influence the governance of the Episcopate. It is concerning these kinds of matters that Bishop Policarp speaks of in a letter … to the Romanian Consul in America: “I cannot reply so mildly on the issue of the vicariate of Fr. Archpriest Truta…  But is His Reverence the underling of the [Government] Minister Irimescu, in that he seeks the vicarship from him?…  So long as the Missionary Episcopate has its titular head they will seek in vain to skirt around the issues. For the Church has her own, autonomous, laws.”  This is only a fragment of a letter by the American bishop which shows up the statutory violations committed by some American priests, matters that become ever more pointed right up to the installation of Communism in Bucharest, when there takes place the unhappy spiritual rupture of the Romanians abroad.” Please find below Petcu’s October 13 full article.

“From the Correspondence of Bishop Policarp to his flock across the ocean” by Adrian N. Petcu

“The founding of the Romanian Episcopate in America in 1934 encountered many difficulties, both on the new continent as well as in the homeland. It appeared that the problems were resolved by the election in 1935 of a bishop, in the person of Archimandrite Policarp Morusca.  Beyond the problems regarding Autonomy written into the text of the Episcopate’s Bylaws, in 1939 Bishop Policarp was kept in the homeland due to intrigues launched from America that reached the ear of King Carol II. The war came, and it appears that Bishop Policarp had no further hope of a quick return to the midst of his faithful.   In America, problems arose caused by certain priests who, lacking canonical responsibility, tried to influence the governance of the Episcopate. It is concerning these kinds of matters that Bishop Policarp speaks of in a letter sent from his native Craiova on 28 January 1941 to the Romanian Consul in America: “I cannot reply so mildly on the issue of the vicariate of Fr. Archpriest Truta.  As much as I value him as the most capable priest over there …  But is His Reverence the underling of the [Government] Minister Irimescu, that he seeks the vicarship from him? Only now has this come to my attention. I do not know if this proposal has gotten to the Holy Synod. It has not gone before the sessions of the High Council Body. Neither was I ever informed of the erection of a “cathedral” in Cleveland; news that came to me by other channels …  Fr. Truta knows the channels laid down by Article 132 of the Bylaws. And it was based on that provision that I named him vicar, back in Autumn, 1938. Yet he renounced it then. And when he was called to the office anew in the plenary session of the Council of the Episcopate - he refused. So long as the Missionary Episcopate has its titular head they will seek in vain to skirt around the issues. For the Church has her own, autonomous, laws.”  This is only a fragment of a letter by the American bishop which shows up the statutory violations committed by some American priests, matters that become ever more pointed right up to the installation of Communism in Bucharest, when there takes place the unhappy spiritual rupture of the Romanians abroad.” (Source: www.ziarullumina.ro) October 13, 2011, unofficial translation.

What happened to the author between June 9 and October 13 2011?  What could warrant such a dramatic change in point of view in the same newspaper after only 4 months, particularly when concerning issues that happened 70 years ago, and this without explanation? Strange indeed.  In the first article Adrian N. Petcu tells us that the destiny of Bishop Policarp Morusca is imposed by Romanian “politics” before and after 1945.   In the second article Petcu lets us surmise that, in the first place, there exist “…problems regarding Autonomy written into the text of the Episcopate’s Bylaws…”  In the second place the author tells us that “… in 1939 Bishop Policarp was kept in the homeland due to intrigues launched from America…”  In the third place the author introduces the word ‘canonical’ into the discussion:  “In America, problems arose caused by certain priests who, lacking canonical responsibility, tried to influence the governance of the Episcopate…”  In the fourth place Fr. Trutza, the leader of the Vatra priests, is targeted in a letter to the Romanian Consul in America from Bishop Morusca who declares: “…So long as the Missionary Episcopate has its titular head, they will seek in vain to skirt around the issues…”  In the fifth place Petcu repeats the old threat: “This is only a fragment of a letter… which shows up the statutory violations committed by some American priests.”  In the sixth place Petcu tells us that these matters: “become ever more pointed right up to the installation of Communism in Bucharest, when there takes place the unhappy spiritual rupture of the Romanians abroad.”   And we now understand the “About Face”.

History must urgently be rewritten by blaming those from the Vatra for “the unhappy spiritual rupture of the Romanians abroad” which followed the communist takeover of power in Bucharest, never again mentioning the “…abusive decisions upon the organization and operations of the Church [imposed by political considerations] in order to now justify abandoning the OCA (Orthodox Church in America) and the entry of the Vatra under BOR (Romanian Orthodox Church) which itself continues to report to the political element in Romania.  Some have now descended to attempting to rewrite history in order to justify their present day positions.  Sad … very sad.

Archbishop Nathaniel then presented his Address to the 79th Annual Episcopate Congress in which he summarized activities over the past year in and outside of the Episcopate. One of the major themes focused on the Episcopate’s history, Church order in North America, and the purpose of the newly-formed Assembly of Bishops… The assembled delegates offered a standing ovation following the Address…

Extensive discussion arose in relation to the External Affairs report. V. Rev. Dr. Remus Grama, the Episcopate’s External Affairs Representative, ably replied to questions related to the actions of the Mother Churches to create Assemblies of Bishops in regions of the world where Church administrative order is incomplete (i.e. North America). Archbishop Nathaniel completed the discussion by explaining the meaning and practical results of administrative unity of the Orthodox Church.

Following a break for lunch, the Congress reconvened and discussed the report of the Joint Dialogue Commission (JDC). Fr. Laurence Lazar explained that the work of the JDC was to negotiate a framework under which a potential union could take place. The next step involves the due diligence studies being done. The JDC has nothing to do with that work, other than to continue to monitor the situation and maintain communication with the ROAA.  Psa./Attorney Mary Lynn Pac-Urar summarized the activity of the Due Diligence Committee (DDC). She explained that the Congress voted to have this committee 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. The DDC needs to analyze what was received and what needs to be done to go forward. Lastly, a pro-forma plan on how a new Metropolia would function financially would have to be drawn up…

In other New Business a motion was made and passed: That the JDC and DDC of the ROEA meet face to face by Nov. 30, 2011 to decide the remaining issues pertaining to the unification, and that the ROAA committees should be invited to participate…

Special thanks to Fr. George Ursache and Parishioners of St. Mary Church, Chicago for hosting this year’s Congress with warm hospitality and generosity…