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…

The 2010 Official ROEA Press Release mentions that the 2008 Congress recognized the “Proposal to Establish a Romanian Orthodox Metropolitanate in North America” as an acceptable basis to continue talks toward a possible union of the two Romanian eparchies, and explained that the Proposal was a product of the Joint Dialogue Commissions (ROEA-OCA & ROAA-BOR).  This “News” has been repeated over the last few ROEA Congresses and for the last couple always linked to the satisfactory completion of the ROEA’s required “Due Diligence” process.  The Cleveland resolution passed was: “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.” Contrast this with the words of the Official Press Release: “hearing that the committees were not yet able to give a positive report, and wishing to encourage progress, Congress respectfully urged that the necessary information be gathered by the end of the year, so that the committee’s findings, essential to the process, would be completed in as timely a manner as possible.” These words disregard the reports made at the Congress by the Due Diligence committees which claimed that the ROAA was not cooperating with them.  So, the difference between the two is the non-compliance of the ROAA with the ROEA requests for information, and that was the focus of much of the discussion on this topic. Why isn’t this mentioned in the Official ROEA Press Release?

As well, there is an attempt by some to coerce us into believing that leaving the OCA, our Mother Church for 40 years, to rejoin a Church, the Romanian Patriarchate (BOR), that abandoned us at the end of WWII and then created the ROAA as a means of sabotaging our activities here, is somehow acceptable now.  Perhaps when we started on this Continent, over 100 years ago, and given the disarray in Orthodoxy here, it might have been acceptable to have ties with the Romanian Church we left behind, but time has moved on.  Today we belong to the only local Autocephalous and multi-ethnic Orthodox Church in North America, the OCA.  It is the second largest regrouping of Orthodox in N.A. Abandoning it to go back in time by joining BOR makes little sense to some ROEA members.  This would also be non-canonical for others, in that we would be abandoning the “local” Church, the OCA, and subjecting ourselves to “foreign” coverage, the BOR.  This is referred to as ethnophyletism or phyletism and officially rejected by Orthodoxy. Universal Orthodoxy is structured on a simple geographic territory principle, where there is one Bishop per city and where “local” Bishops are gathered together in a broader territory Synod, where clergy and laity together conduct the Church.  When the Church is not organized “locally”, in the geographic territory, but structured solely on ethnic identity, regardless of national borders, then we have phyletism.  Why would some of our ROEA-OCA leaders ask us to abandon a sound situation in the OCA and have us return to the past under BOR, a Church that has nothing to offer our children in the N.A. context?

The “updated” Proposal also continues to promote the point of view that our ROEA should abandon the OCA and subject itself to BOR canonical coverage because it would have a unique status of “maximal autonomy” and it would be “in communion with the Church of Romania but not subject to its administrative jurisdiction.” This is just not on.  It must be remembered that Orthodoxy has Autocephalous Churches which are self-headed canonical and administrative bodies that view each other as equals.  Each autocephalous church has sub-set organisational structures that are given more or less autonomy at the whim of the Autocephalous church granting that autonomy.  In Orthodoxy there is no way to oblige the Autocephalous Church which “grants” even “maximal autonomy” to a Metropolia, Archdiocese or Episcopate, to maintain a hands-off relationship with that body and for this very reason, no such term exists in Orthodox Church structures. Simply put, if we were granted “maximal autonomy” today by the Romanian Patriarchate, it could be taken back tomorrow, and there is no court of appeal - civic or religious that would entertain our possible complaint - certainly not in Washington or Constantinople.

Also, the Press Release claims that (with the exception of changing one word) the Episcopate Council recommended the 2010 Proposal and its Annotations to Congress as being the final text, “acceptable as a preliminary step and good theological basis for establishment of the Romanian Orthodox Metropolitanate in North America”. The use of italics here gives the impression that the above is a quote from Episcopate Council.  The following is the text Episcopate Council recommended to the 2010 Congress: “We find the Joint Dialogue Commission’s merger proposal and its Annotations of 2010 with the recommended change in Point XI to read ‘The Patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church shall issue the gramata…’ acceptable as a preliminary step and a good theological basis for establishment of the Romanian Orthodox Metropolitanate in North America.” Some present do not recollect that this Proposal was passed as “the final text”.  In fact, how can anything “preliminary” be considered “final” and how can anything be finalized before complete responses to ROEA Due Diligence questions are received?   Since motions to amend the wording could not be ruled out of order in Congress, how could this or any text be considered “final” before being submitted to ROEA members in the parishes and at a Special Congress? What about the necessary OCA endorsed canonical release from the OCA for the ROEA, without which this merger/unity could not proceed?

The last paragraph of the Press Release is very unclear.  The authors quote Archbishop Nathaniel, who, at the Congress, reminded all to “act with love and without fear” repeating that “the Lord will strengthen us his people and bless us with peace.”  The Congress members then again agreed that the process may continue with the ROAA/BOR while Due Diligence is satisfactorily completed.  This is nothing new - roughly the same thing has been approved at the last couple of Congresses - and that statement should not have been linked to the Archbishop’s words, insinuating somehow that he spoke in support of the Proposal, and that delegates voted for the Proposal.  It should be clear that among those who voted for the process to continue, there are those who are very much interested in seeing full and satisfactory responses to the ROEA’s Due Diligence questions, and this before making up their minds on whether or not they are in favour of the Proposal. This is not at all clear in the Press Release.  In effect, the last sentence therein claims that: “the text of the historic Proposal was accepted, and the due diligence studies remain to be completed before a unity can come about.” This insinuates that the content of the Proposal was voted on and accepted, when only the permission to continue the process was granted while awaiting to obtain complete and satisfactory Due Diligence responses.  Again, logic must prevail.  It should be obvious that any Due Diligence responses we receive from the other side may very well be missing, incomplete or show different intentions than our own and thus, ROEA members’ interpretation of the words in the Proposal might vary depending on the Due Diligence answers.  Clearly, people have the right to reserve judgement regarding the Proposal until all those responses are made public.  The wording in the Press Release leaves it be understood that since the Proposal was “accepted”, we only await Due Diligence to be “completed” before merger/unity “can come about”.  This isn’t correct.  And again, what about OCA approval without whose canonical release none of this could happen?  What about approval in the parishes and even a Special Congress where 2/3 majority votes are required for the ROEA to change its Constitution which ties it to the OCA?  Why is none of this mentioned?

In fact, isn’t it correct to say that more and more delegates at the Cleveland Congress were, increasingly, wondering why the ROAA/BOR is not fully and satisfactorily responding to ROEA Due Diligence questions?  Delegates had entrusted the Due Diligence teams to ask all necessary and appropriate questions of the other side.  When they were told that the ROAA/BOR had not even sent any answers to the first set of “easy” questions, it became obvious that the delegates were far from happy with that type of response and therefore passed the above resolution highlighted in bold in the second paragraph of this article.  More generally, it seems that:

• People want to know who pays and therefore who possibly has influence over ROAA Hierarchs.
• People want to know how the ROAA can operate without funding from Bucharest, as it claims - given that our much stronger ROEA, with no external funding, barely generates a financial break-even position.
• People want to know the links between the Romanian Government and the ROAA.
• People want to know why no one from the ROAA has yet come forward to apologise for themselves and for their eparchy which was used by the Romanian Government for so many years and contributed to the attacks on the ROEA and Archbishop Valerian until they crushed him?
• People want to know why we should go back in time to rejoin the corrupt Romanian Church many left so they could join ROEA and the Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America.
• People want to know why leaving the local OCA and going under foreign BOR isn’t in contradiction with attempting to make a unified, multi-ethnic non-phyletistic Orthodox Church in NA-the official goal.
• People want to know why they should abandon the local church, run by people from here using N.A. administrative methods, only to subject themselves to a foreign church, run by people from there using East-European, post-communist, administrative methods, completely alien to what we and our children know, understand and appreciate.

All manner of questions exist on this merger/unity issue, and satisfactory ROAA/BOR responses to ROEA Due Diligence questions are yet to be given.  How can ROEA members be asked to decide on their future, yet again, without complete answers to these questions?  Remember, most parishes/missions and individual members from the 1950’s to 1990, and from then to the present day, have already chosen between the ROEA/OCA and the ROAA/BOR.  The vast majority have voted for the ROEA/OCA with their feet.  Why are we asking them to choose again?  They never asked for it, and if a few did, the process should have been stopped until the required ROEA Constitutional/ By-Laws levels of support for such a disruptive action were attained.  Why are we obliged to waste our time on an unfounded proposal that never should have seen the light of day?

2010 CONGRESS AND THE OCANEWS.ORG OCT. 8 COMMENTARY

On Oct. 8, 2010 an article appeared on OCANews.org entitled “Status Quo” for Romanians.  In this article the author, Mark Stokoe, editor of OCANews.org, states that “the 2008 Unity Proposal was refined, a new 2010 Proposal accepted, with the caveat that the due diligence studies be completed before any union is considered” and hence the news caption “Status Quo for Romanians”.

The author goes on to say that there was an attempt by our Joint Dialogue Commission (JDC) to present an unauthorized version of the 2008 Proposal to Episcopate Council which would have overridden the agreed upon process based on completing the due diligence prior to any further moves.  It should be noted that Episcopate Council approves the wording of its recommendations to Congress and the latter generally ratifies the recommendations.  In this context, “approved” versions are only those accepted by Episcopate Council and subsequently sanctioned by Congress.  Of course, over the years, our JDC, as part of their negotiating with the other side, have developed “unauthorized” versions that become “authorized” when approved, as described above.  However, these “unauthorized” versions all push for unity under Bucharest.  While Episcopate Council has consistently allowed the process to continue, it has only done so in the context of due diligence being satisfactorily completed, and thus, it has used language of limitation regarding this topic.  Conversely, our JDC has consistently tried to pass resolution language on this unity topic in Episcopate Council which sounds more like: “we endorse the 20 point Proposal …” It is because of such attempts and similar actions, that some members of our JDC have developed a reputation among some ROEA members of being pro-unity under Bucharest cheerleaders.  A more balanced JDC view might have been better, but there you go…

Even though Episcopate Council continues to recommend proceeding with the process, it does so only in the context of having due diligence satisfactorily completed, thus the author claims that there is dissension amongst the Episcopate Council members regarding this topic.  This should surprise no one, since no mandate to go either way has been given by them.  This may change when due diligence is properly and satisfactorily completed.

2010 CONGRESS AND THE ROEA OCT. 18 STATEMENT OF CLARIFICATION

It seems that some in the ROEA felt that Internet comments regarding the ROEA 2010 Congress were “erroneous postings [that] disinform and foster disunity in the Church and our Episcopate”.  The only major item on the Internet regarding the ROEA Congress at that time was the OCANews.org commentary.  And so we assume the criticism is directed at that website which reported on our 2010 Congress and the ROEA’s Press Release on Oct.8.

As mentioned in the ROEA’s Oct. 18, 2010 Statement of Clarification: “Stating that unity would be desirable, our dialogue with the Romanian Orthodox Archdiocese in the Americas (ROAA) was established in 1993…” In and of itself this statement is innocuous, however it omits to mention that ROEA-ROAA unity has always meant unity under BOR for the ROAA and never under the OCA.  Some in the ROEA are equally fond of ROEA-ROAA unity, but only under the OCA, the only local Orthodox Church in North America.  And so it begins - misinformation, errors of omission, some of commission, partisan statements and utter “shock” when things don’t go quite as planned.

The problems that would occur if we were to abandon the local OCA and go under the foreign BOR are becoming more evident.  As long as the OCA remains and conducts itself as the Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America, there is no need to look towards the past to solve today and tomorrow’s most pressing problem: i.e. a church for our children and their faith tomorrow.  Much like BOR might well suit migrant workers and even very recent immigrants by responding to their immediate cultural, language and religious needs, the OCA best suits immigrants’ children who quickly integrate into N.A. ways as well as most of the 2^nd to 6^th generations born in N.A.  This is because their culture here is North American, their language is English or French and if parents don’t present their children with a church they can identify and connect with, they will surely lose their Orthodoxy, as our history here has proven in the past. A foreign church, run in a foreign language, and run in a foreign administrative style, by foreigners, does not make Orthodoxy appealing to these children - and less so as more generations are born here.  Thus, as integration occurs, BOR increasingly becomes yesterday’s reality and the OCA our present and future. Also, the OCA is the only local Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America, all other Orthodox Churches here being foreign.  It is self-headed, led by mostly U.S. and Canadian-born Hierarchs, and run administratively in a manner acceptable and well-known to North Americans.

GOING INTO THE 2011 ROEA CHICAGO CONGRESS

The ROEA’s due diligence requirements had not been properly responded to by the ROAA/BOR in time for the 2010 ROEA Congress.  And probably, for that very reason our 2010 Congress voted overwhelmingly in favour of this resolution: “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.” Thus, some have concluded that the Status Quo was the result of the Cleveland 2010 Congress.

Unless ROEA’s Due Diligence questions are properly and satisfactorily answered by ROAA/BOR, in addition to the more general, “People want to know” ones highlighted above, the Status Quo may also be the only rational course of action following the 2011 Congress and beyond.  This is because requiring full and complete answers to these questions is a normal request and a necessary obligation for the ROEA membership who suffered in the past at the hands of ROAA/BOR.  Can those who have yet to admit to any past wrongdoing be so easily forgiven and then become in charge of our and our children’s religious future here as they report to foreign heads?

Isn’t it time that we put a stop to this senseless debate, now, in Chicago on the 60^th anniversary of when our forefathers in the Episcopate took the brave decision of breaking all links to BOR and Bucharest?  We should not forget that complete administrative autonomy from BOR was declared in 1948, and in the 1951 Cleveland Congress, complete administrative and canonical autonomy was declared.  Since then, our ROEA has evolved here, differently than ROAA/BOR from there, and for the last 40 years is part of the OCA, the only local Orthodox Church in NA.  In any event, we must get back to other important issues like our children’s Orthodox future in the NA context, our own spiritual salvation, and spreading the Word throughout this continent in a cohesive manner, making Orthodoxy palatable to all in N.A. … and all this before it is too late.

On page 10 of the mentioned publication Horia Taru said, “Valerian Trifa had no valid ordination, he had no apostolic succession, he was not in possession of the Godly gift, and consistently he had all qualities except one: he was no bishop”.  All those things were made in reference and were presented by Horia Taru to be true in the year 1965. In 1965 Archbishop Valerian was a full member of the Holy Synod of an American Orthodox entity with a much longer history than that of the Romanian (today cleptocratic) Orthodox Patriarchate.

Valerian was the ruling bishop of the Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of America who, since 1960, was an equal and respected part of that American Orthodox organization. Those who choose to say otherwise simply lie. That is not a matter of opinion, of interpretation or speculation. It is simply a fact that in 1965 Valerian was a valid and canonical bishop. Why Horia Taru made a deliberate choice, mind you in 2011, to lie is anyone’s guess. Frankly, coming from a representative of the Romanian cleptocratic Patriarchate it should be no big surprise. Since 1950 the cleptocratic Patriarchate, a pathetic communist tool, consistently and without respite insulted, slandered and misrepresented the “Vatra” Episcopate. The arsenal of venom used was not different in the fifties of the previous century than that used by Horia Tarna in 2011.  It is simply the consistency of irrational hate.

But what is really stunning is the deafening silence of a segment, of a “certain” segment of the “Vatra” clergy in regard to that text.  This “certain” segment of the “Vatra” clergy, some of whom were ordained into the priesthood  through the laying on of Valerian’s hands, some of whom today as members of the JDC (Joint Commission of Dialogue) promote a subordination (”union” they say) toward the Romanian cleptocratic Patriarchate, were informed about Horia Taru’ text. Their reaction was, as I said, a deafening silence. This is not a surprise, but it is stunning!

Repeatedly, members of the “Vatra”‘ Episcopate have expressed reservation in regards to the nefarious project of subordination, and equally, repeatedly they were ignored. Repeatedly, those who publicly expressed their reservations regarding the nefarious project of subordination, were insulted, threatened and slandered.  But it seems that the truth has its own way of becoming obvious. This shameful silence of that segment of the “Vatra” clergy, when the memory of Archbishop Valerian is savagely attacked, is such an occasion.

Yours humbly has said several times, that by promoting the nefarious project of subordination toward the Romanian cleptocratic Patriarchate, certain members of the “Vatra” s  clergy  proved not whose friends they are, they proved what sort of friends they are. But I confess that this shameful silence by far surpasses my own imagination.  The fact that those people, ordained into priesthood by Valerian’s laying of the hands, did not and do not say a word in defense of his memory is a painful disgrace. I am afraid that those people reached a level of moral abjection that can not be commented any more. It is a level that has to be contemplated in horror!

« We ask you to financially assist the Romanian Properties in Jerusalem and Jericho so that the construction work get completed and Romanian pilgrims be received.

With anticipated thanks and blessings,

+ Daniel
Patriarch of Romania»

Account : -dollars #…
-euros #…
-lei #…

In the meantime the nefarious movement of subordination (”unity”!?) toward the cleptocratic Romanian Patriarchate is continued “under the radar”, in a stealthy way. (The communists and all their offspring were and are fierce partisans of murky and dubious ways.) In this case we see the policy of “fait accompli”, an action which is completed before those affected by it are in a position to react or to reverse it. It should be remembered that among political ways, the policy of fait accompli is, probably, the most dishonest.  It is the policy of dealing under the table, outside the existing legal order and outside the scrutiny of public opinion.

All sort of services, generally commemorating dubious “historical” events, are done in common (by “Vatra” clergy and of the ROAA); all sorts of statements are issued (always in favor of the subordination) by clergy or lay people with little or no moral credentials and speaking out of both sides of the mouth.

In some cases a policy of “missionary” mushrooming is promoted. Numerous “missions” are established in an area where an old and respected parish exist, and always if that parish is unwavering in its commitment toward American Orthodoxy. The new” missions” are established to undermine such parishes. Adding insult to injury the new “missions” are, at least in one case, frankly, franchised to the same family!

We witness a deliberate action of ignoring the legal order, the authority of the ruling hierarch, due process, due diligence and, in my opinion, common sense.  Let us be very clear.

The problem of subordination toward the cleptocratic Romanian Patriarchate is not a canonical one.   In this respect the Orthodox canons are crystal clear: all dioceses have to be under the authority of local hierarchs. Concepts of “phyletism” and “ethnocentrism” are alien to Orthodox dogmas.

The problem of subordination is strictly administrative and thus, of interest to all the faithful, clergy and lay people. Consistently it should be debated by all and each of them, openly.  The policies of fait accompli, concealment, and secrecy are the mark of the regimes and organizations that disregard both law and the condition of being under the law. Those policies are antithetic to everything the New World stands for!

About secrecy and censorship, in a famous speech on April 27, 1961, President John F. Kennedy said: “The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it.” Those words are as true today as they were fifty years ago. Those words perfectly fit our situation with that “dialogue” promoting the nefarious project of subordination (”unity”) toward the cleptocratic Romanian Patriarchate.

After all trappings are removed the problem of subordination (”unity”) toward the cleptocratic Romanian Patriarchate is a choice.  It is a choice between, political expediency and personal gains, and moral resolve and loyalty to the New World. Under no circumstances should the moral values be an expendable commodity.