+
   
 
Latest News
Questions & Answers
Documents
Reflections
Blog
Links
What Can You Do?
 

9.23.08

RAISING QUESTIONS ON "UNITY"

(Editor's note: A recent publication of the Orthodox Brotherhood Auxiliary of the USA, a fellowship of men and women of the Romanian Orthodox Episcopate in America ( OCA) that supports and promotes diocesan ministries throughout the United States, has raised questions concerning the proposed unification of the ROEA (OCA) and the Patriarchal Romanian Orthodox Archdiocese of the Americas (ROAA).

The twelve page brochure, mailed to Brotherhood members throughout the country this past month,

is the first publication to openly deal with process as a whole and the many open questions that remain concerning the nature, scope and meaning of the recent "unity" proposal. The following seven articles are reposted from that brochure, which also included the original 20 point "Unity" proposal posted earlier on OCANews.org (here). Three articles from the brochure - a brief 2007 speech on unity by Archbishop Nathaniel that was previously printed in Solia, a brief comment on unity by Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware) and a Work Sheet-Questionnaire through which members could express their opinions- are not reposted here.)

1. Letter from the President of the Orthodox Brotherhood of the USA

August 2008


Dear Brotherhood Members,


A very important question is before all the members of our Episcopate. Should we unite with the other Romanian Diocese in America, which is 'autonomous' from the Patriarch in Bucharest, and have a new Metropolia in America which would have 'maximum autonomy' from Bucharest???

We are sending you the 20 point Proposal which the Joint Dialogue Commission (JDC) developed and wanted the Episcopate Council to endorse. The Council had too many questions which did not receive answers and as a result, the Council proposed a different Motion and the Motion that the Church Congress approved is also enclosed. The Council and the Congress agreed that 'due diligence' is necessary to answer the questions and avoid future problems.


Shortly after the Congress ended, the enclosed announcement appeared on the Patriarchate's website and this started a new series of concerns because I believe no one on the JDC, nor the Council, nor the Congress wants us to be under the authority of the Patriarch. Autocephaly is better independence than Autonomy! The OCA is autocephalous from the Patriarch of Moscow and we have a very comfortable agreement with the OCA. I believe that we have a greater strength of Orthodox unity in America through the OCA than we would have by leaving the OCA and merging with the other Romanian Diocese. We would welcome your opinions and questions.


Yours in Orthodoxy,


Orthodox Brotherhood of the U.S.A.
Dan Miclau, President

---------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Letter from the Spiritual Advisor of the OBUSA

August, 2008


Dear Brotherhood Members:


At the Summer Board meeting in July it was agreed upon to send a special 'Newsline' that carried information about 'unity' of the ROEA with the Romanian Orthodox Archdiocese of Americas (ROAA) and the Joint Dialogue Committee (JDC) Joint Proposal, given to the delegates at last month's Episcopate Congress.After the Congress there have been further developments which have also been addressed.

The JDC was established in 1992 and their Annual Reports can be located in the yearly Congress Report book. Other than this information nothing has been shared, distributed or discussed in a public forum prior to the Proposal being made public.

We felt it was time to begin. Given the lack of information and the great desire to know from our membership we have both a duty and responsibility to distribute documentation and the range of thoughts and opinions on thissubject. Silence only keeps our faithful uninformed, uneducated and this is simply unacceptable. Archbishop Nathaniel was made aware of our desire and general intent through past president George Aldea.

I personally spoke with the Archbishop at the Vatra about the need for information and education materials to be created and made available to our ROEA faithful. Further, it was encouraged that SOLIA, the Department of Publications with, perhaps, the Department of Religious Education generate educational materials and information: on unity, its implications, and the pros and cons of the 'Joint Proposal'. I asked that Town Hall meetings include a non-JDC moderator and people representing a pro and con viewpoint as the contributions of informed faithful are essential to the success of this process, whatever direction it takes us. The Archbishop listened and considered these suggestions.

It is in this spirit that the Bulletin 'On Unity' was created and mailed to you. It is divided into two parts. The first part includes three official documents:

1) the Congress News Release,

2) the Joint Proposal to establish a 'Romanian Orthodox Metropolitanate of the Americas' and

3) the 'Agreed Statement' of the ROEA and the Church of Romania.

The second part of the Bulletin includes:

1) Mistakes or Signs,

2) Questions,

3) Clergy Observations

3) the Patriarchal Press Release and

4) Archbishop Nathaniel's 2007 Congress Address.

I'm sure that all the information contained within the Bulletin will not satisfy either end of the debate. For some it will not be enough and for others it will be too much. If there are errors of fact I stand corrected. If you are offended I ask your forgiveness. If you learned something than we accomplished what we set out to do; better inform and begin to educate our general membership on a 'unity' process that has been going on for years over this question that is central to our lives and crucial to the future of the Church in North America. I look forward to your responses and seeing you at the Brotherhood Conference October 17-19,
2008 in Cleveland, Ohio.


In the Love of the Risen Lord,
Fr. Dimitrie Vincent
Spiritual Advisor

--------------------------------------------------------------------

3. 76th Annual Episcopate Congress Held

The Romanian Orthodox Episcopate of America, under the omophorion of His Eminence
Archbishop NATHANIEL POPP, held its 76th Annual Congress (diocesan assembly) on July 4- 5, 2008. The meeting was attended by over 110 clergy and lay delegates from parishes throughout the United States and Canada.


In addition to the normal year-to-year business of the Congress, the topic of utmost significance was the presentation, explanation and discussion of the 20-point 'Proposal to Establish a Romanian Orthodox Metropolitanate of America' [posted on the http://www.roea.org/ website]. The debate resulted in the adoption of the following resolution:

Be it resolved that the Episcopate Council recommends that the Congress acknowledge the combined 'Proposal to Establish a Romanian Orthodox Metropolitanate of North America' as an acceptable basis to continue the work of the JDC towards a final proposal to be presented to the Romanian Orthodox Church.

Be it also resolved that the Episcopate Council recommends to the Episcopate Congress, in keeping with due diligence, that the Joint Dialogue Commission's efforts to establish the
Metropolitanate can continue, that the Archbishop as President of the Congress establish special committees, namely, a 'Constitution and By-Laws Committee', 'Jurisprudence', 'Finance Committee' and any other committees that may be necessary to create a unified Romanian Orthodox Metropolitanate of North America.

And be it further resolved that said committees be established as soon as possible, and that their work be reported to the Episcopate Council, so that a Special Episcopate Congress may be convened. This action of the Congress enables the continuation of discussions between the two Romanian eparchies [dioceses] in North America. The 'Proposal' to unite these eparchies remains, therefore, a work in progress.

There has not been, as incorrectly reported by the Romanian Patriarchate's press office, any final
action about unification. There has been no change in the ROEA's relationship with the Orthodox Church in America. As understood by the Congress, the ten-member Joint Dialogue Commission of the Episcopate and Archdiocese will discuss the 'Proposal' in light of the input of our respective Councils and Congresses in order to prepare a finalized text for presentation to the Church of Romania at some future date. We still look forward to the possibility of an eventual union, which would be to the benefit of Orthodox Romanians in North America and to Orthodoxy on this continent.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Mistakes or Signs?

Even before the ink was dry on the 76th ROEA Congress Resolution, a flurry of incidents took place,
some say mistakes, others see then as signs, which muddied the already troubled waters of the JDC unity
efforts. It caused Archbishop Nathaniel's Office to stop, take notice and ponder these incidents in light of
the ROEA and Church of Romania 'Agreed Statement' of February 27, 2008.

The list of chronological events includes

• Sunday, July 6: Archbishop Nicolae, the head of the ROAA, BOR makes the public remarks to Auxiliary Bishop Irineu, ("Welcome Home" and, "Thank you for bringing the others with you.") in Romanian at the end the Services on Sunday at Sts. Constantine & Helen Church, ROAA in Chicago, recorded and seen on the internet (Biserca.TV video 114).

• Sunday, July 6: Metropolitan Laurentiu Streza of Ardeal, Patriarchal representative, makes the public remark (The failed "Plan B", that was used as a warning to both archdioceses to rush unity efforts.) at the Consecration Banquet of Sts. Constantine & Helen Church, ROAA in Chicago, recorded and seen on the internet (Biserca.TV- video 48).

• Sunday, July 6: Auxiliary Bishop Irineu, representing Archbishop Nathaniel and the ROEA, at the Consecration Service and Banquet neither corrects Archbishop Nicolae nor asks Metropolitan Laurentiu for an explanation of his statement (Biserca.TV-115)

• Monday, July 7: The Church of Romania's official website incorrectly states that "unity" occurred between the two Archdioceses "under" the Patriarch of Romania. The article was removed and replaced as members of the ROEA and ROAA contacted Romania, no editorial correction or acknowledgement of error was made


• July 8: The Holy Synod of Romania meets and Patriarch Daniel offers his official report which states, "unity" has occurred between the ROEA and the ROAA "under" the Church of Romania, establishing Patriarchal involvement in this misrepresentation.

• August 20: The JDC met at St. George Cathedral and issued a Joint Communique, asking that there not be anymore outside interference as they will jeopardize unity talks and unity itself: "The Commission regrets the hasty pronouncements of various officials and the media immediately after our Congresses. These misrepresented our Congresses' decisions, speculation and public commentary by individuals outside of our eparchies [Archdioceses] have only complicated this process and threatened its ultimate success."

Given these current incidents, the Episcopate Office has yet to publicly weigh in on the matter, even after Archbishop Nathaniel sent out a questionnaire to the Episcopate Council members the week after the
Congress to which they have responded. Many are wondering why the delay? It is surmised that the
Episcopate Council is, at least, divided on this question.

Some believe the majority want to discontinue the dialogue. The Episcopate Office patiently continues to monitor developments and quietly observes. The most recent incidents are interpreted two different ways reflecting the  perceptions and desires of both groups. The pro-unity JDC perspective, held by JDC members and others who desire to see the unity talks realized 'with' (not under) 'maximal autonomy' dismisses these actions as 'mistakes' by those lower down the administrative food chain. Yet, they have nothing to say when asked to explain how Patriarch Daniel's own July 8 report to his Holy Synod uses the same language and arrives at the same conclusion:'unity' has been achieved 'under' Romania.

It needs to be stated that at the annual Clergy Meeting and Episcopate Congress the JDC Proposal used the
language 'with' and not under'. Furthermore, when the question was raised, there was no support for the
idea of the ROEA being 'under' the Church of Romania. It is also worth noting that all the early
congratulatory remarks made by Romanian Church officials and media, from the Patriarch on down, used
the word 'under' and not 'with' the Church of Romania. Why the immediate disregard of terms?


A pro-unity OCA perspective sees the post-Congress events as consistent and predictable to previous
encounters with the Church of Romania. They believe this Romanian mindset has been there in the past, and
should unity come to pass, will be there in the future. They maintain these are indicators of what we ought to
expect from a Church that has lived in an unhealthy culture and political climate from the early 40's to the
fall of communism in 1989. They reason, the time will never be right, even if the institutional cultural climate
changes in the Romanian Church, as the Church in North America has its own life and responsibility to live
and preach Christ's Resurrection to the World within its own North American territory, political climate and
canonical structures. Therefore, the best current expression of 'unity' is for the ROAA to be with the
ROEA within the OCA in the USA and Canada.

The JDC Proposal also claims this Romanian unity is an 'interim step' for greater North American unity with Sister Jurisdictions. The pro-unity OCA group notes a
logistical problem, the 'how' is not explained. At best, the JDC claims it could be used as a 'model' for other
jurisdictions to follow, but who's to say? It is also cautioned that such a move 'under/with' the Church of Romania is, at best, a move 'back' to move 'forward'. Hopeful speculation risks a lot.

The major ideas of the Proposal start looking unrealistic and idealistic as it assumes and presumes more than
what both sides are capable of doing at this time. It is noted that the ROEA JDC 2007 Congress Report
advocated no change in policy: "These talks do not imply any change in the jurisdictional or administrative
position the ROEA."
Yet, this year a major policy shift occurred within the JDC & ROEA without explanation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Some Questions Being Asked
"These talks do not imply any change in the jurisdictional or administrative position of the ROEA."(JDC 2007 Congress Report p34)

There have been a host of questions that have been asked at the Congress and following that reflect
the curiosity, doubts and concern of the faithful, clergy and laity alike, on 'unity' and the 'Joint Proposal'.
We present some of them now. The range of questions we have seen and heard can be classified
into three areas:

I. Procedural and operational,

II. Educational and informational and,

III. Theological and practical.

I. Procedural & Administrative
Questions:

1) Why did the JDCadopt a position opposite of their 2007 Congress Report, and the ROEA Congress policy ("These talks do not imply any change in the jurisdictional or administrative position of the ROEA.") and who authorized them to proceed in this way?

2) What was the reasoning the ROAA gave for not merging with us in the OCA, and at that point why wasn't the dialogue simply discontinued?

3) Over the years why the silence of the JDC on the 'ideas' of any future proposal rather than inform and encourage participation?

4) How did the JDC Trip in February, which was to clarify historical matters, become a time to create an 'Agreed Statement'?

5) Why the apparent rush to approve the Joint Proposal when the enormity of the project demands the very opposite approach?

6) Has the JDC lost sight of the 'big picture', becoming
too attached to its own work after 15 years?

7) Why didn't our Auxiliary Bishop Irineu correct false and erroneous statements, when he had the opportunity, duty and obligation to do so at Saints Constantine & Helen Cathedral on Sunday, July 6?

8) Why did Patriarchate Daniel include in his July Holy Synod report that the ROEA and the ROAA are now 'united under' Romania?

9) Why hasn't there been a response from our Episcopate Office concerning the misinformation placed on the Church of Romania's official website?

10) How can we trust a Church that misrepresents the facts from the top down, through media, official reports and Patriarchal Church officials?

II Educational and Informational
Questions:

1) Why is there a lack of educational materials in Solia and the ROEA website on Unity, ROAA history, etc.?

2) Why haven't the National Auxiliaries been utilized as a forum for explaining and teaching ideas such as: 'autocephaly', 'autonomy' and 'unity'?

3) Why hasn't there been the creation of education materials (worksheets workbooks etc. on all aspects of the 'unity' question and placed in the hands of the faithful by the ROEA Department of Religious Education or Department of Publications?

4) Why haven't we informed or educated our faithful and delegates on the 'pros and cons' of Unity so they can develop a clear understanding of all aspects of this question and be empowered to make thoughtful, intelligent and heartfelt contributions?

5) How can 'Town Hall Meetings' properly inform us when they are run only by JDC members presenting their perspective (meetings that have an unbalanced approach sell only one point of view)?

6) Where is a bottom-up, or grassroots, effort of simply getting to know the ROAA, her people and life, during these unity talks and before any unity takes place by our people?

III. Theological & Practical

Questions:

1) Why isn't sacramental unity enough if the ROAA chose not to unite with us?

2) Why are we using a model of unity (Chambesy) whose text was never finished or fully accepted in World Orthodoxy?

3) We are Orthodox Christians, citizens of the United States and Canada (where church and state is separated). Why does the JDC propose to place us
'with/under' the Church of Romania, a State Church?

4) Why would we want to leave the OCA, even if its autocephaly is not fully accepted and the greater freedom it offers (subordinate to no superior authority), in order to place ourselves 'with/under' Romania, being maximally autonomous is less than autocephalous?

5) Our time with the Church in Romania was 22 years (1929-51) but our life and our identity with the Metropolia/OCA will be 50 years next year (1959-2009). Why leave?

6) Does this unity effort bring together the 'the People of God', of Romanian background, or does it simply merge structures and absorb assets (liquid and real)?

7) If we believe, "Every foreign land is a fatherland and every fatherland is a foreign land" (Epistle to Diognetus, 2-3rd c) and we follow the call of our Lord Jesus Christ to, "Baptize all nations", how will we do this better being under the Patriarchal Orthodox Church of Romania?
---------------------------------------------------------------------


6. Observations and Thoughts

Some Clergy Views expressed July 3, 2008


On the JDC Proposal to the Clergy Conference

In his opening remarks before presenting the JDC
Proposal to the Clergy, Fr. Laurence Lazar outlined the JDC's goals going into their discussions with the
ROAA and the Patriarchate:

1) Maintain the Episcopate's identity

2) Maintain the Episcopate's autonomy

3) Eliminate outside interference.

("We have sought to maintain the historic identity of our Episcopate, its autonomy, its freedom from outside interference." JDC 2007 Congress Report p 33)


He further commented that the ROAA would not come with the ROEA under the OCA, because the OCA is
not fully recognized as autocephalous. He stated that the impasse then became the fact that the ROEA
would not go 'back under' the Patriarchate and the ROAA would not come under the OCA. Then why
not simply recognize that this longstanding impasse cannot be resolved at this time in history, rather than
appear to capitulate on the above 2007 JDC statement? (See " Fr. Gabriel's "Search for An Answer")

A Response to the Three Points


1) Identity 

Our identity as the Episcopate is being part of the Church in America for 48 years (10 years
with the Metropolia - until 1960 and 38 years with the Orthodox Church in America - since 1970). We have
been with the Church in America longer than under the Patriarchate. We are no longer the Church that we
were before 1950/1960. We divorced ourselves from the Patriarchate due to their infringement upon our
autonomy as outlined in our Bylaws. Healing of the relationship does not mean that we have to 'remarry' -
go back under them, especially if the issues which led to the divorce have not been faced and honestly
worked through.

The main issues seem to be trust and their disrespect for our autonomy. What has the Patriarchate done, what actions have they taken, which give the Episcopate any reason to trust them? If we go back under the Patriarchate, the ROEA is changing its identity, while the ROAA maintains its identity. How has our identity been maintained?

2) Autonomy

Autonomy is only as great as what is given - it can be taken back. Look at the experience of the ROAA -they are threatened with a letter which says that if they do not achieve unity by the Congress in July, that the Patriarchate not only has the right but the duty to set up a new Diocese which we will carefor the Romanian Orthodox in North America since the ROAA and ROEA do not appear to be able to do so properly.

If the 'Proposal' is agreed to, who will enforce it when problems arise between the Patriarchate and the new Metropolia (reference the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese Charter issue in which the Patriarchate of Constantinople forced a new Charter onto the GOA without respecting the previous
Charter which called for a vote by a Clergy / Laity Congress on any new charter?

The courts, including the last court of appeals (Supreme Court of New York) refused to hear the case, because they said that the GOA is part of a hierarchical Church, and consideration of the case is outside of the Court's
domain.


3) Outside Interference

The Patriarchate of Romania is currently expanding all over the world, opening up Metropolitanates and churches throughout Western Europe, in Australia, Japan, etc. without regard for the Orthodox jurisdictions which are already established in those countries. How can we believe that they will not interfere in North America? I have heard JDC members say that Patriarch Daniel told them that North America is a unique situation which requires a unique solution, and that's why the Patriarchate wants so badly to unify the ROEA & ROAA, so that they don't have to worry anymore
about this territory. Nevertheless, nearly all the Patriarchates throughout the world are acting as if the
whole world is open territory - if a member of their particular 'ethnic' group wants to be under their care,
then they believe that they have jurisdiction where that person lives (Moscow and Romania have now put
forth this argument).

Additionally, the JDC keeps talking about Patriarch Daniel, the illumined man, who has offered this breakthrough proposal of maximal autonomy. They act as if the other 60 members of the Romanian Holy Synod have no say in the matter and that everything will be just as the Patriarch says. Once again, the trust factor is paramount, and I don't believe

that the Patriarchate has concretely shown the Episcopate any reason to trust them except for a
few words on paper which are not backed up by their actions. No one is against unite - we already have the only true unity which is in Christ by partaking of his Body and Blood in Holy Communion. Why would
we want to merge with the ROAA under the Patriarchate, a state church, which brings with the relationship all the entanglements and politics of a foreign government and the perception from our governments in the US and Canada that we are 'under' them?

For example, at several events and at one in particular in Montreal recently where both the ROEA and ROAA celebrated a Liturgy together, there in the middle of the photo between the bishops was a government official, not from Canada, but an official of the Romanian Embassy.

No matter how we perceive the relationship, to Romanian hierarchs and government officials it is
very clear - you are part of us. Why are we so ready to go under the Patriarchate when we have a stable position within the OCA? Even if the ROAA would merge with us under the OCA, there still would be difficult adjustments and problems to overcome due to the fact that their administration of their Archdiocese is quite different from ours. Why would we want to lose our foundation which we have worked for decades
to build and for which previous hierarchs have personally suffered in order to preserve the only free Romanian Orthodox Church in the world? The answers given by the JDC are weak and unconvincing. We could accomplish the same by staying under the OCA.

---------------

Is It Enough?

We are compelled to make the following observations and ask a few of questions concerning the Agreed Statement.

1) The 'break' is laid at the feet of the establishment ('instauration') of communism. Nothing is said about the Orthodox Church of Romania (her institutions and/or leadership) and her free acceptance and/or forced compliance to become a tool of communist government ideology and practice.

2) There is no reference to the role of the Church of Romania and her interference in the life of the ROEA.

3) The historical fact is the ROEA did 'disassociate itself', not from 'the communist regime', but from the Church of Romania held captive by Romanian communism.

4) The ROEA never 'denied' her historic roots but embraced the OCA as her new jurisdictional home.

5) Fashionable as it is, this pro forma statement asking 'mutual forgiveness' in the name of our predecessors is a hard pill to swallow given the facts of history. Finally, how can one ask for forgiveness in the name of another brother or sister in Christ who has fallen asleep in the Lord?"

Search for an Answer
Fr. Gabriel-Viorel Gardan

(Fr, Gabriel-Viorel Gardan, a Romanian Orthodox historian, wrote a book on the Episcopate using documents from government files: US and Romanian. He spoke at last year's Congress.)


The ways or methods, through which the accomplishment of the unity is conceived, are different, even opposite, and this fact produced, as a consequence, stagnation ... For the
[ROAA] the way to unity implies the return to the previous situation.

What is desired is the re-union of the two
jurisdictions in an autonomous Metropolitan Church under the jurisdiction of the Romanian Orthodox
Church ... solution ... suppress the memories of the agitated history and move on. Such an attitude, which implies the elusion of the past for the future's sake is unacceptable for the representatives of the Vatra Episcopate, knowing and admitting the historical truth of the committed mistakes is an act indispensable to any progress of the dialogue ... these mistakes have been done to the Vatra Episcopate under the pressure of the communist authorities ... its legal rights and autonomy have been violated, felt compelled to estrange itself from the Mother-Church. Therefore, only through admitting the historical truth, can the wounds of the past be healed ... offering a real chance to the dialogue and to the unity ... due to the fact that the Vatra Episcopate belongs to the [OCA] solving the problem must be seen only in the larger context of American Orthodoxy.


(Episcopia Ortodoxa Romana Din America-Parte A, Ortodoxiei Americane, p. 558

__________________________________________

7. An Open Letter to the ROEA

Monday
July 7, 2008


Dear Archbishop Nathaniel,

Episcopate Council and 76th Congress Body:


I awake this morning to read that the ROEA and the ROAA are united 'under' the Patriarchate of Romania. Wow, what a 'wake up' call!

What happened?

My first reaction is, as with many of you, all our work, effort, and discussions about this very question of 'under' and 'with' the Romanian Orthodox Church during this past weekend at the Clergy Conference and the Congress and the Romanian Patriarchate Press Bureau produces this news report? It appears that the Church of Romania seems to have forgotten, misunderstood, or simply doesn't really know what we were discussing here in North America. It appears that 'we', the Church in Romania and the ROEA (and the ROAA?), are operating with two different theological perceptions and understandings.


From the news report, the Romanian Patriarchate understands and knows our efforts, of merging the two 'eparchies' in North American, the ROEA and the ROAA in an autonomous body, as one of coming 'under' the Church in Romania. There is no mention of 'with' in the article, unless of course, it is claimed that we are with the Church of Romania by virtue of being 'under' them. It is also noteworthy to mention that, nowhere in this official news report from the Patriarchate's website is their reference to the ROEA and the ROAA forming a new church body in North America that has 'maximal autonomy' even though the ROAA accepted all twenty points unanimously in their Congress. The JDC took great pains to explain both at the Clergy Conference on July 3 and at the Congress July 4 and 5 (the JDC members emphasized it time and time again) that the union of these two groups would not be 'under' the Romanian Patriarchate.

The JDC made it clear that this was not the desire, intent or the case. They advocated that the Joint Proposal would be one where we would be 'with' the Romanian Patriarchate and not 'under' them as the official Romanian Church website has reported. Maybe the 'with' the JDC was talking about and presented to us was not understood by the Church of Romania in
the same way as we have heard it to be.

From everything that was said and done at the Clergy Conference and the Congress this past 4th of July weekend it was understood that we, the ROEA, were not interested in going 'under' the Romanian Patriarchate. That was very clear. The Congress ratified a motion to continue working towards a new North American maximal autonomous body, which would be formed by the ROEA and the ROAA that would not be 'under' the Romanian Patriarchate but 'with' the Church in Romania [a theological concept that has no historical basis and it seems the test case will be us -first indications don't look promising].

This disturbing article continues to stir things and cause bewilderment. We must ask a question. Are we really talking with each other or simply past each other with turns of phrase and words that carry different meanings and outcomes? What I see in this official news report of the ROEA and ROAA is unification efforts that carry two very different solutions, driven by two different perceptions and different ways of thinking and arriving at two different conclusions.


Respectfully,
Fr. Dimitrie Vincent


P.S. Before sending off my email I checked the Romanian Patriarchal homepage again (12:40 pm EST) and found the article gone - not edited and corrected. It's as if it never existed.

 

 

 

 

 
 

Related Documents

 

To view documents you will need Adobe Reader (or Adobe Acrobat)