Friday, July 1. 2011
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
I wonder how it is Mr. Nemoianu would know that "the ROAA is unable, or unwilling, to produce a legal document, or CPA audit, regarding its financial activities" (if this is indeed the case) since there has been no report given by the "due diligence" committee since last year. I believe the ROEA episcoapte council will meet later this month, and I would assume they will be given a report. But how is it that someone who is not even a member of the ROEA would possibly know what may be in the report before the governing body of the diocese? Interesting situation.
Also, let's be honest about missons. BOTH Romanian dioceses, for whatever reasons, have established missions in an area where the other has an established parish or mission. To say only one diocese has done it is simply not true.
#1 Anonymous on 2011-07-01 13:14
In other words; if i say that the lack of a report proves that the report doesn't exist( a very simple report,in fact a financial audit with some explanations regarding the source(s) of income),then I am wrong.According to you I am wrong because you" assume" such a report will be produced in the future.Very interesting logic!
Yes,both dioceses indulged in the "missionary" mushrooming and with the same dubious intend.
I am a member of the ROEA .But the point is not about my membership,it is about the incorrectitude of the JDC and its ways.
#2 alexandru nemoianu on 2011-07-01 14:28
I think the brave anonymous#1 deserves an additional explanation.
In regard to his “argument”:
I am wrong because I said that a document that was not produced, published, acknowledged, is, for practical purposes not existent. But he (the brave anonymous#1) is right saying that such a document exist because he “assumes” the document will be produced in the future. That is some “logic”!
Secondly,”agani and again” the brave anonymous#1 seem to be interested of my membership in the ROEA. (By the way that membership was not the issue in my article.) However I gave a long explanation some time ago, but the courageous anonymous # 1 didn’t get it.....
I am an Orthodox faithful in good order, according to my spiritual father, and a supporter of the “Dormition Monastery”. A Monastery that is under the omophorion of the Mt.Rev.Archbishop Nathaniel. Consequently I am a member of the “Vatra” Episcopate.
I am not afraid or ashamed to sign my name and to present my credentials. The brave anonymous is to coward not to do the same.
#3 alexandru nemoianu on 2011-07-05 10:57
I am not questioning whether a "document" exists or does not exist. I am saying it is a questionable situation that, if it is true, you would have knowledge of it before the governing body of the ROEA. Is there perhaps a leak in the "due diligence" committee or in the chancery office? What a shock that would be.
Also, the ROEA bylaws are clear: a voting member in good standing must not only receive the sacraments regularly, but must also fulfill financial obligations (pledge or dues) to a parish of the ROEA. There is noting wrong with supporting and attending services at a monastery, but it does not constitute "membership" in the ROEA as defined by the ROEA bylaws.
#4 Brave Anonymous#1 on 2011-07-05 14:15
Personally, I don't believe anyone signing anonymous should be published. If it has to be, each and every time he should be required to explain in some detail why he must remain anonymous. There are too many anonymouses to be able to keep track.
Brave Anonymous you're an ass.
#5 Schuyler on 2011-07-05 15:58
Why are all you ethnic groups having such a problem with this stuff? This is America. We're not in Russia, Syria, Romania, Bulgaria, etc. AMERICA!!!!! The Orthodox Canons ARE clear. Local churches are ruled by local bishops - INDEPENDENT BISHOPS. The Romanians under the OCA leading their own destiny with their OWN local bishop is canonical!
#6 Anonymous on 2011-07-05 16:51
The existence of a document is proved by its material, positive condition of being, that is if it is confirmed; in the media, or other ways.
The “missionary” contraption was asked, to provide the mentioned document (financial records) in “no more than ninety days”, in October 2010 by the “Vatra” Episcopate Congress. There was no confirmation about such a document being provided and consequently from an objective point of view, the document does not exist. I have no idea why a conspiracy (or conspiracies) is assumed around such a simple, basic, fact. The most important things are always obvious. In this case it is obvious that the document was not provided otherwise its existence should have been acknowledged. Why the document was not produced, as I said, is anyone’ guess. But, my dear ‘fiercely brave anonymous”, what you ask me is to prove the negative; i.e that nobody leaks to me information. Again I pray what information? That the document was not produced? I would like you to know that asking anyone to prove the negative is immoral. You should be aware of that! But to hint that a “certain” member of the Archbishop staff is dishonest, dear fierce brave anonymous, is low! Discrediting the good moral name of that “certain” person, the only thing he has!, is a sin. Be aware!
In the area I live there is no parish of the “Vatra” Episcopate and consequently, from 1986, I attend the church services of the “Dormition Monastery” and I am considered a faithful in good standing. I was considered as such when, year after year, since 1986 until 2009, I published the main articles for the “Solia” almanacs, was, during the same period of time, a constant contributor to “Solia” and provided ,in Archbishop Nathaniel’s words,” For two decades ,Mr. Nemoianu has been giving invaluable assistance to the Episcopate.” If that does not qualify me as a “member” of the “Vatra” Episcopate so be it! But you should notice that my only “sin” was that I remained loyal to what the “Vatra” Episcopate had professed until 2009.I did not change my opinions. The members of the JDC changed theirs and, in doing so, they proved not whose friends they are but they proved what sort of friends they are. I was born in Romania and in my writings I promoted the perennial Romanian values. I am also an Orthodox and I confess that Orthodoxy is not about an ethnic background but about Faith. It is my strong belief that Orthodoxy should be, in the New World, autocephalous as it is in all the other parts of the world. I confess that Orthodoxy should be as autocephalous in the New World as it is in Romania, no more and no less. I also believe that if some Orthodox entities would subject themselves to foreign hierarchies those entities would be no more than appendices of those hierarchs. In such a case American Orthodox faithful would be fewer but personally I will trade anytime quantity for quality. The “good stuff” is always kept in smaller receptacles! But if you are happy considering me not a member of the “Vatra”Episcopate, just for the sake of it, so be it. If I am not a “member”, what would be changed?
I still am qualified and required by my job, to express my opinion(s) about the evolution, past and present, of the Romanian-American community. I still am of the opinion and still will express the opinion that the project to subordinate the Romanian-American orthodox entities to the Romanian, yes, cleptocratic, Patriarchate, is drivel. I still am not ashamed to sign my name.
One last question I will ask you.
It seems to you reasonable to use such a disproportionate effort in inventing arguments ad hominem useful? Why do not you try to address arguments? Or it is because you do not have such arguments.
#7 alexandru nemoianu on 2011-07-05 17:32
Nowhere in my posts did I accuse a "certain" member of the Archbishop's staff. I asked a general question if there was a leak in either the "due diligence" committee or in the chancery office. If I made any mention here of any "certain" individuals, please point that out. But I did not.
My assumption, from what I have seen reported so far, is that the only people who would know what is going on in the "due diligence" process would be the "due diligence" committee and the chancery. Then you speak of these supposed details as fact in an article. So, either you have heard information from someone who would have the information OR it is merely your speculation that you are presenting as "fact". Is there another possibility?
But you bring up another question. You mentioned that the Romanian Archdiocese was requested to send financial records within ninety days. On what date was the letter detailing this official request sent to them? What specifically was requested? And then, on what date was their ninety-day deadline? I haven't seen anything reported on this either, but maybe you know.
Finally, I never said you cannot express your opinion. I just asked for a couple clarifications of fact, and as a result of that you go on in several messages to insult me (oh, and thanks to Schuyler too), the Romanian Archdiocese, the Romanian Patriarchate, the JDC committee, and it appears anyone else who sees things differently from you. It appears we will continue to disagree, but let's do it without the name-calling.
#8 Brave Anonymous#1 on 2011-07-06 13:46
In my article I just stated that no document regarding the financial activity of the communist contraption was produced. After that I said that that happened because the contraption is “unwilling or unable” to produce the documents and that the cause(s) of that fact are “anyone’s guess”.
In the statement of clarification published on the “Vatra” Episcopate site (October 2010) it is said that such a document was to be produced no later than after ninety days. Speculating around details of procedure is not my job. The details of the game played inside the JDC and its accomplices, the hot air they issue periodically, and so on, is of no interest to me. I just said that ninety days means ninety days, three months. My dear fiercely brave anonymous, I have news for you: words have meaning! I just said, and stand to it, that a new game is in progress and promoted by those who seek subordination toward the Romanian cleptocratic Patriarchate: the policy of fait accompli.
I didn’t speculate and could not speculate around a document that doesn’t exits, for all practical purpose.
But you clearly suggested that “information” (?!) was provided to me by a member of the “Vatra “chancery or by a member of the due diligence committee. (What information? That a document does not exist? Please!) That was a flat lie! It was also an attempt to attack the moral credentials of a “certain” member in the “Vatra” chancery. Do not play coy! Both you and I know whom you tried to attack! This action of yours I called low(and was low!) and about this action I said and warned you, and I do this again: that is a sin that will visit you!
I do not insult and threaten nobody. (I was threatened and insulted by members of JDC.The fact that I can not care less about their opinions is a different story. The fact that they are pretty much , “useful, let say, tools” ,for one day, is a story that will be told pretty soon.)
I just express the strong belief that the New World is entitled and deserve Orthodox autocephaly as the entities of the Old World. I also believe that loyalty to the New World is not optional. And by the way.
You tortured yourself with a long and uncalled for explanation about being a “voting member” in the “Vatra” Episcopate. Rest assured, I never yearned or yearn for such a dubious “quality”. Would have been so easy to achieve and would have proved so empty. Proving some spine and moral resolve prove to be a much more difficult task and that is my ambition.
#9 alexandru nemoianu on 2011-07-06 18:14
I apologise if I insulted you. As you're anonymous I had to choose a name to call you and I chose ass.
(Editor's note: Then you chose poorly. Let's play nice.)
#10 schuyler on 2011-07-07 00:38
You said: "I just stated that no document regarding the financial activity of the communist contraption was produced."
Whether such a document exists or does not exist was not my question. My concern was: how would you know if it does or does not exist? You are not on the "due diligence" committee or the chancery staff, and there has not yet been a report on the topic. So readers are left to assume that you either heard it from a leak or it is not a confirmed fact, but merely an assumption on your part. I, for one, think it is important to wait for all the facts on the issue of documents being submitted or not submitted before rushing to judgment and making wild accusations and insults against those involved.
Again, I assert that there was never any "certian" member of the Archbishop's staff named or assumed. That was completely your innovation in this conversation. Furthermore, I never stated anything about you threatening anyone. So for you to deny threatening people, as though I had accused you of it, is again your own innovation.
Furthermore, I am saddened to see that the extent of your insults goes so far as to say that being a voting member of a ROEA parish is "dubious". Really?? There are thousands of good Orthodox Christians who care about our churches and commit to being a part of the Church's work through full parish membership, whether it is part of the ROEA, the Romanian Archdiocese, the OCA, or any other canonical Orthodox jurisdiction. If you choose not to join and support a parish that is your choice -- but how low it is to insult those who do.
#11 Brave Anonymous#1 on 2011-07-11 11:42
It seems that you are a fierce partisan of innuendos and of interpretation. This propensity is proof you are no professional. Let me tell you a few basics.
In historical research, in journalism, in legal procedures, in any bona fide debate, a document whose existence in not acknowledged, a document that is not produced and can not be produced, and such a “document” is non exitent.That is not a matter of debate, it is a fact.
In the meantime you seem to be interested to “debate” your own fantasies. Here, in this context, the comments were about a text I posted on ocanews.
In that text I said that a financial document regarding the communist contraption, so called ROAA, was not acknowledged, not produced and consistently non existent. According to the Statement of the “Vatra”’ Congress such a document was to be produced in ninety days. The statement was posted in October 2010.In my text posted on ocanews I said that until July 1st, 2011 such a document was not acknowledged and consequently, for the debate about the subordination toward the Romanian cleptocratic Patriarchate, the document was not existent. I continued saying that why the document was not produced is anyone’s guess.
From this you said that I commented a “document”(again a “document”, I correctly said, that on July 1st,2011 was not existent) and that was proof that someone leaked the information(?!) to me and that such a “leaker” is or a member of the “Vatra” s chancery or a member of the due diligence committee.
I invited you to desist plying coy. Both you and I know very well whom you tried to denigrate by way of innuendo and I said, and I repeat, that that was low and a sin that will visit you.
But know you tell me that we have to wait to have all” the facts”. That is exactly what I will not do. I will not wait until the JDC and its cronies will complete their game. I will not wait until, under the shroud of an unholy secrecy, the history, the identity and the future of the “Vatra” Episcopate and, to some extent, of the American Orthodoxy, will be traded.
I will not wait to see the policy of fait accompli succeed.
In regard to being a “voting member” of the Vatra Episcopate.
I just said that it was and is not my ambition to have such a quality. I will be content to serve, spiritually and materially, this Episcopate in the same manner I did for almost thirty years.
Yes, I called the “voting member” quality dubious. And dubious it is because clergy like you have emptied (or anyhow tried and try very hard) it of any positive content. I would mention just a few facts.
A letter signed by the most respected and active personalities of the “Vatra” Episcopate’ past thirty years history (a letter that objected the nefarious project of subordination toward the Romanian plutocratic Patriarchate), sent in 2009, still wait for an answer. Members of the JDC and their cronies had viciously attacked that letter, of course by way of innuendo and anonymity.
The effort of the Orthodox Brotherhood, an auxiliary of the “Vatra” episcopate, to debate the nefarious project of subordination was vehemently forbidden.Forbbiden were also any comments about the same nefarious project in the Vatra’ parishes’ annual synods.
Who is in bad faith? Who fear open debates? Who is “low”? What is the point of being a “voting member”?
The quality of being a voting member in the ROEA became, as result of the JDC games, irrelevant and yes it became a dubious quality.
And a piece of advice.
Because I said that your attempt to discredit a very honest member of the “Vatra”s staff, a man who morally stand head and shoulders above the majority of the ROEA members and definitely above you and me, was “low” you called me “low” (apparently on account of naming the present quality of “voting member” of the ROEA dubious).
The game of “you too, you too” is pathetically childish, to say the very least.
You and I belong to different categories. I stand for principles and on moral values (the principles and values confessed by “Vatra” until 2009 and that continue to be confessed by its silent and silenced majority to day); you are too coward to sign your name.
#12 alexandru nemoianu on 2011-07-11 15:27
I get the feeling that you are avoiding my point, whether intentionally or unintentionally. I have stated it as clearly and simply as I believe I can. You have tried to assert statements about the financial reports as fact. Therefore, if they are fact, there must be some basis for them more than "well, I didn't hear they were provided, so therefore they were not provided." That is called speculation.
You continue with this reckless speculation continuing to accuse me of singling out some "certain" member of the Archbishop's staff. I am telling you clearly, I have no idea what you are talking about! I see nowhere in my statements anything that any reasonable person could even take as such an innuendo about anyone specific. Furthermore, your "clergy like you" comment leads me to believe you speculate I'm a member of the clergy. I have nothing against being clergy, but I certainly am not one of them. I can only imagine the overwhelming demands of such a calling.
Again, I remain committed to the facts. When the Episcopate office reports to us the facts of what is really happening, then I will use that to formulate an educated position. Speculation on either side of the issues is worth nothing.
I still encourage you to join and be part of a parish, any parish. I looked online and see that there is an OCA parish in Jackson, which I believe would be close to you. Why not try that one out? You could still also support and visit the monastery too. My point in response to your characterization of parish membership as "dubious" was in direct response to your comment on the topic. I agree that "you too, you too" games are childish, therefore please do not invent one here.
#13 Brave Anonymous#1 on 2011-07-13 08:53
I do not have to speculate if a document does not exist. If a document exists it has to pe produced. A document regarding the financial activity of the communist contraption was requested by the “Vatra” Congress in October 2010 to be produced by the communist contraption no later than in 90 days. You can check on the “Vatra’s web site the fact.
In my text I just said that such a document was not existent when I posted the text and in fact such a document was never acknowledged as being existent.
About this is nothing to “speculate”. If I am wrong you better put up or shut up!
Yes, you clearly said that “or a member of the “Vatra” chancery or a member of the diligence committee” provided me information. (Again what information? That a document does not exist? Please!)
Again I invite you do not play coy. You know very well whom you tried to discredit. You failed!
In my text, however the main topics were about the uncalled secrecy of the nefarious project of subordination toward the Romanian cleptocratic Patriarchate, about the stifling of any attempt for open debate and about the very suspect action of creating phony “missions” in area were a strong pro American Orthodoxy parish is functioning. Those topics you avoid to discuss and that is in bad faith. .
In such a context I resolved to consider the quality of “voting member” dubious.
I was a member of the St.Demetrius Church in Jackson since 1984(when I relocate to the Heritage Center).But that is absolutely of no concern to you. And just because you are so interested in my personal life even to the point to give me advices.
Frankly, coming from a coward anonymous this is at least audacious and more exactly shameless.
#14 alexandru nemoianu on 2011-07-15 14:12
The author does not allow comments to this entry