A Chronology of Events Leading up
to the Panteleimonite Schism
In January
1986, several former members of HTM charge Fr. Panteleimon with sexual
perversion. As special commission is appointed,
Archbishop Anthony of Los Angeles (who like Met. Vitaly is considered to be
among the staunchest conservatives of the Synod of Bishops) and Bishop Alypy
are selected.
Just before
things came to a head (with regard to the accusations about him), Fr.
Panteleimon had this to say:
"The Synodal Church [the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad] is a
real standard of Orthodoxy.... Therefore, discerning where the Truth is found,
we remain in unity under our bishops in the midst of many trials and temptations...because
grace abides in the Synod.... We uphold our Synod primarily and foremostly
as a standard of Orthodoxy. All others
have betrayed the Truth. This was
demonstrated of late by the election of our new Metropolitan [Vitaly]...."
(Fr. Alexey Young, The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia: A History and
Chronology (San Bernardino: The Borgo Press, 1993), p. 77f. Original source: A personal letter from Fr.
Panteleimon to Fr. Alexey Young, dated February 10, 1986 -- a month after
the first accusers came forward.
The
commission presents its report to the Synod in May of 1986, having interviewed
both the accused and the accusers before the Gospel and Cross. At this meeting, two additional accusers
also come forward – Monk Menas and Monk Eugenios (having left HTM several weeks
previously).
The written
testimony of two other former members of HTM are read, and two previously
interviewed give oral testimony. The
dean of the New England Deanery and Monk Ephraim spoke in defense of Fr.
Panteleimon. Fr. Panteleimon was extensively questioned, denied the charges,
but asked to be relieved of his duties as abbot. The Synod granted this request on May 16/29, and decreed that Fr.
Panteleimon was retired -- this decision was relayed to him by Met. Vitaly
personally. Archbishop Anthony was
appointed by the Synod to oversee the Monastery, and Heiromonk Isaac was given
temporary charge pending his arrival.
Instead of obeying the Synod, HTM elected Fr. Isaac as it's new abbot,
despite being told that neither he nor the Monk Ephraim could be considered
until charges against them had been cleared.
The Synod
met again on Nov 12/25 and decided the following:
1) Fr. Isaac
was to be relieved of his duties as administrator.
2) To
suspend both Fr. Panteleimon and Fr. Isaac from serving in accordance with rule
159 of the Regulations of the Spiritual Consistories which states:
"A
clergyman who has been accused of a crime is to be suspended from serving....
the order for this to be done is entrusted to the local bishop, who is
obligated to take care of those who are accused of grave violations of good
conduct according to God’s laws not approach to serve before the Altar of the
Lord."
3) To
appoint a commission to investigate charges against Fr. Isaac.
4) To
appoint Fr. Justin as temporary administrator.
5) To direct
the commission to investigate various questions, such as the legal position of
HTM, its liturgical practices (which already included chrismating New
Calendarists) and other questions.
Met. Vitaly,
as diocesan hierarch of Eastern America fulfilled the recommendations of the
Synod (of Nov 20/Dec 3) and suspended both Fr. Panteleimon and Fr. Isaac.
On December
12, 1986 Met. Vitaly received a
letter from HTM informing him that they had left the ROCA because of its
Modernism and Ecumenism.
In response to the
question of why Fr. Panteleimon's perversions are significant to a discussion
of the "stand" of the "HOCNA" Panteleimonites, let me point
out the following:
1) Fr.
Panteleimon was suspended and being investigated by the ROCA for these
perversions when suddenly the ROCA ceased to be the last refuge of pure
Orthodoxy, and overnight, Metropolitan Vitaly became a liberal Ecumenist.
2) The Panteleimonites
then came under two Vagante Bishops, Gabriel and Akkakios -- bishops previously
trashed by them -- but they also left when these charges of perversion
resurfaced.
3) They then
came under Archbishop
Auxentios, who had been deposed by the Synod he had formerly headed for
ordaining a "notorious person" (i.e. a homosexual). Archbishop Maximos replaced him upon his
death, and he began a new investigation of HTM -- and so this "Old
Calendar confessor" became a modernist overnight.
4) Countless
examples of how those who flee Fr. Panteleimon's blasphemous perversity are smeared and
lied about can be cited. They are
also subject to other forms of threats and intimidation.
If Fr.
Panteleimon is really such a prescient "holy elder", one might
reasonably wonder why he has surrounded himself with so many "liars",
and "disreputable" persons who would later come out and accuse him of
perversion. One might also wonder why
he has had such sorry luck with finding a bishop who was not a secret modernist
and Ecumenist.
In short,
all the claims which seek to justify HTM schisms are smoke screens and red
herrings. The reason for their schism
is their unwillingness to submit their false "elder" to the
discipline of the Church.
But if
anyone is willing to believe that Metropolitan Vitaly is a liberal Ecumenist, I
suppose that any thing one might say that is based on either reason or evidence
will not likely sway them.
A Member of
HOCNA wrote:
<<As
a hieromonk, formerly of Jordanville, explained to me: "ROCOR made no
judgment on the Calendar change due to the turmoil after the First World War
and during the Second World War. It viewed the calendar change as an aberration
which it opposed but was preoccupied and traumatized with the threat of
Communism and the plight of the Church in Russia as well as the care of the
Russian emigres. Met. Philaret, hoping to stop the Ecumenical madness of which
the calendar change was a symptom, wrote his two 'Sorrowful Epistles' which
were ignored. Following the Gospel dictum of 'After the first and second
admonition let them be anathema' the Anathema of 1983 was promulgated. Due to
his ill health and death two years later a clear implementation was not
effected. Met. Vitaly then re-defined the Anathema which has become irrelevant
in the life of ROCOR today.">>
But here is
where HOCNA apologists strain credulity beyond any possible limits. Met. Vitaly
"re-defined" the anathema during the reign of Met. Philaret, and
it was after this "re-definition" that Fr. Panteleimon wrote:
"The Synodal Church [the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad] is a
real standard of Orthodoxy.... Therefore, discerning where the Truth is found,
we remain in unity under our bishops in the midst of many trials and
temptations...because grace abides in the Synod.... We uphold our Synod
primarily and foremostly as a standard of Orthodoxy. All others have betrayed
the Truth. This was demonstrated of
late by the election of our new Metropolitan [Vitaly]...." (Fr. Alexey
Young, The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia: A History and Chronology
(San Bernardino: The Borgo Press, 1993), p. 77f. Original source: A personal letter from Fr. Panteleimon to Fr.
Alexey Young, dated February 10, 1986.
So unless
one is prepared to accuse Fr. Panteleimon of complicity in selling out
Orthodoxy, this line of argumentation needs to be abandoned.