You can read about the history here. It is as strange a story as you'll find.
(ROCOR-EAD) - For Release: At the February 5/18, 2020, session of the Synod of Bishops, which was held at the Synodal Headquarters in New York City, an appeal was heard from the Spiritual Court of the Eastern American Diocese regarding the activities of Archimandrite Alexander (Belya) who, while under suspension from serving, wrought disturbance in the church life of several diocesan parishes. Having discussed the appeal and the circumstances of this case comprehensively, as well as the violations of the terms set forth in his suspension that have been a cause of temptation for both clergy and flock, to the point of fleeing beneath the homophorion of a separate jurisdiction without a release from his ruling bishop, it is with sorrow that the Synod of Bishops adopts the following resolution, provided here in brief:
To ratify the resolution of the Spiritual Court of the Eastern American Diocese regarding the laicization of the former Archimandrite Alexander (Belya), in accordance with the determination of his ruling bishop.
Posts
So what are we not being told,,,,a double cross wearing archimandrite to lay status,,,,there appears to be more to the story,,,if so,,how can we determine where the truth lies
ReplyDeleteWell the documented facts as we have them are that he, or someone related to him, submitted a fabricated document claiming he was to be made a bishop. When the document was discovered and proved to be fabricated, an investigation was opened. Instead of waiting for the results of the investigation or defending himself, he fled to the Greeks immediately.
ReplyDeleteIt seems pretty clear cut. There would be no investigation necessary if he or someone close to him hadn’t forged a document attempting to make him a bishop, and if he was somehow innocent, why would he immediately flee from his jurisdiction without even bothering to defend himself? If you have a clear conscience and faith in God, why run?
Any reliable information about whether this character was actually **accepted** by the GOA?
ReplyDeleteThere was a time (pre-MP-reunion) when ROCOR would accept almost any priest or parish that fell out with their own bishop. It didn't work out well.
What often happened is the unscrupulous clergy would take advantage of the situation. Often they would come to ROCOR, claiming they were coming as confessors of the Faith. But it went in both directions. A priest and his wife( who had been associated with the Blanco, Texas fiasco) left the Upper Michigan ROCOR mission in 1999 or 2000.The priest was assigned another ROCOR parish near Detroit. But the diocesan bishop called upon to account for irregularities and possible theft from the mission. Faced with detection, the priest decided to switch to the MP and take the parish with him. He didn't end up taking the parish, but he was given a parish of the MP elsewhere. His downfall came with the ROCOR-MP reconciliation of 2007. I don't know the details, but I believe the MP deposed him(ROCOR had only suspended him).
ReplyDeleteso who is the bigger fool? the cleric who knowingly transgresses or the adminstration focused on liturgics and long rituals and monasticism instead of the basic business principle of running a transparent, effective, and efficient organization in the usa? as we say in business you get what youn pay for, so if you get an academic, cloistered, monk running away from his past,, versus a widower who has a pragmatic perspective regarding human nature and how to run a transparent efficient and effective diocese in the usa,, then these types of situations will pervail,,wont they? each situation like this is a black eye for our institutional church,,,, another reason for others to point out our inadequacies and lastly another reason for our highly educated youth to abandon us --- as many have already --- tragic, just tragic and there is no rhyme or reason for this,,,, is there ,,, it looks like the only winner here is the priest,,,we need to do better
ReplyDelete