Should we not all be held equally responsible for canonical violations? Do you support one standard for your Church clergy and another for this Church?
Official Complaint item #1
Committed by Andrew Stephen Damick, Presbyter and believed to be an author and administrator on the website Orthodoxwiki.org, Metropolitan Philip of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese, The Patriarch of the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch and unknown clergy of the above named Church. We understand clergy of the Orthodox Church in America and possibly other unknown individuals known to Fr Andrew (first named above) are party to all this. The materials written and published on Orthodoxwiki which is hosted by "Orthodox Internet Services" infringe our Legal Service Marks which violates U.S. Federal law but they refuse to act on the complaint.
Most of the claims that we believe violate the Canons are published today on the site called Orthodoxwiki.org and are being published for all to see. This is the evidence of their defamation, insulting long dead bishops AND OUR SYNOD TODAY. Since wiki is supposed to be an encyclopedia it is not entitled to literary license and exaggeration.
According to Holy Scripture: "They shall be known by their fruits (works)". Mt 7:16
It should also be noted that Holy Scripture is violated by these individuals - Mt 7:1-2 for today they judge Archbishop Ofiesh of blessed memory and this Church.
c 39 of the 85c A priest shall do nothing without the knowledge & consent
of his bishop
[We start with this canon since Metropolitan Philip and others were notified of our complaint about Orthodoxwiki's claims and public publication of inaccurate and incorrect information that insults, defames and attacks us but since we received no response and the site remains active we believe this is done with the knowledge and blessing of the bishops.]
c 55 of the 85c He who Insults a bishop shall be deposed
[to defame a deceased bishop is an insult, to say a church does not exist insults our synod].
c 32 of the 92c Thou shalt not exact vengeance twice for the same offense.
[repeated false claims and attacks continue to occur that exact vengeance repeatedly]
c 6 of the 7c A person shall not fabricate charges against an Orthodox bishop
[Since no tribunal occurred no official charges were ever made but these individuals constantly publish their claimed charges]
c 18 of the 30c You shall not conspire or plot against a bishop [These people "plot" and "conspire" by writing these web sites and thesis', with undocumented and unproved claims (just more materials by others using the same point of view), publishing materials against this church and Abp. Ofiesh of blessed memory]
Lower in the complaint we mention a priest being allowed to remarry and remain a priest contrary to the canons, and complaints #2 and #3 regarding the Greek Archbishop and our mother Church.
Orthodoxwiki and its writers and publishers make undocumented claims that
contradict themselves to claim Archbishop Aftimios Ofiesh was removed from
office when he was not. They are attempting to do now, years after his death in
1966, what was never formally done by the proper authorities in 1933 and none
are bishops and none have the authority to do this.
By their acts they insult the bishop, they steal his good name and that of Bp. Sophronius and our Synod today. They are guilty of fabricating charges they have no formal authority to lay against a canonical Archbishop when he was alive or now that he is deceased. Their continued publishing of these claims on various web pages are an act to exact vengeance twice for the same offense. These are all violations of the canons.
As for Metropolitan Philip: We sent by mail (post) a letter of complaint notifying him of what his clergy are doing and writing. He failed to act. We also sent other mail and a number of emails to him and received only 1 response to verify that our postal mail was received which is very unusual for any Orthodox jurisdiction when it comes to dealing with this Church. You all ignore us!
Also based on the well published book "Widowed Priest" Metropolitan Philip also appears to have violated the canons in allowing a widowed Antiochian Priest to remarry contrary to the existing canons. In canon 6 of the 102 canons a deacon is not allowed to remarry, and a bishop who allows a deacon to remarry shall be deposed. Since a priest is also not allowed to remarry what punishment should there be for allowing a priest to remarry? No one to date has taken any action against Philip nor have others attempted to destroy his Church... as has been done by the "ethnic" jurisdictions in North America to our Church. Since it is his Church that seems behind the attack on orthodoxwiki, and other places, against this Church we feel all so called violations of the canons must be shared equally. If you want to take our good name and continue to defame Abp. Ofiesh of blessed memory over 40 years after he died than should we also published that Philip deposed himself or maybe retired because of his violation of the canons? The OCA is believed party to this as we understand at least one OCA priest is involved with Orthodoxwiki.
The following excerpt is taken from the light and life catalog and names the Patriarch* as also allowing the remarriage of this priest.
Now a couple other matters of irregular acts by the Antiochian Church.
RE: (Paul) Alexander Tyler Turner who was supposed to have been consecrated by Ignatius (Wm. A.) Nichols who was a former Auxiliary bishop of the American Church (Sept 1932 - June 1933). Ignatius left this Church without letters we understand to marry. By 1934 he was ordaining as an independent (old catholic) Archbishop of the group calling itself "The Holy Orthodox Church in America". This group was not an Orthodox entity. He had left Orthodoxy when he left the American Church and thus left all authority. It is claimed that Ignatius had re-established the Society of Clerks Secular of this Church as an independent organization that he supposedly headed and then later is said to have turned the group over to Alexander Tyler Turner. The dates vary based on which independent group you listen to.
Fact: Ignatius left Orthodoxy in 1942 and became pastor of a protestant Church in Vermont. He was a protestant pastor when he died in 1947.
Fact: Turner was in very doubtful and not orthodox lines.
Fact: Turner was a married bishop of an independent jurisdiction not associated with this (American) Church.
Fact: Turner was incardinated into the Antiochain Archdiocese (NY) as a priest.
Question: We ask since if Turner was not ordained into the Antiochian Church but allowed to act on his prior ordination (former Episcopal priest believed re-ordained by Ignatius into non-canonical orders thus not sacramental authority)or his consecration by Ignatius Nichols after Nichols had left our Church it could place a cloud over all of Turners acts as an Antiochian Priest since Aftimios was alive and the Antiochians failed to request a letter so it appears the Antiochians did not consider Turner a member of this Church or our clergy. This church is a canonically established Church while the group Ignatius helped start after he left this church was an independent group. At this point in time when Turner came to Ignatius no canonical lines could be transfered by Ignatius according to the Rudder.
Regarding the Greek Church in North America and the Archbishops claim of supreme authority in the New World supported by the Ecumenical Patriarch's silence.
In 1929 Abp. Alexander from the Greek Archdiocese claimed he had authority over all Orthodox in America but there was no canonical basis for such a claim. We are the American Church! By his silence we believe then Ecumenical Patriarch, Basil III, approved and supported this claim.
Note that we do not make this up. It is published on Orthodoxwiki by Antiochian clergy. They publish a number of pages attacking this Church and our clergy of blessed memory as well as us today. Much of our complaint is based on this published material.
We view this claim by Abp. Alexander to be the beginning of the Schism in American Orthodoxy. This is documented in the writings of those ethnic Orthodox who operate Orthodoxwiki on the internet as mentioned elsewhere in this complaint.
Regarding the Russian Church - Moscow Patriarch, item #3
A. We were abandoned by our Mother Church, Moscow.
B. Our Cathedral was taken by court action which also violated the canons since they state you shall not go to the ruler or emperor (in the U.S. the courts). c. 30 of 85c
C. In 1970 a second Church was established to take over our canonical jurisdiction by our Mother Church. The canons state that 2 bishops cannot co-exist in one region.
We understand that many Orthodox also violate canon CLXXXIII of the 102 canons.
Remember that the canons do state that whoever honors a bishop will be honored by God.
Established in 1927 Abp. Ofiesh had no help from any of the Orthodox except the Russian Church who had the canonical authority to establish the American Church. By 1932 no Orthodox in American would assist or work with the American Church. They took our clergy without the required letters, even our suspended clergy. Seems our clergy, property and members (our assets) were Orthodox by we were not considered worthy! The Metropolia even went to court and took the Cathedral from this Church yet the Russian Synod had drafted the Constitution for this Church, again according to the published report on orthodoxwiki.
1. We were canonically established.
2. We continue as the same church today.
3. Our identity is legally and morally
documented. The actions both to ignore and to attack this Church can be and are clearly unchristian acts and claims for the most part by the so called ethnic clergy from jurisdictions in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch that we do not exist as well as the continued claims against Abp. Ofiesh and Bp. Sophronius must end.
Prepared at Sudan, Texas this
17th day of May in the Year of Our Lord
Two Thousand and Nine.