Talk:Holy Orthodox Church in North America
- Just to clarify, the article is for providing a basic chronology and overview of facts (including he said-she said). Interpretations may be discussed on this Talk page. — FrJohn (talk)
- Parts of this article, on a daily basis (of late), have been consistantly deleted without explanation and despite reasonings being given for their continued presence. I suggest that something be done to prevent this - I'm not sure if sections can be protected, but if not, perhaps the page should be protected with suggested edits being placed on the talk page. --— by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 21:56, May 5, 2006 (CDT)
- Because of successive blankings (without explanation), I'm protecting this article for the time being. People may make suggestions on the talk page. Thanks — FrJohn (talk)
With all due respect, this protection is unfair. Every Old Calendarist jurisdiction on this Wiki (a) has a clarificiation stating that they are not in communion with official Orthodoxy and (b) is open to criticism and does not require protection. HOCNA certainly doesn't require protection; its leaders are as open to question as any other Old Calendarist group. This block will give the unintended appearance of favor. As someone who cleans up "soi-disant" off of Bishops from jurisdictions not my own, this gives HOCNA a "quasi-official" status on the Wiki. They have no listed history, and thus do not have to explain the fairly recent genesis of their Church (1986) as has every other Old Calendarist synod on the Wiki.--JosephSuaiden 23:49, December 18, 2008 (UTC)
- I've unprotected the article.
- If you check the article's history, you'll note that the protection was not due to anything in particular about HOCNA, but because someone kept blanking the article out entirely in edit-warring fashion. Anyway, let's hope things have settled down. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 02:06, December 19, 2008 (UTC)
- Well, please change it for us. A wiki is a collaborative effort. Oh, and please sign your talk page messages with four tildes (4 ~s), because I almost thought your message was written by Pistevo for a second. Thanks. Gabriela 22:52, October 29, 2006 (CST)
- Thank you. I am Michael Vezie, the technical contact for both homb.org and hocna.net (actually, all contacts for hocna.net). While it does work (and in fact, if you look at www.homb.org and www.hocna.net you'll see they're the exact same page), www.homb.org is the official domain, and hocna.net was never intended for public release. That is why I would prefer that hocna.net not be listed at all (even as a disputed alternate). Apologies for not signing my name before; I'm still new with wikis. Mlvezie 19:01, October 31, 2006 (PST)
- Michael, Sorry for the delay on this and thanks for the clarification. I've removed the mention of hocna.net, and also changed some of the other link descriptions to better reflect a neutral position. I've been in touch with Fr. Sergius in order to present more accurately, not only the allegations, but also the response from HTM. My (our) policy here is not to take sides in these types of debates (about which I do not know the truth), but simply to document what has been said, when, by whom, etc. I hope this will be reflected in the article, so that OrthodoxWiki will be the place that people come for a bird's eye account of the claims and counter-claims. — FrJohn (talk)
I've been in contact with Fr. Sergius from HTM and am in the process of reworking this article to include some of the information he's provided. Please feel free to comment here if you have any concerns or questions about these revisions. — FrJohn (talk) 19:25, November 30, 2006 (PST)
This article should include the agreed upon facts of how HOCNA came into being -- namely, that they departed ROCOR after several of their leaders were charged with sexual immorality. They denied the claims, and claimed that they were being persecuted by the modernists and Ecumenists in ROCOR... such as Metropolitan Vitaly, and they left while these people were under suspension, prior to an ecclesiastical trial. There have also been about 20 former monastics from HTM, who have made essentially the same accusations.
They also went under two bishops who were not part of any Synod. They then left them, and went under Archbishop Auxentios, who had been deposed by his own Synod, and then they left his successor, and have now formed their own Synod... having finally gotten enough of their own folks elected bishops.
Now obviously, this article should be written in such a way as to say the above while providing their spin on how these things came to be... but they cannot and do not deny the basic facts above.
It is also worth noting that their history of the Old Calendar Church of Greece ends just prior to another wave of departures from HTM, with fresh accusations that parallel the original group of accusers.
-Fr. John Whiteford
- I'm not sure if FrJohn plans to unprotect this article any time soon, but I certainly don't see why you or someone else couldn't post proposed texts here on the Talk page.
- It's tough to have OrthodoxWiki articles on groups like these, since they're such flashpoints. But we do at least have the advantage here of explicitly holding to what we call the Mainstream Chalcedonian Bias, i.e., that we do have a specific point of view which overrides pure academic neutrality. (We try to be as neutral as possible, of course, but we're also not shy about our bias.) —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 17:18, March 19, 2007 (PDT)
Hi Fathers, I'm working on it... slowly, and on the back burner. I've got a couple versions stored up on my computer, and there's an attempt at a history being made on Wikipedia now. I can't substantiate or un-substantiate any claims made - I just don't have the time for a "full" investigation, and perhaps it's not my place anyway. My idea here is to provide an overview of the different versions of the story, and refer people elsewhere for more commentary. — FrJohn (talk)
This article originally had the history, to which Fr John Whiteford alludes above. Then it got vandalized. Is there a way we can bring back at least some of the history I wrote? If it's too anti-Hocna, then we can include their spin on it. But the current article has no history whatsoever. It also does not state what HOCNA is, that it does not maintain communion with any jurisdiction, that their clergy have been deposed on multiple occasions and by several different "Synods", and that several dozen people have made accusation of sexual impropriety against the HOCNA leadership.--Aleks 18:18, June 19, 2008 (UTC)