Communique from the Assembly of Canonical Bishops


Thursday, April 20, 2023

The Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of the United States of America is made up of all the active, canonical Orthodox Bishops in the United States of America, from every universally-recognized canonical Orthodox jurisdiction, including the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (“ROCOR”), despite the decision of its Bishops to suspend their participation in the Assembly. On November 18, 2022, the Orthodox Bishops of the Assembly received a communication from the ROCOR Eastern American Diocese regarding Archpriest Peter Heers. This communication stated “that the Very Reverend Archpriest Peter Heers is not a clergyman of the Eastern American Diocese or of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, nor is there any pending consideration of his reception.”

The Assembly can further confirm that Archpriest Peter Heers is not a clergyman of, or on loan to, any other canonical Orthodox jurisdiction in the United States. To the extent that this individual purports to act as an Orthodox priest in the United States, including celebrating the Divine Liturgy and the other services of the Church and teaching the faithful and those who inquire into Orthodoxy, he does so in a manner outside of the Holy Canons.


  1. Chris Banescu says

    ZERO comments from the Assembly of Lukewarm and Cowardly Bishops regarding the many false, heretical, and blasphemous teaching of priests, bishops, deacons, academics, and other individuals who have repeatedly attacked the right Orthodox Church teaching.

    Warning to Orthodox Church: False Teachers and Deceitful Venues That Contradict and Distort Church Teaching
    The Orthodox Church is being attacked by false teachers and deceitful venues that question, challenge, mock, deconstruct, contradict, and distort Church teaching, practices, and theology. – Fr. Ioannes Apiarius

  2. As much as I very much like Fr. Peter, I do somewhat agree.

    If Fr. Peter is not under any bishop and his situation is irregular then that’s a problem. If he’s been received into ROCOR then he or his bishop should let people know rather than letting it be ambiguous.


      Léelo y esas dudas se te quitarán./// read it and those doubts will be removed

      • We have communicated with Craig Truglia. Nice guy. Young guy; both in terms of age (in relationship to us) and in terms of years in the Church. Brand new to the Church when he took on this mess; not that he hasn’t read the Holy Fathers which he has said in the past IS the Church because that’s what he’s been led to believe. He even has his own website patterned off a similar theme.

        Herein lies the danger. Ecclesiastically, things are not as they should be AND people are being lead to believe that parish life is secondary to reading the Holy Fathers. This is NOT what the Church teaches.

        Craig was only just beginning parish life when he took the bull by the horns to unravel this mess. He did not put the puzzle back together in exactly the right way. How could he? He didn’t (perhaps still doesn’t) know how things really work. At one point, (I’m going by memory), I believe he got Metropolitan Halarion (Kapral) and Metropolitan Halarion (Alfeyev) mixed up. Easy mistake to make if you don’t know the players.

        Frankly, no one should have encouraged him (or even allowed him) to take this on.

        Everyone is trying to help but there is only one person who can straighten all this out and that is Fr. Peter Heers. He is welcome to tell his story, unedited, on the blog but getting people speaking for him is just sowing confusion and discord.

        • That’s not true, the Bishops are the only people who can sort this out. The fact of the matter is that Fr Peter was canonically received into ROCOR by Metropolitan Hilarion, there are the official documents and everything. And then ROCOR later on after Metropolitan Hilarion no longer possessed his mental faculties due to his deteriorating health, decided to retroactively “annul” Fr Peters reception. This is a totally made up and anti canonical action. The only people who are acting non canonically and irresponsibly here is the Synod of ROCOR. They did not defrock or suspend Fr Peter. They tossed him to the side because they considered him too politically inconvenient to deal with due to his outspoken stance of the vaccine. They did not call him before an ecclesiastical court because they did not want to officially lay any charges against him or allow him to defend himself because he hasn’t actually done anything wrong or taught any non Orthodox things. Unfortunately this is not an uncommon practice nowadays in ROCOR, where a Bishop will simply tell a priest to “get lost”. No suspension, no release letter, no canonical process whatsoever.

  3. The confusion over Fr. Peter’s status is something you would think the Assembly of Bishops would want to be resolve favorably and with some charity since it was the Hierarchy that created the status he now finds himself by no fault of his own. So unfortunate to see this being part of the conversation. These things take time and some charity needs to be afforded to someone who has never been disciplined who is seeking to resolve this matter.

    • They don’t want it to be resolved! He is politically inconvenient and so they want to simply keep him in an ecclesiastical limbo indefinitely in order to smear his name and his confession of the Faith.

      • I don’t think that’s the case at all. But he says he going to get thing resolved quickly so all is well.

  4. I’m glad y’all are reporting on this. I’m sure heads are spinning, I know mine was yesterday! Taking no joy in the news. Reading between the line, I noticed that “The Very Reverend” is attached to his name in the notice. Curious what y’alls thoughts are, if any? Also awaiting the follow-up on this subject.

  5. In terms of character, I will rise to Fr. Peter’s defense. However, I do not know what is at the bottom of all this concern regarding his present status and he should probably make some unequivocal statement regarding the same.

    As to the substance of the communique, I don’t trust the ACB nor do I trust what they report the ROCOR as having stated. I would want to see the actual statement from ROCOR first. Obviously, Fr. Peter was under the Church of Greece. Also, obviously, he was “on loan” in some sense to ROCOR’s Jordanville. If somehow he is under neither at this time, I would like to know why the bishops of the Church of Greece cut him loose and why the bishops of the ROCOR have not received him. A priest cannot control whether a synod acknowledges that he is under their omophor. Normally, priests just don’t “get lost in the mix”. But without a reason given from someone, we can conclude nothing at all.

    Here is a summary of what has transpired with Fr. Peter:

    Whatever the case, it in no way reflects negatively on him.

    Fr. Peter has addressed the matter before:

    To the best of my knowledge, Fr. Peter was released by his bishop in the Church of Greece to an MP bishop, however, this transfer was not later approved by Pat. Kirill. In the meantime, he requested transfer to the ROCOR which was approved but later somehow reneged due to the irregularity of his reception in the MP without the consent of the patriarch. That seems to be the crux of the problem, resolving that anomaly.

    My guess is that what has happened is that he has become a hot potato in the current drama between the Russians and the Greeks. Given that he has good evidence that he was received by both the MP and ROCOR, they will have to work out exactly what to do. His problem is not a lack of a bishop but an abundance thereof, regardless of what each particular one states. Bishops can’t just discard priests willy nilly. Therein lies the rub.

  6. This article makes the case that Fr. Heers’ has plenty of documentation supporting his ministry. He was accepted by several jurisdictions. If one jurisdiction reneges after acceptance he would revert to the previous jurisdiction, correct?

  7. Basil White says

    So what brought this on? Me thinks our Rev Heers upset someone

    • The above article link by Dunnan makes clear they got scared of him due to his stance on Covid vaccines. The ROCOR should grow a pair of balls like they used to have under Met Philaret, and not only take him in, but also apologize for the grief they caused him. ROCOR doesn’t even have contact with the Greeks anymore so who cares about papers and they still allow him to concelebrate.

      • No one’s scared of him. Many, many people held his views and earlier than he did.

        I’m not sure if it’s a question of people refusing to take him in. He doesn’t want it. How do I know? I offered to help him and he didn’t want it. He didn’t even respond to the request. That path held no interest for him. I wish he would do it for the Church, though, as having a bishop is important. To be Orthodox, everyone has to have a bishop.

        • Hi Gail,

          Christ is risen!

          No doubt Fr Peter agrees with the statement, “having a bishop is important” and “everyone has to have a bishop”.

          There is probably a lot going on behind the scenes. Because he didn’t reach back out to you for support does not mean he is not trying to regularize his situation.

          Although this doesn’t settle the issue, he has stated on multiple occasions that he has the blessing of His Grace Bishop Luke of Syracuse to celebrate the mysteries (at HTM), and there is no doubt this is true considering Bp Luke was present at the uncut mountain conference late last year, which was organized by Orthodox Ethos and Fr Peter..

          Let us wait and see

          • The situation has been going on since 2017. It has not been normalized to date, although I believe it could have been. The bishops have spoken. The situation is what it is.

            • Herein is where I’m not convinced: that “the bishops have spoken”. Which bishops? Does the communiqué’s intent represent all canonical Orthodox bishops in the USA? Did they all sign? All of ROCOR? Bishop Luke?

              Not so long ago, and as I’m sure you recall, there was major discord within ACOB, and letters were sent by one group with ACOB letterheads (!) against a certain bishop who seems to perpetually find himself in controversy (the bad kind). Just because the letters were released with ACOB letterheads clearly didn’t mean they represented the ACOB as a whole, just those who signed.

              I believe further clarity is needed before we can say with certainty “the bishops have spoken”

              Lord have mercy!


              • When they come out with something like this, they all have to agree.

              • I’ll be blunt, inasmuch as the situation calls for it. It’s an internal matter for the ROC if the synod intends to receive him or not.

                The AOB represents a tiny fraction of world Orthodoxy and only part of the Church in America. ROCOR will not sit with them due to the presence of hierarchs from Constantinople, which the ROC has excommunicated.

                The AOB is not a synod and so has no real authority as a body in any case. Given the political situation, my guess is that the ROC is not inclined to pay much attention to any of the AOB’s constituent churches other than the Churches of Serbia and (perhaps) Antioch. The church of the AOB’s chair is presently making war on Russians in the Ukraine. So I assume this found its way straight to file 13 if it was even noted by ROCOR or the ROC.

                • It’s not a matter of them having any ecclesiastical authority over him as he’s chosen to operate outside the Church. Ideally, since he says he speaks for the Orthodox Church, he would be accountable to a bishop who would have authority over him but unfortunately that isn’t the case.

                  • a. He is within the Church. He has not been excommunicated or even disciplined by anyone.

                    b. He does not control the bishops. This is clearly them dropping the ball.

                    c. Canon law is for the bishops to apply, not for every individual to apply per their personal feelings.

                    • He is NOT within the Church unless he has a bishop. Please name him.

                    • I dare say that the hierarchs that concelebrate with him beg to differ.

                      What I’m seeing are control issues and a misconception about the power that those who operate blogs possess. No one, myself included, cares if the American Orthodox blogosphere goes full bore attack on this. It’s much ado about nothing but if people want to yip and spin their wheels that is fine by me. Keep it as the headline for the rest of the year if you want. Whatever you think might attract viewers. We all gotta eat, after all.

                      It won’t change what Fr. Peter does or does not do, nor will it change what the ROC bishops do or not do. Neither the AOB nor Monomakhos have any authority in the matter. But you are all entitled to your opinions. But that’s all they are.

                    • sherlock holmes says

                      This might help clear things up. Unless ROCOR is also in on the persecution of Fr. Peter Heers, he was never assigned to the clery which Bishop Luke, himself, verified.

                      Archpriest Peter Heers
                      Nov 17, 2022

                      A Statement from Archpriest Peter Heers
                      Updated: Nov 18, 2022

                      To Whom It May Concern:

                      Recently I was blessed to visit Nashville, TN and I asked Met. Nicholas of New York for a blessing to serve at the ROCOR parish in Lebanon, which he immediately and graciously extended, for I am a priest in good standing, not under any church discipline. For the same reasons, I was blessed to serve with His Grace Bishop Luke while visiting Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville for the feast of the Holy Protection. (And, for the same reasons, I was blessed by Bishop Longin to serve at St. Savas Monastery in Chicago a few weeks earlier, and at the St. Petka parish in Nashville earlier this year.) In 2021 I was received into ROCOR by Metropolitan Hilarion of New York (of blessed memory) and assigned to the clergy of Holy Trinity Monastery, being a lecturer at Holy Trinity Seminary in the certificate program. Sometime later, due to an irregularity with regard to my release and reception, the Holy Synod suggested that I find a way to re-regularize my position. As is clear from the above (and below), I have been blessed (by several Hierarchs) to concelebrate and serve while this process takes place.

                      In Christ,
                      Archpriest Peter A. Heers


                      To the Orthodox Hierarchs serving in North America:

                      Having been made aware of an apparent confusion on the question among clerics of other jurisdictions, the Ruling Bishop of the Eastern American Diocese, His Eminence Nicholas, Metropolitan of Eastern America & New York, has instructed me to clarify to Your Eminences and Your Graces that the Very Reverend Archpriest Peter Heers is not a clergyman of the Eastern American Diocese or of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, nor is there any pending consideration to his reception. To the best of our knowledge, he remains a cleric of the State Church of Greece, under the omophorion of His Eminence, the Metropolitan of Piraeus, to whom all queries regarding his service and activities should be directed. We wish Fr. Peter well in his labors as a cleric of the Church of Greece.

                      Your Eminences and Your Graces are welcome to share this clarification with whomever you feel may benefit from it.

                      Priest George Temidis

                      Secretary of the Diocesan Administration of the Eastern American Diocese


                      This article from May 2022 claims he is a Priest of the Metropolis of Ierissios, Mt. Athos and Ardamerion. Rector of Holy Prophet Elias in Petrokerasa, Thessaloniki. However, the official website of the Metropolis lists Fr. Michael Yanakov as the Priest.


                    • Misha & Sherloch,

                      Thanks. This tends to confirm that he is presently—through no canonical fault of his own it would seem—in a state of institutional limbo. I trust the judgment of the clergy who allow him to concelebrate about his status as a Priest of the Church (which perhaps may be understood in her real spiritual and charismatic sense vs. the merely institutional, human organizational level). It seems self-evident on the human level, we will always see human institutional failings, and until Fr. Peter’s Priestly status is revoked in a spiritual court, I would consider him still a Priest in good standing. I do not see Fr. Peter, whatever mistakes he may or may not have made, having cast himself outside Christ or the deeper spiritual reality of the Church. I suspect the proper alignment of his institutional status will follow in due time—if not before, at least when the schism created by Crete and the the EP’s uncanonical meddling in Ukraine is resolved in a proper and true Council of the Church. To me it seems likely that Fr. Peter does not take Monomachos up on an offer of help because of the advice or spiritual understanding of his own spiritual father and the Elders he knows on Mt. Athos who perhaps can discern that merely human help at this stage would not be advantageous or timely. Even though it is unclear at present who ought to be his Bishop, he does not strike me at the end of the day as the kind of man who would not be under obedience to his own Confessor. In the end, man makes his plans, but success is from the Lord, who seeing the full picture, overrules all.

            • “The bishops have spoken.
              The situation is what it is.”

              Indeed. But is that it?
              Should that be it?

              I don’t think so.

              • I’ve got to say, when it comes to the Church, I’m going to stand with the bishops. If he wants to address this with them, they’re there.

                • I understand he has tried to address it;
                  but the bishops refuse to decide
                  and all deny responsibility.

                  • To my knowledge he hasn’t tried to address it but perhaps you know something I don’t. I hope he has. It would be to the benefit of the Church to come to an equitable solution as he has a powerful platform for Orthodoxy. But every one needs oversight, Brendan. Everyone needs a bishop.

                    • As I understand it,
                      the problem is not that he won’t have a bishop,
                      but that no bishop is willing to have him.
                      The question then arises as to why this is so;
                      and that (it seems to me) is for the bishops to answer.

                • So let me get this straight … NOW the Bishops want to apply the Canons after the one leading this charge is concelebrating with schismatics, praying with the non-orthodox and preaching a false Gospel (many paths up the mountain) etc. not to mention advocate openly to commune non-orthodox? Where is the Communique on those acts outside the Holy Canons … from the Bishops we are to stand with.

                  This situation doesn’t fit neatly in a box, you have no idea what Fr Peter has been through, how he has patiently waited for months and months to receive ANY human response from hierarchs on this matter. It’s easy to assume he doesn’t care about his priesthood to be under a bishop because it’s hard to accept the other scenario that Bishops are treating him unfairly.

                  • Antiochene Son says

                    I am certain he is being treated unfairly. But as a priest he must know he nevertheless cannot function as a priest without being attached to a bishop. When we are wronged, we cannot then ignore the rules because it is unfair.

                    • Does he have a bishop? Please name him so we can clear his name.

                    • Solidarity Priest says

                      I think you have given the best answer. Fr. Peter himself said that St. John Chrysostom was unjustly exiled, he didn’t form a “Synod in Resistance.” He blasted the Old Calendar Greeks for doing just that( I heard him at the conference in Antiochian Village). Still, Gail is right, he needs to be under a bishop.
                      I agree with others who claim double standards are in play. The bishops haven’t said a bloody word about the prominent Archpriest who goes into synagogues to recite psalms in Hebrew. And to the best of my knowledge, three OCA priests left the church in recent years. One became a Muslim; I didn’t hear what happened to him afterwards. Another, after having written books as an Orthodox priest, decided to become a Protestant pastor. A third, a hieromonk who had worked on the OCA priest service books, just joined the Ukrainian Catholic diocese of Chicago. Unless I’m misinformed, the OCA NEVER defrocked the three. So there are certainly multiple standards.
                      I know for a fact that Fr. Peter isn’t in ROCOR. I heard it directly from Metropolitan Nicholas. I don’t pretend to know why he is or isn’t . I do know that Fr. Peter feels that the Old Calendar Greeks are outside the church. Many posting here feel that way; I don’t. Constantinople started the problem by changing the calendar unilaterally in the first place. Constantinople interfered with the Serbian church in setting up a rival bishop in Czechoslovakia, and this long before the Ukrainian caper.
                      Fr. Peter evidently feels that the EP is still part of the church. He stated at the conference that because of this, switching jurisdictions is not a solution to the problem. I’m not buying that.

                    • I have never heard anyone accuse him of doing something wrong. What did they accuse him of?

                    • Solidarity Priest says

                      Gail, I was present when an MP parish rector accused Fr. Peter to Metropolitan Nicholas of baptizing people who have already been received into the church by another method. Now I personally believe in baptizing all non-Orthodox converts and my OCA bishop allows me to do so, if they wish it. But I am not about to take a parishioner who has been communing for years and tell them suddenly that I have to baptize them. I cannot control what other bishops may or may not allow their priests to do. The baptism question MAY be the reason why the MP rejected Fr. Peter. I don’t know, I do know that he was accused of “corrective baptism.”

                    • It’s certainly possible, but I never heard he was rejected by MP. It is my understanding that they’re saying they never received him. –If anyone knows what parish he was attached to under the MP, it would be helpful to know that.

                    • Fr, a bit off-topic but the baptism thing needs to be resolved ASAP in my opinion.

                      FWIW, here is where I stand: like St John Maximovitch (ROCOR) and Blessed Dmitri Royster (OCA) and the GOA and Antioch, the reception of converts from Trinitarian confessions that received three-fold immersion were to be received by chrismation.

                      Note however that we are talking about a mid-last century historical context, when the mainstream denominations were fervently Trinitarian. That situation no longer obtains today.

                      Reluctantly, therefore, I’ve come to the conclusion that because we cannot be sure that the baptismal rite that was performed years ago was Trinitarian, then baptism should be the preferred method of entry into the Orthodox Church.

                      Does this seem reasonable to you?

                  • Ella,

                    The other thing is that this is really the business of the ROC and the Church of Greece. Not anyone else. Especially the AOB, which are simply an unofficial gaggle of bishops from various non-canonically overlapping jurisdictions in the US. They do not constitute a synod and thus collectively have zero authority and zero gravitas, nor do they have any dog in this fight inasmuch as Fr. Peter has not been associated with any jurisdictions other than the Church of Greece and the ROC, neither of which belong to the AOB.

                    The Church of Greece seems to have washed its hands in the matter since they have released Fr. Peter to the MP. The entire matter is an internal matter of the ROC between the MP and the ROCOR. Again, no one else’s business. People can bitch and moan all they want to regarding perceived anomalies but the bottom line is that the ROC will resolve it in its own good time and not before. In the meantime, ROC hierarchs seem to have no problem with Fr. Peter’s status in limbo and concelebrate with him from time to time.

                    If it is really a burr under someone’s saddle, I suggest they correspond with the MP and share their concerns. That’s where the buck stops.

                    “One does not beg the sun for mercy.”

            • Agreed. The bishops have spoken. We’ve always asked them to speak forcefully and they finally did so, on this matter at least.

              As far as I’m concerned, the matter is closed.

              • I agree, as painful as it is to actually say that, especially regarding Fr. Peter.

                But, we can’t rejoice when the AOB protests the ordination of Belya and issue pro-life statements…then decry when they put out a communique regarding Fr. Peter – who is indeed in a irregular situation. If Fr. Peter had been officially received into ROCOR then that’s one matter, however, it seems as though he has not. ROCOR is far from ecumenist so I doubt that’s the reason. A priest must be under the omophorion of of a bishop.

                However, I do agree that the AOB will loose credibility unless they also condemn Fordham and that ilk.

                We can’t on one hand rail against the non-canonical actions by the EP while on the other hand follow a priest not under a bishop, no matter how correct he is.

                I don’t personally know Fr. Peter but I have no doubts he is working to get regularized, and I hope he does so soon. There is also a similar situation in Australia with Fr. Lefteris.

              • Ellyn Nixon says

                But….but….Methodist babies are sprinkled!! This is the problem: it may have been a Trinitarian baptism, but there was no triple immersion. I the baby never received one immersion, let alone triple immersion.

          • Truly He is Risen!

            He doesn’t have a bishop so he doesn’t agree in practice that a bishop is important, Leo. This situation has been going on several years so a lot of time has already passed.

            He and I actually did communicate about this as it came up in a conversation we were having about something else he wanted me to do. At one point, we were even supposed to write a book together. So, I didn’t mean to imply we weren’t in contact about the matter or won’t be in contact in the future. I only brought this up because I was really prepared to speak up for him, as others have expressed that they would do on the blog.

            IMO, after conversing with him, he doesn’t want to resolve this with the bishops. If he changes his mind, he is welcome to contact us on or off the blog. But until something changes, I stand with our bishops and will continue to stand with our bishops.

            We’ve heard from Bishop Luke who has said he was not a priest under him. We’ve heard from Bishop Alexander. (I’ve heard from a couple of bishops off-line) and now we’ve heard from the Assembly of Canonical Bishops who are saying he is operating outside the canons. That’s pretty serious.

            Unless he wants to change this, I don’t see what avenue the rest of us have other than to follow our bishops.

            • Which bishops (plural) are you referring to? According to ROCOR he is still under the MP. According to the MP he is still under Greece. The ROCOR have made clear they still view him as being in good standing (including concelebrations). We need to see what the MP and Fr. Peter Heeres have to say.

              • Were I in a position to publish the bishops names I would have done so without being asked.

                I’m not sure Fr. Peter Heers will have anything to say, as he hasn’t in the past. He always gets other people do the talking for him.

                Our default position on Monomakhos is to support our bishops unless we have good cause to question them which frankly we don’t. We have asked for their involvement on this issue in the past. We are thankful they have made his status clear.

  8. Mark E. Fisus says

    There are plenty of other clergy whose canonicity is not in doubt and who say the same things as the Rev. Heers.

  9. Well really? I will take priest Peter Heers over the devilish pastors and priests bowing to satanic chaos in the USA.

    The Assembly is a sick infected bunch of dudes!

  10. Ah ha ha ha! Drivel! Worried about the holy canons are ye? I am rolling in laughter!

  11. For the Assembly to contemplate deeply: converts get what you are doing. Yes, we get it.

  12. If he concelebrating liturgy that means it’s the bishop of the jurisdiction acting uncanonicallyfor allowing it or they view him as a priest in good standing. In the United States plenty of people have websites and YouTube channels on Orthodoxy. So which canons did he violate? From what I understand Fr. Peter Heeres was a priest in Thessaloniki and after repeated assurances from his bishop that he does not ascribe to the documents of the Crete council that bishop signed them nonetheless. So Peter Heeres (along with Theodore Zisis) knew he overstayed his welcome it was time to depart. He was never defrocked or anything. Personally he should try to be admitted into ROCOR ir The MP

  13. The Ecclesiastical Standing of Father Peter Heers

    Craig Truglia: ‘ … What can be known with certainty is that Father Peter Heers, by everyone’s written testimony, has a bishop. According to Metropolitan Serapheim, Father Peter Heers belongs to the Moscow Patriarchate. According to the Moscow Patriarchate, due to Patriarch Kyril not personally approving of the decisions of subordinate bishops, he was never received so he is still under Metropolitan Serapheim. According to Metropolitan Hilarion, he was received into ROCOR and assigned to Vladika Luke. Then (again) according to Metropolitan Hilarion (and the rest of ROCOR’s synod), his reception was retroactively deferred. Then, it was declared that Father Peter Heers is no longer received by ROCOR–thereby reverting him back to Metropolitan Serapheim. Ironically, the issue is not that the Greek priest has no bishop, but that multiple ecclesiastical authorities can canonically lay claim to him. … ‘

    This reads like an extract from The Gospel according to Kafka.

  14. Illumined says

    Seeing the sheer amount of passionate hate, vitriol, and straight up slander against Father Heers tells me all I need to know about who is doing the right things and where the real source of these attacks is coming from.

    By the way the latest episode of the fantastic Revelation lecture series was done a few days ago, having read the books it’s based on myself it’s highly worthwhile to listen to them.

  15. Well, what does THIS mean?

  16. Dang, that doesn’t sound good. I hope there’s something to this story that I don’t know. I know there are a lot of people who really put a lot into Fr. Peter. I hope he hasn’t abused their trust.

    • He is an anti-ecumenist, that’s why they don’t want him. Fr Peter and a contingent of Greek clergy traveled around to warn of the heretical nature of the Crete council. He came under the anti-ecumenist bishop Met. Seraphim of Piraeus because he no longer could stay under the Thessaloniki bishop where he was a priest. MP probably got cold feet after he found out

  17. Athanasia says

    Benjamin Cabe was interviewed on Reason & Theology YouTube (host Michael Lofton). Title of the session is “Exposing the Dark side of Orthodox Apologetics with Benjamin Cabe.”

    In it Mr. Cabe, Orthodox 10 years now, calls Fr. Heers one of the ‘radtrads’ on the internet. In the YouTube intro photo is Fr. Dcn. Ananias Sorem and Jay Dyer who are lumped in with those called ‘radtrads’. I assume Fr. Josiah Trenham would be labeled the same.

    It’s rather disturbing to hear this label being filtered down into parishes. Apparently, if one follows the teachings of the Church, scripture and Holy Tradition one is considered radical and a traditionalist! Horrors!!! (Sarcasm alert.)

    Frankly, I prefer to listen to Fr. Heers over Mr. Cabe any day. And Fr. Josiah, Fr. Spirydon and Fr. Seraphim from Mull Monastery over some of the more ‘current minded’ priests.

    • Illumined says

      Doesn’t anyone else think it’s interesting that Mr. Cabe would go onto a Roman Catholic apologetics channel to complain about his fellow brothers in the church? That channel has recently put out multiple anti-Orthodox videos even before that interview and Mr Cabe is deliberately helping them to dissuade people from joining the church. Incredible.

    • Though sometimes interesting, Cabe (and also Rod Dreher) meet the “presentable to a high school librarian” standard. They’re overly kind and go out of their way to avoid being offensive. It’s a classic feminized approach that most of us experienced ad nauseum in high school. Most of us who grew up in the Anglo-American world where “polite Englishness” was/is considered the aspirational standard know what this approach is hands-down. The trans/lesbian Episcopal Church “bishop” is very good at this approach.

      Then there’s Jay Dyer, Fr Peter Heers, Fr Josiah Trenham, Fr Hans Jacobse and others who are far more interesting and compelling (and are often funny & enjoyable to listen to) who thankfully eschew this approach. I think Jay Dyer is wonderful and always learn a lot from him. Same with the others.

      Those of us who’ve gotten past the idea that the “Anglo-American polite Englishman” should be our aspirational standard often prefer the latter, especially if we are men. I can’t listen to Benjamin Cabe — he’s excruciatingly boring in my opinion. But I bet many high school librarians like him….

      All joking aside, in these culturally disastrous times, the Dyer/Heers/Trenham/Jacobse etc. approach is far more needed and far more effective, in my opinion. It’s also the far more masculine approach. Cabe and Dreher take the polite feminized approach, which frankly makes many Orthodox men just fall asleep.

      On Fr Peter Heers’s canonical status, I honestly don’t care what it is. I pray that he’s doing well, whatever he’s doing now. ROCOR was considered “uncanonical” (for some bizarre reason) by many in the 20th century. St John Maximovitch didn’t care one whit about that. The Russian Metropolia in America (the early OCA) was considered “uncanonical” from about 1946 through 1970. Frs Alexander Schmemann, John Meyendorff, and Georges Florovsky didn’t care.

      • Still seems weird to hear people refer to Dreher as a polite and feminized speaker. To those on the left, he’s only marginally better than Fr Peter et al.

        • I guess it’s just a matter of perspective!

          Seriously though, while I respect Dreher’s insights, and agree with a lot of what he says/writes, at the end of the day, his purpose is to be the gatekeeper of acceptable conservative thought (essentially, William F Buckley for the present period).

          At this point, we need more fire-breathers proclaiming the truth. Enough with the Casper Milquetoasts out there.

  18. Fr Peter would be such a blessing to our jurisdiction!! Can we write our bishops to beg them to take him?

    • I think there would be bishops who would take him. But there is a lot of freedom not being under a bishop. He may not want to lose that. We’ve offered to help him with letters and whatnot, but he’s doesn’t even respond. He’s not interested.

      • If he doesn’t respond, you shouldn’t take the leap to say he’s not interested in resolving his situation. That’s assuming too much.

        • Well, we were conversing back and forth. I asked him to respond if he was interested and he didn’t. No leap here. Jessie.

          • Unless you have some connections or clout within the MP, I don’t see what you could do, though I’m sure you mean well. Given his sentiments regarding ecumenism, I doubt he would be comfortable in any of the new calendar jurisdictions.

  19. Joseph Lipper says

    ROCOR was first to point out that Fr Peter Heers has no connection with them. Was that an evil and slanderous attack by ROCOR? No, of course not.

    The statement from the AoB is really no different, except it additionally points out that a priest operating in the U.S. without a bishop then functions “outside of the Holy Canons”. This is a very simple concept.

    Father Peter was released from the jurisdiction and authority of the Church of Greece. He sought to be released in order to join the Moscow Patriarchate in the U.S., but the MP changed their mind and decided not to receive him. So, that means that Fr. Peter Heers is currently in “trans-jurisdictional limbo” without the right, according to the Holy Canons, to function as a priest.

    A bishop from any jurisdiction could still invite him to concelebrate, but that’s really the extent of what he can do. The photographed instances of him concelebrating with bishops, that he proudly displays like trophies, shouldn’t fool anybody about this.

    So why doesn’t the Moscow Patriarchate want to receive him? That’s the question people should really be asking. That’s where he was supposed to be.

  20. Antiochene Son says

    This is unfortunate. I like Fr. Heers, but the Church operates on a hierarchy of authority. If he has no bishop he has no authority.

    • And as you know, anything can be fixed in the Church. Not saying it’s always pleasant, but there is a way out of things; it’s call the “right way.”

  21. My guess is the problem lies with the MP, who were initially supposed to receive him, then subsequently reneged, allegedly because the patriarch had not approved it. That is why ROCOR backed up, being under the MP.

    Regardless, the hierarchs need to get their ducks in a row or people like us will eventually dive deeper into the specifics which may not look good for anyone.

    • He left Greece with a release for the MP. He received an assignment from the MP which he didn’t take because he wanted to transfer to ROCOR. The MP never had him to release him.

      The people who are speaking on his behalf need to get their ducks in a row. No two of these scenarios match. If Fr. Peter Heers has a problem with anything said, he needs to correct it.

      • What puzzles me is the interest in the matter. Who cares? And why?

        Having seen much in the Church, I have witnessed many anomalies which are much more troubling than this. What I think is occurring is that those who have a problem with Fr. Peter’s stances on this or that are attempting to use this as a battering ram against him. Of course, for what it’s worth, everyone is entitled to be as indignant as they choose.

        But the fact is that his critics have no power to do anything except shun him. Only the bishops can do anything. The bishops of the Church of Russia do not seem to be exercised about the situation so neither am I. If other bishops; i.e., the AOB, feel aggrieved, then they can formally ask the ROC to address the matter or else just continue pounding sand. The fact that it has not been resolved to date indicates to me that it is far from a priority for the ROC.

        • A lot of people are, apparently.

        • It is puzzling to me, too, but from the standpoint that people are making up all these nefarious reasons why Fr. Peter is being targeted by the bishops.


          What has he done wrong?

          He has served with some really good people who think a lot of him. He’s considered an excellent teacher. Why tarnish his reputation by impugning all kinds of motives to an action that has nothing to do with Fr. Peter being a bad person or a bad priest?

          When you have the kind of on-line presence Fr. Peter has, A LOT of people care.

      • Joseph Lipper says

        Gail, your suggestion that it was actually Fr. Peter Heers’ decision to not join the MP (himself wanting to join ROCOR instead) would place this mess firmly on his own shoulders. Perhaps that’s true.

        Father Peter was supposed to be in the Moscow Patriarchate, but Mr. Trulia’s research indicates that he was never actually received. This would either have been the decision of Fr. Peter or the MP.

  22. This communique means nothing. He never asked to be released to any of these bishops. Met. Seraphim, the MP and ROCOR are not part of the organization that issued the statement. From what I see none of the three parties involved with him have ever said he was not in good standing.

  23. It’s quite obvious the MP. doesn’t want him because he is anti-ecumenist. Fr. Peter Heeres should collaborate with the old calendarists in Etna California as did Dr. Constantine Cavarnos before him

  24. If you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that gets hit yelps the loudest. The “rocks” Fr Peter has been throwing are the “teachings of the Fathers.” Apparently, several bishops (and quite a few priests) in this country have been hit, and it hurts and now, they are yelping. He is one of the most honorable priests I have ever known.

    • As far as I know, NO OTHER PRIEST has been hit with a communique like this.

      • Joseph Lipper says

        Perhaps he could get it framed, or at least post it on his website, having the great and singular honor of this communique.

        • Precisely – a priest getting called out by an organization of bishops from overlapping jurisdictions which is controlled by schismatics who invented a fake church on another church’s canonical territory, ostensibly on account of uncanonical behavior. Pot, kettle? More like a badge of honor.

          You have to have a sense of humor given the hypocrisy. Reminds me of the Council of 1872 in C’pol.

      • BluesDaddy says

        Perhaps because the opportunity did not exist. The anomalies in Fr. Peter’s situation allowed for ecclesiastical punishment of an extremely visible priest who has been a thorn in the side of the established order. Especially given what we see in the data NOW regarding COVID and the various “responses” to it, especially lockdowns, etc., Fr. Peter’s assertions seem all the more valid and correct, which must also gall some. Given that ecclesiastical agencies (e.g. AOCB) are typically run on a daily basis by clergy, and non-clergy, staff who are invariably far less conservative or traditional than those for whom they work, and Church laity as a whole; and given that such are drawn from North east liberal enclave in which they are located – I suspect there are motivations at work that are more punitive than corrective. I’d place much more weight on the communique if Bishops had actually put their names to it. As it is, some staff member undoubtedly drafted it and whatever body has delegated authority in New York approved it to be sent out. Now very possible all the bishops approve of it, or it is possible that the language did not appear to them, at the time, to be quite as provocative as it has turned out to be. It would have been better for the faithful, IMO (which, obviously, carries no weight other than for myself), for each bishop to have put his name to it. As it is, there is the distinct odor of ecclesiastical politics about it.

        • So many reasons we can think of to explain why he’s in the predicament he is in and has been since 2017. But it’s all water under the bridge if he has a bishop.

      • ROCOR Layman says

        And what does that tell you?

        We have people like Fr. Christopher Calin in NYC causing scandals often enough for his name to be familiar around these parts, as well as a plethora of other, liberal-leaning clergy who outrage the faithful fairly frequently, not to mention he-who-will-not-be-named at the head of GOARCH.

        Fr. David is correct – Fr. Peter’s teachings are causing the complacent episcopate of America consternation because Fr. Peter and the people who align with him take the faith more seriously than the episcopate. The bishops don’t want to be held to account for their compromises, liberalism, and ecumenism. Simple as that.

        • They say he has no bishop. Is that true or false? Because that is where this is coming from. Name his bishop and this will all go away.

      • Gail, I share your frustration as you keep writing “name his Bishop” … but who created this situation and who has the power? Is it Fr. Peters fault, what did he do wrong? We know Fr. Peter has at least one Bishop, he could have as many as 3 Bishops according to some, let’s pray for him as he seeks to resolve this as there are plenty of people who are working against him (sadly).

        • Who does Fr. Peter say created it?

          • Anonymous says

            “He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be a defender of Orthodoxy, let him now come down from the cross and cast blame on those unworthy bishops who have thrown him under the bus, and we will believe him. He trusted in God; let Him deliver him now, if He will have him: for he said, ‘I am following the Fathers.'”

          • There are some right now actively working against Fr Peter so he doesn’t achieve the very thing they demand of him. Why the timing of this Communique? Why is a person on Twitter becoming unhinged that Fr Peter has a way to transfer and so writes hit pieces against him? In this arena I wouldn’t expect Fr Peter to share his thoughts or actions. My two cents is the MP started the dilemma and others added to it.

            • Who, Ella? Who is actively working against Fr. Peter Heers? He has served with very very respectable clergy. Have they now turned against him? What are they demanding of him?

              • Of course not those in the clergy, they are very respectable and God-forbid anyone is harboring poor intentions. Will take what I know to my confessor, pray this resolves as God blesses.

      • There are many, many priests (and even non-priests like us) who were/are of like mind when it comes to the horrors of ecumenicism.

        The bishops specifically say, “To the extent that this individual purports to act as an Orthodox priest in the United States, including celebrating the Divine Liturgy and the other services of the Church and teaching the faithful and those who inquire into Orthodoxy . . .”

        They said nothing about his platform or stance against ecumenicism.

        IMO, this is a distraction. If he had a bishop, there would be no reason for this communique. It’s a strawman argument to suggest otherwise.

        In conversations I’ve had with people a lot closer to the situation than you or I, it’s about Fr. Peter Heers saying he’s an Orthodox priest in the Orthodox Church, when he’s not because he doesn’t have a bishop.

        The ROCOR Holy Synod asked Fr. Peter to straighten out his irregular status years ago, even serving with him assuming it would be done, long before he came under scrutiny. It was a decision on his part not to honor their request. He could have made the effort to come under a bishop had this been something he wanted. We would have supported that. I think a lot of people would have. It’s illogical to assume it’s about his platform when so many priests and lay people fall under the same umbrella with respect to stating the same beliefs, without running afoul of our bishops.

        Jason, we welcome people’s opinions here. We have have published a boatload of comments about Fr. Peter Heers since this communique came out. But we aren’t going to allow people who have seemingly no connection to us to use our blog as a platform for apologetics on behalf of Fr. Peter Heers. Frankly, it’s gossip at this point as he has not come out with his own statement.

        Where is this guy? Why won’t he say something?! Why should we be a vehicle for him when he doesn’t care to come out and defend himself. If he wants us to continue to talk about him, he needs to contact us and come on the blog. We have a contact page. He has my email address as we’ve communicated in the past.

        So feel free to stay, but arguing the point that the bishops are not being truthful or that they are targeting him because of X,Y,Z is not something we’re going to continue to entertain. People we don’t normally see on Monomakhos have literally popped up over night and hijacked our blog, which frankly is inconsiderate at this point.

        Our concern is not Fr. Peter. That doesn’t mean we don’t wish him well or hope he finds a bishop, but it’s “good-bye” for us on Monomakhos in terms of this story unless we’re talking to him directly. We have 3 new stories out there that are not getting the attention they deserve.

        I appreciate your understanding. Monomakhos will be moving on.

    • Antiochene Son says

      That is fine and good, but you must know Father that a priest must have a bishop to be legitimate.

      • This is untrue. He needs a bishop to serve liturgy under. For him to not be in good standing he needs to either be under suspension or defrocked. We know this is not the case, because he has and does concelebrate through ROCOR. It’s obvious this SBC/Scoba (whatever they call themselves) are terrified of his anti-ecumenist and anti-vax stance . And looking at the timeline of event and facts it’s the same reason his “paper work” sort of got lost or never reached the MP or whatever. At this point in time my position is slightly evolving and I have a feeling he is indeed under the protection of the ROCOR with the assignment to speak out against modernism and ecumenism especially amongst the greeks. This would not be the first time (ex: Petros of Astoria), the fact that he does concelebrate in ROCOR parishes is a give away to me

        • Antiochene Sona says

          A presbyter acts in behalf of his bishop—not just in serving the liturgy, but in all things. We don’t have vagrant priests in the Orthodox Church; the priest exercises in a limited fashion the bishop’s office. This is basic St Ignatius of Antioch stuff.

  25. Joseph Lipper says

    Sometimes covert agents are denied by their superiors because of the secret nature of their work. Perhaps Fr. Peter really is an undercover priest of the Moscow Patriarchate and his secret assigned task is to lock horns with the Assembly of Bishops. 🤔

    At any rate, it is interesting that the MP doesn’t have anything at all to say about Fr. Peter. It’s like they just hold their palms up and shrug their shoulders.

    • Joseph Not Moscow. Moscow is as ecumenist as it gets, they accept the salvific validity of Latin and Anglican sacraments etc. ROCOR on the other hand is anti-ecumenist and known for this kind of covert stuff, right down to secretly ordaining bishops for this cause in the past, denying it publicly or claiming renegade bishops (who never get reprimanded) ordained them, while simultaneously having photo ops with said clergy. What ROCOR has not explained is why then Fr. Heeres frequently concelebrates in ROCOR parishes, why just 6 months ago he served with Bishop Luke at Jordanville and the fact ROCOR addressed him by the title, “the very Reverend archpriest” .

      • ROCOR Layman says

        What ROCOR has not explained is why then Fr. Heeres frequently concelebrates in ROCOR parishes, why just 6 months ago he served with Bishop Luke at Jordanville and the fact ROCOR addressed him by the title, “the very Reverend archpriest”

        Because he’s still an Archpriest in good standing. He hasn’t been defrocked. His status is irregular, but he’s not under ecclesiastical discipline, so bishops can bless him to concelebrate at their parishes if they wish.

        • They said, “To the extent that this individual purports to act as an Orthodox priest in the United States, including celebrating the Divine Liturgy and the other services of the Church and teaching the faithful and those who inquire into Orthodoxy, he does so in a manner outside of the Holy Canons.”

          So bishops cannot “bless him to concelebrate at their parishes if they wish.” 6 mo is a long time ago. It’s when ROCOR issued their own statement that he was not a ROCOR priest under Bishop Luke, I believe.

          • ROCOR Layman says

            Well they have done so. He probably doesn’t have an antimension, so can’t celebrate Divine Liturgy on his own, but nothing has stopped bishops from allowing him to serve with them, or with their approval at their parishes.

          • The six months ago was when fr. Peter Heeres addressed the issue and showed he was concelebrating and no evidence that he does not today. The ROCOR memo only says he’s not a member of the Eastern Diocese. How about the other two,? The title “Very Reverend archpriest” itself is a title given to priests in the ROCOR and is considered higher than just priest, and certainly not a holdover from Greece.

            • No evidence that he doesn’t isn’t evidence that he does. What kind of logic is this?

              Assuming you’re being sincere, where it says, “. . . Peter Heers is not a clergyman of the Eastern American Diocese or of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia,” the “or before the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia,” means all 3 ROCORS.

              They call out the Eastern American Diocese because that’s where people thought he was a priest.

              People thought he was a priest under Bishop Luke because on Fr. Peter Heer’s website he said the following: “In 2021 I was received into ROCOR by Metropolitan Hilarion of New York (of blessed memory) and assigned to the clergy of Holy Trinity Monastery, being a lecturer at Holy Trinity Seminary in the certificate program.”

              He was assigned there. But as a lecturer, not a priest, which ROCOR confirmed.

              I think you’ve made your point with your many, many comments. Maybe it’s time to let other people comment or move off this topic altogether because it’s obviously painful for a lot of people.

  26. Personally, I’d like to think that this communique from ACOB has settled this issue. It appears that for many, the issue is still a festering wound.

    For those who fall into this category, I suggest contacting your local bishop. For all of us, we should pray for all concerned, including the bishops.

    As for me, I’d prefer that we drop the issue entirely as it is impossible for any of us to resolve this issue. Let me repeat: it is the purview of the bishops. That means it’s out of our hands.

    • I would really be curious to know who penned this letter and which bishops signed it.

      When the bishops sent out a letter addressing Elpidophoros during the Belya debacle, they signed their names to the letter.

      Obviously no hierarch from ROCOR signed the letter. I highly doubt the Antiochian Metropolitan signed it, since he hasn’t been enthroned yet. I’m suspicious that the Serbians signed it.

      My guess is if we were to see the names it would surely be Elpidophoros, Savvas of Pittsburg and a few other (mostly Greek). I could be wrong but that’s my strong hunch.

      If ROCOR has accepted Fr. Peter, or, if they are working on his situation then it’s up to them to release a statement on his canonical situation to not cause further scandal, especially given how high profile Fr. Peter and Orthodox Ethos are.

      On a separate note, the AOB really did not do themselves any favors releasing such a strong statement against a very popular and well-liked priest like Fr. Peter, who rose to fame precisely bc these same bishops massively dropped the ball during covid.
      All while at the same time not addressing the massive scandals caused by Fordham, OiD – and especially while still being under the chairmanship of Elpidophoros. It reeks of hypocrisy in the highest degree.

      – They have failed to maintain unity in America
      – One of the fastest growing jurisdictions (ROCOR) is not even on the Assembly
      – It’s essentially a Greek-run banana republic

      This will either hasten the demise of the AOB or just further delegitimize it.

      Met. Saba of the AAONA met with both hierarchs from ROCOR as well as Elpidophoros last week, will be very interesting to see what will happen when he’s enthroned, especially given the close ties Antioch has with Russia. Met. Saba is from Latakya where there is a massive Russian naval base so there are close Russian ties

    • I too consider the matter settled. The AOB have issued their opinion, for what it’s worth. The local churches which actually have jurisdiction and legitimate canonical authority in the matter, the Church of Greece and the ROC, do not seem to be exercised about it. Therefore, IMO, it’s a non-issue.

      Several years ago, a Romanian bishop received communion in a Roman Catholic church. There were inquiries from other jurisdictions and he was called before the synod and apologized. This is a tempest in a teapot compared to even that, which was not the end of the world.

      Nothing I’ve written should be construed to mean that it’s ok for a priest to go indefinitely without a bishop. I just think it’s minor housekeeping at the most.

  27. This brings up the question: what are faithful priests and laity supposed to do if/when the bishops become corrupted? Just throwing it out there, but one route would be to become a lay Orthodox preacher, similar to those in the “Bespopovtsy” branch of Old Believers. Elijah didn’t go around begging to be accepted as a clergy in the hierarchy of the contemporaneous corrupted religion that worshipped Baal under the leadership of Jezebel. He fought them from the outside. Perhaps Fr. Peters can become preacher Peters and do the same thing

    • People on this blog have suggested that Orthodoxy is “big enough” to accept people with strong views such as the anti-abortion stalwart Father Frank Pavone, who was recently defrocked by the Roman Catholic Church. Well, Father Peter Heers’ case seems to say otherwise. In some ways, Fr. Pavone would be an even bigger “hot potato” for spineless Orhodox bishops, since the entire arsenal of the pro-abortion allies would be aimed at any bishop who accepts Fr. Pavone. Fr. Pavone has said that he’ll just wait as a layman for the next pope to reinstate him. People on this blog have also suggested that the Athonite/Ephraim-founded monasteries in the US switch to ROCOR/MP/Antiochian/OCA. Well, what if spineless ROCOR/MP/Antiochian/OCA does the same thing to them as they are doing to Fr. Heers? Yeah, we’ll accept you, uhhh just kidding we don’t haha.

      • So now it’s the “people on this blog” that are the problem?

        • I’m sorry, I honestly didn’t mean to point fingers at anyone or to assign any sort of blame, just to reference the suggestions that I have read in the past and draw parallels to the issue at hand. I should have used passive tense and said “it has been suggested that…”. I actually love the idea of Fr. Pavone coming to Orthodoxy, but we would need strong leadership from Orthodox bishops to make it work. Otherwise it would leave a bad taste in people’s mouth and hinder others from coming to Orthodoxy. Similarly, I like the idea of Athonite/Ephraim-founded monasteries moving to ROCOR, but we again need strong leadership from the ROCOR bishops to have the monks’ backs. We certainly wouldn’t want them left in limbo like seems to be the case with Fr. Peter.

    • Ideagirl, you bring up an interesting point. St Paissius back in Turkish-occupied Greece (18th century) was an itinerant preacher and quite successful. He was martyred by the local Turkish bey but a case could be made that he set in motion the Greek war for independence the following century.

      • I was wrong: it was St Cosmas the Aeitolian.

        • Thanks for mentioning this example! It’s great to know that there have been well-regarded Orthodox lay preachers in the past. I also see the point others have made, namely that there is an inherent risk that lay preachers who lack consistent hierarchical oversight may find it easier to stray from Orthodox dogma.

    • So, in your estimation ROCOR Bishops are now corrupt since they didn’t accept Peter Heers? He should become a freelance preacher and you will follow him?

      Thanks be to God that we have bishops who we can follow. They are not perfect but we are not called to be their judge on such things. I am proud to stand with the ROCOR Bishops, the Antiochian Bishops, and the OCA bishops among others who stand for the truth in these troubled times. One can pick them apart, but to what end? Certainly not our salvation.

      • Valid points. I think the Antichrist will first target the bishops, by corrupting/co-opting/killing them, because that’s the most efficient way to demoralize the flock and dismantle a hierarchical Church (the attacks won’t be successful because Christ is the head of the Church, but it will nonetheless be a testing time). So there may come a time when the faithful priests and laity will have to decentralize somewhat and go back to the catacombs.The more spine the bishops display today in standing up for what is right, the longer we can postpone that sad day.

        To perhaps make the counter argument, maybe the deafening silence from the ROCOR/MP bishops about Fr. Peter and from Fr. Peter himself is a strategy akin to Jesus telling others to be silent about him (Mark 1:43; 5:43; 7:33–36; 8:22–26, 8:30; 9:9)

    • Antiochene Son says

      Saying the answer is to go into schism, especially on the model of a sect that heretically rejects the priesthood, is problematic at least, and probably is also the heresy of Donatism. That is emphatically NOT the answer.

      Elijah was a great prophet called uniquely by God. If anyone, no matter how authentically Orthodox, went around claiming to be a new prophet like Elijah, I would say that person is almost certainly in prelest, and his followers a cult.

      The Holy Spirit works in the Church in spite of its unfaithful clergy AND its unfaithful people. There is something to be said for getting the kind of hierarchy we collectively deserve. We are in a time of testing and many will fall away, that does not excuse us to also be unfaithful and go do our own thing.

      • I agree that it is unfortunate and heretical to deny the priesthood, but I brought up the historical parallels to the Bespopovtsy Old Believers partially to show to the bishops, some of whom don’t seem to have much courage, what the consequences are for such passive-aggressive shunning of a priest who doesn’t seem to have done anything wrong other than to stand up for what is right on a number of sensitive issues. If anyone knows of any wrongdoing by Fr. Peter, it would be great to make it known so that we can all stop pestering the wrong people (the bishops) and scratching our heads at this weird situation.

  28. Fr peter Heeres does not need to go into schism as he is not in schism. The statement is meaningless until ROCOR explains why they address him with the Slavic tradition of “very Rev Archpriest”. He did not get this title from Greeks because we don’t use it, it is bestowed upon him by ROCOR reserved for ROCOR priests . The one sentence statement only says he is not a clergy member of the Eastern American diocese. Ok how about the other two rocor diocese in America??? As far as I’m concerned he is a member of ROCOR until they explain why they acknowledge him by the ROCOR title of “very Rev Archpriest” and has been co-celebrating Liturgy with them

    • Their statement is meaningless???

      • It means something to the jurisdictions that participate in this conference. But Heeres never said he is under any of them. The fact this communique is paraded by the usual suspects such as PublicOrthodoxy, russophobic pro EP, groups and organizations /which constantly claim he is not a priest at all precisely because of this statement. It’s obvious the ROCOR see him as a priest in good standing which is the very group he was released to. The statement itself makes nonsensical claims such as serving liturgy against the canons How does that happen? Does he have a makeshift altar and serves out of his house? He has access to a chapel, he serves out of? I doubt it because they would have said so.

        • Yes, it means something to all of them or they would not have been able to circulate it. You might want to contact them if you have a problem with it, as neither George or I had anything to do with it other than positing it. –This is quite a list and for those of us who are in their respective parishes, it gives one pause, as I think few would want to run afoul of their bishop. It would not surprise me to learn that our priests make note of this, as well, and mention it in our parishes. We shall see. – I get that people are disappointed, but this is a serious indictment and it’s not one bishop. It’s all of them.

          Archbishop Elpidophoros
          Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
          10 East 79th Street
          New York, NY 10075

          Metropolitan Methodios
          Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
          162 Goddard Ave
          Brookline, MA 02445

          Metropolitan Isaiah
          Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
          4550 East Alameda Avenue
          Denver, CO 80246-1208

          Metropolitan Alexios
          Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
          2480 Clairmont Road, N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30329

          Metropolitan Nicholas
          Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
          2560 Crooks Road
          Troy, MI 48084

          Metropolitan Savas
          Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
          5201 Ellsworth Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15232

          Metropolitan Gerasimos
          Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
          245 Valencia Street
          San Francisco, CA 94103

          Metropolitan Nathanael
          Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
          555 East Butterfield Road
          Suite 201
          Lombard, IL 60148

          Bishop Sevastianos
          Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
          2480 Clairmont Road, N.E.
          Atlanta, GA 30329

          Bishop Apostolos
          Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
          215 East Grove Street
          Westfield, NJ 07090

          Bishop Joachim
          Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
          50 Goddard Avenue
          Brookline, MA 02445

          Bishop Spyridon
          Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
          245 Valencia Street
          San Francisco, CA 94103

          Bishop Timothy
          Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
          555 East Butterfield Road
          Suite 201
          Lombard, IL 60148

          Bishop Ioannis
          Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
          245 Valencia Street
          San Francisco, CA 94103

          Bishop Constantine
          Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
          4550 East Alameda Avenue
          Denver, CO 80246-1208

          Bishop Athenagoras
          Ecumenical Patriarchate
          8 East 79th Street
          New York, NY

          Metropolitan Antony
          Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA
          P.O. Box 495
          South Bound Brook, NJ 08880

          Archbishop Daniel
          Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA
          P.O. Box 495
          South Bound Brook, NJ 08880

          Metropolitan Gregory
          American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese of the USA
          312 Garfield Street
          Johnstown, PA 15906

          Metropolitan Evangelos
          Ecumenical Patriarchate
          P.O. Box 701306
          East Elmhurst, NY 11370

          Metropolitan Tarasios
          Ecumenical Patriarchate
          2309 Hearst Avenue
          Berkeley, CA 94709

          Bishop Ierotheos
          Ecumenical Patriarchate
          36-07 23rd Avenue
          Astoria, NY 11105-1916


          Metropolitan Antonios
          Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
          358 Mountain Road
          Englewood, NJ 07631

          Bishop Thomas
          Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
          4407 Kanawha Avenue, S.E.
          Charleston, WV 25304

          Bishop Alexander
          Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
          10820 Rue Laverdure
          Montreal, QC H3L 2L9 Canada

          Bishop John
          Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
          2 Lydias Path
          Westborough, MA 01581-1841

          Bishop Anthony
          Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
          5549 Ginger Tree Lane
          Toledo, OH 43623

          Bishop Nicholas
          Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
          500 Stonemont Lane
          Weston, FL 33326


          Bishop Matthew
          The Moscow Patriarchal Parishes in the USA
          15 East 97th Street
          New York, NY 10029

          Metropolitan Nicholas
          Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia
          75 East 93rd Street
          New York, NY 10128

          Archbishop Kyrill
          Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia
          109 6th Avenue
          San Francisco, CA 94118

          Archbishop Peter
          Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia
          P.O. Box 1367
          Des Plaines, IL 60017

          Bishop John
          Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia
          Núñez 3541 1430
          Buenos Aires, Argentina

          Bishop Theodosy
          Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia
          598 15th Avenue
          San Francisco, CA 94118

          Bishop Luke
          Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia
          P.O. Box 36
          Jordanville, NY 13361

          Bishop James
          Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia
          864 Fulton Street
          San Francisco, CA 94117


          Bishop Longin
          Serbian Orthodox Church in North, Central and South America
          P.O. Box 371
          Grayslake, IL 60030

          Bishop Maxim
          Serbian Orthodox Church in North, Central and South America
          1621 West Garvey Avenue
          Alhambra, CA 91803

          Bishop Irinej
          Serbian Orthodox Church in North, Central and South America
          65 Overlook Circle
          New Rochelle, NY 10804-4501


          Metropolitan Nicolae
          Romanian Orthodox Metropolia of the Americas
          5410 North Newland
          Chicago, IL 60656-2026


          Metropolitan Joseph
          Bulgarian Eastern Orthodox Diocese of the USA, Canada, and Australia
          550-A West 50th Street
          New York, NY 10019


          Bishop Saba
          Georgian Apostolic Orthodox Church in North America
          59 Charles St
          Ashley, PA 18706


          Metropolitan Tikhon
          Orthodox Church in America
          P.O. Box 675
          Syosset, NY 11791

          Archbishop Nathaniel
          Orthodox Church in America
          P.O. Box 309
          Grass Lake, MI 49240

          Archbishop Benjamin
          Orthodox Church in America
          1520 Green Street
          San Francisco, CA 94123

          Archbishop Melchisedek
          Orthodox Church in America
          P.O. Box 1769
          Cranberry Township, PA 16066-1769

          Archbishop Mark
          Orthodox Church in America
          325 North Walnut Street
          Bath, PA 18014

          Archbishop Michael
          Orthodox Church in America
          33 Hewitt Avenue
          Bronxville, NY 10708

          Archbishop Alexander
          Orthodox Church in America
          519 Brynhaven Drive
          Oregon, OH 43616

          Archbishop Daniel
          Orthodox Church in America
          5037 West 83rd Street
          Burbank, IL 60459

          Bishop Alexis
          Orthodox Church in America
          7031 Howard Avenue
          Anchorage, AK 99504-1899

          Bishop Andrei
          Orthodox Church in America
          2522 Grey Tower Road
          Jackson, MI 49201-9120

          Bishop Gerasim
          Orthodox Church in America
          4218 Wycliff Avenue
          Dallas, TX 75219-3101

          • I quite agree.

          • How can the bishops listed under the Patriarchate of Moscow be signatories of and approve of this ACOB communique when they in fact no longer participate in ACOB proceedings due to their break with the EP church and its underlings? My guess is that if the Patriarchate of Moscow is not on board, a lot of other bishops who are assumed to be signatories probably aren’t even aware of this issue. It wouldn’t be the first time when the bureaucrat “executives” in one of these loosely-held nonprofit organtizations (ie. ACOB) do things behind the back of the organization’s board of directors (ie. the bishops), fraudulently speaking in the name of the directors. Though I guess the bureaucrats keep themselves from getting into legal trouble by conspicuously NOT including the bishop’s names at the end of the communique, a fact that should raise suspicion in its own right.

            • If they’re on the list I’d copied and pasted from the ACOB, you’d have to talk with them because I don’t know.

  29. Peter A. Papoutsis says
    • A beautiful response to the communiqué.

    • Joseph Lipper says

      Father Peter Heers erroneously says, once again, that he is a priest “in good standing” by proudly pointing out that he has never been disciplined. Without a bishop, though, he cannot serve as a priest in good standing. Without a bishop, he can’t be disciplined by default.

      Father Peter also falsely presumes that the communique of the AOB somehow seeks to resolve his irregular status. That is simply not the case. He writes:

      “Even though the communique bears no signature(s), I am grateful to know of their concern for me and a desire for a resolution of the matter, which, thanks be to God, is very close to finally being achieved.”

      Yet this communique wasn’t even addressed to him. Fr. Peter says the resolution of his problem “is very close to finally being achieved”, but how? There is no indication from the AOB that any bishop is even in talks with him.

      • Brendan says

        “Father Peter also falsely presumes that …”

        How do you know this?

        • What he is saying, Brendan, is that without a bishop it is impossible to be a priest “in good standing,” as that status is afforded only by a bishop. Not by a priest. – To say he is undisciplined is a given. There is no one over him to discipline him.

          • Brendan says

            You miss my point. His words are carefully chosen for effect.
            He knows the difference between erroneously and falsely.

            • I do see what you’re talking about with respect to Joseph’s wording. It’s possible he knows something we don’t. It’s also possible he is deducing this from Heer’s response to the communique.

        • Joseph Lipper says

          Brendan, from this communique only, Fr. Peter would lead us to believe that the AOB is somehow showing a concern for him and a desire that his irregular status be resolved. In his response, he writes:

          “Even though the communique bears no signature(s), I am grateful to know of their concern for me and a desire for a resolution of the matter…”

          It’s purely a false presumption here that the communique is somehow expressing any “concern” and “desire” that Fr. Peter’s irregular status be resolved. It’s just not there:

          The communique wasn’t addressed to him anyways, and Fr. Peter himself admits that he only learned about it from the internet.

          Fr. Peter’s response appears mostly designed to ignore the communique and keep people subscribing to his OrthodoxEthos website. I suppose if his status isn’t “resolved” soon, then he would likely have us believe that he’s become a hapless victim of the Assembly of Bishops.

          What the AOB communique does suggest is that Fr. Peter Heers “purports to act as an Orthodox priest in the United States, including celebrating the Divine Liturgy and the other services of the Church and teaching the faithful and those who inquire into Orthodoxy, … in a manner outside of the Holy Canons.” That’s pretty serious.

          I would wish that Father Peter would at least respond to these intimations by assuring us that he is not violating the Holy Canons in any way. Unfortunately, he does not even attempt to do that.

          • Brendan says

            You don’t do irony, do you?

            • Joseph Lipper says

              Brendan, let’s pray for a bishop in America that will appreciate Fr. Peter Heer’s irony.

              Fr. Peter’s ironic response suggests it’s the bishops, not him, who are the actual problem: for being indifferent, for not wanting to receive him, and for saying bad things about him, all while he remains without a bishop and still as “a priest in good standing”. The tone of his response thus sounds to me like a criticism of the AOB. Perhaps he’s not actually interested in having canonical oversight anyways, being that it might crimp his “good standing” as an internet priest.

              • Brendan says

                Joseph, Father Peter cannot sort this himself.
                He does not possess the authority.
                The bishops have the authority,
                yet they have not sorted it.

                Let the wyte fall where it will…

                • Joseph Lipper says

                  Brendan, yes, it is the bishops, and not Fr. Peter, who have the authority, and the bishops just publicly used their authority with this communique to sort out Fr. Peter’s situation.

                  • Brendan says

                    Joseph, “sort out Father Peter’s situation”
                    is precisely what the bishops have not done.
                    They have described it, but not fixed it.

      • Things will either change or they won’t. In either case it will be a resolution.

        • Archpriest Alexander F. C. Webster says

          Gail, I thought you “closed” this website to additional posts concerning Archpriest Peter H. Heers a few days ago. And yet the wild, uncharitable speculation and gossip about the character of a longtime Orthodox archpriest continues apace here as if this blog were a tabloid specializing in sensationalism. I am confident that, in due course, the suspicions and “controversy” swirling around Fr. Peter will be put to rest.

          • Well, Father, as the editor I can open and close things at will. I closed down the discussion and provided the explanation why. (See comment 2023/04/27 at 1:55 pm) We were receiving a flurry of activity from people who were only peripherally connected to our blog (if at all) before we had an opportunity to even hear from him. It was all speculation and a major distraction.

            This week, he decided to respond to the communique. Since his comment we have received far fewer responses so the activity is more manageable and doesn’t detract from the rest of what we have going on.

            “Speculation” is only natural in a situation where an unattached priest for 6 years, claims to be a priest “in good standing,” after the bishops have come out en masse saying he operates outside the canons.

            If you want to come on the blog and provide an explanation, we’d be happy to have you.

            We are not a tabloid. You, yourself, have been featured on our blog, often at your request, and you and Fr. Peter Heers both wanted me to write a book with you. Apparently, saying someone’s blog is like a “tabloid” is what people do when you don’t say and do what they want you to. I am really sorry to see that, Father. I’m sure Fr. Peter has told you how I personally tried to help with this issue, as I have an opportunity to speak with various bishops on occasion about what we write. He wasn’t interested in my help and apparently I am to be given no credit for offering it or keeping the wolves at bay until he at least had the opportunity to respond.

            If/when Fr. Peter Heers is able to vindicate himself we will report that, too, with joy. For the people who love him more than anything else. Until then, we will not be suppressing comments unless the whole thing becomes a circus again.

      • For those whom may not know:
        2018 Fr. Peter was received by ROC MP USA
        2021 Fr. Peter was received by Met Hilarion/Bp Luke ROCOR
        *There are official documents from both jurisdictions to support these facts.
        2022 December, Rocor Secretary states “he is not a clergyman of Rocor”.
        Presently, Fr. Peter makes steps to a resolution.

        To say Fr. Peter was without a Bishop for years does not appear to hold water. Fr. Peter was received by ROC in 2018, and, Met. Hilarion/Bp Luke in early 2021 on official letterhead and can’t just be erased as if it didn’t happen. If there was a review or error by others it doesn’t negate the fact that this priest was in obedience to Bishops who received him by canonical letters and means. The most one can say is that Dec 2022 he was formally orphaned.

        • So, a couple of things.

          #1 This has the potential of being one of the most divisive issues we’ve seen on Monomahkos for a very long time. It’s not something that can be resolved here if people don’t want to accept the way things are.

          #2 I have to defend Joseph, as I would anyone I thought was right. Fr. Peter DOES falsely presume that the communique of the AOB somehow seeks to resolve his irregular status when he talks about their concern for him and their desire for a resolution. Maybe offline he’s hearing that but there is no evidence in the document itself. Joseph is just pointing out the obvious.

          #3. Ella, unless you can present the documents, it isn’t enough to make declarative statements. The letter from His Eminence, Metropolitan Nicholas that says Fr. Peter was never in ROCOR, there is no intention to bring him into ROCOR, and as far as ROCOR is concerned, he is still with the Church of Greece. They have the final word. Letters or emails mean nothing at this point. As far as ROCOR is concerned, Fr. Peter was never with ROCOR or the MP. The MP holds that stance, as well. Greece released him to the MP but the MP did not receive him and because the MP did not receive him, they cannot release him to ROCOR or anyone else.

          #4 Ella, you talk about official documents from both jurisdictions. Until a bishop is willing to receive Fr. Peter, they’re irrelevent. For the sake of argument, let’s say it is Fr. Peter who doesn’t want to be received. Again, these documents mean nothing. They cannot make him change his mind. Nor can they force a jurisdiction to take him if they don’t want to.

          #5 At this point there is no evidence any bishop within the AOB is talking with him about being a priest. Until things change, he is not under a bishop.

  30. From a technical canonical law perspective ACOB are right.
    However from a perspective on consistency and morality they are in great error.

    They couldn’t care about the lavender mafia, the enclave of origenists and ecumenists that seem to have come to define parts of American Orthodoxy.

    However, Fr Peter Heers speaks publicly against vaccines and the shutting down of churches? It’s all hands on deck it seems.

    What profound cowardice and opportunism,

    • Did he say that? Is it his feeling that his speaking out on the vaccines prompted the bishops to circulate this communique?

  31. Here are some bishops who have the courage of the Faith:

    Metropolitan of Corfu again acquitted of charges of violating COVID restrictions

    ‘ Despite the attempts of the local prosecutor, the Greek Orthodox Metropolitan of Corfu was again acquitted of all charges of violating COVID restrictions in 2020.

    His Eminence Metropolitan Nektarios was charged after celebrating the Divine Liturgy and holding a procession in honor of St. Spyridon on the feast of Palm Sunday three years ago. That October, he was acquitted of all charges.

    And yesterday, the three-member Criminal Court of Corfu upheld this earlier ruling, closing the case definitively, reports the Orthodoxia News Agency.

    In his statement to journalists, Met. Nektarios emphasized that “the Justice has shown that he shares and understands the love of Corfu and the people of Corfu for St. Spyridon and that he will always do his duty by doing his duty and loving the country and serving it until the end of his life.”

    Other hierarchs have also been acquitted of COVID-related charges.

    In November 2022, His Eminence Metropolitan Seraphim of Kythira of the Church of Greece was acquitted of all charges related to celebrating the services during the lockdown.

    In February 2023, His Eminence Metropolitan Joanikije of Montenegro of the Seerbian Orthodox Church and eight priests from Nikšić were also acquitted of charges from 2020.

    And in April 2023, His Eminence Metropolitan Neophytos of Morphou of the Church of Cyprus was acquitted of charges stemming from his blessing of a river on Theophany in 2021. ‘

  32. About 15 years ago at one of the “traditionalist” monasteries in the US, one of the Fathers (who has since left monasticism) taught me about a certain End Times teaching that he said was held within his family of monasteries. Disclosure: I’ve made my rounds within these monasteries and have never heard or read of this teaching from any other of the monastics.

    It was explained to me that according to St. Symeon the New Theologian, “true” Apostolic Succession is by the Holy Spirit and not necessarily by official Church fiat. In other words, Spirit-filled monastics have been and are the true successors to the Apostles. Mind you, I have never studied St. Symeon the New Theologian so I have no idea if this teaching is contained in his writings.

    Later when this monk left his monastery, I put this rather unique teaching almost out of memory, that is, until this Peter Heers-thing has erupted. Heers has been associated with these monasteries that I mentioned and he insists that he follows the “Spirit-filled Elders” and encourages his followers (Heeretics) to disobey their Bishops. Heers himself is not under any Bishop and for years and years has been repeating same the song and dance routine that his uncanonical status is pending a soon resolution once the paperwork or hierarchal snafu is worked out…

    Coupled with Heers fascination with Protestant Dispensationalism, particularly the End Times “Great Apostasy” part of that tradition, it seems to me that he has led his Heeretics to believe that the ending times Great Apostasy is indeed upon us and that Orthodox Christians should not put their trust in corrupted bishops but on the “Spirit-filled Elders” instead. To me it remains to be revealed whether Heers is following whom he believes are “Spirit-filled Elders” who are in no need of a bishop, or if Heers believes himself to be one of those Elders himself.

    These are only my thoughts on this Heers mess. I’m interested in any counter arguments from his followers or if there any of the brethren who can substantiate the End Times-No Bishops teaching that this monk (former) gave me.

    • I think it’s important to make a distinction between who Fr Peter Heers is as a person vs. what he teaches. They’re two different things.

      Fr Peter Heers is not a “company man” who works well within a prescribed framework. This is true of most gifted people who live and think outside the box. He is well-suited for teaching, however, as he clearly loves what he does, and is willing to do the extraordinary work of assembling the Holy Fathers and presenting them in a relevant, understandable way in the context of the life of the Church. – Probably better than anyone I’ve ever known in this respect.

      Unfortunately, his nature worked against him in this particular situation. I suspect unraveling messes is not his favorite thing!

      Yes, he needs a bishop, Ioann, but it’s unfair to suggest his own situation has ANYTHING to do with his teaching on bishops or the value in following Spirit-filled Elders, who themselves, are under the authority of the Church. Our Church has lived comfortably with Spirit-filled Elders and bishops since the beginning. They are not incompatible.

      And it’s not like Fr Peter doesn’t respect the role of bishop. Look at the people with whom he served. All very respectable. Not a crazy one within the lot! He also clearly wants a bishop. It’s dealing with messes he doesn’t like and it caught with him.

      Fr Peter Heer’s teaching is quite good, and frankly, it makes me mad that he let this other thing go which is why I offered to help him. What could I do do, someone asked? I could have gone to each of the bishops and told them that it would be in the BEST INTEREST OF THE CHURCH if they put this guy under somebody.

      I think the bishops know we’ve all suffered as a result of this situation. It was divisive. It pit us against one another. Frankly, the overwhelming support for Fr. Peter on all the blogs (which I could have predicted) hurt the Church and the bishops are partly responsible, especially if they have no intention of fixing anything going forward. No one wants to lose Fr Peter. You work with whom God gives you. They know that.

      But in their defense there were a lot of people asking them for clarification. That’s on Fr Peter. His explanations about his status were less than clear. Perhaps they hoped their admonishment would light a fire under Fr. Peter to be more forthcoming about his situation and to make whatever adjustments he has to make to come under a bishop going forward.

      I do know a few of the bishops, and of course hear about the rest of them given the blog, and they’re not mean-spirited, numbskulls by any stretch of the imagination. They’re good bishops, with very few exceptions. They’ll do the right thing. They may be privy to information that I don’t have, but I would respectfully request that if this situation is what it seems, they figure out a way to legitimize Fr Peter’s status. That’s what we do in the Church. We fix things and no one, least of all me, wants to lose what Fr Peter is uniquely qualified to do for the Church.

      What I would recommend to you, and this is true of anyone, take what they have to offer that is useful and disregard the rest.

      95%+ of what Fr Peter teaches is useful.

      • This is a very gracious assessment of Fr Peter’s ministry, if I may say so Gail.

        And so, as far as I’m concerned, nothing more needs to be said. It is up to the bishops to finally resolve this situation. In fact, it’s vital as Fr Peter has many gifts to bring to American Orthodoxy.

        At the risk of repeating myself, since nothing more productive can be said, I am asking everybody from this point forward to cease commenting on this particular topic. There are other topics which I believe would be more profitable for our attention.

        Thank you, –George

  33. Solidarity Priest says

    Sounds to me like Old Believers. The grace of the priesthood will never leave until the end of the world. We have Our Saviour’s words that the gates of hell will not prevail against His church. We may end up being few in number. But there will always be a legitimate bishop somewhere in the world, serving the liturgy.

  34. Re: “ 95%+ of what Fr Peter teaches is useful.” That may well be, but what about the other 5%? Can that not-useful 5% be enough taint the rest?

    Metropolitan Philaret of the ROCOR taught this:

    “The Orthodox faith is like aromatic honey. But if you pour this honey into a barrel with a dead rat at the bottom, would you want to sample this honey?…And if you would fill this barrel to the brim with the best aromatic honey – no, we would not want this honey. Honey as such is wonderful, but cadaverous poison and stench made its way into it.”

    The Orthodox Church is filled with busy canonical bees. I will take a hard pass on Heers’ uncanonical workings.

    • RE: I will take a hard pass on Heers’ uncanonical workings.

      And completely agree with you on that front. 100%

    • Solidarity Priest says

      Metropolitan Philaret did not” teach”this. He might have referred to this very real incident in the life of St. Xenia of St. Petersburg. Metropolitan Philaret was my first diocesan bishop, though I was ordained by Metropolitan Laurus, who was then a young vicar bishop. I am certain that Metropolitan Philaret is a saint. We lament the lack of such bishops. But were we worthy of them when they walked among us? I wasn’t.