Thank you, Moderation Team, for your efforts to navigate this minefield.
To respect the terms set, I will try to avoid crossing the lines.
On another forum, a trascript of a letter was posted which I will only partly quote:
11th of April 2009
The Elders' Council
of the Holy Monastery of XXXXXX
In answer to your document of April 11th, 2009, Reg. No. 19, we make known to you that we approve Section B of the Minutes/11 April 2009 concerning the issuance of a joint Letter of Canonical Release to the brothers of your Monastery, XXXXXXXXX and XXXXXXXXX (lay name XXXXXXXXX), following upon the Letter of His Beatitude Jonah, Archbishop of Washington and New York, for the foundation of Sacred Monasteries therein.
X X X X
of X X X X X X X X X X X X X
(Note to Moderators: I reviewed the Rules and am not sure how to handle this, so I posted without an originating link. If there is a question as to where I got this from, I can provide a source, but I do not want to violate Forum rules ragarding links.)
The second name in the letter is that of the priest in question that originated this controversy. So, His Beatitude requested this priest and the originating metropolitan issued a release.
Now, some are saying that because Metropolitan Jonah did not enroll this priest in the usual manner, that he was not 'technically received' into the OCA. This is a very hard position to hold, since the situation looks very much like a standard transfer. Whether a form was filled out or a data entry made, the fact is that the priest in question was:
1. Requested by His Beatitude
2. Released with a formal letter by the originating bishop
3. Took up residency in the territory of His Beatitude
4. Served in the cathedral of His Beatitude
It passes the Duck Rule. It also passes the canonical test for a transfer. Whether His Beatitude officially notified his own administration of the transfer has no bearing on the canons.
This punches a hole in the "Godmother's Letter" which claims no transfer occured, as well as the narrative that the Holy Synod's letter was inaccurate. Now, we can make allowances for people who were unaware that the transfer had been completed because the priest in question was not enrolled in the clergy list of the OCA, but that does not erase the fact that this transfer was done according to the canons.
The larger question now is what ROCOR was told by His Beatitude. If there is a variance between the facts of the transfer and the narrative it was given, ROCOR has every right to feel upset.