Comments Posted By Amos
Displaying 61 To 90 Of 342 Comments
thanks, but are they excellent administrators? That seems to be the most important attribute, not the virtues you ascribe to the bishops you mention. ;0
» Posted By Amos On July 17, 2012 @ 4:32 pm
Well according to the Dalai Lama of Protopresbyters the Holy Spirit did abandon us in Pittsburgh when the Synod elected +Jonah.
Who are these bishops you hold up. Maybe we could get a few for the OCA?
» Posted By Amos On July 17, 2012 @ 4:27 pm
Who are these bishops? I think it would be helpful to know who has taught you. I am serious. God knows we are looking for some leadership in the OCA.
» Posted By Amos On July 17, 2012 @ 4:11 pm
Alice and how exactly would you like him to make such a statement? With approval of the Synod or without their approval? On the OCA website or somewhere else? Are we wrong to not accept the spoon-fed version of events by the Synod which now documented there long-running feud with +Jonah? Are we not free to question?
We, the people did not chase +Jonah out of his primacy; his brothers did it. We nominated him, they elected him and now they are saying, oops.
You are right, he is a person, and much of the objection here and other places is how he was treated, not just recently but from the start of his primatial service. It is not the Church we vilify but the OCA, a jurisdiction, one of many here in the USA. A jurisdiction that now has gone through 3 Metropolitans in 8 years. A jurisdiction that has another bishop facing child molestation charges in Canada. A jurisdiction that allows a known homosexual deacon, who married a man then divorced him, to still serve. A jurisdiction that snuffed out an investigation of one of its bishops over his apparent addiction to pornography. A jurisdiction that buried an official complaint by an Auxiliary bishop to his Archbishop over his homosexual lifestyle. Shall I go on? And now, these bishops are going to judge +Jonah?
Yes, we are all upset and sick of it. This latest episode does nothing to encourage us in the OCA. The Potemkin Village that is the OCA is teetering on the precipice and all we get is a self-serving justification for their actions.
Is +Jonah guilty of all they say? I don’t know. But I do know that the OCA has found another scapegoat to pin all its problems and failures. Is +Jonah to blame for the OCA’s plunging census figures? Is +Jonah to blame for it being a laughing-stock to other Orthodox jurisdictions in the USA and around the world? Is +Jonah to blame for the ultra ecumenist agenda of Fr. Kishkovsky? Shall I go on?
And why was it really necessary for the Synod to post its letter? Really, why? Was it necessary for them, convinced of their correctness and the veracity of their facts? Or was it to keep control of the message? To keep us only looking at +Jonah and not at them? When people started to question, they were quick to react. Too quick for me.
If I seem angry, I am. This precious jewell that was the OCA has been trashed and dragged through the mud again. And what are we to do, just take it? Turn the other cheek as our leaders eat another of their brothers and take NO RESPONSIBILITY. Not in Sante Fe, not in Seattle, nor last week. It is always the other guy in the OCA that is the bad guy. Well, I am sick of it and sick of them, all of them as a Synod. I grieve for the good faithful people and clergy who have to suffer through their family squabble that they have now inflicted on us.
» Posted By Amos On July 17, 2012 @ 3:36 pm
Except for the natty collateral damage when those civilians just happened to be unlucky enough to be blown to bits. Or those drone attacks that also kill innocents, or when they hit the wrong target. I guess those are acceptable losses. Are you in favor of the assault weapon that killed all those innocents in Aurora? Just curious.
» Posted By Amos On July 20, 2012 @ 3:46 pm
Agreed. It was more directed to CB who has used this site and others to vent his spleen against you at every opportunity.
» Posted By Amos On July 20, 2012 @ 11:52 am
I am not sure you are talking about me, Amos, I don’t believe I have commented on the points you are referring to. Did you mean someone else?
» Posted By Amos On July 20, 2012 @ 11:49 am
Why don’t you and His Grace take your personal feud to another list before someone accuses you of trying to hijack this tread. We all know you don’t care for Bishop Tikhon but can you find some other place to work out your issues? Please.
» Posted By Amos On July 19, 2012 @ 7:43 pm
I am not sure that a resignation is uncanonical, unless it is under duress. I don’t think that anyone would believe that Jonah was not under pressure and certainly impacted emotionally when he departed his Office. If he was threatened to have his pay cut off, to be suspended and deposed, that is duress. I am not sure we will ever know the answer to those questions as long as the OCA is doing an inside the Syosset Beltway investigation. If his resignation was under pressure and duress, it is not canonical. Nothing under duress can be spiritually lawful.
I am not sure that Jonah speaking now would help given that we can expect the OCA to punish him, or at least the threat of termination of his pay. I think we do know from the Synod’s letter that they are concerned with what Jonah is saying post resignation in that they accuse him of not being cooperative by talking to others. Was there a gag order also imposed on Jonah? What a big mess. I hate it.
» Posted By Amos On July 19, 2012 @ 7:50 am
Jonah is in a no win situation. If the Synod’s charges against him are proven true, he should not be an active bishop. However, if the charges against him are not true, it would still be up to the Synod to accept him back, and I don’t think that they would take responsibility for their mistake or let me put it another way, I don’t think that there will be a process to expose their mistake, if there is one.
The apparent investigation is being done in house with the Synod and Syosset in control of the evidence and the process. Jonah does not seem to be in a position to offer other evidence nor is he in any position to be part of the investigation process except as the prime suspect.
I am not sure that even Gerasim will be given another chance to have his name presented again to the South. I believe that +Nikon mentioned something about a neutral (new) candidate for the South, meaning neither +Mark or Gerasim.
Sorry, I am doing a lot of thinking out loud tonight, maybe too much. I will shut up.
» Posted By Amos On July 18, 2012 @ 11:46 pm
There is a section in the Synod’s letter of explanation that concerns me. It is the part in which they claim that Jonah since his resignation, is not taking any responsibility for his actions and is saying things contrary to their understanding of the facts.
Could these statements by Jonah include that he didn’t resign freely but under duress? Could it be that Jonah was under the impression that he was only giving up being the Primate but not an active bishop? Even in his resignation letter he asks to be considered for another assignment. Was he promised that if he stepped down he could get another assignment? We do know that he spoke on more than one occasion that he would like to go back to the DOS. I think it is understandable that under extreme pressure, being isolated or isolating himself, the word coming to him that the entire Synod wanted him to step down, he signed the letter that was published. But what did Jonah think he was signing?
Others have concluded that the style was not Jonah’s just like the inserted section in his Seattle Address in which he took all the blame for all the things going wrong in the OCA, was also not his writing style.
We may never know the answer to these questions, but on the face of it, it is very easy, as you stated that the case is closed because he stepped down and that should be enough for everyone. It is enough for the Synod and Syosset, but there are still many who are not sure and in the absence of Jonah stepping forward now to say that he freely stepped down, it is going to be an open question.
I am happy you have enough evidence, but you are also not a member of the OCA and thus for us in the OCA, we can ask this and other questions.
» Posted By Amos On July 18, 2012 @ 11:37 pm
I am going to ask this question again, but I don’t think there is a clear answer, but one that only the Synod can answer:
Is the central piece of evidence, the main charge against Metropolitan Jonah the first change against Fr. Symeon (who at the time was a lay monk) is the main charge the same charge that the SMPAC report investigated with Jonah’s approval, is this the central issue? If it is, that charge was later dropped by the woman. There was no charge of rape in that case, rather that this man supposedly brandished a gun and assaulted her. Again that case was closed because the woman dropped the charges and the police did not pursue it. Jonah cut his ties with this lay monk after this incident.
This however was the same incident which Faith Skordinski and Bp. Melchizedek pursued and used to setup the Santa Fe confrontation. They were the ones who introduced the word rape into the case. But by this time, Metropolitan Jonah cut his ties with this monk, sent him packing, whereupon he later resurfaced after the DC Nuns were accepted into ROCOR. If ROCOR accepted this man as part of the DC Nuns community, that was not Jonah’s fault. That would be the fault of the DC Nuns who gave shelter to this priestmonk when they entered ROCOR. Now, apparently, ROCOR has told this priestmonk, to hit the road and he is in Greece.
Is there another incident involving this Fr. Symeon while he was the invited guest of Jonah, as the nuns were? I am not aware of another incident within the timeframe when he was an invited guest of Jonah, but also not a member of the OCA, either as a lay monk or as a priestmonk? It is also very clear and true that this monk and the DC nuns were before Jonah, while with Jonah and now after Jonah and in ROCOR, under the direct obedience of Elder Dionysius. This cannot be overlooked because as I understand it their ultimate allegiance was and is to Dionysius not a local bishop. This is wrong.
Until this is cleared up, there will be an apparent large hole in the case against Jonah. I am not asking these questions to defend Jonah. Rather if this was the “straw” that broke the Synod’s relationship with Jonah, then it is the wrong straw. I also think that it can be asked equally of both Jonah and the Synod, “What did you all know and when did you know it and is everyone working from the same timeline.
If I have missed something, I am listening. Thanks.
» Posted By Amos On July 18, 2012 @ 11:24 pm
I think you mean Drezlo not Dreher.
» Posted By Amos On July 16, 2012 @ 3:30 pm
yup. sorry for that typo. Which bishop? I don’t know.
» Posted By Amos On July 16, 2012 @ 2:10 pm
He never was a priest in the OCA nor of any standing in the OCA. He was never accepted into the OCA. He was invited by +Jonah with the DC nuns to come to the USA.
Fr Simeon, to the best of my recollection, was cut off from the nuns and sent packing when the SMPAC report came to light, a report that was blessed by +Jonah.
Fr Simeon then went off and got himself ordained, I believe by a priest in the Serbian Diocese. This was not blessed by +Jonah, again, to the best of my recollection. Anyway, how could +Jonah given that +Jonah cut his ties with him after the SMPAC report.
However if +Jonah subsequent to these actions gave any type of cover for this man, that is an offense that he must answer. At this point, the burden of proof lies with the Holy Synod. I hope they will be forthcoming and tell the whole story.
» Posted By Amos On July 16, 2012 @ 1:56 pm
The man was suspended by +Dmitri and then he was bushwacked by Bp. Mark Forsberg and Archpriest Philip Reese (Miami Cathedral) and pressured to lift the suspension but not to serve.
Subsequent to that the Archdeacon was blessed to serve (not by +Dmitri who was retired by then) but to only serve at the Miami Cathedral. I believe this is what +Nikon means by the synod “dealing with it.”
There was never a spiritual court and it looks like the Archdeacon, a monk, homosexual, then married to a man, then divorced from him is free to serve. Is there any wonder why the long-time friendship of +Nathaniel and +Mark Forsberg continues to have benefits?
And we wonder why the OCA is in so much trouble?
» Posted By Amos On July 13, 2012 @ 10:00 pm
Did anyone else get the impression from the Holy Synod’s letter, that no bishop signed, that they are in a desperate state and they are losing the battle to control the message.
It is clear they are reading Monomahkos. What a colossal mistake on their part to issue this letter. It creates more questions and exposes them to potential legal ramifications.
I can’t help but feel sorry for the bishops who are out of their league and getting some bad legal advice.
» Posted By Amos On July 16, 2012 @ 7:35 pm
Your words are true and hopefully they sting the heart of those who have made it their main ambition to rewrite the era of Bp. Nikolai, especially scholar priests who are more concerned with their own reputation than doing their first duty and stand before the altar they are blessed by the bishop to serve.
It makes me sick that a man who attempts to bring good order out of chaos is branded as oppressive. The first notes of that same opera are now beginning to be sung in the Midwest Diocese where Bp. Matthias is reigning in the liturgical and moral disorder that +Job permitted while there.
I am happy that God has blessed Bishop Nikolai with a total recovery and cure from the terminal cancer he was diagnosed with three years ago. Does anyone wish to question the hand of God in his cure or spin it?
» Posted By Amos On July 15, 2012 @ 1:04 pm
George, NOT George M.
Not sure what parish you went to today but the one’s I have heard from and the chatter all around me today centered on how disgusted people are with the OCA. Talk of not paying their assessment, going to another jurisdiction, how they can take the priest and parish out of the OCA. But, in general a sense that the OCA is beyond help.
So, George , NOT George M., I am sure life was just serene at St. Sergius Chapel in Syosset today where the “all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average.”
The OCA is worried, very worried that this coup is not going to do anything but further hurt them. Too late now. .
Nice try, George, NOT George M.
» Posted By Amos On July 15, 2012 @ 12:52 pm
The “obstacles” were dictated to Jonah in Seattle and in his resignation letter by the synod. If you think for one moment that such admissions were not under duress, then I really feel for you. Honestly. This pattern in the OCA has been repeated so many times it is amazing that someone of your apparent intelligence can’t connect the dots.
This latest episode is so transparent to the rest of the Orthodox world, and thankfully the clergy and faithful of the OCA are getting it. But, you, who are not in the OCA, lecture us on how we should be viewing all of this.
Sorry, but you should stick to your own knitting on this one.
» Posted By Amos On July 10, 2012 @ 1:54 pm
And if that is the case Fr. Yousuf, His Beatitude will be once again that suffering servant but hopefully in a diocese where his strengths will be fostered and his weaknesses compensated by those around him who are also willing to suffer for the sake of the Gospel.
» Posted By Amos On July 10, 2012 @ 1:22 pm
To put is as simply as possible, Jillions is the Judas to Jonah’s Christ-like figure. He went to DC to finish the execution.
What a crock of bull +Nikon is feeding the DOS.
+Jonah is not fine. He is in a state of shock and disbelief. His “collaboration” with the synod is nothing more than an admission that they have him over the barrel and he WILL cooperate. He will be retired and join that ever-growing list of bishops that have been cast aside.
The synod has done its job and now the rest of us are supposed to trust them? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
“As a lamb led to the slaughter, he opened not his mouth.” Isaiah.
» Posted By Amos On July 9, 2012 @ 2:34 pm
Let’s be clear about all this. The OCA synod acted in a totally uncanonical manner in disposing of +Jonah. Every action they have taken is being watched carefully by Moscow and Constantinople. Both are giving the OCA enough rope to hand themselves.
+Jonah is finished. By resigning as Primate, he also gave up his See of Washington. He is, in fact, another in a ever-growing list of retired OCA bishops.
The only question now is if the synod will extend to him some fiscal life-line and show some mercy. His best bet is that he will receive a blessing from the synod, at some point, to be an Abbot of his monastery of Holy Trinity established and incorporated in DC. Other than that, he has been clean-cut off.
As for the OCA, its recklessness is being documented and will serve to further isolate it in the USA and in world Orthodoxy. But, they got what they wanted and now Jillions will go down in history as the Judas to the Christ-like figure of +Jonah.
“As a sheep led to the slaughter, so he opened not his mouth.” Isaiah.
Stay strong, stick together. Christ has not abandoned his faithful people. God forgive me a sinner.
» Posted By Amos On July 9, 2012 @ 1:58 pm
The OCA has never considered such “minor” orders to be binding upon the man to a particular parish, diocese or bishop. If you even got some sort of certificate of ordination, you can just present that to your new priest. If you want to get a letter of release from your priest, you can, but even that is not necessary but if requested by your new priest, it is a good thing to have on hand. Not sure anything from the OCA these days will be considered “valid.”
» Posted By Amos On July 9, 2012 @ 9:32 am
What you know about Kondratick is what you were fed by Stokoe. Your conclusions and speculations about him are really not germane. I am sure you think that the OCA is better off today than it was in 2006. But that number is dwindling by the day.
» Posted By Amos On July 11, 2012 @ 9:22 am
No wonder they got rid of you. You would have insisted on proper and normal canonical protocols. Such a stickler for all things to be done in good order. Thanks for a reminder of how far and how fast we have sunk to our present condition.
» Posted By Amos On July 9, 2012 @ 7:58 pm
Thank you for your gracious reply. Whoever I am.
» Posted By Amos On July 9, 2012 @ 7:35 pm
I apologize for my crawl/hole comment. But I will still refer to the Orthodox Forum as a cesspool. As for your cut and paste of the Fr Gerasim/+Jonah/HOOM/Pangratios, etc. timeline, sounds like a perfect tool to be used by those who wish to rid the OCA of Gerasim and +Jonah. Works for me if I were so inclined (not saying you are).
» Posted By Amos On July 8, 2012 @ 8:50 pm
That is exactly the nature of +Jonah’s “illness.”
Let’s hope that +Jonah at least got as good or better a severance package than Garklavs cashed in on.
» Posted By Amos On July 8, 2012 @ 8:20 pm
Back To Stats Page
You can bet that the letter of “resignation” was under duress. I mean, what do you think, that +Jonah just woke up last Thursday, went to the lesser synod meeting and said, “ya know guys, I think I am going to quite. Is that ok with you?”
The canonical fact that this would be an invalid resignation by duress means nothing to the oca bishops. The plan all along was for +Jonah to go the same way as Bp. Basil Rodzianko. Kishkovsky told the conspirators to look up his file, the emails uncovered prove it, and this bunch of brazen bishops think that they can get away with it.
Well, maybe they can, but the rest of us don’t need to keep feeding their addiction to power and corruption. Who would want to be a member of the OCA now? We are more than a laughing stock, we are a scandal to the Gospel.
» Posted By Amos On July 8, 2012 @ 11:46 am