Comments Posted By Amos
Displaying 121 To 150 Of 342 Comments
» Posted By Amos On June 18, 2012 @ 8:54 am
The OCA Chancellor recently reported to the MC and Synod, that most of his time is taken up by “sexual misconduct” cases, and thus the apparent need for the Sex Czar.
But it has also been reported that these “many cases” (no actual number has been shared) also include the OCA staff going back to cases that have already been closed and or settled by the Church. Now this may increase the number cases that the Chancellor is “dealing” with but my question is, if a case is closed and or settled, why is the OCA going back and looking at them again? Would that not open the OCA to potential legal ramifications?
I would hate to think this whole Sex Czar thing is another high-priced OCA witch hunt? We all know too well the last one focused on just one former Chancellor cost the OCA millions of dollars.
» Posted By Amos On June 17, 2012 @ 6:29 pm
I think the “Citizens United” Supreme Court decision played a wee bit of a factor in the outcome. Outlander money from both sides but much more supporting Walker sullied the results and reveals how money is the name of the game even more than in the past in American politics. I think it is all very sad.
» Posted By Amos On June 7, 2012 @ 5:05 am
FYI, you can do all types of accents on the iPhone by holding down the letter you wish to accent then choosing the type of accent, you can do the same here, oōøõ. Éèë.
» Posted By Amos On June 13, 2012 @ 4:43 pm
Not me, St. Basil the Great and St. John Chrysostom said it a long time ago and they got if from Holy Writ.
» Posted By Amos On June 11, 2012 @ 11:37 am
Then what is the point of having a central administration, a Centre? Information flows up and down, but when such an oversight is obvious it calls into question what the Centre is doing? They have picked up many local stories from diocesan websites before. Why not this one?
Things have changed, that is for sure. The best days of the OCA website and communications were under the “previous administration” and His Grace hit the nail on the head, using the medium to try and present a vision of the OCA as a local Church and part of the wider Orthodox Church worldwide was a priority. That is now missing and when the apparent intended use of the Internet by the OCA is to focus on its own internal life, the non-coverage of Bishop Matthias’ hospitalization is baffling.
Rather than petty, I believe it reveals another example of the inner workings of the OCA centre. Turf wars over who is in charge leaving no one in charge and a Church searching for an identity in a country that no longer buys the argument that the OCA is THE Local Church. SAM, it is much deeper issue IMHO.
» Posted By Amos On June 11, 2012 @ 11:35 am
No. It is as old as the petitions we pray at divine services. Remember?
» Posted By Amos On June 10, 2012 @ 6:06 pm
No it is spiritual incompetence. Much worse.
» Posted By Amos On June 10, 2012 @ 12:55 pm
Of course. The website, like much of the OCA is rudderless.
» Posted By Amos On June 9, 2012 @ 4:00 pm
Really? Not reporting on the health of a bishop? A bishop on the Synod? Maybe that is the problem because they reported this not that long ago.
Maybe +Matthias is on the outs with the SVS crowd that works in Syosset now since he is not permitting Vesperal Liturgies any longer in the DOMW, or the banning of reading any prayers out loud at the Liturgy, except for those around the Anaphora? Maybe this was an intentional snub.
MS, the OCA website is just another manifestation of the utter chaos that is the OCA leadership and of the high-priced bureaucrats who were too busy to let the rest of us know that a bishop was sick enough to be in the hospital.
You can’t make a silk purse out of this. It’s a sow’s ear. They blew it and it was insulting to Bishop Matthias and the clergy and faithful of the Midwest.
» Posted By Amos On June 9, 2012 @ 3:20 pm
Why should it be on the OCA website, maybe so that others might be able to pray for him? When other bishops were hospitalized it made the OCA website! Goodness, this isn’t difficult.
» Posted By Amos On June 9, 2012 @ 12:38 pm
What complete and utter boobs is the OCA website. Today is June 7, Bishop Matthias was hospitalized on June 5, and still they are promoting the lame Chancellor’s Diary but not one word about a bishop of their Church. Talk about an out of touch group of “leaders.”
They must be too busy finding that Sex Czar.
» Posted By Amos On June 7, 2012 @ 11:22 am
I was around as you were ” back on the day” and the “all or nothing” approach, especially by Bishops Boris and Herman caused parishes to leave the OCA. If you don’t think this is still an issue, all the synod need do is allow parishes to choose which calendar they would prefer to be on and you would see a significant number would prefer to be on the OC.
The fact that parishes were forced to adopt the NC was dumb. Thankfully, Bishop Basil saw that such a forced march would be wrong. He was bold enough to say no; and we all know how that worked out for him. He was retired soon afterwards.
Your love for Fr Alexander is well known, but his real legacy is now being assessed 30 years after his repose. The calendar fight was not worth it in retrospect and was the bitter fruit of the arrogance of the OCA synod back in the day. Today, what the OCA does or doesn’t do has little impact on the American Orthodox scene.
Yes, we are an ancient church in a new country but far from the only Orthodox church and certainly not an authocephlaous church speaking with any authority.
» Posted By Amos On June 6, 2012 @ 4:41 am
When the OCA drew the line in the sand and declared itself to be a new calendar church, that is the synod of bishops, not the people asking for it, they created winners and losers. This forced parishes like Mayfield to “like or lump it.”
Yet at the very same time that some bishops on the synod were declaring no exceptions to accept the NC, other bishops like Bishop Basil of the West permitted some parishes for pastoral reasons to stay on the OC. This further alienated parishes in other dioceses who wished to stay on the OC but were forbidden. Hence their departure to ROCOR.
The OCA synod miscalculated the backlash on the calendar issue and it cost them dearly. The attempt of +Jonah to apologize is in keeping with a more reasonable consideration of the calendar question, made easier for +Jonah to make because he would prefer the OCA go back to the OC, or at least not stop parishes with the blessing of their respective bishops to bless such a change.
I don’t think the OCA being on the NC is an impediment to unity, rather the existence of the OCA is the larger impediment. The rather feeble and sad “I feel good about the future” spin by Fr. Jillions on his inaugural Chancellor’s blog makes the opposite point as the OCA still has to spend so much time and effort trying to legitimate its existence no matter what calendar it observes.
A sad confirmation of this relates to the last blog subject – the Sex Czar. Another brilliant OCA idea except Fr Jillions had to go to the Greeks last week to pitch the idea that the ACOB should foot the bill for such an effort. In other words, the OCA doesn’t have the money for its own idea. Or, to put the best possible spin on the Jillions attempt, since it is such a great idea, we should all support it. That might be a good idea, except the OCA has such little street cred after the last several years, the ACOB is not very likely to follow the OCA’s lead on anything. Remember, they are even at ACOB meetings because of the kindness of Archbishop Demetrios.
Good for +Jonah to say what he said (with the permission of the synod) I hope it brings ROCOR closer to the OCA, which will help the OCA much more than it will help the ROCOR. Lord knows that if +Jonah could escape to ROCOR, he would.
» Posted By Amos On June 5, 2012 @ 4:50 pm
Good points. Not sure what was more important that +Jonah did not attend any of the services for +Constantine, but only sending +Melcheziik equates +Constantine with any diocesan bishop. A slap in the face to our Ukrainian brothers and sisters and nothing to enhance the OCA with the GOA or the EP. At the least you send the OCA bishop for External Affairs. But who is there who knows the protocol, and if Kishkovsky thought that +Mel was good enough, he should be fired. Another example of the blind leading the lame in the OCA. Pathetic.
» Posted By Amos On June 7, 2012 @ 1:47 pm
The leader of the OCA? And who might that be? Certainly not + Jonah. He is a figurehead, controlled by the synod and afraid of the MC. So who is our church leader? Oh yes, I forgot, we are a conciliar church. Really? It appears that diocesan bishops can act on their own, like Nathaniel and Matthias without checking with their diocesan councils. So it would appear that the Metropolitan is the only one who needs to be conciliar.
» Posted By Amos On June 6, 2012 @ 6:17 am
“Wacker” as in one who “wacks” another.
» Posted By Amos On August 7, 2012 @ 10:38 pm
So if I read your selected excerpts from these studies, are we to conclude that taking the “I am OK and you are OK” approach is key to reduced levels of depression, hopelessness and rates of suicide in LGBT youth? Is that what you ascribe as to?
» Posted By Amos On May 25, 2012 @ 8:09 am
If 95% of what George presented is “Tripe” in your opinion, what percentage is not and does the 2004 conclusions cited by Paul McHugh, University Distinguished Service Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University fall into the “Not Tripe category?”
» Posted By Amos On May 23, 2012 @ 10:51 am
In the OCA, the bishop is the Rector of his Cathedral. He may have a dean of the Cathedral, and other priests in various capacities, but the bishop is the rector. The bishop is also the Archpastor to his clergy in his diocese.
» Posted By Amos On May 20, 2012 @ 1:55 pm
How can a priest be the (acting) Rector of a Cathedral? Only a bishop can be the rector of a Cathedral. Protocol which is born from manners would insist on this being corrected.
» Posted By Amos On May 19, 2012 @ 8:53 am
Good belly laugh with that one Roddy.
» Posted By Amos On May 18, 2012 @ 4:54 pm
If the person in question, Fr John, is not making it an issue, why should anyone else? He is setting the better example I would conclude.
» Posted By Amos On May 18, 2012 @ 2:07 pm
Are you making this an issue because Fr. Anderson is upset about it? Does he feel he is being slighted? If this arrangement was blessed by the bishop (given that St Seraphim’s is a Cathedral) then the clergy at the Cathedral fulfill the directive of the bishop (even if the bishop is the locum tenens.)
Let it go. You are just causing a distraction away from what we should all be focused on, the construction of a proper resting place for our beloved Archpastor.
» Posted By Amos On May 18, 2012 @ 7:46 am
Well having been in the Church nearly 6 decades I can say I have for various reasons and none because of bad manners. It looks like we have walked in different circles.
» Posted By Amos On May 17, 2012 @ 1:34 pm
I believe that Fr Anderson was not mentioned because he is not a member of the stand alone Building Committee that has and is now implementing the Memorial Chapel Project. This was a decision of the Parish Council, with Fr. Anderson present and approving. It is a technical matter and in no way should be seen as an intentional oversight or even a slight.
» Posted By Amos On May 17, 2012 @ 6:55 am
Sarcasm can be difficult to spot when one is on a self-appointed neighborhood watch to correct others.
» Posted By Amos On May 19, 2012 @ 9:17 am
Thank you for the grammar lesson and your primer in First Year Logic. I simply took you at your word that “IF” you carried a gun (which I did see, read and understand). The point being that I assumed such a decision, even in the “subjunctive hypothetical” was a result of your thinking about it and your thoughts and decision making processes leading you to conclude, thus your statement that you would be favorably disposed to such an outcome.
I too have had such conversations with myself on the topic, however my conclusion is that I have not, could not, and will not be armed. So I do feel sorry for people, like you, who have come to the conclusion that arming themselves with deadly weapons is acceptable. I have concluded that it is a lamentable circumstance, even in the subjunctive hypothetical.
Have a pleasant day.
» Posted By Amos On May 17, 2012 @ 1:52 pm
How sad for you Fr Patrick. I have walked in many urban areas in my life, some that apparently you would be afraid of in Chicago, and I have never felt the need to carry a gun to “even the odds” including the time I was robbed at gunpoint.
» Posted By Amos On May 16, 2012 @ 2:57 pm
Back To Stats Page
And one hopes the trial will shed light on all of this but from what I have read about this case, Zimmerman’s claims of breaking off pursuit don’t jive with the timeline of where he was when he made the call, where his car was and where the confrontation took place. Again, if Zimmerman has no gun I doubt he even is out of his home that night. Of course that is speculation on my part, but the gun was carried to “even the odds.” Just too many guns in the hands of people who don’t need to be carrying them and laws to validate this just compound the issue.
» Posted By Amos On May 16, 2012 @ 10:21 am