Comments Posted By Carl Kraeff
Displaying 91 To 120 Of 1,742 Comments
Interesting that you would drag the whole parish into schism instead of doing it by yourself.
» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 12, 2013 @ 3:36 pm
Your Grace–On the other hand, his points are surely valid. The one point that stands out for me is the implication of his admission that +Jonah’s focus was “on trying to bring families back to the cathedral and other parishes” and not confronting the issue with practicing homosexuals. In other words, he certainly talked the talk, but did not walk the walk–not at DC or Miami. Now, before you jump on me for using such street language, they sound better and more polite than the plain English alternatives, don’t you think?
» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 12, 2013 @ 3:33 pm
More baloney. What the deacon did was arrogant and presumptuous. The worst thing about this tempest in the teapot is that the good arrogant deacon still stinks that he was in the right. No, actually the worst thing is the number of folks who agree with him.
» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 12, 2013 @ 3:26 pm
I will bite. Please name names and provide citations regarding the “certain luminaries in the OCA (who) have said on more than one occasion that the OCA should go under the Patriarch of Constantinople.”
Regarding your conclusion that overseas patriarchates (Moscow and Constantinople) will agree on the final disposition of the OCA, would you care to back up your statement with Canons, history, or any reason at all, aside for wishes and fantasies? Do you really think that either Patriarchate has temporal power to physically take over the OCA? Do you think that they can waltz to an American court and sue? Do you think that if Moscow withdrew her Tomos, the rest of Orthodox Churches would cease to recognize he validity of the Holy Mysteries performed in the OCA? Are you seriously imagining that some day in the future an OCA baptism or marriage will not be recognized by the GOA, ROCOR, and other churches? And, even if that happens, do you honestly think that the Lord will let the Gates of Hell prevail against His Church? In short, what exactly are you smoking?
As for your statement that the OCA is a moribound institution, I would bet that if +Jonah were to be restored this afternoon, you would be singing a different tune by tonight.
» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 12, 2013 @ 1:23 pm
I was nonetheless very impressed by the turnout of the Deputy Bishops at Fr Jacob’s funeral. Besides, the chief celebrant was the Chief Deputy Bishop and Chancellor, Father Marcus. I know many of the priests who were present and they are all great church leaders, exemplifying in many aspects the description provided by Saint Paul to Saint Timothy.
That said, we are praying constantly for God to grant us a new full time chief shepherd for, as good as Archbishop Nikon has been, it would be best if we had a new Bishop of Dallas and the South, someone of the caliber of Father Gerasim. For the latest regarding the nomination process, go to http://www.dosoca.org/ and cursor down to “Update on the Episcopal Search from the Diocesan Council Meeting,” dated March 8, 2013.
» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 12, 2013 @ 10:38 am
More for the record.
January 22, 2013
VRev Fr Marcus C Burch, Chancellor of the Diocese of the South visited SVOTS students from the DOS on Friday, January 18 through Sunday, January 20. Accompanying Fr Marcus was VRev Fr Thomas Moore, the Dean of the Carolinas’ Deanery of the DOS.
In addition to meeting with DOS Students Frs Marcus and Fr Thomas Moore attended the Fr Alexander Schmemann Memorial Lecture on Friday evening. During the visit Fr Marcus met those students and their wives who are finishing SVOTS this year to discuss placement possibilities. He also met with 2nd year students who are petitioning for ordination to begin discerning placement potential. Before Vigil on Saturday afternoon he met hosted a luncheon with all of the students. This provided an opportunity to meet with the first year students, all the spouses, and children. While there they discussed the following: 1) Process for placement within the DOS, 2) desire for all rising seniors to do a summer internship in a parish in the DOS between 2nd and 3rd year, 3) making assignment as a 2nd/Assistant for 1 to 3 years for all DOS graduates, 4) DOS Seminary Debt Service Program (DOS will service the student loans for seminarians who are assigned in the DOS during the duration of their assignment).
Additionally, Fr Marcus met with Frs Chad Hatfield and Fr John Behr to discuss these programs and desires.
While at SVOTS, they attended the Pahikhida for Fr Jacob Myers that was served Saturday afternoon before Vigil Saturday evening, and concelebrated with Seminary Clergy at Divine Liturgy on Sunday morning.”
» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 11, 2013 @ 5:11 pm
Here another item for the record:
“Bishop Peter of Cleveland Presides Over Historic Liturgy in Three Hierarchs Chapel
17 February 2013 • Three Hierarchs Chapel • Virginia Nieuwsma
In the first Divine Liturgy celebrated at St. Vladimir’s Seminary by a bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR), His Grace The Right Rev. Peter, bishop of Cleveland for the Diocese of Chicago and Mid–America, presided over Sunday’s service at Three Hierarchs Chapel. The Very Rev. Dr. Martin Swanson, dean of the Orthodox Pastoral School and rector of St. Basil the Great Orthodox Church in St. Louis Missouri, accompanied His Grace. The choir interspersed Slavonic responses with hymns in English, in a liturgical celebration which Seminary Dean The Very Rev. Dr. John Behr noted “would not have been possible just five years ago” prior to the restoration of the canonical link between ROCOR and the Russian Orthodox Church on May 17, 2007.”
Glory be to God!
» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 11, 2013 @ 4:57 pm
I really like our new Metropolitan’s common-sense leadership that is informed with a deep and sincere love for the Lord and His Church, fidelity to the Holy Tradition, and conciliarity. He is the kind of leader who will surround himself with folks who complement him, giving them just the proper authority commensurate with their responsibilities, and making decisions after prayer, due deliberation, and coordination with his fellow bishops.
» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 5, 2013 @ 2:22 pm
You Grace–You broke the code! The current lot seem to have the power to, as you say, get Metropolitan Jonah to rign so effortlessly and to convince 80% of the Diocesan Council, IN SPITE OF five out of six deans being opposed.
» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 5, 2013 @ 8:51 am
Has nobody noticed the following little gem in the above report?
“The conclusion that one participant made was that +Matthias “pulled the wool over most of the Diocesan Council’s eyes. 4/5ths want him reinstated. Four of the members of the council said they didn’t think he should.”
Four fifths want him reinstated after all except one dean opposed his reinstatement? This is truly amazing, isn’t it? Either the anonymous reporter is wrong to conclude that 4/5ths want +Matthias reinstated, or the deans should ask to be relieved of their responsibility (that;s what good leaders do when they in fact do not lead or are not followed). BTW, the deans spoke first. Then +Matthias spoke. And, apparently it was then that 4/5ths of the Diocesan Council said that +Matthias should be reinstated. Did the deans themselves turn?
Lets look at this a bit more closely. Here is what the Medwestern Diocesan Council is: “The Diocesan Council is the permanent body of the diocesan administration. Its membership is elected at the Diocese Assembly with the approval of the Bishop (who is the de-facto chairman). In addition to the elected/voting members, the Deans are ex-officio non-voting members of the Diocesan Council.” http://domoca.org/diocesancouncil.html
MC Representatives: 3
Auditing Committee: 3
Adds up to 21 voting members (28 total).
So, 4 out that number (either 21 or 28) opposed reinstatement. That would be roughly 20% or less.
I had made an earlier suggestion that this matter should be settled by the Holy Synod, instead of being handled on the Internet and by anonymous “Sons of Job.” If the anonymous reporter above is to be believed, the Diocesan Council wants +Matthias reinstated by 80%, a supermajority not seen in the OCA since the AAC that nominated Archbishop Dmitri of blessed memory. It appears to me that instead of the Holy Synod struggling with a controversial decision, their decision has been made simple by the overwhelming support for +Matthias evidenced at the Midwest Diocesan Council.
» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 4, 2013 @ 10:59 am
“deference”–May I please correct some of your misstatements?
+Matthias is a bishop, not an archbishop.
+Matthias came to us from ACROD, not the Antiochian Archdiocese.
I can understand your evident distaste for my conclusion that we should defer to the Holy Synod on this matter, but that is not the only thing that I said.
That said, I am not writing this for the usual suspects but for the casual reader who may get the wrong impression. Here is what I wrote:
Thank you Father Justin. I have been holding back from commenting in this case because I am conflicted.
On the one hand, like you I feel that Bishop Matthias and his flock should be given the opportunity to reconcile.
On the other hand, the words of Saint Paul to St Timothy and St Titus keep echoing in my mind, “blameless” being a prominent one.
On the one hand, I cannot bring myself to demand that Bishop Matthias be blameless when I know that I have no possible moral standing to demand that from anybody.
On the other hand, I cannot ignore a cardinal principle for the conduct of our leaders.
This may be a classic conflict between theory and practice, and may be the reason why we have set apart some of the laos to lead us in making such determinations.
It boils down to this: do we truly believe in the Lord’s promise to the Apostles: “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16-18-19). Now, if we believe that each one of our bishops has been given this power, I would think that we would defer to the Holy Synod on this matter.
» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 4, 2013 @ 10:15 am
Stankovich is certainly much superior to you.
» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 2, 2013 @ 8:53 pm
Thank you Father Justin. I have been holding back from commenting in this case because I am conflicted. On the one hand, like you I feel that Bishop Matthias and his flock should be given the opportunity to reconcile. On the other hand, the words of Saint Paul to St Timothy and St Titus keep echoing in my mind, “blameless” being a prominent one. On the one hand, I cannot bring myself to demand that Bishop Matthias be blameless when I know that I have no possible moral standing to demand that from anybody. On the other hand, I cannot ignore a cardinal principle for the conduct of our leaders. This may be a classic conflict between theory and practice, and may be the reason why we have set apart some of the laos to lead us in making such determinations. It boils down to this: do we truly believe in the Lord’s promise to the Apostles: “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16-18-19). Now, if we believe that each one of our bishops has been given this power, I would think that we would defer to the Holy Synod on this matter.
» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 1, 2013 @ 1:33 pm
George–I think you replied to the wrong post. This one should have been addressed to my post of yesterday on the More from Russia, not with love thread, to wit:
“Once again, if +Jonah succumbed to coercion, he has violated his consecration oaths, as well as sacred canons, and should be deposed. George, I am astounded that you continue to think that this akin to a business contract, where succumbing to coercion would not be regarded as a fault. +Jonah’s contract was with the Lord and His Church, wherein he solemnly promised that he would not succumb to coercion–even unto death. Why is this so hard to understand?”
Once again, what exactly do you mean by coercion? It seems to me that you are not offering any evidence that the coercion was extreme (no one held a gun to his head or stretched him on a rack or any other torture that so many martyrs endured); physical (no one physically forced him to write and sign the resignation letter), or even through psychological abuse (folks did not continuously yell at him and called him vile names).
Now, it may be that his constitution was such that even a slight rebuke or raising of one’s voice may have hurt his delicate sensibilities. It may be that his world was shaken to the core when he found out that “These last three years have been the three most difficult years of my life. I have been under a relentless barrage of criticism for most of this time from every forum I am meant to oversee: the Chancery officers and staff, the Metropolitan Council, and — most troubling to me — the Holy Synod of Bishops.”
I do not see coercion but criticism and attempts to help him fulfill his promises at Santa Fe and at Seattle. You defend him as if he is not a man but a child, a very small and defenseless petulant child who is crying out: “They made me do it! They made me break my solemn oaths! Meanies!!!!”
» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 1, 2013 @ 9:31 am
George–You are wrong when you claim that “our moral authority is kaput.” First, you would have to believe in the Hegelian approach to history to think than any given man can change history all by himself. (I would submit to you that, even if that were the case, +Jonah was the wrong man). Second, I look around town and I see folks approaching our church because they do not agree with you that our moral authority is kaput. That is the case in the other parishes in the diocese, and I would not be surprised that this situation is replicated elsewhere. Third, the OCA has the only theological school that grants doctorates, a huge achievement by any means. Fourth, the moral and intellectual stature of our theologians, particularly Father Behr, is recognized far and wide.
No, the OCA is far from having one foot in the grave. She continues to be a vital part of the Church in North America. At the very least, she is a pointed reminder to all that there must come a time when there is an administratively united and autocephalous local church on this continent. A local church whose mission is NOT to advance the state interests of Russia, Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania, etc.. A local church whose mission is not to advance the ethnophyletic interests of Greeks, Russian, Bulgarians, Serbians, Romanians, etc…A local church that that is truly missionary and that will convert this continent to Holy Orthodoxy. No other jurisdiction, except may be the Antiochians, is even interested in a local church. In short, all other options are barren and futile, barring dramatic changes in the outlook and mission of the foreign patriarchates. Let me run it down for you:
The ROC (and inevitably the ROCOR) is becoming once again part and parcel of the Russian state. The Russian state is flexing its muscles and wants to reenact the Russian Empire. In the process, it is demonizing the United States. When push comes to shove, I think that the next Russian Empire needs the Ukraine much more than defending Orthodoxy against Constantinople’s novel interpretation of Canon 28. Can’t you see that the “maximal autonomy” gambit was part and parcel of this push? My feeling is that ROCOR will find it increasingly difficult to convert Americans to a church that is part of an anti-American state and simply does not care for the church in the United States. Thank God that the OCA has distanced herself from that foolish attempt to side with Putin’s dream of a new Russian Empire.
Constantinople: The First among Equals continues to struggle for her existence, especially because the state of Greece is floundering and she must depend on overseas exarchates for support. My feeling is that the Assembly of Bishops’ solution will not result in an administratively united autocephalous church. I think that this eventuality will be supported by the other Patriarchates as they all are under severe political and economic pressures.
The rest: There is no reason for any of the rest to support an adiminstratively united autocephalous church. Frankly, with the two elephants (Moscow and Constantinople) in the room, they better be ultra-careful.
That leaves you with OCA and the Antiochians, who at this moment are understandably worried about the Patriarchate and the many thousands of fellow Orthodox who are facing a real existential crisis. I think that it is inevitable that these two jurisdictions will unite one of these days. Otherwise, they are much too small on their own to dance with the two elephants, neither one of which have the interests of this continent at heart.
I have no idea how important this site is; however, even a small leak can eventually bring down the dam. It is therefore critical that we all build up, instead of tear down, the OCA.
» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 28, 2013 @ 11:41 am
I think my question is valid and I hope that it is answered. I am starting to believe that it is the agenda of some folks to strengthen their own jurisdiction by weakening the OCA.
» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 28, 2013 @ 8:39 am
Are you in the OCA or are you one of those who delights in taking pot shots from the “safety” of another jurisdiction?
Let me ask you another question: do you think thta yourself and others like you are as motivated by the shortcomings of the OCA as by a desire for certain realignments occur in the North American ecclesiastical landscape?
» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 27, 2013 @ 5:50 pm
I cannot make up my mind about Ladder and those who are like him. At times I cannot believe that they can be serious. Other times, I feel that they are and that truly saddens and disappoints me. The thing is, I do not have those dreaded “convert sensibilities” for I am cradle. OTH, I will take a Father Patrick any day over 100 of cradles who are like Ladder.
» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 1, 2013 @ 12:56 pm
Here is a news item that (a) sheds some light on this topic and (b) shows that the world had not come to an end with the departure of +Jonah:
“The Lesser Synod of Bishops and the Metropolitan Council of the Orthodox Church in America met at the Chancery here February 25-28, 2013.
His Beatitude, Metropolitan Tikhon presided at the sessions. Members of the Lesser Synod who participated included His Eminence, Archbishop Nathaniel; His Eminence, Archbishop Benjamin; His Grace, Bishop Michael, secretary of the Holy Synod of Bishops. His Eminence, Archbishop Nikon also attended.
Highlights of the meeting, according to Archpriest Eric G. Tosi, OCA Secretary, included the following.
In his opening remarks, Metropolitan Tikhon spoke about the first 105 days of his ministry as Primate. He expressed gratitude for the prayers and support of the Church, the Holy Synod, the officers and the Metropolitan Council. He spoke of his regular weekly meetings with the officers and the multitude of tasks accomplished by Chancery staff members.
“I offer this report to the honorable members of the Metropolitan Council, not as a record of any accomplishments or as a promise of great things to come, but as an expression of my willingness to do that which it is my duty to do, as a willing servant of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ,” Metropolitan Tikhon said. He went on to discuss meetings he has had with heads of Churches, various committees, and individuals; his ministry within the Diocese of Washington; and his work with the stavropegial institutions under his pastoral care. “We must work together cooperatively with each other and the Holy Spirit in the healing of the passions in the Church,” he said in his concluding remarks. “We must do the work that we are called to do, on whatever level that work is and wherever God places us to do that work.”
Archpriests Chad Hatfield and David Lowell shared their thoughts on the organization of the Metropolitan Council meeting and on ways to keep the operational aspects focused on the topics. They also suggested referring some discussion items back to committees for representation at a later point in the meeting. To this end, the agenda was adjusted to allow for committee and Lesser Synod meetings on Wednesday afternoon.
Archpriest John Jillions, Chancellor, highlighted five goals pursued in the immediate past and central in the future—creating good working relationships, building a stable and effective Central Church Administration, working to overcome a culture of negativity, ongoing work in addressing pastoral misconduct, and continuing progress in the area of financial development. He introduced Cindy Davis, recently engaged Coordinator for the Office of Review of Sexual Misconduct, who addressed a number of concerns and reported on her work as she settles into her new position.
In his report, Father Tosi reviewed the extraordinary 17th All-American Council and the Enthronement of Metropolitan Tikhon and addressed issues related to human resources, archives and estate management development, and communications. He also reported on a number of meetings and events with which he had been involved and reviewed progress made in implementing action items related to resolutions from the 16th All-American Council.
Melanie Ringa presented comprehensive financial and internal auditors’ reports, highlighting critical budgetary issues and budget-related action items. In cooperation with the Finance Committee, these changes were presented and approved by the Metropolitan Council. A complete financial report incorporating these changes will be forthcoming. She reviewed the proceedings of the second annual meeting of diocesan chancellors and treasurers and progress being made on developing alternatives to the present assessment method of funding. [See related article]. Concurrently, the Financial Development Committee is working towards a method acceptable to all dioceses, as mandated by the 16th All-American Council.
Archpriest Leonid Kishkovsky reviewed recent developments in the area of external affairs and inter-Church relations. He reported on various visits and events, including the Enthronements of His Beatitude, Patriarch John X of Antioch and His Eminence, Metropolitan Antony of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA, as well as meetings with a number of Orthodox hierarchs in North America. The Lesser Synod expressed its gratitude to Father Leonid for his critical work during a difficult time in the life of the Church looks forward to his ongoing work as Director of External Affairs and Inter-Church Relations.
Priest Gleb McFatter reviewed the work of the Finance Committee and Pension Board, while David Yeosock, on behalf of the Finance Development Committee, reviewed possible plans for financing the Church and reinvigorating the Church’s financial situation.
As part of a new initiative to incorporate presentations by Department chairs into Metropolitan Council meetings, Andrew Boyd, Chair of the Department of Youth, Young Adult and Campus Ministry, highlighted the Saint Peter the Aleut Grant Program now available for youth and youth workers. Funding for the program was made possible through a bequest received by the Department. He also spoke about the successful “YouTube Challenge,” the winner of which preached at the young preacher event, and outlined other initiatives, webinars and social media concerns. [See related stories here and here].
Archpriest Ian Pac-Urar reviewed the work begun by the new Department of Continuing Education, which he chairs. He reported on the the results of a recent survey on continuing education initiatives and answered many questions on the new department’s goals and scope.
The Legal Committee, chaired by Judge E. R. Lanier, discussed various Church-related legal matters, adding that a written report for the Church-at-large would be forthcoming. General Council Thaddeus Wojcik also reviewed his work and spoke of development of a training session on fiduciary responsibilities.
After additional committee reports were presented, Council members voted to combine the membership of the Internal Governance Committee and the Council Development Committee in recognition of the similarities in the committees’ responsibilities. A Fall 2013 retreat for Council members as well as completion of a talent survey and a compilation of biographies of all members are planned, together with updates to the Metropolitan Council Handbook.
The Post-Conciliar Committee reported on the implementation of the eight initiatives approved by delegates to the 16th All-American Council. Much progress has been made with regard to diocesan initiatives, such as leadership, continuing education, contemporary moral issues and evangelization. Although each diocese is responding within its own specific time frame, great progress has been made.
Council members made a significant recommendation concerning the 18th All-American Council, slated to convene in 2014. Father Tosi reported on projected dates and venues for the Council, adding that preliminary work with regard to establishing a Preconciliar Committee had been undertaken. In response, the members of the Metropolitan Council decided to recommend to the Holy Synod of Bishops that the 18th All-American Council be delayed by one year—until 2015. Their rationale was based on a number of criteria. Among them is the desire to avoid additional financial burdens that might be placed on parishes, especially in light of the unexpected expenses incurred in convening the extraordinary 17th Council in 2012. It also was noted that, due to the time spent planning the 17th Council, there would be less time available for planning and convening a Council in 2014. Consequently, it was the feeling of Metropolitan Council members that sufficient time must be spent in producing a “solid finished product” that has been fully explored and agreed upon for the Church, particularly in the area of finances and Statute revision. Further, it was felt that, since the next Council will be held during the summer to ensure youth participation and activities, as well as to coordinate efforts with the Fellowship of Orthodox Christians in America [FOCA]—the FOCA’s annual convention will be held concurrently, in partnership with the All-American Council—additional planning time is essential. Metropolitan Tikhon further expressed his desire to witness “a period of peace and calm as we move forward with the work of the Church.” Among the sites being considered are Detroit, Baltimore, and Cleveland.
With these and other factors in mind, the members of the Metropolitan Council voted to recommend to the Holy Synod that a delay of one year be effected in order to develop a clear and definitive plan for convening the Council with clear and definitive objectives for the Church. The Holy Synod will consider this proposal at its Spring Session March 12-14, 2013.
The next Metropolitan Council meeting will be held September 23-26, 2013.
Minutes and reports will be posted on the OCA web site as they become available.”
» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 5, 2013 @ 1:54 pm
John–Am I wrong in my reading of Greeks and OCA concelebrations?
» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 1, 2013 @ 1:18 pm
Sure, the example of Boston is a case in point. As you may recall, Metropolitan Methodios, GOA bishop of Boston, was not happy when Archbishop Nikon was enthroned as the OCA Bishop of Boston, New England and the Albanian Archdiocese in 2005. Subsequently +Methodios ordered his clergy not to concelebrate with OCA priests. Some folks think this happened because of the two bishops in one city problem, others think that it had to do with the Greek-Albanian issue.
Bottom line: Boston may be the exception that proves the rule (in the United States).
» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 27, 2013 @ 9:30 am
Dear YO–I am old but not that old. I lived in Istanbul for 16 years. The reason why I was in the choir was probably because the Director was doing my father a favor. My father was then the head chanter of the Exarchate, before he became a priest and we emigrated to the United States. In any case, the choir sounded heavenly (when it was on key of course) and its sound seemed to come down on the worshippers in the nave directly from above. The choir sang four-part music while the chanters used Byzantine Bulgarian chant. BTW, my earliest experience was “helping” my father by providing the ison. Regarding the schools and other institutions, I remember that we had two churches (the Exarchate Chapel and St. Stephen), a hospital and a cemetery with a chapel, that’s all. I went to a Turkish elementary school and than to the Lycee de Galatasaray. I think that my parents would have sent me to a Bulgarian school if it was available. As for kids attending the Fener Greek High School, frankly I did not even know of its existence.
» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 27, 2013 @ 9:05 am
January 2011 visit to Russia.
» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 27, 2013 @ 8:48 am
The Holy Synod had to resort sending another bishop with him as a baby sitter. What makes you think that they would trust him to do a good job now?
» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 26, 2013 @ 11:26 am
May I may a subtle point? There are three camps regarding OCA’s autocephaly:
“1. The autocephalous Orthodox churches that recognize the OCA as autocephalous are the Church of Russia, which granted the tomos of autocephaly, the Church of Georgia, the Church of Bulgaria, the Church of Poland and the Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia.
2. Those autocephalous churches that have not recognized the autocephaly but which have not opposed it are the Church of Antioch, the Church of Serbia, the Church of Romania, and the Church of Albania.
3. The autocephalous churches which oppose the OCA’s autocephaly are the Church of Constantinople, the Church of Alexandria, the Church of Jerusalem, the Church of Cyprus, and the Church of Greece. However, these Churches recognize the OCA as a canonical church and their representatives concelebrate services with OCA clergy.”
May I also point out that our history is replete with such situations. The autocephaly of the Bulgarian Church was recognized and withdrawn three separate times by Constantinople (her Mother Church) and yet it has been canonical since 927. The Russian Orthodox Church was autocephalous since 1448, but she was formally recognized as such by Constantinople (her Mother Church) until 1589 (I forgot how many furs, precious stones and gold was involved in that transaction).
» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 26, 2013 @ 11:10 am
I could not let you be the only one to visit that vile site. This person is a piece of work, isn’t he/she? Her vitriol against +Jonah and you makes me think more highly of you both. BTW, he/she kept on reporting the sacking of Mr. Bob Kondratick down at Holy Spirit Church in Venice, Fl. I had heard of that from another source weeks ago and did not bring it up earlier. But, now that the cat is out of the bag (thanks to you!), I wonder if anyone has further news.
» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 26, 2013 @ 10:59 am
» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 26, 2013 @ 10:51 am
Thank you YO for your correction. I had meant to say the site of the Bulgarian Patriarchate but, as someone who grew up in the Bulgarian Exarchate in Istanbul, I made the evident error. (I was baptized at St. Stephen and later sang in its choir loft).
For those who do not know what we are talking about, I offer this excerpt from relevant link you provided above:
“The Exarchate (a de facto autocephaly) was unilaterally (without the blessing of the Ecumenical Patriarch) promulgated on May 23 [O.S. May 11] 1872, in the Bulgarian church in Constantinople in pursuance of the March 12 [O.S. February 28] 1870 firman of Sultan Abdülaziz of the Ottoman Empire.
The foundation of the Exarchate was the direct result of the struggle of the Bulgarian Orthodox against the domination of the Greek Patriarchate of Constantinople in the 1850s and 1860s; the secession from the Patriarchate was officially condemned by the Council in Constantinople in September 1872 as schismatic.”
I should add that the so-called Pan Orthodox Council that is referred here is the one convened by the Patriarch of Constantinople and attended by the Greek Patriarchs of Alexandria (who had been the previous Constantinople Patriarch) and Jerusalem. The reason for the condemnation was ethnic or national principle in church organization: “We renounce, censure and condemn racism, that is racial discrimination, ethnic feuds, hatreds and dissensions within the Church of Christ, as contrary to the teaching of the Gospel and the holy canons of our blessed fathers which “support the holy Church and the entire Christian world, embellish it and lead it to divine godliness.” The problem, of course, was the fact that Constantinople Patriarchate was herself guilty of these shortcomings as Greek bishops and clergy throughout the Balkans had tried to force Greek culture and language down the throats of the Bulgarians. See:
“After many of the leadership of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church were executed, it was fully subordinated to the Patriarch of Constantinople. The millet system in the Ottoman Empire granted a number of important civil and judicial functions to the Patriarch of Constantinople and the diocesan metropolitans. As the higher Bulgarian church clerics were replaced by Greek ones at the beginning of the Ottoman domination, the Bulgarian population was subjected to double oppression – political by the Ottomans and cultural by the Greek clergy. With the rise of Greek nationalism in the second half of the 18th century, the clergy imposed the Greek language and a Greek consciousness on the emerging Bulgarian bourgeoisie. The Patriarchate of Constantinople became its tool to assimilate other peoples. At the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century, the clergy opened numerous schools with all-round Greek language curriculum and nearly banned the Bulgarian liturgy. These actions threatened the survival of the Bulgarians as a separate nation and people with its own, distinct national culture.
Discontent with the supremacy of the Greek clergy started to flare up in several Bulgarian dioceses as early as the 1820s. It was not until 1850 that the Bulgarians initiated a purposeful struggle against the Greek clerics in a number of bishoprics, demanding their replacement with Bulgarian ones. By that time, most Bulgarian clergy had realised that further struggle for the rights of the Bulgarians in the Ottoman Empire could not succeed unless they managed to obtain some degree of autonomy from the Patriarchate of Constantinople. As the Ottomans identified nationality with religion, and the Bulgarians were Eastern Orthodox, the Ottomans considered them part of the Roum-Milet, i.e., the Greeks. To gain Bulgarian schools and liturgy, the Bulgarians needed to achieve an independent ecclesiastical organisation.
The struggle between the Bulgarians, led by Neofit Bozveli and Ilarion Makariopolski, and the Greeks intensified throughout the 1860s. By the end of the decade, Bulgarian bishoprics had expelled most of the Greek clerics, thus the whole of northern Bulgaria, as well as the northern parts of Thrace and Macedonia had effectively seceded from the Patriarchate. The Ottoman government restored the Bulgarian Patriarchate under the name of “Bulgarian Exarchate” by a decree (firman) of the Sultan promulgated on February 28, 1870. The original Exarchate extended over present-day northern Bulgaria (Moesia), Thrace without the Vilayet of Adrianople, as well as over north-eastern Macedonia. After the Christian population of the bishoprics of Skopje and Ohrid voted in 1874 overwhelmingly in favour of joining the Exarchate (Skopje by 91%, Ohrid by 97%), the Bulgarian Exarchate became in control of the whole of Vardar and Pirin Macedonia. The Bulgarian Exarchate was partially represented in southern Macedonia and the Vilayet of Adrianople by vicars. Thus, the borders of the Exarchate included all Bulgarian districts in the Ottoman Empire.”
YO–I have been spreading the truth about th Exarchate for a long time and in many forums. I am grateful that I am not alone. Thanks.
» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 26, 2013 @ 10:42 am
Bu the way, the composition of the Council is most interesting:
The new Patriarch will be elected by an extraordinary council, convened for the election, consisting of:
-all the Metropolitans (the Bulgarian Orthodox Church follows the Greek model and “Metropolitan” simply means Diocesan Bishop), i.e. 14 Metropolitans. Met. Simeon of Western and Central Europe did not attend the session of Holy Synod yesterday and today for health reasons. Being a US citizen and living in the USA, with his diocese actually administered by his Auxiliary Bishop Anthony, he may not be able to attend this special council. So there may be 13 Metropolitans attending.
-all the Bishops – they are all Titular Bishops of ancient nonexistent sees nowadays and serve as Auxiliary Bishops or hold some administrative office. There are 18 or 19 Bishops currently.
-five representatives of each diocese – three clerics and two laypeople and ten representatives of the Diocese of Sofia (which is the Patriarchal diocese) – six clerics and four laypeople.
-a representative of each of the three stavropegial monasteries (Rila, Bachkovo, Troyan).
-two monastics from each diocese – a monk and a nun.
-a representative of each of the two seminaries (in Sofia and Plovdiv).”
» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 25, 2013 @ 3:17 pm
Back To Stats Page
Are you using the imperial “we” or are you referring to Team Jonah?
BTW, what’s this Chinese torture? George started the GOA thing with “a very important meeting.” Now, you’ve escalated it to “But of course this latest embarrassment is a trifle next to the real reason why Metropolitan Tikhon and Fr. Jillions went last Friday to meet at the GOA. That is the real crisis that they are dealing with, the real sign of the OCA’s slipping significance here and around the world.”
If the following definitions fit, please own up to them:
Yellow journalism, or the yellow press, is a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines to sell more newspapers. Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism. By extension, the term yellow journalism is used today as a pejorative to decry any journalism that treats news in an unprofessional or unethical fashion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism
“…doublethink: “To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed….” (Nineteen Eighty-Four, by George Orwell)
» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 25, 2013 @ 10:32 am