Comments Posted By Carl Kraeff

Displaying 211 To 240 Of 1,740 Comments

Lessons from the Enthronement of Metroplitan [sic] Tikhon

The Petition asks:

“Whether three bishops of the OCA, +Benjamin, +Nikon, and +Tikhon, met privately, banding together, on or about July 5th of 2012, without participation or knowledge of their Primate, Metropolitan Jonah, in violation of three of the Holy Canons[2],3],[4] and agreed (conspired) to request his resignation as the Primate of the OCA.[5]”

The canons they cite are (Listed below with my comments)

Apostolic Canon 34: The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit. (bolded in the Petition)

Carl: They indeed asked for his consent and he assented by resigning. Furthermore, consultations before action do not constitute doing things of consequence; if +JOnah had refused to assent, no action of consequence would have taken place. Most importantly, however is the fact that these bishops are more than diocesans, they are also members of the Holy Synod, the supreme canonical authority of the church. It is positively stupid to think that they must inform the Metropolitan of their intent to talk to each other about the Metroplitan’s health or misconduct. Such a stupidity is not called for in the OCA Statute or in Apostolic Canon 34.

“Canon 18 of the Council of Chalcedon: The crime of conspiracy or banding together is utterly prohibited even by the secular law, and much more ought it to be forbidden in the Church of God. Therefore, if any, whether clergymen or monks, should be detected conspiring or banding together, or hatching plots against their bishops or fellow-clergy, they shall by all means be deposed from their own rank.” and “Canon 34 of the Council in Trullo: In view of the fact that the sacerdotal Canon clearly states that as the crime of conspiracy or of faction is utterly forbidden even by civil laws, it is much more fitting still that this be prohibited from occurring in the Church of God, we too are sedulous to insist that if any Clergymen or Monks be found either conspiring together or engaging in factional intrigues or hatching plots against Bishops or fellow Clergymen, they shall forfeit their own rank altogether.”

Carl: These canons clearly talks about clergy and monks conspiring against their bishops, and are not applicable in this case. As I showed above, there was no conspiracy in the first place. The members of the Holy Synod did their job in perfect accord with the OCA Statute and the Holy Canons.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 4, 2013 @ 11:13 am

If that is the case, the conversations that you related are not first hand but second-hand or perhaps third-hand information. Add to that the fact that we do not know your name and we find ourselves facing improbabilities rather than truths. I am sure that the choir is readily accepting your report but you are also preaching to non-choir members.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 4, 2013 @ 8:25 am

I am impressed. You do know, don’t you, that “first hand information” means information that you got from the original source? I wonder who that could be? The conversations that you related were:

EP and somebody in a private meeting; I do not think that the original source was the EP (unless you are +Jonah himself), so it was the person who had the private conversation with the EP who talked to you directly.

Holy Synod and +Jonah: I do not think that it was the Holy Synod, so it was +Jonah who talked to you

+Tikhon and +Jonah/+Justinian and +Tikhon:I do not think that it was +Tikhon, so it was +Justinian and +Jonah who talked to you

So, the two possibilities are (a) you are +Jonah or (b) you are somebody who is speaking for him. What we do not know is if +Jonah has asked you to talk for him, either tacitly or implicitly. BTW, your parting shot (“You weren’t there, and you don’t know first hand, someone else was and does, so just get over it!), sounds juvenile and emotional. I wonder just who you might be?

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 2, 2013 @ 7:56 pm

No thank you, Disgusted with It and Also Disgusted. I do not want to overcomplicate the task of Yours Truly.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 1, 2013 @ 3:38 pm

Yours Truly–Since you are in the know, would you please tell us the details of +Jonah’s letter that requested his release to ROC/ROCOR. When was it sent and to whom was it addressed? The the letter specify a particular jurisdiction (ROC or ROCOR)? Thanks.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On January 31, 2013 @ 9:58 am

Yours Truly–Sounds like you are privy to very high level and personal discussions. I am not saying that you are lying here, but you have got to admit that even world-class reporters would have a hard time to report, in just one story: +Justinian-+Tikhon conversation; the sentiments of the EP himself; Holy Synod assurances to +Jonah before Parma; and +Tikhon-+Jonah private conversation before the enthronement…

Breath-taking reportage from…..”Yours Truly”….who….is?…. The Masked Anonymous Reporter, fighting for Truth and Justice!!!!! Stan Lee material, don’t you think?

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On January 30, 2013 @ 5:43 pm

I agree with you Jonathan. Many folks here, starting with George, are obsessed. I do not meant to say that they are obsessed by the devil; that sort of judgment is way above my pay grade. Nonetheless, it is amazing, isn’t it, that well meaning and God-fearing folks do end up doing devil’s work by sowing “spread rumors, disinformation, doubt and division.”

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On January 30, 2013 @ 11:33 am

Deleted by Carl Kraeff.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On January 30, 2013 @ 10:38 am

What Are the Qualifications for a Bishop?

To add another thought to this matter, you brought up the fact that ecumenical canons have precedence over local ones. I would think that the same applies to other elements of Holy Tradition, as in the following precedence order on this subject.

A. The Holy Scriptures
B. Ecumenical Canons
C. Local canons/statutes
D. Local practices/interpretations.

Therefore, the relevant specific elements would be, in order of precedence:

A1. Matthew 19:5-6: “And (the Lord) said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

A2. 1 Timothy 3:1-7: “This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.”

B1. Apostolic Canon 5: “Let not a bishop, presbyter, or deacon put away his wife under pretense of religion. But, if he put her away, let him be excommunicated. If he persists, let him be deposed.”

B2 or C1. Trullo canon 12 and 48. (My comment: These canons were manifestly in contradiction of the more authoritative elements of Holy Tradition that I listed above)

C. Local churches’ canons or statutes. (My comment: As extensions of Trullo, these canons are even further apart from the Holy Scriptures and Apostolic Canons.)

D. Interpretations of canons, such as those by Balsamon, etc…

I am still exploring why and how this could have happened. I have read all sorts of explanations but the only one that justifies the current situation uses a circular argument (The Holy Spirit guides the Church, therefore anything that we now believe and practice is the work of the Holy Spirit).

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 14, 2013 @ 11:13 am

Time and place, my friend, time and place! At the time of Trullo, bishops were not required to be monastics and had sources of income from properties under their control. So, it did make sense for the married-in-name-only bishop to continue to make provisions for his wife. Since the canons are silent on what happened to his children and other relatives under his care, I would imagine that they were taken care of by the bishop himself in his own household (again at the time this canon was enacted).

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 14, 2013 @ 10:48 am

nit picking–Interesting that you should say that. I once read an essay by an Orthodox priset who said that the Council in Trullo was not truly ecumenical as Rome had not accepted it. Thus, the only ecumenical canon that we are left with is the Apostolic Canon 5. That means that there is no impediment in the ecumenical canons to married bishops. Back to the future: 1 Timothy 3.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 14, 2013 @ 8:14 am

Obviously by equating him to +Jonah.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 12, 2013 @ 9:21 pm

Would you please give a citation for the following?

“The great interpreter of Church Canons, Balsamon, in his interpretation of the 14th canon of the 7th Ecumenical Council, which speaks of the ordination of readers, notes: “He who has put on black attire with the purpose of entering the clergy, cannot remove it, for he has stated his intent of serving God and therefore cannot break his promise to God and ridicule this holy image, as other ridiculers do.”

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 12, 2013 @ 3:18 pm

The strange thing is that one our ecumenical canons (Trullo 48) allows married laymen to become bishops:

“The wife of him who is advanced to the Episcopal dignity, shall be separated from her husband by their mutual consent, and after his ordination and consecration to the episcopate she shall enter a monastery situated at a distance from the abode of the bishop, and there let her enjoy the bishop’s provision. And if she is deemed worthy she may be advanced to the dignity of a deaconess.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiv.iii.xlix.html

None of the Canons allows a married priest or a deacon to answer a call to the episcopacy, indeed the window of opportunity closed for married clergy with Trullo 12, which addresses only married bishops of that time:

“Aristenus.
The fifth Apostolic canon allows neither bishop, presbyter, nor deacon to cast forth his wife under pretext of piety; and assigns penalties for any that shall do so, and if he will not amend he is to be deposed. But this canon on the other hand does not permit a bishop even to live with his wife after his consecration. But by this change no contempt is meant to be poured out upon what had been established by Apostolic authority, but it was made through care for the people’s health and for leading on to better things, and for fear that the sacerdotal estate might suffer some wrong.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiv.iii.xiii.html

In practice, of course, these ecumenical canons have been superseded with local canons. For example, the ROC Statute lays down the following requirements:

“10. The candidates for the office of bishop shall be elected from among the monastics or unmarried white clergy with obligatory taking of monastic vows. The candidates’ age shall be not less then 30 years. The candidate must satisfy the high rank of a bishop by his moral qualifications and have theological education.” (Paragraph X.10)

The OCA statute’s Artcle VI, Section 9 says:

“Qualifications

a. The candidate for the office of diocesan bishop must satisfy all the requirements of the Holy Canons pertaining to this highest of all ecclesiastical offices. In addition, it is preferable that he have completed a course of study in a Graduate School of Orthodox Theology and that he be conversant in the English language.

b. If he is not already a bishop, he can be nominated only from among the monastic or celibate clergy or laymen;

c. If at the moment of his nomination he is a layman or a celibate or widowed priest, he shall pronounce at least the first monastic vows (rasophoria).

e. Diocesan bishops of the Orthodox Church in America shall not be candidates for nomination by the Diocesan Assembly of another diocese.”

I suspect that all of the other Orthodox local churches have similar requirements. Nonetheless, I am fascinated by the progression from Apostolic Canon V (which presupposes married bishops) to Trullo Canon 12 (which separated husband from wife because the lay folk were scandalized by the thought that the good bishop and his wife may be having sexual intercourse), to Trullo 48 (which in some translations demand that a divorce occur between a husband and wife before the husband may become a bishop), to the modern day statutes/canons of local churches that takes away even the remote possibility of married lay persons being elevated to the episcopacy. Not only that but we also require all candidates to take monastics vows. I would be interested if there has been some work that explains this progression. I am curious as the distance between the Holy Scriptures and our praxis at this point in time is now a chasm.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 12, 2013 @ 3:13 pm

Not one stone but many… I sure hope you are not in the OCA. And, if you are not, have the decency and the courage to identify your jurisdiction so that I will remember not to set foot in it since it contains vipers like you.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 12, 2013 @ 1:57 pm

And, this is so different from…..?

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 12, 2013 @ 1:52 pm

Precisely. Those traditions that endured the Ottoman/Turkish/Muslim yoke have a different dress custom than those who were fortunate not to live under such oppression. Indeed, it is dangerous to project one’s tradition unto the tradition of others.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 12, 2013 @ 1:50 pm

I think you are right; there will be a proper Holy Synod, composed of ruling diocesan bishops.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 12, 2013 @ 1:44 pm

Why are you insulting the legacy of Metropolitan Philip?

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 12, 2013 @ 1:42 pm

Are you saying that Archbishop Dmitri was not a strong bishop?

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 11, 2013 @ 2:22 pm

Very true:

“The wife of him who is advanced to the Episcopal dignity, shall be separated from her husband by their mutual consent, and after his ordination and consecration to the episcopate she shall enter a monastery situated at a distance from the abode of the bishop, and there let her enjoy the bishop’s provision. And if she is deemed worthy she may be advanced to the dignity of a deaconess.”

Canon 48 of the Council at Trullo

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 11, 2013 @ 2:21 pm

I am frankly vacillating between sadness and disgust at the negative votes given to His Grace. When will this madness cease?

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On March 11, 2013 @ 8:58 am

The Assembly of Bishops on Abortion: Cause for Hope?

I read the reviews, particularly the pans from agnostics/atheists. They convinced me and I have dowloaded it to my Kindle.

BTW, I read Paul Johnson’s History of Christianity long time ago; it was interesting, albeit a bit harsh and of course comes from the lens of Johnson’s Roman Catholicism. Nonetheless, I was fascinated by his treatment of the role of monasteries in transforming Germanic lands into agricultural societies. Have you read the book and what do you make of it?

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 7, 2013 @ 2:27 pm

Thank you Father Hans. In your review, you said “And therein lies the value of Leithart’s book. In laying out for us the chronology and ideas of the momentous shift, from Constantine’s conversion, Nicea, the Christian foundations of law and so forth, he shows us how pagan culture was, in the end, baptized.” Do you think that the trajectory started by St. Constantine supports Jaroslav Pelikan’s thesis in Jesus Through the Centuries: His Place in the History of Culture that Christianity changed the world in fundamental ways, making the lot of slaves, children and women for the better?

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 4, 2013 @ 10:52 am

“Influence the creation of good and just laws? Yes. Create the Kingdom of God here on earth like Byzantium and Old Russia? No. That did not turn out to well for either Byzantium or Old Russia.”

Absolutely! Santayana was right, “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 2, 2013 @ 8:15 pm

Speaking of Saint Constantine, I just started reading ” Defending Constantine: The Twilight of an Empire and the Dawn of Christendom” by Peter J. Leithart.

Here is a review from the Publishers Weekly:

“Leithart maintains that when Constantine is understood in historical context, his disestablishment of pagan religion opens a place for a Christian understanding of sacrifice and of the significance of the kingdom of God.”

Here is another review by a famed theologian, who also happens to be an Orthodox priest:

“”There have been of late a splurge of populist history books damning Constantine the Great as the villain of the piece. Almost without exception they have drawn their picture of this most complex and complicated of late-antique Roman emperors from secondhand, clichéd and hackneyed books of an older generation, adding their own clichés in the process. Constantine has been sketched luridly, as the man who corrupted Christianity either by financial or military means. At long last we have here, in Peter Leithart, a writer who knows how to tell a lively story but is also no mean shakes as a scholarly historian. This intelligent and sensitive treatment of one of the great military emperors of Rome is a trustworthy entrée into Roman history that loses none of the romance and rambunctiousness of the events of the era of the civil war, but which also explains why Constantine matters: why he was important to the ancient world, why he matters to the development of Christianity (a catalyst in its movement from small sect to world-embracing cultural force). It does not whitewash or damn on the basis of a preset ideology, but it certainly does explain why Constantine gained from the Christians the epithet ‘The Great.’ For setting the record straight, and for providing a sense of the complicated lay of the land, this book comes most highly recommended.” (John A. McGuckin, Columbia University)”
http://www.amazon.com/Defending-Constantine-Twilight-Empire-Christendom/dp/0830827226/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1359856889&sr=1-6&keywords=constantine+emperor

In any case, as one who has lamented the Church’s entanglement with the state, starting with Saint Constantine, I may have to rethink my opinion.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 2, 2013 @ 8:09 pm

+Jonah’s Release Requested More Than a Month Ago

Dear Professor–I am indeed leaving in three hours. It is a good thing that I packed last night; otherwise I would be unable to respond before the thread became stale.

In any case, I am glad that we do agree on the Metropolitan being the hub back in the days. In modern Synodal churches, such as the OCA and the ROC, the roles and functions of the primate are defined by their statutes, which I am sure are in accord with Canon 34. It is not up to us to gainsay these statutes and declare that any given statute is not in accord with Canon 34; that is the job of those authorities that are specified by the statutes themselves.

Nonetheless, I continue to think that the principles imbedded in the Canon are crucial, even though there may be slight variances in the way that they are operationalized in the several statutes. I continue to believe that no Orthodox Church would ever come even close to the Popish idea of the Primate as a super bishop, for all bishops are the heirs to Saint Peter. Similarly, no Orthodox Church that I know of has done away with Canon 34′s principle of unanimity in actions that affect the local church.

There is of course no question that the Primate of a given church functions as the leader of that church; at issue is the extent of his authority, or, in the light of Canon 34, whether he can disregard the canon’s requirement that he obtain the consent of his fellow bishops in actions that affect the entire local church. While there are differences between the OCA and ROC statutes, I do not believe that either one allows her primate to be a “strong” leader who can transgress against the Canon.

As I have argued before, a primate has both formal and personal authority. A strong primate, IMO, is one who has such a high level of personal authority that his fellow bishops trust him to undertake new initiatives without having obtained their consent. That is because, a strong primate knows his brother bishops’ mind well enough that he can extent those areas of agreement into related new areas with a great amount of probability that such consent will be achieved after the fact. Of course, a primate may miscalculate but the important thing is that he takes steps to rectify his mistake and earn his brothers’ confidence again. To sum up, I think that it is possible to talk about certain primates as strong leaders, but that is not because of their position but because they have earned that adjective.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 13, 2013 @ 9:23 am

Your Grace–Aside for Canon 34, do you know of any that requires a “strong primate”? I have read the ROC Statute in English (provided https://mospat.ru/en/documents/ustav/) and I cannot find that term there either. I do not think that it is a canonical or Scriptural term but one that Professor Siewers may be using it to gain supporters for his drive to revise the OCA statute more along the lines of what he thinks our governance should be.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 11, 2013 @ 3:05 pm

At least I am not throwing more wood or gasoline on the fire.

On a serious note, yesterday’s homily at Holy Apostles (my parish) included an observation that just as our Lord was a missionary so should His followers be. Indeed, to be a Christian is to be a missionary. It is so with my little parish that happens to be in the Diocese of the South of the Orthodox Church in America. We have and are doing our part in establishing missions and producing clergymen. I am sure that we are not unique in the OCA or in Orthodoxy in general. I always like to brag on St Elias of Austin, Texas, a parish of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese, as she has had the same sort of history and missionary effort as my current parish. May the Lord multiply our numbers! The reason why I am saying this is because churches like St. Elias and Holy Apostles are going to determine the future of the Church in the New World.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 11, 2013 @ 2:20 pm

Dear Professor–Thank you very much for finding one of the citations. I had a feeling that it was that one but wanted to make sure. It appears that you have taken my post out of context. Here are the preceding three posts that clearly show that my comment, which has so exercised you, was about the OCA and not the MP.

Carl Kraeff says:
January 14, 2013 at 5:36 pm
Some folks has criticized him for signing the Manhattan Declaration or giving the Holy Friday counterattack on Constantinople because they did not agree with these actions. However, these actions did not break any canons by themselves. As has been explained numerous times so that even the densest of skulls can finally get it, the problem was not the substance but the manner by which these actions were undertaken, that is in violation of Canon 34 of the Holy Apostles. The canon by the way does not talk about majority votes, it plainly states “let him (the primate) not do anything without the consent of all (members of the Holy Synod).”

Now, George brought up the point that if there was a violation of the canon, why wasn’t there a spiritual court and formal disposition, instead of the route that the Holy Synod chose. I will submit to you that the absence of a spiritual court does not prove that +Jonah is not guilty of such a violation. As the supreme canonical authority, the Holy Synod can choose its own route in this sort of situation, based on economia or akribia. The fact that they gave +Jonah a break by not dragging him to a spiritual court should be regarded as an act of mercy and care for a fellow bishop, or perhaps because they felt that they elected him, they were obliged to give him all possible consideration. It is therefore ironic that there those who condemn the Holy Synod for exercising economia. I found this development the most tragic aspect of this sordid affair.

Geo Michalopulos says:
January 14, 2013 at 10:11 pm
Carl, let’s cut to the chase. I know that you are enamored of canon 34 but let’s be honest: The canons mean nothing in America. They haven’t since about 1918. Or put another way: why start now?

Alfred Kentigern Siewers says:
January 15, 2013 at 5:48 am
Glory to Jesus Christ! Glory forever!
Canon 34 isn’t usually quoted or discussed in full by those who cited it against Metropolitan Jonah. It also requires that the Primate be held in honor as such, and also that other hierarchs not engage in any important projects without his specific approval. Hopefully those provisions will be followed during Metropolitan Tikhon’s tenure now in the OCA if they haven’t been in the past. Meanwhile, do those who emphasize this Canon in part accuse the Moscow Patriarchate of being non-canonical because of her strong primate structure, as opposed to us in our multiple-Synods-in-the-same-land situation?
Please pray for me a sinner,
Kentigern

Carl Kraeff says:
January 15, 2013 at 7:35 am
As I pointed out above, the Moscow Patriarch’s relationship with the ROC Holy Synod is also governed by Canon 34. You bring up an interesting point though; this canon has not been cited officially to this date. I suspect that is so because it is such an important canon that its breach would call for a spiritual court. The secular counterpart would be a Presidential impeachment and trial. Thus, I do not blame anyone for treading very carefully indeed, especially if they are church officials. That said, just because a President has not been impeached by the House does not mean that he has not committed impeachable offenses.

The bolded parts above are related. I was talking about +Jonah and the OCA Holy Synod. I doubt that I would have mentioned that our mother church incorporates Canon 34 into her statute if George had downplayed the canons.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 11, 2013 @ 10:33 am