Comments Posted By Carl Kraeff

Displaying 241 To 270 Of 1,742 Comments

+Jonah’s Release Requested More Than a Month Ago

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

We have heard the insistent drum beat from Team Jonah that ROCOR has requested +Jonah’s release. Late last week I was told by an unimpeachable source that no jurisdiction had requested +Jonah’s release. Period. However, instead of insinuating that Team Jonah was prevaricating as Nikos has done, I acknowledge that this could be a case of verbal vs. written communications. Nonetheless, the real issue may be the abuse heaped upon the Holy Synod for being heartless towards +Jonah by denying him his fervently requested release to ROCOR/MP. I think we now have the grounds for asking Team Jonah to produce not only +Jonah’s letter asking for his release to ROCOR but also ROCOR’s letter that asks for +Jonah’s transfer.

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

Dear Professor–I am older than you so I need some help in remembering the views that you attribute to me so that I can better respond to you. Would you please come up with citations for the following? Thanks.

“You have said that former Metropolitan Jonah’s lack of following your interpretation of Canon 34 justified disrespect for him online.”

“The selectivity of your interpretation of the Apostolic Canon involves again your saying that the “half” of it that regulates the Primate is fully in effect, while the “half” of it that regulates hierarchs as a whole is superseded by a local church statute c. 1970…”

“You did, in an earlier posting here in a discussion on Canon 34, suggest that while an accusation of non-canonical governance could be made against the Moscow Patriarch, that would be politically difficult, comparable in that sense to an impeachment effort against a President.”

“

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 9, 2013 @ 9:25 am

Helga–You (a) did commit the logical fallacy of appealing to authority and (b) your conclusion was not based on a stated premise. Both are brazen infractions of rhetoric and deductive logic.

It is true that I have not treated you or Professor Siewers as experts in Canon 34. In your case, you could be anyone. In his case, he holds a Ph.D. in English and has been nationally recognized. But, not one iota of this recognition has been in the area of Orthodox Canons. In my opinion, both of you are simply wrong and furthermore quite arrogant in thinking that just repeating a mantra will somehow prove me wrong.

It is because I care for the truth that I perservere on this forum and butt heads with you and the good Professor. That said, there are only two posters that I disrespect: Heracliedes because he has no redeeming quality and Father Joseph Fester, whom I suspect has posted on this forum under an assumed name.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 7, 2013 @ 2:06 pm

Helga tells me: “Dr. Siewers has the advantage of not only using his real name but also being far more educated than you, yet you still find a way to discount his opinions in favor of your own. That tells me you are not interested in finding out the truth…”

Two mistakes in logic here. The obvious one is the logical fallacy of appealing to authority. Can anybody tell us what the second mistake is?

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 6, 2013 @ 4:54 pm

Dear Professor–I read up on you and your page is most interesting and impressive. You list your areas of interest as “My work focuses on the intersection of ecopoetics, ethics, ecosemiotics, phenomenology, aesthetics and post-structuralism, through the lens of non-modern traditions and practices of nature and cosmology, as well as Susquehanna regional studies. Specific areas of research and teaching interests include Christian apophaticism; Eriugena’s Periphyseon; desert asceticism; iconographic visual theory; early Northeastern Atlantic texts such as the Ulster Cycle, Mabinogi, Beowulf, Icelandic sagas, Middle English poetry and Arthurian romances; Spenser, Coleridge and James Fenimore and Susan Cooper, as well as “the sublime,” modern nature writing, fantasy literature, and American Indian literature. Current projects include an edited collection on ecosemiotics and a study of ecopoetics in the Susquehanna Valley.”

It does appear to a yahoo like me that you like to be in the vanguard of things: “the intersection of ecopoetics, ethics, ecosemiotics, phenomenology, aesthetics and post-structuralism, through the lens of non-modern traditions and practices of nature and cosmology.” Combine that with some of my favorite authors (I do think that Susan Cooper is one of best writers in English bar none) and such diverse interests, and we are clearly dealing with a superior mind. However, I do wonder if you have taken St. Gregory’s words a bit too much to heart. You quote him as saying “Concepts create idols; only wonder grasps anything.”

When you write sentences like “The apophatic involves obedience to an authority of fatherhood, amid conciliarity, signifying a context beyond our American sense of individualism,” I wonder if your wondering has wandered so far afield that you are mangling the very concept that you are trying to use. Allow me to explain: “Apophatic” is an established term that has no discernible relationship to “obedience to an authority of fatherhood.” Come to think of it, it is also strange to see in one sentence “obedience to an authority of fatherhood,” “amid conciliarity,” and “a context beyond our American sense of individualism.” Like I said before, as a yahoo, I am not capable of understanding your wonderings but they sure sound impressive!

I wonder which area of interest led you to then proclaim “This is opposed to the anarchy that your selective view of Canon 34 leads to, by which the relation of the Church to the Primate would become parallel to that of the Congress to the President, thus opening the doors for the kind of public online disrespect of the Primate that your position justifies.” Very Spenserian of you, but I did not say it and I do not see how an ordinary person could infer that I did. Of course, I suppose that someone with your superior intellect and vast scholarship could.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 6, 2013 @ 3:20 pm

In the words of one of the greatest US Presidents, there you go again!

It is your twisted and biased interpretation of the canon that leads you to accuse me to have maintained that Canon 34 allows “public disrespect to a Primate by OCA laity and clergy.” You also make a logical hyper-jump in saying that my interpretation of the Canon represents an attack on the Patriarchates of Moscow and Constantinople. Finally, you are plainly misrepresenting me when you say that I suggested that “the Patriarch of Moscow today could be accused of canonical violation.” I have told you repeatedly that is not the case.

Please quit misrepresenting my views. Or, if you truly value honesty and courage, I will ask you to please quit lying.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 6, 2013 @ 2:01 pm

Your Grace–Do you an idea of what the esteemed Professor is saying below, especially the bolded section?

“The Apostolic canon taken as a whole offers an apostolic sense of what may seem to us moderns the impossible–a spiritual father or authority, embedded in conciliarity, which nonetheless reflects the tradition of the Church in communion as apophatic in background, rather than Lockean as in the workings of the UN General Assembly or the US Congress as types of councils.”

I cannot see why/how the apophatic approach is brought into this. As an adjective, it means ” of or relating to the belief that God can be known to humans only in terms of what He is not (such as `God is unknowable’).” However, we are not talking about God here but about the idea that Orthodoxy calls for a ” strong Primate,” as was claimed by the esteemed Professor earlier. It does not matter, IMHO, that he is now using “spiritual father,” he seems enamored by the idea that the primate is a super bishop of sorts. This comes into sharp relief when he condemns the criticism of the Metropolitan but not of ordinary bishops.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 4, 2013 @ 9:26 pm

Helga–I write because I am offended by the lies told on this blog and I write for two audiences.

The first one is the drive-by readers who may get the impression that the pro-Jonah/anti-Holy Synod crowd here is somehow an important voice in the church. I want to have them think twice before accepting the lies and insinuations propagated on this blog.

The second audience is you and your ilk. I do want to make you guilty for doing what you are doing. I admit that that I am using sarcasm, as well as reasoned arguments, in fighting fire with fire.

BTW, if I am not qualified to interpret the Holy Canons, the possibility of you being able to do so is exponentially diminished for I am a real person and you are just a fictitious Internet voice. Where does it say in the Holy Scriptures or Canons that such a disembodied person can judge a real person? Also, if I am not qualified, how come Professor AKS is? Indeed, is anybody really qualified unless one is a bishop or a certified canonist?

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 4, 2013 @ 5:53 pm

Your Grace–Thank you for the citation. I had been looking for a basic refutation of the idea of a “strong primate” and this is perfect!

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 4, 2013 @ 5:37 pm

Regarding SVS graduates, that may be so because of the diocese and/or parish that they found themselves in. I believe that my DOS priest, who is an SVS graduate, uses the Office of Bestowing a Name and urges the parents to take advantage of this beautiful service. Bishops and their legacy do make a difference!

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 4, 2013 @ 5:36 pm

I could not care less, except for one thing: I find the possibility of a clergyman posting anonymously to be absolutely revolting.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 3, 2013 @ 7:40 pm

Helga–Are you implying that Professor S., George, and even yourself are NOT laypersons?

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 1, 2013 @ 9:05 pm

Dear Professor–I do forgive you and, in turn, ask for your forgiveness.

Regarding my baptismal name, I suspect that you already know it. But, I will tell you why I use Carl because it is a humorous story. I was named Kyrill (no middle name) after my paternal grand-father as is my family’s custom. In any case, Kyrill was not used much when I was growing up as it is also an ethnic custom to use diminutives for children. When we emigrated to the United States in the Summer of 1962, I was enrolled in a Summer School French class so that I could learn English (by reverse engineering). The Principal there said “no one will be able to pronounce Kyrill, so we should call you Karl instead.” At least that was how it was translated to me. I used Karl until I enlisted in the USAF four years later (when I formally chose it to be my middle name). However, on the third day of basic training, the personnel sergeant told me that I should change my name because “Kyrill Karl Kraeff” would not do. I readily agreed to change it to Kyrill Carl Kraeff after he explained the significance of KKK. For many years I insisted on using Kyrill C. Kraeff, but as I got older, I just found it easier to use “Carl Kraeff” in most settings.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On February 1, 2013 @ 3:34 pm

You really hate disagreements with your POV don’t you? You cannot dismiss me as you are trying to do, covered up with unctuous and pompous phrasing.

You know about Beef Wellington, don’t you? It really looks great from the outside, but the quality of the dish is really about the filet that is enclosed by the puff pastry. Forget about preparing the fillet correctly, the problem with you is that your meat may be beef but it is no filet, nor any kind of steak. Perhaps you can tell us if your meat is small or large intestines.

Now, I will tell you that I would be delighted to submit myself to ecclesiastical review when both of the following happens;

- The folks who post under their real names, also produce letters from the Holy Synod (that includes you),

and

- The folks who post anonymously start posting under their real names and also produce their own seals of approval from their Holy Synod.

In both cases, I want to see a signed and printed nihil obstat.

Fair enough?

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On January 31, 2013 @ 10:13 am

“Among the guest hierarchs and clergy representing sister Orthodox Churches were His Eminence, Archbishop Justinian of Naro-Fominsk, who represented His Holiness, Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia; His Eminence, Archbishop Dimitri, Metropolitan of Batumi and Lazeti, North America and Canada, who represented His Holiness and Beatitude, Catholicos Patriarch Ilia of All Georgia; His Grace, Bishop Nicholas of Brooklyn, who represented His Eminence, Metropolitan Philip of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America; His Grace, Bishop George of Mayfield, who represented His Eminence, Metropolitan Hilarion, First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia; and Archpriest Aleksa Michich, who represented His Holiness, Patriarch Irinej of Serbia and His Eminence, Archbishop Mitrophan.”

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On January 29, 2013 @ 9:05 am

Professor–Respectfully, one cannot “support a Primate as a type of spiritual father of our Church, and not see this as a contradiction of Synodal sobornost,” It is my clear understanding that the arch-pastors in an Orthodox church are the ruling bishops. I do not believe that we have ever identified the primate as the ruling bishop over the local church. Canon 34 and our statute (or the ROC one) clearly defines what the competencies of the Metropolitan/patriarch are. These competencies do not lead one to believe that the primate is a ruling bishop. May be I am being too precise here. May be I am imagining powers and competencies attached to your words that I should should not have.

Let’s start all over again: I have no problem with the primate being the First Hierarch, the First among Equals, the Presiding Officer of the Holy Synod, the voice and face of the local church. I have no problem if his personal charisma is such that he is considered by the faithful, clergy and fellow bishops as the “spiritual father” of the Church. I simply do not think that his formal, canonical position in itself mandates that he should acknowledged as the spiritual father to his fellow bishops or the faithful. Indeed, each priest is bound tightly to his own arch-pastor and the only time that the metropolitan is the arch-pastor is when he is the diocesan bishop.

That said, I also do not think that the Metropolitan should be afforded some extra protection from criticism or disrespect as you imply. From his consecration on, each bishop (to include the primate) has a reservoir of presumed esteem and respect. This respect is positional at first as the new bishop may need time to build up personal authority. A problem occurs when personal authority is lost, usually because of bad judgments or conduct. However, just the opposite may also happen and the personal charisma, if not his authority, may grow beyond his diocese or even his local church. We saw that with Metropolitan Maximos of Pittsburgh (retired), Bishop Basil of Wichita, and Archbishop Dmitri of blessed memory.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On January 28, 2013 @ 12:53 pm

Looks like Bishop George (ROCOR) also attended. I also saw some non-OCA bishops, perhaps Bishop Nicholas (Antioch) and Bishop Gregory (ACROD) attended?

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On January 28, 2013 @ 10:33 am

Amen.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On January 28, 2013 @ 10:14 am

Catherine–The original article was published by The Telegraph, a newspaper that is quite respectable. However, the poster Tumerous Baktos made two mistakes: one was to source it to “warnewsupdates,” a source that does not have the reputation of The Telegraph. Secondly, he is deliberately provocative and misleading when he wrote: “ROC Spy on the French” as an introduction to the link. The gist of the Telegraph article is that “The French secret service has reportedly expressed alarm over plans for a Russian Orthodox cathedral in Paris, fearing it will be used by Moscow as a front for spies.” The article then explains why the French secret service is alarmed about this possibility. Please note that the building is not built yet, but Mr. Tumerous Bakas is already claiming that it is being used to spy on the French.

Here is my problem: because of his posting history, intemperate and provocative language, and plain misrepresentation, I cannot credit this guy with anything. It has come to a knee-jerk reaction on my part and I would not have read the link had you not written your post.

I have read most every book written on the Soviet Union, and those two on the KGB that you mentioned. I am an inveterate Cold Warrior. But, I have grown weary over the years in pointing out that Gunner Joe was essentially right. However, he ruined his crusade by his intemperate and outrageous behavior. Tumorous Bakos may be in the same category, but I doubt it. I think that he is an anti-OCA agent provocateur.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On January 25, 2013 @ 5:31 pm

I love it: schismatics united for love and common decency!

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On January 25, 2013 @ 5:10 pm

As I said before, this guy has made so many outrageous statements that I think he is not an OCA member or supporter but an agent provocateur and an enemy of the OCA and her Holy Synod. This is the sort of maneuver that Father Fester, éminence grise to +Jonah and formerly of the OCA, excelled in.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On January 25, 2013 @ 5:08 pm

ROCOR cannot accept OCA’s autocephaly for historical and existential reasons. The bottom line is that there is no reason for ROCOR’s continued autonomous existence in the territory of the OCA if she were to recognize OCA’s autocephaly, in which case, ROCOR parishes would become ROC representation churches. Now, where +Jonah may indeed ed up in ROCOR but that must be done with finesse, lest Moscow and ROCOR is embarrassed by being accused of (a) having made a mistake in granting autocephaly in the first place, and (b) meddling in another local church’s affairs. In fact, I strongly suspect that the campaign on this site is counterproductive as it has all of the characteristics of a battle ax and none of a surgical scalpel (i.e, finesse).

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On January 25, 2013 @ 2:29 pm

They were not under Moscow when they were under Soviet domination. Indeed, as Artakhshassa the Great pointed out, some were never daughter churches of Moscow. History lesson Mark, sit up and pay attention: the Bulgarian Church’s autocephaly was first granted by Constantinople, THE mother church, in 927. “The Bulgarian Patriarchate was the first autocephalous Slavic Orthodox Church, preceding the autocephaly of the Serbian Orthodox Church (1219) by 300 years and of the Russian Orthodox Church (1596) by some 600 years. It was the sixth Patriarchate after Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgarian_Orthodox_Church#Autocephaly_.28Patriarchate.29

Another history lesson Mark, may be this can put the relationships into a better perspective:

“Church Slavonic is the primary liturgical language of the Orthodox Church in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. It is also used in the Orthodox churches of Bosnia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, and Poland, and it occasionally appears in the services of the American and the Czech and Slovak Orthodox Church. It is the most widely used liturgical language in the Orthodox Church. It is also used by churches not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church, such as the Macedonian Orthodox Church, the Russian True Orthodox Church, and others. Historically, this language is derived from Old Church Slavonic by adapting pronunciation and orthography and replacing some old and obscure words and expressions with their vernacular counterparts (for example from the Old East Slavic language).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Slavonic_language

And, what was the Old Church Slavonic? Pay attention now, it gets more interesting):

“The language was standardized for the mission of the two apostles to Great Moravia in 863 (see Glagolitic alphabet for details). For that purpose, Cyril and his brother Methodius started to translate religious literature to Old Church Slavonic, allegedly based on Slavic dialects spoken in the hinterland of their home-town, Thessaloniki, in the region of Macedonia.”

“(Having been first used in Moravia), in 885, the use of Old Church Slavonic in Great Moravia was prohibited by the Pope in favour of Latin. Students of the two apostles, who were expelled from Great Moravia in 886, brought the Glagolitic alphabet and the Old Church Slavonic language to the then-First Bulgarian Empire. There it was taught at two literary schools: the Preslav Literary School and the Ohrid Literary School.[13][14][15] The Glagolitic script was originally used at both schools, though the Cyrillic script was developed early on at the Preslav Literary School where it superseded Glagolitic. The texts written during this era exhibit certain linguistic features of the vernaculars of the First Bulgarian Empire (see Basis and local influences below). Old Church Slavonic spread to other South-Eastern and Eastern European Slavic territories, most notably to Croatia, Serbia, Bohemia, Lesser Poland, and principalities of the Kievan Rus’ while retaining characteristically South Slavic linguistic features.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Church_Slavonic

So, one can say that in one sense, the Bulgarian Church and nation is the Mother Church and nation of the Russian Church and nation, indeed civilization. Not the other way around.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On January 25, 2013 @ 2:19 pm

Please tell us which of the following local churches are “MP daughter churches”:

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.

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.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Responses_to_OCA_autocephaly

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On January 24, 2013 @ 2:04 pm

You were right there and yet you do not know how to spell the First Hierarch’s name. FYI, it is not Hilirian or Hilarian but Hilarion. Also, the name of HH is spelled as Kirill and not Kyrill. Most unimpressive. Signed as “Interested Bystander,” a fake name to go along with a fake report. Produce the letters or keep your peace.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On January 24, 2013 @ 8:20 am

That would be a huge mistake on the part of ROCOR and ROC. A small matter of a canon that forbides meddling.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On January 23, 2013 @ 9:32 pm

Herc-You are a mean little man. Quit compensating!

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On January 23, 2013 @ 1:36 pm

Max the Dog and Jonah

I agree with you that it is not decent to “decent to accuse a bishop of sheltering a rapist –in print no less–when you know the allegations are untrue.” I just do not agree that this is the case in this sorry saga. And no, I will not get into another argument about the “stink bomb.” I have had my fill of y’all’s misrepresentations to last me several lifetimes.

» Posted By Carl Kraeff On January 25, 2013 @ 10:18 pm