Comments Posted By Diogenes
Displaying 61 To 90 Of 204 Comments
“Our OCA will not begin to recover from these troubles and not even start to be healed unless and until FrRK is reinstated as a priest of the OCA. ”
This is one of the most ridiculous comments anyone has ever said. “REINSTATE?” How about hang him from the nearest tree? He made his legacy: If not thief, then the shady guy who played fast & furious with OCA funds that weren’t his. I’d love to get + Theodosius into a room, fill him with sodium pentathol and film his telling of the events at Syosset. Then, put it on YouTube. Same with RSK & Herman.
The OCA will heal, but after RSK, Theo & Herman, it will take a while. + Jonah is not the guy for the job and should go to Dallas. The new bishop, + Alexander Golitzen is.
» Posted By Diogenes On May 10, 2012 @ 11:35 am
Sorry James, we have the proof of the shredding & deletions. As I said before, you have supported RSK from the beginning on all forums. Maybe we should be checking your bank accounts.
» Posted By Diogenes On May 10, 2012 @ 10:58 am
What I state is absolute Truth. What you have been told are lies.
» Posted By Diogenes On May 10, 2012 @ 9:52 am
Once the “fit hit the shan,” RSK spent long hours and nights in Syosset shredding documents, deleting emails and trying to cover his tracks. The Treasurer at that time should have locked RSK out from Syosset, but didn’t. People still question why.
» Posted By Diogenes On May 10, 2012 @ 9:49 am
Andreas covered his own arse legally. The monies were given to + Theodosius and placed in phony bank accounts for opening doors in Russia. When Communism fell, the need for importing “seed products” and other agricultural products from elsewhere (USA) was possible. RSK became a conduit for opening the doors in Russia via the ROC & govt officials. His own personal “fee” for opening these doors was enormous; if any doors were opened at all.
» Posted By Diogenes On May 10, 2012 @ 9:45 am
What part of “deal-cutting” don’t you understand? Met. Herman, who was also culpable of theft and misappropriation of funds, refused to press charges against his trained protege from STOTS, RSK. The evidence was clear and a deal was cut. RSK was thrown out and defrocked. + Theodosius took a medical leave and as a bishop, reduced to his home parish. Later, + Herman was discovered to have mortgaged, several times, STOTS monastery properties to obtain cash used for ??? Now, with + Jonah, he wants to forgive everyone and re-instate everyone. That worked well with Fester.
» Posted By Diogenes On May 10, 2012 @ 8:17 am
1st, if you are going to claim to be a monk, get to a monastery and cease from your internet activity. Otherwise, you are a joke. 2nd, the secret bank accounts of RSK were uncovered. The monies from the agricultural barron were traced. The tape of the RSK shake-down in Moscow is real. The missing monies that Dn. Wheeler can attest to is not fiction.
You have supported RSK from the beginning. How much was your pay-off?
» Posted By Diogenes On May 10, 2012 @ 8:07 am
You are wrong! Kondratick stole millions of dollars. We even have him on tape shaking down the OCA representative in Moscow for money. The money trail was followed through Las Vegas and Moscow with disappearing monies from the head of the agricultural giant trying to cut deals in Russia. RSK isn’t in jail now because deals were cut. The OCA was left holding the bag and mysteriously, his son had lots of money for business deals. Theodosius refuses to talk because he helped cut the deal to save himself.
» Posted By Diogenes On May 9, 2012 @ 8:14 am
Not only the RC Church, but Orthodox Church and still does. Which leads to the logical issue of WHY do we insist on celibate men for the episcopate? The RC’s insist on celibate men for all clerical positions. Then, they are surprised they have lots of homosexuals, paedophiles and nut single men. So why are the Orthodox continuing to look at ONLY celibates for bishops? Our Tradition includes married bishops.
» Posted By Diogenes On May 9, 2012 @ 8:05 am
This is just crazy. Right-wing hysteria.
» Posted By Diogenes On May 8, 2012 @ 11:01 am
Abbott Gerasim comes from the same place as + Jonah. So, exactly what allegiances Gerasim had (has), is the very same for + Jonah. Don’t you people see? + Jonah supported all these fringe Orthodox characters and embraces them. ROCOR is filled with these types.
» Posted By Diogenes On May 3, 2012 @ 7:04 am
No; he’s going to Barrow, Alaska.
» Posted By Diogenes On May 1, 2012 @ 12:26 pm
In the OCA, the Midwest diocese is growing and the DOS is growing. The Midwest is still top dog. The West is stagnant as is PA & NE. The growth of the OCA is equal to population shifts in the U.S.
The Greeks include everyone of Greek extraction in their numbers while actual church attendance is probably 1/2 or less of what they claim.
The Antiochian numbers seem pretty accurate.
» Posted By Diogenes On May 1, 2012 @ 7:53 am
All the more reason + Jonah should become the Bishop of Dallas and step down as Met!
» Posted By Diogenes On April 30, 2012 @ 4:23 pm
Hagia Sofia: Thousands Pray For Istanbul Landmark To Become Mosque
* Hagia Sofia was church, then mosque
* Some religious Turks want ban on worship lifted
* Crowd estimated at more than 3,000
By Ayla Jean Yackley
ISTANBUL, May 26 (Reuters) – Thousands of devout Muslims prayed outside Turkey’s historic Hagia Sophia museum on Saturday to protest a 1934 law that bars religious services at the former church and mosque.
Worshippers shouted, “Break the chains, let Hagia Sophia Mosque open,” and “God is great” before kneeling in prayer as tourists looked on.
Turkey’s secular laws prevent Muslims and Christians from formal worship within the 6th-century monument, the world’s greatest cathedral for almost a millennium before invading Ottomans converted it into a mosque in the 15th century.
“Keeping Hagia Sophia Mosque closed is an insult to our mostly Muslim population of 75 million. It symbolises our ill-treatment by the West,” Salih Turhan, head of the Anatolian Youth Association, which organised the event, told the crowd, whose male and female worshippers prayed separately according to Islamic custom.
The government has rejected requests from both Christians and Muslims to hold formal prayers at the site, historically and spiritually significant to adherents of both religions.
The rally’s size and location signals more tolerance for religious expression under Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan, whose party traces its roots to a banned Islamist movement.
His government has also allowed Christian worship at sites that were off-limits for decades, as it seeks to bring human rights in line with the European Union, which it aims to join.
Turhan told Reuters his group staged the prayers ahead of celebrations next week marking the 559th anniversary of the Ottoman Sultan Mehmet’s conquest of Byzantine Constantinople.
“As the grandchildren of Mehmet the Conqueror, seeking the re-opening Hagia Sophia as a mosque is our legitimate right,” Turhan said in an interview.
Worshippers refrained from entering the museum, one of Turkey’s most-visited tourist destinations and whose famous dome is considered a triumph of Byzantine architecture.
Most Turks appear satisfied with it remaining a museum as a kind of compromise between its conflicting historic roles.
However, some devout Turks believe that barring worship at Hagia Sophia is an affront against Sultan Mehmet, who designated it as a mosque and who, like other Ottoman leaders, served as caliph to the Islamic world.
Under Erdogan, many Turks have come to embrace their imperial Ottoman past and question the more austere, Western-oriented reforms that followed the last sultan’s overthrow in 1923.
The shift coincides with a stalled EU bid and declining expectations Turkey will ever join the mostly Christian bloc.
The government’s active diplomatic engagement in the Middle East with lands that once belonged to the Ottoman empire has also prompted Turks to reexamine the NATO member’s Western tilt.
Meanwhile, some Orthodox argue Hagia Sophia should be returned to its original state as a Christian basilica.
In 2010, 200 or so Greek American Orthodox aborted plans to pray at Hagia Sophia after the Turkish government threatened to block their entry into the country on security grounds.
The Ecumenical Patriarch, spiritual leader of the world’s 250 million Orthodox, does not support efforts to revert its former dominion into a church.
“We want it to remain a museum in line with the Republic of Turkey’s principles,” said Father Dositheos Anagnostopulos, the patriarch’s spokesman.
“If it were to become a mosque, Christians wouldn’t be able to pray there, and if it became a church it would be chaos.”
Only a few thousand Greek Orthodox faithful are left in Turkey, but the patriarch’s seat remains in Istanbul, a vestige of the Byzantine Empire. (Editing by Jon Hemming)
» Posted By Diogenes On May 26, 2012 @ 9:41 pm
Go here and see how the ROC is in bed with Putin. May be good for Russia, but not the U.S.
» Posted By Diogenes On May 7, 2012 @ 9:04 am
Russian Orthodox Church embroiled in corruption scandal
A Russian Orthodox provincial priest was revealed to have amassed a collection of luxury cars and to keep hundreds of thousands of pounds of cash in his safe.
Patriarch Kirill, the head of the Orthodox Church, has been photographed wearing a Swiss watch Photo: EPA
By Andrew Osborn, Moscow
An undercover investigation on Russian TV into Archpriest Mikhail Grigoriev of Kazan has raised wider questions about the propriety of the country’s clerics and their relationship with wealthy donors who contribute to restoration work.
In the case of Father Grigoriev, he was shown to own a BMW jeep, a Mercedes jeep, and a Mercedes saloon as well as three flats and a country house. To add insult to injury, a secret camera filmed the priest bragging about his £60,000 Swiss watch, his £12,000 phone, while talking about his love of Italian designer clothes and fine dining. In an indication of how much wealth the priest had amassed, he complained of recently being robbed of the equivalent of £300,000 from his safe.
The undercover investigation into Father Grigoriev has prompted church elders to banish him to a small rural church in the same region as punishment. Yet it seems church elders are concerned by his attitude rather than how he came into such wealth.
“The problem is not wealth,” Archpriest Alexander Pavlov, a senior cleric in the area, was quoted as saying. “The problem is the priest’s attitude to it. Now we have given him a chance to toil not for his own enrichment but for the church’s benefit.”
It is not the first time Russian priests have been accused of graft. Patriarch Kirill, the head of the Orthodox Church, has been photographed wearing a Swiss watch worth £30,000. Clerics batted away that criticism, saying the watch was a gift from a wealthy parishioner.
» Posted By Diogenes On May 7, 2012 @ 8:25 am
It is common knowledge and pans out to be true that married men are more “normal” and well-adjusted compared to celibates/ monks. Celibates are celibate for a reason. Monastics were chosen for bishops because the monasteries were where the libraries were (educated men) and they had no progeny to inherit bishops property (The bishops owned the church property in Roman/Byzantine times). So, if we want well-adjusted bishops to lead the Orthodox Church, we should have married bishops with SOLID ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL EDUCATION. Not just widowers, but current, married men. If dioceses are too large, make them smaller.
» Posted By Diogenes On May 1, 2012 @ 1:16 pm
Married Bishops in the Orthodox Church: An Analysis
If a man desire the office of a Bishop, he desires a good work. A Bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, …ruling well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity.
[1 Timothy 3:1-4]
For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city as I had appointed you; If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly.
Now when Jesus had come into Peter’s house, He saw his wife’s mother lying sick with a fever.
But Simon’s wife’s mother lay sick with a fever, and they told Him about her at once.
Now He arose from the Synagogue and entered Simon’s house. But Simon’s wife’s mother was sick with a high fever, and they made request of Him concerning her.
First, we must establish the Biblical and thus traditional position of the Orthodox Church regarding the issue of married clergy. Secondly, we must be against the allegations made by (some) Orthodox that the consecration of married men to the office of bishop is supposedly “uncanonical”, somehow “unorthodox”, or even worse, “heretical”.
St Peter the Apostle
Undoubtedly, St. Peter and virtually all Apostles were married. Their marriage clearly did not nullify being chosen as Apostles by Christ. There is no reference to any children of the marriage, before or after the call as an Apostle. There is a clear Orthodox tradition that St Peter dedicated himself completely (lived celibate from that time on) to Christ from the time of his call. This can be seen in the following words of St Clement of Alexandria:They say, accordingly, that the blessed Peter, on seeing his wife led to death, rejoiced on account of her call and conveyance home, and called very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, ‘Remember the Lord’. Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their perfect disposition towards those dearest to them. Thus also the Apostle says, ‘That he who marries should be as though he married not’, and deem his marriage free of inordinate affection, and inseparable from love to the Lord; to which the true husband exhorted his wife to cling on her departure out of this life to the Lord. [p.541, Book 7, The Stromata, Clement of Alexandria, Ante Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2]
Evidence of Married Bishops in the early Church The father of the Cappodacian Saints was a Married Bishop. The elder Gregory was converted by the influence of his wife, Nonna; and soon after his conversion was consecrated to the bishopric of Nazianzus [p.187, Prolegomena, Sect. 1, Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers, Vol. 7] (Note: This is Gregory the elder, not his son St Gregory Nazianzus). Note that, There are two lines in his poem of St Gregory Nazienzan on his own life which seem to indicate clearly that his birth took place after his father’s elevation to the Episcopate… [p.188, Prolegomena, Sect. 1, Vol 7].
Basil left before him and returned to Cappadocia; and as soon as he could follow he went to Constantinople, where he met his brother, who had just come there to practice and return with his brother to Nazianzus. They found their parents still living and their father occupying the Episcopal Throne.
From this time onward Gregory divided his time between his parents and his friend; living partly at Arianzus, and partly with Basil in Pontus, in monastic seclusion. [p.191, Prolegomena, Sect. 1, Vol. 7].
Gregory,…felt very strongly drawn to the monastic life; but as retirement from the world did not seem to him to be his vocation, he resolved to continue to live in the world, and to be a help and support to his now aged parents, and especially to his father in the duties of his Episcopate, but at the same time to live under the strictest ascetic rule. [ibid.]
In 374, Gregory the elder died, and his wife also, and thus our saint was set free from the charge of the diocese.[p.195, ibid.]
Early Tradition on the marriage of St Gregory of Nyssa Here it is usual to place the marriage of Gregory with Theosebeia, said to have been a sister of Gregory Nazianzus. Certainly the tradition of Gregory’s (Nyssa) marriage received such credit as to be made in after times a proof of the non-celibacy of the Bishops of his age. [p.3, A Sketch of the Life of St Gregory of Nyssa, Second Series, Vol. 5]
St John Chrysostom on married Hierarchs
‘A Bishop then,’ he says, ‘must be blameless the husband of one wife.’ This he does not lay down as a rule, as if he must not be without one, but as prohibiting his having more than one. [p.438, First Series, Vol. 13, St John Chrysostom, Homily X, Homilies on Timothy]
If then ‘he who is married cares for the things of the world’ (1 Cor. 7:33), and a bishop ought not to care for the things of the world, why does he say ‘the husband of one wife’? Some indeed think that he says this with reference to one who remains free from a wife. But if otherwise, he that has a wife may be as though he had none (1 Cor. 7:29). For that liberty was then properly granted, as suited to the nature of the circumstances then existing. And it is very possible, if a man will, to regulate his conduct.
[p. 438, ibid.]
‘Having his children in subjection with all gravity.’ This is necessary, that an example might be exhibited in his own house. [p.439. ibid.]
Verse 6: ‘If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly.’ Why does he bring forward such a one? To stop the mouths of those heretics who condemned marriage, showing that it is not an unholy thing in itself, but so far honorable, that a married man might ascend the holy throne; and at the same reproving the wanton, and not permitting their admission into this high office who contracted a second marriage. For he who retains no kind regard for her who is departed, how shall he be a good presider? [p.524, Works of St John Chrysostomos, Homily on Titus, Homily 2, First Series, Vol. 13].
‘Having faithful children, not accused of riot, or unruly.’ We should observe what care he bestows upon children. For he who cannot be the instructor of his own children, how should he be the Teacher of others?…But, if occupied in the pursuit of wealth, he has made his children a secondary concern, and not bestowed much care upon them, even so he is unworthy. For if when nature prompted, he was so void of affection or so senseless, that he thought more of his wealth than of his children, how should he be raised to the episcopal throne, and so great a rule? [pp.
St Athanasius the Apostolic:But I have also thought it necessary to inform you of the fact, that Bishops have succeeded those who have fallen asleep.
In Tanis, in the stead of Elias, is Theodorus. In Arsenoitis, Silvanus instead of Nonnus. In Bucolia is Heraclius. In Tentyra, Andronicus is instead of Saprion, his father. In Thebes, Philon instead of Philon, etc.
[pp.538/9, Letter 12, Sect. 2, Letters of St Athanasius, Second Series, Vol.
For we know both bishops who fast, and monks who eat. We know bishops that drink no wine, as well as monks who do. We know bishops who work wonders, as well as monks who do not. Many also of the bishops have not even married, while monks have been fathers of children; just as conversely we know bishops who are fathers of children and monks ‘of the completest kind’.
[p.560, Letter 49, Sect. 9, ibid.]
St Ambrose of Milan
And so the Apostle have given a pattern, saying that a bishop ‘must be blameless’, and in another place: ‘A bishop must be without offence, as a steward of God, not proud, not soon angry, not given to wine, not a striker, not greedy of filthy lucre.’ For how can the compassion of a dispenser of alms and the avarice of a covetous man agree together? I have set down these things which I have been told are to be avoided, but the apostle is the master of virtues, and he teaches that gainsayers are to be convicted with patience, who lays down that one should be the husband of a single wife, not in order to exclude him from the right of marriage (for this is beyond the force of the precept), but that by conjugal chastity he may preserve the grace of his baptismal washing; nor again that he may be induced by the Apostle’s authority to beget children in the priesthood; for he speaks of having children, not of begetting them, or marrying again. [p.465, Chapters
61 & 62, Letter 63, St Ambrose, Second Series,Vol. 10]
The Marriage of Church Dignitaries: But, while dealing with the passage, I would say that we will be able perhaps now to understand and clearly set forth a question which is hard to grasp and see into, with regard to the legislation of the Apostle concerning ecclesiastical matters; for Paul wishes no one of those of the church, who has attained to any eminence beyond the many, as is attained in the administration of the sacraments, to make trial of a second marriage. For laying down the law in regard to bishops in the first Epistle to Timothy, he says, ‘If a man seeketh the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. The bishop, therefore, must be without reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded,’ etc.; and, in regard to deacons, ‘Let the deacons,’ he says, ‘be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well,’ etc. … And, in the Epistle to Titus, ‘For this cause,’ he says, ‘I left thee in Crete that thou shouldest set in order the things that were wanting, and appoint elders in every city as I gave thee charge. If any one is blameless, the husband of one wife, having children, that believe’. Now, when we saw that some who have been married twice may be much better than those who have been married once, we were perplexed why Paul does not at all permit those who have been twice married to be appointed to ecclesiastical dignities; for also it seemed to me that such a thing was worthy of examination, as it was possible that a man, who had been unfortunate in two marriages, and had lost his second wife while he was yet young, might have lived for the rest of his years up to old age in the greatest self-control and chastity. Who, then, would not naturally be perplexed why at all, when a ruler of the church is being sought for, we do not appoint such a man, though he has been twice married, because of the expressions about marriage, but lay hold of the man who has been once married as our ruler, even if he chance to have lived to old age with his wife, and sometimes may not have been disciplined in chastity and temperance? But, from what is said in the law about the bill of divorcement, I reflect whether, seeing that the bishop and the presbyter and the deacon are a symbol of things that truly exist in accordance with these names, he wished to appoint those who were figuratively once married.
[pp.509/10, Book XIV, Origen's Commentary on Matthew, Vol. X, Ante Nicene Fathers]
Councils of the Church
Canon V of the Canons of the Twelve Apostles (Apostolic Canons):Let not a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, put away his wife under pretence of religion; but if he put her away, let him be excommunicated; and if he persists, let him be deposed.
Canon LI of the Apostolic Canons:If any bishop, presbyter, or deacon, or any one of the sacerdotal list, abstains from marriage, or flesh, or wine, not by way of religious restraint, but as abhorring them, forgetting that God made all things very good, and that he made man male and female, and blaspheming the work of creation, let him be corrected, or else be deposed, and cast out of the Church. In like manner a layman.
In conclusion, the Apostolic Canons represent the very early Canon Law of the Church, that the Canons which make up the collection are of various dates, but that most of them are earlier than the year 300, and that while it is not possible to say exactly when the collection, as we now have it, was made, there is good reason for assigning it a date not later than the middle of the fourth century…. There can be no question that in the East the Apostolic Canons were very generally looked upon as a genuine work prepared by the Holy Apostles. [p. 592, Vol.XIV, The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church
Quinisext Council (Fifth-Sixth)
[sometimes called the "Trullon Synod"]
Canon XII:Moreover, this also has come to our knowledge, that in Africa and Libya, and in other places the most God-beloved bishops in those parts do not refuse to live with their wives, even after consecration, thereby giving scandal and offence to the people. Since, therefore, it is our particular care that all things tend to the good of the flock placed in our hands and committed to us – it has seemed good that henceforth nothing of the kind shall in any way occur. And we say this, not to abolish and overthrow what things were established of old by Apostolic authority, but as caring for the health of the people and their advance to better things, and lest the ecclesiastical state should suffer any reproach…But if any shall have been observed to do such a thing, let him be deposed.
Commentary by Aristenus:The fifth Apostolic canon allows neither bishop, presbyter, nor deacons 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.
Van Espen:In the time of this Canon (of the Apostles) not only presbyters and deacons, but bishops also, it is clear, were allowed by Eastern custom to have their wives; and Zonaras and Balsamon note that even until the Sixth Council, commonly called in Trullo, bishops were allowed to have their wives.
Canon XLVII:The wife of him who is advanced to hierarchical dignity, shall be seperated 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.
On the Marriage of the Clergy
The doctrine and practice of the ancient Church in the East can be fittingly quoted in the words of the Rev. John Fulton in the introduction to the Third Edition of his Index Canonum [p.29, NY, 1892]. He says, Marriage was no impediment to ordination even as a Bishop; and bishops, Priests and Deacons, equally with other men, were forbidden to put away their wives under pretext of religion. The case was different when a man was unmarried at the time of his ordination. Then he was held to have given himself wholly to God in the office of the Holy Ministry, and he was forbidden to take back from his offering that measure of his cares and his affections which must necessarily be given to the maintenance and nurture of his family. [p.365, Vol. XIV, The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church.
St. Demetrius the Vine Dresser (Egyptian Patriarch) The Coptic Orthodox Synaxarian records one of the early Patriarchs of the Church of Alexandria as being a married man. The record states he had lived a celibate life since the beginning of marriage and it is not known whether this is a later redaction to cover the obvious conflict that would ensue otherwise. In any case, the fact of his enthronement again confirms that the tradition of the Church at that time did not consider marriage to be a bar to even hold the highest office of the Orthodox Church.
The Byzantine Church
In 1990, an article from The Orthodox Observer, a Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America publication, states, At the 1992 meeting of the clergy-laity conference of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America (Archbishop Iacovos), held in New Orleans, a formal resolution was sent to the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople 'to consider returning to the practice of ordaining married priests as bishops as was done in the early church.' ... Earlier in December 1991, the Greek Archdiocese stated that it was the original practice of the Church for a married Episcopate.
Please also note that Archbishop Iakovos promoted the return of married bishops to worldwide Orthodoxy and agreed that individual jurisdictions could retain the Apostolic tradition of the Early Church.
Various Practices Regarding the Episcopacy  Celibate/Monastics Only: The majority position amongst the Eastern Orthodox which has a large well of monastics to draw from. Also the position amongst the Oriental Orthodox, who, like their Eastern brethren, have a vibrant monastic community. Many of these Churches, having had married bishops in the early Church, did however draw from their monastics for over one thousnad years (Armenians seemingly being the exception). However, it is noted that even amongst the Eastern Orthodox it is not unusual to elect a Priest to the Episcopacy whose wife has reposed first. Evidence is overwhelming that in the Orthodox Tradition marriage is not a bar to consecration. Economia and the will of the Orthodox Christians in the traditional homelands do not lend themselves to changing this current practice, which has served their churches very well for centuries.
 Married but dedicated Celibacy: The traditional position regarding the Apostles (St Peter, for example) and many of the married men that have been elevated in times past (St Demetrius the Vinedresser amongst the Coptic Orthodox, for instance) is supported by the Canonical authority of the Fifth-Sixth Council (Canons 12 and 47-see above). However, if the dedicated celibacy was due to the heretical view that marital relations were not honorable (sinful) then a clear rejection of the fifth and fifty-first canons of the Apostolic Canons would apply placing the rejector under anathema. This is an acceptable position when the Church is in a missionary situation as it was in the days of the Apostles and early centuries (and currently amongst the Western hemispherre), but is not as needed when a large pool of spiritual monastics is granted to the Church by God. The practice is that the married couple live celibate from the time of dedication or consecration, usually with the wife also entering into monastic lifestyle or a community and frequently being received as a dedicated Deaconness.
 Married but not dedicated Celibacy: Perhaps the least controversial position due to the fact that the Bishop has not lived or promised to live a celibate life from consecration. Those who reject this position outright often bring the following verse to bear: “He who is married is concerned for his wife and the affairs of the world”, alongside St Paul’s words that it is ‘better’ to remain as he was, i.e. celibate. There are also references (see
above) of married bishopes that bore children in lawful Christian marriage after their consecration (although far less frequently and often alongside later attempts by writers to re-write the facts of the matter). The Biblical references relating to the bishop being married and having in submission his children does not imply that the children came after the elevation to the Episcopate. However, the lawful Christian state of marriage itself determines that the married but not celibate Episcopate has not committed any sin that would prevent him from consecration. Of course not all things that are ‘lawful are also expedient’ and thus, this third position causes much confusion and consternation amongst some Orthodox. The Canons of the Fifth-Sixth Council direct all married bishopes to seperate from their wives and live a dedicated life and these are often quoted by those who deny the correctness of this position. However, the earlier Apostolic Canons direct the exact opposite that one was not allowed to put away ones wife. Obviously this matter falls well within the oiconomia of the bishops in a particular Synod to determine the married epicopate for their jurisdiction.
Various Objections Raised Regarding a Married Episcopacy The Church decided in later centuries to change to monastic bishops only.
At a number of question forums where the laity have a chance to ask various Bishops for their response to why the Church no longer has married Bishops (as Holy Scriptures allow and the Church Fathers attest to) we found that the common answer is often:The whole church decided to change the practice in the third century. The response from the blessed bishops is somewhat ill-informed and assumed to be the case, rather than defacto is the case:
[a] The Universal Church made no such declaration in the 3rd century nor the centuries immediately following that time.
[b] The exact opposite actually occurred. At the 1st Ecumenical Council of Nicea in 325 AD, the Western (Roman) legates attempted force Canons requiring celibacy of all clergy. These attempted amendments however failed, and a large part of their failure were the words of St Paphnutius of the Church of Alexandria, a Saint and miracle worker who was famed and respected across the empire, even receiving admiration from the Emperor himself. What made St Paphnutius’ words even more immpressive is that he himself had been a celibate monastic since entering the life as a teenager. Here a strictly ascetic monastic argued against the enforced celibacy of any rank of the Church’s offices (cf. Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers, Volume 14, The Seven Ecumenical Councils:”Proposed Action on Celibacy”):
that too heavy a yoke ought not to be laid upon the clergy; that marriage and married intercourse are of themselves honorable and undefiled; that the Church ought not to be injured by an extreme severity, for all could not live in absolute continency. In this way (by not prohibiting marrital
relations) the virtue of the wife would be much more certainly preserved (viz. the wife of a clergyman, because she might find injury elsewhere, if her husband withdrew from the marriage). The intercourse of a man with his lawful wife may also be a chaste intercourse. It would therefore be sufficient, according to the ancient tradition of the Church, if those who had taken holy orders without being married were prohibited from marrying afterwards; but those clergymen who had been married only once as laymen, were not to be separated from their wives.
This discourse of St. Paphnutius made so much more of an impression, since he had never lived in matrimony himself, and had had no conjugal intercourse. St. Paphnutius had been brought up in a monastery, and his great purity of manners had rendered him especially celebrated. Therefore the Council took the serious words of the Egyptian bishop into consideration, stopped all discussion upon the law, and left to each cleric the responsibility of deciding the point as he would. We must conclude that a law was proposed at the Council of Nicaea in the same way as the one which had been carried twenty years previously at Elvira, Spain. This coincidence would lead us to believe that it was the Spaniard Hosius who proposed the law respecting celibacy at Nicaea. The discourse ascribed to St. Paphnutius, and the consequent decision of the Synod, agree very well with the text of the Apostolic Constitutions, and with the whole practice of the Greek Church in respect to celibacy. Both, the Greek Church as well as the Latin one accepted this principle, that whoever had taken holy orders before marriage, ought not to be married afterwards. In the Latin Church, bishops, priests, deacons. and even subdeacons, were considered to be subject to this law, because the latter were at a very early period reckoned among the higher servants of the Church, which was not the case in the Greek Church. The Greek Church went so far as to allow deacons to marry after their ordination, if they had obtained permission from their bishop to do so. The Council of Ancyra affirms this (Canon 10). We see that the Greek Church wishes to leave the bishop free to decide the matter; but, in reference to priests, it also prohibited them from marrying after their ordination. While the Latin Church exacted of those presenting themselves for ordination, even as subdeacons, that they should not continue to live with their wives (if they were married), the Greek Church gave no such prohibition; but if the wife of an ordained clergyman died, the Greek Church allowed no second marriage. The Apostolic Constitutions decided this point in the same way. To leave their wives from a pretext of piety was also forbidden to Greek priests; and the Synod of Gangra (Canon 4) took up the defence of married priests against the Eustathians. Eustathius, however, was not alone among the Greeks opposing the marriage of all clerics, and in desiring to introduce into the Greek Church the Latin discipline regarding this matter.
St. Epiphanius also inclined towards this side. The Greek Church did not, however, adopt this rigour in reference to priests, deacons, and subdeacons, but by degrees it came to be required of bishops and of the higher order of clergy in general, that they should live in celibacy. Yet this was not until after the compilation of the Apostolic Canons (Canon 5) and of the Constitutions; for in those documents mention is made of bishops living in wedlock, and Church history shows that there were married bishops (for instance, Bishop Synesius in the fifth century). But it is fair to remark, even as to Synesius, that he made it an express condition of his election to the episcopate, that he might continue to live the married life. Thomassin believes that Synesius did not seriously require this condition, and only spoke thus for the sake of escaping the episcopal office; which would seem to imply that in his time Greek bishops had already begun to live in celibacy. At the Trullan Synod (Canon 13) the Greek Church finally settled the question of the marriage of priests (First Ecumenical Council of Nicea, Proposed Action on Clerical Celibacy, Second Series, Vol. XIV, pp. 51/2)
 The Church enforced celibate Bishops to stop Nepotism: This explanation perhaps gives us the clearest reason why the Church moved away from married bishops. Nepotism is where the ecclesiastical dignity is passed down from father to son and becomes a sort of family empire, something that the Church can never be. This phenomen can be seen today, for instance in the Billy Graham and Pat Robertson enterprises and other ministries where the sons are effectively taking over as the inheritors to their fathers. While this may not always be a bad thing or necessarily against the will of God, it does lead to the confusion of the laity who would begin to see an element of family empire building in the making. In order to end the passing of ecclesiastical properties as inheritance to sons, the Church began to choose men who were never married, and thus no claims for inheritance could be levelled. This perhaps was valid during the days when the bishops held all property and legal deeds, and incorpartions did not exist. Nowadays, at an age of public disclosure of banking and financial accounts, with lay treasurers and financial committees etc, there is little to no chance of such to occur.
 The need of an Ecumenical Council to change back: This is seemingly a valid statement made by those who reject the married Episcopate. They assert that since an Ecumenical council declared the matter closed, then it requires another Ecumenical Council to change that. This argument is flawed in a number of points: First, an ecumenical council did NOT declare the matter closed. On the contrary, The Council of Nicea refused to implement this discipline. Secondly, the Fifth-sixth Council did NOT ban married bishops, but implemented a set discipline upon them. Thirdly, there has not been an Ecumenical Council since the schism of the Church and there is not likely to be one in any foreseeable future. We no longer have Christian Emperors who can call an Ecumenical Council, let alone the fact that the whole Roman Church would obviously fail to attend any Council called by the East. Amusingly, the answer (of needing another Ecumenical Council to settle the matter) really does not deal with the issue but ‘passes the buck’ to some indefinite, improbable future event. Such would not be acceptable from a theological or cannonically viewpoint, since oiconomia has always allowed the bishops to determine how to enforce or interpret the Canons in their particular circumstances. Recently allowances in matters of ecclesiastical discipline have been observed in a number of jurisdictions, including priest’s being able to remarry, bishops being transferred to other dioceses, “Coadjutor” type bishops in dioceses that are not under their authority, monks leaving their vows being allowed to marry, more than one bishop in one city, etc. – Yet none of these recent matters were left to a futuristic Ecumenical Council.
We believe the above information and the facts of history stand for themselves and do not need a defence. It is rather the other side in need of defence, from a Scriptural, Patristic and canonical point of view.
Additionally, the western hemisphere is not like the homelands of Eastern or Oriental Orthodoxy which had two thousand years of resources to draw from suitable monastics availble for consecration. Though the earlier Canons are believed by Orthodox tradition to come directly via Apostolic authority, the later ones by an assumed one-size-fits-all decision by the Fifth-sixth Council. Canonical commentators have not been able to resolve the obvious differences other than simply to note them. Oiconomia is the only way this issue should be resolved in the Orthodox faith, as it always has. For one jurisdiction to use one set of Canons against another jurisdiction’s interpretation or oikonomia is neither appropriate nor Orthodox!
» Posted By Diogenes On April 30, 2012 @ 9:57 am
You people are really disturbed about nothing; rumors and innuendo. The election for the bishop of the DOS will have to consist of more than one candidate. Put forward the guys you want; simple. AND, who says the candidate has to be celibate or a monk? The Tradition of the Orthodox Church from it’s earliest time are MARRIED BISHOPS. Monks were later chosen due to expediency and reasons which no longer exist. Put forward good married candidates for bishop. This isn’t radical, but Orthodox. Or, do some of you believe there is less grace in married clerics? That the marriage union (sex) is somehow dirty or tainted?
» Posted By Diogenes On April 30, 2012 @ 9:27 am
All of this skata. All caused and created by converts. Dreher, Maymon, Frederick, Jonah. This is the down fall of the DOS. Too many converts bringing their baggage and fighting over who is who and who is what. Let them all go to the Antiochians or Greeks. The OCA needs “normal” converts without agendas.
» Posted By Diogenes On April 28, 2012 @ 4:47 pm
This guy appears to be a “fringe Orthodox nut.” How do nuts like this aspire to any role of authority? This guy should be sent to Barrow, Alaska.
» Posted By Diogenes On April 27, 2012 @ 3:18 pm
There are no “Syosset Stooges.” You don’t realize is that in Syosset are only several people employed by the OCA. To change or merge dioceses would take the approval of the OCA Synod, the MC and the O.K. of the OCA (Church) in general. It has nothing to do with Syosset.
+ Jonah should really go to Dallas. That’s where he belongs. He really isn’t the leader the OCA needs. A true disappointment.
» Posted By Diogenes On April 26, 2012 @ 8:29 am
A true travesty! European Jews eradicating the indigenous Palestinian peoples!
Israel marks 64 years of independence
Apr 25, 2:13 PM (ET)
JERUSALEM (AP) – Israelis celebrated their country’s 64th anniversary Wednesday with fireworks and military processions at a national ceremony in Jerusalem.
The festivities came immediately after Memorial Day for fallen soldiers and victims of militant attacks, an annual ritual of twinning grief with elation and pointing out the link between the two.
Preparations for Independence Day were marred last week when a lighting rig collapsed during a rehearsal, crushing a young soldier to death.
Speaking at the official ceremony, Parliament Speaker Reuven Rivlin cautioned against extremism of all stripes, naming ultra-Orthodox Jewish zealots, ideologues who burn mosques and activists who delegitimize the state as “those who threaten the future of Israeli society.”
Government statistics showed that Israel’s population grew by 137,500 since last year to 7,881,000. The Central Bureau of Statistics said 75 percent of the population is Jewish and 21 percent is Arab. The remaining 4 percent represents tiny minorities or immigrants who are not Jewish.
Traditional Independence Day celebrations include dancing in city streets and family cookouts in national parks. Some military bases open Thursday for visits, and Israeli cities host open-air concerts in honor of the holiday.
» Posted By Diogenes On April 25, 2012 @ 4:12 pm
The answer is for + Jonah to step down as Met and go to Dallas. Everyone would be happy! A locum tenens would then be appointed as Met until an election could take place. Simple, easy and responsible!
» Posted By Diogenes On April 25, 2012 @ 2:39 pm
In 1968, Colson served as counsel to Republican presidential candidate Richard Nixon’s Key Issues Committee.
On November 6, 1969, Colson was appointed as Special Counsel to President Nixon.
Colson was responsible for inviting influential private special interest groups into the White House policy-making process and winning their support on specific issues. His office served as the President’s political communications liaison with organized labor, veterans, farmers, conservationists, industrial organizations, citizen groups, and almost any organized lobbying group whose objectives were compatible with the administration’s. Colson’s staff broadened the White House lines of communication with organized constituencies by arranging presidential meetings and sending White House news releases of interest to the groups.
In addition to his liaison and political duties, Colson’s responsibilities included: performing special assignments for the president, such as drafting legal briefs on particular issues, reviewing presidential appointments, and suggesting names for White House guest lists. His work also included major lobbying efforts on such issues as construction of an antiballistic missile system, the president’s Vietnamization program, and the administration’s revenue-sharing proposal.
Slate magazine writer David Plotz described Colson as “Richard Nixon’s hard man, the ‘evil genius’ of an evil administration.” Colson has written that he was “valuable to the President … because I was willing … to be ruthless in getting things done”. This is perhaps complimentary when read in comparison to the descriptions of Colson which pepper the work of Rolling Stone National Affairs’ Political Correspondent, Hunter S. Thompson during the period.
Colson authored the 1971 memo listing Nixon’s major political opponents, later known as Nixon’s Enemies List. A quip that “Colson would walk over his own grandmother if necessary” mutated into claims in news stories that Colson had boasted that he would run over his own grandmother to re-elect Nixon. In a February 13, 1973, conversation, Colson told Nixon that he had always had “a little prejudice.” Plotz reported that Colson sought to hire Teamsters thugs to beat up anti-war demonstrators. Colson also proposed firebombing the Brookings Institution and stealing politically damaging documents while firefighters put the fire out.
Colson’s voice, from archives from April 1969, is heard in the 2004 movie Going Upriver deprecating the anti-war efforts of John Kerry. Colson’s orders were to “destroy the young demagogue before he becomes another Ralph Nader.” In a phone conversation with Nixon on April 28, 1971, Colson said, “This fellow Kerry that they had on last week…He turns out to be really quite a phony.”
Watergate and Ellsberg scandals
Colson also became involved in the Committee to Re-elect the President (CRP or CREEP). At a CRP meeting on March 21, 1971, it was agreed to spend $250,000 on “intelligence gathering” on the Democratic Party. Colson and John Ehrlichman appointed E. Howard Hunt to the White House Special Operations Unit (the so-called “Plumbers”) which had been organized to stop leaks in the Nixon administration. Hunt headed up the Plumbers’ burglary of Pentagon Papers-leaker Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office in September 1971. The Pentagon Papers were military documents about the Vietnam War which helped increase opposition to the war. Colson hoped that revelations about Ellsberg could be used to discredit the anti-Vietnam War cause. Colson admitted to leaking information from Ellsberg’s confidential FBI file to the press, but denied organizing Hunt’s burglary of Ellsberg’s office. He expressed regret for attempting to cover up this incident in his 2005 book, The Good Life.
Although not discovered until several years after Nixon had resigned and Colson had finished serving his prison term, transcripts of a tape-recorded June 20, 1972 White House conversation between Nixon and Colson clearly show both men’s early involvement in obstructing justice in the Watergate investigation.
On March 10, 1973, seventeen months before Nixon’s resignation, Colson resigned from the White House to return to the private practice of law, as Senior Partner at the law firm of Colson and Shapiro, Washington, D.C.
On March 1, 1974, Colson was indicted for conspiring to cover up the Watergate burglary.
As Colson was facing arrest, his close friend, Raytheon Company chairman of the board Thomas L. Phillips, gave Colson a copy of Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis, which, after reading it, led Colson to become an evangelical Christian. Colson then joined a prayer group led by Douglas Coe and including Democratic Senator Harold Hughes, Republican congressman Al Quie and Democratic congressman Graham B. Purcell, Jr.. When news of the conversion emerged much later, several U.S. newspapers, as well as Newsweek, The Village Voice, and Time, ridiculed the conversion, claiming that it was a ploy to reduce his sentence. In his 1975 memoir Born Again. Colson noted that a few writers published sympathetic stories, as in the case of a widely reprinted UPI article, “From Watergate to Inner Peace.”
» Posted By Diogenes On April 25, 2012 @ 2:43 pm
OK, let’s put this in perspective. Colson was the evil genius behind Nixon the GOP. He was directly responsible for some of the worst, illegal activities against America and Americans ever. Watergate and Nixon’s disgraceful resignation was just the tip of his criminal activity. He and Cheney read the same play book from their German masters in 1938. So, Colson was caught, put in prison and “finds Jesus.” This gets his sentence cut short and in the history books, somewhat redeems him. Compare him to Saul/Paul if you like, but I believe his “finding Jesus” was more politically motivated and for the sake of posterity. Whatever, let God be the judge. Just wondering, could Joseph Goebbels have changed if imprisoned? Even after murdering his own family?
» Posted By Diogenes On April 25, 2012 @ 12:24 pm
As BT would say, “Now here’s a howler!”
Spokesman for Moscow Patriarchate sees Russia as alternative to capitalism
April 24, 2012
The chief public-affairs representative of the Russian Orthodox Church has said that Russia today offers a viable alternative to a capitalist economic system.
Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin said that while Russia made some economic progress under the Soviet regime, that system of government was profoundly flawed by an atheist ideology. Nevertheless, he said, “the idea of a society where money, profit, and private economic interests do not dominate was very important.” The cleric said that today’s Russian government, no longer encumbered by Marxist ideology, “is designed to offer the world its recipe for a social order in which money and selfish personal gain are not be the primary goal.”
The statement by Archpriest Chaplin appeared to be aimed at addressing both the widespread fears of a general breakdown in the world’s financial system and the nostalgia that some Russians feel for the powerful Soviet government. At the same time his remarks underline the steadily closer alliance between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Putin government.
» Posted By Diogenes On April 25, 2012 @ 2:47 pm
It isn’t complicated and really rather simple to understand. Anyone who really studies the history of this region and the wrongful creation of the State of Israel in 1948 can see what happened. Originally, England & the U.S. thought they were doing the right thing in giving Jews their ancient homeland back to them. However, as more & more “European Jews” arrived, they began pushing out the indigenous people with force. The killed many Palestinians, eradicated their towns, created isolation camps for women & children and then even murdered them! Since 1948, the right-wing element in Israel has been eradicating the Palestinian peoples; taking their land, killing them and forcing them to leave. It’s going on today! So how does anyone think this will end? Years & years of killing a people and destroying them. Somewhere along the line, someone will get an atomic weapon into Israel. And why – because the European Jews stole land not theirs and eradicated the indigenous people. The South Africans were smart enough to wake up to their destruction of indigenous peoples; will Israel?
» Posted By Diogenes On April 24, 2012 @ 12:39 pm
Back To Stats Page
Study shows Mormonism is fastest-growing faith in half of U.S. states
Kevin Eckstrom | Apr 30, 2012 |
CHICAGO (RNS) Mitt Romney may or may not become the first Mormon to move into the White House next year, but a new study shows that Mormonism is moving into more parts of the country than any other religious group, making it the fastest-growing faith in more than half of U.S. states.
The 2012 Religious Congregations and Membership Study, released here Tuesday (May 1), shows that the mainline Protestants and Catholics who dominated the 20th century are literally losing ground to the rapid rise of Mormons and, increasingly, Muslims.
The study is conducted once every 10 years and can track Americans’ religious affiliation down to the county level, from the largest (Los Angeles County, where Mormons grew 55 percent while Catholics shrank by 7 percent) to the smallest (Loving County, Texas, which is home to 80 people and one nondenominational evangelical church).
Romney’s Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reported 2 million new adherents and new congregations in 295 counties where they didn’t exist a decade ago, making them the fastest-growing group in the U.S.
Mormons were the fastest-growing group in 26 states, expanding beyond their historic home in Utah to the heart of the Bible Belt and as far away as Maine.
Muslims came in second, with growth of 1 million adherents in 197 new counties, to a total of about 2.6 million. Overall, non-Christian groups grew by 32 percent over the past decade.
“Mosques have multiplied at a growth rate of about 50 percent,” said Dale Jones, a researcher with the Church of the Nazarene who worked on the study as part of the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies. “They have more religious centers, and simply moving into the suburbs puts you closer to where a lot of your folks are living.”
While other studies tally total membership, beliefs or worship attendance, the RCMS study counts the actual number of people who are affiliated with U.S. congregations — or, as Jones put it, the people who are “involved enough to the point where they know to count you.”
The study found that while upwards of 80 percent of Americans claim to be Christians, only about 49 percent are affiliated with a local congregation. And that, Jones said, should concern church leaders.
“In some ways, our chickens have come home to roost,” Jones said. “Churches have talked about needing to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ – what you hear is, ‘I need a relationship, I need to be born again,’ but not, ‘I need to be involved in a congregation.’ Guess what? That’s where we are.”
Overall, the survey identified nearly 350,000 religious congregations in the United States, from Albanian Orthodox to Zoroastrian. Those churches, temples and mosques are the spiritual home for 150.6 million Americans, and researchers say they were able to capture 90 percent of all U.S. congregations.
Like most surveys, the RCMS study relies mainly on self-reported data from churches and denominations. Some, including several historically black churches, failed to submit information on new numbers. Researchers were able to reach only one-third of U.S. mosques and had to estimate the rest.
The survey did not track growing numbers of secular or religiously unaffiliated Americans – estimated at about 16 percent of the country, according to other studies – because they do not belong to a local congregation.
Jan Shipps, a respected non-Mormon scholar of Mormonism who’s now retired from Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, said Mormons’ “astonishing” spread into new counties is likely due to church leaders’ decision to split large wards (congregations) into separate smaller wards on opposite sides of a county line.
“The way they organize themselves makes for more congregations,” she said. “They don’t have big huge congregations like the independent churches.”
The study also tracked the growth of nondenominational and independent evangelical churches, which combined represent the nation’s third-largest Christian group, at about 12.2 million adherents across 35,000 congregations.
Catholics, while losing about 5 percent of adherents in the past years, nonetheless remain the nation’s largest religious group, at about 59 million. The Southern Baptist Convention came in second, at 19.8 million, but its 50,816 congregations made it the group with the most churches.
The rapid growth among American Muslims likely has several explanations, researchers said: growth in the suburbs, an increased willingness by U.S. Muslims to stand and be counted, and more mosques being built to serve more worshippers.
Imam Muhammad Musri, president of the Islamic Society of Central Florida, saw growth explode by a whopping 473 percent in and around Orlando’s Orange County, according to the RCMS study, and he thinks the growth is actually double the 10,000 new Muslims reported by the study.
He said Muslim growth has been fueled by a wave of post-9/11 converts, American-born children of immigrants having kids of their own, and jobs in the booming medical industry. In central Florida, he said, Muslims are just following everyone else in search of “better weather, cheaper prices, cheaper homes.”
“I doubt in the next decade we will grow as much,” he said. “It’s like a new product when it’s first introduced, there’s lots of interest. But now we’re more of a known quantity and we’re not going to be opening as many new mosques as we were in the last decade.”
» Posted By Diogenes On May 2, 2012 @ 11:05 am