Comments Posted By Jacob
Displaying 181 To 210 Of 232 Comments
It is good that you read the SMPAC report. Someone of your journalistic acumen can see things in that report that others, with a less trained eye might miss.
It is simply a scandal that Burke continues to serve. It weakens the fiber of the DOS in its greater duty to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I pray that the next bishop of the DOS will deal with this scandal in a loving but firm way. My greatest fear is that the Synod will only vet those candidates who will swear to not move on Burke as the litmus test to be considered the next bishop of Dallas. God preserve us from such men.
This is just another example of people’s skepticism about the OCA as it is currently ordered and constructed. Given that the OCA as a polity has no say about how the Church’s budget is created, the only way that we can influence that budget is by clearly stating that we will only fund it to the tune of $50 per person.
» Posted By Jacob On October 23, 2011 @ 10:39 pm
Mark from the DOS,
Maybe all of the important topics may need an ongoing format under more permanent headings on George’s site, which, if I may say, is the only site out here in cyber land that offers a reasonable unfiltered stage for people to post. You don’t get that on the Orthodox Forum or from Stokoe who only posts what meets his expectations (and we all know what those are related to Jonah) as well as other topics to move the OCA in the direction he likes, including his outright denouncing of the $50 assessment. No wonder, it would make it very difficult for his favorite candidate, John Jillions to be paid.
I think Jonah will survive this AAC. His wings have been sufficiently clipped and I think that Jillions offered the appropriate obedience to the MC that they feel he will keep Jonah in check as chancellor.
But still, the ONLY central church administration person who has gone on the record about the $50 assessment was Jonah who said that if that is what the Church desired, he would support it. I guess he will be the odd man out again.
And the beat goes on.
» Posted By Jacob On October 23, 2011 @ 10:17 pm
Mark from the DOS,
You have made your case and maybe like M. stated about another poster, Stan was just having a Troll moment which caused him to lose his more balanced approach to this issue, which, btw has nothing to do with the topic thread – dang I sound like the thread police on here today! Sorry.
Nonetheless, you make a good argument and I don’t think you, like Stan, have anything but the best interest of the most vulnerable in our midst who need to be protected by the BEST standards whether secular or church or a higher combination thereof.
So, if you all have an argument with Fr. Ted Bobosh, take it up on his blog. That is why he writes and encourages our replies.
Hope I didn’t offend anyone.
» Posted By Jacob On October 23, 2011 @ 10:01 pm
I am assuming that Fr. Dresko was ok with you reposting his comments on the pastor’s list. I cannot tell you how much I personally agree with Fr John’s reasoned and informed conclusions based on his real life experience as a priest who has consistently taught about Christian Stewardship in his pastorate. He is an important voice to be heard and I hope that he will speak up loud and clear in Seattle and that other clergy and laity will do the same.
It is very unfortunate that year after year, decade after decade, the OCA has missed chance after chance to move away from the minimalistic approach to funding the work of the central church administration by just kicking the can down the road and defaulting to the course of least financial reistance, the OCA head tax. It has done nothing but cause the CCA to rely on a formula that does nothing to encourage visionary budget construction. Rather, as Fr John said, miserliness.
I think we need to budget with vision and try to meet the spending needs rather than “seeing what we get and spending that.” I find that has no vision whatsoever and actually promotes miserliness and a temptation to donate if “I like the way the money is being spent.”
Now, like so many others, it is time to send a clear message that we are not going to wait any longer for Syosset to come to its senses. Until such time that we can see that you are worthy of our support, we are only going to fund the most basic framework of Syosset so that the doors can remain open and no more. That is the new starting point.
I too am just plain tired of the direction the OCA has taken. It is totally uninspiring and frankly it resembles less of being a Church and more of being a badly managed business with too much “boardroom fighting” as the board of directors try a hostile takeover and removal of the CEO. We are not going to pay for that anymore.
I too would urge all those delegates going to Seattle to demand that the $50 assessment be discussed on the floor of the Council and that a vote take place. I will be voting along with Fr. John in favor of the $50 assessment. Then and only then will Syosset finally understand that we in the parishes can live without the current administrative model of overpaid staff at the expense of hard-working people in the pews who would rather support the growth of the Church locally and not fund an unsuccessful central church administration.
My vote in favor of the $50 assessment is a vote against the Metropolitan Council as poor stewards of the money given to them ($8.1 million over the past three years) and against the Holy Synod who spent more time fighting one another and not setting a higher example of co-suffering with each other as patient examples of Christ’s longsuffering love. Too much time blaming and not enough time leading. You are not going to be rewarded for your bad behavior.
Consider this vote as the Church taking you all “to the woodshed” Do better and we can revisit things in 3 years, but for now, it will be $50 starting Jan. 1, 2012. Start planning for it.
» Posted By Jacob On October 23, 2011 @ 12:45 pm
How do you know that the crack MC Ethics committee didn’t take up your point about Reeves, Stokoe and Skordinski. Of course, if they did it was in Executive Session and of course, who knows what they said or did in Executive Session?
We pay for these folks to travel to NY how many times a year, we house them we feed them, we spend countless man hours catering to their ever expanding structure and what do we get? Redacted minutes that are about as revealing as Nixon’s transcripts of the Watergate tapes. Same type of transparency if you ask me.
Oh, yes, they have to do it to protect the legal behind of the OCA. Well if that is the case, it sure gives me the warm fuzzies to want to keep funding a Church that has to go into so many Executive Sessions for legal reasons.
But, don’t you worry, you keep givin that $105 and everything will be just fine! Trust me, with another $8.1 million, we will get it right this time!
» Posted By Jacob On October 24, 2011 @ 4:13 pm
It is time for Canada to go its own way and unite with other Orthodox Churches in Canada. Canada is a sovereign nation with its own history of how the Orthodox faith came to a great nation “strong and free.”
Canada in the past collected the OCA assessment but kept it locally and out of it the expenses for their bishop to the HS meetings, AAC, etc. were taken out of that fund, thus it was more or less a wash. I don’t even think that their bishop took the OCA stipend when they gave them out. But maybe he did since it might be easier for money to flow into Canada but more difficult or it to come out.
Anyway, it is called the Orthodox Church in America, that doesn’t mention Canada or Mexico. Why? Because Canada should unite with her Canadian sister Churches. It makes about as much sense for Canada to be part of the OCA as it would be for all USA OCA parishes to join a united Canadian Church.
The Canadian tax laws are telling us something folks. Ye who have ears to hear…….
» Posted By Jacob On October 24, 2011 @ 4:01 pm
You might have 100K show up on Pascha, when it is six weeks apart for the West and the weather across North America is unseasonably warm. Might!
I caught that line too, that Jillions wants to bring prestige back to the OCA. Yeah, like we had when Kondratick was chancellor and the OCA by the sheer will and pluck of the man got the OCA invited, seen, and listened to by the Greeks and the Russians. He got Herman to see the EP, which was no easy task. Let me see, how are you, Mr. Jillions going to accomplish getting Jonah to see the EP? Heck even Kyrill?
The first question the Greeks and the Russians will ask Jillions is “how is Fr Kondratick doing?” The next question will be. “And so, who are you?” Of course with gracious smiles and politeness. Then Jillions will be shown the door and the long ride back to drafty old Syosset with maybe a photo op picture to put on on the OCA website.
Mr. Jillions. “I knew Jack Kennedy and you sir, are no Jack Kennedy!”
» Posted By Jacob On October 24, 2011 @ 3:51 pm
There is no accountability and transparency in the new OCA. Period. What was the contract agreement with Jillions? What offer was he made? How many years contract? What if he is fired? Is there a buyout? I have a strong hunch this was all done behing the secret wall of “executive session.” What else was done there that the Church doesn’t know about? It just makes you wonder what other $8.1 million decisions they are up to?
Having said this, is it only me or does anyone else think that this roll out of the new chancellor is just in time for a redux of Pittsburgh, that is, as Fr Alexey noted, in the euphoria of the election of Jonah, the WPA attempt to reduce the OCA assessment to $50 was tabled. Are they playing the same game plan again giving the new chancellor a chance to bring a new spirit and thus he will need the $105 to pay his salary?
It just may be the jaded part of me, but I think this whole thing has been too well orchestrated. But, in any event, let’s be ready if it does pass that the Synod, “for the good of the Church” will veto the conciliar mind of the Church and impose the $105.
» Posted By Jacob On October 23, 2011 @ 9:31 pm
It is called tongue in cheek.
» Posted By Jacob On October 20, 2011 @ 11:28 am
Sorry folks, somehow this got posted twice. I believe the second one is the final version. It is bad enough you have to wade through what I write once, but twice. Oy!
» Posted By Jacob On October 20, 2011 @ 10:17 am
I certainly see your point and agree that the Northeastern arrogance displayed by the OCA leadership, especially since the overthrow of Herman and the replacement with a Zarras-styled business model, paying top dollar for positions that before did a better job at less pay might be enough to make your point. Sorry for the run on sentence.
Much of what the OCA suffers from is an overreaction to the bad old days of Kondratick and the obession of people like Stokoe, Wheeler, Benjamin and Nathaniel to throw as much dirt on his grave to make sure that anything done back then is interpreted as bad, corrupt and evil. However, “me thinks the lady protests too much.”
The current abomonation of an OCA chancery hierarchy comes from, I believe, that Northeastern arrogance and a blindly implemented organizational model that places the chancellor, secretary and treasurer on equal footing, and with the Metropolitan only on the top of the chart in name only. See here and scroll to Tosi’s report for the organizational chart
This attempt to de-Kondratick the OCA has a total failure, even to the point the Garklavs objected to it and wanted changes so that the Chancellor was more of a point of contact and able to have more authority in the day-to-day operations of the Chancery. What the brillant new OCA minds failed to grasp was that when they killed Kondratick, ran Herman out of town got rid of anyone with an institutional history of the OCA and replaced them with neophytes, the OCA could not but further slip into irrelevance. Now,to bring in Jillions, who again is a nice man, an academic, but he too has no effective institutional history of the OCA continues the mistake.
One proof of this is the dreadful attendance at the Seattle Council. When it was announced that Seattle, a beautiful city to be sure, would be the site, many said that it was a mistake. One wonders if they ever looked back at two previous attempts to have the AAC in the West (Los Angeles and Denver) and both were passed over because of the simple fact that you would be moving 3/4 of the OCA population to these locations. Yes, it doesn’t seem fair that those western regions always have to come east, but the brilliant idea of Bp. Benjamin to have it in Seattle so that the Alaskan clergy could make an easy trip to WA. and then a big trip to Alaska afterwards, well, the Alaskan trip was cancelled for lack of support, and so we all have to travel to Seattle so that a handful of Alaskan clergy can come to the AAC? Does anyone know how many Alaskan clergy are actually coming to Seattle. In the past, even when the AAC was in Florida, there would be about 10 Alaskan clergy and delegates who made the trip.
Now, I am not saying that Kondratick should come back as chancellor. He would have to be totally nuts to come back to an institution that is so much more dysfunctional than when he was chancellor, but the overkill and the current administrative structure of the OCA has not born good results.
So, Michael, yes, moving the OCA out of NY and the Northeastern mindset, could very well change the focus of the OCA. Even a move to DC could help. The fact that there is no Orthodox bishop in DC except Jonah, and there are a multitude of Orthodox bishops in NY and NJ, further diminishing the OCA’s effectiveness in that region, a move to another part of the country might prove beneficial.
But let us not kid ourselves. The Syosset gang would rather bankrkupt the OCA than move out of Syosset. They would rather see the building crumble (which it is) around them than wake up and see that propping up that white elephant of a structure makes little sense.
The OCA is now so ‘way off Broadway” in the NY Orthodox scene, unlike the bad old days under Kondratick that we just don’t figure into what is important anymore. Honestly, that last OCA website article about Kishkovsky was so pathetic.
But again, let’s put it into some sort of perspective. While Tosi is constructing a Kishkovsy “vigilant on the job” story playing phone tag with Bp. Serapion, where is the OCA in this weekend’s 20th Anniversary celebration of the enthronement of Pat. Bartholomew? We were not even invited. Period. Shut out.
Do you think that the OCA would have been shut out of this important event if Kondratick was still the Chancellor? I bet our Metropolitan would have been invited and would have been there in some capacity. Now, with the current brain trust, we don’t even have a congratulatory letter up yet on the OCA website.
This is just plain embarrassing. And you wonder why folks are ready to say, $50 and NO MORE in Seattle, that is the small number of folks who are actually attending are saying it.
Dang, where is Stan’s jug when you need it.
» Posted By Jacob On October 20, 2011 @ 10:07 am
Posted immediately below.
» Posted By Jacob On October 20, 2011 @ 10:06 am
May I suggest that you may wish to first question your recollection that what you remember coming from OCAN?
Having prefaced my comments, there are no restrictions on the OCA selling Syosset. Any restriction that might have been assigned to the property is long since past.
Having said this, just because the property was transferred for a nominal sum, it was transferred and is the legal property of the OCA so that they may discharge of it as they may so desire.
So it comes down to the question – Is there a bias in keeping the property because of those who now occupy it? Another question that can be asked in Seattle.
» Posted By Jacob On October 19, 2011 @ 6:16 pm
Given that this discussion is about the future of the OCA, i would submit to you, good Father, the answer is, No.
His Grace is catching up being without DSL for a few days, so the rest of us who are in real-time, submit to you that togas vs. the future of the OCA is not a real choice.
Please feel free to think about canvas, but unless it is about what we in the OCA are dealing with, can we ask that you defer your question or expound on it on another venue.
» Posted By Jacob On October 19, 2011 @ 5:13 pm
Like Alec posted here that the AG headquarters in Springfield, MO, not exactly the inter-galactic center of the universe, but they manage to get things done and sense their responsibility to their people and offer back to those who pay their salaries a worthy work product.
It is not the location but the content of the work being offered at that location that is the final measure of the validity of an organization.
Look at the lastest piece of spin by Syosset to “promote” the stature of Fr Kishkovsky at the expense of Jonah….
The active Fr Leonid, tracking down Bp. Serapion as he is in his car on the way to the airport to convey the concern of Jonah. Do these jokers think we are that stupid.
Serapion talks to Jonah directly. He does not need Kishkovsky to be his intermediary and we don’t need a Tosi story to fool us.
Talk about trying to justify their jobs. If it were not so sad it would be comical. But it is not funny at all.
And most depressingly, what the OCA has to say about the oppressed Coptic Church is nothing compared to the EP and Moscow speaking out in their defense.
» Posted By Jacob On October 19, 2011 @ 2:47 pm
Sorry if I was not clear. My point was that the OCA system is broken so redirecting more funds locally will empower the diocese to potentially do more.
Yes, the DOS model can be followed, but it would mean a change in a minimal giving assessment model to an open-ended no limit percentage model. As the diocese grows, the OCA benefits. It should be noted that the DOW also has a percentage method, but I believe that they still collect the OCA assessment in some fashion from their parishes, whereas the DOS collects no OCA assessment from her parishes. Someone can correct me if I speak incorrectly.
You are right. The deeper issue is do constituent dioceses and by extension parishes have confidence in Syosset. I believe they do not and have not for many years. The current dysfunction in the OCA is just another manifestation of how broken the situation has become.
Bottom-line, sending more money to Syosset will not help the OCA fulfill her mission. The mission of growing the Church is done locally. So let’s give the locals a chance to do it.
I hope that is a better explanation.
» Posted By Jacob On October 19, 2011 @ 2:13 pm
I am also skeptical because I don’t know how reducing national church assessments will affect giving practices. Just as an example, if a parishioner knows that his parish sends off about $110 for national church assessments (either directly or through the diocese) and he factors that into his annual giving, will he continue to give the same amount as before when the national assessment is reduced to $50? I don’t know. Conceivably not.
But isn’t that the whole point. We have had a central church in the OCA that has covered the weakness, or even enabled the weakness of dioceses for years. Now, we will put it all out into the transparent light of accountability and say, more funds are staying close to home. Gather, each deanery, each diocese and make the most of it.
The Top Down approach in the OCA has failed. It has arguably enabled an underclass of diocesan strength because too much money goes to Syosset leaving not enough locally. Now the light will shine faithfully on each diocesan bishop, his council, his diocesan departments and say to them, be creative within the unique realities of your situation. Be bold. You can make mistakes, it is ok. God blesses the good intentions of your efforts. Like a child learning to walk, you will stumble and fall, but we will all learn to walk together.
The DOS has proved that this works. They started with 6 parishes and now they have, 85? No, not setting the world on fire, but at least being faithful to what we have been called to do. And the DOS will benefit the most from a reduction in the OCA assessment. Why? Because they no long collect it from their parishes so another $150K will be reinvested into the DOS because that amount won’t go to Syosset.
Sure, I can accept that you are skeptical, heck, you have every right to be, but think on this, if the OCA can make this move, it does not say anything except, we can change, we can adapt, we are nimble because we are local.
Sam, the world has been watching our mistakes, how about giving them an opportunity to see us succeed?
» Posted By Jacob On October 19, 2011 @ 1:13 pm
I could be wrong, but I believe it was Theodosius, but he moved out and lived somewhere else in the neighborhood before he retired.
» Posted By Jacob On October 19, 2011 @ 12:49 pm
Haven’t heard that one. What did the Rusyns ever do to the OCA except found and populate most of our parishes?
» Posted By Jacob On October 19, 2011 @ 10:47 am
Besides the hiring of Garklavs after he was fired or his less than obvious remarks in his Interim Chancellor’s report, the public version, that the Metropolitan hardly comes to Syosset, which is a direct rebuke and untrue because the Metropolitan goes to Syosset every week except when his schedule, like when he spent time in Dallas for the dying days of Dmitri and then his funeral, made it impossible for him to be in Dallas, although he was castigated for that behind the scenes.
Besides directing Mel to get his Greek paperwork in order, once and for all, but Mel ignored that directive, putting the OCA in a precarious position and further diluting our credibility with the Greeks.
I guess not much, beside the above mentioned.
» Posted By Jacob On October 19, 2011 @ 10:15 am
Sorry to bring this up, but it goes back to the DC Nuns and Mel’s status here in the USA. Jonah knows and Mel knows what Jonah knows and the DC Nuns know what Jonah knows and Fester knew what Jonah and the DC Nuns knew. And from that it continues to be Darwin’s Law running the OCA, “survival of the fittest” or at least the mean and nasty. And, do you think that Mel and Garklavs went to the GOA to tell them how much they love Jonah? Or Kishkovsky telling everyone how great Mel and Garklavs are and now bad Jonah is, all of them taking their cue of Hopko’s “gravely troubled” insult. Really, is this what we are paying these guys to do?
But, let’s just focus on the battle at hand. Taking responsibility for the OCA, changing her course in a new direction, and letting the parishes and dioceses of the Church be free of a Syosset assessment that gets us nothing, to grow this Church into the future from the bottom up and not the failed OCA history of the top down.
» Posted By Jacob On October 19, 2011 @ 9:28 am
I think 2015 has been moved up to 2012. These OCA officials are not likeable folks. Tosi is a pompous arse. Garklavs was fired, but he knows better so he will continue to eat at the assessment trough. Melchizedek is openly contemptuous of the Metropolitan, which puts him on the same team as Garklavs and Tosi. Ringa has thrown in her lot with anti-Jonah Syosset staff and what does that tell you? The OCA is a hierarchical church in name only. These folks, along with the crack MC are telling all of us that they know best.
Well, guess what, the NY/NJ proposal is saying, “No you don’t know best. We have something to say about this.”
Syosset is in a lose-lose situation now. If the $50 assessment passes, the OCA is forced to adjust. If it doesn’t pass, or worse, the Synod overrules the conciliar action of the Church in Seattle, we will be told that our voice does not matter. Well, we will accept that, but don’t expect us to pay for your decision to overrule us.
Ms. Ringa would like us to re-imagine the OCA prior to cutting the Assessment so that a plan can take place. Well, that is a nice idea but we already know that the Syosset Preconciliar Commission axed the NY/NJ resolution proposal months ago, time that could have been used to re-imagine the OCA, so we already know that her words are simply wallpaper and reveal the open contempt for the serious faithful in the NY/NJ diocese. Sorry Melanie, you had your chance.
Now it is our turn to let you all know that we are not happy with your job performance and we are going to change the ground rules. We don’t need a Stokoe-styled bloated salary central church. Start making your contingency plans now. January 1, 2012 is coming and you won’t get paid what you have been getting paid.
We want a smaller central church focused on those things that are unique to the Office of the Metropolitan and the Holy Synod. We will take care of growing the church in our parishes and dioceses. If you in Syosset want more money, then start raising it but not from the sure-bet of assessments.
You all in Syosset make the case to all of us why you are so important and we can’t live without you. Answer to us how we should trust you with another $8.1 million dollars for the next three years. Defend your record, if you can, and tell us how you wasted our money by spending too much of your time trying to get rid of Metropolitan Jonah and not enough time doing whatever you do there.
How about a vote of confidence by the Syosset staff for Metropolitan Jonah. That would be a first step. If you can’t do that, then why should we continue to pay you?
» Posted By Jacob On October 19, 2011 @ 8:42 am
I believe the Blackbaud system was about $100K and it is still not fully implemented. That system was a holdover of the Kucynda era craziness that you had to pay top dollar to attract the best people and have the best software to lead the new OCA.
Oh, the history of the OCA computer system is priceless. And yes, that history includes Stokoe and Wheeler.
» Posted By Jacob On October 17, 2011 @ 9:18 pm
And not doing a very good job of “covering that institution” with the string of lost lawsuits and payouts they have incurred. Sidebottom, Koumentakos, Kondratick. Did I miss any? Seems like only the lawyers are getting rich these days on our assessment money. I bet if it goes to $50 and no lawyer who will defend them if they can’t pay, that the MC will be a bit more circumspect and prudent with other people’s money.
» Posted By Jacob On October 15, 2011 @ 8:03 pm
Is Stokoe a delegate from his parish? That is the only way he would have a chance at being elected at large. Also, his bishop, has to approve his credentials. Thus he could reject him even being a delegate. That would be the best option and most consistent given his removal from the MC by his bishop. Maybe someone could find out if Stokoe is trying to attend as a delegate. BTW, even if he tries to attend as an observer, his credentials have to be blessed by his bishop.
I don’t know if the Metropolitan Council has usurped that power from the bishops yet, I am assuming they have not.
» Posted By Jacob On October 15, 2011 @ 8:33 am
What took me too many words, Helga sums up in a few!
Syosset. You want it? Earn our trust first. Then we can talk in three years!
» Posted By Jacob On October 14, 2011 @ 6:24 pm
One area that Ms Ringa touches on is the voluntary gifts that once supported the OCA program work through the Fellowship of Orthodox Stewards. At its high water mark, don’t recall which year but it was 2003 or 2004, someone can look that up, FOS contributed something like $345K. To see that number now down to $7K is amazing.
Amazing, yes, but not unexpected when one looks at the leadership of the Church stabbing one another in the back. When you see the open contempt for bishops displayed on the Internet, when the bishops display this in public toward one another. When a senior Protopresbyter of the Church calls the Metropolitan “gravely troubled.” When Pandora’s box was opened by the likes of Stokoe and Wheeler and the disobedience of Job in withholding assessment income and the ouster of Herman and others it should not be too surprising that we now have what we have. This translates into a full-scale lack of confidence by the rank and file of the OCA in believing that the OCA is worth investing in.
One cannot blame fiscal mismanagement any longer, with all the safeguards now in place, but one can certainly question the expenditures of the Metropolitan Council and blessed by the Synod to spend millions of dollars on lawyers to first try and protect Herman, then going after Herman and trying to go after Kondratick.
As Fr. Karlgut says, we are living in very tough economic times. People are out of work, clergy standard of living is declining. I would guess that a majority of clergy wives have to work and there are too many clergy who have to work outside the parish to make ends meet. Yet, the 1% in Syosset want to still have their $140K salary and benefit packages, and $70K for a part-time treasurer. Something is wrong when a priest who is fired as chancellor continues on the dole as a “consultant” to the Interim Chancellor. That is just offensive. Could you tell me where I can get fired and still get paid my salary?
In checking back a few years to past AAC reports, in the bad old days of the Theodosius/Herman/Kondratick times (crossing myself three times!!!!) no one in Syosset made more than the Metropolitan and his salary and benefits were around $100K at the end of his 25 years of service as Metropolitan. The chancellor made less and even the FOS director who brought in lots of money, was only making $42K in salary plus benefits.
I can only view this as a long time OCA member and not an insider, but it seems to me that we got more bang for our assessment buck back then than we do now. The TOC newspaper came out monthly, we had a visible Youth department, workshops by Syosset staffers, a responsive staff, a human person answering the phones, and a general sense that you were taken seriously when you had a question. All of that might have been a facade and under the surface other things were happening, but I got to tell you, lots of stuff is happening now below the water line but next to nothing of value is visibly happening to impact my parish. We see infighting, church officers getting fat-cat salaries, lawyers siphoning off loads of money, and very little if much of anything that helps my parish priest in his under paid and overworked vocation. He dosen’t complain but I can. Hey, it may just be me. I might be living in some “Fringe” alternative universe, but I kinda think I am just a regular OCA member. If perception is reality, then it is no wonder that folks are mad as hell and not going to take it anymore.
If I could give just one bit of advice to the Metropolitan Council and Holy Synod, I would say, start burning the midnight oil, present a budget based on a significantly reduced assessment, maybe not as low as $50 but not any higher than $70, show good will, be responsive to economic realities in the USA and get out in front of this issue. If you show good will, the delegates will also. Start the very hard work of rebuilding trust and hope in the OCA; stop all the public fighting and trying to get rid of Jonah. Ramp up the voluntary giving programs, make the case that the OCA is worth investing in again. Don’t expect people to hand you their hard-earned money, earn it, make the case. Be willing to sacrifice yourself first! It will not be easy because so much ill-will and destruction has taken place since 2006. It will almost be like starting over, and maybe that is not such a bad thing.
But, if you go to Bellevue and cry poor and paint a doom and gloom picture because you can’t get your $105, you are going to get thrown out on your ear. And you should expect it.
» Posted By Jacob On October 14, 2011 @ 3:54 pm
I wonder if Fr John Jillions shared all of his interests with the Metropolitan Council and with the Holy Synod.
CHECK OUT HIS INTERESTS http://www.johnjillions.ca/interests.htm
No wonder Stokoe likes him so much. Here we go again!
» Posted By Jacob On October 3, 2011 @ 6:40 pm
If I got the wrong Stephen, I do apologize and will stand corrected on that point.
» Posted By Jacob On September 30, 2011 @ 6:16 pm
Back To Stats Page
Why Stephen Montgomery? Why? Because these nuns were wronged by +Mel. They were abused because of his lack of integrity and hounded out of the DC Cathedral and OCA because of awful lies spread by Faith Skordinski and +Mel.
If you knew of what you write, which you have proven you do not, you would beg the forgiveness of these monastics not that they would even consider your offense against them a sin in their humility. You should be ashamed of yourself. You are a stranger to this real life tragedy.
May God bless Met. Hilarion and ROCOR for showing love and compassion to receive these monastics and shame on the OCA Synod and +Mel in particular for his sinful pride and arrogance in covering up his wrong-doing. It is now and will continue to be on his soul what he has done and, in truth, all these nuns asked, out of their love for +Mel. was for him to get right with this so that it does not weigh down his soul. That is why, Mr. Montgomery!
» Posted By Jacob On September 30, 2011 @ 5:38 pm