Comments Posted By Monk James
Displaying 1 To 30 Of 473 Comments
Christ is risen! Truly risen!
Without commenting on the content of this essay, I must say that the ikon at its head is incoherent with the words which follow, since they are not focused on the Lord’s resurrection, but on predictions from hither and yon which hint at his suffering.
‘
This ikon is an image of ‘The Bridegroom’, Jesus Christ our Lord crowned with thorns instead of flowers. Often, this ikon’s greek inscription describes Him as experiencing ‘Profound Humiliation’ — not ‘humility’ as it’s sometimes mistranslated into English.Oh, let us be joyfully renewed as we celebrate our Lord’s resurrection, and remember all it means for us.
Christ is risen from the dead,
by His death trampling Death,
and on those in the tombs bestowing life.And, since He has bestowed on us everlasting life,
we venerate His resurrection on the third day.» Posted By Monk James On May 8, 2013 @ 7:05 pm
CQ says (May 6, 2013 at 6:53 pm:
The proper response is:
“Indeed, He is Risen!” “Αληθώς Ανέστη!” “Hakkan Qam!” “Воистину Воскресе!”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~The OCA’s Department of Religious Education insisted on ‘indeed’ a few decades ago, but they were wrong. In a face-to-face conversation I had with the chairman of the DoRE, she denied that she had indeed started this, but I don’t think she was being truthful.
I grew up with ‘Truly He is risen!’ in English, and was startled by ‘indeed’ beginning only about twenty years ago. Some people and parishes still resolutely resist ‘indeed’ and are ignorantly and unfairly mocked for their accuracy.
In any event, referencing just the three languages cited here, it can be clearly seen that the first half of each response is formed on that language’s word for ‘truth’.
Now that I’ve studied languages ancient and modern for more than fifty years, I can confidently say that the two words of the greek original should be rendered:
Christ is risen! Truly risen!
Anything else — especially ‘indeed’ — is a distortion of meaning.
» Posted By Monk James On May 7, 2013 @ 4:22 pm
Do These People Count as “Sexual Minorities”?
Perhaps Michael Kinsey would tell us what he’s been doing to attract such aggressive homosexual advances, so we could avoid them ourselves, as I hope he has learned to do?
» Posted By Monk James On May 2, 2013 @ 6:46 pm
How It Should be Done — More from Byzantine, TX
colette says (April 16, 2013 at 2:12 pm):
Again-Were the pews always there or put in as the movement in this country around the 20th c. where pew were added to the Churches.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Reading into early christian literature, especially the homilies of St John Chrysostom, it’s clear that the default position for us orthodox at worship is standing. Still, there is ample evidence that some sort of seating was always provided for those who could not stand. Monastic architecture from earliest christian times includes seating in church, but against the walls — and used only during appointed sections of the services. In parish churches, there’s always seating available for the aged and infirm, for pregnant women and even for people who are just tired — and that’s as it should be.
To my knowledge, fixed seating (pews) was unknown among Christians until the ‘protestant reformation’.
This was a natural sort of progression, since in protestant services,the sermon (as distinguished from a homily) became the major component of their assemblies, and sermons often went on for hours. Since these events were more lectures than worship, it was expedient that people sit. Thus, the ‘meeting house’ model came to be accepted not only for protestant churches, but for civil court houses. Hasn’t anyone noticed the similarity?
Without being too facile, I’d suggest that early arrived Christians from Russia were less interested in making their temples ‘american’ than were their greek relatives in faith.
As a result, russian-american parishes tended not to have pews, and greek-american parishes tended to have them. And organs, too.
In their homeland, Greeks were used to making two prostrations during the Divine Liturgy, even on Sundays: one at the Epiklesis, and another when the Holy Gifts were brought forth for the communion of the laity. To this day, there are some greek priests who recite the prayers of the Epiklesis on their knees.
But in America, they built temples with pews which had kneeling rails, trying to be ‘american’ in imitation of their catholic and protestant neighbors.
What to do?
Having no authority over the design and construction of parish churches in his far-flung eparchy during the 1950s, Archbishop Michael Constantinedes, in a very kind exercise of pastoral oikonomia, told his people to kneel at least during the Epiklesis. Many stayed — and still do — near the aisles so that they could make the prostrations they learned from their yiayias.
This ‘kneeling on Sunday’ is just an adaptation to the reality of people’s stubbornness.
They wanted pews and they got them, no matter what the Tradition teaches us, so they could not make the appointed prostrations. The saintly Abp Michael made it possible for them to do SOMETHING rather than nothing, and the rest is history.
It’s a shame, though, that reductionism almost always becomes the new normal.
Prostrating ourselves on Sundays at the Epiklesis and before Holy Communion is NOT the same as kneeling, and we should do it.
Out with pews! In with prostrations!
» Posted By Monk James On April 17, 2013 @ 7:21 pm
The Colloquium and Pope Francis
Sean Richardson says (March 19, 2013 at 11:35 am):
This seems reflective of the possessor vs. non-possessor debate in Russia (St. Nilus vs. St. Joseph) … in which both sides ultimately were proven to ‘have a point’. When it was mentioned that Pope Francis would “take special care for the poor” the first thing that came to my mind was “and he’ll ask the rich to pay for it”.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~The most interesting thing about the possessors v non-possessors controversy is that both St Neilos of Sora and St Joseph of Volokolamo were both recognized as saints. But their divergent ways of monastic life must be explained and mediated.
The distinction between these two monastic founders is almost identical to that between, say, St Francis of Assisi and St Benedict of Nursia in Italy, the former shortly after the western schism and the latter long before.
Our orthodox Christian monastic practice has long held that we monastics must support ourselves, however we can, in blameless ways. And we do, although we are grateful for whatever help is offered.
But to renounce all labor and commerce and expect — even demand — that people will pay the bills for us monks is unreasonable and objectionable. the roman catholic notion of ‘mendicant friars’ is repugnant to us.
As a result, the theories of St Neilos of Sora (and other ascetic fathers) aren’t actuated except insofar as monastic communities support some of their number (and some others) who are called to a life of extreme solitude.
These hermits will never be known to anyone apart from the monastics who support them, and even those who feed them will never see those ascetics once they are blessed to be gone into their barest cells of prayer. It’s only when the baskets of provisions are lowered to those cells are pulled up untouched after a few weeks that someone looks in on the hermit, usually to find him dead.
Sooner or later, another monk enters that cell and the process is repeated.
» Posted By Monk James On March 19, 2013 @ 7:13 pm
Oh, yes.
And more than that, there’s love, the love of God for all His creation: ‘God SO loved the world that He sent His only son’ to save us and bring us to everlasting life.
St Gregory of Nyssa’s only written theological error (which he recanted and repented and withdrew when corrected) was his assertion of the apokatasasis tOn pantOn — the reinstatement of everyone — as an inevitable conclusion of God’s love for His creation at the end of time.
Gregory was wrong, of course, on this point only because of the one and single only problem that his theory completely eliminated our human responsibility to exercise free will and be bound by the consequences of our choices.
Now, all that theory being well tucked in and put to bed, we also must admit that only God is eternally, inexorably changeless. Only God remains the same, no matter what.
But all of us, His rational creatures, Angel and Man — able as we are to make rational and moral decisions — are not only changeable, but just as reformable and repentable as we are able to rebel against God and fall into sin.
This eternal stability of God and the free-will-fired fickleness of His creatures leaves wide open the question of whether Satan and the fallen angels with him might yet repent and be saved.
We ought to entreat the Lord for that along with our fervent prayers that all humanity will be saved — the roman pope and his flock included.
God is so good, most good, all good. Let us never doubt that He intends the very best for us and for all His creation.
» Posted By Monk James On March 18, 2013 @ 7:32 pm
Disgusted With It says (February 27, 2013 at 12:16 pm):
I wonder, what does the young woman in question think?
etc, etc
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It’s my considered opinion — mine alone — that if Bp Matthias is returned to office, this woman will bring charges against him in civil law, since sexual harassment is a crime both in Illinois and Indiana.Our OCA, wounded as it is now in so many other ways, will probably collapse altogether if BpM is reinstated.
We need a serious sort of housecleaning in our OCA’s Holy Synod, bereft as we are at the moment of suitable bishops, both those still shamefully in office and those eparchies who have none at the moment.
‘Lord, save Your people and bless Your heritage!’
» Posted By Monk James On February 27, 2013 @ 7:22 pm
Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss
Michael Bauman says (February 24, 2013 at 4:00 pm):
Power is checked by the call to repentance. Each of us is called to such an orientation. The more we are obedient the less abuse.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Power is almost always seized in some sort of hostile environment, usually to the benefit of the powerful and to the detriment of the powerless.Authority, though, is generally conceded by people to their leaders in much more mutually beneficial circumstances.
In The Church, we need and respect legitimate authority.
Loving fatherly direction and acountability to the family which is Christ’s own Body. That’s the ticket!
» Posted By Monk James On February 24, 2013 @ 6:40 pm
Jonathan Johnston says (February 22, 2013 at 2:52 pm):
Did A Cross-Dressing Priest Sex Ring Bring Down Benedict XVI?
by Barbie Latza Nadeau Feb 22, 2013 12:43 PM EST
Did a secret cross-dressing gay sex scandal bring down Pope Benedict?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When reporters and their editors can’t get the spelling of people’s names right, it seriously undermines their credibility.Caveat lector.
» Posted By Monk James On February 22, 2013 @ 6:40 pm
Women in Combat: Another Nail in the Coffin
Peter A. Papoutsis says (February 13, 2013 at 6:30 pm):
Fr. Hans I have a question: Why is Bishop Kallistos Ware a little wishy-washy when it comes to denying Female Ordinations? I thought, and maybe I am wrong, that Orthodoxy was very clear about this issue. Was I wrong? I would like to know your thoughts if possible.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Father Hans will answer for himself, I’m sure, but I can say for a fact — since I myself heard Metropolitan Kallistos Ware say this — that he said only that we orthodox haven’t yet formulated a cogent theological response to the question of ordaining women to the priesthood.
This is true, since the question has come up only recently even among protestant and catholic Christians. We just always assumed that this wasn’t an issue, and hence haven’t theologized it.
But if Peter Papoutsis or anyone else wants to know why MetKW says anything at all, it would be best to ask HIM.
» Posted By Monk James On February 13, 2013 @ 6:53 pm
Patrick Henry Reardon says (February 12, 2013 at 2:08 pm):
Father James asks, “Besides, who would perform the executions? Father Patrick?! Does he or any priest feel so strongly about this as to resign his priesthood for it and accept permanent excommunication?”
My comment, Father James, comes under the heading of a “rhetorical flourish.”
In fact, I am opposed to the use of capital punishment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I’m relieved to know that Father Patrick opposes capital punishment. But if that’s the case, I suggest that he be more circumspect before he expresses himself, lest he be all too easily misunderstood — an interpretation which his previous post required.
Such a ‘rhetorical flourish’ is guaranteed to do more harm than good, since what we write on the Internet is out there forever, and is likely to be quoted by people whose philosophy is sometimes completely contrary to ours.
» Posted By Monk James On February 12, 2013 @ 6:58 pm
Patrick Henry Reardon says (February 11, 2013 at 3:58 pm):
George mentions that Washington “presided over several hangings, one of them a sargent who molested a 13 year old drummer boy.”
Good for Washington! We could do with a bit more of that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I don’t think so.
In England, right well into the eighteenth century, minor infractions were routinely punished by death — a situation remedied by what we now recognize as condignity: punishment must not be disproportionately harsh vis-a-vis the crime, a concept enshrined in the american constitution as our protection from ‘cruel and unusual punishment’.
But Washington was a man of his time and place, and much of what went on then and there was conditioned by american colonists trying to move away from such british things as annoyed them at the same time as they continued to follow british patterns in many other ways. That social revolution isn’t over yet.
The biblical ‘law of retaliation’ — ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth’ — was intended to LIMIT punishment to some sort of equitable balance with the crime. So, if someone lost an eye in a fight, he might then demand one eye from his attacker, but not that he be blinded.
Lately, it’s been suggested that male sexual offenders be deprived of their sex organs, or at least undergo ‘chemical castration’, the latter being reversible — which might not be a good idea, given the high rate of recidivism in sexual offenders. Other therapies and imprisonment seem not to be effective, and we — as a culture — haven’t thought well through the implications of releasing even registered sex offenders into society. The whole system is fraught with dangerous contradictions and catch-22s.
In any event, as disgusting as it is even to imagine an adult man’s sexual abuse of a boy, it’s even more disgusting to think of killing sinners (crimes are usually sins) instead of neutralizing their capacity to do more evil and offering opportunities for repentance and salvation.
Besides, who would perform the executions? Father Patrick?! Does he or any priest feel so strongly about this as to resign his priesthood for it and accept permanent excommunication? That would be the lot of a professional executioner, since each killing would put him out of the Church for a minimum of ten years, per the canons. And even paying an atheist to do the dirty work doesn’t keep us who pay him from having blood on our hands.
» Posted By Monk James On February 12, 2013 @ 10:15 am
Another Response to Myself (Wink, Wink)
Ladder of Divine Ascent says (February 14, 2013 at 11:29 pm:)
Monk James writes:
“This intinction business and the spoon it involves ought to stop. We are told by our Lord, Jesus Christ, to ‘eat’ His Body and ‘drink’ His blood. This pretty much doesn’t happen when we’re being spoon-fed both of them.”
Bread without wine to my senses is just bread, the wine in a chalice without the bread seems like a glass of wine in a fancy cup.
The bread together with the wine to my senses are like pieces of living flesh that have bleed out, thus much easier to focus on my mind that what I’m consuming has actually been changed by the Holy Spirit into the Body and Blood of Christ.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That’s an interesting perspective, one I’ve never before encountered, but I’m fairly sure that this imagery is not the intention of the practice of intinction.I say this for two reasons.
First, the particle of the Lamb marked ‘Jesus’ — deliberately not the particle marked ‘Christ’, a distinction we’ll have to discuss some other time — is placed into the cup. Scholars of the liturgy tell us that this action is intended to symbolize our Lord’s resurrection. The roman ritual is the same in this regard as the byzantine, except that the roman eucharistic bread is broken in such a way as that only a tiny fragment (no inscription) is placed into the cup.
Second, the clergy all receive the Lord’s Body first, and then His Blood separately after that. Were the very subjective imagery proposed here by ‘Ladder’ valid at all, the clergy would receive Holy Communion with the Bread and Wine mixed together, whether with the spoon or at least by dipping.
» Posted By Monk James On February 15, 2013 @ 1:13 pm
Archpriest John W. Morris says (February 14, 2013 at 10:09 pm):
To Monk James:
The Church shifted to giving the Eucharist to the Faithful with a spoon for a legitimate reason. If the priest puts the consecrated lamb into the hands of the people, they would drop crumbs of the Sacred Body of Christ all over the place. When a Priest receives the Lamb in his hand, he consumes it and wipes his hand off with the sponge holding his hand over the diskos so that any crumbs of the Sacred Body will fall onto the diskos.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Here, Fr John Morris describes what a priest does when serving alone. It’s different when several priests are serving together with a bishop, who places a portion of the eucharistic Body of Christ in each priest’s right hand, and __ after all the priests and deacons have been given that holy Bread, the bishop then administers the holy cup to each of them.
It’s THIS pattern which ought to be restored for the communion of the laity.
Instructing the laity, St John Chrysostom (I think…) says that they should approach to receive the Body of Christ making ‘your left hand a a seat for your right’, and taking care that no crumb should fall, being as careful as if they were carrying gold dust.
The use of the communion spoon isn’t attested for another six centuries after Chrysostom, so it’s clear that FrJM’s explanation can’t be correct.
Besides, in the many times I observed the laity receiving Holy Communion as now mostly only the clergy do, I never once saw anyone spill the Blood of Christ or lose a fragment of His Body. On the other hand, I’ve seen priests (and one bishop) drop the Holy Communion from the spoon right onto the floor, splat! And the only time I’ve seen the cup knocked over and spill its sacred contents on the Holy Table, it was spilled by a careless priest.
» Posted By Monk James On February 15, 2013 @ 1:00 pm
Fr. Hans Jacobse says (February 13, 2013 at 4:18 pm):
Monk James writes:
This intinction business and the spoon it involves ought to stop. We are told by our Lord, Jesus Christ, to ‘eat’ His Body and ‘drink’ His blood. This pretty much doesn’t happen when we’re being spoon-fed both of them. We need to abolish the distinction between the way the clergy and the laity receive Christ’s own Body and Blood, a practice which Fr Alexander Schmemann consistently described as abject clericalism.
That’s how it is done in St. James Liturgy which a friend and I did yearly on his feast day a while back. I presume that ancient practice was carried forward in the Chrysostom Liturgy at least for the priests but I don’t know for sure.
We needed two priests to do the St. James Liturgy. One would place the body in the cupped hand of the recipient like a bishop does for priests in a hierarchical liturgy and the second would pour the chalice in the same way (recipient holds bottom to take a sip, the priest pours a little and wipes the cup). Of course we told everyone the proper way to receive before Holy Communion started.
It would solve the shared spoon issue too.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Since my nameday is 23 October (St James, Brother of the Lord), I prepared a translation of the Liturgy of St James which, with the blessing of our bishops, was served each year on the evening of that day, local clergy of all jurisdictions paricipating, for all the many years I was in Kansas City. A serbian-style slava followed at the monastery. I miss that!The clergy distributed Holy Communion just as Father Hans describes, and no one skipped a beat, not even the old ladies. It felt ‘normal’, and it was beautiful.
» Posted By Monk James On February 13, 2013 @ 7:03 pm
Heracleides says (February 12, 2013 at 1:13 pm, quoting Bp Tikhon Fitz gerald): “ONLY the Blood of Christ was imparted (sometimes by Deacons) from the Chalice.”
The bishop might want to inform St. Tarcisius (a third century acolyte) that it was NOT the Body of Christ he died defending from pagans whilst on his way to a Roman prison where he was to distribute it to Chirstian captives.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Protochristian practice allowed deacons to bring Holy Communion to people who were unable — for various reasons — to be present at the Divine Liturgy. Deaconesses brought Holy Communion to women. so as not to cause scandal.Whether St Tarcisius was a mere acolyte is another matter.
Given our contemporary and long-standing practice of intinction, both in our ordinary communion of the laity and in the reserving of the presanctified Holy Gifts, it’s reasonable to infer that ancient practice involved the intinction of the eucharistic bread brought by deacons and deaconesses, therefore clearly indicating that deacons and deaconesses imparted both the eucharistic Body and Blood of Christ to those whom they were sent to serve.
This intinction business and the spoon it involves ought to stop. We are told by our Lord, Jesus Christ, to ‘eat’ His Body and ‘drink’ His blood. This pretty much doesn’t happen when we’re being spoon-fed both of them. We need to abolish the distinction between the way the clergy and the laity receive Christ’s own Body and Blood, a practice which Fr Alexander Schmemann consistently described as abject clericalism.
In antiquity, people didn’t bother to write about things they thought were commonly understood, so such distinctions as we are discussing here might not have occurred to them.
» Posted By Monk James On February 12, 2013 @ 7:20 pm
The Assembly of Bishops on Abortion: Cause for Hope?
Jonathan Johnston says (February 3, 2013 at 12:25 pm):
One very important primary source regarding St. Peter the Aleut is St. Herman himself. In his writings, he writes clearly of this episode. Not imagined or created, but truth.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I regret to inform Jonathan Johnston and everyone else that St German’s reaction to the report that the ‘martyrdom of Peter the Aleut’ was not only not primary (he wasn’t there) or secondary (no primary witness told him) but tertiary (someone told him what he’d heard from others).
That St German believed the report tells us more about that saint’s willingness to attribute holiness to other people than about the reliability of the reports of such holiness.
» Posted By Monk James On February 3, 2013 @ 8:31 pm
Sean Richardson says (January 30, 2013 at 1:17 pm):
Ladder: I appreciate your feelings, but please be aware, the story of St. Peter the Aleut is VERY suspect and difficult to prove on the basis of historical evidence. If one looks at the history of the Russian Church in Alaska and the Franciscan-Romans in California, there are some very real problems with the St. Peter story. I once heard Fr. Meyendorf suggest that this is a classic example of the Church here rushing to make a decision without a proper historical footing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Around 1980,a an OCA bishop complained to me that our recognition of ‘St Peter the Aleut’ was fraught with problems: No eyewitnesses, no relics, no aleutiq tribal memories.
Of course, it’s a great embarrassment for any church to admit that they’ve recognized as a saint someone who exists only in fables, but those churches ought to admit their mistakes and move on.
» Posted By Monk James On January 30, 2013 @ 7:34 pm
+Jonah’s Release Requested More Than a Month Ago
Tumorous Baktos says (January 23, 2013 at 6:48 pm):
Well Patrick, where do REAL monastics appeal for salaries? Where do they demand for housing? Medical? Retirement? REAL MONASTICS belong in monasteries and pray for the world. Monies come from those who voluntarily contribute.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I’m often amazed by the ignorance of laity who express opinions about monastic life, opinions to which they’re clearly not entitled. But this aggressively ignorant zinger takes the cake.
We orthodox monks and nuns are obligated to support ourselves and we do our best to earn our keep, humble as that might be. We’re not like RC mendicants: ‘I’m trying to be holy, give me money.’
If people want to help us monastics financially or in other ways, they do well and may God bless them for their kindness, but it’s our tradition to support ourselves and help other people not only from our surplus, but even from our own sustenance if need be.
‘Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.’
» Posted By Monk James On January 23, 2013 @ 8:59 pm
Geo Michalopulos says:
January 21, 2013 at 6:03 pm
You’re right there. It’s always cats.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Myself, I like dogs but they’re more work than I’m willing to do. So I’ve always preferred cats. I had three cats at the monastery.
These last fifteen years or so I’ve been without cats, and I’m unhappy about that; it’s just a reality of my present situation, which I’ve reluctantly accepted.
All my cats were reliably responsive to training and always very grateful and affectionate. This might be because I learned the language of their sounds and signals, and responded in kind.
Not so different from people, eh?
» Posted By Monk James On January 21, 2013 @ 6:56 pm
arrow
View all comments
Jane Rachel says (January 20, 2013 at 3:15 pm, after other things):
But if he isn’t being released to ROCOR (and therefore doesn’t have any way of earning a living) because the Synod/Syosset/People In Control are being stubborn or unwise, then of course, they need to get unstubborn and wise up. It certainly isn’t helping their reputation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For various reasons, ROCOR clergy — even bishops — are notoriously underpaid, if they’re paid at all.God bless all those good men and their longsuffering wives and families.
If Met. Jonah is finally able to be received into the ROCOR or even the MP, I’m sure that he won’t have been attracted by the salaries available there.
This is a question of ethics and honesty and reality, not of money.
Lord, have mercy on us and forgive us our poor treatment of the laborers You send into Your vineyard.
» Posted By Monk James On January 20, 2013 @ 6:22 pm
Archpriest John Morris says (January 28, 2013 at 5:07 pm):
There is no canonical local Orthodox Church in the U.S. The Russian Bishops gave up their authority in America in the wake of the Russian Revolution. Antioch had the blessing of Moscow, what eventually became ROCOR and the Metropolia before it assumed jurisdiction in the U.S. because the Russian Bishops had enough problems trying to keep the Russian parishes from falling under the control of the representatives of the pro-Soviet Living Church the Bishops of the Metropolia encouraged the non-Russians to form their own jurisdictions under the control of the mother Churches.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Fr John Morris’s grasp has exceeded his reach here, and his opening statement is absurd.
All the authentically orthodox parishes/eparchies in America (those connected with their european mother churches) are fully canonical, but a bit irregular now here, since the OCA, by virtue of its 1970 autocephaly, is not only canonical but also THE LOCAL CHURCH.
The other extensions of european churches in America need to realize this and get themselves in order so that we can let Christ build His church here on a single foundation with Himself as the cornerstone. In English. In America.
» Posted By Monk James On January 30, 2013 @ 7:47 pm
Archpriest John Morris says (January 24, 2013 at 12:03 am):
SCOBA tried to introduce a common text of the Divine Liturgy almost 30 years ago. I was asked to try it in my parish to see how it was received. The translation was so bad that I could not use it. I hope that they will not try to impose Modern English on us because Modern English lacks the beauty of the more traditional English used in works like the Antiochian Liturgikon, which is, perhaps, the most complete service book available in English. Archbishop Demetri of the OCA Diocese of the South also published a very good service book.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Apparently, Fr John Morris is unaware that Bp Basil Essey originally intended to use contemporary English in his Liturgikon, but was co-opted by deadlines. As a result, it reflects the dreadful usages of the ‘Brookline Psalter’ in order to be at least a little consistent internally.
Abp Dmitri Royster’s tortured renderings are dreadful in a different way: He strove to preserve the word order found in at least Church Slavonic, if not actually Greek, resulting in some very unnatural-sounding constructions (‘Save, O Lord, thy people’ comes to mind).
The Greek Archdiocese published an ‘official’ translation of the hymn ‘Christ is risen’ about a year ago, and it’s pretty bad, too. It seems that the wording was awkwardly (awkwordly?) forced to conform to someone’s idea of matching the byzantine melody note for note to syllable for syllable, each english syllable occurring precisely on the same note as a greek syllable. This rigid adherence to precise melodies does just as much damage to a receptor language as does relentless reproduction of the source language’s word order. English syntax depends entirely on word order, and this fact must be ackowledged in our translations if they’re to make sense and be easily understood.
Jessica Suchy Pilalis’s work offers many helpful examples of setting clear English to byzantine melodies/tones, and is even available in modern notation.
It is narrow-minded and unfair to insist that pseudoelizabethan English is more ‘beautiful’ than our contemporary idiom. Both are beautiful in their own way, especially in the hands of gifted writers. Any assertions to the contrary reflect our biases and preferences rather than anything about the objective esthetic qualities of either style.
We still need a rendering of ‘Our Father’ which admits that there’s nothing in it about ‘daily bread’, ‘ttrespasses’ or God’s possibly leading us into temptation — among other things.
And what is the subject of the sentence at MT 5:11, the last of the ‘beatitudes’? (Hint: It’s not ‘they’ or ‘men’ or even ‘people’.)
Yet we just run on inertia in our comfort zone, unwilling to be dislodged by the facts.
» Posted By Monk James On January 24, 2013 @ 9:38 am
Jonah the Prophet: Muzzling Military Chaplains
Gregg Gerasimon says:
January 27, 2013 at 6:12 pm
This may be pedantic, but why is it called an “enthronement”? This word sounds a bit much. Is “enthronement” generally the term that is used when the first hierarch of an autocephalous church is formally installed as such? It gives connotations of a king being crowned.
Reply
arrow
View all comments
Gregg Gerasimon says (January 27, 2013 at 6:12 pm):
This may be pedantic, but why is it called an “enthronement”? This word sounds a bit much. Is “enthronement” generally the term that is used when the first hierarch of an autocephalous church is formally installed as such? It gives connotations of a king being crowned.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~The connotations of ‘enthronement’ are VERY alien to Americans, at least.
Altogether, it would be better to call this event an ‘installation’.
Not to mention that — in the event — Met. Tikhon wasn’t made to sit upon a throne.
Vote Saved. New Rating: 1
» Posted By Monk James On January 27, 2013 @ 7:09 pm
How Far is St Nick’s from the National Cathedral?
Ilya Zhitomirskiy says (January 18, 2013 at 12:57 pm):
Check the audits of the OCA done by Proskauer and Rose, and you will find that money intended for OCA use was diverted by Metropolitan Herman, or at least money that was not intended for Herman Swaiko ended up in his account. Also, the Synod heard the evidence and voted to remove Herman. Mark Maymon was a black sheep even among the Antiochians, whom +Phillip let go for “repeated disobedience”. If the reports about Bishop Benjamin’s porn abuse and DUI are true, then that is grounds enough for removal. Our bishops may not be saints, but they should be morally wholesome people. If I was voted as Metropolitan, I would have restored Jonah and became an auxiliary or go to the Diocese of the South.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As is well known, I disagreed with Met. Herman and opposed him publicly (once he broke his word to me) on several issues, especially his mistreatment of Fr Robert Kondratick — which MetH is even now reconsidering.
But I must protest Ilya Zhitomirskiy’s accusations against MetH.
For one thing, Proskauer, Rose performed no audits. That work was done by the Lambrides firm, whose efforts showed no financial misconduct on the part of FrRK, but left unresolved a few other questions regarding bookkeeping standards and, of course, the ADM money — an issue related to MetH’s predecessor.
Questions regarding MetH’s laddering of mortgages at St Tikhon Monastery were addressed after he retired for medical reasons and were not at issue before then, so could not have contributed to any sort of movement against him by the Holy Synod.
Bp Mark Maymon’s misbehavior in Dallas and Abp Benjamin Peterson’s well attested sordidness are independent matters, although there’s a lot more there than I can describe here.
Suffice it to say that there are still some ‘bad guys’ in our OCA’s Holy Synod (not just those two), and — if their history is any indicator of the future — we’re in for some rough riding still.
Lord, have mercy on us sinners, even our bishops, and bring us all to repentance
» Posted By Monk James On January 19, 2013 @ 6:39 pm
More from Russia, Not with Love
ulysses lorenzetti says (February 27, 2013 at 4:58 pm):
THE ESSENCE OF GOD
“THE ESSENCE OF GOD” is composed of all the “PHYSICAL SPACE OF THE UNIVERSE” occupied by a “INTELLIGENCE” of the highest degree of perfection, to give the origin in time and space, all forms of “ENERGY “, which move, since the atom, with its structures tiny dimensions, until all the celestial bodies, which composes the cosmos in perfect harmony and balance in their movements, and the purity of their feelings of “LOVE” composed of “Piety”, “Justice” and “Mercy”, gives us, the existence of life.
I await your response
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~That’s a lot of gnostic gnonsense, probaby acceptable only to the Rosicrucians and heretics of that ilk.
» Posted By Monk James On February 27, 2013 @ 7:26 pm
Artakhshassa the Great says:
January 2, 2013 at 10:30 am
No ORTHODOX Priest EVER says, “I baptize thee…..” anything.
Every ORTHODOX priest says, ‘The servant of God, N., IS BAPTIZED in the name of..’
Likewise, No ORTHODOX Priest EVER says “I now pronounce you man and wife…”, but, rather, “O Lord our God, Crown them with glory and honor…”
In other words, GOD, not the Priest, and not a man and woman, is the Minister /Agent of ALL the sacraments.
Go back to your books, “Not Marilyn.” Who catechized you? Or were you one of those “cradle “Orthodox that thinks he or she learned the Truth by osmosis?
No Orthodox Patriarch ever CALLS HIMSELF: “His Holiness, Your Holiness’ or “My Holiness.” If he did so, which he does not do, THAT would be self-titling.
Every ORTHODOX hierarch signs only his name, inscribing a cross before it, then just Archbishop, or Bishop or Metropolitana or Patriarch and the name of his See.
No Orthodox hierarch calls himself Vladyka, either, saving only such creatures as “Archbishop” Ronald/ Leo/Lazarus Buehler/Haler/Puhalo, who, bizarrely (and even “kickily”) signs his correspondence, “Vladyka Lazar!”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Our pseudonymous/anonymous correspondent is seriously out of his depth here, since he seems to insist that ONLY the byzantine-rite formulas of administering the christian Mysteries are effective.
He is greatly mistaken in this.
While I — personally — don’t think that any sort of revival of ‘western’ rites is of much help now, I’m thoroughly convinced that the rituals of nonbyzantine Christians, prior to their various departures from The Church, are just as effective as are those used by us, their byzantine relatives in the same faith. We have to start from there and try to be as accepting as we can be of different practices while at the same time not admitting heretical beliefs.
We need to be a great deal more flexible in these matters. God is infinite and merciful, and He loves us all!
» Posted By Monk James On January 3, 2013 @ 8:41 pm
Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald says:
December 27, 2012 at 3:22 pm
Father Morris points out (as do, presumably, all Patriarchs of Antioch ) that Patriarch John X claims to be the only claimant of them all who is the legitimate heir to his Patriarchate of Antioch.
Can’t argue with that!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Well, that depends on just who’s making the claim.
The syriac Antiochians, the syrian Antiochians, the greek orthodox Antiochians and the melkite greek catholic Antiochians all make the same claim — and each and all of them are legitimate in their claims at various points in history. Starting in the 15th century through to the mid-1700s, though, it all starts to become clear.
The notion that our contemporary greek orthodox antiochian patriarchate has a continuous and unbroken lineage since the time of St Peter is absurd.
Not that Rome’s claim is much better. I mean: After all, St Linus was the first bishop of Rome, and all the roman popes succeed HIM, not St Peter, who — with St Paul — established the episcopate at Rome but never served as bishops themselves there or anywhere else.
It’s a major point in regarding Rome as first in honor among the churches (until breaking away from The Church) that Rome ALONE among all the first-century episcopates was established by TWO apostles. The same cannot be credibly said of Antioch or even Jerusalem, which was established by St James, the Lord’s brother, the only apostle we know of who stayed in place as bishop of the church he founded. But this is a special situation, and is not replicated anywhere, ever.
Apostles are apostles, missionaries who are ‘sent out’, as their title says. They establish churches and appoint bishops and then move on if they’re not co-opted by murderous persecutors. Bishops, on the other hand, stay where they’re planted, an aspect of the most ancient understanding of ecclesiology confirmed by the ecumenical synods. At least until recently….
» Posted By Monk James On December 29, 2012 @ 6:43 pm
Thomas Paine says (December 12, 2012 at 4:37 pm):
You guys have it wrong. If + Jonah is a monk as he says he is, he doesn’t need money. Let him go to a monastery and live as a monk should!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It never ceases to amaze me that naive laity continue to express themselves as to how we monks ought to live.
Monks have to pay utility bills and medical bills, pay off mortgages or rents. And — gorblimey — we even have to buy groceries!
Among his other inanities expressed here over time, ‘Thomas Paine’ now suggests that we monks must live on air. Following his logic, we’d have to stop breathing even that air!
It’s an amazement that such a rationally defective human being as ‘Thomas Paine’ even bothers to continue to draw breath himself.
An irish prayer: ‘Lord, bless our friends and turn the hearts of our enemies. But — if their hearts will not be turned — at least turn their ankles so that we may know them by their limp.’
» Posted By Monk James On December 12, 2012 @ 8:56 pm
«« Back To Stats PageNikos says (December 7, 2012 at 4:31 pm, after many other things):
…The OCA has a long history of treating bishops who fall out of favor with abject distain. Say what you will about the foibles of the GOA, but when Archbishop Spyridon was retired, money was found to care for him the rest of his life. +Jonah? His fiscal cliff starts January 1, 2013 when the synod washes their hands of him. No care, no concern, just the self-righteous decision that they he is no longer their concern. Do we wonder why clergy and faithful are fed up with this “do what I say, not what I do” OCA leadership. Shameful.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Not just shameful, but unmistakeably sinful.No wonder people, clergy, and whole parshes are thinking about leaving the OCA. Why would they stay, when their bishops behave like functional atheists?
Maybe these bishops and OCA functionaries really ARE atheists. Whyever do they remain in their churchly positions? It’s certainly not for money — there isn’t much — but maybe for some adolescent fantasy of ‘dress up and play church’.
Our Lord Jesus Christ tells us that a good shepherd would lay down his own life to protect his sheep. What we have here in our OCA lately is the clearly unchristlike phenomenon of false shepherds sacrificing nearly everyone else to save their own rear ends. But why and for what?!
It’s obvious that The Powers That Be have forgotten (if they ever knew it) that everything we do to anyone else, we do to Jesus Christ our Lord.
Still, there really are some good bishops in our OCA. May the Lord grant them the vision to see what must be done, and the courage to do it.
‘Lord of the Powers be with us, for we have no hope but You. Lord of the Powers, have mercy on us!’
» Posted By Monk James On December 7, 2012 @ 6:58 pm
Recent Comments