Met. Isaiah of Denver (GOA)
The story in a nutshell is this: Salt Lake City has two Greek Orthodox parishes but because of a long-standing custom, both are maintained by the same parish council, both operate with the same budget, and both consider themselves to be members of the same community. Although this is a clear violation of the GOA’s Uniform Parish Regulations it’s not as terrible as it seems if you understand the culture of the Mountain West. The further you get away from the Midwest, the sparser the ethnic population. I’m sure this is probably true of the Serbian-Americans as well, who themselves have been part of that region for awhile (if memory serves, Wild Bill Hickok was murdered by a Serb settler).
Anyway, the type of isolation in the Rocky Mountains, the Salt Lake Valley, and so on tends to breed a hardy type of self-reliance. Some might call it cultural insularity but regardless, it has kept parishes going from generation to generation. For Orthodox Christians who live in Utah, the center of the Mormon universe, that’s no small thing.
Comes now the two parishes in Salt Lake City. Both parishes there are rather large and growing. They’re certainly not struggling. In the eyes of the Metropolitan of Denver, Isaiah Chronopoulos, the time had come for them to cut the apron strings and abide by the UPR. From where I sit (and having been in leadership capacity in a much smaller parish in which we did everything possible to abide by the same UPR), I have to come down on the side of legality. Metropolitan Isaiah did not ask for anything more than what was asked of everybody else.
That’s basically it. I know that things deteriorated to the point where three of the lay leaders were excommunicated a little over a year ago. I also know that sometime last year the parish council stopped paying two of the three priests who were attached to the two churches, and that in response Isaiah placed both churches under a type of interdict. That’s a type of nuclear option for a parish or church (or nation: think what Pope Innocent III did to King Henry II of England when he murdered Thomas a Becket) which isn’t trotted out too often. Nor should be. It seems that Isaiah’s back was back up against the wall and he had to do what he did, regrettable as it was.
In a previous piece on this subject, I came firmly down on the side of His Eminence. I still do so. I also regretfully predicted that since three of the ringleaders that were excommunicated were Archons, then the powers that be would force the GOA to pull the rug out from the Metropolitan of Denver. That appears to be what is happening. According to The National Herald, the Patriarch of Constantinople ordered Archbishop Demetrios Trakatellis to “resolve” this situation; he did so when he summoned Isaiah to 79th Street and gave him his marching orders, if we are reading the tea leaves correctly.
Since I’m no longer in the GOA, this imbroglio doesn’t hold the salience for me that it would if I were still carrying water for the Archdiocese. You know, having to deal with disgruntled laymen who chafed at the burdens (as they saw them) placed on them by the UPR. But I am Orthodox and for a good four years now, I’ve been waving red flags that the Episcopal Assembly was just a ruse by the Phanar and its lackeys here in America to derail authentic American unity and autocephaly. Nothing in the interim has disproven my assertion in the slightest. This latest incident involving the Metropolitan of Denver and the lay elites as represented by the Archon/Leadership 100 class has only solidified my belief. Further, it has confirmed my suspicions that the elevation of GOA bishops to “metropolitan” status was just another ruse by the Phanar to mollify the GOA’s bishops during their kerfuffle with the previous Primate of the GOA (Spyridon Pappageorge). In other words, window-dressing and nothing more.
Make no mistake: the reality is that these newly-elevated “metropolises” have no more territorial integrity than the extinct archdioceses that adorn the Holy Synod of the See Constantinople. In essence, they are nothing more than so many pushpins on a map of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (which corresponds roughly to the entire planet). Sure, as far as Istanbul is concerned, these archdioceses (e.g. Laodicaea, Bursa, Iconium, et al) have metropolitans “ruling” over them but what else are you going to call a file clerk in the Phanar? The delusion that has gripped the See of Constantinople for half a millennium now, that Constantine XI Paleologos will rise from his slumber and retake The City gives hope to the mediocrities which constitute the Holy Synod. It gives some meaning to their lives devoid as they are of having real responsibilities.
What other conclusion can we draw from this? Consider: how can a (real) territorial metropolitan with supposed oversight over a diocese and who alone is commemorated during the litanies of the Church as its only bishop be summoned to 79th Street and told what to do as if he were some low-level flunky? Does this not give the lie to the whole idea of episcopal dignity? Instead what we are seeing is nothing more than something that is played out in the corporate world day in and day out. Think of it this way: the Chairman of the Board of New Rome, Inc. has ordered the Regional VP for American affairs to “take care of the situation” because some of the bigger stockholders are angry. Regional VP summons the District Manager to Corporate HQ and reads him the riot act. The newly-chastenedDM goes back to District HQ, grovels before the disgruntled shareholders and sacks a few branch managers. And in the end, after a few months, he “retires” because of “health considerations.”
All of this makes the GOA look ridiculous (and takes some heat off the OCA for the time being). But that is not the issue. For those who still believe in the mythology of the Episcopal Assembly process, as well as the territorial integrity of the American Church, this scandal should cause grave concern. At the very least, it gives the impression that ecclesial policies and procedures can be trumped by wealthy laymen who are not above putting the screws to the Patriarch of Constantinople. That, and combined with the fact that the Phanar every now and then dumps scandalous metropolitans on the States after their release from an overnight stay in some foreign hoosegow, should give pause to those of us who have been working overtime to make the Episcopal Assembly process work.
It can’t work under these conditions nor should it. The good news is that more and more of us are seeing the bad faith that undergirded that process. We shouldn’t despair however, there’s a silver lining to every scandal. Like ROCOR’s recent disengagement from the EA, and Antioch’s outright resignation from it, the mishandling of the SLC scandal has provided another nail in the coffin of the EA.
The ultimate demarche as far as the Metropolitan of Denver is concerned is not something I look forward to. He is one of the few stand-up guys in the GOA –in the entire Episcopal Assembly for that matter. I hope I’m wrong. But in the end, we can’t expect anything better from a church which is governed not according to the canons but whatever lay elites working behind the scenes decide. As long as Istanbul and the Leadership 100 class have a mutual interest in preserving Byzantine nostalgia, we can’t expect anything better.
Last evening, Ancient Faith Radio’s Kevin Allen interviewed Pdcn. Peter Danilchick about the EA. Pdcn. Peter commented his disappointment and regret over Met. Savas’ comment in the Cleveland Assembly Forum where he said something to the effect, “if autocephaly were the goal, we’d not be here.” Though beyond that, Pdcn. Peter didn’t have much to say about it or unpack why Met. Savas said what he did. Of course, that’s no surprise. What could he say?
The rest of the interview was primarily “instruction” (IMO) about obedience of the child to the parents and understanding the parents desire to do what is best for the child.
Dn. Peter is a very good man who worked for Exxon for many years. He steps up to the plate in contributing to Orthodoxy in America. He is, however, a “+Bart Toady.” The deacon has no serious Orthodox theological education nor a complete understanding of Orthodox Canon Law. If he did, he would know that foreign bishops have no canonical authority outside their local territory; even patriarchs. These foreign bishops who think of the U.S. as their ATM have no canonical authority here – surprise.
Peter,
Even the corruption of American bishops must be rooted out. This is the role of the laity of the American Church. Whether is by the GOA, Antiochians, OCA, ROCOR, etc. The OCA did it’s “house cleaning,” how about the others?
Sam, you caused me to snort my coffee this morning. Fortunately I had the presence of mind to look away from my computer so that it wouldn’t be ruined by my spit-take. I have come to the conclusion that you are either an ideologue or deluded. The OCA has most assuredly not done “its housecleaning” (as we can see from the bill of particulars that have been lodged against several of the current members of the Holy Synod. Worse, it is in fact grooming even more compromised men for the episcopate as we speak.
George,
I realize that your agenda is to do as much harm to the OCA as possible along with BT and his ROCOR cronies. However, the OCA’s issues are nothing compared to what exists in the GOA, Anitiochians and ROCOR. You shy away from their issues. The OCA has done a very good job at transparency and “house cleaning.” That’s why + Jonah is gone and what’s his name in the Midwest. The accusations against Storheim aren’t true. That’s why Susan is gone in the Romanians, etc. Where is the GOA purge?
Mr Ting, you carefully elide my corrections, complaining that there has been “no housecleaning in the GOA.” That is true but it is beside the point, which you never get around to addressing, btw. Assertions are not arguments unless they can be backed up with facts.
1. “Jonah is gone.” OK, why? Because he incardinated a rapist-alcoholic priest into the OCA? Proven lie.
2. “The accusations against Storheim aren’t true”? I’m at a loss as to what you mean.
3. “That’s why Susan is gone.” OK, again why? Is he really gone? Has been laicized? No. Why not give him his day in court? If he’s guilty of some malfeasance, I’ll post it it front and center.
No, I’m “not trying to do the OCA as much harm as possible.” The Syosset Apparat has done incalculable more harm than me or ten Monomakhoi could do. I’m in the OCA, the last thing I want to see is its continued decline. But decline it will until it repents.
George phrased part of his answer as if ideology and delusion were an either-or choice. There is a vast body of evidence on the internet indicating that the two often go hand in hand in our day and age.
Foreign bishops are great, I have concluded, as long as there are several of them in competition.
Peter,
The Holy Apostles visited a city or area and ordained a bishop to serve that city or area. These bishops were responsible for only their city or territory. Some territories were larger than others. When the Muslims invaded the Christian areas and cities; Alexandria, Jerusalem, etc. voluntarily placed themselves under Constantinople to ensure continued Christian bishops and clergy. Russia, during Czarist days expanded it’s influence worldwide and established it’s churches wherever. However, Canon Law is clear, that where a “local church” is established or exists, this local church has authority over that territory. Qatar has long historical ties to Damascus. The OCA is the local church in North America. The Pat. of Moscow has no business in Turkey, except to help re-establish Christian areas. The Pat. of Istanbul has no authority in North America; neither does Moscow, Damascus or others. For foreign bishops to say they have “dioceses” outside their own territory is just wrong canonically. Otherwise, the U.S. should open churches all over the world.
The canonical situation will sort itself out in the fullness of time. In the meantime, Christ and his Church must be preached ever and always. The Faith has often been contemporary with passing canonical anomalies over the centuries.
Peter,
You are twisting & turning what’s being said. Go read Orthodox Canon Law, then write. Bishops only have authority over their own particular authority; not beyond it. In the same manner, a priest only has authority in his own parish and not beyond it. Furthermore, canon law does not allow for priests or bishops at large. Priests without a bishop or parish are to be returned to the laity. Bishops without a diocese are to be returned to the laity. In the Orthodox Church, spiritual responsibility is local to a specific parish, city or territory. Same with monks. Monks must be attached to a monastery. There cannot be monks at large outside a monastery.
I know political boundaries and according to those boundaries foreign means foreign. Also, you set the standard NOT canon law. I am sorry if you cannot abide by your own standards.
Peter
“Qatar has long historical ties to Damascus.”
Uh, no. For one, the connections of Qatar to the Patriarch of Antioch (now resident in Damascus, but Damascus always being in the Patriarchate of Antioch) dates from its earliest days, 16 centuries ago. The Phanar’s involvement in North America dates back only barely over a century, and less if one goes by the Episcopate. Moscow was involved in the United States before there was a United States (1738 in Virginia), and had an episcopate in North America almost as long (1794), and not just in Alaska. The OCA Metropolitan stands in an unbroken line from 1840, and resident in the lower 48 states since 1870, almost half a century before any Phanar sent bishop set foot in the Americas.
“The OCA is the local church in North America.”
It said it over a hundred years ago:
http://books.google.com/books?id=9l4vAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA183&lpg=PA183&dq=northwest+territories+first+orthodox+church&source=bl&ots=PNecwbNsxP&sig=faH2t_YmTDgfUj0H0s4qkKmIROQ&hl=en&ei=4GudSubXAY3iMNLJ9JAC&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#v=onepage&q&f=false
“The Bishop of the Russo-Greek Catholic Orthodox Church for North America and the Aleutian Islands and his successors incorporatlon in office, having jurisdiction in Canada, is hereby incorporated for the purposes mentioned in this Ordinance, under the name of ” The Bishop of the Russo-Greek Catholic Orthodox Church,””
“how did the OCA get Canada?”
It was the one who evangelized Canada, sent her priests, and consecrated a bishop for her.
Qatar is still different than Syria fence The Patriarch of Antioch is a Foreign bishop. Canada is different than the U.S. Hence the Metropolitan of the OCA in America is foreign bishop. Who cares who evangelized who foreign is foreign. Please try again Isa. Thanks.
Peter
History nor geography not your thing, PP?
Qatar and Syria are both Arab countries: “foreign” is reserved in the Arab world for the non-Arabs. Did you think only the Greeks were entitled to Omogeneia?
The Metropolitan of the OCA might be a foreigner in Canada, but he is the one with the Royal Assent of the Canadian Sovereign, as shown above. And the recent OCA bishop of Canada was a native born Canadian, as is its present administrator and auxiliary bishop, His Grace, Bishop Irénée (Rochon) of Quebec City (though born in Montreal). Or maybe the Québécois don’t count. I do know, that unlike Met. Sotirios, they let the faithful use Canadian English and French.
Who cares? God and the canons: “Where there is neither Greek, nor Jew, circumcision, nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond, nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.”
For your own sake at least, try again.
“Uh, no, thats wrong! You are looking at culture, I am looking at political entities and as such Syria is one Nation-State and Qatar is ANOTHER Nation-State, so Isa YOU try again.”
Sorry reality doesn’t fit into your caricature.
You can worry about who is xenos and barbaroi in Greece: in the Arab world, we’ll worry about who is ajnabi.
I”ve traveled across a number of Arab Nation-State borders (though I admit, the Qatari one is one I haven’t crossed): in every single one there were two lines, and two lines only, in processing “ARABS” and “FOREIGNERS.” And although I was born in Chicago and travelled on a US Passport, I often got put into the former category.
” Not all Arabs are united because if that were the case there would be one country NOT several.”
Is that why the Greek Orthodox Church down the street is so worried about Cyprus? Why the Phanar calls the CoG, Cyprus, Alexandria and Jerusalem to meet, with Antioch as a bystander? Why the Constitution of the Hellenic Republic refers to the Fener Rum Patrikhanesi/Aya Sofya Museum in Istanbul? Why scouts at the Papal Cathedral in Cairo bore the flag of the Hellenic Republic, and not the Arab Republic of Egypt?
Btw, the citizenship law in Syria and in Qatar is based on, in part, descent from Ottoman subjects, which both the Syrians and Qataris (and Egyptians) were.
“Also, Greeks share one culture, but we are still different between the Greek mainland, Cyprus, Turkey and now in the West.”
I know Slavs, Albanians and Vlachs born in Greece who don’t share that one culture. And ones born in the West, the Turkish Republic and Cyprus, who have citizenship-as all their compatriots can-in the Hellenic Republic.
“The Patriarch of Antioch is STILL a Foreign Bishop as he is not a citizen of the nation of Qatar.”
Repetition accrues no truth.
Btw, the Qatar Statistics Ministry only distinguishes “Arab” and “Non-Qatari” (the latter the majority, btw)
Well Isa if that is your whole argument on the Syria-Qatar discussion then that’s week buddy. The mighty Isa reduced to a mere cultural argument. We are all Arab so we are not foreign and our bishops are not foreign bishops if Arab. That is so incredibly week, but ok. You stick with that. Peace.
Peter.
Isa if this your argument its totally weak. Try again buddy.
Peter
i responded to you earlier but I am not sure it it went through, but just in case it did not, my answer is: Uh, NO! you are wrong again. What FAILED was the purchase of the building, NOT the Church Community. The Church community was worshipping since 1860, just not at a church building that came later. So the Greeks beat the Russians by at least 4 years in the United States of America.
As for the state law on admission to the Union I stated that Territories and States hold the same proprietary right in relation to the United States but do differ in terms of population. Puerto Rico, Guam and the Virgin Islands, etc., are a good example. So you and I are in agreement, except that the Greeks were first in the United States THEN the Russians. Sorry Isa.
Peter
” The Greeks still have the superior right.”
You sure you’re not Hindu, PP, with all this mantra stuff?
Or at least Protestant-I haven’t seen a single reference to the hierarchy of the episcopate in any of your “arguments.” Not that I am surprised, given the lack of standing of the Greeks by that standard in North America.
“Wrong, this applies to proprietary rights that later the United States of America can enforce when a territory or state is formed. Again, Alaksa was NOT OFFICIALLY American until 1912.”
Not so good at history, now I wonder how well you are at American law.
Alaska was officially American as of October 6/18, 1867. The “proprietary rights” of Article II of the Alaskan Treaty were tested in US court before 1912, and upheld. After all, under the US Constitution, Article II is supreme law of the US land. And it is a well established principle of US law (again, tested and upheld in US courts in regard to Article II of the Alaskan Treaty), that the law of any territory acquired by the US is not dismissed as foreign law, but US courts take cognaissance as US law, and enforce as such.
“Wrong! soil means nothing legal status does and Alaska was not part of the United States of America until 1912. Greeks still have the suprior claim over the Russians.”
I am not sure what point, if any, you are trying to make here, given that the legal status of Alaska as of October 18, 1867 was US soil. The status of Louisiana on that date was part of the Fifth Military District.
“Greek Orthodox were in Louisiana in 1864 and in Tarpon Springs, Florida in the 1880 and established St, Nicholas in 1907.”
In Florida in 1880 and it took them 27 years to establish St. Nicholas? And can you point to any connection between Demetrios Fundulakis, who died I’m sure before 1800 and as far as I’ve seen evidence Greek Orthodoxy in Florida disappeared with him, to those Greeks of 1880?
Btw, it wasn’t just Greeks in Louisiana in 1864:
http://books.google.com/books?id=YRmn-_vXZ58C&pg=PA217&dq=%22the+Empress+of+Russia,+for+the+kind+solicitude+she+had+manifested+for+their+Church%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=c7gTU9WbMNL82gXw8IDQCg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22the%20Empress%20of%20Russia%2C%20for%20the%20kind%20solicitude%20she%20had%20manifested%20for%20their%20Church%22&f=false
“Wrong again Isa! Its againt U.S. Constitutional Law for a state the seceed. See Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869), Thus under operation of law Louisian could not and under US law never did seceed from the Union.”
LOL. And Obamatax is Constitutional, Abortion a Constitutional right, Dred Scott wasn’t a human and other legal fictions, fantasies and inanities.
It’s opinion on how the Fifth Military District was a state is less than persuasive. And since Lawrence v. Texas, there is no binding precedence in US law any more.
And in any case, US legal precedence binds neither history, nor the Sacred Canons.
Still doesn’t help you any, as the congregation of Russians, Serbs and Greeks in SF were there when CA became a US state in 1850: when the Episcopalians established their diocese of California, they deliberated getting their orders from the Russian bishop in Sitka, St. Innocent, who had retained jurisdiction over the Orthodox of the West Coast down into SF.
“Sorry, California is still Official part of Mexico at this time NOT the United States.”
Actually, that was officially part of the Russian Empire, and it was neighbored by the Spanish Empire until 1821. The Orthodox Russians (and Finns, Aleuts, Kashaya (the local CA Amerindians) etc) worshiped in their chapel until 1841, when the removed themselves to Sitka AND SF (including the last two colonial governors, acting as Russian Consul and agents of the Russian-American Company, whose charter the bishop St. Innocent wrote regarding the duty of the RAC towards Orthodoxy and evangelization), in the ceaseless chain that ends up today as Holy Trinity OCA Cathedral of the West in SF. They were there when the Americans and America came and took CA in 1846.
“Nope, you are wrong again and your playing a little fast and loose with the facts.”
At least I have facts-and I work tight with them. Since you lack supporting facts, I can see how you overlook that.
“1868 was when the First Russian parish was established in US territory in San Francisco, California. Again, Russian Church was established in 1868.”
http://www.holy-trinity.org/about/history.html
In between those dates:
http://www.holy-trinity.org/history/1898/04.01-27_RAPV-SF-History.htm
It also had an Orthodox priest served them, an Orthodox bishop’s solicitude and canonical jurisdiction, none of which New Orleans had.
“However, what you neglect to tell people is that In 1864 the divine liturgy was performed for the Russian people on board a navy vessial in the SF harbour NOT on U.S. soil.”
Not up on the concept of “territorial waters” I see. Btw, it was the ORTHODOX, not the “Russian people,” as not all of them were Russians.
Was the “hall of the city” mentioned above also on board a navy vessel?
“the Greek Orthodox Church in the territory of Louisian was founded in 1864. a FULL 4 YEARS BEFORE THE RUSSIANS! ”
The Greek Orthodox Church in Louisiana had no Orthodox priest with any antimens and hence no bishop to exercise solicitude and jurisdiction. Just Orthodox layman-Consul Kostromitinov fits that qualification, and he had come to CA in 1830, settling in SF, USA in 1851. But unlike Consul Benachi in NO, Kostromitinov had an Orthodox bishop-a saint in fact!
“The common Law rule is “first in time, first in right” Palmer v. Railroad Commission, 167 Calif. 163, 168, 138, 170-173, 138 Pac 997 (1914).”
LOL. Besides the fact that your Greek were neither first in time nor right, the Common Law Rule requires deference to the judgement of the Sacred Canons when it comes to eccelsiastical jurisdiction. And the OCA’s is established by Treaty and confirmed by SCOTUS opinion.
“NO, you prove it! You have the burden of proof as the interloper.”
Since you’re the interloper, you have to meet your burden to prove you’re not.
“if you are saying that the Greek had no right to take their churches and land with them and go to the EP, then you have a BIGGER FIGHT on your hands with the ROCOR and the whole legal wrangling that happened back in the 70′s”
LOL. It seems the Phanar has a bigger fight on that: I haven’t seen a stampede of the Greeks to sign over that property that the Phanar wanted signed over to it in each diocese from here. Have you?
ROCOR lost in US court on its idea of its jurisdiction.
“In any case the Greeks were LEGALLY in the LEGAL parts of the U.S. PRIOR to the Russians and well prior to the OCA”
The OCA’s claims are as in succession to Russia’s, so the last part makes no sense (or, even less sense than the rest).
According to the Greeks own standards, they weren’t in NO canonically. The Russians were in America both canonically and legally-Article II of the Alaskan Treaty enshrining that status in US law, recognizing Orthodox canon.
“are you sayi ng that the OCA took some right with it when it was granted independence from the Soviet dominated ROC?”
You mean, as opposed to some right by the grant of autocephaly to the Church of Greece and the 1908 Tomos on the “Diaspora” from the Ottoman dominated Phanar?
“Hmmmm? Cuts both ways Isa.”
Only to those divorce from facts and reality.
“So maybe ROCOR has the better right and the OCA has squat! Ever think about that?”
Don’t have to: the PoM settled the matter, under both Orthodox canon and US law.
“I think not”
and it shows.
“you were trying to beat down Greek claims all I and everybody else heard were RUSSIAN CLAIMS, NOT OCA CLAIMS! so like I said maybe the Russians have a priori standing in the US instead of the Greeks AND the OCA. Unless of course you want to prove that the OCA took some right with it vis-a-vis the 1970 Tomos that the Communists gave it. Would love to hear that one.”
don’t know about any Tomos the Communists gave, but the Patriarchate of Moscow and the Holy Synod of Russia say in the one they gave
“Well Isa if that is your whole argument on the Syria-Qatar discussion then that’s week buddy. The mighty Isa reduced to a mere cultural argument. We are all Arab so we are not foreign and our bishops are not foreign bishops if Arab. That is so incredibly week, but ok. You stick with that. Peace.”
If I need an opinion of who is a xenos in the Hellenic Republic, I’ll let you know.
Greek Orthodox were in St. Augustine Florida before that, and please spare me that they were Unia. I know you believe that because not all were Orthodox and no mission or church was founded but there were enough Greek who were Orthodox and we were here way before the Russians. Like I said before try again Isa.
Also, did you just call ROCOR a non entity? Really? Wow love that logic.
Peter
However, let’s makes this really fair. The territory of Florida, the first legal recognition of a U.S. Proprietary interest is a territory, was established on March 30, 1822, and thereafter became a state in 1845. Greeks were now officially established by the early to mid 1800’s and St Nicholas Church in Tarpon Springs was established around 1907, I believe if memory serves me.
The U.S. territory of Alaska was not formed until 1912, and Alaska was not a formal state in the Union until 1959!
So from a legal point of view the Greek Orthodox Church was established in the United States of America BEFORE the Russian Orthodox Church and definitely before the Metropolia. Why? Because Florida was created Before Alaska.
Now what about the FORMAL (although Florida is part do the U.S. Continent why quibble) continental U.S. Same goes there. The Greeks were first before the Russians. The earliest Greek Orthodox Church established in the continental U.S. Was in Louisiana in 1864. The first Russian Orthodox Church was established in San Fransico in 1868 or 1869, the Greeks were again before the Russians in the continental U.S.
So legally it’s the Greeks not the Russians,AND if now the Greeks are under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch guess who’s territory this? That’s right the EP’s not Moscows. Also, the territorial Church is the GOA and not the OCA. So whether 1907 or 1864 the Greeks were here in America first before the Russians.
Hey it’s not a canon 28 argument, but I think it still flies. Common Isa let’s play.
Peter
Peter, even if they weren’t Uniates, the fact remains that there was no missionary outreach to them by the See of Cpole. It’s possible that had there been, and it had “took” then we Greeks could confidently point to North America being under Cpole’s authority, especially if it had spread north from Florida. None of these things happened. The plantation went extinct and the Greeks who settled there lost all sense of Hellenism. As miniscule as the Alaskan settlement was, the fact remains that it “took” and from there it spread to San Francisco with a continuous line of bishops. Even when it was overwhelmed by tens of thousands of Rusyn immigrants coming in from the East, there was no doubt about the episcopal authority.
There are certain individuals in the South who can trace their ancestry to this founding generation but they call themselves “Minorcans” because Minorca, Italy was the last stop of the ship which brought them Florida.
“Greek Orthodox were in St. Augustine Florida before that, and please spare me that they were Unia.”
They would have to spare you. I have no dealings with the Vatican. And it is its priest the GOA honors when it reads the names of the colony before the statute of their pastor.
“I know you believe that because not all were Orthodox and no mission or church was founded but there were enough Greek who were Orthodox and we were here way before the Russians.”
Only a single Orthodox is recorded among the whole group, Demetrios Foundoulakis the Creatan (IIRC). They were forbidden a priest by the Phanar, which suited the Uniate Greek wife of the colony owner just fine: she picked one up for them among the Vatican’s Latin clergy.
There were Russians already here in North America in 1768, when the few Greeks and even fewer Orthodox came to Florida. But even on the East coast, the Greeks were preceded way before, not by a Russian but a Ukrainian, Ivan Bohdan, who came with John Smith (who had fought the Turks in Orthodox Romania, and escaped via Russia) to Jamestowne in 1608. Bohdan came just when the Polish King required all Orthodox in his lands to bow to the Vatican.
And then there is the reception of the Russian Church in 1738 of Philip Ludwell III “a third generation Virginian. He was the man who in 1753 gave George Washington his commission in the army and they exchanged frequent correspondence. Ludwell was a cousin of Washington’s wife, Martha. He was also a relative of Confederate General Robert E Lee and Presidents William Henry Harrison and Benjamin Harrison, amongst many other distinguished figures of American history. His grandfather, Philip Ludwell I was the first British Governor of the Carolinas and his father, Philip Ludwell II a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses and Rector of the College of William and Mary. (The second oldest college in the USA and its first University.) Ludwell’s English manservant, John Wayles, was the father in law of Thomas Jefferson and the father of Jefferson’s African American mistress, Sally Hemings!…His reception was authorised at a meeting of the Holy Synod of the Church of Russia, who blessed him to take the Holy Gifts back to Virginia and which approved of his translation into English of the “Orthodox Confession” written by Peter Moghila, Metropolitan of Kiev, one hundred years earlier.”
http://orthodoxhistory.org/2009/11/orthodoxy-in-colonial-virginia/
Ludwell’s grandfather was the governor of the Carolinas and then speaker of the Virginia House of Burgess, and one of the founders of Williamsburg, VA: the parish, just next to the Ludwell’s house and near the capitol, was named Bruton in honor of his birthplace. Ludwell III’s mother, Frances Grymes Ludwell, is buried in the churchyard of Jamestowne. His daughter Lucy, also Orthodox, married John Paradise (born in Thessalonike of the English Consul and a Greek mother) also Orthodox. Naturalized as a US citizen by Ben Franklin in Paris during the War of American Independence, he is perhaps the earliest if not the first naturalized citizen in US history. The Ludwell family, AFAIK, ended up in Galveston Texas, where the tombstone bears the family crest resembling the Russian Imperial Eagle, and SS. Helen and Constantine parish reamains one of the oldest Orthodox parishes in the US.
“Also, did you just call ROCOR a non entity? Really? Wow love that logic”
As far as jurisdiction in North America, yes. They chose the Cypriot canonical model, not I.
Peter Papoutsis “However, let’s makes this really fair. The territory of Florida, the first legal recognition of a U.S. Proprietary interest is a territory, was established on March 30, 1822, and thereafter became a state in 1845. Greeks were now officially established by the early to mid 1800′s”
Why do we have to worry about what the US did? Has it been alone in North America?
Established how? By 1822 the outnumbered Greeks had assimilated to the Majorcan majority and disappeared without leaving an ethnic or religious trace that I’ve seen evidence of. You have some to offer?
“The U.S. territory of Alaska was not formed until 1912, and Alaska was not a formal state in the Union until 1959!”
The Alaskan treaty of 1867 makes the Orthodox Church in North America a party. Due to the supremacy clause, its incorporation in America is part of the supreme law of the land (there are some court cases based on that fact) from that date. Much like that status of Guantanomo Bay in Cuba at present.
“So from a legal point of view the Greek Orthodox Church was established in the United States of America BEFORE the Russian Orthodox Church and definitely before the Metropolia. Why? Because Florida was created Before Alaska.”
Did you say that you were a lawyer?
Since there was NO Greek Orthodox Church in Florida (or anywhere else this side of the Atlantic or Pacific for that matter), your argument makes no sense, even if we lay aside the fact that colonial Virginia preceded them all in the US, and the Russian Holy Synod had already taken it under its care. In 1870, New York statute required that Orthodox parishes which incorporated had to name the Russian ambassador and consul at NYC as trustees (presumably on behalf of the Governing Synod of Russia-the East coast was not yet incorporated into the Alaskan and Aleutian Diocese), and it was under the Metropolitan Archbishop of St. Petersburg. That’s Russia, not Florida.
“Now what about the FORMAL (although Florida is part do the U.S. Continent why quibble) continental U.S. Same goes there. The Greeks were first before the Russians. The earliest Greek Orthodox Church established in the continental U.S. Was in Louisiana in 1864. The first Russian Orthodox Church was established in San Fransico in 1868 or 1869, the Greeks were again before the Russians in the continental U.S.”
Btw, at the time Louisiana had seceded from the US. And, according to the canon 28 mythology that both the Phanar and the Church of Greece espouse (at least formally, now, in the interests of Omogeneia), those Greeks had no canonical authority to found that parish.
But that doesn’t matter, as that first Russian Orthodox Church was established in Fort Ross in 1812. When the parishioners were evacuated to Sitka, some went to San Francisco (and were joined later by some of those who went to Sitka), where they gathered for worship with the Imperial Russian Navy chaplains when they lay anchor (the same who first notified the Church of Greece of the existence of the New Orleans parish, and the first “priest” the Ukrainian Hruvchenko showed up. On him-
http://www.holy-trinity.org/history/1868/03.00.Kovrigin-Paul.html
These former parishioners of Fort Ross founded Holy Trinity Cathedra in SF on Pascha 1864, with a priest, a bishop’s solicitude and canonical jurisdiction, none of which (according to the Phanar’s standards) the parish in New Orleans had. The Consul for the Greek Kingdom, the Serb American (and Texan) George Fisher, signed on the US legal instruments of incorporation in 1867. I don’t know if or when the NO parish was incorporated before 1922.
Wrong again, PP.
“Hey it’s not a canon 28 argument, but I think it still flies.”
About as well as the canon 28 mythology does: like a rock.
Btw, your argument “So legally it’s the Greeks not the Russians,AND if now the Greeks are under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch guess who’s territory this? That’s right the EP’s not Moscows. Also, the territorial Church is the GOA and not the OCA” faulters as well: the Greeks spent their time under the jurisdiction of the Russian Church (except for the New Orleans Church, which the CoG and Phanar, according to their standards, would hold uncanonical) until the 1890s. Even if they had jurisdictional priority-which they don’t-the Greeks would still have to prove that they could take it with them and transfer it to the Phanar when they had been under Moscow/St. Peterburg for decades.
“Hi George. First, I think you misconstrue my arguement. First, I am more than willing to let that argument go and give it to the Russians, even though I want to see the Canon or Church precident as to what constitutes a “Claim” for a given church, if you understand me? Is it mere presence? If so the Greeks have the superior claim. If its actually planting a Church then the Russians have the superior claim, I need to see the legal or technical elements or condition that give rise to a so called claim.”
As shown above, the Greeks have no claim.
As to the canonical basis-
Constantinople I
2. Bishops must not leave their own diocese and go over to churches beyond its boundaries; but, on the contrary, in accordance with the Canons, let the Bishop of Alexandria administer the affairs of Egypt only, let the Bishops of the East govern the Eastern Church only, the priorities granted to the church of the Antiochians in the Nicene Canons being kept inviolate, and let the Bishops of the Asian diocese (or administrative domain) administer only the affairs of the Asian church, and let those of the Pontic diocese look after the affairs of the diocese of Pontus only, and let those of the Thracian diocese manage the affairs of the Thracian diocese only. Let Bishops not go beyond their own province to carry out an ordination or any other ecclesiastical services unless (officially) summoned thither. When the Canon prescribed in regard to dioceses (or administrative provinces) is duly kept, it is evident that the synod of each province will confine itself to the affairs of that particular province, in accordance with the regulations decreed in Nicaea. But the churches of God that are situated in territories belonging to barbarian nations must be administered in accordance with the customary practice of the Fathers.
(Ap. cc. XXXIV, XXXV; cc. VI, VII of the 1st; c. VIII of the 3rd; c. XXVIII of the 4th; cc. XX, XXX, XXXIX of the 6th; c. IX of Antioch; cc. III, XI, and XII of Sardica.)
Interpretation.
Since, as is attested by Socrates (Book 5, ch. 8), officiation beyond the boundaries of one’s own diocese was formerly a matter of indifference on account of persecutions, and, as Theodoret says, blessed Eusebius of Samosata did it as a matter of extraordinary zeal. On this account, when peace reappeared in the Church as a whole, the present Canon was adopted and promulgated. It relates neither to autocephalous Metropolitans alone, as Balsamon interpreted it, nor to Patriarchs alone, but to both these classes of dignitaries alike, according to Dositheus (p. 233 of “Those who have served as Patriarchs”), in order that each of them may serve his own province and diocese, and not interfere in one that is alien, and not confound the rights of the churches; but, on the contrary, in accordance with the Canons (cc. VI and VII, that is to say of the First, and much more in accordance with Ap. cc. XXXIV and XXXV), that the bishop of Alexandria may manage only the parishes in Egypt (the Council expressly mentioned the bishop of Alexandria because the Bishop of Alexandria with his party cooperated to have Maximus the Cynic ordained in Constantinople, while, on the other hand, great St. Gregory was ousted from office in spite of its being his diocese and parish). The metropolitans of the East are to attend to the affairs of the East, with the proviso that the prerogatives of the bishop of Antioch be duly respected, in accordance with the Canon (sc. VI) of the Nicene Council; and the metropolitans of the Asian, Pontic and Thracian domains are to manage only the provinces belonging to them (these dignitaries, according to c. XXVIII of the 4th, have to be ordained after the bishop of Constantinople). It commands, in addition, that both patriarchs and metropolitans alike refrain from interloping beyond their own dioceses and provinces with the object of ordaining others or performing other ecclesiastical services in the parishes of others, without being invited to do so; and that the synod of each particular province shall manage the ecclesiastical matters of each province of the metropolitans, whether they be elections, or ordinations, or penances, or absolutions, or any other such matters; likewise, as regarding the affairs of each diocese of the patriarchs, the diocesan synod shall govern such matters of the diocese in question, as the Nicene Council has decreed (c. VI). For the same thing is involved in the decree of the Nicene Council that no bishop shall be ordained without the consent of the metropolitan, and in which the present Council says to the effect that the synod of each province (of the metropolitan, that is to say) shall govern the affairs of each province, respectively. As for the churches of God that are situated in the midst of barbarian nations, where there either were not enough bishops to make up a synod, or it was necessary for some scholarly bishop to go there in order to bolster up the Christians in their faith. These churches, I say, ought to be managed in accordance with the prevailing custom of the Fathers. To be more explicit, neighboring and abler bishops ought to go to them, in order to supply what is missing for a local synod. Which, though contrary to Canons, yet as a matter of necessity was allowed by the Council. Read Ap. cc. XXXIV and XXXV, and c. I of the Sixth.
Ephesus
8. Our fellow Bishop Reginus, most beloved by God, and with him the most God-beloved Bishops of the province of the Cypriotes Zeno and Evagrius, has announced an innovation, a thing which is contrary to the ecclesiastical laws and the Canons of the Holy Apostles, and one which touches the freedom of all. Hence, since common ailments require more drastic treatment, on the ground that they do greater damage, and especially in view of the fact that the Bishop of Antioch, far from following the ancient custom, has been performing the ordinations in Cyprus, according to information given in libelli and by oral statements made by most pious gentlemen who have approached the Holy Council; therefore those who preside over the churches in Cyprus shall retain their privilege unaffected and inviolate, according to the Canons of the Holy Fathers and ancient custom, whereby they shall themselves perform the ordinations of the most reverent Bishops. The same rule shall hold good also with regard to the other diocese and churches everywhere, so that none of the Bishops most beloved by God shall take hold of any other province that was not formerly and from the beginning in his jurisdiction, or was not, that is to say, held by his predecessors. But if anyone has taken possession of any and has forcibly subjected it to his authority, he shall regive it back to its rightful possessor, in order that the Canons of the Fathers be not transgressed, nor the secular fastus be introduced, under the pretext of divine services; lest imperceptibly and little by little we lose the freedom which our Lord Jesus Christ, the Liberator of all men, has given us as a free gift by His own blood. It has therefore seemed best to the holy and Ecumenical Council that the rights of every province, formerly and from the beginning belonging to it, be preserved clear and inviolable, in accordance with the custom which prevailed of yore; each Metropolitan having permission to take copies of the proceedings for his own security. If, on the other hand, anyone introduce any form conflicting with the decrees which have now been sanctioned, it has seemed best to the entire holy and Ecumenical Council that it be invalid and of no effect.79
78(Ap. c. XXXV; c. II of the 2nd; c. XX of the 6th; cc. XIII, XXII of Antioch; cc. III, IX, XII of Sardica).
79(Ap. c. XXXIV; cc. VI, VII of the 1st; c. XX of the 2nd; cc. XXXVI, XXXIX of the 6th; c. IX of Antioch.)
Interpretation.
Inasmuch as Cyprus, so far as concerned secular administration, was subject to the Duke of Antioch, and was wont to send it an army commander (or general), it came to pass that the Bishop of Antioch, in imitation of this secular and civil form and law, undertook to show authority over that same Cyprus, with regard to both the religious and the ecclesiastical administration, by ordaining the bishops in Cyprus extra-territorially and not as a matter of ancient custom. This, however, was a thing that was contrary to Ap. cc. XXXIV and XXXV. After receiving Archbishop Reginus of Constantia, which used to be called Salamis but is now known as Amochostos, and the bishops accompanying, namely, Zeno of Cyrene, and Evagrius of Solon, who in writing as well as viva voce reported these facts, the Council decrees by the present Canon that, in accordance with the Canons and in accordance with ancient custom,78 the Metropolitans of Cyprus are themselves to ordain the bishops in Cyprus, and to be left unmolested and unconstrained by anyone else. But, making the Canon general and catholic, the Fathers of this Council add that this same rule shall hold also in regard to diocese (or administrations) and provinces everywhere else, to the end that no bishop be permitted to usurp and appropriate any other province that has not formerly and from the beginning been subject either to his authority or to that of his predecessors. If, nevertheless, anyone should appropriate it forcibly, he must return it, in order that the Canons of the Fathers be not transgressed, and in order that prelates, under the pretext of sacerdotalism, may not cloak a secret ambition and vainglorious yearning for secular or worldly authority, and hence becoming slaves to injustice lose little by little the freedom which the liberator of all men Jesus Christ has graciously given us with His own blood; it has appeared reasonable to this holy Ecumenical Council that the righteous and just privileges be kept clear and inviolable which formerly and from the beginning as a matter of ancient custom each province has been entitled to. Accordingly, each Metropolitan shall have permission to receive a transcript of the present Canon for security and confirmation of the privileges of his metropolis. If, on the other hand, anyone should come out with a form, i.e., a civil law or royal decree, contrary to the present Canon, it has appeared reasonable to all this holy Council for that civil law to remain invalid and ineffective. Read also the Interpretations of Ap. cc. XXXIV and XXXV.
Chalcedon
17. As touching rural parishes, or country parishes, in any province, they shall remain in the undisputed possession of the bishops now holding them, and especially if they have held them in their possession and have managed them without coercion for thirty years or more. But if during a period of thirty years there has arisen or should arise some dispute concerning them, those claiming to have been unjustly treated shall be permitted to complain to the Synod of the province. But if anyone has been unjustly treated by his own Metropolitan, let him complain to the Exarch of the diocese, or let him have his case tried before the throne of Constantinople, according as he may choose. If, on the other hand, any city has been rebuilt by imperial authority, or has been built anew again, pursuant to civil and public formalities, let the order of the ecclesiastical parishes be followed.
(Ap. c. LXXIV; c. VI of the 1st; cc. IX, XXI of the 4th; cc. XIV, XV of Antioch; cc. VIII, XII, XIV, XV, XVI, XXVII, XXVIII, XXXVI, LXXXVII, XCVI, CV, CXV, CXVIII, CXXVIII, CXXIX, CXXX, CXXXVII, CXXXVIII, and CXXXIX; cc. XXV and XXXVIII of the 6th.)
Interpretation.
Rural parishes are small parishes which are situated in outlying and distant parts of the country, and being inhabited by few human beings they used to be called monoecia (which word meant, in Greek, “lone habitations”). Country parishes, on the other hand, are parishes which were near cultivated fields and villages, and had a greater number of inhabitants. So it is these parishes in every province that the present Canon commands to remain inalienable and indetachable from the bishops to whom they belong, and especially if they have belonged to them and been under their authority for as many as thirty years in good faith and without coercion, that is to say, without their being forced to submit to it and without their being grabbed up on an unjust or unfair pretext. But if during the course of the thirty years there had arisen any dispute concerning them, or if after the enactment of the present Canon there should arise any dispute concerning them, those who claim to have been unjustly treated in regard thereto are given permission to have their dispute considered by the Synod of the province. If, again, anyone should claim to have been unjustly treated in regard thereto by his Metropolitan, let him refer his case to the Exarch and chief head of the diocese (whose function, however, was abolished or fell into desuetude after this Fourth Ec. C. was held, as we said in Footnote to c. IX of the present C.), or to the Bishop of Constantinople, as previously stated. If, on the other hand, there has heretofore been built any city by imperial authority, or if any be so built hereafter, then the neighboring bishop shall not try to subject it to his own authority and claim it as a parish of his own, since the order of the parishes of that church have to follow the civil laws and ordinances which may be decreed by the emperor in regard to the newly-built city, not vice versa.
Note that, after dividing this Canon into two sections, the Sixth Ec. C. incorporated in its own c. XXV that part of this present canon which ends with the words “complain to the Synod of the province,” while it incorporates the words following these to the end in its own c. XXXVIII. Note also that c.CXXIX of Carthage prescribes that if any bishop succeeds in converting any region of heretics to Orthodoxy and holding it for three years straight, without its being reclaimed by the one who ought to have reclaimed it, it shall no longer be subject to being reclaimed by him. The same Council’s c. CXXVIII declares that heretics converted to the catholic unity shall be subject to that throne to which the catholic union of Orthodox Christians situated therein had been subject of old. In addition, c. CXXX says that in case anyone deems any laity belonging to another to be wrongly held by him and appropriates it as his own, not by virtue of letters of the bishop possessing it, or at the request of the Council or Synod, but by despotism and assault, he shall lose that laity, even though it really were his, and even though he assert that he had letters from the chief head. Read also the Interpretations of Ap. c. LXXIV, of c. VI of the First Ec. C., and c. IX of the present Fourth Ec. C.
http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/councils_ecumenical_rudder.htm
Here you go Isa. Here is the First Greek Orthodox Church in Louisiana, and I was wrong. It did not start in 1864, it started in 1860! The Greeks are still first in their claim.
Later additions to the complex included a parish house, a small library and a nearby cemetery. In 1909, a charter was granted by the State of Louisiana to the Eastern Orthodox Church of the Holy Trinity, later rechartered in 1920 as the Hellenic Orthodox Church. In 1922, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, headquartered in New York, was established under the spiritual direction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople. The Archdiocese brought together all Greek Orthodox churches within the Americas.
http://holytrinitycathedral.org/history.html
Bye
Peter
I’ve been there PP: not to the original site (that’s in an iffy neighborhood, and I was with my sons) but where it’s been moved. Lovely people.
I’ve also been to the chapel built before St. Innocent of Alaska visited it in California in 1836, and where the parishioners moved to SF in 1841.
Btw, your source says the attempt in 1860 failed. Not that it matters: the Russians were still in CA when it became a US state in 1850. And, unlike New Orleans, they were in a canonical jurisdiction, with a bishop and served by Orthodox clergy. The New Orleans parish didn’t begin to get that until 1867. By then the parish of San Francisco was already being prepared to become the Cathedral of North America, the move completed in 1870. Now the Cathedral of the West, it lies blocks away from Russian Hill, named for the Russian Orthodox cemetery that stood on top of it the first half of the 19th century, as Russian ships frequented the Bay after 1806-indeed, Russia lay claim to it, causing the Spanish to come up north in an attempt to preserve their monopoly in the West.
Btw, you idea about the admission of states, besides being extraneous to the point, is not recognized under US law: states are admitted (or have been) on equal legal footing, Hawaii having the same status as Delaware, Virginia or Massachusetts.
“The Archdiocese brought together all Greek Orthodox churches within the Americas.”
LOL. You oversimplify a bit: it was decades before the Archdiocese could claim that, and given the persistent existence of the Old Calendarists, it is questionable if the Archdiocese could ever make that claim.
Btw, only the Russians in America recognized Pat. Meletios at the time of his organization of the GOANSA: the Alexandria, Jerusalem, Cyprus and the CoG defrocked him.
Isa again you play fast and loose withe facts. The Greek Orthodox community was established and worshipping since 1860. What failed was their purchase of a church building. However the community was up and running by 1860. Sorry Isa you loose again.
Also I have no idea what tou are talking aboyt with the distinction between territories and states. Both are the legal properties of the U.S. government. If you want to site me some legal precident or statute, then your rraching for strsws which means once again you failed.
So my dear Isa TRY AGAIN.
Bye
Peter
The parish in New Orleans got its first antimension from the Russian bishop.
“The Greek Orthodox community was established and worshipping since 1860. What failed was their purchase of a church building. However the community was up and running by 1860.”
The Russian-Ukrainian-Finn-Aleut-Kashaya Native Californian-Serb (and later, Greek) community was up and running in its own Church it built in the 1820’s, and were relocated in SF when the US came in 1850. Not to be redundant, but to repeat what I have already said:
“Also I have no idea what you are talking about with the distinction between territories and states. Both are the legal properties of the U.S. government. ”
You’re the one making a dogmatic distinction, not I, and I’m not sure you have an idea of what you are talking about.
“If you want to site me some legal precident or statute”
Get it clear in your own head first.
“then your rraching for strsws ”
All I need to reach for is a copy of the canons, cited above, the Alaskan Cession Treaty, and the Tomos of Autocephaly for the OCA. Rock hard facts, not a straw among them.
“Isa I cannot keep proving you wrong so I am going to stop.”
LOL. One has to start first before stopping.
“It is getting tiresome and boring. You live with you delusions”
Physician, heal thyself.
“I’ll live with the truth. Have a great Lent and enjoy that OCA Independence because in the end the GOA, ROCOR, AOA and all the rest of the Orthodox jurisdiction really don’t care and will carry on with or without the OCA.”
I’ll live with this truth, eloquently expressed by Met. (and hopefully one day Patriarch) Hilarion:
http://www.interfax-religion.com/print.php?act=interview&id=92
“The parish in New Orleans got its first antimension from the Russian bishop.”
“That’s great! That means alot to ROCOR, but means nothing to the OCA! Try again dear Bishop.”
The dear bishop, himself the successor of the Russian bishop, need not try again if his assertion is true: the Metropolitan of the OCA, not the First Hierarch of ROCOR, succeeds the Russian bishop in question. We know for sure that the New Orleans parish didn’t have an an antimension under its first “priest,” as he came to the Russian Mission demanding one.
“Isa, check this out from the Nicholas Benachi House website…”
Memory Eternal! We offered prayers ourselves when there (but outside: the gates were closed already when we arrived, but the Orthodox section was in view). As we offered here:
http://orthodoxhistory.org/2012/03/29/two-memorials-served-for-colonel-philip-ludwell-iii-tuesday-march-1427/
I offered the prayers at his house-the Ludwell-Paradise (John Paradise being his son-in-law, also Orthodox) at Williamsburg.
“Now according to Holy Trinity Catherial’s website the Russian Orthodox Church there was official incorporated on September 2, 1967.”
Time for a new prescription for your glasses: according to Holy Trinity Catherial’s website the Russian Orthodox Church there was officially incorporated on September 2, 1867
From the OCA official website: Holy Trinity Cathedral
San Francisco, California
Founded 1857
http://oca.org/parishes/oca-we-sfohtk
And from the Cathedral’s official website:
http://www.holy-trinity.org/about/history.html
IOW, the parish was orgainized as an Orthodox Society years before the New Orleans Parish, and almost half a century before the NO was incorporated.
“Now if the Greeks don’t have the superior right then ROCOR should have the suprior right? Oh, I forgot ROCOR is a non-entity, sorry ROCOR. Wait, Moscow should have the suprior right but they don’t have any churches in America do they? Oh, that’s right, I forgot Moscow does not care about the OCA becuase it has representational churches on the OCA’s sacred ground here in America.”
LOL. Rather rich, given the fact that the Phanar exercises jurisdiction still over half of Greece (the “New Lands,” Crete, the Islands)
Moscow does have the superior right, which it gave to the OCA:
http://oca.org/history-archives/tomos-of-autocephaly
“Hey, has Metropolitan Philip dissolved the AOA and joined with the OCA yet? Opps! I guess not.””
The Archdiocese deferred to the right of the OCA to glorify St. Raphael Hawaweenii
“I like this game, but like I said before, Its getting tiring and borning defeating your arguments one after another, after another.”
Proverbs 26:12
A blessed Lent, and “try being less dogmatic and partisan on these matters, except of course when it comes to Orthodox dogma.”
Isa, could you please repost this in my most recent blog posting? Thanks.
Peter A. Papoutsis says:
March 3, 2014 at 10:08 am
“Isa I cannot keep proving you wrong so I am going to stop. It is getting tiresome and boring. You live with you delusions and I’ll live with the truth. Have a great Lent and enjoy that OCA Independence because in the end the GOA, ROCOR, AOA and all the rest of the Orthodox jurisdiction really don’t care and will carry on with or without the OCA.”
What is this inconvenient Truth uttered in the Phanar in the midst of the almost All Autocephalous Primates, by the Primate of the largest Church of them all-larger than all the others combined?
http://www.pravmir.com/meeting-primates-orthodox-churches-starts-istanbul/
Who COULD His Holiness be talking about?
https://www.monomakhos.com/yet-another-historic-concelebration/#comment-11157
LOL
Going on three years later, more scandals and another sacked Metropolitan, and ya’ll no closer to that demise you crave. But now the Czech Lands and Slovakia have joined the Phanar’s persona non grata list, so I guess it has moved a step closer to trying to establish that Eastern papacy we keep on being told the Ethnarch of Omogeneia isn’t attempting.
“TNH: With this new decision are you saying that the Ecumenical Patriarchate no longer has the historical and canonical privilege of being the only one to grant Autocephaly?”
What a dumb question, with ignorance of history and the Sacred Canons overflowing.
Russia granted autocephaly to three Churches-and to one which it should have never taken (Georgia), making four. It ignored as void the autocephaly the Phanar gave Poland (and voided it), overlooked the anathema that the Phanar put on Bulgaria’s autocephaly (which it sustained, giving the Sacred Chrism etc. to Sofia), and force the Phanar to accept the self proclaimed autocephaly of Greece. IOW, Russia has-CORRECTLY-NEVER recognized any “historical and canonical privilege of being the only one to grant Autocephaly” vested in the Phanar.
No comment after all.
I would hope that the UPR, like many of the traditions of the Orthodox Church, provide a degree of flexibility so that varying situations could be considered in light of their context. The ultimate goal of the Church is to bring people to Christ. If a system works in bringing people to Christ and into the Church, then it should be maintained and supported. To paraphrase a scripture … The rules were made for man, man was not made for the rules (one might insert the UPR, tradition, etc.). I am not familiar with the SLC situation, but for a short time I belonged to an OCA church that maintained two parish communities, holding two services, having two priests, etc., albeit in the same structure, and having one parish council. It worked extremely well. Everything that we do should be to the glory of Christ and His Holy Church, and His holy mission of bringing people to a knowledge of Him. Anything that detracts from this goal should be modified. Anything that supports this goal, should be supported and continued.
Another sad day in Mudville for the Greek Orthodox Church. Reverend Luke (Uhl) was met. Isaiah’s chancellor, and good one. And when a good bishop is so ignominiously retired one wonders what shall be the fate of the diocese over which he ruled. Indeed, the fate of the Orthodox Church in North America.
Put on sackcloth, you priests, and mourn; wail, you who minister before the altar.
– Prophet Joel
Elias
Delta, CO
George, you’ve almost nailed it. Metropolitan Isaiah’s story is not over though. He’s what one MIGHT call a “real’ American, thought others might also be so characterized; I don’t know them all, by any means. But i believe he served as an enlisted man in our armed forces…was it not the Marines? He won’t lie down, or even go away like the unfortunate Spyridon.
However, the malady affecting the hierarchy of the Ecumenical or Grecumenical Patriarchate works from top to bottom. The Patriarch himself is not (and hasn’t been for centuries) ‘his own man,” but is subject to the same machinations as have been worked on Metropolitan Isaiah. He is NOT master in his own house, but almost, but not quite, a tool of the powerful and wealthy of this world, including the Greek Foreign Office and the remains of the Sublime Porte. My pretty uninformed thought is that ever-memorable Patriarch Demetrios came closest to being governed by purely religious forces, particularly his own conscience, but even he was enmeshed in “the system.” It’s true, I believe, that there has been a homosexual “claque” of sorts in the Sacred Synod; our ever-memorable Archbishop Peter claimed to be au courant in such Grecian matters. He named on member of the Sacred Synod (of course, I’ve forgotten the name) as being the leader and protector of that faction, with everyone’s implicit agreement. Patriarch Bartholomew may, in fact, be mightily opposed to abortion, but he can’t go so far as to come right out and condemn it as a sin, let alone as murder: the most he can do is express reverence for life in the womb…and even that is like pulling teeth. But He Is Not In Charge.
“Archons”? Are those something like Principalities and Powers?
I haven’t meant one of these archons yet. Do we have some in the Pacific Northwest?
Well Tim, the ones I know certainly like to think they are as holy as the holy angels. And yes, there are many out that way.
The website does say this:
“To be invested as an Archon of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is the highest honor a layman may achieve in the Orthodox Church.”
Learning something new every day!
“To be invested as an Archon…is the highest honor a layman…”
To be beaten and kidnapped because one will not renounce Christ is the highest honor a layman can ACHIEVE in the Orthodox Church. To be steadfast in the Faith to the point of persecution and death because one will not renounce Christ is the highest honor a layman may achieve in the Orthodox Church.
While I have nothing against the idea of archons, to say that this (to be recognized as an Archon) is the highest honor in the Church is to spit on the millions of confessors and martyrs of the past century, and in our present day, that have taken on Christ’s suffering as their own. The latter is the sole highest honor that one can achieve in Christ’s Holy Orthodox Church
I think we are talking about 2 different honors.
Peter
Dear Isa, if you want to know the moral character of Archons I would highly recommend talking to Mr. Zografopoulos. You can contact him through his foundation.
Peter
“Dear Isa, if you want to know the moral character of Archons I would highly recommend talking to Mr. Zografopoulos. You can contact him through his foundation.”
That would be nice.
I have, however, heard Archon Paul Sarbanes speak already.
Exactly not all Archons are the same just like NOT all Arabs are the same. Otherwise, Metropolitan Philip would agree with you and fold up shop and join the OCA. Er..wait..he hasn’t. Does that mean all Arabs do not think or believe alike? Oh my! perish the thought Isa, perish the thought!
But then again Syria and Qatar are the same because they are both Arab and all arabs think and believe alike, even the Muslims. I totally forgot.
Try again dear Isa, try again.
Peter
“Exactly not all Archons are the same”
but its the same Patriarch who makes them archons, no?
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=12-02-014-v#ixzz2v3oFrssm
“Otherwise, Metropolitan Philip would agree with you and fold up shop and join the OCA. Er..wait..he hasn’t. Does that mean all Arabs do not think or believe alike? Oh my! perish the thought Isa, perish the thought!”
Don’t worry: we Arabs don’t need others to do our thinking for us. We taught the Phanariots that in 1899-does it take so long to learn?
“But then again Syria and Qatar are the same because they are both Arab and all arabs think and believe alike, even the Muslims. I totally forgot. Try again dear Isa, try again.”
I haven’t asked for that opinion on who’s a xenos in the Hellenic Republic, now, have I?
As a lawyer, I like the ring of Archon Hartophylax myself….
Peter A. Papoutsis jokingly told Isa, “Keep playing that Phanar I hate Greeks card.” I used to refer to Phanariotes ever year on the Sunday of the Publican and the Pharisee. The Phanariotes were the Publicans of the Turkish Empire and bitter memories of them survived into our time, even, among the peoples of the Balkans, where they used to come riding to collect the Ottoman Sultan’s taxes for him on behalf of the Sultan’s Chief Publican for the Christians, the Archbishop of Constantinople, capital city of the Ottoman Empire, who was one of the former Patriarchs in the old Roman Ecumene, called, like the Antiochian, Alexandrian, and Jerusalem Patriarchs, an ‘ecumenical’ Patriarch. Some Christians in the Balkans thought the Greek Orthodox Phanariotes were scum, even lower than Islamic Turks. They didn’t all ride horses or carry whips, but quite a few did, I understand. It’s all long ago, of course. The Patriarch still cowers in the Phanar with his Sacred Synod. He’d no more leave it and the prestigious-to-Orthodox P.O. box than he’d ask for refuge in Bulgaria. Thank God, now the Germans and other Western Europeans have given the Greeks for the first time in their long history, THEIR OWN COUNTRY. It’s called “Hellas”, or “Greece.”!!! Before that, some lived there, but in huge numbers as well in Ionia, Pontus, and so forth. Lord Byron supported the idea: ‘Greece” whole-heartedly and is loved for it. And so we have it, thank God! I love them, the Greeks! In college I dated mostly Greek or Jewish girls. One was, remarkably, BOTH! Wayne State University then, as now, was wonderfully rich in ethnicities. Modern Greek (which I took) was taught there! Arabs, Russians, Ukrainians, Germans, Afro-Americans, you name it. The Greeks, are often insufferably vain and pompous about their Church, though, and they are not in the forefront of the struggle for Orthodox structural unity unless it is somehow subservient to Greeks. If you disagree with any of them on this topic, you are labelled a hater and Grecophobe or worse!
Aren’t “Archons” the Demi-Urges that escort the purified soul through the heavenly circles in their ascent to gnostic heaven?
Are you trying to convince people on this board or yourself that your not anti-Greek racist? Hmmm?
Oh, by the way…uncle! Happy?
Beware. This is what the Archons.org site says when venturing to it in Google Chrome:
Danger: Malware Ahead!
Google Chrome has blocked access to this page on http://www.archons.org.
Content from http://www.uscirf.gov, a known malware distributor, has been inserted into this web page. Visiting this page now is very likely to infect your computer with malware.
Malware is malicious software that causes things like identity theft, financial loss, and permanent file deletion.
On a side note, I love that a government site is “a known malware distributor”.
Both the Archons site and that of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) are regularly attacked by anti-Orthodox hackers in Turkey.
Did you get that from Snowden’s works?
I heard this was a recent analogy question on the SAT:
Archons/Leadership 100 : GOA :: Metropolitan Council : OCA
I think this test question was getting at ridiculous non-Orthodox organizations that have somehow crept into our Orthodox churches in America but that have no connection at all to traditional Orthodoxy. Instead, they have everything to do with making wealthy and/or connected lay people in these organizations feel like they’re important. Just like in high school. Nice.
Kudos to ROCOR for having the cahones to put the brakes on EP dominance of all American Orthodoxy. You can usually count on ROCOR to have cahones!
Vladyka Tihkon, I hope you’re correct — I hope Met. Isaiah doesn’t simply fold!
I hope so as well. It would be a catastrophe if he did.
I listened to the transcript of Sunday nights discussion and truthfully I did not know whether to laugh or to cry. If ever there were a group of managers so out of touch with reality, it it the EA. No where were the real problems even approached and one IMHO is the problem of small struggling, jurisdictional churches in close proximity. These are the weak underbelly of Orthodoxy in America. My family stopped being “ethnic” 2 generations ago and my grand kids now make it 4 generations so I say get over it, it aint the future! I believe true union will only occur when some jurisdictions decide that there is too much operational overlap and decide to merge their educational, publishing activities, etc. At the grass roots, small struggling parishes will have to find a way to combine for greater strength, growth and success. Youth programs are the future but they require a critical mass to succeed. Thank God for ROCOR and Antioch; there may be some warts here and there but not the festering of the OCA and GOA.
You have to donate $100,000. to be an Archon.You get a really nice sport coat to wear with a really zippy badge on it. The real power in the GOA is the Leadership 100 crowd. Money talks in the GOA.
You do not have to donate $100,000.00 to become an Archon. You are confusing the Order of St. Andrew (archons) with Leadership 100 which does require a donation of $100,000.00.
Yes there are indeed many wealthy individuals who are Archons however there are just as many people of moderate means who have been granted the honor. The only financial requirement of the Order of St. Andrew is that one makes a contribution (according to their means) to the annual appeal for the protection of the religious freedom of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
So many folks have let their hatred of the EP (which is a very sad thing in and of itself) get in the way of telling the truth.
However, that being said, if there is one we should be wary of it is not the EP but rather the MP (Moscow Patriarchate) especially with the new found cozy relationship with Putin and the secular power it now wields.
And before people are so quick to condemn Leadership 100 as well, take a look at the good they have done with the money they have given. I am not a member, but I hate to see uninformed criticism.
http://www.l100.org/Portals/1/Grants/201302GrantsToDate.pdf
Tom that just falls on deaf ears here. Don’t waste your time. Too many Greek haters on here. Its best just to pray for them and leave it in God’s hands.
Peter
A Lenten Gospel reading according to St. Matthew proceeds in this manner:
“For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey. Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.” And so on…
Where is the difficulty? Well, perhaps in the hearts of those fundamentally oriented to this world, who have become envious because things never seemed to go their way.
What… Do we think God is bad with money and so doesn’t really know how finances work? Where did the gold come from to adorn the Mosaic Tabernacle in the wilderness? Where did Solomon’s wealth come from to build the Temple? Recall Constantinople & the Hagia Sophia in all of their glory.
“I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. I can do all things through the Anointed One Who strengthens me.” – St. Paul
RE: “What… Do we think God is bad with money and so doesn’t really know how finances work? Where did the gold come from to adorn the Mosaic Tabernacle in the wilderness? Where did Solomon’s wealth come from to build the Temple? Recall Constantinople & the Hagia Sophia in all of their glory.”
God allows those who are fundamentally oriented to this world to achieve wealth, as well, so I’m not sure wealth is a terribly reliable indicator when it comes to whether or not the recipient has been “blessed.” What might be a better indicator is the fruit. Has the wealth resulted in joy or despair? – I’m hearing a lot of despair.
With God’s help, it wouldn’t take much; just one or two good men. We’ll see who stands up. . .
There is nothing comparable to the Royal Law, It’s Power and Perfection stand invincible in time and Eternity. The gates of hell cannot prevail against it. It is fulfilled on earth as it is in Heaven, by the Victorious Lord Jesus Christ, and this cannot be undone.Personally, whenever I feel afflicted, if I center myself on my authentic love of the Royal Law, and whole hardheartedly seek to fulfill it, I am emboldened by the Heavenly, and , not afraid, even if in great pain. My body suffers ,but my spirit is strengthened.
Perhaps, if all the contending parties in this clerical conflict, would stop to center themselves first, on the Royal Law, any conflict among them would find peaceful resolution. The Kingdom of Heaven is not a house divided.
As an Orthodox Christian living in Utah I fear for our very souls when on that dreaded day of judgment we learn how many Mormons were turned away from the true faith because of the scandal and insanity we have allowed rather than humbly submitting to those who have been placed over us.
I may have misinterpreted something, but is he just being reprimanded by the Archdiocese, or is Archbishop Demetrios actually forcing him to retire?
Ariian heretics were at one time placed over the Holy Church. Was it obedience to the Christ, to humbly submit to the Arians? I will answer this question. Humble, mindless submission to any person, due to his position or clerical rank has never been authentic Christian practice. If the works and fruit prove the tested, submit humbly to the Lord’s servant. in gladness. Mindless obedience to persons has never been an authentic Christian practice.
Comparing someone who wants to split the parish in which the two churches are separated by 15 miles to being ruled by a heretic is ridiculous and an example of the attitude that has played a part in creating such insanity. It may be difficult to humble oneself when you don’t agree with a certain course a leader is taking but that is part of our fight against the passions and how we become more like Christ, theosis. Lord have mercy!
I have to say, George, you outdid yourself with this.
Many years to Met. Isaiah. A shame the Phanar has no ability to discern the real bishops under it.
GEORGE!
Please forgive me if you feel I’m being unkind, but I feel duty-bound to complain that your continued tolerance of the use of deceptive names by so many instances is not worthy of anyone who is critical of the moral standards of what we call “Syosset”, or “The Phanar.”
Satan is the Deceiver. No member, ordained or not, of Christ’s Holy Church who wishes to honor Her Holy Martyrs, should resort to such cowardly and deceptive means to, mostly, but not entirely, malign others with impunity. I apologize to women for resorting to a colloquial English which is possibly unfair to them, but I consider this DELIBERATELY deceptive practice of the pseudonym to be UNMANLY, and as shameful for an Orthodox Christian as child sexual abuse, abortion, or incest. If the personal cost of owning up to ONE”s OWN WORDS is too harmful for friend or family, then the Christian thing to do is to shut up.
I agree with you 100%, Your Grace. It is unmanly. To hide in the shadows makes one inept and barely worth the time. But it is not George’s fault his readers emasculate themselves. He is man enough to express his opinions. Wish more men would emulate his courage, right or wrong.
Gail,
I am one who uses a pseudonym as you put it. I am using mine in the tradition of the “nom de plume” or pen name.
I came up with mine for the purpose of a website.
Why do you need my name? What would you want to do with it? Which one would you want for me to not be “unmanly?” My baptismal name?
I am fully expressing myself as I am, and “Trudge” is a better descriptor than my own name. My wife even uses it for me sometimes.
Also I am not a public figure, and unknown even where I am for the most part, so you still would not know who I am. I don’t know who you are except from your comments on this blog.
What if my name was Dave Smith? Would that be bold to use it?
Was George Orwell unmanly for using a pseudonymn? Ben Franklin?
When Odysseus told the Cyclopes that his name was “No Man,” was he unmanly?
Was Christ unmanly when when called himself the “Son of Man?” or here?
And then later in the passage he says to the Jews who were complaining about him:
Who’s judging according to appearance? Your appearance is missing! You’re like a scarecrow. NAMING is a sacred act. God gave the job to Adam, for example. We Orthodox bestow a name as a sacred act. Denying who we are is anti-Christian. There is a special office of Bestowing a Name to be performed on the 8th day after birth, but now usually omitted and the name bestowed without rubrics in the Mystery of Baptism. Please do not twist the Saviour’s words. He did not EVER say His name is “Son of Man.” No one ever addressed Him as such. Comparing your use of a pseudonym to HIM, and imagining that calling your deceiving name a ‘nom de plume”, when the real names of all who wrote with such pen-names were known, is just kind of desperate, no?
How am I deceiving you Bishop Tikhon? What is deceptive in my name Trudge? Don’t you think it represents what I write?
I brought up the names of others, especially the wily Odysseus, and the situation of Christ in the Gospel of John for reflection. The only comparison between me and the others is the gulf of lessness that is me.
There is much of Christ that we never get to hear about and reflect on together that demonstrates his wisdom for us, and to give us pause. I think that our modern conception of Christ needs filling out from the treasures of the Gospels and the Fathers’ knowledge of him, that we may be illumined in Him through more exercise in prayer and seeking to obey his commandments.
And in the incident of the Feast of the Tabernacles Christ demonstrates that at times there is a place for disguise for the Christian in fulfilling a good purpose in order to avoid a trap set by others seeking to do harm. It also shows that Christ was perceived caustically, even by kinsmen who would later be pillars of the Church, because they did not understand his manner and methods.
I like putting out posts with material from the Scriptures and Fathers where appropriate, rather than my own meager knowledge and experience. Others on this blog have more wit to offer than I.
I hope to meet you someday, and face to face I think you will find I am a very transparent person, when I used to be very opaque, because of the mercy of God on me, though you would probably not care to from what I gather from your posts.
In your accounts of yourself I find much admirable about you. And in light of those there are other things in your posts that I cannot fathom.
I also think your relish for combat could be put to better use in a direct assault on the things that ail us.
Trudge,
Based on your writing, I suspect you are not very transparent . . . not to yourself. You seem to identify quite closely with Christ. If true, this delusion is particularly insidious and requires spiritual guidance. I do not say this to be unkind, but to caution you.
It’s not about needing someone’s name or doing something with it. It’s about having the integrity not to hide. Integrity tends to run deep. Men who stand by their words are not likely to slip into the shadows when things get tough. They’re the kind of men who will protect Church and family. They are real life martyrs because they are willing to give up anonymity and obscurity to affect positive change. Will they die for their beliefs? Probably not. Will they suffer unpleasant consequences. Possibly. I’ve got to believe God will honor this.
I am here to tell you all that I posted without anonymity regarding my views on the situation at my home parish recently and have had to listen to sermons the following Sunday directed at those who dare speak out against the hierarchy online and how shameful this is. I can take it when I know I am upholding what I know is right and true according to Jesus’ teachings. But not everyone is built this way. Believe me when I say there is a heavy price to pay. Few are built to do so and I don’t blame those who choose Anonymity one bit having endured what I have. I wouldn’t wish these consequences on anybody else.
You know, Stacy, I’ve endured a thing or two and they weren’t just words. I know the price one pays and I STILL think it’s important to speak up without hiding. Some of our Hierarchs have gone on record saying they turn a deaf ear to anyone who doesn’t have the courage to sign their own name. I once heard of my bishop tearing up a letter, without reading it, because it wasn’t signed. If true, I don’t fault him. Without a name, what’s written becomes destructive, idle gossip. How are we going to get them to listen if we give them a reason to dismiss us?
I’ve sent respectful letters with my name signed and have gotten no response. Signed name or not, they are still not listening. I don’t think it is fair and right to condemn those who choose to be anonymous. I know many members of the clergy who know in their heart what they are seeing around them is not right, but can do nothing out of fear for their jobs and ministry…young priests with young children and families to support. At least forums such as these can provide a safehaven for some who know their positions are in jeopardy, but can at least confirm the injustices they are witness to and speak out against it.
No one in the Church should have to ensure slights, insults, power trips or worse from others in the Church, but it happens and it is nothing new.
I have zero risk in using my “real name”, I hope I would do the same if I had risk.
Still there is power in some one’s actual name. I chose my first name (not the one my parents gave me) in part because of some teasing I was subject to because of my birth name; in part because I really like Michael as a model of both strength and humility.
Dear Stacy:
Thanks for posting here under your name. You deserve automatic respect for that.
May I refer to Jesus teaching in Matt. 5:11-12 to ask all the defenders of what I call “convenience anonymity” a very pointed question: which internet participants (if any) get the great reward in heaven which Christ promised, a) those who suffer reviling, persecution, etc., because of using their true names, or b) those who take the convenient way out of the discomfort and risk of being accountable for their views?
I do not see how it could possibly be b) because false names prevent the adverse. consequences which lead to the promised reward. Jesus refers to the reward due OT prophets whose ministry of denouncing bad political and religious leadership led to great and painful retaliation. Do the anonymous here opt out of both risk and reward at the same time?
love,
Fr. George
“Trudge at Smart Vote”asks, how am I deceiving you Bishop Tikhon? What is deceptive in my name Trudge?”
ANSWER: “Trudge at Smart Vote” is a MASK. Where i went to school masks are deceptive. That was his first question.
Then, illogically, he goes on to justify deception. The person hiding behind that deceptive mask should heed George Washburn’s in this matter.
Gotta hand it to ol’ TASV. When he wants to miss a point, he doesn’t miss it halfway, but leaves us wishing he would.
To those who might be attracted by his sparring with the question (surely he himself is not the only one casting those thumbs up votes for his posts, let me say this is a perfect example of the misuse of anonymity.
First. may I say that if we here aver that Orthodoxy is the true faith, and I believe that is a 90%+ consensus here, then we ought also to agree that discussing how to practice it well (and/or even improve current practice or prevent threatened deterioration), the highest norms of civil Christian discourse ought to be followed insofar as possible. Anybody with a real name want to take the other side of that proposition?
Second, then, is the belief, supported by a host of popular and exhaustively reported psychological studies over a period of decades, that human beings behave more uprightly when they think they will be held accountable for their actions. Surely we can posit that the contributors here, including Trudge and me, are within the range of normal human beings. And we can recognize that our whole system of jurisprudence acknowledges this by requiring accusers and accuseds to directly confront one another under their true names in virtually all adversarials proceedings of consequence. (Once again I invite people using real names (their own of course) to dispute the existence of such scientific evidence or its applicability to Orthodox bloggery.)
Therefore, the syllogism goes, there will be more upright conduct here (less stupidity, invective, proof texting and distortions) resulting in better, more fruitful discussion if people are ***normally*** posting under their own names. We get it that there are a few people who have something helpful to say here who can not or must not use their real names, and if it was a clear minority (or even a small majority of people using false names who made clear even an unconfirmed but allegedly legitimate reason for doing so) I’d feel like our chances were better.
But here instead, as in olden days with ocanews.com (more properly known, as this blog could be, as Orthodox Christians for **Other People’s** Accountability) the accumulated wisdom of an entire culture is foolishly tossed out the window in favor of good old fashioned fun of anonymous and untraceable gossip.
The advantage of the playground was that once somebody had lied to you a couple of times, or at least proved unreliable, you could just stiff the guy when you saw him coming with his mouth open. Here I suspect that fools use more than one alias at times, or even at A time, especially when they have obviously made themselves fools under the old name(s).
The scriptures say that a fool’s heart delights only in revealing itself. It is a fundamentally realistic view of human nature, and all the more true if he is wearing a mask.
Why do we set store by a mode of discussing the highest and most important things that does not take this truth into account?
love,
Fr. George
p.s. – will somebody else out there please explain to TASV what a ludicrously ineffective and unOrthodox use he made of the scriptures in excrescence of words to avoid addressing the real issues on anonymity. I do not have the patience or kindness this evening. “Son of Man” indeed! I don’t recall ever hearing, even in my freshman and sophomore years at Bible College in the mid-60s, a more silly, shallow and inapposite misuse of scripture!!!
It certainly has been my previous experience that use of real names promotes courtesy on websites.
I have my doubts that is the case here, as there are a remarkable number of folks on this site who throw around personal insults quite readily under their own names! (This is not a personal complaint, because I can remember none directed my way….)
Well, Tim, let’s examine what you just wrote.
The mere fact that some people are unkind under true names here does not invalidate the principle; it merely suggests that, were they to use assumed names, they would be more free with unpleasantness.
My own view is that pseudonyms are fine if those using them do not make personal attacks on other people, whether or not those people are here on this site. I also think that one should stick to a single pseudonym to avoid confusion.
I myself only ever post on three other sites. One requires an alias, which is “registered”. The others are under my own name, mainly because I started participating in them well over a decade ago, at the dawn of the internet age (at least for people of my generation). Then, we didn’t consider the eternal life and universal accessibility of everything ever posted on the internet. More importantly, one of those sites is devoted to the work of a single author, and the other to what I would describe as traditional outdoorsmanship and classical camping and hiking gear. Neither of these have potential for much controversy.
I use a pseudonym here not to conceal my identity, but to minimize the scope of internet searches, simply because as time has gone by and cybermedia has become ubiquitous and maximally invasive, that’s what I want to do. Anybody who actually cared (presumably no one) could easily discover my name from my postings here. So I don’t fully agree with the good Bishop’s point of view, except as it relates to ad hominem statements and attacks. As to those, I think he is quite right.
And all this time I thought your name was “Tim.” You see my confusion? I don’t care (I certainly wouldn’t track you down), but it would be nice to be able to address you by your name the same way I address a neighbor. I don’t recall you ever saying anything particularly objectionable, so why the need to hide? I honestly don’t get it. – My mother used to say, “If you can’t say it to their face, don’t say it.”
Gail,
My name is Ed (Edward), as I’ve said here several times. I’m a catechumen at St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church in Tacoma, Wash., as I’ve also said here many times.
My name couldn’t actually be “Tim”, because as several folks here noted off the bat, “Tim R. Mortiss” is a play on “timor mortis”, Latin for “fear of death”, taken in turn from an old Catholic litany that repeats the phrase “timor mortis conturbat me” — “fear of death distresses me”.
But my source for the pseudonym directly is the poem “Tim R. Mortiss” by Navarth, a fictional mad poet in the works of Jack Vance. This is an entertaining set of light verses, one of them the following:
“Not precisely comme il faut
to practice frank polygamy;
I might have practiced, even so
but Tim R. Mortiss occurgled me!”
And so on, with a jolly refrain!
So I hide here in plain sight. (I have left many other identifiers, such as my long-ago Rugby-playing history. Indeed, the quickest way to identify me is to search Tacoma Rugby.) My view is that George, or anybody who for any reason might actually care to identify me, can readily do so. But I use the pseudonym because I tire of the idea that nowadays any unknown officious gossoon can dredge through all of my internet postings down the years, or decades.
Ed
Well, it’s nice to know you, Ed. Although one of my favorite forms of entertainment, I am only able to read this blog sporadically due to my schedule. Forgive me for not picking up on the clues.
It’s not about wanting to identify someone. I just don’t like “drive-bys;” like when someone in a car drives-by and shoots someone. There is no sport in that. I also glean a lot from context. If you knew my history with the Church, for example, you would understand a little better why I feel the way I do and my words might take on a different meaning. Context is everything.
I’m not worried about being identified. Few people take the time. In recent memory, only Metropolitan Philip has tracked me down, threatened me, hired private detectives and vandalized my home. But in his defense, he did have a lot on his mind. He was in the process of turning Orthodox ecclesiology on its head by re-imagining enthroned, diocesan bishops into auxiliary bishops. To many of us, it felt like finding out that our dad (our Bishop) isn’t really our dad, but someone who works for our dad! Something you might see on the Jerry Springer show in other words. It flies in the face of what you’re taught. You’re taught that the Holy Spirit is at work and gives a bishop a special gift or charisma, but if a single bishop can trump a God given gift, what’s the point of paying attention to these things? It’s not real. It couldn’t be real, because if it were real, it wouldn’t have happened. What’s IS real and mystifying, though, is that the entire Church seems to have turned a blind eye to this event. THAT is worth paying attention to. People praise +MP for being a strong leader, but strong leaders are only of value if they’re leading you in the right direction.
At specific times in the Scripture Christ requested that those he healed not say anything to anyone. To condemn all for their anonymity by Christ’s example is not warranted. He gave us common sense and discernment…we must use it.
“At specific times in the Scripture Christ requested that those he healed not say anything to anyone. ”
And then most times the recipient of the healing went out and blabbed it all over town! Just think! If all thoseJesus healed never said anything to anyone, we wouldn’t have those stories in the gospels today….
And I’m not really ‘anonymous’. Jim is my name (short version) and Olym is my town.
“UNMANLY, and as shameful for an Orthodox Christian as child sexual abuse, abortion, or incest.”
Your Grace,
Your assertion that those of us who wish to use pseudonyms (a well established practice on the internet) are comparable to sexual perverts and murderers is disturbing to say the least. Not only that, it is untrue and massively insulting. Commentary under a real name does not make a person more manly or more worthy to call others sinners.
This is, unlike those areas of the Internet where pseudonyms are acceptable, an ORTHODOX site. You can write to Huffington Post or Breitfart’s News and use your pseudonym, but you would never use a pseudonym when you called your parish office, or posted on your parish website or your diocese’s web site, etc. Everything acceptable elsewhere is not the standard for Christians on an Orthodox web site. More often than not, the pseudonym use is caused by cowardice and shame and refusal to be HELD ACCOUNTABLE.
Your Grace,
“Personal and private matters should never be shared on your wall” is the advice of one internet security and privacy expert. And, as it was put in ‘The Social Network’: “The Internet’s not written in pencil, Mark, it’s written in ink.”
There are any number of reasons why people post anonymously, good and bad. Things can get nasty and gossipy, sure, but Vara’s site is both and she doesn’t allow comments of any kind, named or unnamed. It’s all about the content, the online community, and a site’s comment policy and discipline. I don’t think private persons should always be public on public forums like this. While you are a religious professional, most religious folks aren’t – and they have jobs and careers where religion doesn’t play a public part. Personal religious conversations can’t be personal or discreet in public media like this without anonymity. To pretend that every aspect of our lives should be visible to every other part of our lives (and published as such forever online) is unrealistic and uncomprehending of the online world.
Your Grace,
What does it behoove you or anyone to know who I actually am? I am already held accountable for my words before a spiritual confessor and before God Himself. He knows who I am, pseudonym or not. The same goes for all the actual “trolls” we have on this site. I am not in the comfort of my own church or my parish website. We are in the vast internet, in a world where governments collect all kinds of data about us. How can you condemn as equal to murderers and sexual perverts those who just wish to have privacy?
I think “No Name” must have meant “Nomenklatura” rather than the made-up “anonomocratia”(better: anomocratia). Second, I can’t make head or tail out of what he or she states, only that he or she wants to show that he or she disagrees with me about something, God knows what. One can often get 9-11 thumbs ups automatically for that here. i hope he or she gets them, if that does it for her or him..
He said ‘First time shame on you. Second time shame on me.’ Well, that trite saying is stupid when THERE IS NO ‘ME’ AT ALL,, only an empty space! Perhaps it’s only a shy little boy grasping his dolls and hiding in a closet?
Vladyka,
Many of us are in professions with high visibility (teachers, lawyers, pharmacists/doctors/nurses, business owners, etc.). Plus many of us come from traditionally Orthodox families and thus have unique names (unique in Western society) which are easily identifiable on a Google search.
In this day and age where everything is searchable and permanent online, I simply don’t want people I interact with on a daily basis who might google my name see comments reflecting my thoughts on Orthodox Christianity. If my name were Susan Johnson or John Anderson, I probably wouldn’t care, but it’s not.
“For whoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father’s, and of the holy angels.” (Lk. 9:26)
If you lack the fundamental integrity to stand behind your own words by name and accept the consequences, exactly how important can they be? Better you shut up and not impose your whining and bitching on people of faith. Frame it with whatever rationalization you wish, but it is plain cowardice. Alexander from PA is absolutely correct in stating “Commentary under a real name does not make a person more manly or more worthy to call others sinners.” It makes one responsible for their choices, before God, but more importantly, before the person(s) they accuse. The internet is like the false courage of alcohol; little men & women in faded Halloween superman capes, holding Vol. 14 of the Post-Nicene Fathers and shouting “anathema,” who in reality are terrified of the association of their name associated with Orthodoxy in a Google search. Go figure. And Lord help us, someone actually was able to make the logical connection to Met Jonah! Madonna mia! By the waters of Babylon I sat down and wept.
In all sincerity, one and all, the Lenten Spring has come and I ask that you forgive me my pettiness, lack of patience, my rudeness, my intolerance, my anger, my shortsightedness, and my lack of love and empathy, my argumentativeness, and in any manner that I have offended you. For those of you that actually use names, I have written your names down and I pray for each and ever one of you, fervently and directly. I humbly, from my knees, ask that you remember me in your prayers. Bless Vladyka Tikhon and Reverand Fathers!
Dear Michael, please do the same for me and my family and I will do so as we’ll for you. Please also forgive me my various sins and short comings and may we all have a blessed Lent. May all forgive me as we’ll for any rudeness or insult I caused to anyone.
Yours in Christ
Peter (Panayioti) A. Papoutsis
Michael Stankovich. May the Lord bless you!
I think it is a sad day when +Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald gets a rating of -3 for forgiving Mr. Stankovich, as we are supposed to be doing today (and every day for that matter). Did those of you who gave him a thumbs down refuse to forgive people during the Forgiveness Vespers today? But then, you can’t do that anonymously can you?
By the way, Michael, I forgive you. I echo +Bishop Tikhon’s words, “May the Lord bless you!”
“Anonymous by Necessity”, on March 1, 2014, you declared that Michael Stankovich has “never whispered one word of criticism about it, not once.” Is there a “Window 133”, or a “MAC OS Serpent” that enables your computer to catch whispers? Or has the NSA informed you that they have researched all M. Stankovich’s communications and have found no whispers of ciriticism of the Holy Synod and/or Syosset there?
It seems to be your demand that he come to YOU for forgiveness is anti-Christian. Why in the world anyone should pay attention to a NONENTITY (anonymous poster) laying down spiritual directions is way beyond the imagination of Lewis Carroll or Marvel Comics.
Perhaps some wag will say he’s never heard “Anonymous by Necessity” utter or even whisper one word of prayer?
No name #2 says (February 28, 2014 at 5:03 pm) :
Many of us are in professions with high visibility (teachers, lawyers, pharmacists/doctors/nurses, business owners, etc.). Plus many of us come from traditionally Orthodox families and thus have unique names (unique in Western society) which are easily identifiable on a Google search.
In this day and age where everything is searchable and permanent online, I simply don’t want people I interact with on a daily basis who might google my name see comments reflecting my thoughts on Orthodox Christianity. If my name were Susan Johnson or John Anderson, I probably wouldn’t care, but it’s not.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If we fear that the words we write and send all over the Internet will embarrass or endanger us, that thought alone should tell us that it’s best we not write.
Otherwise, if we’re honestly trying to make sense in what we write and have something real to contribute, we should confidently own our words and sign them with our true names.
The same applies to what we say in person, since we are reliably informed that there will be ‘accountability for every idle word’.
Vote Saved. New Rating: 0
Hello friends:
I am going to guess that No Name # 2 is, if Orthodox, named after a saint. If so there is a pretty decent chance that it is one of those saints we celebrate for having been chopped in pieces or roasted on hot coals or suffered some other form of torture at the hands of a hostile ruler.
I am going to further guess that he lives in a place such as the United States of America where there is no chance whatsoever of anything remotely like that happening to him no matter what he should write on the internet under his own name. Does it strike anyone else as anomalous that so many people who purport to speak for authentic, traditional Orthodoxy can’t stand the discomfort of being known to their friends (or non-friends) for the good or bad they write?
Once again let me say that there is a minority with contributions to make who cannot or must not use their real names. But what a shame that the average coward hides behind that minority’s necessity, and when called out prates inane, specious rationalizations.
love,
Fr. George
Fr. George, et all. When I started on this blog craziness I decided to use my legal name (not the estimable professor from Hillsdale College) because I wanted the accountability. I have even instructed folks who have disagreed with me to call my priest and bishop. Although both are aware of my activity and its content, I have received no cease and desist orders-just the guidance from my bishop to hold on to my peace.
In my experience, it is lawyers who often post anonomously.
I would say, Fr. George, that it is perhaps unlikely for anyone here in the U.S to suffer torture from words on the internet, it is not as unlikely as you seem to think.
In any case, if not now, it will come. The readiness is all.
Personally, I can’t think of a better way to go….and I don’t like pain.
In any case it is better to deal with the substance or lack there of. Did you notice the number of posts using puesodonyms increased since your protests and the quality declined?
That’s what I’ve noticed. Gnats and camels anyone?
Not this lawyer. Never have and never will. on this site or any other.
Peter
Peter, obviously, but of those who post anonymously whose identities I know most are lawyers. Small sample size and statistically irrelevant but true.
Anything you say can be taken down and used against you seems to be the reason. Maybe if the profession as a whole were more interested in the truth rather than what can be sold, it wouldn’t be that way.
This has definitely not been my practice, and I have been a lawyer for over 40 years now; still at it, indeed.
I don’t like internet anonymity as a general proposition, but then one must look a little below the surface of what is supposed to be “anonymity”.
Over the years I have only posted regularly on 3 other sites like this (they used to be called “message boards”). One of them requires an alias, because it is a site for Cowboy shooters, a group of geezers who like to shoot the sixguns and lever-action rifles of the old west while dressed up like cowboys (who would not want to keep that secret!). Having an “alias” is part of the game, and the cognomen has to have an “old west” flavor. On the other hand, the Society which runs the site knows your name, as do lots of other regulars.
The other two sites have lots of people who post under “pseudonyms” as well as many who post under their own names. However, only a very small number of these have actually remained anonymous over the years; that is to say, perhaps two or three. Everybody has come to know who everybody else is over time.
I put myself in the latter category here. I am identifiable. If I keep posting over time, I won’t have any “anonymity” even though I retain a pseudonym.
Michael, I have found repeatedly over a long career that the client is often the one with little concern for the truth! This still remains the exception, though.
My practice has always been a civil trial practice; mostly jury cases. I am always (almost) on the defense of civil lawsuits, and to this day have a great respect for the jury system. The media never report the numerous defense verdicts, modest verdicts, etc. Even if they report a “big” verdict, they will not report that it is less than what the defense offered before trial, if that doesn’t suit their story. So the public gets a distorted idea about civil juries. Most folks are surprised to find that it is the defendants in civil cases who are usually the ones to demand a jury trial.
Peter’s observation, taken as a shorthand version, is pretty correct. The inescapable real-world fact is that where serious interests collide, the parties to the dispute will see the truth very differently, and with equal conviction. The system evolved to get that dispute resolved, without bloodshed.
On the other hand, 12 jurors collectively usually know when a party or a lawyer is in fact concealing or distorting facts. It’s a very bad strategy.
Quite right, Father George. ‘No Name #2″ wrote this: ” I simply don’t want people I interact with on a daily basis who might google my name see comments reflecting my thoughts on Orthodox Christianity.”
Ashamed of his or her thoughts on Orthodox Christianity!
“No Name #2!” Don’t tell us your shameful thoughts, either.
I, too, am a professional. Anyone can GOOGLE me. I am currently working with a vendor who literally checked me out before we met. (He has friends in high places.) He said, “Your reputation truly proceeds you.” But he said it with admiration. What had he gleaned? He read what I’ve written on the Internet. He learned I have enough integrity to sign my name. I have high standards. I fight for what I consider to be worthy and I am willing to suffer the consequences of my actions. The content meant nothing to him. He was more interested in who I was as a person and if I had what it took to do the job. Is this such a bad thing? He didn’t seem to think so. I guess the problem here is that people feel their words reflect badly on them. I certainly regret what I say from time to time. Like everyone else, my passions get the best of me, but on balance, I am true to myself when I speak. I have noticed that even people who vehemently disagree with me, defend me. I’m guessing it’s because I’ve garnered some respect for at least having the courage of my convictions. I do not see the problm unless speaking out will endanger your family or livelihood. THAT, I get, but I imagine that only applies to a few.
For the record, but not in context to the theme of this post, I write this. God’s command to the Archangel was obeyed and performed. He did make the man , the Holy Prophet Dani understand. The vision of the 2 animals contending conveys no meaning. Seeing the vision Daniel is perplexed, he does not understand what he saw.. The explanation of the 2 horns Media?Persia) does pinpoint an exact geographical area.,It does convey where this contention take place,. It is many days, concerning the beginning of the end is also explained by the Archangel. The only intelligible fact present in the Heavens explanation is the area where it will occur.. Having researched this myself, I claim that Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria are the precise area where the he-goat and the ram engage in conflict.SInce there is nothing happening in the area now or in the past. The beginning of the end is still far in the future. Relax, nothing happening here, nothing to see there.Run on for a time longer.
http://stpaulbrisbane.org/RaphaelOfBrooklyn.jpg
† St Raphael, bishop of Brooklyn (1915)
February 27
He was born in Syria in 1860, in the waning years of the Ottoman Empire. In his childhood, his family took refuge in Lebanon after their parish priest, St Joseph of Damascus (July 10) was martyred; but they later returned to Damascus. In 1879 he was tonsured a monk and entered into the service of Patriarch Hierotheos of Antioch. The Balamand Seminary had been closed since 1840, but the young monk was offered a scholarship at the Constantinople Patriarchate’s seminary at Halki. Returning to Syria with a theological degree, St Raphael became assistant to Gerasimos, the new Patriarch of Antioch, travelling and preaching on his behalf. After further studies in Kiev, he transferred to the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Moscow and for a time was professor of Arabic studies at the Theological Academy in Kazan. (At that time the downtrodden Orthodox of the Middle East received considerable aid and theological training from the Tsar and from the Church in Russia).
In 1895 he was sent to the United States to shepherd the Arab Orthodox Community in New York, which was without a church or a priest. He quickly consecrated a chapel and with great energy set about the work of shepherding his flock there; but he was concerned not only for them but for the Arab Christian immigrants scattered through North America, most of whom were without a pastor and in danger of falling into heterodoxy or abandoning religious life. He travelled widely throughout the continent, visiting, counselling and serving Arab Christians, preaching, celebrating marriages and baptisms, receiving confessions and celebrating the Divine Liturgy, usually in private houses. In 1898 he published the first Orthodox prayer book in Arabic to appear in the New World. In 1899, he made a seven-month journey through forty-three American cities, seeking out the “scattered sheep” of the Church in America. His services were attended not only by Arabs but by Russians and Greeks, all of whom at that time depended on the Russian mission toNorth America. During this entire period, he held the official rank of Archimandrite, though his work and duties exceeded those of most bishops.
In 1901, Patriarch Meletios was elected to the see of Antioch, the first Arab to occupy the patriarchal throne for 168 years. Several proposals were made to elect Archimandrite Raphael to a see in Syria; but he refused all such offers, pointing out the Orthodox people’s great and little-met needs in North America. In 1904, the Moscow Patriarchate made him Bishop of Brooklyn, the first Orthodox bishop to be consecrated on American soil. He redoubled his already impressive pastoral work, ordaining priests to the many new parishes that he had founded, and assisting Saint Tikhon (then Bishop of North America) in the care of his huge diocese. In 1905 he laid the foundation of the Monastery of St Tikhon in Pennsylvania.
The bishop saw the importance of integrating the faithful into the life of their new homeland, and was an early advocate of the use of English in American Church services. When Isabel Hapgood’s Service Book — the first useful English translation of the Church’s services — was published in 1906, he advocated its use in all his parishes.
In 1912, St Raphael was found to be suffering from heart disease, but continued his exhausting pastoral work for two more years. In 1915 he was finally unable to continue, and reposed after two months’ illness.
When his relics were transported in 1998 from Brooklyn to Antiochian Village in Ligonier, PA, they were found to be incorrupt, and in 2000 he became the most recently glorified Saint of North America.
http://stpaulbrisbane.org/SaintOfTheDay27February.htm
Patriarch Meletios was enthroned in 1899. He was the first Arab Patriarch of Antioch since 1724. His predecessor Patriarch Spyridon had given a man a divorce under highly questionable circumstances. The Arab clergy and people rebelled. Patriarch Spyridon at one point forbade them to use the Churches and they held the Divine Liturgy at cemetery chapels. Finally the Turks intervened to restore the peace. The Arab Bishops cleverly insisted that the same rules be used to elect a new Patriarch of Antioch that were used to elect a Patriarch of Constantinople. That put Constantinople in a difficult position, because they could hardly refuse. One of the rules was that to be eligible for elevation to the Patriarchate a man had to already be a Bishop in the Patriarchate. That prevented Constantinople from imposing a foreign Greek Patriarch on Antioch. The Holy Synod then elected Patriarch Meletios II (Doumani) a native Arab, restoring the Arab Patriarchs of Antioch. Constantinople refused to recognize the election, but recognized his successor Gregory IV (Haddad) who was elected after the death of Patriarch Meletios II in 1906, restoring relations between Antioch and Constantinople.
TimEd tells us based on 40+ years of professional experience that he has “often found it is the client with very little concern for the truth.” I wouldn’t say “often,” or “very little” but I can echo having had that experience.
The relevant question here is not so much TimEd’s past clients’ fondness for strict truth telling vs. “fact shaping”, as it is *what TimEd’s admitted experience with them (and their opponents) tells us in capital letters about **Routine internet anonymity** and truth telling*. Opposing litigants DO usually have strong and very contrasting views on the facts of the dispute, and it often takes the concerted efforts of many professionals in the trial system to pry the truth loose or uncover as much of it as you can from the layers of ……
Sometimes in court it is just a matter of poor observation or recollection. Or egoic blowhards spouting off on something they do not know as much about as they would like people to think. Sometimes the witness is influenced by the strong opinions of others he likes or trusts. Sometimes it becomes a matter of gradual and somewhat unconscious shading of the truth as people dig in to and buttress opposing positions with big financial consequences riding on the outcome. And other times people just lie for selfish reasons.
TimEd and I are not unique in this experience. Every lawyer who has been around the block a few times could say much the same.
What I find disappointing about TimEd is that he can’t seem to (or won’t) connect the dots from his wealth of experience about truth-telling problems in highly structured, heated civil court money tangles to the *inevitable* bad consequences to internet truth telling when **the norm** becomes instantaneous, pseudonymous popping off about heated religious disputes by people who refuse to be accountable by name and are obviously often peddling guesswork, rumor, hearsay, shaped by the scores from the past that they think need settling, personal reactions, etc. …. where there is almost no chance for anything that resembles the cross-examination so necessary to getting the truth out of HUMAN BEINGS in strong conflicts.
love,
Fr. George
Of course, no lawyer ever engages in a frivolous law suit.
LOL.
Peter A. Papoutsis, How does one “quantify” a statement? Weigh it? Estimate its area? Number its words? And “frivolous” has only one “i.”
Thank you your grace. have a good night and God bless.
Peter
Thanks, Peter! A simple “uncle” is enough…
The Democraps aren’t running towards them either.
I just voted in the Republican primary, for all the candidates who stood out on the issue of redefinition of marriage, e.g. Brady over Rauner. Just as a warning to the Libertarian types.
The Democraps are beyond warning and are lost.
Sorry I didn’t see this earlier: yes, I voted for Brady. Even if Rauner wins, I’d rather Brady be in second place than Dillard. His RINO boss Edgar is co-conspirator in the mess we’re in.
Why be embarrassed? I suffer no shame when I read of a miscreant American of English or Canadian heritage.
And as I have said before here, I am the son and grandson of immigrants myself, from British Columbia.
Indeed, my dad was born in British Columbia and died 79 years later in Bogota Colombia. But that’s another story…..
It reminds me of a riddle: who can be born and raised in Kentucky of old Kentucky forbears, and yet be a naturalized American citizen? Answer: my paternal grandmother, who was born in West Point Kentucky, and naturalized an American citizen in 1947. She used to get a big kick out of showing her “papers”. Between the two dates, she had married a Canadian, which back then caused the wife to lose her US citizenship.
Yes, we were relegated to the Presbyterian and Episcopal ghettos in town, and mocked for our exotic foods, such as beef roast and baked potatoes.
Fear of death,
All jesting aside, the immigrant minority inferiority complex still determines a lot of such folks’ reactions to things.
I’m not an immigrant buddy. However, there is still a Greek community here in America, especially in Chicago, and it still reflect badly on us and unfortunately feeds into people’s hatred of so-called ethnic people.
It was not that long ago where there were sign up in Chicago that read Irish need not apply, Catholics need not apply. People viewed Greeks and Italians as the garbage people of Europe. Thought of Poles as backwards and dump, etc. So yeah, this type of behavior tends to reinforce people’s ethnic bias against certain groups of people. Hence, it’s embarrassing.
Peter
It just goes on and on. Just because The Mob in Detroit was Greek (“The Purple Gang), and not Italian or Jewish, Detroiters refused to praise Greeks!!!! Oh well, no matter what else happened to the Motor City, its huge casino/gambling center in Greektown survives– unscathed, unburnt, pristine.
I rest my case.
Peter
Peter’s case that I patently supported. I KNOW for example, that not all Greeks, Peter for one, do not belong to the Purple Gang or any gang! And I am the first to find the unique survival of Greektown’s Casino cannot be attributed to any Greeks at all. Why, what an idea!
And so, Peter, I wish you a good day and a good evening. All the best and all God’s blessings be upon you and good night!
Good night and God bless.
Peter
HOLY SYNOD OF BISHOPS OF THE OCA ELECT BISHOP MARK FOR BISHOP OF EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Orthodox-Forum/conversations/messages/132495
Oh well. Too bad this news reached us at the same time as news of Ever-Memorable Metropolitan Philip”s massive heart attack. Memory eternal!