The Sons of Job are several news gatherers from all across the OCA who have offered a first time Guest Editorial to Monomakos
(The views expressed herein are the Sons of Job and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Monomakhos.)
A Time of Sadness
It is with great sadness and sense of failure that many of faithful are approaching the All American Council (AAC) in Parma, Ohio. The Orthodox Church of America (OCA) is languishing. Most movement is from one scandal to the next. We have no direction. No pastors are manifested among us. May God help, guide and bless us by His mercy.
What is the current state of affairs of the OCA Synod once known as “Holy”? Metropolitan Jonah was fired by the Synod. Jonah still claims that he has not resigned as the Archbishop of Washington. The Synod released an angry and mean spirited letter justifying the firing that is at best inaccurate and at worst a deliberate fabrication.
Metropolitan Jonah seemed inexperienced in the political ploys of the OCA bureaucracy on the one hand and lacked some necessary discernment in dealing with worldwide Orthodoxy on the other. These are forgivable mistakes given that it takes several years for any hierarch to learn the skills of the job.
At the same time, Met. Jonah exhibited some substantial gifts particularly stepping boldly into the public square with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. No one in the OCA administration in the last thirty years has shown either the will or capability to engage in such dynamic evangelistic outreach. This threatened the old guard, enough so that they decided that removing him was the only way to return to the status-quo.
The conflict that resulted has left the Church divided into two broad camps: 1) one sees Met. Jonah as possessing the courage and capabilities to publicly proclaim the beliefs and moral precepts of the Orthodox faith in ways that the rest of the Synod lacks; and 2) the other sees Met. Jonah as a renegade, disrespectful to the established order, undisciplined, and a threat to the OCA vision as they understand it.
Background
As the conflict ensued many secrets were laid bare. Syosset lost control of the information flow (inevitable in the age of the internet and expansion of the media) and it became clear that a big problem between Syosset and Met. Jonah was that Met. Jonah would not allow himself to be controlled in the way Mets. Theodosius and Herman were. This upset Syosset and Syosset sympathizers to no end.
To control a hierarch requires something to control him with. Met. Jonah had none. He had no grave moral failings that would compel submission to the bureaucratic functionaries. He has never been accused of fornication, homosexuality, stealing, or any other kind of moral turpitude. He never fired people unfairly (the one person he fired deserved it). He did not preach or teach in a heterodox manner. His only crimes was that he did not play ball according to the rules of Fr. Leonid Kishkovsky and other bureaucratic chieftains. They retaliated by making him look bad at almost every opportunity.
We, the Sons of Job, also believe that Fr. Robert Kondratick is still working behind the scenes alongside Fr. Kishkovsky to reestablish the old order, a goal that cannot be achieved until Met. Jonah is permanently discredited. We submit this is still the policy of about half of the Synod (indications are there is a split in the Synod) and all of the Syosset bureaucrats.
Opposition was so resolute that the only way Met. Jonah could have succeeded was by removing the entire Syosset circle. Syosset took control of the OCA after pushing out Fr. Alexander Schmemann and the reason we have had such poor metropolitans and bishops over the last thirty years is that their moral failings ensured Syosset would remain in charge. After the financial scandals were exposed under Met. Herman Syosset fell back for a season. The election of Met. Jonah gave them the opportunity to reassert themselves but only if the new metropolitan (the unknown Jonah at the time) was as weak as Mets. Theodosius or Herman. Obviously this was not to be.
It is important to understand how episcopal leaders are selected in the OCA. No candidate is vetted in any responsible way. Instead, the leadership is chosen only by one criteria: will they upset the control Syosset has over administration and finances. The Metropolitan Council (MC) ostensibly exists as a check on Syosset, but in fact MC functionaries are in league with Syosset and Fr. Kishkovsky.
The exposure of a conspiracy by MC members — Solodow, Stokoe, Reeves, Ringa, and others — along with the attempt by Fr. Kishkovsy, Bp. Benjamin and others to brand Met. Jonah as mentally unstable showed how this worked. Since no moral failings could be pinned on Met. Jonah, the only other course was to descredit him through charges of mental instability. This was the real reason they demanded that Met. Jonah submit to evaluations at St. Luke’s. In private Bp. Benjamin still insists on it even today.
A weak Synod ensures the system works smoothly. Frs. Kishkovsky and Kondratick are the kingmakers. They chose the bishops. A compromised Synod merely rubber stamps it.
The Makeup of the Synod
Let’s take a look at the kingmakers’ record by examining the moral character of the leadership they chose.
We now know that Mets. Theodosius and Herman were active homosexuals among other failings, yet they continue to wear the white hat (albeit retired) despite the threats and payoffs expended to keep their sins from public view. This sorry chapter remained hidden for almost four decades although whisperings followed the entire track of their tenure. After the financial mismanagement of Met. Herman was exposed more of the hidden history came into view, but we have yet to see any public admission of wrong-doing, repentance, or justice. Keep in mind that Syosset was a major player in these misdeeds, particularly the coverups so it is in their self-interest to keep their complicity in the dark.
The corruption reaches deeper. There also are stories of of young men deeply scandalized by pastoral predation. Several classmates of ours have personally suffered from this kind of abuse and if they muster the necessary strength to fight back, predation might become the next round of OCA lawsuits.
Many in the OCA find this kind of talk embarrassing to outsiders but the fact is that sexual predation occurs in the OCA leadership as we will discuss below. Meanwhile, also notice that homosexuality is a recurring theme in these exposures.
Bp. Benjamin has undergone treatment for alcohol addiction and has a DUI on his record. There are lingering questions surrounding the death of a young gay man in Benjamin’s residence in Alaska. Why don’t we know the facts surrounding these scandals? We were assured that the Church under Fr. Kondratick’s leadership looked into it but what did we hear? Nothing.
It has also been reported that a large store of gay pornography was found on Bp. Benjamin’s computer, and that the priest sent to investigate the claim confirmed it and was subsequently discredited and punished. Does Bp. Benjamin deny it? Does anyone on the Synod or in Syosset deny it? And what happened to the priest’s report? What are the facts and what is being done about it? And if true (so far the defensive administrative response indicates it is), why is he still a bishop?
Bp. Benjamin also allowed for the marriage of a transgender couple in his diocese; a practice that is expressly condemned in the larger Church. He badly mishandled the failure of leadership of St John’s monastery in his diocese. He is the primary author of the slanderous letter written to justify the Synod’s dismissal (un-canonical firing) of Jonah. Insiders report that on the few occasion that Bp. Benjamin is asked about these kinds of decisions, he responds with rage at his interlocutors, leaves the room, slams doors and so on.
Bp. Alejo of Mexco is charged with homosexual predation in a public accusation brought by then seminary student Fr. Emmanuel Rodriguez. Both Fr. Emmanuel and his father confessor brought these charges to the attention of Fr. Kondratick but he shut down the investigation before it could begin. Bp. Job of blessed memory could not in good conscience attend the enthronement of Bp. Alejo because he found the evidence credible.
Archbishop Seraphim of Canada is facing charges of child molestation going back some thirty years. Syosset knew about the charges but never looked into them. Those who have seen the documents in the OCA files confirm that both the administration and several of the bishops knew of these charges but would not allow an investigation or help the reported victims. We will find out more about this once the trial begins..
The former Bp. Mark of Boston is reportedly living with a deacon of the OCA. This deacon recently “married” his same-sex partner in San Francisco, broke up with him, and ran into the waiting arms of Bp. Mark. The Synod then restored the man to the Deaconate. Is there any good judgment left on the Synod? Met. Jonah began the process of the Deacon’s removal but was blocked and later accused of supporting the arrangement.
Bp. Seraphim of Sendai had to be retired as soon as his sins became public.
Bp. Michael is held up as the late-great-Carpatho-Russian-hope for the position of OCA Metropolitan. But what is happening at St. Tikhon’s Seminary where he served for so many years? Several members of the Board of Trustees have independently expressed concern about some under the table maneuvering by Bp. Michael that may place them in legal trouble with the Federal Government.
As usual, facts are hard to come by but the reports are that Bp. Michael and Michael Herzak pushed through a last minute by-law change in order to nullify the contract under which Dean Alexander Atty was hired the year before. Dean Atty was in the hospital at the time undergoing cancer treatment. Bp. Michael and Michael Herzak acted because Fr. Atty challenged a sweet-heart insurance deal that netted Herzack some substantial cash over the years. Dean Atty has neither confirmed nor denied the allegations but confirmed that his contract has not been renewed for 2013.
The decision to remove Dean Atty may have been illegal and the Federal Government (EEOC) is investigating St. Tikhon’s. This may cost the OCA thousands of dollars. It may shut down the seminary. At the very least it attacks the man who has started a much needed turn-around of the institution. Students who we contacted on campus know that Dean Atty is not returning and one student told us that Atty’s leadership was all that St Tikon’s had going for it. Bp. Michael, the Synod and Syosset are trying to keep this hidden from the laity and hope to settle everything before Parma. Meanwhile St. Tikhon’s descends into chaos.
Bp. Matthias’ shameful dealings with a young female catechumen are now well known. Our sources in the Chancery of the Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Church tell us that at no time were the personnel files of Bps. Michael or Matthias requested by the OCA Synod or Syosset. Our sources further confirm that had the files been examined, problems with moral turpitude should have prevented either man from becoming a bishop.
Bp. Melchisedek reportedly left Greece without a canonical release. Papers have already been released proving his accounts of his stay in Greece conflict with the official record. Again, no proper vetting took place.
More problems exist. OCA priest Fr. Vasilie Susan reported a married priest who was involved in homosexual affairs to his superior Bp. Nathaniel. Instead of investigating the priest, Bp. Nathaniel exiled Fr. Susan and allowed the offending priest to remain in service until his wife divorced him over his infidelities. Fr. Susan has appealed to the Synod numerous times for a hearing only to be rebuffed at every turn. Fr. Susan is still a priest (Bp. Nathaniel keeps him in ecclesiastical limbo) but has been reduced to supporting his family as a night watchman for the last eight years.
How Does the Corruption Affect the Church?
Only two bishops have affirmed that these problems do indeed exist: the late Bp. Job and Met. Jonah. Bp. Job had some weaknesses but in the end he stood up against the pressure to whitewash the corruption. He knew that only repentance could heal our sick house but when he prostrated himself before his brother bishops to ask for their forgiveness they refused to follow his lead. When he asked “are the allegations true or false” concerning the financial scandals, he knew they were true but his brothers refused to listen. Now the sickness has grown worse.
So who should come out at the end of the meeting in Parma wearing the white hat? To whom do we sing “the grace of the Holy Spirit…” and shout AXIOS! We say no one.
Which of these men look like Christ? Which one would you trust with your son or daughter? Would you want them as your personal confident or spiritual father?
Which of these men would die to themselves to help you find God? Some of these bishops and the administration behind them don’t die to themselves but instead abuse the spiritual children entrusted to them. Yes, these are strong words but look at their decisions and histories and make your own judgment. We’ve made ours.
Why don’t more priests and deacons speak out? Because reprisals are real and sometimes brutal. Here is how it works. There is never any defrocking or lodging of formal charges. Instead, a priest is removed from a parish and left hanging in limbo with no possibility of reassignment (like Fr. Vasilie Susan). Priests always labor under the real threat of financial ruin if they express any independent creativity. This in turn places enormous stress on the priest’s family and sometimes drives a wedge between the priest and his wife since the only certainty about the future is that it will remain uncertain.
This policy fosters a peculiar inversion in church polity over the long term. Real certainty about the future comes into being only when the priest has a serious moral transgression of some kind. If the transgression is sexual in nature, that’s good. If it is homosexual, even better. Priests hiding transgressions become compliant because they rely on the good favor of their bishops who are either hiding sins of their own or their brother bishops.
Failings guarantee submission, and submission ensures the bigger secrets will remain hidden. The sickness of the Synod-Syosset mechanism filters down into the parishes that way. That’s one reason why you see some prominent archpriests who should be leading the moral renewal of the OCA working instead to undermine the moral tradition, and why you see some of the best pastoral talent languishing in small and unappreciative parishes or in some cases kicked to the curb altogether.
We submit on the basis of what we have written above that the governing structures of the OCA have failed. The legacy of the Kishkovskys, Kondraticks and the weak men they have gathered around them shows us the ways of the world. We want to rediscover the fullness of Christ in our Church.
The only solution is a complete house cleaning at the AAC in accord with the canons of the Holy Church. OCA insiders are working to manage this crisis and promote their man for the white hat. They see their loss of control as the crisis. To us the crisis is the loss of Christ in the Episcopacy and His diminishing presence in the Church.
If you do not believe what we have written above, then ignore what is to follow. We are recommending a way forward.
A Way Forward
Please offer prayers to our Savior, His Mother and the Saints and then consider Metropolitan Hilarion of ROCOR as the next metropolitan of the OCA at the AAC in Parma. We who have met and known him over the years believe that He will guide the OCA and guard its autocephaly better than any bishop in the OCA.
Metropolitan Hilarion will be able to discern authentic obedience to Christ and sort out what is true and what is a lie in Syosset and the Synod. He will not be intimidated or confused by the Syosset handlers. He also has bishops that could serve the vacant dioceses of the OCA or perhaps combine OCA and ROCOR dioceses together. He will gently but with a firm hand restore a renewed sense of holiness to our Church and not allow our bishops to invent novel practices that do not conform to the moral tradition, and have no tolerance for the Kishkovsky-Syosset-Synod doctrine of church polity.
These are desperate times and we need the help of men proven in the ways of God.
When the AAC at Parma begins, insiders will attempt to assume control. You will here that this plan is an impossibility, it has too many problems, and so on. They will try to shut down your microphone. Some will call you unfaithful to Christ and His Church. They will ridicule you and brand you as a know-nothing.
The truth is that they fear you. If it were any other way, armed guards would not have been hired. It’s not a riot they worry about but the expression of clear ideas spoken in truth, especially if they dare challenge the failures of this Ancien Régime. If we elect Met. Hilarion, the rest of the details can be worked out.
We are free men and women of the OCA! We were told by one of the bishops that phrase uttered by Archbishop Job makes them very angry. No matter. We believe it because it is true, and we will say it again and again.
In our opinion electing Met. Hilarion is the only way to stop the corruption that is insidiously spreading through our Church and threatens it with death. A vote of no confidence at the AAC will be thrown out. A vote for Jonah will be ignored by the synod. A vote for Metropolitan Hilarion will send in unequivocal terms the message that we faithful are done with the corruption and mediocrity of the past thirty years and the failed episcopacy that it spawned.
The Sons of Job
Now that all of this is out in the open and Pandora’s Box has been opened it is going to be very difficult to make all of this go away…it is out in the open…now what?
This one got them all riled up. Nothing like a different view on how to fix the mess in syosset. Keep them on the ropes until you get some answers.
Voting for the #2 man of the Russian Orthodox Church to lead the OCA?
Would he be released from the Russian Church to join the OCA synod? If not, better make plain you’re advocating an end to the OCA as an autocephalous independent church, and probably an end to any chance of growth if run from Russia, or Turkey if that’s part of the deal for various church property chips in Europe we’re not focusing upon here in the USA.
In all the OCA the choices are only those listed above? No others whatever? Really?
How many sons does job have? 6? 7 if you count the dog? or 5000?
You are mixing up two different +Hilarions.
They suggest electing the head of another church? Not serious.
Multiple overlapping jurisdictions? Not even trying to be serious.
Why not bring the life of the Church back into line with the canons by electing bishops from an overlapping jurisdiction. It may be the fastest and least contentious way to address ALL of the current scandals. I’m not saying it is a quick fix, but it would certainly be a serious step toward at least acknowledging the rules of the Church and may lead to actually following them some day.
Serious they are. Perhaps not likely to succeed, but sometimes you do the right thing and let the chips fall where they may. It’s like I was telling a friend today. Sometimes doing the right thing risks failure, but you still have to do it. For one, you can’t live paralyzed by fears; and for two, doing the wrong thing doesn’t just risk failure, it guarantees it.
How can a man serve 2 masters? How can Met Hilarion or Philip be accountable to both the OCA Synod and the Russian or Antiochian Synod when we don’t agree.
Do you disagree? Do ROCOR and the OCA serve two masters?! Really? Or do you just have two separate hierarchies (authority structures) serving the same master?
It is way past time to figure this out.
Ok so if Antioch or Russia gives an order to our newly shared Metropolitan that is not in line with the practices in the OCA what will happen?Will they just apply to his ROCOR/Antichian Parishes and not to his OCA parishes? How does that makes sense. If Met. Hilarion is to be considered than Rocor must stop being a part of the ROC and become an Archdiocese within the framework of the OCA.
Short answer: They would reach consensus the way they ought to.
Supposedly they serve the same God and are guided by the same Holy Spirit, correct? If any party would refuse to take a humble approach guided by the Holy Spirit, it would create a scandal in the Church. Isn’t this the way Orthodox polity is supposed to work? Maybe it is time to just call their bluff. Make them all decide if they are part of the same Church or not.
It does not appear that the current OCA synod and MC follow the practices of the OCA anyway, so I don’t see how the OCA would be any worse for the wear.
I don’t mean to belittle your question, not really; but I do wish someone within Orthodoxy would work these things out and then give us all a coherent answer. Again I’m not Orthodox, and one of the key reasons I can’t “go there” is the absolute chaos in governance. The status quo is not healthy; it is not consistent with being the Body of Christ.
I honestly don’t think having one metropolitan as head of two overlapping jurisdictions takes either jurisdiction further away from observance of the canons. I really think it would take it closer to observance, or at least have real potential to do so. It is a radical proposal, and it might not work, but I think it is a serious proposal. It would show humility, submission to others out of love, and it might encourage the world-wide Church to finally deal with this situation. Again, I’m not Orthodox, and I’m certainly not part of this Sons of Job group, but I had independently been thinking about what would happen if the OCA just started electing bishops from overlapping jurisdictions without requiring them to seek a release from their current position. Just elect them and ask the two synods to merge the dioceses one at a time until there is unity. The bishops are supposed to lead the fundamental unit of the Church anyway. The fundamental unit is the diocese, not the national church. So if you want to merge, just start merging diocese. Decide to do it, do it, and then work out the details. I don’t see how that witness could possibly be any worse than the current situation which is in clear violation of the canons and seems to flaunt a de facto schism.
Really the only party that could suffer in this situation is the metropolitan himself. But as long as he is associated with two synods, the potential for harm to him would be reduced dramatically. If one synod abuses him and kicks him out for doing the right thing, the other might support him and allow him to provide meaningful leadership in this time of crisis. Again, the dual roles would not violate the canons any more than the overlapping jurisdictions themselves do. He could still be the bishop of one diocese, and primate of both overlapping jurisdictions. Once the jurisdictions are adjusted so that they do not overlap, then he would have to give up one of the headships; but in the meantime, no new scandal is created by the dual roles.
The alternative is that the metropolitan could ask for a release from his current jurisdiction (ROCOR) to become a bishop of a diocese in the OCA and primate of the OCA. But he would be a fool to agree to this. Almost certainly he would end up abused by the OCA synod and MC (and by the OCA staff), eventually removed from his post, and denied a release to serve in another jurisdiction. It would be irresponsible for any good priest or bishop outside the OCA to accept the role of metropolitan in the OCA. It would be a waste of their talents at this stage. So I don’t think this is a serious option.
Taken together with other issues, my own opinion is that the OCA should re-elect Jonah and tell the OCA synod and MC they need to work with this man or resign. But if Jonah is not nominated on the first ballot (and elected by the synod), it seems like a very good option to nominate Jonah and Hilarion (Kapral) on the second ballot.
Just how I see it, for what it is worth. I continue to follow this crisis with interest, but as a former Anglican, I am not yet convinced the OCA is meaningfully different from The Episcopal Church. I apologize if my perspective causes pain to anyone. But there is no peace or healing in any relationship without honesty, so my attempt is to share from my perspective as best I can … and to pay attention to what others are saying as best I can. Thanks for allowing me to participate in the discussion.
I was an Anglican before I became Orthodox. As everyone who reads this blog knows, I am not OCA. I am Antiochian and am a staunch defender of the Antiochian Archdiocese. However, I must disagree with you. The OCA is not at all like the Episcopal Church. Despite its problems, the OCA is Orthodox. That means that they are not going to begin to ordain women, bless same-sex unions or allow any openly departure from the Orthodox Faith. The liturgical practices of the OCA are pure and not corrupted by the liberalism and doctrinal relativism that characterizes current Episcopal worship. The OCA will not in any way compromise the doctrine and moral teachings of the Orthodox Church. Naturally, as is the case in all human organizations, there may be OCA Bishops and clergy who do not live up to the moral teachings of the Church. The OCA will remain faithful to Orthodoxy because it is Orthodox. If the OCA departs from the path of true Orthodoxy, the rest of the Orthodox Church will step in to demand that the OCA return to Orthodoxy, or break communion with the OCA thereby casting it out of the Orthodox Church. Do not believe everything that you read on this blog. I am not OCA, and did not go to St. Vladimir’s so have very little first hand knowledge of the inner workings of the OCA, but am quite sure that much of what has been written is greatly exaggerated. There may be OCA Bishops whose private lives are not what they should be, but I guarantee you that no OCA Bishop will publicly endorse homosexuality as an alternative life style.
I’m just not comforted or convinced (at all) by the argument that Orthodoxy is going to succeed where Anglicanism is going to fail because Orthodoxy can embrace hypocrisy while Anglicanism cannot.
I’m not trying to be mean about this, but I need a better apologetic argument than that. As best I can tell, hypocrisy makes relationship and love impossible.
I offer this reflection for what it is worth. Maybe you can help me with my intellectual struggle on this point.
If you are looking for any organization made up of sinful men and women that does not have some hypocrites you will not find it.The has been only one man who did not sin, and he is God in the flesh. What you have to look for is purity Faith and a Church that strives to preserve it despite the failings of its people and leadership. You have found it in the Orthodox Church which includes the OCA.
The difference between Orthodoxy and Anglicanism is that Anglicanism has never had a unified doctrine. There have always been parties such as High Church, Low Church and Broad Church. We have never had that kind of division and never will. We may have relatively minor differences in chant and liturgical practice such as the differences between the Russian customs and the Greek and Antiochian customs, but we have always agreed on the same doctrine. Anglicans have never agreed on doctrine. Instead, they have opted for vague loosely defined doctrine in an effort to include as many different ideas as possible. We are not like that and never have been. Therefore, what has happened to Anglicanism will never happen in the Orthodox Church.
I’ve been watching this from the sidelines but I question whether the OCA can recover from its (largely self-inflicted) calamity without some bold thinking like you suggested. From the beginning my sense has always been that removing Metropolitan Jonah was a serious mistake that hurt the larger Church and I said so at the time (see: Removing Metropolitan Jonah Hurt the American Orthodox Church).
As this has unfolded over the subsequent months and with no attempt made at reconciliation or even the correcting of the record concerning the false allegations against Met Jonah that he covered up a rape (a particularly egregious offense to Met. Jonah in my opinion), I can’t see other jurisdictions standing idly by as if this was business as usual.
I’m not in the OCA so I don’t have a dog in this fight but everyone sees the spectacle. Can anyone be sure though that after the Parma Conference and a new Metropolitan is elected that he will be met with universal acclaim by the other hierarchs? What happens if they express their disapproval by ignoring, or worse, not recognizing the new Metropolitan? Has anyone thought of that? It will allow them to act decisively in a way that does not interfere in OCA internal affairs.
This scenario might sound far-fetched but consider that the only ones who don’t seem to recognize Met. Jonah’s standing is the OCA. Since he is recognized as an active and legitimate bishop by ROCOR, Moscow and presumably other jurisdictions (I don’t know which ones), then don’t the signs point to a conflict like I just outlined?
Fr Hans, I’ve come to the conclusion that the Stokovites in control at Syosset don’t care if they are not recognized by other autocephalous churches. These people are in an existential fight and they’ve all chosen what their “last ditch” will be and fight it out as long as they can, hoping that the other ditches are taken over or the agressor exhausts himself. For the idolaters of Schmemann, the last ditch is a self-adoring autocephaly. For men like Kishkovsky, the last ditch is the OCA’s membership in the NCC. He’s a player there and it’s a sweet gig for him. The fact that the OCA gives only a minimal amount for membership is enough of a fig leaf for the apostates there since as long as an Orthodox presence exists it’s enough to fool the Protestant rubes in the pews that “hey, we can’t be anti-Christian, after all the OCA is a member!” For Tosi and Jillions, it’s a six-figure salary essentially doing nothing but shuffling paper in a nice suburb of Scarsdale.
Has the OCA beclowned itself and delegitimized our autocephaly? You bet. The ouster of Jonah did not go as planned. It was a Charlie Foxtrot all the way. Since there illegal and uncanonical ouster in July, nothing has gone their way, it’s been one explosion after another. The institutional rot however cannot see a sane way out. It’s like trench warfare in the Great War, so they go on doing what they know best.
Sure, they couldn’t get the Sex Czar, Clergy Cop, or Executive Administrative Assistant for the new Metropolitan, but in the end, it doesn’t matter. Sure, the DoW is going to have to steer $70K away from Syosset to keep Manton afloat, but at least the flunkies in Syosset are strill drawing their paychecks. Don’t get me wrong, it would have been nice to have more timer-servers doing nothing in Syosset and draining more from the parishes but when it’s every man for himself, you take what you can get. In the end, they got what they wanted, the extinction of traditional Orthodoxy in the OCA. When the time comes to turn out the lights in Syosset, they’ll have their excuses ready-made. Some of them of course will have retired or gotten a cush assignment like Garklavs.
Bishop Irenaues of Canada
Bishop Basil of Wichita
Please prayerfully consider one of these two men – dedicated and humble servants who love God and monasticism very much.
Joseph, although I am biased and would be loath to have Bp. Basil leave his current Cathedral for any reason, what in God’s name would lead you to believe than any bishop in his right mind would want to be the Metropolitan of the OCA let alone a bishop who has real and genuine authority to preach, teach, heal and build up the Body of Christ where he already is. For one thing, he was consecrated in his Cathedral and served as its priest for several years prior to that. You would be asking him to divorce and leave widowed the diocese and the people for whom he gives himself daily body and soul. Do you think Met. Philip would even consider releasing him?
Besides all of that and the fact that he does not desire any episcopal office, he has been Antiochian all of his life and loves his Arabic roots. He would likely offend the Slavic rigorists on just as many fronts as he would offend the modernists. He goes by the new calendar but would have no problem returning to the old if that is what the Church in America wanted.
I don’t think you’ll find any bishop from outside the OCA who is worth anything to accept the position of Metropolitan even if offered as long as the MC exists.
Bp Basil would not be a good fit in any way I can imagine and why you would want to curse him with the job is beyond me.
I agree with Joseph Hostetler that either of those two men would be an excellent choice for First Hierarch of the OCA’s Holy Synod. I agree with Mister Baumann that this would be an incredibly heavy burden on either of them, especially Bishop Basil who is in every episcopal way superior to the hierarchs on that Holy Synod. (How they imagined they should be entitled Archbishop while someone like him is a Bishop is food for thought, indeed) .I understand that Archbishop Benjamin let it be known at the recent secretive Diocesan Assembly of the Diocese of the West, that he would decline to be considered a candidate for the primacy, and that he felt that either Bishop Michael and Archbishop Tikhon would be the optimum candidates.
In previous years, the Diocese of the West’s Assemblies were preceded by the publication on line of voluminous parish and other reports, as well as a Delegates’ Handbook. But according to today’s DOW web page, there is no evidence that an Assembly was to be held or was held, last week in Denver. The only public mention is the photos of Father David Lowell on Facebook! Who KNOWS who was elected to the Diocesan Council? Who SAW the Treasurer’s Assembly report? All we’ve heard even from the “grapevine’ is that Archbishop Benjamin spent a lot ot time and sound on the derelictions of Metropolitan Jonah, the chiefest of which seems to be that he leaked information that was not meant for the public!!!!
Can you imagine? Not a peep about Manton—not the fires and not the defections. Some are saying the abbot Meletios Webber has gone back to England, from whence he came?
What happened to the much-vaunted and new ‘Transparency and Accountability?” Oh, yeah, right. That was just to be applied to our enemies, not us.
When will +Benjamin leave +Jonah alone!? Leaked information that wasn’t for the public?? Like what? Something to do with Himself?(+Jonah) If so, why can’t he leak or speak it and why are they still infested with secrets?
You are right, double standards -transparency only for our enemies. . .
Leaked information not for the public? Sounds like the SIC report that found its way into the hands of Pokrov just days after the “stinkbomb” of a statement published under the name of the HS! I am still waiting for +Benjamin or any member of the Synod to decry that leak and demand the leaker be found and held accountable! Strange how there is nothing but silence. The hypocrisy of this situation just boggles the mind. Whether you love Met. Jonah or think we are well rid of him, how can a person not look at the inconsistent and hypocritical stances taken by the “leaders” of this jurisdiction and not demand they all quit!
Mark, don’t forget the “highly confidential” SMPAC memorandum, which found its way to Pokrov at the same time.
Met. Jonah was loudly accused of leaking that, to one person, possibly. If he did, whomever it was kept the report in confidence. But since Pokrov posted it where anybody can see it and download it, it’s all quiet on the Syosset front. Also, much of the substance of the report, including names, was on OCAN long ago. We didn’t hear a peep from Syosset about that, either.
Not like it did Syosset a lot of good to leak it: now everyone can see how the prejudice against Metropolitan Jonah and attempts to undermine his leadership were well in motion before Santa Fe.
Colette, This is the tactic of a ten year old. Just keep loudly and repeatedly that it is +Met Jonah fault and it will keep the focus off himself, his sins, the synod’s sins. We can expect new lies and faults as long as it works. So far.. so good…… maybe the loudest mouth wins?
I understand that Fr. Melitios Webber is in Santa Cruz and is still traveling about the West doing men’s retreats for Fr. John Morris’s jurisdiction. Also I believe, he is still on only a “leave of absence”.
Still supported by his own Bishop I conclude, as he needs a blessing to do these things, I assume.
Are you sure he didn’t go back to England?
That I doubt. I know that he was originally scheduled to speak to our clergy symposium, but was dis-invited after some of more controversial views were brought to the attention of the Metropolitan’s staff. I have no doubt that Archbishop Joseph would never allow anyone whose views on the moral teachings of the Church are questionable to conduct retreats in his diocese.
Then, who do you suggest, if not +Jonah???
The more strict elements of the OCA would never accept Bishop Basil. He knows the difference between doctrine that does not change and customs that can and have changed. He has pews in his Cathedral, allows his clergy to wear Western clerical garb outside of the Church, and follows Antiochian liturgics. Yet, like all our Antiochian Bishops he allows no deviation from the Tradition of the Orthodox Church.
Fr. John, he also blesses his priests to wear cassoks, has no problem with the Old Calender if that is what the Church decides on, strongly supports authentic monasticism, the Orthodox Tradition concerning marriage, regular confession, etc. As I noted earlier, he, like Met. Jonah would be an equal opportunity offender, he’d just have the advantage of having spent over 20 years as a bishop, an office he never sought and did not want. His election was a total surprise to everyone.
I know and respect Bishop Basil. I have been going to Confession to him for many years. He is traditional, but recognizes like I do that one can differ on customs without violating the Orthodox Faith. Bishop Basil does not forbid his clergy to wear cassocks outside of the church, but he does not require it. I do not know or any Antiochian who does not support authentic monasticism, the Orthodox Tradition concerning marriage, regular confession, etc.
I do not think that any informed Orthodox Christian really considers the calendar a matter of doctrine. I do not care what calendar a parish uses, although all parishes in the same jurisdiction should use whatever calendar their Holy Synod decides to use. The Holy Synod of Antioch uses the new calendar. Thus all Antiochian Churches use the new calendar, but I do not think that it is heretical to use the old calendar. It was never an issue in our Patriarchate the way that it was in some other Orthodox Churches who saw acceptance of the new calendar as acceptance of the authority of the Pope. I am also quite sure that use of the Old Calendar was one of the ways that Orthodox distinguished themselves from Catholics in areas where Orthodox lived under Catholic domination, or like Russia that had fought numerous wars with Poland and suffered a period of Polish domination during the Time of Troubles. At first the Protestants felt the same way. It took centuries for the Protestant countries to accept the Gregorian Calendar. England and its colonies which became the United States did not adopt it until the 1750s. After the Protestant states of Europe adopted the new calendar it no longer was seen as acceptance of papal authority. That is why one cannot cite the Orthodox councils that condemned the new calendar as authoritative. They took place during a time when everyone including Protestant Europe considered acceptance of the new calendar as acceptance of papal authority. That has changed. Acceptance of the new calendar is no longer a sign of acceptance of papal authority. Therefore, the reasons behind the decision of some Orthodox councils to condemn the new calendar are no longer valid. Here in the United States we use the Gregorian calendar. This morning just before I gave the final blessing, I ask one of the men who helps in the Altar what the date was so that I would commemorate the right Saints in the dismissal. He replied that it is the 21 because if you look at any calendar used in this country and used by our government. Today is October 21. Therefore, I commemorated the Saints listed in the calendar at the back of the Liturgikon for October 21.
All of this discussion about bishops from other Orthodox jurisdiction and Churches is a sad by product that the current OCA leadership is so bereft. Look at what we are saying, we don’t believe in our current leaders. None of them have the spiritual heft to be First Hierarch. I have said it before and again repeat it, a NO CONFIDENCE vote on the first ballot and on the second ballot sends the clear message that we are fed up with this impostors on the synod.
Parma may be an event but it certainly will not be a Council. A gathering but a futile attempt to legitimate an illegitimate jurisdiction that has acted not like a Church but like a band of self-serving mean and angry adolescent boys.
The OCA is no longer legitimate. Moscow knows it. Constantinople knows it. Antioch knows it. Why else would +Hilarion (Alfeev) of Volokolamsk meet with all of them publicly last week and only had a very clandestine meeting with two members of the OCA synod? Why would the SVS Board of Trustees be entertaining an escape plan to distance themselves from the OCA?
The handwriting is on the wall folks. Moscow will not come to the OCA’s defense and neither will anyone else. What we feared is coming true, the OCA as a sect in North America. No amount of chest-thumping or lofty words in Parma can change the reality on the ground. No amount of elitist inside the bubble musings from Jillions in his daily propaganda fluff can change things. A new Metropolitan will not change its downward trajectory.
The clergy and faithful need to find those safe spiritual harbors to work out our salvation away from the chaos and lies on display in the OCA. These leaders have left us.
Re “spiritual heft”, Nikos, from what I know I would suggest there are two hierarchs in the OCA who have a measure of that and whom the Parma delegates might wish to seriously consider: Irineu of Dearborn Heights & Irenee of Quebec. If one of these two is indeed nominated from the floor but the Holy Synod subsequently passes over him, then I would suggest the OCA jig is well and truly up. But it’s surely “worth a shot” as you Americans say. Btw, I think Tikhon (Mollard) is a good man and a devout monk, but I fear he lacks the character (or “spiritual heft” as you put it) that the OCA will need in its next Metropolitan in order to recover from its past and navigate into the future.
Four weeks ago the smart money was on Bp Michael Dahulich. After the EEOC suit at St Tikhon’s, it was decided that it would be Bp Tikhon Mollard. Now that’s blown up in their face and they’ve decided that it’s going to be Bp Melchisedek Pleska. It’s always been a done deal, the 600 or so showing up at the UnAmerican Council is just window-dressing.
In the end, it doesn’t matter. All they’re doing is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
I think you’re wrong there, George. Don’t write Archbishop Tikhon off yet. Bishop Michael, it is true, was certainly qualified as a leader and manager. If he wanted a different Chancellor, he’d get one, for example. Nevertheless, it would likely be threats from instances in the
Carpatho-Russian diocese that would make his candidacy unlikely. As for Bishop Melkhizedek, the memory of his service as a Priest in New England before he went off to Greece to dry out may still be too fresh to allow for his election….although they DID elect him a Bishop anyhow…whether ignorantly or not, who knows?…Ask Helga.
I was speaking of ruling bishops but I will agree with you that Bishop Ireniu and Bishop Irenee are honorable men and worthy of the call.
There is not a bishop in the world who could become metropolitan in the OCA and serve effectively and honorably as long as this synod and this Syosset apparat are in place. Tilting at windmills, it is. A metropolitan does not a synod make. Permanent fail.
The Board of Trustees of the Antiochian Archdiocese has just made an offer on a large piece of land for a monastery for women. There are also plans for a monastery for men in our Archdiocese.
++ HILARION Alfayev would be wonderful. But why would he want to be the head of Church of barely 70,000 members in such disarray? If this were THE Orthodox Church in America uniting all jurisdictions it would be a different story.
He’d have to have his head examined the way the organization is currently structured. The old personnell would have to go en masse and there woudl have to be fundamental constitutional changes. The thing is utterly unworkable as is. Read the Statute. There are overlapping responsbiltiies and contradictions and it’s hard to know where authority and ultimate responsiblity lies for various actions. Also the nomination/election process is a joke.
lxc
My apologies to all. (If I’m lucky George will block my previous post, written before I had time to read the article.)
🙁 Sorry.
I see the recommencation if for ++Hilarion of ROCOR. No that’s a horse of a different color. He MIGHT I suppose be willing BUT there’s still too much dysfunction, I’m afraid. Would anyone really want to take it on?
lxc
So what is ++Hilarion “of ROCOR’s” name?
It is not Alfayev, that’s a different guy, an MP guy.
It is not “of ROCOR,” and it would look silly to vote that way.
I feel like someone else should be pointing this out, but since none have: It is hard to get a guy elected to any office if you don’t know (and use) his name.
ROCOR’s Metropolitan Hilarion’s last name is Kapral. And, btw, the MP’s Metropolitan Hilarion’s last name is spelled Alfeyev.
Metropolitan Hilarion (Kapral) = ROCOR
Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) = MP
See http://eadiocese.org/Administration/rulingbishop.en.htm for his biography.
Why doesn’t anyone mention Bishop Ireneaus of the OCA in Canada?
JH
You don’t get it. The OCA has nothing to do with the MP. + Hilarion is their guy, not the OCA’s. A nice, good man, but still of the “Russian Mentality” that would be detrimental to the American Church. This is why ROCOR is so backward. One thing we don’t need are more Russian operatives in the U.S. under the guise of church people.
Backward? I wish the oca was that backward!
Absolutely! Perhaps a little “Russian Mentality” (with the thousand years plus history of Orthodoxy behind it) wouldn’t be the worst thing that could happen to the four decades old embarrassment that has become the OCA. Ultimately, it isn’t about any particular ethnic “mentality”. Its about having an Orthodox mentality.
Trust me, George M., from reading your posts and the posts of your like-mindedners, you really don’t want to be as backward as the ROCOR.
We may have extended Christian, one might argue, fundamental decency to your former Metropolitan, but please don’t make the mistake of confusing charity with eros.
Let’s just be friends!
Again, referencing the posts of the many OCAers on this blog, er, describing heretics and fundamentalists, it seems clear to me that we, the ROCOR and the OCA should in the words of Elder Paisios, “Love at a distance.”
If you will permit a ROCOR layman’s blessing: Lord, bless and keep the OCA… far away from us. Amen.
Like it or not Ioann, many OCA-ers have already come into ROCOR recently and depending how things work out, more may be coming. A lot more.
Colette,
Do you think that these OCA-ers will seek to reshape the ROCOR into the OCA Part Deux or will they allow themselves to be shaped by the spiritual tradition that has produced modern Saints such as: Vladika St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco, Metropolitan Philaret the Incorrupt, Fr. Seraphim Rose and Brother Jose Munoz-Cortes?
I know you can’t speak for all. I’m just interested in your general impressions.
Those who would go to ROCOR are more traditionally minded. That said these sorts of discussions just fuel division. The OCA has not fallen, despite the appearences on this blog. Those of us in the OCA who would oppose open acceptance of homosexuality must do so until it is either overcome or preached openly by the synod. Until that time flight is wrapped up in self will and spiritually harmful. Furthermore this is but a preparation for the martydom awaiting those who cling to Christ in this pagan society.
Dear Ioann,
Those who have gone into ROCOR already are of like mind with it. I think those who will be joining will be of the same ilk. People are looking for a safe Orthodox Church, that is actually fully Orthodox and a safe place for their families. They don’t like the modernisation of the OCA. I doubt people would leave just because they think the OCA will commune Homosexuals, but rather because a list of problems in it. They are already (most likely) familiar with St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco, Metropolitan Philaret the Incorrupt, Fr. Seraphim Rose and Brother Jose Munoz-Cortes, So they are already in imitation of such saints. It seems however with every great influx of cultures there is some change. May be for the good, may be for the bad. I would hope for the good.
RE: “People are looking for a safe Orthodox Church, that is actually fully Orthodox and a safe place for their families… They are already (most likely) familiar with St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco, Metropolitan Philaret the Incorrupt, Fr. Seraphim Rose and Brother Jose Munoz-Cortes.”
Well, if that’s the case, then we’re practically kinfolk. What else can I say but, “Y’all come!”
How many defections are you talking about? 100? ROCOR is tiny outside of SF and still just a couple parishes there. We need to get our sense of perspective straight here.
Could you explain that a little more !
Well written post, amusing.
But exactly WHY to keep at arms length ?
Secondly, do most ROCOR laity feel this same way?
Catherine,
One of the Holy Saints of the Church put it this way:
If you are trying to save a drowning man, don’t give him your hand. Hold out a stick.
Why? A drowning man is panicked, crazed with desperation and dangerous. Give him your hand and he can easily pull you in so you both drown.
If one holds out a stick, the drowning man can grab ahold and the one holding the stick can pull him out. If the crazed drowning man starts to pull his rescuer into the water, he can let go of the stick. There is no need for the death of two in order to try to save the one.
Forgive me, but I’m afraid that the OCA is like that drowning man right now.
I don’t know about “most ROCOR laity.” Maybe someone should do a poll.
That is a great way to make your point crystal clear !
Do you recall which Saint it was who gave that originally by the way?
Well yes, maybe a detailed survey SHOULD be conducted,
one for clergy and one for laity.
Or — Rocor Activists could consider starting their own
Monomakhos to try to educate and inform the flock as to
some of these crucial issues.
I doubt many are even foggily aware of the OCA’s struggles to
stay above the water.
On the new Rocoromakhos site, a poll could be taken among the readers.
[A good idea, as long as decorum is observed ?]
Catherine 9,
“To a man drowning in a river, give your staff and not your hand.” – St. Isaac the Syrian
For this saying and teaching and many more, see:
The Illustrated Sayings of the Holy Fathers
by Monk John Vranos
Published by: St Xenia Skete, Wildwood, CA
Your suggestion made me think of maybe starting such a blog.
I thought I could call it: “Mononucleosis” as sort of an homage to this blog, for fellow Orthodox Christians who are sick and tired fighting each other.
But I don’t have the energy anymore to start a new blog or post on this one.
You’re right about the foggy awareness of the OCA’s troubles amongst the brethren that I know. I think it has to do with the many decades of estrangement between the two jurisdictions. This separation has served to quarantine the ROCOR from the OCA and has also served to inoculate many in the OCA from the ROCOR.
Both quarantine and inoculation over the long years have created what might be called a “siege mentality” amongst the ROCOR, a mentality, I must add, that was not pathological, but critical to its survival during a bad period.
Sadly, there was some serious stone throwing from the OCA side, efforts to isolate the ROCOR and brand it schismatic and deprived of grace, efforts that didn’t abate until after the MP and ROCOR reconciliation in 2007.
Is five years enough to heal all wounds? I don’t know. I’m dismayed by the many strange attacks on this board against what we in the ROCOR simply hold to be good and true. I pray that these are just the rather loud voices of a minority, but I don’t know.
All this discussion about baptism and your mention of the word “activist” made me remember a homily from my parish Priest about how the goal of the Orthodox Christian life is to “activate” that grace that was given to us during our baptism and chrismation into the Church. It’s something that my wife has been trying to gently remind me about lately.
The many hours that I have spent arguing here, though fun in a bad way, have not been one step towards that type of activity.
So no activisim, cheerleading, blogging, polling or posting for me… and no more Mononucleosis.
Lovely answer, Ioann !
I am disappointed that you WERE thinking of abandoning this stie.
I KNOW well what you mean, I believe, anyway, that I have a good sense of it.
It’s very difficult to listen to some of the posts which almost mind-BLOGgling [?!].
It is admirable that your wife has made such remonstances with you and that
you are heeding [Do you know how RARE that is in America today ? Exceedingly so – ]
Couldn’t you talk to her and work out a compromise so that you can contine
to post maybe on a [I’m kidding] part-time basis ?
At least contribute where and when you are able ?
Maybe this month is not good but what about next, for example ?
I see amazing amounts of wisdom and stellar awareness of the real situation
shining thru your posts in this thread.
I would like to hear more of your educated perspective, for the remarks of one alert, smart person are so much nicer to read than sorting thru millions of dim ones…!
It’s a service to everyone here, even when sometimes ideas are met with
derision in a few quarters.
Please consider to revise your ultimatum of sorts to the blog.
And even if you are not able to start Mononucleosis — [ that’s funny, I was
just remembering that illness, which used to be so prevalent among students,
but vanished clear into the blue mysteriously ! ] —
maybe a computery type will catch sight of this and – start that new site !
Agreed. I can’t think of anything worse than trying to graft a diseased branch onto a healthy tree. Better that the rotten limb be cast into the wastebin of history.
Vladika Metropolitan Hilarion (Kapral) indirectly addressed some of the issues being discussed on this blog this weekend at the Eastern American Pastoral Conference:
October 13, 2012
Nyack, NY: A Message to the God-Loving Flock from the Participants of the Pastoral Conference
On Friday, October 12, upon completion of the work of the joint pastoral conference of clergy from the Eastern American Diocese and the Moscow Patriarchate, conference participants, led by the First Hierarch of the Russian Church Abroad, His Eminence Hilarion, Metropolitan of Eastern America & New York, approved the text of a message to the God-loving flock of Orthodox Christians living in America, discussing the work of the conference and the future development of unity between the two parts of the Russian Orthodox Church. The text of the greeting is available below.
Reverend Fathers, monastics, beloved in Christ brothers, sisters, and children,
The clergy of the Eastern American Diocese of ROCOR and the Patriarchal Parishes in the USA, and their spouses, having gathered on October 11-13 for a joint pastoral conference under the aegis of the myrrh-streaming Hawaiian Iveron Icon of the Mother of God, and chairmanship of the First Hierarch of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russian, His Eminence Hilarion, Metropolitan of Eastern America & New York, greet you with the words of the Savior: Peace be unto you! (John 20:19).
This year, when we celebrate the fifth anniversary of the signing of the Act of Canonical Communion, we lift up our prayers and thanksgiving to the Lord of Hosts for granting unity to the Russian Orthodox Church. We pray for the repose of the ever-memorable leaders of Christ’s Church in the Russian land and abroad, His Holiness, Patriarch Alexey II, and His Eminence, Metropolitan Laurus, thanks to whom we overcame the bitter divisions of the twentieth century.
We offer up thanks to our beloved Primate, His Holiness Kyrill, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, who has called upon the hierarchs and clergy of the Russian Church to analyze the accomplishments of the past five years, and to determine the future course of the Russian Church, no matter where She may be.
A most significant event since the Reunification was the appearance of the myrrh-streaming Hawaiian Iveron Icon of the Mother of God, which began to stream myrrh in the year of the signing of the Act of Canonical Communion, thus confirming the God-pleasing nature of our newly-found unity. Having heard a presentation from Archpriest Victor Potapov about this holy image, we call upon our faithful to strengthen their prayers to the Mother of God – the intercessor of all Christians. The Lord recalled the Montreal myrrh-streaming Iveron Icon, no doubt because of our sins and lack of appreciation and reverence for this miracle. Let us learn from the mistakes of the past and approach this holy image with contrite and repentant hearts, never allowing ourselves to grow accustomed to such divinely sent manifestations of God’s grace.
We heard a lecture from Archpriest Alexander Golubov about the rich history of the Russian Orthodox Church in America, with the aim of reconsidering the past and reclaiming the future. The Russian Church was the first to send missionaries to the New World, and we are called to continue this sacred work. In the words of Metropolitan Paul of Ryazan, who represented His Holiness at the meeting, “It is important for all of us to perform missionary work, bringing the Gospel to all people, because the secular life affects all of us.”
In order to combat the secularism of this world, we must fortify ourselves spiritually. The lectures of Archimandrite Irenei (Steenberg) and Archpriest Artemy Vladimirov were aimed at helping us become better pastors, so that we may first and foremost strengthen our parishes spiritually. We were called to increase love amongst ourselves and, in the words of our First Hierarch, the conference’s success will be determined by the degree of spiritual strength with which we return home, renewed in a sincere desire to increase Christian love.
A fundamental topic of the conference was the role of the Russian Church in the future of Orthodox America. As Christians, we are overjoyed to see the Orthodox bishops and faithful in America heeding the words of our Savior when He said, “May they all be one; as Thou, Father, art in Me,” (John 17:21). We firmly express our support of the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in North America and pray that the work of this Assembly will be God-pleasing.
Pointing to the many temptations that face our Holy Orthodox Church in the 21st century, Metropolitan Hilarion reminded us of the words of Apostle Paul – “See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise” (Ephesians 5:15). We denounce modernism and secularism in the Church and call upon our faithful to heed the words of the ever-memorable Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky) – “Hold fast what you have.” Many Orthodox in America are looking to the Russian Church for an example of steadfastness and loyalty to the traditions of Orthodoxy. We are committed to preserving that which has been handed down to us by our pious ancestors, and we call upon the faithful to increase their support of the Church, so that our mission will not be hindered.
Five years after the Reunification, one of our biggest challenges is the spiritual care of the faithful of the Russian Orthodox Church in America. There are many people, desperately in search of a Church to call home, to whom we must reach out, and whose salvation must become our priority. As members of the Russian Orthodox Church in America, we have an obligation to care for the countless number of souls who have come to this country from the former Soviet republics. At the same time, we see thousands of Americans converting to the Faith after their experiences in our parishes and because of the love that they have acquired for traditional Orthodoxy.
Our work as pastors does not end simply with the conversion of catechumens to the Orthodox faith; that is just the beginning of a long journey to help them appreciate the fullness of Orthodoxy. “Orthodoxy ‒ true, undistorted, and uncorrupted by any human philosophy or misconception ‒ is the genuine teaching of Christ, in all its purity and fullness – about the faith and piety.” These words of Metropolitan Hilarion, spoken during this conference, we convey to you, our beloved faithful.
We are especially concerned for the youth of our Church, who are assaulted by the temptations and passions of this world. We are wholeheartedly committed to our young people and call upon them to unite around the Holy Orthodox Church, so that they may experience a genuine life in Christ. We have discussed the importance of expanding existing youth programs such as the Volunteers in Mission Program, the Diocesan Youth Choir, youth camps, youth pilgrimages, and more, and encourage our young people to take advantage of them.
We are committed to each other. As members of two branches of our One Local Russian Orthodox Church, we leave this conference with a renewed spirit and a sincere desire to strengthen the unity that we achieved five years ago. Faith and Christian morality lead us to spiritual salvation. Let us not succumb to the many temptations that surround us. In the face of freedom of choice, in a free land, blessed by those who have found refuge and a new life in it, let us show ourselves to be valiant defenders of the Faith of our fathers.
May the blessing of the Lord be upon you, always, now and ever, and unto the ages of ages, Amen!
Participants of the 2012 Joint Pastoral Conference of the
Eastern American Diocese and Moscow Patriarchate
October 12, 2012
Nyack, NY
Very encouraging. Thanks for posting this, Alexandr.
Agreed! I was received in the OCA and served as regent in Holy Protection Cathedral in Manhattan for 12 years. I have been regent in a ROCOR parish for the past 4 years and could not be happier. The people don’t gossip, love their parishes and are both pious and zealous for the Faith. You never hear about any improprieties. The OCA should be so “backward”!
By the way, speaking of ROCOR being “backward,” go and check out the website of the ROCOR Eastern American Diocese at http://eadiocese.org/en.index.htm and see the amazing things they’re doing. Then compare it to the OCA website’s “Parish Life” http://oca.org/news/parish-life and photos at http://oca.org/media/photos . My my, how times have changed.
But the OCA does have the Chancellor’s Diary where we get to hear about every time they have a sexual misconduct meeting or spiritual court.
We have a Metropolitan. His name is +Jonah. What he needs is the support of the faithful.
The discourse above illustrates what +Jonah has been up against.
I noticed that a number of bishops were not accused/slandered in this guest essay: Archbishops Nikon and Tikhon, and Bishops Alexander, Irineu, Mark and Irinee. Why then jump to Metropolitan Hilarion of ROCOR? If a Hilarion is considered, why not +Hilarion (Alfayev)? Indeed, if the OCA is so bad off, why not just go under Constantinople or Antioch? Is there a particular reason to presuppose that the Greek and the Antiochian Archdioceses are as bad as the OCA? There is no good logical reason that these “Sons of Job” are offering here. Indeed, by masking their names, they have turned their accusations into slander. So, why should we believe them or accept their recommendation? For all we know, this may be a maneuver to obtain a better golden parachute for +Jonah.
Carl, Which one of them has stood up thus far? Whom would you suggest as a better candidate? Is handing our autocephaly to Met. Hilarion that scary to you? Why? We hide our names because some of us have already been threatened! Some have suffered abuse, and are marginalized and ignored. Some of us stood up and found we had no parish and income our children and wives bore the burden of these things written above. Lastly, you will not find any slander from us! We have been attacked for a long time and Jonah has nothing to do with the reality we have before us. If he stays or goes the rest is still true.
Whoever you are, particularly if you are clergy, I sympathize with your quandary. I have been in that boat myself and I am the son of a priest. Here is my main problem with y’all: I do not think that you had to be so explicit in your accusations, so thorough in your condemnation of virtually all high level church officials to make the point that OCA must go under ROCOR/ROC. In effect, I read you to say that OCA is so messed up that the only way that her problems can be solved is by going back to pre-Metropolia days. I do not agree with that; the only time that our autocephaly can be given up is when an administratively united and autocephalous church is formed–not a second before.
Besides, positing that ROCOR is the logical alternative is to also say that you do not believe that the Greeks, Antiochians, Serbians, etc.. are as good as ROCOR. As His Grace would say, what an idea! Why not invite one of the true monastic bishops on this continent, Bishop Basil of Wichita, to become our new Metropolitan? Why not Met. Isaiah of Denver or Met. Savvas of Pittsburgh? That would be a nice pilot project of cross-fertilization that we would have to effect after we unify anyway.My choice, however, is to stick closer to home. Bishop Alexander may be better prepared at this point than Metropolitan Jonah was at the AAC. Since I am a fervent advocate of strict adherence to Canon 32, the next Metropolitan will hopefully limit himself to being the Presiding Bishop of the Holy Synod, as Archbishop Dimitri of blessed memory used to characterize the position.
Regarding my characterization of your accusations as slander, I am sorry that I may have hurt your feelings. However, I felt that anonymous accusations that were as hurtful as they are to all those folks that you named deserved equally hurtful characterization. I am sorry but how am i, or anyone else for that matter, think that you have pursued your case in accordance with the Scriptures, the Holy Canons and just common decency and fairness?
Carl, No one said under ROCOR but with them and under the direction of Hilarion. Autocephaly might die permanently or be resurrected as never before God knows. Right now that word has no meaning in our present practice. You are smart enough to know as a PK that these accusations were tried for years according to scripture, canon , decency, and fairness and people were ignored and punished. Not to mention the real victims these behaviors left behind. You did not hurt my feelings at all. Sadly you like so many others ignored God’s Children who are really getting hurt -. and that in effect would allow for it to happen over and over. If you bring in one new guy the system is still broke. This is a battle against evil.
You end up advocating for the least experienced and least tested bishop Alexander. That is not our conclusion. If we go to Parma as you have in your response saying it could be any one of several they will pick for you. You will be doing exactly what they want.
We did not condemn anyone but brought to light only some of what has been shared with us. We judge no one but are always discerning good from evil. We intentionally were not explicit especially with the predation that took place at St. Tikon’s.
All my points about alternatives were rhetorical, to include the point about Bishop Alexander. I want to be clear: the nomination of candidates at Parma is a sacred responsibility of the delegates and the election of the next Metropolitan is the responsibility of the Holy Synod. I am not going to tell them whom to nominate and elect. Let that be between themselves and the Holy Spirit. I will pray, though, that they make the right choice. I am the kind of Orthodox who believes that I belong to a real family and that I just do not desert my family when things go bad and I do not attack and disown family members who mess up. I do not embarrass them in public. I do , however, talk to them in intimate settings and pray for them. I do that because ultimately I am the same as any one of them, certainly as messed up as the worst of them. But, there are always the good ones, who inspire me and guide me. There are always the ones who are struggling to stay on the narrow road and thus inspire me. There are always the ones who are kinder and more temperate than me and thus set an example for me. Most of all, when we gather for Divine Liturgy and I am in the midst of them with the cloud of witnesses that surround us and with Christ in our midst, I know I am in the right family.
Carl. What do you do when all you have suggested has been tried and has been unsuccessful? What if there is no repentence? What does scripture say then? Put them out! To do any less by claiming that the gospel says we must remain gentle and forgiving to those who are in the church, involved in ongoing sins, and not exhibiting repentence is to follow only those parts of the gospel that suit us. It is also not love, it is cowardice. In modern terms, it is called enabling. Even if someone is in your family, there is a point when unconditional acceptance is not love, but simply the fear that we will not be loved.
I am not a behavioral health practitioner but I work in the field in a different capacity. I know enough to discern the difference between healthy and unhealthy love. In my opinion, this blog and others remind me more of that scene in Frankenstein where the villagers are pursuing the monster–pitchforks and all, then a family intervention. I suppose you could say that both are “tough love” and that neither are enabling. I prefer the family setting. As for doing it over and over again, I think that I can come up with reasonable justification, but then so can you.
Carl says, ” I am the kind of Orthodox who believes that I belong to a real family and that I just do not desert my family when things go bad and I do not attack and disown family members who mess up. I do not embarrass them in public.”
This is BS of course. Of all people to say this . . . You attack in the most un-Godly manner-character assassination. Even if you can’t find anything on someone, you just give half-truths and misquotes, anything so you can spew wrath . . .. yuk.
Colette-You are right in the sense that I have not always been the way I portrayed myself. I should have said instead that I am trying to be be the kind of Orthhodox who…
I admit that I allowed myself to get angry and to push back hard against what I considered to be untruths, gossip and slander. By doing so I ended up not only judgmental but also hurtful to “the other side.” It ws/is a corrosive thing–on my soul and the Body of Christ. For that I do apologize to you and all others, and beg your forgiveness.
I accept your apology.
Whether you can accept it or not I and others that you call the “other side” are the Body of Christ. Please note– I am not a gossip, I am very direct and have no need to lie or exaggerate. I am concerned for my church, I have been involved in a parish for the last 11 years that I have watched be ripped apart and take a nose dive because of wrong teaching, practice and abuse. I have watched as a good Metropolitan spoke the truth about the OCA and addressed these and other issues, horribly attacked. This is wrong.. . . I hope you will join me and others to right it, to help the Church we all love turn around. I would much rather see this than its destruction.
I don’t know what made you stop with your unholy attack on people . . . I hope it was the Love of Christ.
Colette–I believe that I had laid out why I decided that “fighting fire with fire” was not working. I will be a bit clearer. For one thing, I got increasingly frustrated and angry; to the point that I started to detest one person in particular (not you). That was the most important factor; the realization that I was doing myself great harm. And, yes I was doing great harm to my relationship with the Lord as well. Finally, I realized that I was tilting at windmills, that I was not going to change the minds of some folks with counter-arguments. I had been thinking that a change in approach would be the best for everyone. Perhaps, by toning down the rhetoric? In any case, what tipped me over were the words of PdnNJ that thanked God that I was apparently doing OK. So, may the Lord Grant you many years dear Father Deacon NJ! And, while you and I disagree about many things, particularly +Jonah, I hope and pray that our discourse will avoid bitterness and anger.
Thank you, Carl Kraeff, for this statement which does you and your spiritual advisers credit, indeed! We all get distracted by “causes” sooner or later.
Carl, I think you are preaching to the choir here. Where were you when the Synod attacked Metropolitan Jonah in that STINKBOMB of a “Statement,” written by a clique NOT the Synod, treating Metropolitan Jonah like an interloper rather than a brother? And you actually suggest AGAIN electing a tyro-bishop to occupy the senior chair?
The Church of Russia, at least, allows the candidacy of no hierarch who has not been a bishop for at least five years to be even considered as Patriarch. Are we so much more spiritually advanced and insightful and MATURE that we can ignore such wise de facto counsel? If you, Carl, are dead set on an SVS alumnus as primate, God be with you. You’re right: you’ve got a choice between Archbishop
Benjamin and Bishop Alexander. How well do YOU know Bishop Alexander? Better than you knew Bishop Jonah or not as well? Perhaps, as Archbishop Benjamin has been intimating, it will be a choice between Bishop Michael of New York and Archbishop Tikhon of Philadelphia.
Master bless!
Your Grace–I brought up various names, not to propose any as my candidate, but to point out that +Hilarion, First Hierarch of ROCOR, is not the only possibility. I said in a subsequent post: “All my points about alternatives were rhetorical, to include the point about Bishop Alexander. I want to be clear: the nomination of candidates at Parma is a sacred responsibility of the delegates and the election of the next Metropolitan is the responsibility of the Holy Synod. I am not going to tell them whom to nominate and elect. Let that be between themselves and the Holy Spirit. I will pray, though, that they make the right choice.”
Kissing your right hand, Carl
Electing Met. Hilarion of ROCOR as OCA metropolitan would not be going back to pre-autocephaly days. Rather, it would be a healing of the separation between the two branches of the Russian Church and the beginning, perhaps of healthy Orthodox unity in this country. –Fr. Ambrose
Dear Father Ambrose,
The OCA is the American Church, not the Russian. At such time that we start using bishops from various canonical Orthodox jurisdictions (and learn to be charitable in even which ones of these we count) to provide one bishop for each geographical and administrative division (we could perhaps even divide some of the boroughs in New York, Chicago and LA), we will be able to have our American Patriarchate or a precursor to that American Patriarchate. Until then, we have differences in even how we administer our churches. Somehow in the moves to one up one another, our bishops have become archbishops and our archbishops Metropolitans, depending on jurisdiction, and it is sometimes unclear what we mean to do with able bishops that became unpopular for some reason or another and ended up in retirement. We are a long way even in equality in how our clerics of any status are treated jurisdiction to jurisdiction and we have had some jurisdiction hopping among ourselves and each other and releases, necessary to that jurisdiction hopping seems to be a science in itself with various rules for accessioning and deaccessioning our numbers.
In all charity, LOH, the OCA is not the “American Church.” This is OCA self-talk, fed by hubris which no other Orthodox bishops believe or accept; this triumphalism is embarrassingly out of touch with reality, if only because of the continuing decline in OCA numbers… And, with the ongoing public scandals, how could it ever expect other Orthodox to see it as the “American” Church. I’m not interested in being American, Russian, Greek, or Outer Mongolian. I’m Orthodox. Period, and that’s enough. –Fr. A
Dear Father Ambrose,
You wrote about
I would suggest we do have American Orthodoxy and it exists in many jurisdictions because of the OCA.
Btw, It was my understanding that unity has already occurred between the MP, the ROCOR and the OCA. much less plot his removal from our spiritual lives, indeed from the lives of many in many jurisdictions who had come to count on his presence.
We can cleanse our church of scandals and still remain Orthodox, whether it is divorcing ourselves from off old calendarist Greek sectarians or deposing bishops mired in prelast.
Amen, Fr. Ambrose. I am sick and tired of people telling us that we have to stick with the OCA out of a need for an “American” church.
First, it is phyletism to demand a bishop must be the same ethnicity or nationality as oneself.
Second, one harboring the desire to eventually have one united autocephalous church in North America does not mean that one has to support the current administrative constitution of the OCA. In fact, I think that fulfilling the desire for the former demands giving up on the latter.
Fr. Ambrose:
I could not agree with you more. What we need is a Orthodox Church that is united at least on the national level, and is faithful to the Orthodox Faith. If we have that it does not make any difference to me as an American convert where the Patriarch lives or where my Bishop was born. I write on the national level, because it will take some time to reconcile some minor liturgical differences between the various traditions that make up American Orthodoxy. A Bishop who knows how to celebrate an Hierarchical Divine Liturgy according to Russian practice probably will not know how to celebrate it according to Greek or Antiochian practice. I know how to serve the Divine Liturgy in an Antiochian parish, but would make a mess of it if I were to try to follow Russian practice. We also need local unity and cooperation. Right now a member of my parish may be dying. I am home recuperating from a total knee replacement and cannot minister to him or do the funeral if he dies. Instead, Fr. Paul Yerger of the OCA is ministering to him and his family and will conduct the funeral in my Church if he dies because he is the closest Orthodox Priest to Vicksburg. It is that kind of thing that brings about true Orthodox unity in America when we recognize each other as brothers in Christ and recognize that despite relatively minor liturgical differences, we are all one body in Christ. Despite some of my arguments with some OCA people over externals, I only wish the best for the OCA. All the fighting only saddens me. I hope and pray that there is a real reconciliation in Parma and that the past will be forgiven and forgotten.
You may consider the OCA the American Church, but the majority of Orthodox in this country do not. The sooner you recognize that reality and recognize the legitimacy of the rest of American Orthodoxy including liturgical practices that differ from those of the Russian Church, the sooner we can work to unite to form a real American Orthodox Church.
What you dismiss as variations in liturgical practice is really a collection of bad habits and innovations. To a certain extent you are right. The Greeks and Antiochians have done a much better job of absorbing American Protestantism.
To Andreas:
It is not your place to judge the liturgical practices of the Greek or Antiochian Archdioceses much less call them “a collection of bad habits and innovations.” That kind of liturgical triumphalism is one of the greatest obstacles in the way of Orthodox unity in North America. If you think that we are Protestant, you obviously know very little about Protestantism. Protestants do not use incense, wear Orthodox vestments or kiss icons. Protestants do not serve the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. Protestants do not pray for the dead, ask for the prayers of the Saints or venerate the Theotokos and Ever Virgin Mary. Protestants do not teach Orthodox doctrine.
There have always been minor variations in liturgical practice in the Church. The differences are actually very small and have nothing to do with doctrine. The most obvious difference is the matter of chant. Who is to say which is more Orthodox Byzantine or Russian chant? They are both Orthodox. It has nothing to do with Orthodox doctrine that I wear the philonion from the Little Entrance until the conclusion of Vespers, or do not put in on until just before the Gospel in Matins. It makes no doctrinal difference that we have a procession with the Cross after the 5th Gospel during the Service of the Passion Gospels and Russians do not or that we throw leaves around the Temple after the Epistle on during the Holy Saturday morning Divine Liturgy. It is not a doctrinal matter that I serve Great Vespers on Saturday evening and Matins on Sunday morning instead of a Great Vigil like the Russians. The OCA, the Greeks and Antiochians all teach the same doctrine. That is what is important, not the way that certain externals differ between traditions.
Again, I second what Archpriest John has written. There is nothing new under the sun regarding the passionate Russophiles who hold that ‘true’ Orthodoxy (an oxymoron if ever there were one….) is somehow only to be found in the practice of the Russian tradition while disrespecting the venerable traditions of the rest of the Orthodox world. To those of you who believe that only ‘your’ OCA is truly ‘the’ American Church, I truly feel sorry for you because in your hubris, you are dismissing and marginalizing the faith of most Orthodox Christians in North America. Frankly, if there is a schism within the OCA between the followers of Met. Jonah and the Synod, it is more than likely that those who would follow a restored Metropolitan Jonah enthroned after a failed Sobor will find themselves on the outside looking in to the canonical Church. Good luck with the new calendar and all English services with what will be your only ‘friends’ out there – the schismatics of the GOC and ROCA. I suspect that most within the current OCA will not follow such a ruinous path and will bid you all farewell and let the chips fall where they may.
Basil Takach–Thank you for your astute analysis. With best regards, Carl
Archpriest John Morris says (October 13, 2012 at 5:21 pm):
You may consider the OCA the American Church, but the majority of Orthodox in this country do not. The sooner you recognize that reality and recognize the legitimacy of the rest of American Orthodoxy including liturgical practices that differ from those of the Russian Church, the sooner we can work to unite to form a real American Orthodox Church.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, that’s a fairly safe position to take, political correctness being what it is — but it’s a position in conflict with reality.
The fact remains that the OCA is the one, single, only orthodox church in North America which recognizes itself and is recognized by the other churches as The Orthodox Church in America, regardless of what the ‘mother churches’ abroad think of the OCA’s autocephaly.
It’s also true, and worth noting, that the OCA is the one, single, only orthodox church in North America which is not ruled from Europe or Syria.
The problem with foreign supervision is that ethnic differences and preferences have consistently trumped authentic ecclesiology.
In Kansas, I once asked a group of students from Greece (who were insisting that we take services in Greek) how they would feel about a group of american orthodox students at Thessalonike or Athens who demanded to have services in English. They couldn’t process the concept and flatly rejected the idea. Yet that sort of accommodation is exactly what they expected in America, but they couldn’t see the logical cotradictions in their position.
My advice to all is that — if you want services conducted in the language of your homeland — you might better stay home.
No one has ever questioned ‘the legitimacy of the rest of American Orthodoxy’, which largely evolved not so much in defiance of the OCA’s putative prerogatives, but in ignorance of them — the AOCA and ROCOR being notable exceptions. Now, thank Heaven, we are all once again in communion with each other.
There will ultimately be administrative unity among us orthodox Christians in America, just as there is unity of faith even now. But I doubt that this will come (at least voluntarily) from abroad or from the Episcopal Conference, as heavily weighted as it is in favor of Constantinople.
The OCA is only one of several American Orthodox Churches. We are all American Orthodox. Our nation is a nation of immigrants. Despite where our ancestors came from, we are all Americans now. Had all Orthodox in America in 1970 agreed to unite and to join the Metropolia to form the OCA as an autocephalous Church, the OCA could claim to be the American Orthodox Church. However, in 1970 the Metropolia was not the only Orthodox jurisdiction in this country and lacked the authority to act for all or even a majority of American Orthodox. The unilateral declaration of the OCA as the local American Orthodox Church was premature and has only made the achievement of Orthodox unity in America more difficult. Most Orthodox here in America and abroad including the ancient Patriarchates do not recognize the claims of the OCA. The only way that we will be united to form a real American Orthodox Church is through mutual respect and negotiations among all the Orthodox to reach an agreement on what form the American Orthodox Church will take. It will also require the approval of the rest of world Orthodoxy. If you really want to see the day when all Orthodox in America are united in one Church, you will realize that the OCA must give up its claims to be the American Orthodox Church and recognize the rights of the rest of Orthodoxy in America to participate in the discussions on how we unite and organize the American Orthodox Church.
Sorry folks, the OCA “IS” the ONLY American Church. We do not have orders coming from a KGB Russia; we do not have orders coming from a dictatorial controlled Mideast; we do not have orders coming from the the Bishop of Istanbul who still thinks there is a Byzantine Empire. We are the ONLY American Church making our own decisions and guiding our own destiny of a “local church” as prescribed by the Orthodox Canons. A little bumpy so far, but we’ll get passed that. Now, how about all the corruption and theft in your churches?
My parish is as American as any parish in the OCA . I am proud to be under the omophorion of of the Successors to Sts. Peter and Paul, His Beatitude Ignatius IV the Patriarch of Antioch. Besides, we have self-rule status and manage our own affairs here in the United States so we have the best of both worlds, we manage our own affairs, but are part of the Church where Christians were first called Christians. I am Orthodox first and American second. If our Bishops and the Holy Synod of Antioch agree to a united American Orthodox Church under Constantinople or as an autocephalous Church, I will obey and support their decision.
With one metropolitan who reports overseas and no diocesan bishops, just auxiliaries– this you call self-rule status?
Of course it’s “self-rule;” it’s self-ruled by Met. Philip. He holds all the cards and the money. Everyone overseas would collapse without his money. The Patriarch is here in this country for a while; probably health issues, but why go back? Syria & Lebanon are powder kegs. Maybe Met. Philip will try and set him up here as the American Patriarch.
Yes we have self-rule status, we elect our auxiliary Bishops here in America. The candidates are nominated by the General Assembly of the Archdiocese Convention and are elected by the local synod of Bishops.The Holy Synod of Antioch elects our Metropolitan from the candidates submitted to them by our General Assembly. We manage our own internal affairs here in America. The last thing that we need is to divide the Archdiocese up into 9 different units with each Bishop doing his own thing with conflicting rules and conflicting liturgical practices. When concerning local matters, our auxiliary Bishops manage their own dioceses. However, national issues are decided by the Metropolitan working with the local synod of Bishops. To be united we need to all follow the same procedures and liturgical practices through the entire Archdiocese.
Again I agree with Fr. Morris here. My ACROD parish has been all English for as long as any Metropolia, now OCA parish has been so – as have most of our parishes. We are as American as any parish in the OCA as well and we are proud to be under the omophorion of His All Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch. We too have self-rule status and manage our own affairs here in the United States. If and when our Bishop and the Holy Synod of Constantinople agree to a united American Orthodox Church we too will support and obey their decision. And yes, we elected an American priest of Greek heritage to be our Bishop – not because anyone ordered us to do so, but because we are well past the need for an ‘ethnic’ Bishop and it is better to seek out the best possible Bishop than to limit oneself to an internal search.
The OCA’s autocephaly is, to put it bluntly, a delusion born out of self-will. It was self-will and disobedience that created the Metropolia in the first place. It was self-will and vanity that led the Metropolia into a shady backroom deal with a compromised Russian Patriarchate that produced a universally ignored tomos of autocephaly along with a rather pompous and ironic name change. And it is self-will and hubris that argues the cause of said autocephaly today.
The OCA’s 42-year argument for the legitimacy of its autocephaly and its “rightful” place in American Orthodoxy is both sad and ridiculous. Someone tell me, please, how one should interpret the words of Christ when he says “Ye shall know them by their fruits” in respect to the OCA? What good fruit shall we say that the Church has gained from this ill-gotten gift from Moscow?
Frankly, all I see is vanity and a proud, modernistic spirit that sets itself in opposition to the teachings of the Fathers. When I hear OCA partisans talk about their “autocephalous American Church” I get the funny feeling that they’re not really talking to me or anyone else for that matter. Mostly they seem to be talking to themselves, drinking their kool-aid, reading the latest progressive hipster drivel that passes for Orthodox Christianity in this land of shallow wells and shallow minds, and generally being lost in their own imaginations. Hence, we have discussions about having a “Patriarch of America” and other such foolish nonsense.
How about we deal with an OCA Synod full of men who love money, power, sex, and the praise of others? How about we deal with clergy who pervert their nature with sodomy and justify it with horrifying acceptance among themselves? How about we deal with renegade clergy and instructors who teach heresy and blasphemy in the house of God? Or, to take it a bit closer to home, how about we deal with the appalling, and embarrassing ignorance and lack of sound Orthodox instruction found in so many OCA parishes? You want to be taken seriously by the rest of the Orthodox here and around the world? Why don’t you learn a thing or two from ROCOR, whom you spurned oh-so-long-ago to chase after snipes and will-o-wisps?
In other words, how about the OCA start its personal progress by accepting and dealing with REALITY?
Dear Mark,
To which jurisdiction and country leadership did you flee the American Orthodox Church and what were your reasons for fleeing?
Fleeing???? Hahahahaha! Oh that’s rich…… Well, unlike the embittered, disgruntled person apparently in your imagination, I’ve never shopped around for a jurisdiction. I became Orthodox at a ROCOR parish and then later in life moved to another city and went to an OCA parish close to where I lived, and then after a few years moved again and went back to a ROCOR church. So, no dramatic flights or retreats to report here, sir.
But I must say, the pretentiousness and presumptuousness of your question amuses me. In fact, I would say your question illustrates my original point quite well. It is precisely in such an imperious self-promoting tone that the OCA’s leadership has spoken to the other Orthodox Churches in America. That is why nobody actually takes your ambitious claims seriously. It receives much the same audience as Hellenism does among non-Greeks.
Perhaps if you truly wished to generate support for your so-called “American Orthodox Church,” you could begin by focusing on the weightier matters of God’s law, such as fleeing immorality and rejecting heresy. The OCA appears to have an institutional and systemic problem with both.
So my question is this: if the OCA has not been faithful in a few things, why should anyone believe that it will be faithful in many things?
You know Thomas/Parma/Phil/etc. – I wish you would pick one name and stay with it. Really, you aren’t fooling anyone by using a new name every week or so.
Thomas Paine’s comment: “Sorry folks, the OCA “IS” the ONLY American Church. We do not have orders coming from a KGB Russia” demonstrates either ignorance or lack of candor. One who knows the history might correctly point out that the source of the Autocephaly of the OCA was a Church often influenced by KGB…as well as the fact that there is no longer a “KGB Russia.”
While the fact of OCA Autocephaly cannot be legitimately denied (it exists…get over it), it’s implementation has failed and it’s de facto acceptance is virtually nil. Yet it’s virtue exists in that it still has the opportunity to recover. The OCA and ROCOR (and to a certain extent, the MP) have demonstrated that Orthodoxy is possible in America without ethnic bias or selling out to protestantism and 20/21st century RC attitudes and practices justified by the mantra, “This is America. This is America. This is America.” Mediterranean and Middle-Eastern based Orthodoxy as Autocephaly in America would simply standardize Eastern-rite Protestantism in the New World.
I am not sure what you mean by ” Mediterranean and Middle-Eastern based Orthodoxy as Autocephaly in America would simply standardize Eastern-rite Protestantism in the New World.” Getting into a fight about who is the most Orthodox is a waste of time. As long as we teach and live the Orthodox Faith to the best of our ability, none of us are “Eastern-rite Protestantism in the New World.” Sometimes the outward externals differ because we have different customs, but none of the canonical Orthodox Churches in America could be called “Eastern-rite Protestant.” We Antiochians have our own way of doing some things, but everything that we do and teach is Orthodox. We have shown that Orthodoxy is possible in America without selling out to American Protestant or Roman Catholic attitudes. The Greeks are also Orthodox, although they still are more ethnically oriented than other Orthodox.
Thank you Father Morris for saving me the trouble to respond to the offensive and stereotypical comments of Father Nelson. For far too long passionate adherents of the greater Russian praxis have swallowed the Kool Aid that only they posses ‘True’ Orthodoxy and the rest of us – at best not so much. Perhaps the problems facing the OCA today are partly a result of decades of such triumphalist thinking. I can not help but think of the old fable about the Emperor’s New Clothes…..Fortunately I know that on the parish level, even here in the evil old Rust Belt, that most of the faithful and most of the clergy don’t share in such thinking.
If anything the OCA has shown that Americans are not ready for an autocephalous Orthodox Church. You cannot even govern yourselves, what makes you think you can govern the rest of us? You are living in a fantasy land if you believe that the majority of Orthodox Christians in this country would want to accept the authority of as dysfunctional outfit as the OCA has shown itself to be over the whole question of finding and keeping a competent and moral Metropolitan. On this site I have read that the clergy and people of the OCA tolerated a Metropolitan who was cruising the gay bars of New York and for years. If that is true, the OCA has no moral authority. If you had a Metropolitan who was actively gay, he should have been suspended. If you have a gay man cruising the halls of one of your seminaries looking for gay sex and the leadership did nothing about it, the OCA is only a facade of an Orthodox Church. I do not have time to mention all the other scandals mentioned on the pages of this blog. If you people cannot clean up your mess and become a healthy and functional Orthodox Church, you should ask for Moscow to come in and correct the problems caused by a premature autocephaly. You should also give up the superior attitude towards other Orthodox and get your priorities straight. I would rather have pews in my Church and wear Western clerical garb than have a Metropolitan who lives an active gay life style or a seminary Board that is corrupted by conflicts of interest and treats a sick man in the un-Christian way that the Board of St. Tikhon’s treated Fr. Alexander. If you think that I am angry, you are right what was done by Fr. Alexander was morally and ethically wrong. I am also tired of the superior attitude of some OCA people who tell me that I am not Orthodox because I do not take 19th century Russian Orthodoxy as my model, but realize that there are some things that are not dogma, and that there are some things that are not dogma and can change such as what I wear when I am not serving or how we Antiochians adapt a monastic typikon to a parish setting.
I want to make it clear that I do not consider it my place to judge anyone who wears a cassock where I would not wear one, does not have seating in their Temple, uses the old calendar or who follows a different set of customs while serving than I do. My point is that others should not be so obsessed with externals that they overlook more important matters and that we should not judge other Orthodox on the basis of externals.
The problem within Orthodoxy in the diaspora – I just had to use that word – has always been the honest belief of many of us that our preferred ‘praxis’ (even through birth or choice) is the ‘authentic’ Orthodox way. (Honestly, most of us have felt that way at one time or another in our lives so be honest with yourselves on that score.) The relative isolation of Orthodox peoples from each other prior to the modern era and the reality that the Hellenes and Arabs were under the boots of Islam for the better part of a millennium and that the Church in Russia had her own set of various problems throughout Tsarist history and through and beyond the Communist era all contributed to the stew in which we all find ourselves today. We all need to concentrate on the basics before we get to the exotic and on that score – moral consistency, developing an understanding of and tolerance towards other traditions within our Holy Church and always remembering to express kindness and charity in our dealings with each other – we all are lacking. Enough of the Triumphalism, enough of ‘my way is better is yours’ (Greeks are just as guilty on that count), enough of misusing cliches like ‘modernism’ or ‘heresy’ and more with the Truth and of the teachings of our Lord and Saviour as expressed through Holy Scripture as taught to us through the Fathers and Holy Tradition. .
Category error, Fr. OCA hasn’t been called Russian anything since Metropolia days, and was originally a missionary diocese of the Russian church before the revolution defunded it and then tried to liquidate it. Few OCA folks want to be part of anything calling itself the Russian Orthodox Church and even those in ethnic Gt. Russian parishes do not want to be part of the MP. ROCOR is now that.
This is not meant to be a criticism, but the OCA is Russian Orthodox in practice and ethos. The liturgical practice and chant used in the OCA is Russian. A man once left a small mission where I was pastor claiming that my liturgical practices were not Russian enough. He had converted to Orthodoxy in an OCA parish and the priest before me at the mission was on loan from the OCA and did everything Russian style although it was an Antiochian mission. I did not deliberately abolish Russian customs, I simply did things according to the usage which I know which is Antiochian. After I had been there a couple of years he asked to meet with the chair of the Parish Council and me and said, “Since you have been here this is becoming more and more of an Antiochian Orthodox Church.” The startled Council chair, “That is what we are.” He and his family left the mission and attended the local Greek Church except when they could travel almost 200 miles to attend an OCA parish. Eventually, he persuaded the OCA to establish a mission the same city and took some people from our mission. This man made it quite clear that he considered himself Russian Orthodox and would only be happy in a mission that followed Russian customs. In my opinion, he converted not to Orthodoxy, but to Russianism.
“You keep using that word.I don’t think it means what you think it means.” – Inigo Montoya
I would hazard a guess that heterosexual couples commit sodomy much more than homosexual couples.
That’s because its used as a euphamism. Euphamism, the substitution of an objectional word or phrase with a less objectional one. I’m an English teacher, I can’t help it. And yes, my students are tired of hearing ” I don’t know, can you?”
*euphemism
As I tell my students, though they never believe me, “of course I spelled it right. I’m an English teacher.” I also tell them to use spell check, which didn’t work here, and to have someone else read their work because we, or at least I, read what I think I wrote not what I actually wrote when I do my own proof reading. Back to grading. The quarter is over.
So are you saying that heterosexual couples do not commit sodomy?
The OCA should not chose Bishops from outside the OCA. A Bishop must understand the way things are done in the OCA as well as OCA liturgics. I cannot believe that there are not good spiritual celibates in the OCA who could become OCA Bishops and clean up the mess that now plagues the OCA. I also believe that there are good and spiritual clergy and laity in the OCA who can provide the leadership needed to set things right in the OCA. You do not need outsiders to come in and clean things up in the OCA. You must do it yourselves. The OCA is canonical and is Orthodox. God will not forsake the OCA. He will move to bring things right in the OCA. However, first some people in the OCA must cease judging other Orthodox and give up the superior attitude that some clergy and laity in the OCA have toward other Orthodox. They also need to recognize that it is necessary to work with other Orthodox to unite American Orthodoxy not impose the OCA vision on the rest of us. Autocephaly is not important, developing sound Orthodox spirituality is what is important. I do not care where the Bishop was born or who his superiors are or where they live as long as he is a good shepherd, who is loving and theologically and moral sound.
I think there’s some self-selection happening here. I have had some conversations with people for whom the OCA became a default choice because the local OCA parish was the only one with services only in English. I feel that’s an unfortunate reason to choose a parish when the other choices use plenty of English while referring to other languages, but anyway it may explain how the OCA comes to have members with mistaken ideas of what the OCA is relative to the other Churches.
Carl Kraeff is not naive. He wrote this:
“Why not Met. Isaiah of Denver or Met. Savvas of Pittsburgh?”
Your reply, or rather retort, was this: “Sodomy reaches even deeper in the Greek Church.”
I think you should qualify that retort.
Bishop ALEXANDER is the one who stopped Joel Kalvesmaki from being an alternate delegate to the Robber Council. The rest went along with the slander against JONAH.
There seems to be some kind of confusion on the bishop’s part that he can hand pick delegates and allternates? Learning on the job?
Let’s go to his upcoming retreat and ask him why he did such a thing.
http://www.stmarkoca.org/events1.html
Education Day Lecture: His Grace, Right Reverend Alexander, Bishop of Toledo and Locum Tenens of the Archdiocese of Washington DC, will lecture on “Virtue and the Christian Life” based on the writings of St. Simeon the New Theologian.
Lecture Time: 2:00 – 5:15 PM.
Location: Church Sanctuary.
Cost: A free-will offering is encouraged.
to prepare: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symeon_the_New_Theologian
excerpt:
A bunch of malarkey!
Metropolitan Hilarion (born Igor Alexeyevich Kapral) of ROCOR
Thomas Paine says (October 12, 2012 at 5:40 pm):
A bunch of malarkey!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, the ‘Sons of Job’ certainly presented a fair amount of malarkey among some other things which were true and real. We have to wonder how they arrived at some of their positions.
Anyway, the malarkey meter just about went over itself when the ‘Sons of Job’ said that Fr Robert Kondratick is in cahoots with Fr Leonid Kishkovsky behind the scenes.
Read this, folks, and understand: FrRK and FrLK have visions of the OCA which are polar opposites
A great amount of what ‘Sons of Job’ told us is all too painfully true. But for them to roll up these two very differently motivated men together lets us know that they hit more than they missed, but they definitely missed some of their targets.
monk James
So Fr Bob has not in this last year continued to offer advice and direction to any of the Bishops, staff on Long Island, or to any of the ring leaders who worked to oust Jonah? That is not what they have said. Was the out-come of Bob’s vetting substantially different from Leonid’s in terms of a controllable leadership? Just asking. It is not Bob’s or Leonid’s vision of the OCA we were pointing out, nor that they were of one mind, it is rather the control of the OCA, through the Bishops, and we believe that makes them very similar.
Bring Fr. Kondratick back. Only he can sift the crap out of the kitty litter. Make Nikon Metropolitan, I hear he is straight in all aspects of the situation. There is your checks and balances. The Greeks will never want this mess and the Antiochians have Archbishop Philip, a man with a big brain and too smart to contaminate his punch bowl. Moscow still thinks this is the Metropolia’s mess clean up.
This is a Church with plenty of talented good people, our DOS proves that. The powers that run the Church will never do the right thing, nor will they allow our people into power. If in time we grow big enough down here and that day will come we can take over. That day is not here yet, and is not on the horizon. What we can do is make lots of noise in Parma.
The other alternatives in the OCA right now are too new or sexually perverted. I would love to see His Beatitude back where he belongs, but it is not about to happen because we did not do enough, we did not organize quick enough. There are bishops from Russia, Greece here all the time, have any of us gone to see them? Has a delegation of say 300 or 500 faithful from the DOS gone North to see them? No, so it is all too late. Nikon is not a homosexual, and he is a moral man, that may be the best we can do right now.
The Sons of Job are way off on a few things Fr. James is right, but lots of what they say is true. But I think it was Harry Coin that questioned how many are they? Is this a disgruntled, burned out priest? Five or six angry laity? Or is it 1200 organized laity and clergy ready to show up in Parma? Lol.
What trial? Is there a lawsuit?
This is exactly the situation the Syosset cadre is hoping for; not the nomination of Metropolitan Hilarion (who would do a great job, by the way!) per se, but that the supporters of Metropolitan Jonah and the members of the Soviet will so split the outcome that only a vague compromise candidate will be possible. The delegate deck is going to be stacked anyway (see Bishop Alexander on how to do that!) so any opposition to the status quo is must be absolutely of one-mind and mutually supportive to make a change. As for any of the other bishops not specifically named, Nathaniel and Nikon are too old; Alexander has shown his colors; and the others are so far out of the mainsteam of influence that they would most likely be puppets or pushovers…not exactly a desirable outcome. Unfortunately, Metropolitan Jonah should probably not be re-elected evn as much as we would like for that to happen. His re-election by the AAC would be quoshed when the bishops go behind the iconstasis to vote with results identical to when Archbishop Dimitri (of Blessed Memory) was elected twice I believe and then stalemated by Theodosius and Herman in the votes by the bishops. This is eactly what will happern in Parma if Jonah wins the polular vote, he will not be able to carry the bishops who actually make the decision.
So, there really is only one way out as I see it. The AAC must ask that all bishops who are morally compromised submit their instant resignations before a vote on Metropolitan is taken. Once this is done, nominate Metropolitan Hilarion. When he is enthroned, I feel sure he would translate Metropolitan Jonah to the cathedra of a major diocese, perhaps Washington as ROCAR has no bishop with that title and therefore no conflicts.
So, IMSVHO, I summit the words of Benjamin Franklin who helped lead another revolution: “Hang together or hang separtely!” Vote the rascals out. Marginalize Kiskovsky. Elect Hilarion. Restore Johan. Clean house. But for it to work everyone will have to hang and vote together for the common good. Stop dreaming about the OCA vision of the core around which NA autocephaly would be spun. It ain’t gonna happen! No way. No how. Dead as last weeks catfish! Bury the body before it stinks any more than it does and, for the Good Lord’s sake, Move On! Stop dreaming about the past but look forward to the future!
How do you present a motion to remove those Bishops who are morally compromised? It’s a great plan, to do this first. But how? Specifically. How?
Second suggestion. A motion to make the whole Synod a Volunteer organization, no benefits, no retirement, no pay, Let’s see who comes forward from the heart. Ditto Kishkovsky job and jillions too. Pay an accounting firm.
I stopped being angry this morning. I think it was St. Tikhon’s being the last straw. It seems as though this church (you could give it any name) is just so corrupt morally at this point that no one should be supporting it. It doesn’t even matter what religion it is– it’s too far gone. Common sense.
Only one way to do this, face-it. Canonically.
Restore +Jonah; he wasn’t removed canonically.
The statute (and the Canons, I think) do not permit nomination of a bishop who currently rules over another see. All these +Hilarion votes would be thrown away, and trashing them could be justified by Syosset simply by pointing to the statute.
On the other hand, +Jonah has no canonical impediments, and is not currently ruling, and thus is eligible. If a two thirds vote can be garnered on the first ballot, the Synod must, per the statute, provide justification for not electing him. In light of the scandalous manner of obtaining his resignation letter, a clear show of support in the nomination process would be difficult for the Synod to duck.
Then bring the corruption issues of the various bishops before spiritual courts. If and when the OCA gets down below critical mass of bishops (Like is isn’t already?) then ask ROCOR/EP/MP for assistance, temporary or permanent.
Rethink the governing structure of the OCA, alter the statute where appropriate to bring it into line with the Canons. Look at the structure with an eye for being the catalyst for a single Orthodox Church in America. If you read the Tomas, it is clear that is the intent for granting it in the first place.
The OCA can die to self in service of the dream of a single Orthodox Church in the US, rather than expire with a whimper in a pool of scandal and hubris.
Of course, the simplest way would be for +Jonah to rescind his letter. Then just skip Parma altogether.
noexit, I agree with you in principle, but my question is who enforces the Canons? How does that work if the OCA Synod won’t cooperate? What’s to keep them from obfuscating like they have already done in the case of Met. Jonah and just ignoring (and later punishing) any members of the clergy or laity who point to said Canons and call for their enforcement at Parma or elsewhere?
In practice the Bishops and the Holy Synod of an autocephalous Church interpret and apply the canons. Unfortunately the canons do not address many problems faced by the Orthodox Church in the 21st Century. The last canon was written in 787. Those who lack proper training in canon law should not try to interpret the canons for themselves any more than an Orthodox Christian should not try to interpret the Holy Scriptures for themselves. The canons are guidelines, and are not a detailed description on how the Church should operate in every situation. That is why there are different administrative practices in different Orthodox Churches. The doctrine of the Church is clear and well defined, but administrative procedures such as how a Church becomes autocephalous or how much authority the Primate should have and how much authority the Diocesan or Auxiliary Bishops should have are not clearly defined by the canons. Each autocephalous Orthodox Church decides for itself how to apply the non-dogmatic canons to its particular situation and needs. It is necessary for the clergy and laity of the OCA to face reality. If someone does not like the decisions made at Parma by the Holy Synod of the OCA, I honestly do not know what alternatives they have. Because of your self-identification as autocephalous you have no place to turn to override the decisions of the Holy Synod of the OCA unless they openly embrace some heresy which I doubt they will do. You might try Moscow since it was Moscow who gave the OCA its status, but I strongly doubt that anyone else will want to become involved in trying to resolve this dispute. I am not really sure that Moscow will want to become involved in this mess.
While there’s certainly some truth contained in this editorial, there are also details that show the “Sons of Job” are connecting dots and drawing conclusions that couldn’t be further from the truth. Like some who say that there’s no fundamental difference between Republicans and Democrats, at the message’s core, there’s little difference between today’s Syosset and the soap that the “Sons of Job” are selling here. They both seem to see immorality hiding under virtually every cassock in the OCA. To a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The fascination, no, obsession, with sexual misconduct in the OCA has become her albatross. (And I honestly wonder about the prurient interests that seem to grip the fascination of the OCA internet community at every turn. It must be some sign of a deeper illness within. We now have Orthodox Porn.)
George is beginning to show poor judgment in his articles, as well as allowing this one to use his once useful forum. George, you’re starting to show signs of Stokoe Syndrome – defined as a blogger who thinks his mission is to be the Church’s Savior. Time for some introspection.
Nothing of what Just Guessingq says above makes any reasonable sense to me. And the “prurient interests” that he identifies here may say more about himself than it does others who post comments here.
Nothing makes sense to you? Let’s look at this point by point.
*The editorial contains factual errors. FACT
*SOJ, like Syosset, see the problems of the OCA primarily in terms of sexual misconduct. FACT
*The obsession with sexual misconduct has become the OCA’s albatross. FACT
*The Orthodox internet community feeds this fascination. FACT
*George has, of late, published articles which have been increasingly off the mark. FACT
Keep your insults to yourself, Protodeacon.
I take all you see as FACT as just your personal opinions.
PS. No insult intended; just my reaction to you being the first and only one to understand others here (which includes myself) as having “prurient interests.”
You have all missed what I believe to be the singular point of this post, namely the dropping of the St Tikhon’s troubles. This is the first this information has been offered. And it sounds pretty bad.
From yesterday’s fall session of the Unholy Synod of OCA Bishops:
“The Holy Synod will prepare a statement on Christian Life, Communication, Relationships between priests and faithful and other pastoral matters, which will be distributed to the faithful prior to the 17th All-American Council.”
I strongly suspect that this forthcoming “statement” will be geared towards suppressing any and all dissent at the approaching Clown Council. No doubt it will include a fair amount of BS pertaining to showing proper respect towards the moral lepers of the Synod and the roaches infesting Syosset. With that in mind, I’ve created a new image – “Protest” – that expresses both my dismay and dissent in an understated and oh-so-respectful manner. For those wishing to use this image for the creation of a picket sign to carry at the Parma protest, a higher resolution image may be downloaded from here. All my images lampooning the OCA high mucky-mucks may be viewed here.
Source: http://oca.org/news/headline-news/holy-synod-of-bishops-concludes-fall-session
Herc, I actually wonder if that is aimed at “clarifying” pastor-parishioner relationships.
With new guidelines in place, that poor old confused Bishop Matthias can be safely returned to his see. And really, what other way would Syosset deal with something like this? They are bureaucrats: any and every problem can be solved by throwing a guidebook at it!
Surely we will soon see the formation of the Cellular Digital Communications Monitoring and Response Committee, headed by some bishop, but answering to +Benjamin, to deal with the crisis of text messaging between church clergy and officers and the laity.
I don’t know who wrote this testimony, but as a St Tikhon’s alum I can verify that these words are true:
The corruption reaches deeper. There also are stories of of young men deeply scandalized by pastoral predation. Several classmates of ours have personally suffered from this kind of abuse and if they muster the necessary strength to fight back, predation might become the next round of OCA lawsuits.
Several male students from St Tikhon’s I know, from own class and others, were preyed upon — “hit on” — by a divorced married priest who taught at the seminary for decades and only stopped teaching not only long ago. This priest also continued to show up at the school after he no longer taught there and would prowl around in the dorms, coming into students’ rooms and offering “back massages” to seminarians.
At least two students who were the objects of this priest’s predations brought complaints to the two then-deans (before Fr Atty came, that is) and they were told by both to stay quiet about it.
A faculty member as well as other persons who studied at the seminary over a decade ago have also testified that this priest-professor was having sexual relations with students in the seminary building when he would stay overnight on days he would come to teach his classes. This same faculty member also indicated that he had raised this issue with the then-bishop Herman, who made nothing of it, only remarking that he wished that seminarians would tell him they were “gay” before getting married and then winding up in divorce.
I would note further that this priest, though no longer teaching at St Tikhon’s, has not been defrocked. He is still serving in the Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania. And the chancellor of the Eastern PA diocese knows the facts of his case.
I am glad the Sons of Job published this. Sounds like a few clergymen have finally had enough. I was wondering if they would ever speak up.
How can you “rightly divide the spirit of truth” if you are living a lie? I mentioned this in a previous comment about a tree falling in a forest. “If no one sees it or hears it, does it still make a sound?”
I haven’t added up the numbers, but they tell a story already. The synod is primarily gay men. Thus it makes sense that they have promulgated policies that support and protect the gay lifestyle. Since they have already made the psychological jump to the permissiveness of the Episcopal church, the Orthodox title on the door is (now) in name only. It’s a spiritual counterfeit. You might think that that’s harsh of me, but if you look what they do in their private life, not what they say they are in their public life, they are already bishops in the Episcopal Orthodox Church of America.
The problem for parishes under a gay bishop is that orthodox Christian parishes are primarily not gay. They are straight people. Families are not “tuned-in” to the gay lifestyle. They don’t participate in it. They have their children and careers to attend to. To the laity, the OCA “sex and money scandals” come across as shocking and surprising. They don’t represent the church as we know it. And these scandals are costly and expensive too ($).
If you told ANY theological institution of prior centuries that anal intercourse was going to be the church-dividing issue for the hierarchy in the 21st century, they would have looked at you in shocked dismay. I know I’m being kinda graphic here, but what does gay mean to you. Guys holding hands?
A fact check here: Metropolitan Jonah is not gay. Many years ago, he gave up the desire for a family to serve his church as priest and pastor. He laid all of that on the line. Every bit of it. His quandry since becoming a hierarch has been his compassion towards those who sin, while knowing full well the rules and laws of the church.
A lot has been said about him not being a good administrator. Because I am an administrator, I know for certain that the job is impossible if subordinates do not have your back. And he had zero support from advisors who should have been his most-trusted confidants. His letter at the end of Christine Fevronia’s long exposition (about his forced resignation) clearly illustrates this.
But is that really what people want in a spiritual leader? As in, “I really love him because he’s such an adept political insider and knows how to play the game”? Last I looked, most spiritual leaders are valued for their intimacy with God, not with Machiavelli’s playbook.
His enemies don’t have this quandry, and though they will never admit it, the litany of complaints against +Jonah remind me of the comment in Hamlet, “Methinks thou doth protest too much.” They insist so passionately that he is a certain way, I suspect the opposite is likely true. The deviousness is theirs, not his. I have known the Metropolitan for over a decade. The stuff they have written, spoken about him describes a man whom most of us have never known, and likely never will.
I support the Sons of Job suggestion to dissolve the synod as it is currently composed. Where is their management skills, the team building, the effective use of resources? In short, what is the value in continuing with them?
Does the OCA soap opera represent you? Does it represent your church?
The church would save significant money and resources by sacking the synod and transitioning the OCA to a more simplified model of management. And to do something else Metropolitan Jonah suggested – close Syosset on Long Island and sell the property. Are readers aware that the utilities bill for this place approximates a $100,000 annually. How out of touch with financial reality is that?
I do not know the procedures for carrying out such a house-cleaning in personnel, but I think it would be best for the church, and ultimately, the best for these men. They could move on to live their personal lives as they see fit, without having to conform the church to it. I think the result would be more honest, and eventually, more truthful for all concerned.
Thank you for writing this. Enough is enough. At the upcoming AAC, the clergy and laity in attendance need to request to be taken under ROCOR as a large Archdiocese. The ROCOR Synod would surely take in Met. Jonah as a brother hierarch (even though the OCA Synod wants nothing to do with Met. Jonah now, over the past 3 months it’s been clear that ROCOR welcomes him and serves with him regularly).
After the OCA is absorbed into ROCOR, the ROCOR synod can decide whether it wishes to receive any of the other hierarchs of the former OCA synod.
This whole soap opera is getting ridiculous and tiresome and is so depressing and has needs to end. At this point, who cares about autocephaly. Who even cares about the “new calendar” if the OCA is absorbed into ROCOR and Met. Hilarion requests that we celebrate according to the “old calendar.” I’d happily start celebrating the Nativity on Jan. 7th.
So sad to say, but honestly it seems that the OCA is one of the worst run organizations around. Prayers for all, including many prayers for the OCA synod, and praying that after so many years of problems maybe God will allow this to end.
Keep perspective: the ‘The OCA’ written of so disparagingly above is a great many very well run parishes — along with a bunch of problems discussed here among a few in high places rarely seen in most of the parishes.
It is a mistake to throw so many thousands under the bus because of a few in high offices going through a very pink bad patch.
No Harry. Enough is enough.
There really does come a time when boundary migration reaches a stepping-off point beyond which infinite relativity begins. After the tipping point, “anything goes”. This is where we are right now. I have always wondered about the following comment from the Sons of Job, because I think I am seeing if first-hand in my own church here in the West.
“That’s one reason why you see some prominent archpriests who should be leading the moral renewal of the OCA working instead to undermine the moral tradition, and why you see some of the best pastoral talent languishing in small and unappreciative parishes or in some cases kicked to the curb altogether.
LOL. I hate to break to you and all the other folks on this site. The OCA is not going anywhere. We are exactly where we need to be. We will elect a new (and hopefully this time compentent) Metropolitan and we will go on with life. If any of you feel that strongly then you are free to leave. But let us be clear absolutely no OCA properties or funds will be going with you.
“George”, that is a scabrous comment. By what criteria do you adjudge Metropolitan Jonah to not be “competent”? By the same token, do you adjudge Sysset and the present episcopal junta to be competent? The fruits of their competence has brought us to the brink of schism.
Well if he was competent than he wouldn’t have caused this mess in the first place. The Holy Synod let him off easy by accepting his much overdo resignation. If however, it is found out that Abp Jonah is encouraging this idle, dangerous, and schismatic call to action. He will not remain a retired Bishop because he will be appropriately returned to lay status. On another website it was stated that Abp Jonah’s mother has signed this bizarre and scandalous petition. I hope it is not true but if it is than first of all she is not even a member of the Orthodox Church and secondly this is how she repays the kindness of the Holy Synod that gave here son several months of financial support he didn’t earn so that he could take care of her. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.
Geo, you are asserting that Metropolitan Jonah “caused this mess in the first place” without mentioning once what the “mess” was. I however have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Syosset/Synod Apparat created a far worse mess.
I will continue to allow you to post your scabrous commentary so that I can continue to call you and your ilk out as to show the people how your jihad against Jonah is built on a tissue of assertions and lies.
You could of course evade this trap by actually stating facts. I will prompt you to make it easier for you:
1. What exactly did Metropolitan Jonah do that was
a. uncanonical
b. illegal
c. unethical
d. immoral
2. How was his resignation “overdo” if it was in fact coerced and based on false assumptions?
3. Why is this petition “bizarre and scandalous”? Cite references.
4. Why is his mother forbidden from signing said petition? (Plese cite any specific canon or legal code.)
5. Can you explain to me how the Synod showed “kindness” to her son by accusing him of shielding a rapist?
That should be enough for now. I eagerly await your reasoned responses to these questions. After all, it is necessary that we deal only with facts. If however you choose to reply with evasion and/or with arguable assertions and/or lies, I will print them so that the readers can judge for themselves.
And as yet no response from George… Well there we are.
George,
Are you a member of the Politburo/Synod or of the Presidium/ Metropolitan Council to speak with such authority? I have yet to read anything about property here. It seems that everyone is rather concerned about spiritual matter (whether or not they are always in complete agreement about the details).
George ( who still has not answered George M’s questions) does tip a hand here regarding the property.
Quietly, Syosset /Synod has been sending out lists of parishes not under the umbrella of the national OCA’s 501c3, with instructions to get said parishes registered in that manner. This anticipates their concern that when parishes finally have had enough and want to leave, they must leave all they have built behind, in the hands of the present administration.
It appears that current court precedent, coupled with the court’s generally reluctance to meddle in the matters of churches, will leave the property in the hands of the current OCA in the event of a lawsuit.
The strategy is that the faithful will not leave the temples they worked so hard to build, and that the administration can continue to operate as they wish, without adverse consequences.
So pay, pray, and obey will prevail when the dust settles. They may very well be right.
Well, then if that happens, it’s going to be mighty hard to fill these empty buildings.
This post makes me want to throw up.
It’s more like Mrs. Paffhausen is biting the hand that beats her son.
LOL. You say “But let us be clear absolutely no OCA properties or funds will be going with you.” What a nonsense statement.
Quit the “scare” tactics, you forgot to slam your shoe on the table.
The OCA could be hit with so many lawsuits from all over the country. You gonna win them all? Highly unlikely. Is the OCA good at lawsuits?
We want to hear contrite repentance, not threats.
Well “George” got one thing right there when he says “the OCA is not going anywhere.”
This sounds official. no oca properties will be going with you. what a threat. most christian in its wording. so in other words pray, pay and obey. listen to everything we have to tell you or we will take your church away. you the oca people in power have such a low opinion of the countless people who have given there hard earned monies to build there churchs and pay your salaries. In todays world if u think that the oca has a lock on all the parishs properties thats just foolish. I put my faith in the countless christian people not in a few people screaming threats and telling people to leave. the oca is not going anywhere which george just stated in a chilling way. I am afraid the truth of that statement is a very frightening concept.
Thank you for commenting. In reality, that is a hollow threat as I will explain in a future post. Right now I would say look to ECUSA. It won most of the lawsuits filed by orthodox Anglicans who wanted to take their property. It was a pyrrhic victory however in that most of the God-fearing Christians left anyway and left ECUSA holding the bag so to speak. Hence empty churches, some of which werre indebted, declining membership and now the eventual selling of their HQ in Manhattan. It took a generation but it happened.
A rump, sodomite-friendly OCA won’t have the luxury of a generation-long death spiral however. One thing ECUSA had going for it was the many dozens of endowments that rich Episcopalians from generations past left their individual parishes.
For the official OCA to seize properties from any parishes that seek to leave, it would need to go to court. For that, it would need lawyers. Lawyers in each state. Lawyers cost money. For such an undertaking, where the plaintiffs (the OCA) do not appear to be especially wealthy, it would be a safe bet that the lawyers would want some or all of their fees paid up front. Where would this money come from? It does not appear that the OCA has a lot of extra money to use for litigation. Unless, the synod would be willing to pony up money from their salaries and trip expenses.
George says : ” If any of you feel that strongly then you are free to leave. But let us be clear absolutely no OCA properties or funds will be going with you.”
I seem to remember your disgraced former Metropolitan Herman saying those exact words about the parish in Mayfield PA back during the Calendar Wars of the 70’s + 80’s, or should I say the ROCOR Cathedral of St John The Baptist in Mayfield Pa. I guess that prophesy is not one of the stronger points of the Metropolia Episcopacy.
“A fact check here: Metropolitan Jonah is not gay. ” Here is a real fact check… How the heck would you know if he was gay? He did say that it was his right to be surrounded by loyal young men. If that doesn’t make you nervous it should.
You see, that is what the homosexualization of the Church causes: the immediate suspicion that chaste heterosexuals such as Jonah are not moral.
Well, surrounding Met. Jonah with backstabbing old queens sure didn’t work out very well…
Helga!
Shame on you – you’ve just sparked a most irreverent image in my mind suitable for use in lampooning various members of the Unholy Synod. Now let’s see if I can photoshop Queen Elizabeth II’s crown onto Bp. Benny’s bulbous head…
You go, Heracleides! And thank you, Helga!
I was thinking just last night that instead of “princes of the church” we seem to have a few too many queens…
Another phrase: “The Mean Girls of Jr High.”
Herc, hey, that phrase is the exact opposite of “loyal young men”, isn’t it? And how aptly it describes what Met. Jonah had to work with. Met. Jonah is actually the one I got it from: he once described show-monastics as “old queens in Byzantine drag”, and somehow it popped into my head.
I find it atrocious that some people would read a perverted meaning into what he said, but I guess that’s where a warped mind goes.
When Met. Jonah talks about “obedience” and “loyalty”, he means cooperation out of love and respect, and wanting to have people around who are willing to do that. Pity nobody in Syosset has a clue what any of that means.
Herc,
I had someone mention something to me yesterday that made me nearly wet myself from laughter, and maybe you could use it in one of your meme’s. Stewie (from Family Guy) as an OCA bishop (Benjamin, perhaps?) Would love to know what you think and if you’d be willing to use it.
Oh brother . . . How about I ask him . . . other than that I would say there has never been the remotest sign . . .
Well it seems like a totally appropriate response from an Abbot of a monastery that is used to being surrounded by supportive obedient young and old men.
Not the scum you clearly represent.
Hey “George,” ask Just Guessing if he thinks that may indicate a “prurient interest” or just an innuendo on your part.
How is a rating of -2 gotten from 4 votes???
Easily: One up-vote and three down-votes. 1 – 3 = -2, with a total of four votes being cast.
Also Anonymous says:
October 15, 2012 at 11:52 pm
“Easily: One up-vote and three down-votes. 1 – 3 = -2, with a total of four votes being cast.”
And
Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says:
October 15, 2012 at 11:10 pm
“PdnNJ: three thumbs down, one thumbs up, that’s how.”
Then shouldn’t it have said -3 from 4 votes (instead of -2)???
No. One minus three equals negative two.
I think +Jonah said in an article that he had a girlfriend before he became a monk (maybe the washington post)–saying that, he still could have same sex attraction (i.e. gay)–but i highly doubt it.
robert, I think they all say that. I remember when (then) Jim Paffhausen was out here after finishing at SVS..for some time. One or two young women expressed some interest in him. I’m not sure he ever asked any of them out on a date, though..various clergy were doing their darnedest to find him a wife. Most of us thought that an attractive young business woman associated with the Oxnard parish would be an ideal match, and James always snorted, chuckled and acted abashed when asked about her, but never made a move. Finally, on a visit (his last) of Fr. John Meyendorff to Los Angeles, Father Dimitri Gisetti and Margarita Romanovna, his wife, had Father John and me down (Gisetti’s occupied the downstairs quarters in the parish rectory, while i, then as now, lived upstairs.) for dinner. At some point during the coffee, I said to Father John. “Father John. Jim Paffhausen was one of your star students and you his adviser. I”d like to ask you something. We can’t seem to get Jim to make up his mind whether or not to marry. i don’t want, if possible, to ordain anyone as a celibate-but-not-monastic Priest, as I was. I can’t get Jim to say whether he intends to marry or not. What do YOU think?”… Nevertheless, he finally petitioned to be ordained without having either married or taken monastic vows, and I ordained him. Much later on, when he had moved into the St. Eugene’s Monastery and Retreat Center (which had been recently vacated by the Holy Cross Convent, due to the illness of their Abbess Barbara (who, with her few sisters merged with and moved to the convent of Our Lady of Kazan in Santa Rosa) (wasn’t it great that, for once, someone who had the idea of founding his own monastery found a property and buildings ready for his occupancy, so he could go right ahead and travel around spreading the news of Orthodox monasticism and not have to worry about property! There were always crews of dedicated laymen and laywomen from San Francisco and environs to form work parties and keep going up their to maintain the property, paint, pound nails, whatever, and to form annual plgrimages whereby they brought up all the food from San Francisco and their sisterhoods served it. There was always a monk or two to give information, too, on monasticism, the Jesus prayer, and, oh, Optina or Valaam.
Unfortunately, the place eventually became infested with Black Mold, and the Faithful were unable to eradicate it, so then Abbot Jonah, with his realtor history and interests, almost immediately located a property more accessible to civilization. While I encouraged them to find a solution to the Black Mold (as had Mother Susanna and the nuns at Our Lady of Kazan Skete), Fr. Jonah and his brethren seemed to lack whatever it would take to do the same. Anyhow, as soon as I retired, my replacement blessed them to take out a nice loan from the Diocese and buy the property in Manton where they are now sojourning. I think I’ve heard Archbishop Benjamin, Archbishop Job, Archbishop Seraphim and others refer blushingly (aren’t we devils?) to their former “girlfriends.” I think that they had girlfriends the way girls have girlfriends, all of them.
PdnNJ: three thumbs down, one thumbs up, that’s how.
PdnNJ says:
October 15, 2012 at 5:18 pm
“How is a rating of -2 gotten from 4 votes???”
I can’t believe I wrote that!
(I must have been overly tired from baby sitting my two new grandchildren that day.)
Dear Anonymous People,
Why would you give up on Metropolitan Jonah to put us under the ROCOR?
Why are you spreading vague suggestive innuendo about Bishop Seraphim Sigrist?
I am sad to hear that seminarians are threatened by and compromised by predators, if this is true.
As for the Metropolitan being inexperienced with political machinations, how could anyone fight a sin machine such are you have represented? According to you, even Bishop Job never bravely spoke up about things that matter concerning our hierarchy and thus also found considered the laity unworthy of trustworthy spiritual guidance and transparency in our Church triumphant.
You suggest our former chancellor still plays an active role in our Church although he is laicized. You say nothing concerning the role of our present chancellor, who has taken over the Metropolitan’s role.
As for the price of bravery being the limbo under which Father Susan is condemned, I would suggest that we have enough priests that can easily survive on their military and civil pensions without their OCA salaries. Sadly, they aren’t speaking any more than those cowed by the need for a paycheck.
Are you supplying those people you trust within and without the OCA with details of all these allegations so that those unworthy of their offices can be laicized? I am praying that however many of whoever you are will come to the knowledge of the value of our OCA itself and works to cherish her and pray that she may be adorned with wisdom and bishops that are blessings to their flocks. For we need bishops.
loh! The long carelessly composed, organized and written product of “the Sons of Job” does nothing to improve our memory of ever-Memorable Archbishop Job. I believe that while it has succeeded in repeating some well-established facts, it has also produced as many, if not even more, mistakes and fables as has the Holy Synod in their STINKBOMB of a “Statement” !!!!
Nevertheless, loh, you don’t seem to have understood what many others have written here. Suggesting that the OCA re-activate the “Temporary Agreement” that existed for almost a decade between the Metropolia and ROCOR, i.e., that all the ROCOR and OCA bishops would sit on one Holy Synod back under the omophorion of the Church of Russia is not to suggest anyone “put us under ROCOR.” I’m not sure how being under anyone at all diminishes anyone. Bishop, or Archbishop Job was much braver in pointing out corruption when he was home among his people, than he ever was in the Holy Synod. The only things he “bravely” spoke up for were Bishop Nikon, “Archbishop” Lazar Puhalo (alias Ron Haler, alias Ron Buehler), Mark Stokoe (as in “we’re all free men in the Diocese of the Midwest,” Mark Forsberg. You are quite right about the Sons of Job being way off when they allege that Protopresbyter plays any role at all beyond that of a concerned member of the laity. It’s true that they have given pass to Father Jillions, the ghost writer of Metropolitan Jonah’s resignation letter.
I don’t know WHICH priests, though, “can easily survive on their military and civil pensions without their OCA salaries, particularly at Syosset.” Who are they?
I am glad you think so highly of the “Sons of Job” as to imagine we had even one good idea (temporary Agreement). You are the second to suggest that Fr Bob has today no influence amongst the insiders, they have regularly said different. They should watch their words and get their story straight! Amongst some being a FR Bob insider is a great badge of honor. We are not all about repetition of unresolved dysfunction. We did not repeat the matters of St Tikon’s under B. Michael.
Is Fr Bob at all responsable for the vetting of these Bishops? He use to say that he was! Is the church responsable for the care of Ron’s children? Jillon’s gets no pass but he is just todays carrier of the “kool-aid” he didn’t make it he’s just the h2o boy.
AB Job was not good in the fight, not his nature. You stood up when? Called for repentance when? Tried to protect the victims when? Is you defense the central European one “we didn’t know what all those trains full of people were about”?
Job, I must say that from my sources, Fr Lefty Kishkovsky had as much say –if not more–than Fr Bob in the “vetting” of bishops. I’ve heard from these same sources that he moved heaven and earth to get Arb [sic] Lazar Puhalo received into the OCA, Bp Seraphim Sigrist, and Arb Seraphim Storheim. He was only able to get Storheim on the actual Synod, the others were only allowed to be received as “retired” bishops. (Storheim of course has been removed pending court proceedings in Canada.)
Get out your Alka-Seltzer, Svetlana Vais has interviewed Mark Stokoe and put it on Portal-Credo.ru. It’s in Russian, but Google Translate’s take on it is passable reading, at least until you get to this part. Warning, the following may cause extreme projectile vomiting in sensitive individuals:
Ms Vais asks, “Do you think that could ever fulfill the dream of Patriarch Tikhon of Local Orthodox Church of America? Or our national and cultural roots will never allow us to do so? As is the case today. But, perhaps, it is for the benefit of American Orthodoxy?”
Stookey’s reply: “This dream has come true! This is called the OCA. This is the local Orthodox Church in America, even if it is not recognized as such by other local Orthodox Churches.”
He is right about one thing, though: “There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed, and hid, that shall not be known.”
Stookey’s reply: “This dream has come true! This is called the OCA. This is the local Orthodox Church in America, even if it is not recognized as such by other local Orthodox Churches.”
Only in Stookey’s dreams.
Ms Vais is a shill for the Syosset gang. She is tight with Wheeler, Jillions, and of course her hero, Mark Stokoe. This is a self-serving attempt on Stokoe’s part to legitimate the crap he unleashed on the OCA. He has been discredited but the article serves a couple of purposes:
1 – It is a preview of the type of stuff that Hopko will try to unleash in Parma. The dream of the OCA. It is a myth that it is a local Church. But it is a myth that Stokoe and his minions must hold on to because no other Orthodox Church would allow them to get away with what they have wrought on Orthodoxy in this land.
2- He is proud of his parish in Dayton. Of course he is because he and his long-time partner are allowed to live openly. He is allowed to be a leader in that parish. A parish that is also led by a divorced priest who’s wife sued him for divorce because of abuse. If the parish in Dayton is an icon of OCA parish life, no wonder the census of the OCA continues to plummet.
This is the Church that Stokoe wants. A Church that has selective transparency and accountability. A Church that permits gay bishops, clergy and laity to continue in positions of leadership. A Church that sees itself as the righteous remnant of real Orthodox and Orthodoxy in this land.
The Church that Stokoe wants is one in which his social views and lifestyle will be embraced and fostered. There is little doubt any longer that those in OCA leadership prefer to perpetuate the myth of the OCA and as Fr.Hopko proclaimed on Clean Monday, he puts his full faith and trust in Mark Stokoe.
Nice try Ms Vais, but Dayton and Mark Stokoe are not examples to follow. They are not leaders to honor. They are what is wrong with the OCA and Stokoe’s view of the Church is also being rejected. However, if this is the type of Church you want, go for it and continue to dream on that others must follow the OCA’s example. I for one reject it.
Do you have any proof for your assertions; especially the second one?
“2- [Mark Stokoe] is proud of his parish in Dayton. Of course he is because he and his long-time partner are allowed to live openly. He is allowed to be a leader in that parish. A parish that is also led by a divorced priest who’s wife sued him for divorce because of abuse. If the parish in Dayton is an icon of OCA parish life, no wonder the census of the OCA continues to plummet.”
AG
Proof? Just visit the parish. Quite simple to verify.
Have done. Might we have met?
So…my question remains. What proof do *you* have?
AG apparently wants to see the photographs with the circles and arrows and paragraph on the back explaining how each is to be use against Stokoe in a court of law, though I doubt that even then AG would believe.
AG,
Proof that an openly gay couple are regular communicants in Dayton. Are they or are they not?
That the priest in that parish is divorced and his wife sued for divorce? Is he or is he not divorced and did his wife sue for divorce or did she not?
Come on AG you want to just fence with me or do you simply want to admit that what I am saying is the truth.
If you think that the situation in Dayton is fine, then just say so. I don’t think it is fine.
Ahhh, Nikos. You must be a politician since you keep answering my question with another question.
I would like proof that “[Mark Stokoe] is allowed to be a leader in that parish. A parish that is also led by a divorced priest who’s wife sued him for divorce because of abuse”.
Prove that Mark Stokoe “is allowed to be a leader in that parish”.
Prove that this parish led by a priest “who’s (sic) wife sued him for divorce because of abuse”.
On my last visit to Mark Stokoe’s parish, he wasn’t in leadership. He may have been in leadership in the past, but he isn’t now. Past is past, is it not? Perhaps you are listening to old news. As for “[the] divorced priest”, have you anything to show about the details of their divorce? Or are you simply guessing/gossiping/hypothesizing/slandering/day-dreaming/axe-grinding/wishfully-thinking/_____(fill in the blank)?
I find that there is a modicum of “information” disseminated here that is errant as a result of being based on third, fourth, fifth-hand sourcing. You challenged me to “go and see and verify”. Have you “gone and seen”? Have you verified your information? or is it simply based on having read here, or elsewhere, or listened at keyholes?
I’ve done my homework, Nikos. Have you done yours? That’s *really* what I want to know and which you have failed to prove.
Golly AG, you wish for someone to go,to the public records of divorce decrees in Ohio? It is quite easy. You know that Fr Ted and his former wife V. are divorced so what is your point? But is is good to see more defenders of Stokoe and Bobosh and the OCA status quo popping up on Monomahkos. Tells me that this web site is being watched very carefully by those in charge and they feel the heat to respond?
Thanks for the update on Mrs. Brown’s status. Let’s keep it that way.
Ad hominems are so beneath you, Nikos. But I thank you, nonetheless, for telling me, in effect, you have nothing to offer here from having gone and seen and verified *first hand*. I guess with you it’s “Do what I say” rather than “Do what I do”. So. What should we do about other sorts of sinners in leadership? Those who lust? the prideful? gluttons? liars? cheaters? the angry and sarcastic who tear others down? Get rid of all of them? Are you in leadership, Nikos? What is your sin?
If these folk and the things they have done bother you, Scripture gives us a way to lodge a complaint against another. Matthew 18. The Church Fathers give us teaching as well. Love covers a multitude of sins. Do you know the teachings of the Fathers? Do you listen to Scripture during Liturgy and Matins and Vespers? The anger and vitriol against some folk on this site is really the root of the problems in The Church…not gay parishioners, or divorced clergy, or bad monasteries, or truncated Orthodox formation, or financial shenanigans. Sick hearts.
Wisdom attend! Then Jesus called the people to him again and said, “Listen to me, all of you, and understand this! There is nothing outside a person which, by going into him, can make him unclean. Rather, it is the things that come out of a person which make a person unclean! Anyone who has ears that can hear, let him hear!” When he had left the people and entered the house, his disciples asked him about the parable. He replied to them, “So you too are without understanding? Don’t you see that nothing going into a person from outside can make him unclean? For it doesn’t go into his heart but into his stomach, and it passes out into the latrine.” (Thus he declared all foods ritually clean.) “It is what comes out of a person,” he went on, “that makes him unclean. For from within, out of a person’s heart, come forth wicked thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, indecency, envy, slander, arrogance, foolishness… All these wicked things come from within, and they make a person unclean.”
Mark 7:14-23
AG,
The facts remain very clear, the OCA is in terrible decline and the leadership,which you seem to endorse lacks the moral leadership to be considered viable. I appreciate your attempt to take me on could it be that folks like me on this website have hit a nerve?
If you wish to continue to invest your spiritual capital in the OCA and “model” parishes like Dayton, there will be a place for you in the OCA but people are voting with their feet. The OCA has lost the moral authority that it may have once possessed. The attempt to rekindle that in Parma will be a sad display. Let’s face it, less than 250 people have registered. The deadline is tomorrow (which of course will be extended) so they can get maybe another 200?
So less than 500 delegates mostly from parishes within driving distance to Cleveland, only about 1.6% of the OCA census will be involved in this effort. We also know that at least one delegate has been removed because he dared to have an opinion, and who knows how many more?
Why should we believe in this jurisdiction called the OCA? Why should we continue to trust leaders who haved acted so badly?
Those who laud the OCA say it can elect its own bishops without foreign interference. That may be the case, but the caliber and bench of potential OCA bishops exposes a jurisdiction that is weak. Those who laud the OCA say it can make its own decisions. That may be true but those decisions have caused the current crisis we are in.
Yes, the OCA is in control of its destiny and also has no one to blame but itself for its demise.
Dear “Knows the Score”,
If only you really knew the score and understood my post. For me to tell you I think no such thing is a waste of time and pixels. But, tell you, I just did.
Oh well.
Ok, so, I checked. There are extensive public records, online, free. Every scrap of mail. Ohio record folks are nothing if not detail oriented. Any who want to check could do so. I won’t reprint them here but it’s tough going. Pages and pages. Mail flying around back and forth, court events, I can’t imagine the legal fees, ferocious personal allegations. Spanning about nine years worth of grief starting in 8/2000 or so. It is very sad, reminds me of other cases, and the kids involved. Ah well.
What I find of relevance is that on the OCA’s pastor listing page, there, today, we see Fr. Ted Bobosh listed but no spouse. There are filings to do with separating pension payments.
So, the only sure thing one can deduce from that is: they didn’t find a way to patch it up, and normal married life ended not later than 8 / 2000.
As I understand it in rare cases clergy effectively divorced are allowed to not be defrocked but retain a quiet parish assignment if there was deep understanding of the truth of matters and a low profile until retirement. But to have a divorced clergyman serve on a national body to do with policy making on sexual misconduct? Does nobody consider the ‘optics’ of choices like that, the effect it has on the onlooker? Why not pension boards, or mission boards, or, well, ANYTHING other than to do with sexual policies. Wow, you know?
Wait — it gets more strained. You could make a movie out of it that would make the Da Vinci code seem weak. The bishop involved in allowing this is found dead in a Ohio travellers’ hotel parking lot on his way home to Chicago. The new fellow, a widower, rarely seen today, takes a dim view of his parishioner Mark Stokoe’s more recent publishings suggesting rather more in the way of slack in matters of church discipline involving those not of opposite sex. He removes Mark from national decision making bodies.
Then.. what happens? The policies of the national board he serves on just so happen to get his new bishop suspended not on the basis of explosions involving wife and children (those get you promoted to national decision making) but– some text messages with undue sexual innuendo.
These appearances, what can one say? Nobody could make this stuff up.
NOTE TO CHURCH LEADERSHIP: DO NOT appoint clergy with serious martial/sexual issues in their histories to national church sexual policy decision making bodies. DOUBLE DO NOT appoint clergy having those issues when they are seen to support parishioner initiatives along relaxing discipline along same-sex lines. It gives an occasion for the weak to stumble. And even the not so weak. I mean, who wouldn’t stumble. If that’s coincidence it’s right up there with tossing a coin ten times and getting all heads. It happens, when it does you check whether something’s fishy about the coin.
Reminds me of the recent case of a Greek archimandrite in the south who served on a GOA body concerning itself with similar church sexual policy dynamics. Later that priest was seen to over-enjoy the company of a parishioner’s son– and it all ended badly for the church, and the people involved. I’m sure it’s on Pokrov somewhere. Does nobody check these things, listen to what the nearby clergy worry about before making appointments to national decision making bodies?
A common-sense application of the scriptural codes of conduct required of candidates for ordination — not to mention the canonic tradition of The Church — strongly suggests that an already ordained man who falls into one or another of the categories excluded from ordination in the first place should then ipso facto lose his ordination.
The fact that our OCA has a number of divorced priests still in office is a scandal, and makes us look ridiculous in the opinion of the other orthodox churches.
We have a lot of housekeeping to do.
Yes, there is proof. .Lessseeee, Mark Stokoe was not only a leader in his parish. He is very deeply responsible for a lot more. As you KNOW, Mark Stokoe was a big leader in the OCA. Everyone followed him as if he was GOD. Mark Stokoe helped lead the OCA into a deep, dark, descent into hell (please, please read Charles Williams’ novel, “Descent into Hell.”) Mark Stokoe is a homosexual and lives with his partner, Stephen Brown. Mark Stokoe’s mother’s obituary is proof because it states that Mark Stokoe’s partner is considered by Mark’s family to be her son-in-law. Get with the program. Jeez. I’m sad, Mark Stokoe. I am so sad.
Father Ted Bobosh’s wife sued him for ABUSE? Are you certain of this? What is he doing being a leader???? I am so glad I’m out of the OCA and so sad about it, I find it hard to bear.
BLEAH.
” A Church that has selective transparency and accountability.”
I couldn’t agree more that such a policy, at least in big things, would make growth impossible.
‘ A parish that is also led by a divorced priest who’s wife sued him for divorce because of abuse’
That’s up there among the big things. Are the court records searchable, were there protective orders entered?
I wonder if anyone else notices this phenomenon, across the contemporary church landscape: Folk in positions of authority who do something in their personal lives that ordinarily would cause them to no longer have assignments in church leadership, offer loyalty to persons in exchange for the overlooking of the misdoing. And these cooperate in such manner with an eye toward handing on in their job until they can retire with a pension. In order to make it ‘work’ for them at a personal level.
If it’s all sort of a show in the minds of the leaders anyhow, you can see how they might not complain when those who don’t live according to the teaching are nevertheless admitted, So long as they can read the public mood, say the right thing when ‘the lights and eyes are on them’. Not so different than ‘rock stars’.
It isn’t likely that will attract people who will consent to really commit to it all. Plainly if the leadership isn’t seen to commit beyond their need for pay, pointing to an unlived book’s contents as reason to ‘give generously’ isn’t so likely either.
I’m still in shock really about the other allegation that a gay priest was allowed to roam seminary halls looking to give ‘massages’. In the GOA it took the combined efforts of thousands of laity to push back hard enough to terminate that kind of abuse under color of church authority.
We really have a big, big problem– one that goes way beyond the OCA. We need an approach that corrects the house without generating victims.
how bout these delusions?:
– Как Вам кажется, после ухода Митрополита Ионы – нормализовались ли отношения между администрацией ПЦА и епископатом?
– Да. Ситуация при Митрополите Ионе была неустойчивой и надо было что-то делать. И, по единодушному мнению, Иона должен был уйти, так как являлся основным источником разрушения. Думаете, все прекрасно сейчас? Вряд ли. Но стабильно. И становится лучше во многих отношениях.
Helga says:
October 13, 2012 at 9:56 am
“Get out your Alka-Seltzer, Svetlana Vais has interviewed Mark Stokoe and put it on Portal-Credo.ru.”
The OCL posted it yesterday (in english) on their website as
“OCA. We are a city on a hill” – Svetlana Vais interviews Mark Stokoe”
at http://ocl.org/oca-we-are-a-city-on-a-hill-svetlana-vais-interviews-mark-stokoe/
How does that go along with their removal from their website of the article “Did the OCA Bishops Lie about Metropolitan Jonah? by Joel Kalvesmaki which certainly was in order with their Mission Objective 2, Orthodox Church Accountability, “Continue to advocate the restoration of proper order in the Church, by establishing an Accountability Task Force to address abuses, improprieties and irregularities that are harmful to the spirituality and mission of Orthodoxy.”
I followed the link to read the interview in English. Such prose from MS! Look at the answer to question 16
That looked really familiar to me. So I looked it up. Look at this quote; boldface is mine.
I guess it is not plagiarism if you translate it into Russian.
Personally I liked the original better.
Wow! Well, now we really know whose Koolaid Stokoe’s been drinking! “A City on a Hill,” indeed! Who was it Who said, “He who exalts himself shall be humbled?” I think it’s the latter Guy I’m gonna believe. 🙂
(Gotta go get my shovel after reading that interview . . . )
Or he might have been reading the Gospel according to St Matthew, Chapter 5:14: “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid.” Don’t you’all recognize this from Scripture? and Who he is quoting?
I might also mention that Ronald Reagan also alluded to this same quote, twice, as did John F Kennedy quoting the Puritan John Winthrop who used this same quote when arriving here from England in 1630. It’s become famous for embodying the best that Christian America aspires to.
AG, dude(tte), we know where “a city on a hill” comes from. Stokoe was plagiarizing some of the other stuff he said. He took it from some peace activist who is an ordained minister in the “Unity” weirdo cult.
I know, AG, but in the context, and inasmuch as it seems to be about Stokoe’s quasi-modernist “Orthodoxy” and the OCA and its vision in particular (not the Church or the faithful in general), it seems decidedly more than a little Maryanne Williamson-ish. I don’t see the Gospel version being proclaimed here so much. Your examples show that anyone can draw upon a Gospel quote and make it mean what they want.
When using Google Translate is vastly more fun to translate from the Russian to the English, back to the Russian then to English again!
Before you go hog wild for Met Hilarion of ROCOR consider he has problems too. He may be fine man and generally good bishop, but as First Hierarch he choose to embrace scandal riddled priest in Western Rite that include priest who had multiple marriages, was priest in various not canonical churchs (French, Syriac) and because of well known reputation he was not been given the typical open blessing to serve in ROCOR Mid-America, GOC Metropolis of Chicago or OCA Midwest. Look into the Western Rite and who was ordained to serve under Hilarion. Are you willing to overlook or downplay these facts because you already have you heart set on this perfect candidate? But if you want a new White Hat who be sure thing and has clean record for not inviting scandal into the clergy, you should keep looking. This is not attack against Hilarion, but warning not to think he’s perfect candidate for what you seem to want.
There is also a case of a man who was Chrismated in one of our parishes got divorced and remarried. When he was told that a divorced and remarried man could not be ordained by our Bishops, he joined one of the continuing Anglican groups. He then joined something calling itself the Milan Synod. They declared that the Antiochian Archdiocese had not received him properly and then Baptized him. Since they did not consider his marriage and divorce valid because they did not consider his reception into Orthodoxy valid, they ordained him. He has now joined ROCOR as a Western Rite Priest.
Dunsel and Father John,
As to the ROCOR Western Rite priests, to whom do you refer? Veiled accusations.
A divorced and remarried man can’t be ordained by an Antiochian Bishop, but an Antiochian married priest, after his divorce can marry again and remain a priest? I guess that depends on how close the individual is to the Metropolitan, such as Father Joseph Allen. Hypocritical I would say.
And a scandal ridden priest? I looked over the recent list of ROCOR WRV priests and know the majority personally, especially some of the leadership. WHO?
I was present several years ago when Father Schneirla then the Vicar General of the AWRV, told a “Milan Synod” priest that once he paid off the mortgage on the church and rectory, the AWRV would receive them with open arms.
Another former “Milan Synod” priest Hieromonk Anthony Pearson was received into the OCA.
As an Archpriest I would think that if you are going to be snide and snarky Father you would have the courage to name names, or be silent rather than slander via unverifiable innuendo. Or is that part of the program at the Antiochain House of Studies?
Guy Westover
guy.westover@gmail.com
I would not know what the program of the Antiochian House of Studies involves. I graduated from Holy Cross and became a priest long before they established the Antiochian House of Studies. I would think that with all the scandals that plague the OCA that OCA members would be too busy cleaning up their own house to criticize the Antiochians or anyone else. Frankly, the Joe Allen case is mild compared with tolerating a practicing gay metropolitan for over 20 years, having one Bishop make questionable sexual advances towards women, have a serious drinking problem and all the other things that I have learned about the OCA on this blog. I know that these abuses are the exception and know some very dedicated OCA clergy.
Fr. John, don’t forget Joseph Allen if you are listing canonically questionable priesthoods.
Fr. Joseph Allen ‘s wife died and he was allowed to remarry. He is not the first and will not be the last widowed Priest whose Bishop has allowed to remarry. It happened a lot in the Balkans after the Second World War. Remarriage after divorce is another matter. However, I know of one case in the Greek Archdiocese and have heard of another in the OCA where a Bishop has ordained a divorced and remarried man.
I met the man once, but have forgotten his name. The real problem is that this man left the Orthodox Church and joined a Protestant group. The he went to the Synod of Milan, an uncanonical group, which told him that his past did not matter because he was not really Orthodox because he was received by Chrismation. Then they Baptized him. It is the so called conditional Baptism that bothers me. By receiving Baptism in a non-canonical group he denied the grace that he received when he was Chrismated in the Antiochian Church, which unlike the so called Milan Synod is canonical Orthodox. That is a major heresy. No less an authority than Fr. Alexander Schmemann told me that submitting to Baptism after having been received into the Church through Chrismation is a sin that will not be forgiven. It is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.
On Mount Athos they regularly correctively baptize visitors before allowing them to receive communion. That rather makes me wonder what kind of authority Fr. Alexander Schmemann should have.
John W. says (October 14, 2012 at 4:00 pm):
On Mount Athos they regularly correctively baptize visitors before allowing them to receive communion. That rather makes me wonder what kind of authority Fr. Alexander Schmemann should have.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The very notion of ‘correcticve baptism’ is at odds with every notion expressed in the ecumenical synods of the authentically orthodox catholic christian tradition.
Please let’s not blame the monks of Athos. In general, they do NOT expect adult converts to have been baptized when they entered The Church from other christian groups.
But they have no way of understanding and/or verifying the way by which their ‘convert’ wisitors were received into The Church. Some christian groups baptize as we do, and some do not.
If these visitors present an incomprehensible journey of faith, the monks of Athos have no option other than to baprize them, lest they unwittingly admit to Holy Communion people of such questionable background.
If anyone doesn’t want to come under such scrutiny, he is — of course — free not to visit Athos and also not ask to participate in the Eucharist if he’s allowed to visit there.
There is no reason why the same standards should not apply in our monasteries and oarishes in America.
It is perfectly legitimate for a Bishop to instruct his Priests that all converts must enter the Church through Baptism as long as he follows the policies established by the Primate and Holy Synod under which he serves. It is also perfectly legitimate for a Bishop to instruct his Priests to receive those Baptized outside the Church with water “In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” through Chrismation if that is the policy established by his Primate and the Holy Synod under which he serves. That is not the issue because there has never been absolute uniformity in the Church on this issue. However, once a person is received, they are fully Orthodox regardless of how they were received. It is heretical to perform a so called corrective Baptism on someone who was received by Chrismation.
Unfortunately there are some monasteries here in America that tell converts that they are not really Orthodox if they were received by Chrismation. They even tell them to come to their monastery to be Baptized and not to tell their Priest or Bishop. That is wrong for several reasons.
Does not an Orthodox man wanting to enter Mt. Athos have to present a letter from his Bishop certifying that he is Orthodox? That alone should be enough. If someone comes to my parish who was received in another parish, it is not my place to question the decision of their Priest to receive them into the Church or how they were received. In my parish we have a laminated statement in every pew that states that only Orthodox in good standing who have prepared by prayer, fasting and confession may receive Holy Communion. If someone approaches the Chalice and I do not know them I ask them if they are Orthodox. If they are not Orthodox, I do not give them Holy Communion. The monks at Mt. Athos could do the same thing. Indeed, they should since so many non-Orthodox visit Mt. Athos for various reasons. However, if someone is Orthodox and is allowed by their confessor to take the Eucharist, it is not their place to question how someone was received into the Orthodox Church.
Sounds like someone is judging here. What was that about “judge not . . . “?
“Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.” Lev 19:15
“Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” John 7:24
So Christ commands us both to judge and not to judge. We need to go beyond trying to shut down discourse by just trotting out the first two words of Matthew 7:1, perhaps the two words of Christ most quoted today. The rest of the verse and the next four that follow show that those two words are not an absolute prohibition.
If that is the case, some monks on Mt. Athos are wrong, completely wrong. What authority do they have to question the authority of their own Patriarch who allows his clergy in America to receive Converts through Christmaiton? What authority do they have to challenge the authority of any other canonical Bishop to use economy when receiving converts? There is no doubt that the Church has always allowed the reception of converts through Chrismation. They are committing the very serious sin of pride by placing their own opinions above the opinions of canonical Bishops and and pan Orthodox Councils a very serious sin by denying the grace of the Holy Spirit received through Chrismation and the Eucharist. That is a serious heresy. Every Orthodox jurisdiction in the United States usually receives Converts through Chrismation as an act of economy including the Greeks, the OCA and the Antiochians. Even ROCOR which usually receives converts through Baptism, has a clause in its rules that allows a local Bishop to use economy and receive a convert through Chrismation. Did not Archbishop Demetri suspend a priest in Atlanta who was rebaptized? There is no doubt that if monks on Mt Athos are performing conditional Bapisms they are wrong and are guilty heresy, as well as the worst sin of all which is the pride that allows them to set themselves up to judge the activities of canonical Orthodox Bishops and the rest of the Church.
It’s a consistent disappointment to me that every attempt on my part to respond to Fr John Morris here always results in some sort of misunderstanding.
I’d suggest that he’s a bit dense, but that might be rude. So I won’t..
Yeah, but you did and it was.
Not only is Father John highly educated and quite intelligent, he is also very kind and quick to forgive.
Fr. John Morris asked by “What authority do they [monks of Agion Oros] have to question the authority of their own Patriarch who allows his clergy in America to receive Converts through Christmation?”
“In 1755, Patriarch Cyril V of Constantinople issued a controversial Definition of the Holy Church of Christ Defending the Holy Baptism Given from God, and Spitting upon the Baptisms of the Heretics Which Are Otherwise Administered, which was signed also by the patriarchs of Alexandria and Jerusalem. From that time onward, the Greek Church in principle required (re)baptism of all Latin converts (and for that matter of Uniate and non-Chalcedonian converts as well).
“Writers favoring the new practice (e.g., St. Nikodemos the Haghiorite in his commentaries on the Pedalion), faced with the problem of explaining the earlier (and the continuing Russian) practice of non-rebaptism, did so in terms of oikonomia.
“From the mid-19th century in the Church of Constantinople, and from the early 20th century in the Church of Greece, reception by anointing with chrism again begins to be permitted, at first only very grudgingly, this being explained simply as a matter of oikonomia. Inasmuch as the 1755 Definition on heretic baptism has never been rescinded, recourse to akribeia (i.e., rebaptism) remains a possibility in the Greek Orthodox world and is often advocated especially in circles influenced by the example of Mount Athos.”
The Reception of Non-Orthodox into the Orthodox Church: Contemporary Practice
By John H. Erickson
St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 41 (1997) pp. 1-17
Ioann, though I do not dispute Erickson’s iteration of the facts, I would like to see the intent behind Cyril V’s doctrinal statement. The fact that it was signed by two other patriarchates dependent upon him also makes me wonder.
Let’s not forget, the Cpole statement that ethno-phyletism as a heresy (1878) was intentionally questionable as well. First of all, it was used as a cudgel against Bulgarians who demanded a Bulgarian bishop; secondly, its intent has been subject to even more scrutiny in that Cpole continues to elect only men of Greek ethnicity to its various non-Greek exarchates. In fact, with precious few exceptions it hardly elects non-Greek men at all. Ten years ago, the Israeli government forced Jerusalem to ordain an Arab man to the episcopate –irony of ironies.
First off there are ALOT of missing pieces here in that it took a LONG TIME for the Orthodox AND Catholic Churches to recognize each others baptisms are sufficient and just as long for the Orthodox to recognize other Christians’ “TRINITARIAN” baptisms as sufficient. So yes, the statement for 1755 is accurate, but the ecumenical discussions, which many Fundamentalists objected to especially on Mt. Athos, resulted in the Orthodox Church recognizing the sufficiency of Non-Orthodox Bapitism as long as the Bapitsim was done In the name of the “Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit.” Anything short of this requires Baptism from an Orthodox Priest or Bishop.
Further, Mt. Athos’ views on this matter should be given NO CREDENCE WHATSOEVER! Why? Because they are NOT the Church. They are NOT the ruling Primate that those monasteries are under obedience to serve and obey PERIOD! Unless and until a primate is found to be heretical BYTHE ENTIRE CHURCH whatever a monk or monk says is meaningless.
The monks can, and have, shaped and led Orthodox poinion, but when they openly rebel against a Primate who is WELL WITHIN the Orthodox Faith and Tradition then they are wrong. It is the CHURCH’S declaration of faith, given utterance by the Holy Spirit, that controls. So, with all due respect to Seraphim you are incorrect when you state: I would never dream of insisting that their view is the only viable one, although I give it strong credence. Reasonable people disagree on this.
Monks and monasteries cannot and never will be above the will of the Church. I have been to many monasteries growing up and even now in my forties. I know how they think and what they teach and many times, especially in Greece, it has very little to do with Theology, but ALOT to do with hating the West and Catholics in particular. The Catholics destroyed the faith. The Catholics destroyed our Great Christian Roman Empire. The Catholics took the bones of our Great Teaches and Theologians, etc., etc.,
Pope John Paul II was visiably humiliated in 2002 when the Archbishop of Athens dressed him down for the 4th Crusades! Why? Why was this done publically and in the open and not quietly behind closed doors? Because Archbishop Christodoulos needed to throw red meat to his followers, especially the Greek Old Calendarists and extremists monks that he was courting at the time to fight against the Greek National Card deleting a persons Religious status. Mass railies were held in Saloniki, NOT Athens, as Saloniki is the Religious center of Greece, and very close to Mt. Athos.
Bottom Line: This BS is mostly political and settling old scores and if you think Mt. Athos does not do these things then you are dead wrong. I’ve seen it, I’ve spoken to friends and family who are “Devotees” to this “Elder” or that “Monk” and it never fails to amaze me, especially with the recent real estate scandal on Mt. Athos, who people like to spin things to say it wasn’t the monks fault.
Well, it was NOT all of them, and many of them are holy and humble men, but those that are bad should be called out. Again, its not an elder, not a monk, and not this or that Great Lavra, its Jesus Christ and His Church. You miss sight of that then I don’t care how many Metanies you do – your in trouble.
Peter
St. Mark of Ephesus who represented the Patriarchate of Antioch at the ill fated Council of Florence and refused to sign the union with Rome, argued that Roman Catholics should be receive into the Church through Chrismation. In 1484 the Council of Constantinople decreed that Roman Catholics converting to Orthodoxy should be Chrismated. Significantly, the council decreed that a prayer used to reconcile an apostate to the Church rather than the prayer from the Baptism service completing Baptism by Chrismation should be used with Roman Catholics.
It is not correct that receiving a convert through Chrisimation is a recognition of non-Orthodox Baptism. It is an act of economy through which whatever was lacking in the non-Orthodox Baptism is perfected through Chrismation.
Canon 95 of the Council in Trullo gives three ways to receive a convert; Baptism, Chrismation or Profession of Faith. I do not know of any case of a Protestant who has been received by Profession of Faith, but for a time, and perhaps even now, I am not sure, the Russian Church received Roman Catholics by Profession of Faith. A Bishop has every right instruct his clergy to receive all converts through Baptism. However, once a person is received into the Communion of the Church, regardless of how, they are Orthodox. That is why I so strongly oppose so-called corrective Baptism. Those who argue that a person received by Chrismation is not Orthodox is challenging not only accepted Orthodox practice, they are telling thousands of converts and many clergy that they are not really Orthodox.
I do not know what the practice on Mt. Athos is. I do know that some of my friends who entered the Church through Chrismation received Holy Communion on Mt. Athos. That means that at least some of the monks on Mt. Athos accept as Orthodox a person received by Chrismation. If they are recognized as Orthodox and can receive the Eucharist, it makes no theological sense to ask them to submit to corrective Baptism to become a monk. The whole issue of corrective Baptism is just a piece of silly anti-ecumenism and has no basis in sound Orthodox theology.
This post got me to thinking…Those “Orthodoxy or Death” t-shirts that my fellow fundamentalist zealots have been sporting around the world are getting kind of old.
I was thinking about getting some t-shirts made with a big “1755” printed on the front with “Definition of the Holy Church of Christ Defending the Holy Baptism Given from God” printed underneath, and on on the back: “Spitting upon the Baptisms of the Heretics Which Are Otherwise Administered.”
Do you think they would sell?
Fr John,
It is the universal practice on Mt Athos not to accept chrismated converts into monastic tonsure there, because the monks do not consider them fully Orthodox.
I would never dream of insisting that their view is the only viable one, although I give it strong credence. Reasonable people disagree on this. But you seem to think not.
You dare to accuse this great lineage of holy monks, going back more than a thousand years, of all being heretics. And to top in off, you then go on to say that they are the ones who are being proud!
Nor is theirs an isolated view, embraced only by monastics. Protopresbyter Geroge Metallinos, one of the most highly regarded theologians in Greece, has written a one-hundred and forty page scholarly study (“I Confess One Baptism”) rejecting the chrismation of converts, and it is far more exhaustive and frankly more persuasive than the very brief treatment of the issue in your “Fundamentalism” book. Here he cites many of the Fathers saying that your view is the heretical one.
Don’t you think more humility is in order here? You are not the only one to have made a study of this issue, something that your several pronouncements on this blog seem to always ignore. I think we should be hesitant to call other Orthodox Christians heretics, especially holy monks who speak in unanimity on this matter.
Seraphim, I agree with Fr John on this. Rebaptism is a grave heresy. St Augustine demolished the heresy of Donatism and rebaptism is nothing but this heresy revivified.
Rebaptism is a misnomer since only the Orthodox Church, which I confess, has the one Baptism for the remission of sins.
If George M. and Fr. John Morris do indeed speak on behalf of their respective jurisdictions by stating that the monks on the Holy Mountain are heretics and unforgiven blasphemers against the Holy Spirit, then the problems in these corners of the Church are much graver than Lavender and Selfish Rule.
The monks are Mt. Athos are NOT heretics, but they are NOT the Church. You seem to not understand this very simple and basic point.
The monks of Mt. Athos are not a kind of infallible Orthodox papacy. if they set themselves up as the standard of Orthodoxy and judge the historical practice of the Church as wrong, they are guilty of the sin of pride. The Monks of Mt. Athos do not have the authority to establish the correct practice of the Church, the Bishops meeting in council have this authority as successors to the Apostles. All Orthodox, including the Monks of Mt. Athos, are required to submit to the authority of the Church and not to be guided by our own opinion. Only the Church is infallible, not any Patriarch, Priest, or group of monastics.
When deciding any issue, we must be guided not by what seems reasonable to us, or who can make the best argument, but by the historical practice of the Church. No argument by a theologian, no matter how well researched is superior to the historical practice of the Church. We do not have to understand why, but we must do what the Church has always done.
There is no question that throughout history, the Church has allowed for the use of economy by receiving converts Baptized outside of the Church with water “in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” through Chrismation. Canon 95 of the Council of Trullo establishes this principle. Significantly, the canons allow Arians who did not recognize the divinity of Christ to be received by Chrismation. The canons mandate that Monophysites and Nestorians were to be received by a Profession of the Orthodox Faith. Several pan-Orthodox Councils have ruled that Roman Catholics (Constantinople 1484) and Protestants (Jerusalem-Bethlehem 1672) who were Baptized with water “in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” should be received by Chrismation. Every canonical Orthodox jurisdiction in the United States receives converts through Chrismation. Even the decision of the Synod of Bishops of ROCOR of September 28, 1971, to require all converts to enter the Church through Baptism allows a local Bishop to apply economy for the reception of “certain persons, i.e., the reception of Roman Catholics, and Protestants who perform Baptism in the name of the Holy Trinity.” In this case, the Bishops of ROCOR allow the reception of a convert “by means of repudiation of heresy and Chrismation.”
If you read Metallinos’ book carefully, you will find that although he prefers to receive converts through Baptism, he recognizes that it is a legitimate act of economy to receive a convert through Chrismation. No where in his book is there justification for the incorrect practice of corrective Baptism. The Ecumenical Patriarch is not an Orthodox Pope. He only has authority over his own Patriarchate. At the time that Cyril V issued the oros of 1755 it was rejected by Antioch as an innovation since it contradicted the accepted practice of the Church. The Church of Russia also did not accept it and continued to receive converts by Chrismation. Metallinos specifically states that the Ecumenical Patriarchate recognized as fully Orthodox those converts received by Chrismation before 1755 and after 1755 in Russia. Metallinos reports that C. Oikonomos, the chief theologian supporting the decision of Constantinople in 1755 to require Baptism of all converts acknowledged that the Ecumenical Patriarchate accepted those received through Chrismation, writing that Constantinople recognized, “those perfected in Russia by concession as legitimate children.”In 1875, Patriarch Joachim II and the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate revoked the Decree of Cyril V by deciding to allow each local Bishop to decide whether to receive converts through Christmation (economy) or through Baptism (strictness).
Metallinos is correct. A Bishop with the approval of his Primate and the Holy Synod under which he serves may exercise akribia and receive all converts by Baptism. That is not the issue. The issue is those who refuse to follow the accepted practice of the Church which allows a Bishop with the approval of his Primate and the Holy Synod under which he serves to receive converts by Chrismation.
If the monks of Mt. Athos want to receive all converts through Baptism, that is their right. However, if they refuse to recognize the reception of a convert through Chrismation, they are wrong. I call conditional Baptism an heresy because it is contrary to the accepted practice of the Orthodox Church. It denies the grace received by the Mysteries of Chrismation, not to mention the Eucharist received by a convert received by Chrismation. It has long been the teaching of the Orthodox Church that Chrismation perfects whatever was lacking in one’s Baptism outside of the Church. The great early Christian historian Eusebius records that in the third century St. Dionysius of Alexandria refused to baptize a man who questioned his status because his original Baptism was administered by heretics. Instead, the leader of the African Church argued that whatever was lacking in his Baptism at the hands of those outside of the Church was provided by years of partaking of the Eucharist in the Church. Alexi Khomiakov, a nineteen century Russian theologian wrote, “Reconciliation (with the Church) renovates the sacraments or completes them, giving a full and orthodox meaning to the rite that was either insufficient or heterodox.”
Did not Archbishop Demetri suspend a Priest in Atlanta who underwent so-called corrective Baptism? Metropolitan Maximos of Pittsburgh issued a decree that stated that any Priest under his jurisdiction who refused to receive a convert through Chrismation would be suspended.
Thus your argument is not with me. It is with the historical Practice of the Church.
Father John Morris asks another good question: “Did not Archbishop Demetri suspend a Priest in Atlanta who underwent so-called corrective Baptism?”
Archbishop Demetri (the OCA one not the AOA one) did indeed suspend a Priest for the very reason that he cited.
Here is Archbishop Demetri’s (Memory Eternal) take on what happened:
Later in the letter he has very harsh words for the ROCOR who took in this Priest. Like many within his jurisdiction, he apparently did not like the ROCOR very much as revealed by his recitation of the dull calumnies against the ROCOR that were common currency in some jurisdictions at that time.
But the story had a happy ending:
Wrap-up and Lessons Learned
1) An OCA priest heeded the counsel of the fathers on Mount Athos.
2) OCA priest received the mystery of Holy Baptism on Mount Athos, a place that Archbishop Dmitri called the “spiritual center of Orthodoxy.” (Perhaps this traditional belief was more widespread within the OCA while the good Archbishop was alive.)
3) The Priest got suspended by Archbishop Dmitri, who represented the very jurisdiction that denied him the blessing of Holy Baptism in the first place! In the end this turned out to be a blessing, because he found his true home in the ROCOR.
4) Metropolitan Jonah and the Holy Synod of the OCA came around and recognized his priesthood and suspended their suspension of him. This was a genuinely gracious gesture by His Beatitude and the Holy Synod of the OCA though it had no bearing on his priesthood within the ROCOR and the Russian Orthodox Church as a whole. Now that’s leadership!
George M., speaking on behalf of many in the OCA and at least one priest outside of that jurisdiction states that akribeia as practiced on the Holy Mountain constitutes a “grave heresy.”
If so, then the action of Metropolitan Jonah and the Holy Synod of the OCA on April 2009 to recognize the priesthood of this Priest was an act in support of this alleged “grave heresy.”
This incident is a wonderful nexus of many of the ideas discussed on this blog, ideas about: monasticism, baptism and the reception of converts, fundamentalists and heretics, the role of the Metropolitan of the OCA, the Holy Synod of Bishops of the OCA, the relationship between the OCA and ROCOR, and the role of the Holy Mountain in the Church…
But in the end: “All’s well that ends well.”
Thank God for the Fathers of the Holy Mountain.
Thank God for the ROCOR.
Thank God for a Priest who stood by his principles and received his reward.
Thank God for a shepherd like Metropolitan Jonah.
Thank God that the final resolution of this incident served to bring the OCA and ROCOR closer together.
May God continue this kind of work within His Holy Orthodox Church!
Peter wrote: “The monks are Mt. Athos are NOT heretics, but they are NOT the Church. You seem to not understand this very simple and basic point.”
First off, forgive me for responding if your “you” was not directed to me but to some other straw man. I don’t know what you mean by this statement. Nowhere have I ever stated that the monks of Mount Athos are in your own words, “the Church.”
The monks on Mount Athos and other places within the Orthodox Church practice akribeia because of a decree by Ecumenical Patriarch Cyril V in 1755 that has, to this very day, never been rescinded. The monks on Mount Athos are not some band of bearded renegades. They exercise their option, subject to their own pastoral discretion to baptize those who have not received Holy Baptism of the Holy Orthodox Church because they, by the authority of this decree, that has never been rescinded, have this option. Καταλαβαίνεις?
“Constantinople 1755: In an atmosphere of heightened tension between Orthodoxy and Catholicism following the Melkite Union of 1724, and of intensified proselytism pursued by Catholic missionaries in the Near East and in Hapsburg-ruled Transylvania, the Ecumenical Patriarch Cyril V issued a decree in 1755 requiring the baptism of Roman Catholics, Armenians, and all others presently outside the visible bounds of the Orthodox Church, when they seek full communion with it. This decree has never been formally rescinded, but subsequent rulings by the Patriarchate of Constantinople (e.g., in 1875, 1880, and 1888) did allow for the reception of new communicants by chrismation rather than baptism. Nevertheless, these rulings left rebaptism as an option subject to “pastoral discretion.”
I feel very strange having to bring up these straightforward historical facts. My question to the clergy who have called this practice “heresy”: Don’t they teach Church History in seminary anymore?
To Ioann below:
You and others still do not understand the point that I am trying to make. There no question that the Holy Synod of Constantinople had full authority in 1755 to decree that all converts must be received through Baptism. However, the decree did not require all converts received by the Ecumenical Patriarchate before 1755 to submit to so called corrective Baptism, nor did it refuse to recognize as fully Orthodox those received in Russia and other places like the Patriarchate of Antioch by Chrismation. Therefore Cyril V’s decree cannot be used to justify the practice of corrective Baptism. If the Ecumenical Patriarch, who has authority over Mt. Athos allows the monks to receive converts through Baptism, that is what they should do. However, the Ecumencial Patriarchate also allows its North American Archdiocese to receive converts through Chrismation. You are applying a kind of Western Roman Catholic like legalism to the issue by demanding uniformity of practice among all Orthodox on the reception of converts. There is no uniformity and never has been on this issue. The only uniformity is that each autocephalous Church has recognized the converts received by another autocephalous Church as fully Orthodox regardless of how they were received.
The practice of so called corrective Baptism is a violation of that principle and of the historic practice of the Church. I know for a fact that converts who were received by Chrismation are given Holy Communion on Mt. Athos. If the monks of Mt. Athos recognize someone as Orthodox and give him Holy Communion, it makes no theological sense for them to then tell him that he must undergo so called corrective Baptism is he decides to become a monk. If they give him the Eucharist, they recognize him as Orthodox and his reception into the Church as fully legitimate.
In the Orthodox Church we do not change our doctrine according to the latest theological theories. No one, not even the monks on Mt. Athos have the authority to change the doctrine of the Church. The acceptance of corrective Baptism is an innovation that represents a major change in Orthodox doctrine. Therefore, it is an illegitimate practice.
Ioann,
The canonically bizarre part of that is to recognize the priesthood of someone who was (re-)baptized after his ordination. If he wasn’t validly baptized, he couldn’t have been validly ordained.
I agree. The Venerable Dmitri was write to suspend him.
You have not accurately quoted me. I wrote that so called corrective Baptism is heretical, because it denies the grace given by Chrismation, which perfects whatever was lacking in the non-Orthodox Baptism. I never wrote that all the monks of Mt. Athos are guilty of heretical practices. It has been reported on this blog that at least some monks at Mt. Athos do not practice corrective Baptism and accept novices who were received into the Church by Chrismation. We also know that a convert who was received by Chrismation is allowed to receive Communion at least at some monasteries on Mt. Athos.
The example of Esphigmenou monastery shows that some monks on Mt. Athos are not faithful examples of sound Orthodoxy. .
TO FR. John Morris
“Corrective Baptism” is nothing new. It goes all the way back to the 3rd century. St. Dionysios of Alexandria, while agreeing with St. Cyprian and St. Firmilian, nevertheless hesitated to baptism one who had been communing for years (in spite of his pleas and tears). St. Firmilian, however, didn’t agree.
He is writing to St. Cyprian and asks, “What then, say they, will become of those who, coming from the heretics, have been received without the baptism of the Church?” He answers:
“If they have departed this life, they are reckoned in the number of those who have been catechumens indeed among us, but have died before they were baptized, – no small advantage of truth and faith, to which they had attained by forsaking error, although, being prevented by death, they had not gained the consummation of grace. But they who still abide in life, should be baptized with the baptism of the Church, that they may obtain remission of sins, lest by the presumption of others they remain in their old error, and die without the completion of grace.”
St. Firmilian does not share St. Dionysius’ hesitation, but rather sees akriveia, the reception of baptism, as not necessarily obstructed nor precluded by the reception of other mysteries, chronologically and canonically anterior. Undoubtedly, he, too, sees the working out of each believer’s salvation as a process of spiritual maturation and fulfilment. This is what is meant by “they had not gained the consummation of grace” and “[they] die without the completion of grace.” However, the difference is twofold. First, wholeness, perfection is given and the struggle is to retain and increase it eternally. Secondly, since the acquisition of the grace of God in baptism is an immutable and essential part of this spiritual growth, such that even the reception of the Eucharist and the passage of time in the Church does not relegate or extenuate it.
And, yet, St. Firmilian is not therefore in any way less sensitive to the mercy of God and His providence for man. He, too, in remaining intent on akriveia, is invoking the oikonomia of God insomuch as the chronological and proper order of the mysteries must be set aside in order to achieve the spiritual ordering of the believer. This, too, is possible, for God is not subordinate to His laws, nor the Church to the Mysteries, but when the order of salvation calls for it, the order of the mysteries is suspended, lest by the error of others they die without the fullness of Christ.
There are many today who have lived and experienced the spiritual consequences, first of chrismation and then of baptism and can attest to the truth that when there is no basis for chrismation and it is applied in the name of oikonomia the result is not fulfillment and healing, whereas after their baptism the “consummation” spoken of by St. Firmilian 1800 years ago comes about.
So, the practice of the monks on Athos has roots reaching back to before Augustine and his innovative ecclesiology, and certainly long before the “common baptism” theories of Vatican II, which unhappily many Orthodox (including many hierarchs and clergy) have adopted and thereby fallen away from the Orthodox teaching on the Church.
In Christ Jesus,
Joseph Hostetler
I understand very VERY well what you wrote and what you are pushing as I have seen it my entire life. Not even the Monks of Mt. Athos would condone your unflinching devoting to your “Cult” of Monastery.
I have seen and been with Monks from Greece, to Jerusalem, to Plesant Prairie, Wisconsin, and I love what they bring to Orthodoxy, but I do NOT love and never have loved the “Worship” of monks that you and others have as it destroys and divides churches and is not healthy for Orthodoxy here in America.
Let me ask you do you agree with the open rebellion of the Esphigmenou Monastery on Mt. Athos? I am a vocal critic of Ecumenism, but our Church has never committed heresy in this regard. Do you think it right for the Esphigmenou Monastery to openly rebel against its Bishop and Primate the Ecumenical Patriarch and call him a Heretic? If your answer is Yes, then we have nothing more to discuss and I will know everything I need to know.
Over 30 years in open rebellion because the EP dared to talk to Catholics and attempt to heal the schism between our two Churches and the Esphigmenou Monastery took it all on themselves to say this was wrong? This was one of many salvos it and the HOCNA engaged in in causing a schism in the Greek Orthodox Church that exists to this day. So were they the Defenders of Orthodoxy or pridful and egotistical schismatics that brought unnecessary misery to Orthodoxy in Greece and here in America.
The Ephramite Monasteries are filled with supporters of the Esphigmenou Monastery
singing their praises and constantly holding up St. Mark of Ephesus as their “role” model.
For all the love I have for the Ephramite Monasteries, and and I do love them, this strain of fundamentalism needs to be rooted out, which the Greek Bishops are currently doing even with Father Epherim’s threat of taking his monasteries out of the GOA where is he going to go? He leaves the GOA and the money dries up.
Fundamentalist do not have enough money to support all sixteen monasteries. Neither do Mondernists for that matter. So he and his monasteries will stay in the GOA and hopefully a balance will be struck. If not the Bishops and Metropolitans will take action as they have done in the past by locking people out from Church, suspending Church services, etc., because, in the end, its the CHURCH that rules NOT the Monasteries and obedience to one’s Bishop will be maintained as long as the Bishop is Orthodox.
Peter
I only speak for myself and make no claim to have authority to speak for the Antiochian Archdiocese.
My only argument is that when dealing with doctrinal issues, we must follow the practice of the Church, not what we think that practice should be. The reception of converts is a canonical and doctrinal issue. No one can change the doctrine of the Church no matter how logical and well reasoned their arguments may be. It does not take much study to discover that the Church has allowed the reception of converts by Chrismation or Baptism for centuries, depending on the instructions that a Priest receives from his Bishop, who must follow the instructions that he received from his Primate and the Holy Synod under which he serves. It is un-Orthodox to declare the teaching of the Church for centuries wrong.
George,
I am saddened greatly that even those who struggle to hold up the traditions of the Church have become so confused as to this very important issue.
1. St. Augustine himself created a “whole new idea” (see Willis’ classic study of Augustine’s theology of the Church) of the Church and departed from the previous patristic consensus as expressed by Ss. Ignatius. Cyprian, Firmilian of Aisa Minor, Dionysios of Alexandria, Athanasius the Great, and even his contemporaries, St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil and St. Gregory the Theologian. His peculiar teaching on the mysteries and the Church are not expressive of the patristic consensus or is his approach to reconciling the heretics of North Africa the practice of the Orthodox Church. He ended up recognizing and accepting not only baptism, but all the mysteries of the heretics – something that even the Pope of Rome refused to do (while Orthodox).
2. “Rebaptism” is not Orthodox and the Church has never spoke of rebaptizing, but baptizing those coming to her. The Church has never recognized PER SE any mysteries outside Her (even St. Augustine refused to this as it pertains their “efficacy” (but not their “validity”). Whether the Church receives heterodox/heretics by one or another method (baptism or by oikonomia (if there are ground for it)), it never recognizes their baptism per se, as existing in and of itself apart from the Church.
3. There is a heresy, however, today can be and often is expressed by the reception of heterodox/heretics by chrismation – when that acceptance is explained as a per se recognition of their baptism: the heresy of ecumenism. This is an ecclesiological heresy which denies our confession of faith IN the Church of Christ as “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.” This heresy is not expressed by all who participate in ecumenical dialogue nor is it to be identified with ecumenical dialogue, per se. However, many who are zealots of such dialogue also hold this heretical view of the Church, namely, that it is not one, holy, catholic and apostolic – and Orthodox; that the Church is not the Orthodox Church alone, but includes heterodox confessions.
So, George, dear brother, you who struggle for Orthodoxy with such zeal: please know that your statement is far from the truth and you need to look into the matter further. For starters try reading the wonderful treatise of the new Hieromarty and Saint, Hilarion Troitsky: On the Unity of the Church.
Sincerely in Christ Jesus,
Joseph Hostetler
Joseph,
The implication that reception of heretics by chrismation is always an act of economia is inaccurate. Rather, in certain cases, it is holding to the letter of the canons of the Holy Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils, which call for such reception in certain specific circumstances.
Joseph:
With all due respect you are not a bishop and whatever a Bishop says in regards to receiving converts into the Church goes. Bishops uphold tradition. Neither I or you are qualified to says what the Church’s tradition is except for Father John Morris, a priest, which again, neither you or I are a priest so what we say on this subject, if its not the teachings of the Bishops, amounts to nothing.
The Church sets the practice and corrective Baptism for a convert that has been received into the Church via Chrismation and recognized as such by the Bishop and/or Metropolitan, is IMPROPER.
The Fundamentalists want it their way and NOT the Church’s way for Corrective Baptism.
The Modernists want it their way and NOT the Church’s way for Homosexuality and Transgenderism.
Why is it so difficult to just Follow Christ and His Holy Gospel. This is the Church guys NOT Burger King. You cannot have it your way.
Peter
How many times to I have to write that the reception of a convert who was Baptized outside of the Church with water, “In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” by Chrismation is not the recognition of Baptism administered by heretics. It is economy through which Chrismation perfects what was imperfect in the non-Orthodox Baptism.
I respect the Holy Fathers, but the canons of the Ecumenical Councils establish the official practice of the Church. The canons allow for the reception of those Baptized by heretics through Chrismation. See Canon 95 of the Council in Trullo which allows the reception of converts by Chrismation. There a reference above to the monks of Esphigmenou Monastery who take St. Mark of Ephesus as their “role model.” St. Mark argued that Roman Catholics should enter the Church through Chrismation, a decision that was ratified by the Pan-Orthodox Council of Constantinople in 1484. The Council of Jerusalem-Bethlehem of 1672 decreed that Protestants should be received by Chrismation. The Council ratified the Confession of Dositheus, which is considered one of the Symbolic Books of the Orthodox Church. The Confession states, “For heretics who renounce their heresy and join the Catholic Church are received by the Church; although they received their valid Baptism with weakness of faith. Wherefore, when they afterwards become possessed of the perfect faith, they are not again baptized.”
No matter how rational or justified the argument if it advocates a departure from the historical practice of the Church, a faithful Orthodox Christian must reject it. In this case all sorts of logical arguments can be made that converts can only be received by Baptism. However, the actual practice of the Church is what matters, and like it or not the Church has allowed for the reception of converts from Roman Catholicism and Protestantism through economy by Chrismation for centuries. Therefore as faithful Orthodox Christians we must accept the reception of converts through economy by Chrismation even if they personally favor strictness, which requires all converts to enter through Baptism and is also a valid application of Orthodox canon law.
This whole argument is a red herring. No one who has studied the issue disagrees that through economy a convert can be received by Chrismation. Every canonical Orthodox jurisdiction in the United States allows for the reception of converts by Chrismation including ROCOR.
After 1755 Constantinople recognized as Orthodox those converts received in Russia by Chrismation. Even Metallinos who favors strictness and the Baptism of all converts recognized that the canon law and Tradition of the Church allows for the reception of a convert through economy by Chrismation.
To summarize, the Church allows both economy and strictness. Regardless of how a convert is received, once they are received they are Orthodox. There is no place in the historical practice of the Church for so-called corrective Baptism.
Correction that should have read IS PROPER. Sorry for the confusion.
To Joseph Hostetler Above:
I have actually represented the Orthodox Church in ecumenical meetings. I was part of the Orthodox delegation to the meeting that organized the new ecumenical organization Christian Churches Together. I also participated in the North American Orthodox Lutheran Dialogue. and have been involved in state council of churches and one rather disturbing meeting of a committee of the National Council of Churches. I seconded the successful motion that led to the Antiochian withdrawal from the National Council of Churches.
The accusations of the self-proclaimed defenders of Orthodoxy against the what they call the heresy of ecumenism are not true. During every meeting and dialogue which I have attended, I have never once seen any Orthodox representative compromise the Orthodox Faith.
I suggest that you take the time to actually read the documents issued by Orthodox involved in ecumenism. If you did you would find that in every encounter with non-Orthodox, the Orthodox representatives have upheld the following principles
1. The Orthodox Church is the living realization of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
2. Unity among Christians must be through a mutual acceptance of the Faith of the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils which has been preserved through the centuries by the Orthodox Church.
3. The Orthodox Church will not compromise its beliefs for union with any other Christian group.
4. There is no place in Orthodoxy for the Protestant practice of intercommunion, that is sharing communion by Christian groups who have not achieved complete agreement on all matters of belief and practice. Instead, Communion is only possible with Orthodoxy after complete agreement has been achieved on the basis of compete doctrinal agreement which must be acceptance of the Faith of the ancient Church of the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils as preserved by the Orthodox Church without compromise. In other words the other group must prove to us that they are Orthodox before we will share Communion with them.
5. Membership in an ecumenical organization does not imply that the Orthodox Church recognizes the other groups as Churches in the full meaning of the word Church. (The Toronto Principle)
6. The Orthodox Church rejects the so called Branch Theory of the Church which holds that the Church is divided into different branches that do not share a common Faith.
7. That the Church is not divided, but is instead united as the Orthodox Church which alone is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
These are the principles of Orthodox ecumenism. Unfortunately, some Zealots attribute a Protestant understanding of ecumenism to the Orthodox involved in relations with other Christian groups. As understood by Protestants ecumenism is an heresy. However, as understood by Orthodox ecumenism is not an heresy. It is slander to attribute a Protestant understanding to the Orthodox representatives in ecumenical relations. Some people spread all sorts of false accusations about Orthodox ecumenism on the internet and in their publications. Because I have been there and have represented the Orthodox Church in ecumenical meetings, I know that these accusations are not true.
Seraphim,
That is false. I am good friends with an Athonite monk who was received by chrismation and never rebaptized. The monasteries on the Holy Mountain are diverse — to speak of “universal practice,” is, in most cases, a misnomer.
If Archbishop Demetri was right to suspend this Priest, was then-Metropolitan Jonah right to suspend the OCA suspension?
Ioann,
You seem not to understand the canonical issue here on two main points:
1) You seem to think that those who are saying that the practice of “corrective baptism” is wrong are also saying that it is wrong to receive converts by baptism. Do you understand the difference between saying “Converts who have already been received by chrismation should not then be rebaptized?” and saying “Converts should never be received by baptism?”
2) Do you understand that an unbaptized person can never receive true ordination? Do you understand, then, that if that priest considered himself to be unbaptized, then it is inconsistent from someone else to “recognize his priesthood”?
After some further research, I do not believe that it is true that the monks at Mt. Athos routinely practice so called corrective Baptism. I know several Priests who have been there and they were given Communion although they were received by Chrismation. I was given Communion as a Priest at one of the Elder Ephraim’s monasteries. Because the monks knew that I am a canonical Orthodox Priest, the monks did not question me on how I was received into the Church.
Nice try. Fr. J. Allen’s wife did indeed die. He was allowed to remarry a woman who he had been counseling – and who divorced her husband who was also being counseled. This is a horse of a different color.
oliver douglas says (October 14, 2012 at 6:13 pm):
Nice try. Fr. J. Allen’s wife did indeed die. He was allowed to remarry a woman who he had been counseling – and who divorced her husband who was also being counseled. This is a horse of a different color.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That’s a seriously deficient reduction of the problem.
Still, the fact remains that Met. Philip had the authority to allow a widowed priest to remarry. All bishops have that authority, but they must use it with utmost discretion. That’s not what happened in this situation.
It’s just that — in this case — MetP used his legitimate authority in such a way as to scandalize most of the faithful here in New Jersey, and seriously undermined his own credibility.
Lord Jesus Christ, our God, please help our bshops to use their authoriity properly, so as to ‘correctly measure out the word of Your truth’.
“[S]eriously deficient reduction of the problem”?????
No-just the facts.
And facts are stubborn things.
The JAllen Case seems to continue to surface and just won’t go away. The truth is that JAllen was always considered by Met. P as his adopted son. When JAllen’s wife was dying of cancer, her nurse was JAllen’s current wife. He counselled her in confession and maneuvered her away from her husband. He claimed that Joan (1st wife) consented to the relationship. Bottom line, JAllen should have stepped down from the priesthood, but he insisted Met. P told him, “NO!” Basically, it stunk then and it stinks now. When the bishop is your good buddy, you can do no wrong.
For once,I agree with you!
He was counseling both the husband and wife who were having issues in their marriage. He ended up marrying the woman. It caused the parish confusion, doubt and many left. Several priests were suspended because they refused to support Met. Philips decision in allowing this priest to remarry and in such a situation. I was at seminary when this happened. It was horrible.
Judge not lest you be judged. I do not know the details because it is really none of my business. It is a private matter between the Metropolitan and Fr. Joseph Allen. It is none of your business. It is not my place to judge my Bishop for a pastoral decision. If he made a mistake, I cannot criticize him because I and every other Priest has made made mistakes when dealing with pastoral matters. Besides why is anyone bringing up that old issue. The Church has enough contemporary problems to resolve without dragging up something that happened years ago.
“None of my business?” “Private matter?” You’ve got to be kidding. There is a world of difference between showing mercy and compassion to a priest whose wife has died and who may be left with a bunch of little kids to raise and a priest (yes, whose wife has died) taking a shine to a married woman who came to him for counseling with her husband. And, as a earlier commenter noted, it caused a scandal because it was so public, so blatant and so wrong. And so obviously a special treat for one of the chosen ones. You do not hesitate to speak about other “private matters” but I guess this strikes too close to home. What a great concept though-everything a bishop does can be justified under the guise of “pastoral decision.” Hooray-guess BIshop Matthias is off the hook as long as the synod makes “pastoral decision.”
The Joe Allen affair is a private matter between him and his Bishop. Too much of the discussion of this matter falls under the category of gossip. Gossip is a sin.
I spoke with several of our seminarians during the conflict. The way that they were treated by some of their fellow seminarians and, I am sorry to say, some professors is the real scandal. It was wrong to persecute Antiochian seminarians over a matter over which they have no control or influence.
Private? Not very private when it occurs out in the open. Gossip may be sin, but an honest review of facts (n.b. uncontroverted facts) is not sin. Dropping a little comment in that has been written almost a month subsequent to the one being answered does nothing to change the record. This should not have happened.
To say it was horrible was an observation, not a judgement.
Sorry Fr. John, that’s just a plain old cop-out. It sounds as if you had your hands tied because of affiliation with said hierarch. That’s fine, reserve your own judgement, but please don’t tell other who were scandalized to unscandalized themselves as though they had no right to judge the high-handed action of YOUR hierarch.
It is not a cop out. It is not my place to judge the pastoral decisions of another Priest, much less my Bishop. There has been so much gossip about this whole matter, that I do not know exactly what happened, what Fr. Joseph told the Metropolitan or what the Metropolitan said to him. Each of us make pastoral decisions dealing with private matters. I know that I have made mistakes in dealing with complex pastoral decisions and therefore do not feel competent to judge the pastoral decisions of other clergy. I know from my readings of the history of our Church that this is not the first time that a Bishop has given permission for a Priest to remarry after his wife had died.
OK-yes priests have been given permission to remarry. But I’ll give you $1000.00 for each priest you find who has been allowed to remarry (forget marry) a divorced woman who was a baptized Christian of any sort, let alone Orthodox, at the time of the initial marriage and divorce and who, along with her unfortunate sap of a soon-to-be-ex-husband, was being counseled by the priest who ended up as the new groom.
I would like to see the evidence that Priests before Father Joseph Allen were blessed to marry a second time and not be deposed from the Priesthood.
Isn’t it true that Father Joseph befpre marrying another man’s wife, was giving them both ‘Marriage Counselling,” and that when he and the other man’s wife fell in love and divorce proceedings began, Father Joseph excommunicated the husband because he wouldn’t settle the amount of property and cash on her that Father Joseph and she wanted her to get?
The whole world was willing to believe a RUMOR that Metropolitan Theodosius was paying blackmail, but apparently the Antiochian authorities ignored evidence of Father Allen’s known dealings and granted him the exceptional and anticanonical marriage AFTER ordination? It’s not, after all,a question of 2nd, 3rd or 4th marriage, it’s a question of marrying AFTER ordination. This is an obnoxious trampling of the canons, not Economy of any kind.
It’s a strange time when divorce allows a priest to be a bishop, elevated above those who manage somehow to not divorce. Divorce is rewarded! I’m sure that’s in Timothy or the Gospel according to, well, who? Please give generously, bring the kids– but not the old ball and chain. Even better, leave the kids with the old ball and chain and ordain others! Up is down, white is black, church rules mean what well liked people say they mean, which may change 180 degrees using the same words if the subject is someone we don’t like. All good. Good being a word we define fas aforementioned. Google ‘situational ethics’. Or ‘Friedrich Nietzsche’ Same thing.
Your Grace:
Please do not try to put me in a position to have to argue over Fr. Joseph Allen. I do not know what is fact and what is rumor. Besides it is not my place to judge the pastoral decisions of my Bishop. There is nothing that I can do about the matter. I am a Priest not a Bishop. My duty is to obey my Bishop unless he tells me to do something that is heretical. I do not consider the Joe Allen matter an issue of doctrine, but merely an act of economy and nothing more. If my wife were to die first, I certainly have no desire to remarry. I do know that Joe Allen was not the first, nor will he be the last Orthodox Priest to be allowed to remarry after the death of their wives. I understand that after the Second World War a lot of Orthodox Priests in the Balkans remarried. I do not understand why people want to continue to argue over Joe Allen, the event took place years ago and would be forgotten if people did not continue to kick that dead horse. I also do know that there was a lot of discussion of the remarriage of Priests after the death of their wives in the preparation for the council that was called to reform the Russian Orthodox Church. Due to the chaos that followed the Bolshevik Revolution the only thing that was accomplished was the restoration of the office of Patriarch. Had the council been able to complete its work, it is highly probable that that particular rule forbidding a Priest to remarry after the death of his wife would have been changed. It actually has no doctrinal significance since laity are allowed to remarry after the death of their spouses. At the same time similar discussions were taking place within the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
If I were OCA right now, I would hesitate to criticize the actions of any non-OCA Bishop. Whatever may or may not have happened with Fr. Joseph Allen, is insignificant if even some of the accusations against OCA Bishops that I have read on this site are true. Just what has been admitted about the OCA Bishop of Chicago is a far greater scandal than the Joe Allen affair. The only body that has authority to judge the actions of Metropolitan Philip on this or any other matter is the Holy Synod of Antioch.
Fr. John, the Joseph Allen affair happened a few short years ago and it remains a problem for the proper approach to marriage within the AOA. It becomes relevant when you criticize bishops and clergy of other jurisdictions and because the laity and those who are not friends of the Metropolitan in the AOA are forced to carry heavier burdens than those who are friends.
In my small, insignificant life within the Church, I have personally been adversely effected by the two tier system on two occasisons which were quite significant to me. The system put me on the fringes when I should not have been. By the Grace of God and the tremendous pastoral ability of my priest and bishop, all worked out well, but there were bumps to overcome that should not have been there. On top of that his actions have created a dilemma for many in the AOA when it comes to giving financial support.
I respect Met. Philip and appreciate his leadership in broad terms, but when he does repose, it will be unecessarily difficult for the new Met. who follows him because of the existence of the FOP’s (Friends of Philip). Believe me when I say that to those outside the circle, Met. Philip presents as a cold, diffident, scheming, capricioius man on many occasions–forcing many into the Orthodox version of the rabbi’s prayer for the Tsar in Fiddler on the Roof: “God bless and keep Met. Philip—far away from us”. I hate that and earnestly try to pray for Met. Philip with a full heart, but it is not easy sometimes.
I am thankful that Met. Philip is our Metropolitan over any choice the OCA or the GOA (I don’t know anything about ROCOR) has to offer but that does not mean that he is or should be above criticism even by AOA priests. We owe no obedience to un-truth and we don’t have to like the bishop.
Given our fallen nature our common journey to greater union with Christ means that there will always be tensions that arise and decisions about obedience that will at times be difficult as well as both honest and dishonest mistakes. That is only to be expected. Without the loving correction of the rest of the community, how is one to recover from such mistakes and enhance our ability to choose rightly?
“Believe me when I say that to those outside the circle, Met. Philip presents as a cold, diffident, scheming, capricioius man on many occasions”
That statement is way too broad. I have been a member of the archdiocese for years and am nothing near being an “FOP,” but I have never found the metropolitan to be other than caring, fair, and genuinely interested in the well-being of his flock.
When Metropolitan Philip dies or retires the AOA will go through the same thing the GOA did with Archbishop Iakovos. Met. Philips “Firends” will call the shots and then things will go down hill from there. Just be prepared Michael, just be prepared.
Peter
Peter, I don’t think that will happen. They’ll try, but I don’t think they will suceed because I don’t think that Bp Basil is just an odd man out. He won’t be the Metropolitan but I think there will be a lot of support for who he is and what he represents.
Of course, it could run head-long back into an Arab ethnic ghetto.
Metropolitan Philip’s successor will be elected by the Holy Synod of Antioch from a list of nominations approved by the Archdiocesan Convention. No group of so called FOPs will be able to control the process. As a Priest who has dealt directly with Metropolitan Philip on many occasions during the past 33 years, I have nothing but positive things to write about him. He is decisive as an effective Orthodox Bishop should be. We do not call these men “Master” for nothing. Thank God he has been decisive and has provided our Archdiocese with such competent leadership. Remember the Orthodox Church is not a democracy. It is an hierarchical Church led by Bishops we consider successors to the Apostles. Read the Epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch to learn the proper attitude towards an Orthodox Bishop.
Let me ask Michael Bauman a question. Have you ever had a private discussion with Metropolitan Philip? I have on many occasions. I have found him to be warm, caring and a very good listener who makes a person feel that he really cares what they think. Because I am an older Priest, I come from a time before we had so many Priests and every Priest could develop a personal relationship with the Metropolitan. Today because of his vision and work, there are so many clergy in the Antiochian Archdiocese that few know him as we older Priests know him. This familiarity is not because the Metropolitan plays favorites. It is because the growth of the Archdiocese has made it difficult for him to personally know all his clergy. The Metropolitan Philip that I know is definitely not “a cold, diffident, scheming, capricious man. ” I know that my feelings are shared by my generation of Priests because we come from an era that the smaller number of Priests made it possible for us to actually know our Metropolitan.
Father, I have not met with Met. Philip personally but I know many people who have. Some of them share the same opinion of him as you do. Many others do not. I have seen him only in public settings and read many of his public statements. Unfortunately, the majority of the opinions are not in line with yours. My own observation is as I stated.
While he certainly is a man that can be charming when he wants to, I don’t buy the sincerety of the charm I have seen him display. I am sure though that he is a genuinely warm and caring person to those whom he feels are in his tribe (not limited to Arabs BTW). He is a man who protects those for whom he cares. I admire that. He also attacks those whom he feels are a threat. I understand that. It is those traits, however, that IMO also result in the impression of cold capriciousness that I am not alone in seeing.
I have repeatedly said I value much that he has done and am genuinely thankful that he is the Met. of the AOA. A good many of my friends who do know Met. Philip better than I find my suppport surprising.
Met. Philip is a better leader and a better bishop than most of the men I have knowledge of in either the OCA or the GOA. That being said, he also has major flaws, We may be worse off when Met. Philip decides to repose due to those flaws as has been suggested though I don’t think so. Still, I can recognize his flaws and still appreciate all the positives he has achieved.
I don’t like the man. I will do my best to give him obedience, but he does not make it easy. You like him. That is a good thing. What I don’t quite understand is why you feel it is necessary to try to convince me that I should like him as well as honor him?
To Michael Bauman below:
I do not care if you like Metropolitan Philip, but I do care if you publicly attack him as you did. How can you judge a man you have never actually met? I am not alone my whole generation of Priests feel the same way about the Metropolitan as I do. He has been my spiritual father for 34 years. Just as I would expect my son to defend me against an unfair attack, I defend my spiritual father. I remember what the Archdiocese was like 30 years ago and know all the progress that has been made under Metropolitan Philip.
Fr. John, precisely why the AA needs to uphold the canoncial principal of ruling bishops. How can His Emminence make wise decisions if he doesn’t even know all ya’ll?
Met. Philip is a good man. The issue is, for better or worse, his model of “bishop” emulates a “beneficent dictator.” He believes in maintaining his absolute power over his archdiocese. He also believes in doing good. Yet, anyone who comes under his authority had better not oppose him or question his authority. Any of those priests or deacons who questioned him about JAllen have been cast to the wind. It is not unusual for a seasoned priest under him to receive a letter saying, “Thank you for your service. Your service is no longer required. Please vacate the church and rectory within 2 weeks. In Christ…” Oh and don’t ask how the retirement plan works; there isn’t one. If he likes you, arbitrarily he will assign you X dollars when you retire (his discretion). If he doesn’t like you, TS.
The Antiochian Archdiocese is not the only Orthodox jurisdiction with auxiliary Bishops or Bishops with titular sees. Almost every Orthodox Church in the world has them. Bishop Demetrios of the Greek Metropolis of Chicago is an auxiliary Bishop to Metropolitan Iakovos. Was not Metropolitan Jonah originally an auxiliary to Archbishop Demetri of Dallas? Besides nothing has really changed in the day to day operation of the Archdiocese. I still relate to Bishop Antoun as my Bishop. Even before the title change to auxiliary, the local Bishops were not really ruling Bishops. The ruling Bishop over a parish is the Bishop whose signature is on the antimision. Metropolitan Philip’s signature has always been on the antimisia used in the Antiochian Archdiocese. We have always gotten our Chrism from him. We have always registered Baptisms, Weddings, and Funerals with his office. We have always sent the papers concerning divorce to him. Even before the title change, all transfers required his approval.
Why all the attacks on Metropolitan Philip? In my 32 years as an Antiochian Priest, I know of no case of a priest who was suspended without good reason. Like many other American churches, the Archdiocese is moving away from the old fashioned rectory owned by the parish. Instead, the Archdiocese is now encouraging every parish to provide their Priest with a housing allowance so that he can own his own home as I do. In all my dealing with Metropolitan PHILIP, I have always been treated fairly even when I made mistakes in dealing with various situations. Yes, the Metropolitan expects obedience from his Priests. Do not OCA and Greek Bishops also expect obedience from their Priests? We do not call the Bishop “Despota, or Master” for nothing. What do you think “Vladika” means? The Orthodox Church is not an American style democracy.
The old retirement system was set up as an housing allowance so that those receiving it would not have to pay taxes on this income. However, the recession and economic decline has made this system unsustainable. For this reason the Archdiocese is moving towards a vested retirement plan that will be owned by the Priest himself.
Archpriest John Morris:
1. An Orthodox man and his wife who are at odds come to their parish priest for marriage counselling. That parish priest is Fr. Joseph Allen, a widowed Priest, who at the same time was teaching Pastoral (sic) Theology at Saint Vladimir’s Seminary. Right?
2. The Orthodox man and his wife go get a divorce.
3. The parish priest, a widower, proposes to the wife.
4. The parish priest excommunicates the husband for not letting his wife have the house.
5. Their bishop blesses the marriage of the parish priest to his parishioner who had come to him for marriage counselling.
I believe these are facts.
Economy is God’s household management of His Creation. In the Church, on the assumption that God wants all to be saved WILLINGLY, God’s Economy is emulated in any action undertaken by the Hierarchy, even the violation of a Canon promulgated at a Council inspired by the Holy Spirit, WHEN the Hierarchs believe that observance of the Canon will lead to perdition for a person subject to it.
In the given case, you feel that your bishop determined that the salvation of the divorced wife was not to be found in reconciliation with her former husband, but in a new marriage; that the salvation of the husband was not to be found in reconciliation with his wife, but in the state of divorce; and that the salvation of the widowed parish priest depended on his marrying the woman who came to him for marriage counselling, after which she divorced her husband.
This is of only historical and anthropological interest to me. I find it deeply disturbing to contemplate, but my decision is not involved nor is my conscience. I do take the opportunity to thank God that I’m in a Church originally part of the Church of Russia. Historically the
Russian Church did not leave widowed Priests in a parish, but removed them from it for the sake of the widowed priests’ salvation. Very often, especially in the case of a widowed Priest with children, the Priest was sent to a monastery, while the children were to be adopted or placed in an orphanage. Sometimes such a Priest was appointed to another administrative post in the Church (if he were qualified for it), such as school teacher, seminary professor, diocesan secretary or the like. In modern terms, they did not leave a bereaved loose cannon of a priest in the midst of extraordinary temptation.
Neither am I one to criticize a hierarch for not exercising “tough love” towards any of his presbyters: it’s just flat not my business, except when scandal arising from it bears on the teaching of the Church which I am bound to uphold when it is bruited.
Your Grace:
Don’t you think that you are being extremely unfair to attack me over a matter which has nothing to do with me? I had nothing to do with the decision that Metropolitan Philip made over Fr. Joseph Allen. Why blame me? I am only a Priest. I do not know all the details of the matter or what is truth and what is pure gossip. As a Priest, I am obedient to my Bishop and accept his authority to make decisions on the application of economy. I do not think that it my place to question the pastoral decisions of my Bishop. Before your retirement did you not expect your clergy to accept decisions that only you as the Bishop of the Diocese could make? I love and respect Metropolitan Philip and feel that almost all of the criticism of him is unjustified and that the criticism of him from outside of the Antiochian Archdiocese is the merely the fruit of jealousy because the Antiochian Archdiocese is flourishing under his leadership. As his Priest, I owe Metropolitan Philip my support, loyalty and obedience. If I had been under your omophorion, I would have owed you the same support, loyalty and obedience.
“I am only a Priest. I do not know all the details of the matter or what is truth and what is pure gossip.”
When has that ever stopped you? Your defamation of Fr. Nathan Monk and oblique swipe at Bp. Jerome of the ROCOR being but the most recent examples.
Yes, yes, we know; There is no jurisdiction but Damascus….er, Antioch and Philip is its Prophet…er, Metropolitan.
To Heracleides
O come now. I have never made the claim that there is no Orthodox jurisdiction but Damascus or that Metropolitan Philip is a prophet. I have simply defended the Antiochian Archdiocese against what I consider some rather unfair criticisms.
I happen to know about the situation in Pensacola because I was at a Deanery meeting two weeks ago during which our priest in Pensacola made a report on the matter. I know about the other case in Starkeville, because it is also in our Deanery and the priest in question has approached people in our Antiochian mission in Tupelo and students from my parish at Mississippi State U. I cannot remember his name, but I once met the man at Starkeville. He was told by our Bishops that divorce and remarriage is a canonical impediment to ordination. He got into by the back door through the Milan Synod, which like other Old Calndarist groups demands literal application of the canons to the Canonical Orthodox Church, but finds plenty of room for economy when it wants to bend or ignore the canons of the Church.
We have had far too much of this sort of thing. A priest gets into trouble and jumps jurisdictions.
A man seeks ordination from an Orthodox Bishop and is refused because there is a canonical impediment, so he shops around to find a Bishop and conveniently does not tell him of the canonical impediment or why the other Bishop would not ordain him or if the Bishop learns of the refusal of the other Bishop he disregards the judgement of the Bishop who refused to ordain the man or finds a way to get around the canonical impediment. Such practices are not good for the Church. The canons give us uniform standards to prevent this sort of thing.
Here in Mississippi, the Orthodox clergy cooperate with each other to prevent people from shopping around for a priest who will do what they want. If a person comes to me for Confession or wants to join my parish because they have had a disagreement with their pastor, I require that they receive the blessing of their pastor for me to hear their confession or join my parish. Usually, we require a formal letter from their pastor before we hear their Confession or allow them to join our parishes. This working agreement includes Antiochian, OCA and Greek Priests. Bishops should have the same sort of working agreement among themselves.
Despite Father Morris’s statements, I’ve never attacked him, so I don’t know why he wrote this bizarre sentence: “Don’t you think that you are being extremely unfair to attack me over a matter which has nothing to do with me?” Well, that is what’s known as a double or complex question in traditional logic. It seems to me that Father Morris may perceive any stated opposition to his utterances as attacks against HIM, rather than disagreement with his opinions. I replied to FAther Morris’s comments re: the Affair Joseph Allen. He perceives this as an attack. And not only on him personally, but once again as some kind of campaign against his “side”, namely, the American Archdiocese of the Antiochian Church.
I’m sorry that Father Morris can think of nothing more positive to say about that ancient Church than that is is not as bad as this or that non-Antiochian instance. He mounts defense after defense where there as been no attack. I NOW direct these remarks for the first time at Father Morris, because there’s no more reason for me to be posting here now that the question of the Metrropolitan See has been settled. I pray His Beatitude, Most Blessed Tikhon will lead the Holy Synod on a level path and do what Metropolitan Jonah told us he could not do.
i DO want to thank, George, whoever it was that provided that link to the video of Father Perich at Liturgy…I only sent it one Bishop, but I now get the idea it’s being played all over the world before the sometimes unbelieving and stupefied eyes of Orthodox hierarchs everywhere, who, like me, had never ever seen anything like it!
I cannot think of anything more cruel than taking children from their father after their mother has died and sticking them into an orphanage. It would be more Christian to let the father remarry and remain in the priesthood than to take his children from him and stick him into a monastery. If my wife had died while my children were young, no power on earth could have separated them from me. Priests have to make many sacrifices, but that kind of sacrifice is too much to ask of any loving father.
Your Grace:
As I read your comments below denying that you have attacked me, my first response was astonishment. Then after some though, I began to realize that you may not understand how offensive some of your comments have been. You may be an Orthodox Bishop, but that does not mean that you do not need to be sensitive to the feelings of others and that you do not need to be careful to avoid offending others. You have taken statements that I have made out of context, made far too much of the fact that I sometimes use different liturgical terms than the Russian tradition. Most of all you have criticized Bishop Antoun, Archbishop Joseph and Metropolitan Philip. You have attacked the way that we received the Evangelicals into Orthodoxy. You have dug up the old forgotten Joe Allen matter and written in a way as if you held me personally responsible. You made a big deal about how we do the Great Entrance and wrote about our liturgical practices in a sarcastic and highly offensive manner. Then you bring your personal political beliefs into the discussion and react with shock that others do not share your adulation of Obama.
I have expressed shock and unbelief about all the scandals in the OCA mentioned on this site, but always tried to do so in a respectful and non offensive way. However, it is rather difficult not be horrified at the accusation that the OCA had an actively gay metropolitan for decades and did nothing about it not to mention a bishop who makes unacceptable advances on a young girl, a bishop who has a serious drinking problem and a hard drive filled with pornography, and has a national cathedral dominated by pro-gay clergy. I do not want to believe that these things are true, but if they are the OCA needs to clean up its act and get rid of bishops and clergy who do not uphold the moral teachings of the Orthodox Church. You cannot divert attention away from these problems by attacking the Antiochians.
I support Orthodox unity in America, but realize that it will never happen until we learn to respect each other and recognize other practices as equally Orthodox as their own practices. Orthodox unity in America will become a fact on the basis of mutual respect and agreement. It will not take place by one group absorbing and bringing the others into submission.
According to the canons, a man married to a divorced woman cannot be ordained a priest.
Yet it happens. I know a number of them.
I know of at least one divorced and remarried Priest in the Greek Archdiocese. I was also told by a Greek Bishop that he knew of a Priest who was divorced and remarried and was allowed to remain a Priest in the OCA. Many men have been ordained to the Priesthood who were below the canonical age, which I believe is 30. The non-dogmatic canons are guidelines. Like it or not a Bishop has a great deal of flexibility on how he applies the non-dogmatic canons to his diocese. The kind of legalistic conformity to the letter of the canons does not exist in the Orthodox Church except when dealing with doctrinal matters.
There is some argument as to what the correct age of ordination actually is. 30 was the older (and in my opinion wiser) standard. However, the “New Calendar Synod” called by Ecumenical Patriarch Meletios Metaxakis changed it to 25 when they introduced the New Calendar. For numerous reasons, not all Orthodox Churches consider this synod to be ecumenical. Hence some differences in some matters of discipline. Hence why we need a TRUE ecumenical council, to fix some of the problems brought on by multiple disciplines and also to attempt to heal some schisms (the situation with the “Macedonian” Orthodox Church, Ukranian Orthodox Church(es) (not affiliated w/ Moscow) and also the recent schism between the Jerusalem Patriarchate and the Romanian Partiarchate come to mind.)
Not only the Canons but also the Scriptures. However, the fundamental problem seems to be the lack of a hierarchy in the authoritative sources. If we ask ourselves the question; what is the most authoritative source document, the usual answer is “we rely on the Holy Tradition,” not a particular document, such as the New Testament, the Holy Bible, the Ecumenical Councils, etc… I seem to recall that initially the Fathers appealed to the authority of the Scriptures, the writings of the Earliest Fathers and the earliest praxis. As time passed by and we got entangled with the Empire, it seems to me that the Holy Canons’ significance arose–after all, they were the decrees of the catholic church and the Empire. I see that over time the Church could make changes to praxis for practical, worldly reasons, such as Council of Trullo’s separation of man and wife in the case of bishops–an action that was against both the Apostolic Canons and Scripture. So, we had arrived at the age of evolving practice and beliefs–a very Roman Catholic approach that was summarized by Cardinal Newman view concerning the progression of early Christianity, to the effect that “the Christianity that originated with Jesus and His Apostles was merely the starting point of a series of theoligical developments that continued to evolve over the centuries.” (The Heresy of Orthodoxy by Andreas Kostenberger and Michael Kruger, page 53). It seems to me that this is a normal development for a belief system that has no source document hierarchy: We are where we are because we were led by the Holy Spirit, a circular argument that is also used by the most conservative Orthodox jurisdictions today, wherein Holy Tradition is everything that we believe and practice. It does not matter if what they inherited was influenced by the Roman Catholics or Lutherans, and any attempt to distinguish between Tradition and pious belief and practice is an innovation.
The authors of the above cited book accept the approach formulated by the current dean of SVOTS, Fr. John Behr; “the theology that emanated from the New Testament, continued through the church fathers, was guarded by the Apologists (AD 120-220), and solidifed in the ecumenical church councils represents a continuous uninterrupted stream. The theology espoused by the orthodox clarified, elucidated, and expounded the theology of the New Testament without deviating from it, and the creeds accurately represent the essence of the apostolic faith” (pages 53-55 above cited book).
I may have interjected my own views into the above analysis, but I do think that there is some truth to my contention that we have a division in how we interpret Holy Tradition. On the one hand, we have the Paris School that started with the goal of purging Russian Orthodoxy of Roman Catholic influences and ended up with distinguishing between true Tradition and mere pious customs and beliefs. The changes that were brought about by the Paris School are not trivial and have changed many venerable practices, such as infrequent communion and the Roman Catholic-like separation of the laos into clergy and laity. In effect, the Paris School did operate under the presumption that there is a hierarchy of source documents, with the New Testament being at the top.
I am bringing this up to point out that the Paris School was and is alive in the OCA, in her premier seminary–SVOTS. It is important not to extinguish this beacon of Orthodoxy by cutting short her autocephaly. It may be that a future administratively united and autocephalous church will preserve this treasure of Orthodoxy. However, I do not think that going under ROCOR/ROC will do that for, as pious as ROCOR clergy and laity are, they are one of a handful of jurisdictions that insist on no changes whatsoever.
Sorry,but my wife died and I can’t remarry.The rules are the rules are the rules are the rules.If I don’t follow them,I have no business trying to teach the faithful to obey the teachings of the church.
When my dad died not having recieved Confession and Communion,since he left Ukraine 60 years earlier,I didn’t bury him.He insisted on being cremated and I wasn’t about to make an exception just because he was my dad.Likewise,I couldn’t commune my one son at his mothers funeral because he was living with his girlfriend.And if my other son ever lived with a woman without marriage and then sought to be deacon or priest,I’d veto that ,too.
Please don’t tell me it’s economia to let a priest marry twice and remain at the altar.Economia is when you give Holy Communion to a person who can’t fast for health reasons.Economia is when I work a secular job because my parish can afford neither a full time salary nor health insurance.
Dear Father Andrei–No disagreements from me. Kissing your right hand.
The unfortunate thing, Fr. Alexiev, is the ever-increasing scarcity of Christians who recognize the love inherent in such firm resolve. How easily we consign those we say we love to perdition in the hope of making them feel good about themselves when it is precisely love to call them to repentance. What those who lack this resolve fail to understand is that such things are not done with disdain but with tears.
Right on Father! Thank you for simple adherence to clear principle without maunderings. Oftentimes a priest has to do things that the ignorant will call ‘mean’ or ‘uncharitable’. But when he does them out of love, because to him a sacrament IS a sacrament and not a shibboleth, he does so with a clean conscience.
I don’t enjoy having to discuss these things here.I didn’t enjoy having to turn ANYONE away from the sacrements.But we are not Protestants,changing everything to accomodate peoples whim.
On the other hand,we are not Papists,either,and with all due respect to his rank,Metropolitan Philip is neither a pope nor a Tsar.The concept that “the bishop IS Canon Law” is Papist BS.As I’ve said elsewhere on this blog,if I wanted to be a Papist,I would join the existing Ukrainian Catholic Church.I could go directly to Rome through the Uniate Church,without having to go through Damascus,Constantinople,Moscow,OR Syosset.
It’s not just that I’m singling out Metropolitan Philip by pointing out that he’s not a Tsar.Even the real Tsars were not infallible.To give just one example,the Tsar-Martyr Nicholas of Russia gave permission to the composer Rachmaninoff to marry his own first cousin.I venerate Tsar-Martyr Nicholas as a Saint,but he was still wrong in this instance.
No the Bishop is not canon law, but he does have the authority to interpret the canon law. and to decide how it is to be applied in his diocese. A Priest is under obedience to his Bishop and must follow his instructions on how to apply canon law. Orthodox canon law is a very complex subject. One cannot simply pick up a copy of the Rudder and decide how to apply canons, the last of which was written in 787, to Orthodoxy in the 21st Century. The same is true of the Typikon. It is not possible to follow all the instructions in the Typikon in a parish setting. It would be difficult to do everything called for in the Typikon in most monasteries. Thus, the Bishop is the Typikon in that he instructs his clergy how to apply the directions of the Typikon.
Economenia is whatever the Bishop says is economenia provided the dogma of the Church is not violated. There is no person more dangerous than a person who picks up the Rudder without proper training in the principles of the application of Orthodox canon law and begins to make solemn pronouncements on how we should apply canons, the last of which was written in 787, to the situation of modern Orthodoxy. We are Eastern Orthodox. By definition Eastern Orthodoxy is not legalistic. I do not question the pastoral decisions of another Orthodox Priest, much less a Bishop because I not only lack the authority, I also lack the proper training in the complex subject as Orthodox canon law. The applications of the canons change and are applied differently in different Orthodox traditions. What does not change is the doctrine of the Church. Different Orthodox Churches can and do apply the canons differently in administrative and disciplinary matters, especially today. In the Greek tradition an Archbishop outranks a Metropolitan. However, in the Russian and Antiochian tradition a Metropolitan outranks an Archbishop. All Russian Priests wear pectoral crosses regardless of their rank. In our tradition only an Archpriest or Archimandrite wears a pectoral cross. I understand that the Russians have different ranks signified by what kind of cross the Priest wears. We do not have that. Sometimes I wear what would be considered the simple cross worn by a newly ordained Priest in the Russian tradition. Sometimes, usually only when I am vested, I wear a jeweled cross. I may be wrong but I think that if I were OCA I would not be allowed to wear a jeweled cross with a crown on top because I am an ordinary Archpriest not what the Russsians call a Protopresbyter. I once served at St. Nicholas Cathedral in Washington. I stood in the place for the junior priest because I had the impression that the other priests outranked me because at that time I had not yet been elevated to the rank of Archpriest. However, when I put on my Epigonation, which was put on me when I was ordained as it is a symbol in our tradition that I am authorized to hear Confessions, I was suddenly pushed to the front of the line next to the senior priest.
Dear Carl,
That is a very interesting contribution to the discussion.
However, if I may, I suggest you have over-simplified the ROCOR position.
If you read the relevant sections on Sacred Scripture and Tradition in Fr Michael Pomazansky’s Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, for many years the textbook on dogmatics at the seminary in Jordanville, you will find precisely an attempt to set forth a hierarchy of source documents which have authority in the church.
In contrast, the main problem with the “Paris school”, including SVOTS to the extent that it continues this legacy, has always been that they elevated the idiosyncratic opinions of scholars or other individuals above and beyond tradition, sometimes, one thinks, to the point of heresy (although only a council can determine that). One thinks of Bulgakov’s Sophiology and the Name-Worshipping controversy, for example.
Dear Basil–I regret your gross mischaracterization of the Paris School. Far from “(elevating )the idiosyncratic opinions of scholars or other individuals above and beyond tradition,” they tried to purify Russian Orthodoxy from the corruption by Roman Catholicism that had entered therein. The route was to point to the Scriptures and Early Fathers, not to their own novel ideas. I challenge you to point out a genuine deviation from Holy Tradition that was advocated by the Paris School or adopted by various jurisdictions. Doesn’t your adoption of ROCOR practice as the standard of adherence to Holy Tradition a perfect example of substituting one way, one approach, in effect one opinion, over others? I find your views troubling; it is one problem when ROCOR does not even admit to having a corrupted Orthodoxy, it is another thing when it claims to be THE holder of the Orthodox Holy Tradition.
Well, I don’t think ROCOR would claim to be “THE holder of the Orthodox Holy Tradition”, Carl. I also wasn’t promoting the “adoption of ROCOR practice as the standard of adherence to Holy Tradition”. Each national church will likely have their own “take” on what that standard is and how it is best met in their context. I simply pointed out that your presentation of the ROCOR position was over-simplified, as I think you have in fact demonstrated again in your reply.
As for the virtue of the “Paris school” in overcoming “the Western captivity” of Russian theology, many others have also attempted to purify Russian Orthodoxy of Roman and other Western influence and not without some success and that without importing modernism -yet another, more subtle form of “Westernism” – into church life. In answer to your “challenge”, I simply re-iterate what I said about Bulgakov’s Sophiology and the Name-Worshipping heresy.
Since I sense you aren’t running off to consult Pr Pomazansky’s book, Carl, I post here the paragraph which concludes his discussion of scripture and tradition:
” During the era of the freedom and triumph of the Church in the fourth century, almost all of the tradition in general received a written form and is now preserved in the literature of the Church, which comprises a supplement to the Holy Scripture.
We find this sacred ancient Tradition
• in the most ancient record of the Church, the Canons of the Holy Apostles;
• in the Symbols of Faith of the ancient local churches;
• in the ancient Liturgies, in the rite of Baptism, and in other ancient prayers;
• in the ancient Acts of the Christian martyrs. The Acts of the martyrs did not enter into
use by the faithful until they had been examined and approved by the local bishops;
and they were read at the public gatherings of Christians under the supervision of the
leaders of the churches. In them we see the confession of the Most Holy Trinity, the
Divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ, examples of the invocation of the saints, of belief in
the conscious life of those who had reposed in Christ, and much else;
• in the ancient records of the history of the Church, especially in the book of Eusebius
Pamphilus, Bishop of Caesarea, (English translation: Eusebius: The History of the Church from Christ to Constantine, tr. by G.A. Williamson, Penguin Books, Baltimore, 1965) where there are gathered many ancient traditions of rite and dogma — in particular, there is given the canon of the sacred books of the Old and New Testaments;
• in the works of the ancient Fathers and teachers of the Church;
• and, finally, in the very spirit of the Church’s life, in the preservation of faithfulness to
all her foundations which come from the Holy Apostles.”
One should read the whole section in Fr MP’s work so as to see how he maintains the primary authority of sacred scripture too. So, as I was attempting to point out, Fr Pomazansky is perhaps not that far from Fr Behr, at least on the subject of the need for establishing a properly ordered hierarchy of written authorities in the church and what those authorities are (and that without the benefit of consulting “the Paris school”!).
I found this little gem that is a needed corrective to your assertion:
“Archimandrite Cyprian (Kern)…wrote the following words about Fr Sergii Bulgakov on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the founding of the St Serge Institute in Paris:
The whole path from the Marxist lie to Church truth, Levite traditionalism on one side and daring breadth on the other, rare philosophical sensitivity, cultivation, a zealous pastoral heart and an exceptional prayerfulness – our late Dean bore all this in himself. Fr. Sergii’s significance may perhaps be not at all in what his few disciples and his many ill-wishers want to see. All of us, his colleagues and friends, while fully defending the freedom of his daring and altogether agreeing in the formulation of precisely these problems, at the same time do not at all share his theological assertions in full. One must directly and determinedly declare in the hearing of all: the Theological Institute has never considered Fr. Sergii’s conjectures to be its official theology. Fr. Sergii was unable to establish any school of his own here. Moreover: he did not leave behind a single disciple among his former students, or now among the teachers. There is no “Paris theology”! This expression rings intolerably false and provincial to the genuine Church ear and to theological taste. It could exist only in the imagination of those suspicious of all obscurantism.”
http://ishmaelite.blogspot.com/2008/04/paris-school-myth-or-reality.html
Without taking sides here, may I ask: When you all say “Paris School,” whom or what do you have in mind?
Bulgakov? his theology was indeed condemned for concerns similar to those Basil notes re: the “Paris school.” It’s true he did indeed judge and appropriate the tradition by turns according to the criteria of his own sophiological theologoumena (eg see the intro chapter to his book, Lamb of God). However, his own colleagues at St-Serge, while rejecting the condemnations of his thought by ROCOR and Moscow (even Florovsky rejected them as inaccurate, and a political attempt to discredit St-Serge), also thought he needed to clarify certain questionable points, and he was specifically asked not to teach his sophiology after the theological commission was convened regarding his theology in ’35 (he ignored this request, which would have been nearly impossible anyway, as sophiology structured his entire dogmatic system). Yet Bulgakov’s sophiology hardly outlived his death in any even ostensibly Orthodox circles, even at St-Serge (with a couple exceptions — Evdokimov and K. Andronikoff), and it was certainly never promoted St Vladimir’s Seminary (Schmemann described as being almost another religion — see the comments in his journals), nor is it promoted there now by any of the professors presently teaching.
Berdyaev? Here Basil’s criticisms apply thoroughly. But Berdyaev never pretended to be an Orthodox theologian, nor did he teach at St Serge. And it would be a grave mistake to suggest that his thought was ever promoted at SVS — apart maybe from Schmemann’s publication of an essay of his in his volume of Russian religious philosophy.
Zenkovsky? he was a sophiologist of sorts too, and might fit some aspects of Basil’s criticisms, but who actually reads him besides Russian scholars interested in emigre intellectual culture? Apart from one overview of Russian philosophy, none of his works are translated. He has certainly never been a significant influence at SVS.
Florovsky? crucial aspects of his work certainly fit perfectly Carl’s description of the “Paris School”: “to purify Russian Orthodoxy from the corruption by Roman Catholicism that had entered therein. The route was to point to the Scriptures and Early Fathers, not to their own novel ideas.” However, Florovsky was strongly disliked –and “frozen out of the institute” — by his colleagues at St-Serge (the major exception being Bulgakov, who remained a close friend) after his signature on the “minority report” of the theological commission regarding Bulgakov’s theology, which while recommending no ecclesiastical sanction, did reserve strong criticisms for certain errors in Bulgakov’s dogmatics. Cyprian Kern disliked Florovsky so much he tried to stop him from attending faculty meetings after WWII. Florovsky’s works were ignored for decades at St-Serge (though they have certainly corrected that by now, and presently celebrate him). And his own letters from the 70’s express extreme skepticism of the theological scene in “Paris,” and criticism of the work of Nikolai Afanasiev and Paul Evdokimov. Florovsky can hardly be called representative of any “Paris School.” By temperament and principle, he refused to be a member of any “school” or party. In fact, apart from his high opinion of Meyendorff, expressed in private letters, there were few Russian emigre theologians of whom Florovsky was /not/ critical: in a letter to Basil Krivocheine, he even called Lossky, whom he admired but whose thought he criticized as insufficiently Christocentric and insufficiently ecumenical, a “sophiologist topsy-turvy (!).” While Florovsky rejected modernism of every kind and strictly adhered to patristic Tradition, he too accepted (and appealed to the Fathers for) the distinction between “Tradition” and mere “custom,” and he was quite adamant that only a theological renewal could bring about the needed ecclesial renewal — “custom and canons cannot.” And though he served under ROCOR while in Yugoslavia during WWII, he was highly critical of ROCOR in private, whose Metropolitan, Antony Khrapovitsky, he regarded as “theologically modernist” (though politically rightwing), even while Antony praised him as the most Orthodox of modern Russian theologians.
Lossky? He wrote specifically on the problem of “Tradition and Traditions.” He was an open and vociferous public opponent of Bulgakov’s sophiology. He has enjoyed a wide acceptance in diverse circles. He was certainly against erecting academic speculations above Church Tradition. But being a devoted member and supporter of the Moscow Patriarchate, he never taught at St-Serge (which belonged to the Russian Exarchate of the Ecumenical Patriarchate), and was really a member of no “school.” And his “heirs” include very “conservative” thinkers (J.-C. Larchet) as well as others who could be extremely “liberal” at points (O. Clement).
Karsavin, Afanasiev, Kern, Sophrony, Meyendorff, Schmemann . . . I could go on. My point is only this: I have been studying 20th century Russian theology closely for a decade now, and what I have learned has really made me wonder about the usefulness of this phrase: “the Paris School.” I am tempted to say: there was no such school. What there was was a “scene,” a ferment of thought, which was in fact marked by serious intellectual clashes and debates.
At most, all we can say is that there you had a group of talented Russian emigre thinkers who agreed on the need for the renewal of Orthodox thought and tradition in the modern world, and the need for serious efforts of Christian intellectual and cultural “creativity” (a concept prized equally by Bulgakov, Berdyaev and Florovsky, despite sharp disagreements between them on its foundation and path) towards that end. Beyond this, the disagreements and differences were very significant. The intellectual and ecclesiastical map of this particular patch of church history is very /complex/. So also (though less dramatically so, certainly!) is that of St Vladimir’s Seminary, which has gone through many phrases in his history, and which, while hosting a definite spectrum or vista of perspectives, with certain characteristic agreements and limitations, really cannot be called monolithic as regards the viewpoints of its professors. Perhaps, then, it would be helpful to be more exact on your terms and be clear of whom you speak.
Matthew, thank you, thank you, thank you, for that learned opinion and careful clarifications. (I’m pretty ignorant of a lot of stuff, but I knew enough to know there must be an explanation like this out there.)
I think it is unwise to throw around accusations of heresy and ascribe them to someone or some institution other than the actual heretical teacher, and we ought to be more careful of the actual nuances of the situations and even the facts!
Thank you so much for contributing to what has been a dialogue so far. I see now that I myself had carelessly conflated the Paris School with any theological thoughts that it produced. My aim was to contrast Paris School’s stress on “the need for the renewal of Orthodox thought and tradition in the modern world,” as you so eloquently put.
Pomazansky’s work is an excellent summary of Orthodox dogmatic theology, but it is incomplete. It completely neglects the teachings of St. Gregory Palamas. There is no doubt that Western influence came into Orthodoxy following the fall of Constantinople and Peter I’s Westernization. Is it not true that they taught theology in Latin in Russsia? Peter Mogila introduced Latinisms into the Russian service books. The Orthodox theologians in exile in Paris may have included some people like Bulgakov who had some strange ideas especially about Sophia, went into excesses, but what would modern Orthodox theology be without the revival of St. Gregory Palamas and the works of Lossky?
Thank you for that erudite summary of the theologians associated with St Sergius Institute, Matthew. I venture to suggest that what you have written supports my contention that the main fault of the Russian theologians who found themselves in Paris is idiosyncratic innovation, or as you say “creativity” – with the exception of Fr Georges Florovsky, I would add. To the extent that the church under Metropolitan Evlogy cultivated an atmosphere in which this basic approach was encouraged, I think we may speak of a “Paris school” or, yes it is a better term, a “Paris scene”. But all of this is a long-running dispute within Russian church circles that we will not resolve here! Btw, I note that you don’t mention the influence of the Имяславие movement on this circle.
Anyway, I actually appreciated what Carl wrote; I think it is a great pity he has this evident prejudice against ROCOR, which of course is deep-seated in some OCA circles.
Karen, Carl, Basil – You are most welcome.
On the point Carl noted from my post — “the need for the renewal of Orthodox thought and tradition in the modern world” as the key area of agreement among the Paris theologians: On this see the work of Kristina Stoeckl, Community After Totalitarianism; you can read part of it online.
Stoeckl argues that while both were concerned for the Church to meet the challenges of secular Western modernity, Florovsky and Lossky maintained the only faithful and fruitful way to do this was to recover the Church’s dogmatic, philosophical, patristic, liturgical and ascetic foundations, whereas Bulgakov saw inward church renewal more as a fruit resulting from the church’s engagement with Western modernity. (Thus also, for instance, Schelling comes in to resolve the unresolved “problems” Bulgakov thinks inherent in patristic tradition regarding the relaton between God and the world and the ground or possiblity of the incarnation). This is an oversimplification to be sure, but it catches a good deal of truth too.
Obviously, these debates are still with us, and even lurk behind the issues reported and debated on this blog. As Florovsky put it, “Theology must begin not with the world but with the Word.” There are always some among us who want to look first at the culture around them and its problems, and demand that the the Word of God and the Church answer those problems within the terms in which they have been put — rather than radically reframing the questions, as divine grace is wont to do. It is the temptation to conflate and confuse, sometimes on principle, the Holy Ghost with the Zeitgeist — the Spirit of God with the spirit of the age, its corporate subjectivity (a la Hegel).
In response to what Basil wrote, however, regarding “creativity”: note that it was not Bulgakov, after all, but Fr Florovsky (of blessed memory) who coined the phrase “theology of repetition,” as a peril to to be avoided. “Creativity” is indeed a key positive emphasis throughout Florovsky’s work, grounded in the conviction that for Christian faith, history is a sphere in which momentous and lasting new things may be accomplished, and also the understanding that every act of human knowledge (theologizing too) is a temporally contingent and fresh act of “interpretation” — which, however, for the Christian must be grounded in repentant obedience to the truth of revelation. Indeed, the tour de force final chapter his magum opus, Ways of Russian Theology , apart from a closing Latin quotation from St Cyprian about the blood of the martyrs, ends with an affirmation that Orthodoxy is not only a tradition, but a “creative act.” Much earlier, in the early 20’s, speaking of culture, he wrote that only by creative free acts can persons maintain the living tradition and patrimony.
His contention, however, would be that such genuine Christian cultural and intellectual creativity — such as we see in the Cappadocian Fathers, for instance — should never be equated with, and does not at all require, the adolescent game of “idiosyncratic innovation,” as you put it. His image for the height of human freedom was the faith-filled obedient “yes” of the Virgin Theotokos, which was no mere submission.The high criterion for theology Florovsky discerned and set forth was that of a creativity exercised in utmost humble obedience (but also discrimination) before the past masters of the tradition, the Holy Fathers, and in utter continuity with them; but again, a creative obedient voice — not just repeating formulas, but reasoning them through, relating the patrimony of the dogmas and patristic theology to present problems. We may call it the creativity of the mature.
An exacting ideal. But if there is anything to be learned from Fr Florovsky here — a lesson he attributed to his hero, St Philaret, and summed up in Philaret’s own motto, “theology reasons” — it is this: an unthinking conservatism is no answer to modernist obsession with innovation; on the contrary, the one is a function of the other, as the first fails to overcome the second. (We may note how old men who have ceased to think do have a way of encouraging rebellious youth in their lust for cheap novelty).
About the Imyaslavie movement — you’re right, Basil; Bulgakov wrote a book inspired by it, The Philosophy of the Name. There is a lot being written on this now, esp. in Russian. It is a complex matter, it seems to me. While it’s true that Florensky and Bulgakov did appeal in this direction for their own (sophiological) purposes, I don’t see the matter perhaps as quite so clear-cut as you seem to, not least of all because the theology employed in the condemnations of the name-worshippers was certainly less than exact in the Orthodoxy of its expression also (even anti-Palamite, if unintentionally so) . But here I confess my knowledge is quite limited.
I hope something makes sense here. Thanks for the interesting and enjoyable exchange.
Mister Kraeff abandoned scholarship when he wrote: ” On the one hand, we have the Paris School that started with the goal of purging Russian Orthodoxy of Roman Catholic influences and ended up with distinguishing between true Tradition and mere pious customs and beliefs. The changes that were brought about by the Paris School are not trivial and have changed many venerable practices, such as infrequent communion and the Roman Catholic-like separation of the laos into clergy and laity. In effect, the Paris School did operate under the presumption that there is a hierarchy of source documents, with the New Testament being at the top.”
At no time whatsoever did any representative of the “Paris School” ever utter such a banal, puerile goal as purging Russian Orthodoxy of ANYTHING, let alone Roman Catholic “influences”, let alone any results of the hypothetical “influences.” No, not the Losskys, Berdyaev, S. Bulgakov, Olivier Clement, Evdokimov (that “crypto-RomanCatholic”), Zander. Afanassiev, etc., NONE of them set as a goal the purging the Church of Roman Catholic influences.
I don’t deny that Mister Kraeff THINKS that such was a goal of the “Paris School.” In fact, far from purging ANY “Roman Catholic influences”, they mostly sought to identify the elements of Holy
Tradition that were common to both the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church!
In the Roman Catholic Church of their day, it was a COMMON practice to commune EVERY DAY.. I remember when devout Roman Catholics used to get up in the morning EVERy DAY and go to an early mass and partake of Holy Communion. They also confessed, and still do, much more often than the Orthodox; in fact, contrary to the urgings and teachings of, for example, Father Sergius Bulgakov, the OCA and other Americanized Orthodox are ingenious in finding ways to GET OUT of participation in the Mystery of Penance! Father Sergius Bulgakov complained that the Sacraments of Confession AND Communion had practically died out in the Greek and Serbian Churches, resulting in “the death of spiritual culture!”
One representative of “the Paris School” warned that one could make a slogan o almost anything, “including the Eucharist.” Well, he was sure right there. I quoted Fr. Alexander Schmeman. In a conversation with Father John Meyendorff, I asked him if he recalled the entry in Bulgakov’s diary where he complained, after a visit to the U.S. in the 20s, of the horribly low level of intellect and spirituality in the Russian Orthodox churches in America. He said he did remember that. Then I asked, “Father John, look how long you and Father Alexander and others have labored here in America, teaching, and look at all the wonderful books that the SVS press and others have printed since that time…What do you think Father Sergius Bulgakov would comment about the level of intellect and spirtuality in our churches here, and in the OCA?” Father John hesitated only a minute and then nodded his head, “Yes, he’d probably say it was WORSE!”
Unfortunately, neither Father Alexander Schmeman, Father John Meyendorff, Professor Sergei
Verhovskoy nor anyone else on the SVS faculty was able to prevent enthusiastic wannabe Disciples of the Cause, the succeeding generation of teachers, from turning their legacy into not just slogan, but a sacred cow, as evidenced in the spotty encomium by Carl Kraeff. It turned out that the most virulent opponents of the real goals of “the Paris School” turned out to be their loudest publicists!!!!
I am flattered that I am accused of scholarship of any kind. No, I’m just a layperson who is trying to make sense of certain things. In this case, I will merely state this: when I first encountered frequent communion at St Herman’s in Littleton, Colorado, I was flabbergasted. Years earlier, I had had a moving spiritual experience while participating in the All-night Vigil at Holy Trinity, Jordanville, where I felt surrounded by a veritable cloud of witnesses; in addition to fellow worshippers, I felt like the saints in icons were also with us, that the Holy Spirit was there, as was the Lord. I experienced similar experiences at St Herman’s and other churches where frequent communion is practiced. May be that is just me, but in my personal experience, “the level of intellect and spirituality in our churches” has been very, very high indeed. Another personal experience that I would like to share: as compared to the Holy Scriptures, I had never been moved as much until I read the writings of Father Alexander Schmemann. May be I have overstated the importance of the Paris “School” but, to an old layman like me, the mere association of Father Alexander with any school is enough for me to extoll that school’s virtues. So, please forgive my amateurish enthusiasms and opinions.
Your Grace:
You must have misstated yourself or I completely misunderstand what you wrote. I read your statement to say that infrequent communion is the norm in Orthodoxy and that frequent communion was an abuse introduced by the Paris School. What about the Kollyvades Movement on Mt. Athos during the 18th century. They also called for frequent communion. Naturally they called for frequent communion with proper preparation including fasting and regular Confession.
Communion and Confession were almost a dead thing in the Greek and Serbian Churches, and frequency of Communion and Confession ALIKE, was, according to Archpriest S. Bulgakov a sign of the spiritual withering up of the piety in those
Churches. What I said, Father John, was that it was very unwise and rash and ill-considered to address ONLY Communion, while ignoring or even despoiling the Mystery of Penance.
It’s my conviction, dear Father Morris, that there are now many persons, some of them not even baptized and many who are, who come to the C’halice without discerning the Body and Blood of “Christ but to be accepted and to get something like a lottery ticket. They come up with grins on their faces and maybe even say, “Hello.” Others PRIDE themselves on fulfilling the membership requirements of the Church by never missing Holy Communion. Many do not “do it in remembrance of” ANYTHING at all!
Do not, FAther Morris, distort what I write in the name of scoring a point, “for your side”, which I, frankly, almost suspect you of doing. If you find fault with anything I write, QUOTE the offending words, do not sum them up, putting the worst possible construction on them that occurs to you: that is false witness. You distorted what i wrote, Father, plainly and simply, in order to make a point, rather, a score. Please avoid such qualifiers as “naturally”. Explain what “frequent” means to you; explain what “proper” means to you, explain what you and the Kollyvades meant by fasting and by regular Confession. One must not confess in order to confess “regularly”, Father. What a bad idea! One must confess because one has sinned and when one has sinned. There is no rule, “If you offend your brother, wait until your next monthly confession, and then tell your priest and see what he tells you to do THEN.”
The practice of today is very little less problematic than the practice one or two or more centuries ago. IN the fear of God, with Faith and Love, draw near. What’s missing today?
And please, Father, try not to say that “Fear” is not what WE think it is,’ or, in the same manner in which you said goals and promises are the same thing, say that “Fear” and “a healthy respect’ are the same thing.
Your Grace:
As a pastor, I know my people. If someone approaches the Chalice and I do not know who they are, I ask them if they are Orthodox and if they have recently been to Confession. If not, I do not give them Communion. Confession is like taking a bath. You take a bath when you are dirty and need it. You go to Confession when you have sinned and need it. You cannot make a hard and fast rule with universal application.
Do not take what I write out of context to serve some sort of personal vendetta you have against me. Every time that I ask a simple question, you find some sort of sinister reason for the question instead of simply answering the question. If I make a minor mistake or do not use the same terms that are used in the Russian tradition, you blow it way out of proportion and make a big deal out of it. At the same time you almost never answer my question. You may not feel that way, but I do try to treat you with the respect due an Orthodox Bishop.
Fr. John,
You and Vladyka Tikhon actually agree on the importance of confession and the critical relationship between confession and the reception of the Sacred Mysteries.
You would probably be aided in coping with Vladyka in the future were you to understand the condition from which he suffers.
November 13, 2012 at 11:56 pm
Fr. John,
You and Vladyka Tikhon actually agree on the importance of confession and the critical relationship between confession and the reception of the Sacred Mysteries.
You would probably be aided in coping with Vladyka in the future were you to understand the condition from which he suffers.
GD Star Rating
loading…
arrow
View all comments
oliver douglas says:
November 13, 2012 at 8:03 am
Real interesting. How is it going with those visits to nursing homes and prisons? Hear any confessions there yet?
GD Star Rating
loading…
Reply
arrow
View all comments
Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says:
November 13, 2012 at 10:11 pm
Oh, Corporal Douglas! How I used to love those visits to hospitals, nursing, and convalescent homes. There are so many in L.A. and ( think I’ve been in more than half of them. I confess I haven’t visited anyone in prison since when I was in the Air Force. As Deputy Base Commander for Security and Law Enforcement at Columbus AFB, MI and as a member of the Armed Forces Disciplinary Control Board for that entire region, I did visit some prisons. A couple times at a classifed ordinance site in Lousiana under DASA (Defense Atomic Support Agency, I did have sad occasion to visit some of my men who were locked up. But none of my parishioners during the time i was rector of this large L.A. parish, from 1978 until my retirement a few years ago was ever in prison. In the 1970s, we buried around 40 parishioners a year, and many of them were visited in the hospitals, nursing homes and at home before they died. Confessions? I used to dread them when I first became a Priest. I sympathized with Metropolitan Anastassy of ROCOR who only heard one confession shortly after being ordained a Hieromonk, and never thereafter heard any, he was so “troubled”, as we would say, by what he heard. Most of the Confessions I heard were on Saturday evenings after serving the All-Night Vigil, but many also came to Confession to me before Liturgy. I’m going to be 80 years old, Corporal Douglas, tomorrow. I hate to disappoint you, but with two Priests assigned to this parish and due to the fact that many who are visited by a Priest insist on pressing money on you, I hardly hear any confessions at all. It’s like taking bread away from the family of a priest. I seem to have really got your goat, somehow. Im trying to respect you, but I don’t know if you’re an American citizen, a Scientologist, a Rabbi, or what, although you sometimes sound like a rooky cop who’s ready to take on all wrong-doers and sinners, all of whom you see through completely, right? Right. Now, even your short, typically moralizing post was only a few words, I consider it your very bread, cast on the waters of Lake Monomakhos, and have returned them a hundred fold, because you are SO needy.
GD Star Rating
loading…
Reply
arrow
View all comments
Thomas Paine says:
October 18, 2012 at 8:20 am
Carl,
You and others wish to make this distinction of “The Paris School” of Orthodox theology and you have no idea of what you are talking about. With the Russian Revolution, many Russian families and “Russian Intellects” ended up in Paris. St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Academy was formulated by some of the greatest Russian Orthodox theological minds. They embodied the best of Orthodox Russian theology. So, when you try to denigrate this institution and St. Vladimir’s Seminary for it’s “Parisian School” roots, you are denigrating the best Orthodox academies of theology that existed in Russia. Not liberal theology, but accurate, correct Orthodox theology at it’s highest levels. Compare this to “Sunday School” type schools of questionable (Uniate influence) teachings in Herkimer, Scranton and Johnstown.
GD Star Rating
loading…
Reply
arrow
View all comments
Basil says:
October 18, 2012 at 5:17 pm
I think, rather, it is you, Thomas Paine, who have no idea of what you are talking about. Your uncritical praise of the Russian theologians of Paris bespeaks the very “Sunday School” mentality you criticise in others. Oh, and by the way, it’s the St Sergius Theological Institute, not Academy.
GD Star Rating
loading…
Reply
arrow
View all comments
Carl Kraeff says:
October 18, 2012 at 5:38 pm
Thomas–I do not believe that any of us did what you think we did. I hold the Paris School and SVOTS in highest regard. In Christ, Carl
GD Star Rating
loading…
Reply
arrow
View all comments
Alexandr says:
October 20, 2012 at 12:13 am
I thought that this might be appropriate.
AN ORTHODOX REPLY TO THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
OF THE PARIS SCHOOL OF ORTHODOXY AND ITS OPPONENTS
‘We’re on a road to nowhere’.
Words from a popular song of the late twentieth century, David Byrne of Talking Heads
Introduction
With the deaths over the last twenty-five years of the last pre-Revolutionary and immediate post-Revolutionary representatives of the Paris School of Orthodoxy in various parts of the world, it is time to consider their unwritten ‘Commandments’. A list of their modernist reactions, on which their philosophy was based, and the counter-reactions of their traditionalist ideological opponents, may attract the attention of post-modern historians.
As those who were affected by the decadence of the early twentieth century die out, their old-fashioned ‘Modernist’ and ‘Traditionalist’ ideologies may be of interest to future generations. We assure our readers that, from various sources which we have not named, we have read or more often heard every single one of the ‘Commandments’ below, however extreme, over the last thirty years. Therefore, in accordance with our experience, we also give a short reply to their Modernist and Traditionalist ‘Commandments’ from a balanced, Orthodox Christian standpoint.
We would like to assure our readers that this is not a jurisdictional article. ‘The Paris School’, like Traditionalism, is not a geographical or jurisdictional concept, but a spirit. We have heard and read Modernist, Traditionalist and Orthodox viewpoints from all jurisdictions and it is clear that extreme viewpoints can be heard and read in all jurisdictions.
First Commandment: The Contemporary World
The Modernists say:
We must adapt our beliefs to Western humanism. We, the elite, already live and love the Western way of life, we must therefore adapt the Orthodox Church to Western humanism, rationalism, ecumenism and the tenets of freemasonry, to which so many of us belong. By practising intercommunion, we can show our attitude to the world around us – the world with which we are in communion, the world which we sanctify by our presence.
The Traditionalists say:
We will in no way accept anything from the Western world. It lies in evil, outside salvation and cannot be sanctified. It is anathema to us and we will have no dialogue with it in order to avoid being infected by it. We analyse, denounce and expose its heresies in detail. We are only safe in preaching the piety of the past in order to isolate ourselves from the modern world, condemning anything new, for everything new is negative. We must faithfully repeat and reprint everything from the past, discouraging any creativity.
The Orthodox say:
Brothers and sisters, you speak with a spiritual disease in your souls. Like a two-edged sword, this disease is leading you to fall away from the Church under the subtle spiritual illusion of faithfulness. Having lost the freedom that is in Christ, you are victims of the ideologies to which you have bound yourselves. We should think rather of the love of God and love of our neighbour. We should think of our obedience to the Commandments of Christ, to the Scriptures, the Apostles, the Fathers, the Saints and of the whole Tradition, inspired by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth. Salvation is through the Cross, and we veer neither to right, nor to left.
We are forced to live in an increasingly Westernized world. This is reality. We therefore have to speak to it, setting an example, explaining and, if necessary, defending ourselves and our values. We will not compromise on any essentials, but we have to speak to our neighbours, showing them our Faith, showing them the God of Love. We do this because we believe in the Incarnation and the Resurrection, which mean that we do not quench the Spirit by compromises, such as intercommunion. We follow the Tradition, but we are open to our neighbour. As the Gospel says: ‘We are in the world, but we are not of it’.
Second Commandment: Our Faith
The Modernists say:
We must make our beliefs intellectually respectable to non-believers, adapting them to modernity by incorporating humanism into them, making them fit our modern philosophy and way of life. We oppose the obscurantism of the Tradition. We must invent a humanistic, rational, modern Orthodox ideology. We must therefore eliminate any mystery from the Faith and any outdated references to the Devil and hell.
We will re-present the Faith, making it resemble humanism, selectively quoting from saints like Symeon the New Theologian, Nicholas Cabasilas and Seraphim of Sarov. We should also proclaim the glorious gnostics and intellectuals like Arius and Origen, who should be canonized, since they were unjustly denounced for proclaiming that there is no hell. Our model is the philosophy of Bukhariov, Soloviov and Berdyaiev, the Sophianism of Fr Sergei Bulgakov and his spiritual descendants, embodied in the clean, modern lines of Lutheran-like churches in Finland.
The Traditionalists say:
Our beliefs are pure; we will not confuse them with the heresies which the demons who are everywhere inspire. Humanism is self-indulgence. Philosophers are condemned to hell.
The Orthodox say:
Brothers and sisters, the Psalmist spoke thus: ‘Mercy and Justice are met together; righteousness and peace kiss each other’. We follow the Risen Christ, True God and true Man, the Word and Wisdom of God, living in Him by the Holy Spirit. In the Name of the Holy Trinity we preach His Truth with His Mercy.
Third Commandment: Our Church
The Modernists say:
The clergy dominate the Church. We must have a laypeople’s Church, glorifying every layperson from the past, Nicholas Cabasilas, Alexei Khomyakov, carefully censoring anything in their writings which is contrary to our philosophy. In particular, we must destroy and discredit all monasteries, which are bastions of obscurantism and mystery-cults. In this way we shall ensure that all the bishops come from the widowed priesthood and then we shall have power over them.
At the very frequent parish meetings and conferences of our brotherhood, we will dominate parish and diocesan councils and minds and have a democratic Church with ourselves in total control. Our anti-clerical victory will be complete when we have made all seminaries into university faculties. There, candidates for the priesthood can study only useful subjects like philosophy, psychology and sociology and be secretly inducted into freemasonry. We must always try to make sure that our jurisdictions are ruled by freemason-bishops or those sympathetic to our brotherhood. Clergy will dress with clerical collars like their Protestant and Catholic colleagues.
The Traditionalists say:
Laypeople are inferior to us. Our salvation is in strict monasticism and episcopal supervision of every detail and activity. Parishes should resemble monasteries, with all control given to priests, who should live like monks. Clergy must be trained in monasteries and wear monastic dress at all times. Although there are not many of us, we are the little flock who alone will be saved.
The Orthodox say:
In the Church we all form one family of brothers and sisters who are saved together. The word ‘Liturgy’ means the work of the people, the common task, and our whole life is called to be liturgical. Our monasteries need candidates from the people, monks and nuns. Candidates for the episcopate can be drawn from the monasteries. Monasteries help people in the parishes; parishes help the monasteries. In the Church we are together and help each other, for we are called to love our neighbours, respecting the various callings that God plants in each one of us. Our common task, our liturgy, is to do God’s will, without ideologies. Clergy are trained in seminaries centred on daily liturgical life, as in parishes, and they wear the normal dress of Orthodox parish clergy.
Fourth Commandment: Our Liturgy
The Modernists say:
The services are too long and too complicated. They are full of layers of late and poor-quality hymns. There are too many saints in the calendar with services written to them. Probably many of those saints never existed anyway. Most of the calendar can be reformed and abolished through modernization. Services must be reformed, shortened and even scrapped, since they are too monastic. Some of the Holy Week services have anti-Semitic phrases – these must be censored. The only service we really need is the eucharistic liturgy. Feasts that fall on weekdays must be transferred to weekends. Also there must be more lay participation. We must have laypeople take part interactively in the Proskomidia in the middle of the church. We must do away with choirs and force all the people to sing simple, modern melodies. We must do away with the iconostasis; it is unnecessary and was only introduced in the tenth century.
We modern, educated people do not need the obscurantism of the sacred and the mysterious. We are rational. We do not really need church buildings in any case; they have too many icons. All we need is a few modern icons. Let us just have eucharistic liturgies and communities in people’s houses, simple liturgical vessels and a priest only needs one set of vestments, which too can be simplified. The eucharist itself can be simplified using the Greek parish model of liturgy, which should take no more than fifty minutes. As many chairs as possible should be used, so that everyone can sit down on them, instead of sitting on the floor. Liturgical language should be modernized to the up-to-date language of the street. After the liturgy, we can have parties or discussion groups, where we can eat and drink together. There plans for our all-important social activism can be laid.
The Traditionalists say:
You cannot have a service without a proper Orthodox church, especially a full and closed iconostasis and a great many icons and frescoes, painted in a rigid style. You must not start any liturgical life until you have all this. Nobody except the priest and male acolytes is allowed to enter the sanctuary. The services must not be shortened, but lengthened, to be like monastic services. References to the evil Jews in the Holy Week services should be quoted frequently. Weekday feasts can never be transferred to weekends. If a patronal feast falls on a weekday and you are so weak that you cannot celebrate it then, you miss your patronal feast for that year because of your sins. We must follow the calendar to the letter. The full eucharist cannot be celebrated without all the services before it. Chairs must never be used in Orthodox churches. Liturgical language should be obscure in order to maintain a sense of mystery. The Church is concerned only with spiritual matters.
The Orthodox say:
Brothers and sisters, each parish should do its best to celebrate the services as fully and faithfully as possible, making allowances for the fact that many of the parish clergy themselves have to work in full-time secular jobs. We must support one another with mutual love. Parish services are shorter than monastic ones. As models, it is best to take services as they are celebrated in other parishes. The texts of our services are inspired, as are the Scriptures. Just as we do not alter the texts of the Gospels, so we do not alter the texts of our services on account of worldly fashion. Part-time, unpaid parish priests must use their discernment in the matter of transferring weekday services to weekends in consultation with their diocesan bishop.
Parish priest aided by laypeople should encourage people to sing in the choir, help the choir leaders, and in sermons and talks, encourage all to discover the lives of the saints. Where we are forced to use rented or non-purpose-built premises for services, we endeavour to make them look like Orthodox churches, at least on the inside. It is useful to have a small number of chairs for small children, the elderly and the sick.
Services should be conducted with the love and respect for God and man, rendering back to God His world in thanksgiving. Therefore liturgical language should be worthy and dignified. Our aim is prayer and we encourage prayerfulness through liturgical beauty and the spirit of peace, for as we say: ‘In peace let us pray to the Lord’. Through faith strengthened by prayer, Orthodox Christians can be the instruments of God for good in the world. For, as the Apostle James says, ‘faith without works is dead’. But also beware of works without faith which do not come from the grace of God, but from impure and self-interested humanistic beliefs.
Fifth Commandment: Our Conduct in Church
The Modernists say:
As regards dress in church, people should be able to dress just as they are in the street. We must do away with all the anti-woman dress rules, head-coverings and skirts and not trousers, and also the anti-woman churching prayers and the obscurantist idea that women cannot take communion during their periods. Children should be allowed to run around and make noise in church; this is just natural self-expression.
The Traditionalists say:
Those who are shamelessly immodest and insult the faith by not dressing properly when they enter the church must be expelled. We spit on their blasphemies. Notices must be written on every church door with full details of proper dress and where people must stand and how they must behave. Everybody should be dressed in a similar way, wearing as much black as possible. Young women must not be allowed into church, if they are undergoing their menstrual period. If children cannot be completely still, they must not be allowed to enter the church. Segregation in church is compulsory, women standing on the left, men on the right.
The Orthodox say:
Brothers and sisters, let us learn to dress appropriately for services. There is a godly custom for people to participate in the feast by wearing something of the colour of the feast, for example, something blue for feasts of the Mother of God, something green at Pentecost and so on. As regards head-coverings, the Apostle Paul writes that women are to cover their glory, their hair, in the House of God. This is not an excuse for coercion and unpleasantness, but for gentleness. We must keep both the letter and the spirit of the law.
Clergy should take care to church women after childbirth, so that through the prayers of the Church they may be protected from post-natal depression. Although women can come to church during their monthly periods, given available modern hygiene, it is the pious tradition of our Church that women may not take communion during their monthly periods. Exceptions may be made according to the pastoral discernment of the parish priest, for example at times of illness or at Easter. Children and their parents should be helped and taught how to behave in church. Children may move in church, but they should keep silent. There is a pious custom for women to stand on the left, men on the right, but parish priests must use their discernment, given that most parishioners are families and like to stand together. In all things we keep the spirit of prayer, modesty, respect and love.
Sixth Commandment: Confession and Communion
The Modernists say:
In these days of psychologists, confession to a priest before communion must be abolished. Anyone should be able to take communion at any time. There is no need for any preparation beforehand. Enjoy yourself on a Saturday night, go to the cinema, the theatre, a concert or an opera, eat, drink and smoke, in this way you will sanctify and deify the world around you. Never feel guilty, because God always forgives everyone. If you want a cup of coffee or breakfast in the morning before communion, have it. As regards confession, if you ever want it, just talk to anyone and then go to the priest for the prayer of absolution, if you feel you need it. Communion must take place at every liturgy.
The Traditionalists say:
There can be no communion without a full and rigorous confession with the priest beforehand. The priest must encourage feelings of guilt for their sins among his parishioners who should feel humiliated. They must know they will not be forgiven if they do not repent deeply. The whole monastic rule must be read before communion. The eucharistic fast from midnight is absolute. It is advisable not to take communion more than four times a year, because, as non-clergy, laypeople are too sinful and not worthy.
The Orthodox say:
Brothers and sisters, our heavenly Father calls all of us as His beloved children to take confession and communion frequently, if possible at least once a month. Although these are separate sacraments, they can be taken one after the other. Anyone who takes communion regularly should have confession regularly. People should be encouraged to read at least the prayers before communion in preparation for the partaking of the sacrament. Before communion we all fast from midnight, though exceptions may be made for the sick who have to take medicine, or in certain other cases, as with small children and pregnant women. Here the parish priest must use his pastoral discernment.
Seventh Commandment: Fasting
The Modernists say:
Concerning fasting and abstention, this is abolished. We have forgotten the fasts and when they are. Fasting is only for peasants, modern people do not need to fast, but if you like, you do not have to eat meat on Great Friday, if you happen to be going to a church where there is a service on that day. Therefore, weddings can therefore take place on any day, on Saturdays, during the old-fashioned fasts and so on.
The Traditionalists say:
All the fasts must be observed to the letter, including the Monday fast, which we impose on everybody, and the abstention for married couples. The slightest infringement of fasting rules is a terrible sin. Always carefully examine the ingredients of food and go straight to confession if you sin by the least lapse from our food and abstention laws. Children conceived during the fasts are cursed by God and their parents will be punished, as all sinners are punished by God. Weddings can only take place outside the fasts. Young people should be encouraged not to marry and take up the monastic life.
The Orthodox say:
Brothers and sisters, let us all strive to keep the fasts, learning self-control, abstaining firstly from meat and then from other animal products. Remember that we are to keep the fasts faithfully in both letter and spirit. The Lord justified the Publican, not the Pharisee. As regards weddings they take place outside the fasts, since married couples are called to abstention during the fasts. However, with the blessing of the diocesan bishop, during fasting times parish priest may marry couples who have already been co-habiting, especially if they have children, providing that there is no wedding-reception afterwards.
Eighth Commandment: Our National Traditions and History
The Modernists say:
Nationalism and patriotism must be suppressed, for they are evil. The Church is to use the language of the country it is in. Any national or ethnic customs related to folklore must be suppressed. We preach cosmopolitanism, for we are bound to follow the tenets of our freemasonry brotherhood. That is why we rejoiced at the fall of the notorious anti-intellectual Russian Tsarist monarchy in 1917. Those Slavonic monarchists who were killed as a result are not martyrs, simply victims of their own bigoted right-wing ideologies.
The Traditionalists say:
Our national traditions come before all else and our aim is to restore monarchies all over the Orthodox world. We must be very cautious in imposing our national customs in our churches; every single custom from the past must be carefully kept. National flags should be flown both inside and outside churches. We especially venerate all those who supported the monarchy and were killed at the hands of the evil left-wing anti-monarchists, whose souls burn in hell for eternal damnation.
The Orthodox say:
We respect the national traditions of all our brothers and sisters in Christ, inasmuch as those traditions are carriers of the Orthodox Faith. We use different liturgical languages as our people wish. The Church is the mother of us all, embracing each one of Her children and helping us, in the spirit of unity in diversity. We stand all together in the work of salvation of one another. We should encourage the veneration of the New Martyrs and Confessors who were slain for Christ following the horrors of the Russian Revolution. However, we must always remember that Christ told us to love our enemies, who have created so many new and beloved saints. We are not to have the spirit of hatred in our hearts.
Ninth Commandment: Our Customs
The Modernists say:
We must adopt the customs of the world around us, naturally using the new calendar and the Western Easter. We must modernize our funeral customs and allow cremation like everyone else. We must suppress such customs as the use of holy water. Even if it takes us thirty years, we shall finally convert all the ignorant, obscurantist Orthodox to our enlightened, modern and reasonable Orthodox philosophy.
The Traditionalists say:
We fight against everything in the world around us, which is irredeemably evil. Those who use the new calendar are wicked heretics whose sacraments are without grace and whose souls are condemned to hellfire. Also those who are cremated will burn in hell.
The Orthodox say:
Brothers and sisters, the episcopates of a few local Orthodox Churches have adopted the new calendar for the fixed feasts. Like Metropolitan Antony Khrapovitsky, St John of Shanghai (who had new-calendar parishes in his diocese), St Justin of Chelije, Fr Philotheos (Zervakos), Fr Cleopas of Romania and many other saints and righteous, we call on the members of those local Churches to obey their episcopates. Schism always brings great danger. Obedience is humility, even if we obey that which is mistaken (though not obedience of heresy). The use of the new calendar for the fixed feasts is not a heresy, in the words of the ever-memorable Archbishop Antony of Geneva, written in his diocesan journal and spoken on several occasions, nor was it anathematised by the Fathers.
As regards cremation, let it be known that we are not permitted to cremate the bodies of the departed. However, a parish priest may make a pastoral visit to the families of the cremated departed and help them through their difficulties and back to the ways of the Church.
Tenth Commandment: Our Guiding Principles
The Modernists say:
In all things we must be guided by the humanist, rationalist, politically correct, Western liberal ideology of modern times. Those who do not follow us are simply obscurantist peasant reactionaries who should be locked away in the dust of Byzantine museums together with their outdated canons and rituals. We of the enlightened intellectual and social elite are superior leaders. We do not need to follow the letter of any law, because we have the spirit.
The Traditionalists say:
As members of the Holy Church, in all things we must be guided by the Sacred Canons and the Typikon which must be applied to the letter. Our ideology is the only True Faith which brings salvation; there can be no forgiveness or mercy for those who reject us and their writings must be censored. There is no salvation outside the Church.
The Orthodox say:
The Most Reverend Metropolitan Laurus declared at one of his interviews that for the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia as part of the Universal Orthodox Church still stand the basic eternal tasks the Lord Jesus Christ has put before His Church: These are first, the preaching of Christ’s Gospel to the world, second, the spiritual tending of God’s people, and third, the prayerful and penitent expectation of the Lord’s glorious and greatly praised Second Coming. We should remember that Christ did not found a static community withdrawn from the world. On the contrary, He commanded His disciples to spread His teachings to all peoples throughout the Universe. You and all of us are called to bear witness to our faith in whatever situation we might be amid the odds in this secular world. Furthermore, Vladyka Lavr said in that same interview that the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia has chosen to go into the world by the middle path, what he wisely calls ‘the royal way’, avoiding all those extreme ‘isms’, whether liberalism, modernism, ecumenism, or militant fundamentalism and the dangerous feeling of proud complacency. This ‘royal way’ is a thorny and difficult one, but the only right one to follow for you and for all of us. Thus, follow this royal way and bring the teachings of Christ to your fellow men. Do not hide in your cells or homes but offer comfort to the ‘lost children of God’s world’. There are so many who need your help and their comfort will be your greatest reward.
Quoted by Professor Marina Ledkovsky on P. 20 of ‘Orthodox Life’, No 3, 2003
Brothers and sisters, we reject the spiritual pride and hatred of ideologies and ‘isms’ that are all inherently political and secular. Christ chose simple fishermen to teach the world His love. And we are reminded by the Saints whom we follow that, although we are to hate the sin, we are called to love the sinner. Inspired by the Holy Spirit, in humility of heart we are called to repentance. In all things we must be guided by the Commandments of Christ in the Gospel, that we are to love God and love our neighbour, praying unceasingly for the salvation of the world according to the Tradition of the Church. In the light of Christ Crucified and Risen on the third day, the Church calls all to repentance and salvation through the Holy Spirit. We have only one message: God is Love.
Fr Andrew Phillips
GD Star Rating
loading…
Reply
arrow
View all comments
Dorothy Allen says:
October 21, 2012 at 12:02 am
Thank you, Alexandr, for sharing this. Although I have no idea whether other Orthodox individuals feel as I do, the document you have posted expresses the personal dilemma (about what is or is not acceptable as an Orthodox believer) that I have experienced during my lifetime. I tend toward being a traditionalist; however the Orthodox church that I have always attended has had a succession of priests, some of whom were traditionalists and some of whom were extreme modernists. Whose leadership was the “correct” model of Orthodoxy has always caused me to feel confused (especially when changes in priests from a liberal modernist to a conservative traditionalist caused me to wonder if things I had done which were approved or suggested by the liberal modernist priest were later condemned by the more traditionalist priest, which is why I have become increasingly traditionalist minded the older I became.) It is enlightening to learn that some of each is “correct.” The Orthodox churches in the United States do indeed need more unity in all aspects, especially as they minister to the lay person who looks to them for guidance in how to live a truly Orthodox life in a multi-cultural secular society.
GD Star Rating
loading…
arrow
View all comments
Basil says:
October 21, 2012 at 8:01 pm
Lest Fr Andrew’s representation of the “Paris School” be seen as a caricature, it should be noted that he studied and was ordained at the St Sergius Theological Institute in Paris and served as a priest of the Russian exarchate in Paris (or “of the Russian tradition” as they now say) for some years. Therefore he has no doubt heard everything he attributes to the Modernists with his own ears, as indeed have I. The roots of this “tradition” (or “school” or “scene”) lie in pre-Revolutionary Russia, where the liberal “intelligentsia” who did not succumb to atheism or occultism but remained Orthodox were, though devout, elitist (they were, after all, often of the minor nobility) and reforming in spirit. One only has to connect the dots to see how this way of thinking was brought to America, where it has wrought the same division in the OCA that one sees in France. Indeed, one might aver that with the increasing independence of SVOTS from the OCA the intelligentsia have achieved what they never could in Russia or even in France: a place to weave their theological dreams unencumbered by the oversight of the church. Yes, for the Modernists it really is a much happier denouement than they might have otherwise expected. It would certainly make a great drama. The battle between Frs Schmemann and Florovsky is particularly crucial – but who is the protagonist and who the antagonist? That will depend on who writes the script!
GD Star Rating
loading…
arrow
View all comments
Archpriest John W. Morris says:
November 11, 2012 at 12:58 am
The ideas that you characterize as modernist are mostly heretical. Were we to adopt them, we would cease to be truly Orthodox. On the other hand some of the traditionalist also err by their un-Orthodox legalism. An interesting note. I have only served one parish that had any kind of national flag. I served a parish made up mostly of immigrants from the Middle East on 9/11. The Parish Council immediately bought an American flag to put in the parish hall. I would rather have the young women wear slacks than short dresses. I want my Altar Boys to pay attention to the service, not distracted by looking at the girls in the congregation. In our modern Antiochian tradition most women do not wear veils because in Middle Eastern culture a woman in a veil is considered Muslim. We always Church women after child birth to thank God that the woman survived the ordeal of childbirth and to thank God for the new life.
GD Star Rating
loading…
arrow
View all comments
Archpriest John W. Morris says:
November 12, 2012 at 11:52 pm
Do you really think that there are modernists within the Orthodox Church who advocate the things that you claim that they advocate. I must live a very sheltered life, but I do not know any of these modernists. I do not think that a priest who advocated such things would last very long in most Orthodox parishes. If there is one thing that Orthodox do not like it is change. I try to keep up my reading on Orthodox theology, but cannot think of any Orthodox author who advocates such radical ideas.
I have, however, dealt with some people who espouse views very close to the views labeled as “Traditionalists.” These people are usually converts who bring their Western legalism with them as excess baggage when they convert to Orthodoxy. They accept the doctrine of the Orthodox Church, but are still too spiritually immature to have learned to think as Orthodox Christians.
GD Star Rating
loading…
arrow
View all comments
George Michalopulos says:
November 13, 2012 at 7:43 am
Fr, John, yes I do. Rather than just insinuate modernism and ecumenism, I will bring forth documentary evidence to that effect soon.
GD Star Rating
loading…
arrow
View all comments
M. Stankovich says:
October 22, 2012 at 9:46 pm
Lest Fr Andrew’s representation of the “Paris School” be seen as other than warmed-over tripe leeching back to the 70′s, just attach a new date and assign a new author. Same old, same old, pal. It turns out that I was around these “Parisian” hooligans for the formative years of my life and I heard everything they had to say. Certainly this is, indeed, caricature, and slapstick clothed as stalwart. You throw around a bucket of meaningless “buzzwords” – “liberal intelligentsia,” “modernists,” “traditionalists” – in “a much happier denouement?” Seriously? You will impress only the casual listener.
The “battle” between Frs. Florovsky & Schmemann – which is infinitely more dramatic in your mind than in reality – may be crucial for those studying the clash of two extraordinarily strong personalities, but it most certainly was not theological. And even this clash of personality gave way to resolve as the two embraced one another for the 50th Anniversary of SVOT (and yes, there are plenty of photographs). Protagonist and antagonist? Perhaps you should spend a few years actually studying what these two fathers of our generation actually taught, then you would realize Fr. Florovsky would be embarrassed at your “defense,” not honored, and angered at your characterization of Fr. Alexander.
GD Star Rating
loading…
Reply
arrow
View all comments
Basil says:
October 23, 2012 at 5:45 pm
Thank you for sharing your perspective, Mr Stankovich.
I learned something from it: I didn’t know you ate tripe in America.
GD Star Rating
loading…
arrow
View all comments
Archpriest John W. Morris says:
November 10, 2012 at 11:09 am
The Western Rite of ROCOR has done it again. A real nut case applied for admission to our Western Rite and was not admitted. He is a political activists and professional homeless rights agitator who hs gained quite a reputation in Florida for his radical political activities. There must be some way to prevent people from shopping around to try to find a Bishop to ordain them. I do not know how you could set up such a system, but if a person has been denied ordination by a canonical Orthodox Bishop other Orthodox Bishops should have some way to know about it so that they know all the facts about a person before they ordain them. As a convert I can write this. Converts can be a lot of trouble. They often bring baggage with them into Orthodoxy that causes problems if they are ordained.
GD Star Rating
loading…
Reply
arrow
View all comments
Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says:
November 10, 2012 at 2:00 pm
You didn’t say what in the world ROCOR had to do with him. You wrote “if a person has been denied ordination by a canonical Orthodox Bishop other Orthodox Bishops should have some way to know about it so that they know all the facts about a person before they ordain them.”
Well? Does the Antiochian Archdiocese publish to all the Local Churches and jurisdictions the names of everyone they refuse to ordain? Are you fully recovered yet?
GD Star Rating
loading…
Reply
arrow
View all comments
Archpriest John W. Morris says:
November 10, 2012 at 4:53 pm
Thank you for your concern. I will not be fully recovered for several weeks. I am in a great deal of pain and can hardly walk. Thank God there is a nearby OCA priest who is taking care of my people and another priest is coming on Sunday. That is the kind of relationships we should have with each other. Here in Mississippi all the Orthodox work together and act as one body. I also work with another OCA priest in a ministry at a federal prison. I serve and he chants. If your Grace ever heard me chant, you would understand why the OCA Priest chants. Significantly, he uses his OCA Books and I use my Antiochian Books and the two mesh together perfectly. That is why I do not think that our liturgical differences are that important.
To make matters worse, while I was hospitalized, my wife was also hospitalized due to complications of diabetes which have led to wounds on her feet that will not heal.
I said, that I do not know how to do it, but there should be some way to establish better communications among Bishops so that a Bishop knows that someone who comes to him to ask for ordination has been turned down by another Orthodox Bishop and why he was not accepted for ordination. How would you have felt if another Bishop ordained a man you rejected for good reason and then set them up in a mission in a city where you had a mission. I am quite sure that the person involved did not give the full story to the ROCOR Bishop who ordained him, because ROCOR would have the same problems with ordaining him that our Bishops had. At the very least the ROCOR Bishop has a right to know why the Antiochian Bishops would not ordain him so that he can make a rational decision. We should not allow a convert who wants to be ordained to shop around for a Bishop who will ordain him. I know that one of the matters to be considered by the Pastoral Committee of the Bishop’s Assembly is this issue.
GD Star Rating
loading…
Reply
arrow
View all comments
StephenD says:
November 10, 2012 at 2:31 pm
I know the guy you are talking about…He is in Pensacola,Florida and I am shocked that ROCOR would accept him..They will rue the day they did..Just wait…he will implode soon but now he has a legitimate body behind him…what were they thinking?
GD Star Rating
loading…
Reply
arrow
View all comments
Heracleides says:
November 11, 2012 at 7:03 am
Stephen, ever the agent provocateur I see.
P.S. How are things within Inga Leonova’s Coven these days?
GD Star Rating
loading…
Reply
arrow
View all comments
Antonia says:
November 10, 2012 at 3:37 pm
I cannot find a great deal of information on Fr. Nathan Monk; however, I would guess this is the man whom you reference. In 2012 he was ordained a priest within the ROCOR Western Rite. (Confirmation of his valid ordination is available on the Internet.) He seems to be known for defending the homeless and the poor, through legal and peaceful means. If he is “a real nut case” for that reason, then I would be proud to be a nut from the same tree. On the other hand, if there is objective information available that should influence me to change my current opinion, please share it. Thank you.
P.S. My prayers for your full and swift recovery from surgery.
GD Star Rating
loading…
Reply
arrow
View all comments
Heracleides says:
November 10, 2012 at 7:28 pm
Yes, quite a terrible priest (NOT!) http://www.frpeterpreble.com/2011/12/fr-nathan-monk.html . Why, ordain more men like Fr. Monk and Orthodoxy in America might actually have some small relevancy outside our ghetto.
God bless Bishop Jerome for his decision in ordaining a man with the balls to actually stand up for something – anything – unlike 99% of the sheep in clerics clothing whom hide in our churches and cathedrals fearful of uttering a solitary bleat on anything of significance pertaining to the wider community.
GD Star Rating
loading…
Reply
arrow
View all comments
Archpriest John W. Morris says:
November 10, 2012 at 11:26 pm
There is legitimate concern for the poor and there is radicalism. Feeding the poor and helping the homeless is a Christian duty, from what I have read this man went far beyond his Christian duty to help the poor and has embraced extremist rhetoric and all sorts of actions that will make the Orthodox Church look bad. Disrupting City Council meetings and calling members of the Council Nazis is not a proper way to help the poor.
http://www.pensacoladigest.com/2011/12/council-urges-civility-threatens-priest-with-police-removal/
GD Star Rating
loading…
Reply
arrow
View all comments
Um says:
November 11, 2012 at 1:43 am
You have misrepresented (perhaps misunderstood?) what Fr. Nathan Monk did and said at that city council meeting. I humbly suggest that you read that article again and adjust your statement, if not in fact your assessment of this man.
GD Star Rating
loading…
Reply
arrow
View all comments
Basil says:
November 12, 2012 at 4:18 am
Dear Fr John,
With all due respect, just from a viewing of the You Tube videos: Fr Nathan Monk doesn’t strike me as a “nut job”. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his views and public actions, he seems to be totally in his right mind.
GD Star Rating
loading…
Reply
arrow
View all comments
George Michalopulos says:
November 12, 2012 at 7:46 am
I must agree with you Basil. One of the problems in Orthodoxy we have is too many jurisdictions that have succumbed to the worldly spirit. Antioch at least has been spared the ravages of outright ecumenism and libertinism thanks to Met Philip but the absence of a robust monasticism can lead to parishes that are uncomfortable with men who see through the present darkness. It’s not full-bore Leadership 100/Ritz-Carltonism but it’s different only in degree, not kind.
GD Star Rating
loading…
Reply
arrow
View all comments
Heracleides says:
November 11, 2012 at 5:53 am
Actually, Fr. John, if you google and view the Youtube videos (there are several – type in ‘Nathan Monk’) of the various Pensacola City Council meetings in question you’ll note that Fr. Nathan did NOT call anyone a Nazi – ever – that was someone else from a previous meeting and he only spoke too that incident. As for “disrupting city council meetings” – Fr. Nathan did no such thing ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MApjMm-I9_E ). Fr. Nathan simply exercised his constitutional right to free speech – imagine that – and did so in a polite and respectful manner (you’ll note in the newspaper article you cite in your previous post that two city council members walked out of the meeting in support of Fr. Monk, and you can actually view one of the members doing so in the video linked above).
Please strive for accuracy Fr. John, as doing otherwise only hurts your agenda. Doubtless a retraction of your remarks defaming this brother Orthodox priest will shortly be forthcoming from you.
P.S. As for “…a proper way to help the poor” – Fr. Nathan does just that – by feeding and clothing the poor, in person, with his own hands, on a regular basis, rain or shine. No doubt you too can say the same.
GD Star Rating
loading…
Reply
arrow
View all comments
Archpriest John W. Morris says:
November 11, 2012 at 7:21 pm
I do know that my brother priests in Florida tell me that this man is a nut case who should not have been ordained. That is all that I need to know. There are those who really help the poor and there are those who harm the poor by misguided efforts and illegal actions.
GD Star Rating
loading…
Reply
arrow
View all comments
Heracleides says:
November 11, 2012 at 9:43 pm
“I do know that my brother priests in Florida tell me that this man is a nut case who should not have been ordained. That is all that I need to know. There are those who really help the poor and there are those who harm the poor by misguided efforts and illegal actions.”
Fr. John, with no due respect – what a load of bs. I have people that tell me some pretty damming things about your Metropolitan – apparently this is all I need to know, yes?
As for the rest of your nonsense – put up or shut up. So far you’ve documented zero “misguided efforts” or “illegal actions” by Fr. Nathan. You should be ashamed of yourself.
GD Star Rating
loading…
Reply
arrow
View all comments
Archpriest John W. Morris says:
November 11, 2012 at 10:48 pm
I trust the judgment of my brother priests on this man. A man should not be able to shop around to find a bishop who will ordain him. The Church should not work that way. If a Bishops decides that a man should not be ordained. Other Bishops should know why so that they can make an intelligent decision. The canons strictly forbid involvement in secular politics. This man has crossed the line and has gone too far. There are ways to help the poor without being confrontational, breaking the law, making a scene at a meeting of the city council or embarrassing the Church by extreme political rhetoric. Fr. John Hamatie in Orlando has a very effective and legal program to feed the poor. My parish has a food bank to feed the poor. Most Orthodox parishes have programs to help the poor.
There was no need for your immature and cheap attack on Metropolitan Philip. You should be ashamed to publicly attack one of the best leaders in the history of American Orthodoxy.
GD Star Rating
loading…
Reply
arrow
View all comments
Antonia says:
November 12, 2012 at 8:22 am
Please excuse that I try yet again to clear up a basic misunderstanding. Whatever be ones opinions about Fr. Nathan, he was ordained validly, within ROCOR. Since posting originally, I have read that his parish tried to request transfer into the Antiochian jurisdiction. So went the article, at any rate. It is not “shopping around” for a bishop and ordination.
I cannot comment regarding canons and political involvement other than to observe that it follows, then, that no clergyman may vote.
GD Star Rating
loading…
arrow
View all comments
Antonia says:
November 12, 2012 at 8:50 am
I came back, although too late, to delete my line about clergymen being barred from voting. Even though that is, strictly, derivative what had been posted earlier, I admit that mild sarcasm underlay my remark. I see much invocation of canons when it appears convenient to a writer to shift focus. Nonetheless, I apologize for including that portion of my post.
GD Star Rating
loading…
arrow
View all comments
Heracleides says:
November 12, 2012 at 9:48 am
Don’t apologize Antonia – everything you said is spot-on.
GD Star Rating
loading…
arrow
View all comments
Ladder of Divine Ascent says:
November 14, 2012 at 6:19 am
Fr. Nathan has a youtubevideo where he “rants” (his own video description) about a media created boogeyman, looks hatefully into the camera and says, “I WISH there was a Hell… just so you could go there!” with an icon like image of John Lennon of the Beattles behind him. Now, Orthodox should know/believe that Hell is real, but not “wish”/desire any person to end up there, and especially not frame statements as if we disbelieve Hell is real but would like it to just so people we hate can suffer for eternity.
GD Star Rating
loading…
Reply
arrow
View all comments
Heracleides says:
November 14, 2012 at 7:16 am
Sorta’ like when Christ “rants” that his foes are a nest of vipers. As for “media created boogeyman,” he apparently should have added milksop Antiochian clergy as well.
Below is an excellent interview wherein Fr. Nathan explains how he became involved in caring for the physical and spiritual needs of the homeless. The day when you and individuals such as Fr. John can show me video where you feed the poor with your own hands is the day I’ll seriously consider your words of judgment against this Orthodox priest. Pious words on a blog are one thing – walking the walk quite another.
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgGhesziUJM&feature=related
GD Star Rating
loading…
Reply
arrow
View all comments
Peter A. Papoutsis says:
November 12, 2012 at 12:12 am
Wow. I thought only GOA parish councils acted this way
Peter
GD Star Rating
loading…
Reply
arrow
View all comments
Lola J. Lee Beno says:
November 10, 2012 at 4:52 pm
Which is why we need to clean up the canonical situation. It would be more difficult for nutcases to do jurisdiction-hopping if the administrative layer were compressed, you know.
GD Star Rating
loading…
Reply
arrow
View all comments
Hilber Nelson says:
October 13, 2012 at 7:05 pm
I hope that The Sons of Job’s “A Time for Sadness” letter will be followed up by “A Time for Action.” Without it, parishes will likely endure yet another 60 years of unabated corruption, not because of secrecy, but because of fear-based compliance. Indeed, it is far easier to complain than it is to correct, as the months of replies to this site attest. Setting our collective hands to the messy task of cleaning house means confronting the three hazards of leadership: pride, position and power. If only wolves would willingly repent on their own volition, relinquish power by reasoned arguments, and reform their ways out of love for their sheep. Until then, the status quo is counting on a rigged Orthodox tradition of obedience by faithul subordinates, thus ensuring that their sheep will keep on doing what they have always done, and always remain where they have already been. Looking forward to that letter.
GD Star Rating
loading…
Reply
arrow
View all comments
Nicholas says:
October 13, 2012 at 8:26 pm
I was discussing this with some friends today and one of them had a great suggestion. He suggested that one way to end this problem of lack of moral core amongst the OCA bishops is to have the seminaries change jurisdictions and refuse to accept OCA students. One of the dilemmas with the OCA is that at least in America the other Orthodox jurisdictions accept them as canonical. If you could get a St. Vladmir’s Seminary or St T
To CQ
I actually know nothing about Bishop Tikhon except that he was the OCA Bishop of the West and what he has written on this site.
It seems that I have somehow rubbed him the wrong way and that he has some sort of ill feeling against me.
I do defend the Antiochian Archdiocese and its Bishops. What would you expect? I have been an Antiochian Priest for over 32 years. I do not know of a comparative Antiochian site that routinely attacks the OCA and its Bishops, the way that some people on this site regularly attack the Antiochian Archdiocese and Metropolitan Philip.
Real interesting. How is it going with those visits to nursing homes and prisons? Hear any confessions there yet?
Oh, Corporal Douglas! How I used to love those visits to hospitals, nursing, and convalescent homes. There are so many in L.A. and ( think I’ve been in more than half of them. I confess I haven’t visited anyone in prison since when I was in the Air Force. As Deputy Base Commander for Security and Law Enforcement at Columbus AFB, MI and as a member of the Armed Forces Disciplinary Control Board for that entire region, I did visit some prisons. A couple times at a classifed ordinance site in Lousiana under DASA (Defense Atomic Support Agency, I did have sad occasion to visit some of my men who were locked up. But none of my parishioners during the time i was rector of this large L.A. parish, from 1978 until my retirement a few years ago was ever in prison. In the 1970s, we buried around 40 parishioners a year, and many of them were visited in the hospitals, nursing homes and at home before they died. Confessions? I used to dread them when I first became a Priest. I sympathized with Metropolitan Anastassy of ROCOR who only heard one confession shortly after being ordained a Hieromonk, and never thereafter heard any, he was so “troubled”, as we would say, by what he heard. Most of the Confessions I heard were on Saturday evenings after serving the All-Night Vigil, but many also came to Confession to me before Liturgy. I’m going to be 80 years old, Corporal Douglas, tomorrow. I hate to disappoint you, but with two Priests assigned to this parish and due to the fact that many who are visited by a Priest insist on pressing money on you, I hardly hear any confessions at all. It’s like taking bread away from the family of a priest. I seem to have really got your goat, somehow. Im trying to respect you, but I don’t know if you’re an American citizen, a Scientologist, a Rabbi, or what, although you sometimes sound like a rooky cop who’s ready to take on all wrong-doers and sinners, all of whom you see through completely, right? Right. Now, even your short, typically moralizing post was only a few words, I consider it your very bread, cast on the waters of Lake Monomakhos, and have returned them a hundred fold, because you are SO needy.
Carl,
You and others wish to make this distinction of “The Paris School” of Orthodox theology and you have no idea of what you are talking about. With the Russian Revolution, many Russian families and “Russian Intellects” ended up in Paris. St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Academy was formulated by some of the greatest Russian Orthodox theological minds. They embodied the best of Orthodox Russian theology. So, when you try to denigrate this institution and St. Vladimir’s Seminary for it’s “Parisian School” roots, you are denigrating the best Orthodox academies of theology that existed in Russia. Not liberal theology, but accurate, correct Orthodox theology at it’s highest levels. Compare this to “Sunday School” type schools of questionable (Uniate influence) teachings in Herkimer, Scranton and Johnstown.
I think, rather, it is you, Thomas Paine, who have no idea of what you are talking about. Your uncritical praise of the Russian theologians of Paris bespeaks the very “Sunday School” mentality you criticise in others. Oh, and by the way, it’s the St Sergius Theological Institute, not Academy.
Thomas–I do not believe that any of us did what you think we did. I hold the Paris School and SVOTS in highest regard. In Christ, Carl
I thought that this might be appropriate.
AN ORTHODOX REPLY TO THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
OF THE PARIS SCHOOL OF ORTHODOXY AND ITS OPPONENTS
‘We’re on a road to nowhere’.
Words from a popular song of the late twentieth century, David Byrne of Talking Heads
Introduction
With the deaths over the last twenty-five years of the last pre-Revolutionary and immediate post-Revolutionary representatives of the Paris School of Orthodoxy in various parts of the world, it is time to consider their unwritten ‘Commandments’. A list of their modernist reactions, on which their philosophy was based, and the counter-reactions of their traditionalist ideological opponents, may attract the attention of post-modern historians.
As those who were affected by the decadence of the early twentieth century die out, their old-fashioned ‘Modernist’ and ‘Traditionalist’ ideologies may be of interest to future generations. We assure our readers that, from various sources which we have not named, we have read or more often heard every single one of the ‘Commandments’ below, however extreme, over the last thirty years. Therefore, in accordance with our experience, we also give a short reply to their Modernist and Traditionalist ‘Commandments’ from a balanced, Orthodox Christian standpoint.
We would like to assure our readers that this is not a jurisdictional article. ‘The Paris School’, like Traditionalism, is not a geographical or jurisdictional concept, but a spirit. We have heard and read Modernist, Traditionalist and Orthodox viewpoints from all jurisdictions and it is clear that extreme viewpoints can be heard and read in all jurisdictions.
First Commandment: The Contemporary World
The Modernists say:
We must adapt our beliefs to Western humanism. We, the elite, already live and love the Western way of life, we must therefore adapt the Orthodox Church to Western humanism, rationalism, ecumenism and the tenets of freemasonry, to which so many of us belong. By practising intercommunion, we can show our attitude to the world around us – the world with which we are in communion, the world which we sanctify by our presence.
The Traditionalists say:
We will in no way accept anything from the Western world. It lies in evil, outside salvation and cannot be sanctified. It is anathema to us and we will have no dialogue with it in order to avoid being infected by it. We analyse, denounce and expose its heresies in detail. We are only safe in preaching the piety of the past in order to isolate ourselves from the modern world, condemning anything new, for everything new is negative. We must faithfully repeat and reprint everything from the past, discouraging any creativity.
The Orthodox say:
Brothers and sisters, you speak with a spiritual disease in your souls. Like a two-edged sword, this disease is leading you to fall away from the Church under the subtle spiritual illusion of faithfulness. Having lost the freedom that is in Christ, you are victims of the ideologies to which you have bound yourselves. We should think rather of the love of God and love of our neighbour. We should think of our obedience to the Commandments of Christ, to the Scriptures, the Apostles, the Fathers, the Saints and of the whole Tradition, inspired by the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth. Salvation is through the Cross, and we veer neither to right, nor to left.
We are forced to live in an increasingly Westernized world. This is reality. We therefore have to speak to it, setting an example, explaining and, if necessary, defending ourselves and our values. We will not compromise on any essentials, but we have to speak to our neighbours, showing them our Faith, showing them the God of Love. We do this because we believe in the Incarnation and the Resurrection, which mean that we do not quench the Spirit by compromises, such as intercommunion. We follow the Tradition, but we are open to our neighbour. As the Gospel says: ‘We are in the world, but we are not of it’.
Second Commandment: Our Faith
The Modernists say:
We must make our beliefs intellectually respectable to non-believers, adapting them to modernity by incorporating humanism into them, making them fit our modern philosophy and way of life. We oppose the obscurantism of the Tradition. We must invent a humanistic, rational, modern Orthodox ideology. We must therefore eliminate any mystery from the Faith and any outdated references to the Devil and hell.
We will re-present the Faith, making it resemble humanism, selectively quoting from saints like Symeon the New Theologian, Nicholas Cabasilas and Seraphim of Sarov. We should also proclaim the glorious gnostics and intellectuals like Arius and Origen, who should be canonized, since they were unjustly denounced for proclaiming that there is no hell. Our model is the philosophy of Bukhariov, Soloviov and Berdyaiev, the Sophianism of Fr Sergei Bulgakov and his spiritual descendants, embodied in the clean, modern lines of Lutheran-like churches in Finland.
The Traditionalists say:
Our beliefs are pure; we will not confuse them with the heresies which the demons who are everywhere inspire. Humanism is self-indulgence. Philosophers are condemned to hell.
The Orthodox say:
Brothers and sisters, the Psalmist spoke thus: ‘Mercy and Justice are met together; righteousness and peace kiss each other’. We follow the Risen Christ, True God and true Man, the Word and Wisdom of God, living in Him by the Holy Spirit. In the Name of the Holy Trinity we preach His Truth with His Mercy.
Third Commandment: Our Church
The Modernists say:
The clergy dominate the Church. We must have a laypeople’s Church, glorifying every layperson from the past, Nicholas Cabasilas, Alexei Khomyakov, carefully censoring anything in their writings which is contrary to our philosophy. In particular, we must destroy and discredit all monasteries, which are bastions of obscurantism and mystery-cults. In this way we shall ensure that all the bishops come from the widowed priesthood and then we shall have power over them.
At the very frequent parish meetings and conferences of our brotherhood, we will dominate parish and diocesan councils and minds and have a democratic Church with ourselves in total control. Our anti-clerical victory will be complete when we have made all seminaries into university faculties. There, candidates for the priesthood can study only useful subjects like philosophy, psychology and sociology and be secretly inducted into freemasonry. We must always try to make sure that our jurisdictions are ruled by freemason-bishops or those sympathetic to our brotherhood. Clergy will dress with clerical collars like their Protestant and Catholic colleagues.
The Traditionalists say:
Laypeople are inferior to us. Our salvation is in strict monasticism and episcopal supervision of every detail and activity. Parishes should resemble monasteries, with all control given to priests, who should live like monks. Clergy must be trained in monasteries and wear monastic dress at all times. Although there are not many of us, we are the little flock who alone will be saved.
The Orthodox say:
In the Church we all form one family of brothers and sisters who are saved together. The word ‘Liturgy’ means the work of the people, the common task, and our whole life is called to be liturgical. Our monasteries need candidates from the people, monks and nuns. Candidates for the episcopate can be drawn from the monasteries. Monasteries help people in the parishes; parishes help the monasteries. In the Church we are together and help each other, for we are called to love our neighbours, respecting the various callings that God plants in each one of us. Our common task, our liturgy, is to do God’s will, without ideologies. Clergy are trained in seminaries centred on daily liturgical life, as in parishes, and they wear the normal dress of Orthodox parish clergy.
Fourth Commandment: Our Liturgy
The Modernists say:
The services are too long and too complicated. They are full of layers of late and poor-quality hymns. There are too many saints in the calendar with services written to them. Probably many of those saints never existed anyway. Most of the calendar can be reformed and abolished through modernization. Services must be reformed, shortened and even scrapped, since they are too monastic. Some of the Holy Week services have anti-Semitic phrases – these must be censored. The only service we really need is the eucharistic liturgy. Feasts that fall on weekdays must be transferred to weekends. Also there must be more lay participation. We must have laypeople take part interactively in the Proskomidia in the middle of the church. We must do away with choirs and force all the people to sing simple, modern melodies. We must do away with the iconostasis; it is unnecessary and was only introduced in the tenth century.
We modern, educated people do not need the obscurantism of the sacred and the mysterious. We are rational. We do not really need church buildings in any case; they have too many icons. All we need is a few modern icons. Let us just have eucharistic liturgies and communities in people’s houses, simple liturgical vessels and a priest only needs one set of vestments, which too can be simplified. The eucharist itself can be simplified using the Greek parish model of liturgy, which should take no more than fifty minutes. As many chairs as possible should be used, so that everyone can sit down on them, instead of sitting on the floor. Liturgical language should be modernized to the up-to-date language of the street. After the liturgy, we can have parties or discussion groups, where we can eat and drink together. There plans for our all-important social activism can be laid.
The Traditionalists say:
You cannot have a service without a proper Orthodox church, especially a full and closed iconostasis and a great many icons and frescoes, painted in a rigid style. You must not start any liturgical life until you have all this. Nobody except the priest and male acolytes is allowed to enter the sanctuary. The services must not be shortened, but lengthened, to be like monastic services. References to the evil Jews in the Holy Week services should be quoted frequently. Weekday feasts can never be transferred to weekends. If a patronal feast falls on a weekday and you are so weak that you cannot celebrate it then, you miss your patronal feast for that year because of your sins. We must follow the calendar to the letter. The full eucharist cannot be celebrated without all the services before it. Chairs must never be used in Orthodox churches. Liturgical language should be obscure in order to maintain a sense of mystery. The Church is concerned only with spiritual matters.
The Orthodox say:
Brothers and sisters, each parish should do its best to celebrate the services as fully and faithfully as possible, making allowances for the fact that many of the parish clergy themselves have to work in full-time secular jobs. We must support one another with mutual love. Parish services are shorter than monastic ones. As models, it is best to take services as they are celebrated in other parishes. The texts of our services are inspired, as are the Scriptures. Just as we do not alter the texts of the Gospels, so we do not alter the texts of our services on account of worldly fashion. Part-time, unpaid parish priests must use their discernment in the matter of transferring weekday services to weekends in consultation with their diocesan bishop.
Parish priest aided by laypeople should encourage people to sing in the choir, help the choir leaders, and in sermons and talks, encourage all to discover the lives of the saints. Where we are forced to use rented or non-purpose-built premises for services, we endeavour to make them look like Orthodox churches, at least on the inside. It is useful to have a small number of chairs for small children, the elderly and the sick.
Services should be conducted with the love and respect for God and man, rendering back to God His world in thanksgiving. Therefore liturgical language should be worthy and dignified. Our aim is prayer and we encourage prayerfulness through liturgical beauty and the spirit of peace, for as we say: ‘In peace let us pray to the Lord’. Through faith strengthened by prayer, Orthodox Christians can be the instruments of God for good in the world. For, as the Apostle James says, ‘faith without works is dead’. But also beware of works without faith which do not come from the grace of God, but from impure and self-interested humanistic beliefs.
Fifth Commandment: Our Conduct in Church
The Modernists say:
As regards dress in church, people should be able to dress just as they are in the street. We must do away with all the anti-woman dress rules, head-coverings and skirts and not trousers, and also the anti-woman churching prayers and the obscurantist idea that women cannot take communion during their periods. Children should be allowed to run around and make noise in church; this is just natural self-expression.
The Traditionalists say:
Those who are shamelessly immodest and insult the faith by not dressing properly when they enter the church must be expelled. We spit on their blasphemies. Notices must be written on every church door with full details of proper dress and where people must stand and how they must behave. Everybody should be dressed in a similar way, wearing as much black as possible. Young women must not be allowed into church, if they are undergoing their menstrual period. If children cannot be completely still, they must not be allowed to enter the church. Segregation in church is compulsory, women standing on the left, men on the right.
The Orthodox say:
Brothers and sisters, let us learn to dress appropriately for services. There is a godly custom for people to participate in the feast by wearing something of the colour of the feast, for example, something blue for feasts of the Mother of God, something green at Pentecost and so on. As regards head-coverings, the Apostle Paul writes that women are to cover their glory, their hair, in the House of God. This is not an excuse for coercion and unpleasantness, but for gentleness. We must keep both the letter and the spirit of the law.
Clergy should take care to church women after childbirth, so that through the prayers of the Church they may be protected from post-natal depression. Although women can come to church during their monthly periods, given available modern hygiene, it is the pious tradition of our Church that women may not take communion during their monthly periods. Exceptions may be made according to the pastoral discernment of the parish priest, for example at times of illness or at Easter. Children and their parents should be helped and taught how to behave in church. Children may move in church, but they should keep silent. There is a pious custom for women to stand on the left, men on the right, but parish priests must use their discernment, given that most parishioners are families and like to stand together. In all things we keep the spirit of prayer, modesty, respect and love.
Sixth Commandment: Confession and Communion
The Modernists say:
In these days of psychologists, confession to a priest before communion must be abolished. Anyone should be able to take communion at any time. There is no need for any preparation beforehand. Enjoy yourself on a Saturday night, go to the cinema, the theatre, a concert or an opera, eat, drink and smoke, in this way you will sanctify and deify the world around you. Never feel guilty, because God always forgives everyone. If you want a cup of coffee or breakfast in the morning before communion, have it. As regards confession, if you ever want it, just talk to anyone and then go to the priest for the prayer of absolution, if you feel you need it. Communion must take place at every liturgy.
The Traditionalists say:
There can be no communion without a full and rigorous confession with the priest beforehand. The priest must encourage feelings of guilt for their sins among his parishioners who should feel humiliated. They must know they will not be forgiven if they do not repent deeply. The whole monastic rule must be read before communion. The eucharistic fast from midnight is absolute. It is advisable not to take communion more than four times a year, because, as non-clergy, laypeople are too sinful and not worthy.
The Orthodox say:
Brothers and sisters, our heavenly Father calls all of us as His beloved children to take confession and communion frequently, if possible at least once a month. Although these are separate sacraments, they can be taken one after the other. Anyone who takes communion regularly should have confession regularly. People should be encouraged to read at least the prayers before communion in preparation for the partaking of the sacrament. Before communion we all fast from midnight, though exceptions may be made for the sick who have to take medicine, or in certain other cases, as with small children and pregnant women. Here the parish priest must use his pastoral discernment.
Seventh Commandment: Fasting
The Modernists say:
Concerning fasting and abstention, this is abolished. We have forgotten the fasts and when they are. Fasting is only for peasants, modern people do not need to fast, but if you like, you do not have to eat meat on Great Friday, if you happen to be going to a church where there is a service on that day. Therefore, weddings can therefore take place on any day, on Saturdays, during the old-fashioned fasts and so on.
The Traditionalists say:
All the fasts must be observed to the letter, including the Monday fast, which we impose on everybody, and the abstention for married couples. The slightest infringement of fasting rules is a terrible sin. Always carefully examine the ingredients of food and go straight to confession if you sin by the least lapse from our food and abstention laws. Children conceived during the fasts are cursed by God and their parents will be punished, as all sinners are punished by God. Weddings can only take place outside the fasts. Young people should be encouraged not to marry and take up the monastic life.
The Orthodox say:
Brothers and sisters, let us all strive to keep the fasts, learning self-control, abstaining firstly from meat and then from other animal products. Remember that we are to keep the fasts faithfully in both letter and spirit. The Lord justified the Publican, not the Pharisee. As regards weddings they take place outside the fasts, since married couples are called to abstention during the fasts. However, with the blessing of the diocesan bishop, during fasting times parish priest may marry couples who have already been co-habiting, especially if they have children, providing that there is no wedding-reception afterwards.
Eighth Commandment: Our National Traditions and History
The Modernists say:
Nationalism and patriotism must be suppressed, for they are evil. The Church is to use the language of the country it is in. Any national or ethnic customs related to folklore must be suppressed. We preach cosmopolitanism, for we are bound to follow the tenets of our freemasonry brotherhood. That is why we rejoiced at the fall of the notorious anti-intellectual Russian Tsarist monarchy in 1917. Those Slavonic monarchists who were killed as a result are not martyrs, simply victims of their own bigoted right-wing ideologies.
The Traditionalists say:
Our national traditions come before all else and our aim is to restore monarchies all over the Orthodox world. We must be very cautious in imposing our national customs in our churches; every single custom from the past must be carefully kept. National flags should be flown both inside and outside churches. We especially venerate all those who supported the monarchy and were killed at the hands of the evil left-wing anti-monarchists, whose souls burn in hell for eternal damnation.
The Orthodox say:
We respect the national traditions of all our brothers and sisters in Christ, inasmuch as those traditions are carriers of the Orthodox Faith. We use different liturgical languages as our people wish. The Church is the mother of us all, embracing each one of Her children and helping us, in the spirit of unity in diversity. We stand all together in the work of salvation of one another. We should encourage the veneration of the New Martyrs and Confessors who were slain for Christ following the horrors of the Russian Revolution. However, we must always remember that Christ told us to love our enemies, who have created so many new and beloved saints. We are not to have the spirit of hatred in our hearts.
Ninth Commandment: Our Customs
The Modernists say:
We must adopt the customs of the world around us, naturally using the new calendar and the Western Easter. We must modernize our funeral customs and allow cremation like everyone else. We must suppress such customs as the use of holy water. Even if it takes us thirty years, we shall finally convert all the ignorant, obscurantist Orthodox to our enlightened, modern and reasonable Orthodox philosophy.
The Traditionalists say:
We fight against everything in the world around us, which is irredeemably evil. Those who use the new calendar are wicked heretics whose sacraments are without grace and whose souls are condemned to hellfire. Also those who are cremated will burn in hell.
The Orthodox say:
Brothers and sisters, the episcopates of a few local Orthodox Churches have adopted the new calendar for the fixed feasts. Like Metropolitan Antony Khrapovitsky, St John of Shanghai (who had new-calendar parishes in his diocese), St Justin of Chelije, Fr Philotheos (Zervakos), Fr Cleopas of Romania and many other saints and righteous, we call on the members of those local Churches to obey their episcopates. Schism always brings great danger. Obedience is humility, even if we obey that which is mistaken (though not obedience of heresy). The use of the new calendar for the fixed feasts is not a heresy, in the words of the ever-memorable Archbishop Antony of Geneva, written in his diocesan journal and spoken on several occasions, nor was it anathematised by the Fathers.
As regards cremation, let it be known that we are not permitted to cremate the bodies of the departed. However, a parish priest may make a pastoral visit to the families of the cremated departed and help them through their difficulties and back to the ways of the Church.
Tenth Commandment: Our Guiding Principles
The Modernists say:
In all things we must be guided by the humanist, rationalist, politically correct, Western liberal ideology of modern times. Those who do not follow us are simply obscurantist peasant reactionaries who should be locked away in the dust of Byzantine museums together with their outdated canons and rituals. We of the enlightened intellectual and social elite are superior leaders. We do not need to follow the letter of any law, because we have the spirit.
The Traditionalists say:
As members of the Holy Church, in all things we must be guided by the Sacred Canons and the Typikon which must be applied to the letter. Our ideology is the only True Faith which brings salvation; there can be no forgiveness or mercy for those who reject us and their writings must be censored. There is no salvation outside the Church.
The Orthodox say:
The Most Reverend Metropolitan Laurus declared at one of his interviews that for the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia as part of the Universal Orthodox Church still stand the basic eternal tasks the Lord Jesus Christ has put before His Church: These are first, the preaching of Christ’s Gospel to the world, second, the spiritual tending of God’s people, and third, the prayerful and penitent expectation of the Lord’s glorious and greatly praised Second Coming. We should remember that Christ did not found a static community withdrawn from the world. On the contrary, He commanded His disciples to spread His teachings to all peoples throughout the Universe. You and all of us are called to bear witness to our faith in whatever situation we might be amid the odds in this secular world. Furthermore, Vladyka Lavr said in that same interview that the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia has chosen to go into the world by the middle path, what he wisely calls ‘the royal way’, avoiding all those extreme ‘isms’, whether liberalism, modernism, ecumenism, or militant fundamentalism and the dangerous feeling of proud complacency. This ‘royal way’ is a thorny and difficult one, but the only right one to follow for you and for all of us. Thus, follow this royal way and bring the teachings of Christ to your fellow men. Do not hide in your cells or homes but offer comfort to the ‘lost children of God’s world’. There are so many who need your help and their comfort will be your greatest reward.
Quoted by Professor Marina Ledkovsky on P. 20 of ‘Orthodox Life’, No 3, 2003
Brothers and sisters, we reject the spiritual pride and hatred of ideologies and ‘isms’ that are all inherently political and secular. Christ chose simple fishermen to teach the world His love. And we are reminded by the Saints whom we follow that, although we are to hate the sin, we are called to love the sinner. Inspired by the Holy Spirit, in humility of heart we are called to repentance. In all things we must be guided by the Commandments of Christ in the Gospel, that we are to love God and love our neighbour, praying unceasingly for the salvation of the world according to the Tradition of the Church. In the light of Christ Crucified and Risen on the third day, the Church calls all to repentance and salvation through the Holy Spirit. We have only one message: God is Love.
Fr Andrew Phillips
Thank you, Alexandr, for sharing this. Although I have no idea whether other Orthodox individuals feel as I do, the document you have posted expresses the personal dilemma (about what is or is not acceptable as an Orthodox believer) that I have experienced during my lifetime. I tend toward being a traditionalist; however the Orthodox church that I have always attended has had a succession of priests, some of whom were traditionalists and some of whom were extreme modernists. Whose leadership was the “correct” model of Orthodoxy has always caused me to feel confused (especially when changes in priests from a liberal modernist to a conservative traditionalist caused me to wonder if things I had done which were approved or suggested by the liberal modernist priest were later condemned by the more traditionalist priest, which is why I have become increasingly traditionalist minded the older I became.) It is enlightening to learn that some of each is “correct.” The Orthodox churches in the United States do indeed need more unity in all aspects, especially as they minister to the lay person who looks to them for guidance in how to live a truly Orthodox life in a multi-cultural secular society.
Lest Fr Andrew’s representation of the “Paris School” be seen as a caricature, it should be noted that he studied and was ordained at the St Sergius Theological Institute in Paris and served as a priest of the Russian exarchate in Paris (or “of the Russian tradition” as they now say) for some years. Therefore he has no doubt heard everything he attributes to the Modernists with his own ears, as indeed have I. The roots of this “tradition” (or “school” or “scene”) lie in pre-Revolutionary Russia, where the liberal “intelligentsia” who did not succumb to atheism or occultism but remained Orthodox were, though devout, elitist (they were, after all, often of the minor nobility) and reforming in spirit. One only has to connect the dots to see how this way of thinking was brought to America, where it has wrought the same division in the OCA that one sees in France. Indeed, one might aver that with the increasing independence of SVOTS from the OCA the intelligentsia have achieved what they never could in Russia or even in France: a place to weave their theological dreams unencumbered by the oversight of the church. Yes, for the Modernists it really is a much happier denouement than they might have otherwise expected. It would certainly make a great drama. The battle between Frs Schmemann and Florovsky is particularly crucial – but who is the protagonist and who the antagonist? That will depend on who writes the script!
The ideas that you characterize as modernist are mostly heretical. Were we to adopt them, we would cease to be truly Orthodox. On the other hand some of the traditionalist also err by their un-Orthodox legalism. An interesting note. I have only served one parish that had any kind of national flag. I served a parish made up mostly of immigrants from the Middle East on 9/11. The Parish Council immediately bought an American flag to put in the parish hall. I would rather have the young women wear slacks than short dresses. I want my Altar Boys to pay attention to the service, not distracted by looking at the girls in the congregation. In our modern Antiochian tradition most women do not wear veils because in Middle Eastern culture a woman in a veil is considered Muslim. We always Church women after child birth to thank God that the woman survived the ordeal of childbirth and to thank God for the new life.
Do you really think that there are modernists within the Orthodox Church who advocate the things that you claim that they advocate. I must live a very sheltered life, but I do not know any of these modernists. I do not think that a priest who advocated such things would last very long in most Orthodox parishes. If there is one thing that Orthodox do not like it is change. I try to keep up my reading on Orthodox theology, but cannot think of any Orthodox author who advocates such radical ideas.
I have, however, dealt with some people who espouse views very close to the views labeled as “Traditionalists.” These people are usually converts who bring their Western legalism with them as excess baggage when they convert to Orthodoxy. They accept the doctrine of the Orthodox Church, but are still too spiritually immature to have learned to think as Orthodox Christians.
Fr, John, yes I do. Rather than just insinuate modernism and ecumenism, I will bring forth documentary evidence to that effect soon.
Lest Fr Andrew’s representation of the “Paris School” be seen as other than warmed-over tripe leeching back to the 70’s, just attach a new date and assign a new author. Same old, same old, pal. It turns out that I was around these “Parisian” hooligans for the formative years of my life and I heard everything they had to say. Certainly this is, indeed, caricature, and slapstick clothed as stalwart. You throw around a bucket of meaningless “buzzwords” – “liberal intelligentsia,” “modernists,” “traditionalists” – in “a much happier denouement?” Seriously? You will impress only the casual listener.
The “battle” between Frs. Florovsky & Schmemann – which is infinitely more dramatic in your mind than in reality – may be crucial for those studying the clash of two extraordinarily strong personalities, but it most certainly was not theological. And even this clash of personality gave way to resolve as the two embraced one another for the 50th Anniversary of SVOT (and yes, there are plenty of photographs). Protagonist and antagonist? Perhaps you should spend a few years actually studying what these two fathers of our generation actually taught, then you would realize Fr. Florovsky would be embarrassed at your “defense,” not honored, and angered at your characterization of Fr. Alexander.
Thank you for sharing your perspective, Mr Stankovich.
I learned something from it: I didn’t know you ate tripe in America.
The Western Rite of ROCOR has done it again. A real nut case applied for admission to our Western Rite and was not admitted. He is a political activists and professional homeless rights agitator who hs gained quite a reputation in Florida for his radical political activities. There must be some way to prevent people from shopping around to try to find a Bishop to ordain them. I do not know how you could set up such a system, but if a person has been denied ordination by a canonical Orthodox Bishop other Orthodox Bishops should have some way to know about it so that they know all the facts about a person before they ordain them. As a convert I can write this. Converts can be a lot of trouble. They often bring baggage with them into Orthodoxy that causes problems if they are ordained.
You didn’t say what in the world ROCOR had to do with him. You wrote “if a person has been denied ordination by a canonical Orthodox Bishop other Orthodox Bishops should have some way to know about it so that they know all the facts about a person before they ordain them.”
Well? Does the Antiochian Archdiocese publish to all the Local Churches and jurisdictions the names of everyone they refuse to ordain? Are you fully recovered yet?
Thank you for your concern. I will not be fully recovered for several weeks. I am in a great deal of pain and can hardly walk. Thank God there is a nearby OCA priest who is taking care of my people and another priest is coming on Sunday. That is the kind of relationships we should have with each other. Here in Mississippi all the Orthodox work together and act as one body. I also work with another OCA priest in a ministry at a federal prison. I serve and he chants. If your Grace ever heard me chant, you would understand why the OCA Priest chants. Significantly, he uses his OCA Books and I use my Antiochian Books and the two mesh together perfectly. That is why I do not think that our liturgical differences are that important.
To make matters worse, while I was hospitalized, my wife was also hospitalized due to complications of diabetes which have led to wounds on her feet that will not heal.
I said, that I do not know how to do it, but there should be some way to establish better communications among Bishops so that a Bishop knows that someone who comes to him to ask for ordination has been turned down by another Orthodox Bishop and why he was not accepted for ordination. How would you have felt if another Bishop ordained a man you rejected for good reason and then set them up in a mission in a city where you had a mission. I am quite sure that the person involved did not give the full story to the ROCOR Bishop who ordained him, because ROCOR would have the same problems with ordaining him that our Bishops had. At the very least the ROCOR Bishop has a right to know why the Antiochian Bishops would not ordain him so that he can make a rational decision. We should not allow a convert who wants to be ordained to shop around for a Bishop who will ordain him. I know that one of the matters to be considered by the Pastoral Committee of the Bishop’s Assembly is this issue.
I know the guy you are talking about…He is in Pensacola,Florida and I am shocked that ROCOR would accept him..They will rue the day they did..Just wait…he will implode soon but now he has a legitimate body behind him…what were they thinking?
Stephen, ever the agent provocateur I see.
P.S. How are things within Inga Leonova’s Coven these days?
I cannot find a great deal of information on Fr. Nathan Monk; however, I would guess this is the man whom you reference. In 2012 he was ordained a priest within the ROCOR Western Rite. (Confirmation of his valid ordination is available on the Internet.) He seems to be known for defending the homeless and the poor, through legal and peaceful means. If he is “a real nut case” for that reason, then I would be proud to be a nut from the same tree. On the other hand, if there is objective information available that should influence me to change my current opinion, please share it. Thank you.
P.S. My prayers for your full and swift recovery from surgery.
Yes, quite a terrible priest (NOT!) http://www.frpeterpreble.com/2011/12/fr-nathan-monk.html . Why, ordain more men like Fr. Monk and Orthodoxy in America might actually have some small relevancy outside our ghetto.
God bless Bishop Jerome for his decision in ordaining a man with the balls to actually stand up for something – anything – unlike 99% of the sheep in clerics clothing whom hide in our churches and cathedrals fearful of uttering a solitary bleat on anything of significance pertaining to the wider community.
There is legitimate concern for the poor and there is radicalism. Feeding the poor and helping the homeless is a Christian duty, from what I have read this man went far beyond his Christian duty to help the poor and has embraced extremist rhetoric and all sorts of actions that will make the Orthodox Church look bad. Disrupting City Council meetings and calling members of the Council Nazis is not a proper way to help the poor.
http://www.pensacoladigest.com/2011/12/council-urges-civility-threatens-priest-with-police-removal/
You have misrepresented (perhaps misunderstood?) what Fr. Nathan Monk did and said at that city council meeting. I humbly suggest that you read that article again and adjust your statement, if not in fact your assessment of this man.
Dear Fr John,
With all due respect, just from a viewing of the You Tube videos: Fr Nathan Monk doesn’t strike me as a “nut job”. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his views and public actions, he seems to be totally in his right mind.
I must agree with you Basil. One of the problems in Orthodoxy we have is too many jurisdictions that have succumbed to the worldly spirit. Antioch at least has been spared the ravages of outright ecumenism and libertinism thanks to Met Philip but the absence of a robust monasticism can lead to parishes that are uncomfortable with men who see through the present darkness. It’s not full-bore Leadership 100/Ritz-Carltonism but it’s different only in degree, not kind.
Actually, Fr. John, if you google and view the Youtube videos (there are several – type in ‘Nathan Monk’) of the various Pensacola City Council meetings in question you’ll note that Fr. Nathan did NOT call anyone a Nazi – ever – that was someone else from a previous meeting and he only spoke too that incident. As for “disrupting city council meetings” – Fr. Nathan did no such thing ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=MApjMm-I9_E ). Fr. Nathan simply exercised his constitutional right to free speech – imagine that – and did so in a polite and respectful manner (you’ll note in the newspaper article you cite in your previous post that two city council members walked out of the meeting in support of Fr. Monk, and you can actually view one of the members doing so in the video linked above).
Please strive for accuracy Fr. John, as doing otherwise only hurts your agenda. Doubtless a retraction of your remarks defaming this brother Orthodox priest will shortly be forthcoming from you.
P.S. As for “…a proper way to help the poor” – Fr. Nathan does just that – by feeding and clothing the poor, in person, with his own hands, on a regular basis, rain or shine. No doubt you too can say the same.
I do know that my brother priests in Florida tell me that this man is a nut case who should not have been ordained. That is all that I need to know. There are those who really help the poor and there are those who harm the poor by misguided efforts and illegal actions.
“I do know that my brother priests in Florida tell me that this man is a nut case who should not have been ordained. That is all that I need to know. There are those who really help the poor and there are those who harm the poor by misguided efforts and illegal actions.”
Fr. John, with no due respect – what a load of bs. I have people that tell me some pretty damming things about your Metropolitan – apparently this is all I need to know, yes?
As for the rest of your nonsense – put up or shut up. So far you’ve documented zero “misguided efforts” or “illegal actions” by Fr. Nathan. You should be ashamed of yourself.
I trust the judgment of my brother priests on this man. A man should not be able to shop around to find a bishop who will ordain him. The Church should not work that way. If a Bishops decides that a man should not be ordained. Other Bishops should know why so that they can make an intelligent decision. The canons strictly forbid involvement in secular politics. This man has crossed the line and has gone too far. There are ways to help the poor without being confrontational, breaking the law, making a scene at a meeting of the city council or embarrassing the Church by extreme political rhetoric. Fr. John Hamatie in Orlando has a very effective and legal program to feed the poor. My parish has a food bank to feed the poor. Most Orthodox parishes have programs to help the poor.
There was no need for your immature and cheap attack on Metropolitan Philip. You should be ashamed to publicly attack one of the best leaders in the history of American Orthodoxy.
Please excuse that I try yet again to clear up a basic misunderstanding. Whatever be ones opinions about Fr. Nathan, he was ordained validly, within ROCOR. Since posting originally, I have read that his parish tried to request transfer into the Antiochian jurisdiction. So went the article, at any rate. It is not “shopping around” for a bishop and ordination.
I cannot comment regarding canons and political involvement other than to observe that it follows, then, that no clergyman may vote.
I came back, although too late, to delete my line about clergymen being barred from voting. Even though that is, strictly, derivative what had been posted earlier, I admit that mild sarcasm underlay my remark. I see much invocation of canons when it appears convenient to a writer to shift focus. Nonetheless, I apologize for including that portion of my post.
Don’t apologize Antonia – everything you said is spot-on.
Fr. Nathan has a youtubevideo where he “rants” (his own video description) about a media created boogeyman, looks hatefully into the camera and says, “I WISH there was a Hell… just so you could go there!” with an icon like image of John Lennon of the Beattles behind him. Now, Orthodox should know/believe that Hell is real, but not “wish”/desire any person to end up there, and especially not frame statements as if we disbelieve Hell is real but would like it to just so people we hate can suffer for eternity.
Sorta’ like when Christ “rants” that his foes are a nest of vipers. As for “media created boogeyman,” he apparently should have added milksop Antiochian clergy as well.
Below is an excellent interview wherein Fr. Nathan explains how he became involved in caring for the physical and spiritual needs of the homeless. The day when you and individuals such as Fr. John can show me video where you feed the poor with your own hands is the day I’ll seriously consider your words of judgment against this Orthodox priest. Pious words on a blog are one thing – walking the walk quite another.
Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgGhesziUJM&feature=related
Fr. Nathan isn’t Christ, but perhaps you confuse the young convert priest for him when you appear to wish “milksop Antiochian clergy” (Fr. Morris I assume) be added to those Fr. Nathan wishes Hell existed just so they can be sent there.
As far as the poor, sin has always being fig leafed behind good works in their names, from Judas to Lance Armstrong.
Yes, those pesky converts… like Fr. Nathan, Fr. John, you, etc. As for fig leaves covering sin – care to enlighten us? Or, like Fr. John, are you long on inference while absolutely lacking in detail? Thought so. Brass, cymbals, noise, etc.
Yes. I think that the Church should be very careful about ordaining converts, especially recent converts. Under normal circumstances, I firmly believe that no one should be ordained until after they have spent several years as a layman in a parish and have received a full education at an Orthodox seminary like I did. Of course there are exceptions, especially if a pastor brings a congregation with him. However, under these circumstances the new priest should be under the close supervision of an experienced priest who will help him develop an Orthodox point of view. Orthodox differ from Catholics and Protestants not only in matters of doctrine. Orthodox also think differently than Catholics and Protestants. A convert priest must change his non-Orthodox way of thinking to an Orthodox way of thinking. I have seen too many converts who bring their former way of thinking into the Church with them. It seems particularly hard for a Roman Catholic Priest to learn that Orthodox Priests do not treat their people in the same authoritarian manner as a Roman Catholic Priest.
I had no particular sin in mind than every man is a sinner, and even heathens give charity and charity is no justification for bad theology and/or hate. If you view my observations about Fr. Nathan’s video as “brass, cymbals, noise, ” then so be it. God bless.
Fr. Morris says:
Yes. I think that the Church should be very careful about ordaining converts, especially recent converts.
Uhhhhh…..ok. So, why do you assume that Bp. Jerome was not careful? You are somehow privy to ROCOR decisions regarding specific ordinations? Please.
Under normal circumstances, I firmly believe that no one should be ordained until after they have spent several years as a layman in a parish and have received a full education at an Orthodox seminary like I did.
Ah yes, those wonderful seminary educations. A haughty SVS alumnus do doubt. The most humble and holy priest I’ve ever met (Fr. Anatole from Honolulu, Hawaii) did not spend one single day in an idiotic seminary. Interestingly enough, his parish is also filled with the homeless, who push their shopping carts from Waikiki and park them just outside the entrance of the church. Imagine that.
Having said that – Fr. Nathan did graduate from a western rite Orthodox seminary – so much for that particular strawman.
Of course there are exceptions, especially if a pastor brings a congregation with him.
Uhhhhh… Fr. Nathan did just that. Just exactly how much factual information about this matter are you basing your opinions on?
However, under these circumstances the new priest should be under the close supervision of an experienced priest who will help him develop an Orthodox point of view.
Like whom? An eastern rite Antiochian priest from Ramallah West? Please. (He might receive good golfing “supervision” at the nearest country club, but that would be about it.)
Orthodox differ from Catholics and Protestants not only in matters of doctrine. Orthodox also think differently than Catholics and Protestants. A convert priest must change his non-Orthodox way of thinking to an Orthodox way of thinking. I have seen too many converts who bring their former way of thinking into the Church with them.
So you admit you’re a work in progress?
It seems particularly hard for a Roman Catholic Priest to learn that Orthodox Priests do not treat their people in the same authoritarian manner as a Roman Catholic Priest.
I sense that this is the real source of the angst you display against Fr. Nathan. You might be interested in knowing that Fr. Nathan was an Old Catholic priest before he and his parishs’ conversion. You are aware of the fundamental difference between Old Catholics and Roman Catholics? They couldn’t be further apart in terms of authoritarianism.
Wow. I thought only GOA parish councils acted this way
Peter
To Heracleides
There is no Orthodox Western Rite seminary anywhere recognized by the canonical Orthodox Church. Our Western Rite seminarians attend recognized Orthodox seminaries like St. Vladimir’s, Holy Cross, or St. Tikhon’s. An institution calling itself an Orthodox Western Rite Seminary is probably a school on paper with no accreditation and no really qualified faculty.
We should be especially careful of anyone with an Old Catholic background. There is only one Old Catholic group in America that has any real validity and is recognized by Utrecht, the Polish National Catholic Church. American groups calling themselves Old Catholics are not really connected with the European Old Catholics who actually have churches and people. American groups calling themselves are mostly churches on paper with few people, led by men who have given themselves all sorts of exalted titles. Read Peter Anson’s Bishops of Large to see how crazy the Old Catholic movement has become.
When a group comes to us and wants to enter the Antiochian Rite of the Antiochian Archdiocese, they must undergo years of instructions and preparation before the are accepted. Their clergy have to complete the St. Stephen’s Course which takes several years or must attend an Orthodox seminary. There was not enough time for a complete evaluation of this man from the time that he decided that we were not going to take him and the time he was ordained in ROCOR.
Your racist comments about Ramalla West are unbecoming civil discussion among Orthodox Christians and only show your own ignorance and prejudice.
Yes, I am a work in progress. All Orthodox Christians are works in progress. in our theology salvation is a process of growth to deification.
At least I am not afraid to use my real name, not a made up name to protect myself lest I offend someone. Anyone I offend knows who I am and how to contact me to correct a mistake that I have made or to work out a reconciliation between us.
Dearest Father John,
Christ is in our midst! Pray for me.
I have read with some sadness, your comments concerning me. I have generally had a personal policy not to respond, especially publicly, to such comments on blogs, but considering you are my brother priest, I felt a need to address it. Though I feel sadness over the interpretation you have of me, I am also able to sympathize with it, as I am all too aware of my unworthiness first hand, but by the grace of God I am here.
Many of the videos on my YouTube channel are from before my conversation or possibly during it. I have had some consideration about taking some or all of the videos down. This internal debate shifts between wanting to delete some of my past delusions before my illumination, and wanting to preserve a chronicle of my conversion. But if they are causing more confusion than good, maybe removing those videos would be the best thing to do. I applaud you for bringing forward how some of these things could appear to the untrained eye and for causing me to further consider this matter.
I am very aware of the opinion of the priest near me within the Antiochian jurisdiction, and I am very sad about the situation that exists here. I wish that I could say that we have both always remained charitable to each other during this process, but I can not. But, God willing, this rift which surely grieves the heart of Christ, will be mended soon and we will be able to follow after His high priestly prayer and be one as He and the Father are one.
There is no way I could personally begrudge you for believing the priests within your own jurisdiction, with whom you no doubt have had a long relationship with, over myself. I would not even try to convince you otherwise, we do not even know each other. But please allow me to explain that things are not as vile as you perceive them I assure you.
Our journey into Orthodoxy has not been easy. I have made mistakes along the way, of this there is no doubt, but my conversion is genuine. I converted to Orthodoxy for no other reason other than that I believe it to be the absolute truth. If I did not why would I have pressed forward?! We lost supporters, parishioners, friends, and family along the way. My family and I suffered many emotional turmoils, but we continued forward. Why did we do this? Because I believe firmly that Orthodoxy is the Church founded by Jesus Christ and why would I not do all to be part of it? What could I have lost that I would not gain a thousand fold in the Church? No temporal thing could account for the pleasures and joy I received on the day of my chrismation.
We were never rejected by the Antiochian Church. As a matter of fact the department of Missions and Evangelism sent a delegate here in order to convince me to retract the letter I sent asking to be removed as a provisional mission. We received a positive review from the delegate, which was sent to the department, and his recommendation was that our parish had “suffered enough” and that we should be put on the fast track towards chrismation and ordination. I would be glad to share this letter with anyone who has question about the matter.
Not being received through the Antiochian Archdiocese was my decision based upon concerns I had both with the local clergy and other issues. After prayerful consideration I reached out to ROCOR of my own free will and requested that we no longer be considered for provisional mission status within Antioch.
As for my involvement politically, it should be first noted that at the time of the issue involving the city council I was not yet ordained an Orthodox priest, so to impose a canon upon me in my ignorant state is unfair and unfounded. Additionally, I have not been involved in any such activity since my discussions with ROCOR began and I have not attended any city council meetings or spoken to the media for any reason what so ever and have no intentions to do so. I have been perfectly content silently and prayerfully studying and working with my people.
You are correct that as a new member of the faith and clergy that I should be under the strict supervision of another Orthodox clergy, and Bishop Jerome in his holy wisdom has done just this, and I am in constant contact with my confessor who is a priest-monk in the ROCOR who is not terribly far from here. I have enjoyed our time of discussion and have learned a great deal under his tutorship.
We are all on the process of theosis and I am sure that I am far behind on the journey, but I am on it. I would love nothing more than the wisdom of yourself and my local brother priests. Teach me so I can learn, and scold me to my face and I will hear it. There is no reason to speculate. You are welcome to call me anytime 850-454-9910 or write me anytime at fathernathan@gmail.com and I will willingly reply.
Please know I will pray for you and I ask that you pray for me. You know well I am sure, the struggles of the priest.
Unworthy as I am,
Father Nathan
Dear Fr. Nahan:
I am glad to read that you political activity has ceased. In my not too humble opinion you went too far. I saw things on Youtube and read other things that you said and did that I felt were inappropriate for an Orthodox Priest. I strongly suggest that you look at the efforts of Fr. John Hamatie in Orlando, who has a very active program to feed the poor that is done without the controversy that your efforts aroused. That was my only concern. It is good that you are under direct supervision of your Bishop. I have only the warmest regards for the Western Rite of our Archdiocese or ROCOR. Perhaps you should go and have a long talk with Fr. David and try to resolve your differences.
Your Brother in Christ
Fr. John W. Morris
Thank you Fr. Nathan for your post refuting Fr. John’s scurrilous speculation and in some instances outright defamation. I pray you continue to be blessed by God in your ongoing ministry to the poor of Pensacola and that you not be swayed by those who seek to dissuade you from the work of the kingdom. Welcome to Orthodoxy and in particular the western rite.
Which is why we need to clean up the canonical situation. It would be more difficult for nutcases to do jurisdiction-hopping if the administrative layer were compressed, you know.
I hope that The Sons of Job’s “A Time for Sadness” letter will be followed up by “A Time for Action.” Without it, parishes will likely endure yet another 60 years of unabated corruption, not because of secrecy, but because of fear-based compliance. Indeed, it is far easier to complain than it is to correct, as the months of replies to this site attest. Setting our collective hands to the messy task of cleaning house means confronting the three hazards of leadership: pride, position and power. If only wolves would willingly repent on their own volition, relinquish power by reasoned arguments, and reform their ways out of love for their sheep. Until then, the status quo is counting on a rigged Orthodox tradition of obedience by faithul subordinates, thus ensuring that their sheep will keep on doing what they have always done, and always remain where they have already been. Looking forward to that letter.
I was discussing this with some friends today and one of them had a great suggestion. He suggested that one way to end this problem of lack of moral core amongst the OCA bishops is to have the seminaries change jurisdictions and refuse to accept OCA students. One of the dilemmas with the OCA is that at least in America the other Orthodox jurisdictions accept them as canonical. If you could get a St. Vladmir’s Seminary or St Tikhon’s Seminary to say something like this, “We in good conscience can no longer accept the leadership of the OCA since they are leading us into heresy with their moral failings; therefore, we have voted to leave the OCA and join ____ jurisdiction and will no longer accepts students from the OCA unless they disavow their heresy …” imagine the result.
As long as the other jurisdictions in America continue to accept that the OCA is okay to continue in it heretical ways nothing is really going to change. I might remind everyone that it wasn’t until the OCA seminaries got involved that bishop Nicholai was removed from Alaska. It seems to me that it is going to take another incredibly drastic move from the seminaries to affect any real change. Can you imagine what it would do to the OCA to lose St. Vladimir’s? What a pity it is that the former deans allowed so much of this to go on under their watches. I can’t believe for an instance that the former deans didn’t know about the proclivities of the bishops. Sadly however, they did nothing about it. Well now it’s time for a new generation of leaders to step up and do the right thing. What do you say Fr. Chad and Fr. John, are you up for doing the right thing or are you going to follow the party line and continue to lead your church into heresy?
It seems that one of the formerly very important and blessed monasteries has been moving in this direction – or at least the monks have. Perhaps the morally sound OCA monasteries -assuming there are still some morally sound monasteries – could withdraw, also.
Just a thought.
If the good and healthy monasteries all leave the OCA, that will leave only the unhealthy ones. The healthy monasteries must stay in the OCA and work to save the OCA and healthy monasticism in American Orthodoxy.
St. Vladimir’s and St. Tikhon’s cannot leave the OCA. Both seminaries are owned by the OCA. If they tried to separate from the OCA, the Bishops of the OCA could go to court and get control over the properties. The only answer is for the people of the OCA to nominate good men to be Bishops and to demand that any Bishop or Priest guilty of moral failures or failing to teach and defend the moral beliefs of the Orthodox Church or any other heresy be forced to retire or be suspended.
When I read all the conflict in the OCA. One thought constantly comes to mind. Whatever happens next week in Parma the Bishops, clergy and Faithful of the OCA need to come together in love and unity. Once the decision is made on who the new Metropolitan is, everyone in the OCA needs to trust in God that the right thing has been done and put the past behind them. If you continue to fight you will destroy the OCA. No faithful Orthodox Christian would want to see the OCA self destruct. Even if a Bishop is immoral, or incompetent he is still a Bishop and deserves the respect due his high office in the Church. It is heresy to consider the ministrations of an unworthy Bishop or Priest invalid due to his personal faults. God will judge him for his sins. Please for the sake of the future of Orthodoxy in this country come together and forgive each other and work with the rest of us to build up the Orthodox Church in America and work for the day when there will be a united Orthodox Church in our country.
Now the OCA has a new Metropoltan. Those who voted for someone else should accept the decision of the Holy Synod and work to overcome all the ill feeling that has dominated the OCA for several years. If there are Bishop or clergy guilty of immorality they should be removed. The OCA needs to wake up and smell the coffee. The OCA is not the local American Orthodox Church. The vast majority of American Orthodox are not OCA and have no desire to be OCA, especially after the controversies that have engulfed the OCA for several years. Instead, work with the rest of Orthodoxy in this country as equal brothers to help us create a united American Orthodox Church. Finally, give up the superior attitude that so many Russian Orthodox have towards other Orthodox. The Antiochian Archdiocese does not have to prove its Orthodoxy to the OCA. We are an ancient Patriarchate that was Orthodox almost 1,000 years before St. Vladimir. Within the world of Orthodoxy there is room for different liturgical customs. We all have to adhere to the same doctrine, but we do not all have to do the Great Entrance the same way or interpret the Typikon the same way.
What if the Synod could be replaced 100% — who would / could be a slate of replacement nominees?
What if Syosset could be shut down? How would the administrative work be managed? (Businesses outsource HR admin…..)
What other questions fall into the operational “be careful what you ask for” realm?
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/oca-investigation.html
From the Mailbag:
Dear Theodore,
I note with interest that you have been imitating my Screwtape Letters. I do not say that I am flattered because it is not possible to be flattered in this place. Surrounded – enwombed, as it were – in the love of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, even our best efforts on earth appear pale, thin, and somewhat dirty. Further, it cannot be that pride can still have even the slightest pull on us here. You must see that it could not be any other way.
Just two words of caution for you. First, to put yourself into the mindset of satan – even a little – as is necessary to write like this, has its own temptations. Beware. Remember that although the Letters may have been my most popular work, it was my least enjoyable to write. You cannot soak your feet in beet juice and not have purple feet.
Second, it is dangerous to your immortal soul to take too much interest in seeing things from evil’s point of view, no matter how noble your motives. You are still part of ecclesiae militantis. See that you do not forget. It would be easy to lose sight of the real struggle. You are not merely to be militant, but militant for Him. Keep your focus.
J.R.R. sends his greetings from the western isles. And G.K. bids me tell you that endless petitions begin to sound like useless phrases. Not only did Saint Matthew record our Lord’s admonition about those who think they will be heard because of their many words, but GK says that if he was not permitted the privilege of overwriting when on earth, he doesn’t think the OCA synod should be either.
All the best,
Jack
All I can say is that somewhere out there, the late Fr. Stephen Varzaly and the other priests and parishes of the old Carpatho-Russian ministry of the Metropolia are wishing that they had a blog like this back in the days of the old ‘Amerikanjky Russky Viestnick’….There is nothing new under the sun as they say….
Sons of Monarchy (sorry Job, I couldn’t resist – I am afraid that’s how some people might see your suggestion), I am very sympathetic to your idea, but I find the suggestion to bring the Bishop of ROCOR in as primate a bad one. Why rob ROCOR of a good man?
Everyone wants to fix these problems from the top-down, instead of doing the hard work from the bottom-up (that includes you Parma protesters). If the OCA is burning, why not starve it of oxygen. Why not start spending a little bit more time (maybe not all of it) at parishes in other jurisdictions? Maybe you can drive a little further and attend an AOCA, ACROD, ROCOR or MP parish occasionally. Is that fleeing? Fleeing from what? The Orthodox Church of American Exceptionalism? I don’t think it’s fleeing. Isn’t the idea of being tied to one church parish/building kind of an new world protestant thing anyway? The jurisdictions are all in communion with each other (for now) so people – if we really want to be united administratively – why don’t we ACT AS IF.
When the people start interacting with each other and praying with and for each other, the priests will have to do the same, and then the bishops will will have to do the same (don’t the canons say at least twice per year?) and then finally we will have the united Orthodox Church that we are supposed to have. That would be organic – not this concept of getting the right guy at the top to force it to happen.
The overlapping jurisdictions certainly do not provide efficiency, but they provide redundancy, robustness and beauty in diversity. And that might be exactly what we need right now. We all know that that ultimately the jurisdictions will need to go – but it is a little presumptuous to think that WE are going to be the ones to make it happen – on a set time table no less.
So why not spend more time and money in other jurisdictions to show your leadership that you disagree with its direction? That’s action, not words. That’s choice, not coercion. I am really asking the question here and not trying to demagogue.
But please don’t answer “because of the canons” – hit CTRL-F on this page and type “canon”, there are at least 50 instances of the word “canon” in the comment section so far – they are obviously open to many if not interpretations let’s say angles of selected emphasis.
What about Bishop Ireneaus in Canada or Bishop Basil of Wichita?
Why not stop complaining about our leaders and do something like electing one of these men?
They have a saying in the old country: the bishop you have is the bishop you deserve.
If it is God’s will for us to have a blessed leader, such as one of these two men, it will be because we have repented and turned a corner (as well).
Elect one of them?! Are there enough people going to Parma to hold quorum?
I do not know how things work. Is it possible for the people to fire the immoral Bishops, Priests, Deacons, etc? And why do those who have been “retired” because of their immoral behaviour keep their titles of honour and stay on the pay roll? I thought God gave clear instruction on how to deal with sin, to bring one to repentance and restoration. It doesn’t appear that this seems to happen. Or am I just uninformed?
In reading comments on this web-site obviously there are individuals on different sides of things. Maybe the OCA should split. Those who want to honour Christ with their lives would remain the OCA. Those who want to sweep things under the carpet could become CSO (Carpet sweeper Orthodox). The latter I would hope would be a short lived entity.
How do you restore someone that you’ve already fired?
By eating Humble Pie?
Well, if is one of the Friends of the SOB, you give him a nice parish, like Parma. If you are not one of the Friends of the SOB you get dirt to eat like St. John Chrysostom on his way into exile.
Why would Hilarion Karpal want to be the next wife of Henry VIII?
Thanks for the chuckle! Very apropos!
Fr. John, I did not mean to say that I’ve never met Met. Philip. I meant that I’ve never privately met with him one-on-one. He has been to my parish a number of times, but not in quite awhile. It was from his visits that I, in part, developed my understanding of him.
Forgive my miss speaking.
However, Met. Philip is a public man, I can evaluate his public words and the effects of his actions especially when I witness him in person. I am trained in that, in fact.
I thank God that your experience with him is far different.
Of course, I am willing to admit that my opinion has been darkly colored by the attitudes of my fellow Orthodox where I live. I’ve been told repeately that Met. Philip is not to be trusted, don’t pay attention to him, he’ll be dead soon and other far more uncomplimentary utterances, since the minute I was received into the Church 25 years ago at a time when our only bishops were Met. Philip and Bp. Antoun. That is not a good testimony and it came in the face of the consistenly positive testimony of the priests here.
Except for the ‘he’ll be dead soon’ part, that’s the feeling around here still. That feeling stems from the effect of a number of pastoral decisions Met. Philip made over the years that hurt everybody badly (turning many away from the Church entirely) and could have been avoided. It has been exacerbated by his latest string of controversial actions going back to the Joseph Allen affair up to the ‘auxlliary bishops’ and his commets concerning the audit. It’s a long list that have left hurt feelings, damaged souls and a great deal of confusion in their wake.
I am not condemning him at all in case you didn’t read all of what I wrote. And despite what you say, I’m left with the conclusion that you really want me to like Met. Philip and to see him as you do. Without a miracle, that is not going to happen. I can and do honor him as the leading hierach in the AOA and one of the better Orthodox hierachs we have in the U.S. Maybe you don’t understand that. I love my bishop Basil and I find it quite easy to offer my obedience to him out of that love, but I also understand that he, too, has his flaws. His manner of leadership offends some who think that he is too authoritarian (or so I’ve read). That amazes me, but I can understand to an extent why some might feel that way and why it would offend them.
I, for one, think it is far healtier to rationally evaluate the stregths and weaknesses of our hierarchs and leaders than it is to go gaga over them or hate them, no matter how much we like them or dislike them.
No matter what I say, you will not be convinced by it and that is great, but just know that your experience and appreciation of Met. Philip is not as widely held as you might believe at least among the laity. Your criticism of the actions of the OCA bishops loose a lot of credibility when you don’t also recognize the flaws that Met. Philip demonstrates.
While the short-comings of Met. Philip do not appear to be comparable, they still exist and are not insignificant. That needs to be acknowledged.
Every Priest and every Bishop is human and has faults. Every one of them makes mistakes. If you are looking for perfection you will not find it on this earth. Give Metropolitan Philip a break. You will not agree with every decision that he makes, but he is the one who has to make them and will answer before the Awesome Judgment Seat of Christ for every decision that he has made, just as he will judge me for every pastoral decision that I have made. Let Christ judge him. He has a very difficult job. It is not easy to be a Bishop or a Priest. It is an awesome responsibility to be responsible for the salvation of others.
Rereading your note, I noticed one very serious mistake. I have never criticized the OCA Bishops. I have chosen my words very carefully to state that if the accusations are true the OCA has serious problems. That is a very important distinction. I have never said that I believe that they are true. To tell the truth, I do not want to believe that things are that bad in the OCA. It is not my place to judge the Bishops of the OCA or OCA liturgical practices. I have merely argued that our Antiochian liturgical practices are also Orthodox.
Metropolitan Philip has been my Bishop for 32 years. Unlike most of his critics, I have been a priest long enough to really know him. He has always been fair to me even when I made mistakes. He always gives me a fair hearing. When I talk one on one with him he treats me as he really cares what I have to say. Like any other human he sometimes makes mistakes, but it is not my place to judge him. I am absolutely certain that whatever he does, that the best interests of the Antiochian Archdiocese are his primary concern. I know all that he has accomplished and am thankful to God for all that he has done for the Antiochian Archdiocese. As I would defend my father, I defend my spiritual father.
Thomas Paine: Re your post on Met. Philip.
While there is some factual truth in your post, it is a bit broad. He is not as capricious as you state, but it is that kiind of action which leads many to similar conclusions as I have reached. For instance I personally know of only one priest who received a letter such as you state and it was because Met. Philip felt the priest was being disobediant. People I know who had first-hand knowledge of the situtation dipute that.
Part of the objection to the manner in which Met. Philip exercises his episcopal authority is based in our quintessential American rebelliousness.
Yet, being in a cathedral parish I have met and witnessed quite a few men ordained over the last several years and know some of them personally. Fine men, dedicated priests from all reports. Our new assistant priest, a convert barely out of seminary with a family is a humble man with wisdom beyond his years. We must be doing something right. It ain’t all broke.
Everyone,
The OCAPetition site is now publishing daily statements from signers. Something new every day . . .
—-http://www.ocapetition.com/category/why-we-signed/
Before you judge Metropolitan Philip too harshly, you should consider how much he has accomplished for the Antiochian Archdiocese. When he became Metropolitan we had less than 100 parishes and missions, now we have over 250. He received the Evangelical Orthodox when no other Orthodox Bishop had the courage to welcome so many converts into Orthodoxy. He has insisted that the clergy receive a proper education. He requires all parishes to celebrate feasts on feast days, not the nearest Sunday. He requires all parishes to serve a full Matins not the shortened greatest hits from Orthros that was popular when I first became a Priest 32 years ago. We bought the Antiochian Village and built the Learning and Retreat Center. Because we have outgrown the Village, now every Diocese has its own summer camping program for the youth. He has supported the revival of authentic Byzantine chant in our parishes. We have gotten rid of the organs. We have built magnificent parishes and Cathedrals like the Cathedral in Wichita. We have spread Orthodoxy to areas of the country that had never before had an Orthodox mission or parish. The Archdiocese has grown from one Metropolitan to a Metropolitan and 7 auxiliary Bishops. We have been given self-rule status by our Patriarchate. We have published an excellent complete Holy Week Book and the best Priest’s service book in American Orthodoxy, the Liturgikon. The Archdiocese publishes the weekly Liturgical guide on the internet to make sure that the services are complete and are done correctly. He has continued to emphasize the importance of using English for all services. (When I was in seminary, Holy Cross insisted that every seminarian learn the “liturgical language” of their tradition. The Greek students had to take Greek, so they made us take Arabic. I made an A in Arabic, and received a message from His Eminence telling me not to spend too much time studying Arabic, because I was there to learn Orthodox theology not Arabic.) He does not favor Arab ethnic Priests over converts. We are beginning to develop monasticism. He tolerates no deviation from the moral teachings of our Church and suspends any Priest guilty of immorality. We have no “Lavender Mafia” in the Antiochian Archdiocese. I could go on, but I believe that I have made my point. All these accomplishments require a strong leader who acts decisively. When you act decisively you sometimes offend people, but sometimes we need decisive action. The Orthodox Church is not a democracy. It is an hierarchical Church that is led by the Bishops. We do not call them “Despota” for nothing.
despot /”dEspQt/
· n. a ruler who exercises absolute power, especially in a cruel or oppressive way.
– DERIVATIVES despotic adj. despotically adv. despotism n.
– ORIGIN C16: from Fr. despote, via med. L. from Gk despotUs, ‘master, absolute ruler’.
Just Guessing, Lola J. Lee Beno, Nikos – of course I was referrring to one’s relationship with God being restored.
As long as there are people like Isidore Brittian-Fr. Michael Oleska-Fr. David Brum just to name a few still actively involved in the OCA I cannot in any way support them.
Theresa! (is that a Polish name?) The most active possible involvement in the OCA, or, rather, the CCA and all Orthodox Churches is to partake of the Holy Mysteries of Christ in Divine Liturgy. I’m not sure if isidore Brittain (please note correct spelling) an Archimandrite, Michael Oleksa (please note correct spelling), an Archpriest, and David Brum, an Archpriest, have in common beyond having been ordained to be priests in Christ’s Holy Church and never having been deposed from the Priesthood. Please, Mikaela, let us know what you believe they have in common. Archpriest David Brum to my knowledge is one of the most honorable, conscientious,kind, and evangelical representatives of the Presbytery in Christ with whom I have ever come in contact. Moreover, he is an expert in eastern and western canon law, according to the judgement of the ever-memorable Archbishop Peter, who had a doctorate in Orthodox Canon Law from the Leningrad Theological Academy and espressedd his gratitude to God that he, Archbishop Peter was not now the ONLY credentialed canonist in the OCA. Archpriest Michael Oleksa was, like me, brought up a Lutheran and converted to Orthodoxy, has a doctorate from the University of Prague, and considers himself (as do many others) to be an authority, or even “oracle” of Alaskan Orthodoxy and all its ramifications and history. He is a scholarly elitist and a family man who uses his assigned parish as just a base for his travels and expositions of Alaskan Orthodoxy, while Father David Brum has happily devoted himself body and soul to pastoring the SS Peter & Paul Church in Phoenix, Arizona. Archimandrite Isidore Brittain does not have a parish, but is attached to one. He is a self-admitted recovering alcoholic, having on his own initiative admitted himself a few years back to the Mayo Clinic in order to complete a course in reparative therapy therefor. He remains an extremely humble and modest monk, having never sought or rejoiced in any honors or promotions but has always been characterized by obedience. He also is fluent in Japanese, by the way. NONE of the three has been found guilty of any crime, felony, misdemeanor by any civil or religious court or authority. If you know any members of the Phoenix parish, I suggest you consult them about Father David Brum. He is fluent in Portuguese. If you know any members of the St. Anne Church in Oregon, I suggest you consult them about Father isidore (Brittain); if you know anyone in Alaska, I suggest you consult them about Father Michael Oleksa. You may also want to consult your conscience and an elder or parish priest. And, please let us know if you find any Local Church or Orthodox jurisdiction which does not have clergy of a much lower moral calibre that any of those three, and I’ll help you learn more.
Fr. Jillions on the dismissal of a different Bishop Hilarion from England.
http://www.ocanews.org/news/Jillions11.7.08.html
What an amazing find!!! And what a great read!
Thanks, Alec! I missed that posting on ocanews.
I believe that Father Jillions’s testimony is ‘right on” in that case.
There is a coda to that whole opus: Bishop Basil, nose completely out of joint, subsequently split the MPs England diocese and took one part under Constantinople as diocese of his own. It was a totally offensive and disruptive act, blessed by the Phanar and the last surviving anti-MP diehards of the Paris Russian Archdiocese under the Phanar. The coda is this. Bishop Basil Osborne, last year, deposed himself and got married! Yes, that “Bishop Hilarion” is the present-day Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeev) of Volokolamsk
Two passages in Fr. Jillions’ own words from OCA News describing events in England in 2002 are striking.
“After our conversation I went next door to one of the rooms in the church hall where the five Sourozh Archpriests happened to be having a meeting (they acted as a kind of executive of the presbytery). They were gathered around a table with a six-pack of beer. They offered me one and invited me to stay (though I was not an archpriest). There was a distressed and depressed air among them. They brought me up to date, and said they were discussing “how to get rid of this new bishop.” I was honestly shocked. This was a cabal, plain and simple, and I had innocently never encountered such plotting in all my years of church life.”
Is Fr. Jillions still shocked by cabals?
In a letter he wrote to church authorities in England in 2002:
“High-minded debate about ecclesiology, canonical order and the special character of the Sourozh diocese cannot cover up an ugly run-of-the-mill injustice that we as a diocese still have not acknowledged: how a new assistant bishop was publicly accused, humiliated, effectively put on trial and dismissed by the diocesan leadership. Whatever his perceived flaws, the fact remains that Bishop Hilarion was not given the due process that should be accorded to anyone in the Church, let alone a bishop. His trial by public propaganda was worthy of Soviet justice, not a diocese claiming to be heir of the 1917-18 Council. Indeed, if today any priest or bishop in Russia had been treated this way there would have been a huge public outcry from Orthodox in the West.”
Does Fr. Jillions still have the same concern for justice and due process?
So, why the complete “about-face” of Fr. Jillions, and what does that reveal about his credibility??
about-face
noun
• informal a complete change of opinion or policy
credibility |ˌkredəˈbilitē|
noun
the quality of being trusted and believed in
• the quality of being convincing or believable
Guest Editorial: “Sons of Job” Call for New Leadership in the OCA — Monomakhos axrbzb jvytudg xkgtsb abercrombie france xwnnmwl xgoalioj moncler izbffis yklww
Guest Editorial: “Sons of Job” Call for New Leadership in the OCA — Monomakhos zabuez ogdhmku jjejbb ナイキ ジョーダン rczzxch pryuvxfz http://www.jpzmonclairjacketsonlines.info/ dreujtx jrids
This generation seeks a sign, and no sign shall be given it, save the sign of Jonah.Given, perhaps to the native Orthodox people of the most powerful country in the world. What is the sign of Jonah the scripture speaks of? The Christ did not mention the sign of Sergius, which was a similiar coup de etat in 1927. by Lenin. That declaration was the legalistic means by which millions of the Faithful were banished to the gulag and murdered. It took the Communist 4 hierarchs before they found one they could control. The opposition within the OCA to 911 truth, and any willingness to continued support of American empire building, by murderious conquest by American military forces is as traitorious to the Holy God as the declaration of Sergius.Millions are really dead already, with the guns now being aimed at Americans themselves. If this is not so, what is the purpose of NDAA, Patriot ACT, Operation Garden Plot, Homeland Security, 800 FEMA concentration camps, and 2 billion plus dum dum ammo ordered by the US Government, which is usless against armored troops. The ammo is only effective against unarmored people, ie, civilians. AS Partick Henry said of the British, Has Great Britian any enemy in this quarter of the world to call for all this accumulation of armies and navys. No Sir, she has none! They are meant for us , and can be meant for no other. Apparently, we buy the governemnt lie, or die. I don’t buy it, those who do make ,believe and love a lie, as St Paul described those who do not inherit the kingdom of heaven. The choice is yours. Take care that you are not decieved.