Comments Posted By Alexey Karlgut
Displaying 0 To 0 Of 0 Comments
I thought following might be of interest and substantive.
In Christ,
Alexey KarlgutJust before the Holy and Great Council
Metropolitan of Nafpaktos and St Vlassios
HIEROTHEOSTranslated into English, original text (in Greek):
Λίγο πρὶν τὴν Ἁγία καὶ Μεγάλη Σύνοδο
http://parembasis.gr/index.php/el/mitropolitis-3/ni-various-articles/278-keimena-agia-megali-synodos/4530-2016-06-11-amsoeWe are approaching the time when the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Churches is to be held in Crete to discuss the six texts which have been prepared in Preconciliar conferences, and to give a message of unity among the Orthodox Churches.
Many texts have been written recently by experts and non-experts, by those who are competent and those who are not, on this great event. Unfortunately, as I have pointed out in another text, in some of them we see that theology is mixed with politics, or rather, various ecclesiastical elements get involved knowingly or unknowingly in the aspirations of politicians, and politicians, too, use various ecclesiastical elements in order to implement their plans through the Church.
Of course, the Council of 1872 in Constantinople condemned racialism and nationalism as a heresy, but unfortunately racialism and nationalism use the Orthodox Church as a vehicle with varying results.
At present most of the discussion is about whether all fourteen Orthodox Churches will participate in the Council and what the impact ofthe absence of some Churches will be, and not so much about the content of the texts and the corrections that ought to be made.
By a decision of the Standing Holy Synod and the Hierarchy the Church of Greece, I will be a member of this Holy and Great Council and I am possessed by a high sense of responsibility to the Orthodox tradition and to history itself. I am seriously concerned about the decisions that this Council will take and first and foremost about what will happen next.
This is said from the point of view that Councils were eventually approved by the theological consciousness of the Church. Just as the organism of the human body keeps the elements it needs from food and discards unnecessary elements, the same thing happens in the divine and human organism of the Church, since the Church over time confirms the truth of something or rejects it.
As a member of the Holy and Great Council, I would like to say something before the start of the proceedings. I will not mention here the reasons that led me to accept this proposal by the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece to take part in the Holy and Great Council, which I shall do later, but I will articulate some of my thoughts.
1. The self-awareness of the Council
With regret I hear and read some of the views expressed that, namely, the Holy and Great Council is the only Council to take place in the second millennium of Christianity. Others claim that it is the first Great Council since the ‘Schism’ which occurred in 1054, whereas the excommunication of the Church of Old Rome took place in 1009 with the introduction of the filioque. Still others say that the Holy and Great Council will convene after an interval of 1200 or 1300 years, that is to say, after 787, when the Seventh Ecumenical Council convened, and others dare to say, officially too, that it will be the Eighth Ecumenical Council!
The basis of this mindset is that the Orthodox Church has supposedly remained in a state of spiritual hypnosis, of spiritual dementia, since 787, and that all this time it has been a ‘dead’, ‘sleeping’, ‘museum’ Church.
Such a conception is not only an insult to the holy Fathers of the Church who appeared and taught during the second millennium, but it also undermines the Orthodox Church itself, which is a continuous Synod and is the true and living body of Christ.
Ecumenical Councils mainly dealt with dogmatic definitions and administrative and pastoral rules (Canons), as we see from their Proceedings. On the other hand, when reading the texts that are being elaborated for final approval by the Great and Holy Council, we cannot distinguish the dogmatic definitions from the Canons. Assuming the individual paragraphs of the text are considered to be Canons, thorough discussion is required on whether these ‘Canons’ are in agreement with the canonical tradition of the Church or whether they overturn the basis and the heart of Church Canon Law.
The problem, though, is that if this Holy and Great Council is considered, wrongly in my opinion, to be a continuation of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, then serious violence is being done to Orthodox truth. Because during this time Great and Ecumenical Councils and other glorious Councils of the Patriarchs of the East – that is to say, of the whole Orthodox Church at that time – were held, which discussed serious issues, and addressed important theological and ecclesiastical issues.
I have read that some people have used the views of the late dogmatic theologian Ioannis Karmiris to support the views which are presented in the texts put forward for final approval by the Primates of the Orthodox Churches. It would be advisable to study the two volumes of the book The Dogmatic and Symbolic Monuments of the Orthodox Catholic Church to see the pulse and vitality of the Orthodox Catholic Church until the nineteenth century. One finds there that until the nineteenth century there is basically one single language in ecclesiastical texts, and that the differentiation began in the early twentieth century.
I would like to mention some important Councils after the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which are unfortunately ignored.
The Council of 879-80 under Photios the Great is a great Ecumenical Council, which was convened by the Emperor. The representatives of the then Orthodox Pope were present and everyone accepted its decisions. This Council discussed the two types of ecclesiology, Eastern and Western, and the Eastern ecclesiology prevailed. It also pronounced on the primacy of the Pope and the heresy of the filioque.
There were Councils between 1341 and 1368, particularly the Council of 1351, which was convened by the Emperor in the presence of St Gregory Palamas and ruled that the energy of God is uncreated and that the Light of Christ which shone on Mount Thabor was uncreated. It condemned the heresy of Barlaam and Akindynos that the uncreated essence is identified with uncreated energy, what is known as the actus purus, and that God supposedly communicates with creation and man through created energies. So in reality the Council of 1351 condemned scholastic theology, which to a large extent is valid to this day in ‘Roman-Catholicism’.
The Council of 1484, with the participation of Patriarchs Simeon of Constantinople, Gregory of Alexandria, Dorotheos of Antioch and Joachim of Jerusalem called itself Ecumenical. It annulled the unifying Council of Ferrara-Florence and issued a Service, composed by Patriarch Simeon of Constantinople, for those returning to the Orthodox Church from the ‘the Latin heresies’. Although this Synod established thatthe Latins should return to the Orthodox Church by means of a written declaration and Chrismation, because at that time the standard ‘form of Baptism’ still prevailed, the Service composed for the return of Latins to the Orthodox Church clearly refers to the heresy of the Latins, the‘disgraceful and alien doctrines of the Latins’, and states that those returning to the Orthodox Church should “avoid completely the assemblies of the Latins in their churches” (obviously meaning their church buildings) and should anathematise those who dared to add the filioque.
In this Service there is reference to Latins and to alien dogmas, among which the familiar filioque, i.e. the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son, and the heresy of the actus purus, namely, that uncreated energy is identified with the uncreated essence in God and therefore God communicates with the world through created energies.
The Council of 1590, which called itself an ‘Ecumenical Council’, and its continuation, the Council of 1593, which was characterised as a ‘Holy and Great Council’ are important. Both are Councils of the Patriarchs of the East, and they decided to assent to the elevation of the Church of Moscow to the honour and dignity of a Patriarchate, which had been previously granted by the Ecumenical Patriarch in 1589 by the relevant Patriarchal Chrysobull or Tome.
The Conciliar decision in 1756 by the three Patriarchs, namely, Cyril of Constantinople, Matthew of Alexandria and Parthenios of Jerusalem, refers to the rebaptism of Westerners who enter in the Orthodox Church.
Although this decision did not last for long, because in practice the Church reverted to the decision of the Council of 1484, it has never been repealed by another Conciliar decision.
It is well-known that the topic of ‘Economy in the Orthodox Church’, referring to the reception of heretics and schismatics, was on the agenda of the Holy and Great Council, as is clear from the Preparatory Committee meeting in 1971 in Geneva. But ultimately it was removed from the agenda of the Council and the Holy and Great Council has not been given the possibility of ruling officially on this issue. So the question is: Why was this issue not included in the agenda of the Holy and Great Council, in order that there might be a discussion with theological arguments on the validity and existence, or the invalidity and non-existence, of the Baptism of heretics, which now emerges to be dealt with in an indirect manner?
The Conciliar decision of the Patriarchs of the East in 1848, signed by the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem with their Synods, calls ‘Papism’ a heresy, compares it with Arianism and counters the basic Latin non-Orthodox teachings, such as the filioque, the primacy and the infallibility of the Pope, as well as other false beliefs related to baptism and the sacraments.
The Council of 1872 in Constantinoplecondemned racialism and nationalism in ecclesiastical life “that is to say, racial discriminations and nationalistic conflicts, jealousies and dissensions in Christ’s Church. ”Racialism and nationalism are “foreign” to the tradition of the Orthodox Church, a “modernist virus”. It is significant that in the epilogue of the Conciliar declaration there is a prayer to our Lord Jesus Christ to keep the Church “immaculate and untouched by any modernist virus, firmly established on the foundations of the Apostles and Prophets.”
I have mentioned a few of the ‘Ecumenical’, ‘Holy and Great’ Councils – there are others too –that were convened after the Seventh Ecumenical Council and until the nineteenth century, and have been accepted by the consciousness of the Church. Indeed, the decisions of the Great Council of 1351 in the time of St Gregory Palamas have been included in the ‘Synodikon of Orthodoxy’, which is read on the First Sunday of Lent, and have been introduced into hymns used in worship. This represents the strongest proof that the Council of 1351 has been accepted by the consciousness and judgment of the Church itself as Ecumenical.
One should also mention here the very important three answers by the Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremiah II (1576, 1578, 1581) to the Lutheran theologians of the University of Tübingen. These are remarkable answers sent by Patriarch Jeremiah in cooperation with Orthodox clergy and laity, among them Damascene the Studite, Metropolitan of Nafpaktos and Arta, who is counted among the saints.
In these important letters of reply, on the one hand, the Orthodox faith is presented, and,on the other hand, the false beliefs of the Protestants are called into question. In these replies the Orthodox faith is expressed on the basis of the Fathers and teachers of the Church, without resorting to the teaching of scholastic theology. Many issues are dealt with, on which there had been disagreement with the Lutheran theologians, namely, the Holy Tradition, Christology, the filioque, the man’s free will, predestination, justification, the number of sacraments and how they are performed, the infallibility of the Church and the Ecumenical Councils, worship, invocation of the saints, their icons and their relics, fasting, and various ecclesiastical traditions.
These letters of reply are considered important texts. They are mentioned in the Proceedings of the local Council that took place in 1672 in Jerusalem under Dositheos, and they are ranked among the symbolic books of the Orthodox Catholic Church.
After all these I wonder how it is possible for all these important Councils to be put aside for the sake of the Holy and Great Council which is to be held in Crete? How can some claim that the upcoming Council is the only Council of the second millennium? How is it possible and permissible to “trample underfoot” the entire Orthodox Ecclesiastical Tradition of 1200 years? Who directed journalists to speak of the Council of the millennium? How do some journalists who are not even particularly involved in Church reporting know this?
This question is very important. That is why I consider it necessary, at least in the Message that will be decided upon and published by the Holy and Council, that these and other Councils should be mentioned, to show the continuous action of the Holy Spirit in the Church. We cannot play with ecclesiastical and doctrinal issues and the whole ecclesiastical tradition.
Therefore, to say that the upcoming Holy and Great Council will be a Councilconvening after 1200 years is misleading. In fact it bypasses all these Great Councils, and ultimately ends in a “betrayal” of the Orthodox faith. Perhaps the aim is to create a new ecclesiology.
If there is no such aim, the Message of the Holy and Great Council ought definitely to contain a reference to all these Holy and Great Councils of the second millennium. Otherwise this suspicion will be confirmed.
2. Western Christianity
It is known to those who followChurch matters and read Church history that in 1009 Pope Sergius IV officially used the Creed with the addition that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son (filioque).For that reason Patriarch Sergius II deleted the Pope from the diptychs of the Eastern Orthodox Church, so there has been excommunication since then. Thus a large part of Christianity was cut off from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Then, in the early sixteenth century, from this Western Christianity that was cut off from the Orthodox Church, other Christian groups broke away and cut themselves off. They were termed Reformers or Protestants, and took many other names. Thus, the arbitrary actions of the Pope resulted in the secession of Western Christianity from the Church, but also to a further division among Western Christians themselves.
What is called Western Christianity is a sick, heretical system, having seceded from the Orthodox tradition of the first millennium. Of course, when we speak of Western Christianity, we do not mean the ordinary Christians who believe in Christ, pray and study the Bible. We mean the doctrinal teaching of Christian communities and Confessions. Similarly, when we speak of the Orthodox Church, we do not mean all Orthodox Christians, who, although baptised, may be atheists or indifferent, but the teaching as recorded in the decisions of Local and Ecumenical Councils.
Thus the doctrinal and confessional system of Western Christianity is largely sick and has even distorted Western society. The Latins (‘Roman Catholics’) have been changed for the worse by scholasticism, and the Protestants have been changed for the worse by somes cholastic views that they inherited and the puritanism that they introduced, as well as by the study of Holy Scripture without the necessary interpretations of the Fathers, so they fall into various errors.
Scholasticism, which was developed in the West by the theologians of the Franks, mainly between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries, blended the Christian faith with philosophy – what is known as the analogia entis. Some scholastic theologians used the theories of Plato and the Neoplatonists, others the theories of Aristotle, and others mixed both together. The main point is that they developed the view that scholastic theology is superior to Patristic theology and has surpassed it.
Protestant puritanism refuted the arbitrary views of scholasticism and reached the other extreme, while retaining some scholastic views, such as absolute predestination, the theory of propitiation of divine justice by the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, and the study of the Bible using the analogia fidei.
In any case, both these Western traditions were influenced by the feudal system brought by the Franks into Europe. They regarded God as a “feudal lord” who is insulted by man’s sin, so He punishes man, who needs to propitiate God in order to return!
I do not want to analyse this further, but I would like to highlight the fact that all subsequent ideological currents that developed in the West, such as humanism, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, romanticism, German idealism, existentialism, psychologism, etc. were a reaction for different reasons to Western scholasticism, which was based on the omnipotence of reason and on moralism.
In Western theology we observe many theological distortions, which are related to the currents mentioned above. Let me recall some of them. God is characterised by selfish eudemonism. He directs the world through created means. He is the cause of death. He is insulted by man’s sin. Sin is considered as a reversal of the order that exists in creation. God predestined who will be saved and who will be condemned. Christ, through the sacrifice on the Cross, satisfied divine justice. The Pope is the representative of God on earth. The Pope has priesthood, which he transmits to the other bishops, and he is infallible. Penitents are required to satisfy God’s justice. The teaching on paradise and hell is materialistic, and so on.
In theology these views are called distortions and heresies, which, however, have also affected the social sphere. All theological deviations have social consequences as well. This explains the Vatican State, as well as the identification of Christian and secular authority in some Protestants. The regime imposed by Calvin in Geneva is a typical case of this mentality.
What has been mentioned here is not fundamentalism, conservatism of fanaticism. One should read how sociologists interpret Western man following the influence exerted by scholasticism and puritanism.
I can recommend the study of the views of the famous sociologist Max Weber as recorded in his book: The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. There one will find how Max Weber describes precisely and vividly the anxiety of the Western Christian to learn whether he is predestined by God to be saved. This is the inexorable dilemma of whether someone is “elect or condemned”. For, if he is not predestined,then he does not need to struggle in his life to be a good Christian. And eventually he will learn how Western Christianity developed the spirit of capitalism, with absolute predestination, pious individualism, Protestant asceticism, utilitarianism of professions, and so on.
Orthodox teaching never succumbed to such distortions. It preserved the teaching of the Prophets, the Apostles and Fathers, not only of the first millennium, but of the second millennium as well, such asSt Simeon the New Theologian, St Gregory Palamas, St Mark of Ephesus and all the philokalic neptic Fathers of the Church. Our more recent saints, like St Paisios Velichkovsky, who brought a renaissance in Romania and Russia, St Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, St Kosmas Aitolos, St Porphyrios of Kavsokalyvia, St Paisios the Athonite and many others matured within this theology.
Attempting to move the teachings of these Fathers, which are the teachings of the Church, to the margins of Church life, in order to be “confessionally” closer to Western Christianity with its many theological and social difficulties, is a major problem. Disregarding the theology of the Church expressed through these saints, in order to find some points in common with Western Christianity is a betrayal of the faith. I cannot find another milder characterisation.
Moreover, with this sort of ossified Christianity, cut off from the Holy Fathers of the second millennium, we do not help the Western Christians themselves, who are disappointed with the Western Christian tradition in which they grew up and are looking for the hesychastic tradition. Those Western Christians who become Orthodox are inspired by the Philokalia of the Neptic Fathers, the writings of St Silouan the Athonite and the teaching of the Fathers of Mount Athos. We cannot disappoint them all with insipid, tasteless and anaemic texts.
3. Church – Orthodoxy – Eucharist
The Orthodox faith is not abstract and does not remain in the libraries of churches and monasteries. It is the life of the Church, which is experienced in the sacraments, chanted in the holy services, partaken of in the Divine Eucharist, revealed in prayer and the ascetic struggle. This ‘theology of events’ is recorded in the confessional documents and decisions of Local and Ecumenical Councils.
There is no divergence between the sacraments and confession, prayer and daily life, the Divine Liturgy and Synodical conferences. The lex credendi is very closely linked with thelex orandi. If there is a split between the two, between doctrine and worship, this constitutes a deviation from the truth. This means that every Conciliar decision which contrasts with the theology of the prayers of the Sacraments and of the hymns is an anti-Orthodox decision.
In an important study entitled Church, Orthodoxy and Eucharist in Saint Irenaeus (see Atanasije Jevtic, Christ the beginning and end, Editions Goulandris-Horn Foundation, Athens 1983, p. 109), the former Bishop of Herzegovina and Zahumlje, Atanasije Jevtic,records the link that exists between the Church, Orthodoxy, and the Eucharist, as analysed by St Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons.
Let me recall that St Irenaeus is an Apostolic Father who lived in Lyonsduring a critical period (140-202) when the Apostles had gone and the heretic Gnostics had appeared, arguing that they had received an “occult knowledge” and “hidden mysteries”. Thus, St Irenaeus taught the close relationship that exists between Church, Orthodoxy and Divine Eucharist.
According to St Irenaeus, the Church preserves the faith of the Apostles. “The apostolic traditionis guarded in the Churches by their successors,the presbyters.” St Irenaeus does not use the term “Church” or “Churches” for the Gnostics, only the word “synagogue” and “place of teaching”. He also urges the presbyters to obey the successors of the Apostles, who have “the secure gift of truth” and he characterises those who deviate from them “as heretics and people with corrupt judgment, or as those who rip (the Church) apart and are proud and insolent.”
Then, the Church is closely associated with Orthodoxy, the true faith. St Irenaeus writes: “The truth preached by the Church” and “the apostolic tradition in the Church and the preaching of the truth.”
Also, the Church and Orthodoxy are linked to the Divine Eucharist. St Irenaeus writes: “Our opinion agrees with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn validates our opinion.” The Eucharistic prayers confess the mystery of the divine Economy, that is to say, of the incarnation of the Son and Word of God, and the mystery of the salvation of man.
Interpreting all these points, Bishop Atanasije Jevtic observes:
“According to the testimony of Irenaeus, in the awareness of the Church of his time there could not be any separation or independence between the Church, the Eucharist and Orthodoxy, because neither the Church exists without Orthodoxy and the Eucharist, nor Orthodoxy without the Church and the Eucharist, nor again the Eucharist outside the Church and its true faith. As those “outside the truth”, that is to say, outside the true faith, automatically and simultaneously find themselves “outside the Church” so, vice versa, those outside the Church are situated outside Orthodoxy (outside the truth) and outside the true Eucharist pleasing to God (communion in Christ’s body), as long as the faith is the expression of true tradition and life of the Church and of its true eucharistic practice and assembly.”This truth has some remarkable consequences. Some of them will be noted here.
a) “The persistence of the Orthodox Catholic Church in the true faith and true practice and the true assembly of the Apostles and their true disciples, and as a consequence of this, the non-recognition of communion with any other “church” outside the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church is the best proof of the survival until the present of that same awareness of the Church as Irenaeus, and generally the whole ancient church, possessed.”
b) “All the Ecumenical and local Councils of the Orthodox Catholic Church had this as their ultimate aim: the keeping of the apostolic tradition in the faith, life and worship of the Church, and the exclusion from ecclesiastical communion in the Eucharist of those who distort the redeeming“rule of truth”, which the Church received from the Apostles and their genuine disciples, the Fathers. This way the salvation of God’s creatures, human beings, was safeguarded.
For this reason,from the first centuries to this day, the Orthodox constantly underline that there is no salvation outside the Church, that is, outside unity with Christ and the communion of people and local Churches in the true and correct faith,in charismatic practice,in the eucharistic assembly and communion, and in the grace of the Spirit and His gifts. Salvation is union and communion with Christ, and this communion is realised only in the body of Christ which is the Church, particularly in the eucharistic communion of those in every local Church who have a right belief in Christ and are sincerely united around the Bishops as bearers of the ‘apostolic successions’ in the Churches.”
c) This “apostolic succession” of bishops is a succession of this very fullness of ecclesiastical communion of the local Churches in the world with Christ, and between those who share inthe true faith,in the true and saving teaching, and in the grace of God’s Spirit and in the Body and Blood of Christ. The apostolic succession, according to Irenaeus, is not a succession of “ordination”alone, but a succession and continuity of the whole Economy of God formankind, that is to say, of the whole substance and life of the Church, the whole of its fullness and universality.”
d) “In our ‘ecumenistic’ but not rightly believing era, the theological and ecclesiastical testimony of Hieromartyr Irenaeus, Bishop of the ancient Church –in which the awareness of the indivisible unity of the Apostolic and Catholic and Orthodox and Eucharistic character of God’s Churches dispersed throughout the world prevailed – always means for us Orthodox the living tradition of the mystery of the Church and its unity, from which we may not depart and which we may not change. We Orthodox do not change our traditional consciousness concerning the Church, because this would mean changing the Church, in other words, breaking up the historical universality of the Church of the Godman Christ, and interrupting our unity and communion with the Apostolic and patristic Church of all the ages”.
Therefore, according to St Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, there is no Church without Orthodoxy and Divine Eucharist; there is no Orthodoxy without the Church and the Eucharist; and there is no Eucharist without the Church and Orthodoxy. This is the tradition that runs through the Church from the time of the Apostles until today in the Church’s consciousness.
4. The decisions of the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece
The Church of Greece is one of the fourteen Orthodox Churches. It received its autocephalous status with the Synodical and Patriarchal Tome of 1850, and several provinces were added to itover time, some by assimilation (1866, 1882) and others put under the ‘guardianship’ of Greece (1928).
As it was my duty, I studied the texts prepared by the delegates of all the Churches and signed by the Primates. While the Permanent Holy Synod and the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece were studying the texts, it was decided to make some changes, namely, corrections and additions with the intention of improving the texts. This was done in a spirit of unity, with unanimity in most cases, and very small minority votesin some cases, and one proposal with an open vote.
A result was reached that satisfied all the Hierarchs, and also those who learned about the decision. In what follows I will present the main elements of the decision.
The key point is that while in various sections of the text “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the rest of the Christian world” it was mentioned that the Orthodox Church “recognises the historical existence of other Christian Churches and Confessions”, this was replaced with the phrase: “is aware of the historical existence of other Christian Confessions and Communities”.
Another important point refersto the unity of the Church. While the text said that the unity of the Church “is unshakable,”subsequent sections mentioned the effort to restore unity among Christians, as if the branch theory applied. Some corrections were made in the text, to the effect that the Orthodox Church believes that “the unity of the Church is unshakable” and participates“ in the movement towards the restoration of unity of the other Christians” or “the lost unity of other Christians”, and that it is working for that day to come when “the Lord will fulfil the hope of the Orthodox Church by gathering into it all those who are scattered, that it maybecome one flock with one shepherd.”
Another important point is the one referring to the prospect “of theological dialogues of the Orthodox Church with other Christian Confessions and Communities”. These dialogues “are always determined on the basis of the principles of Orthodox ecclesiology and the canonical criteria of the already formed ecclesiastical tradition, according to the sacred Canons of Ecumenical and local Councils recognised by the Ecumenical Councils, as are the Canons 46, 47 and 50 of the Holy Apostles; 8 and 19 of the First Ecumenical Council; 7 of the Second Ecumenical Council; 95 of the Quinisext Council; and 7 and 8 of Laodicea.”
A necessary clarification was also added: “It is clarified that, whenpractising the reception of non-Orthodox by declaration and holy Chrism by economy, this does not mean that the Orthodox Church recognises the validity of their Baptism and other sacraments.”
In the paragraph mentioning the condemnation of any disruption of the unity of the Church by individuals or groups, and the maintenance of the genuine Orthodox faith, which is guaranteed by the Conciliar system, the Canon 6 of the Second Ecumenical Council and Canons 14 and 15 of First-Second Ecumenical Council were added.
In another section mentioning the need for inter-Christian theological dialogue, without provocative acts of confessional competition, the Unia was added in parenthesis, which means that the Orthodox Church does not accept this hypocritical way of uniting the Churches, as the Unia professes in practice.
A significant correction was made in the section saying that local Orthodox Churches “are called upon to contribute to inter-faith understanding and collaboration” by adding the words “for peaceful coexistence and social coexistence of people, without this implying any religious syncretism”.
There was a long discussion on the participation of the Orthodox Church in the World Council of Churches (WCC). The proposal of the Standing Holy Synod was to delete the relevant paragraphs referring to this. Following intense debate,the issue was decided by an open ballot (by a show of hands), with thirteen Hierarchs proposing to delete the paragraphs, sixty-two to retain it, and two expressing different views.
Thus, the majority of the Hierarchs was in favour of retaining these paragraphs in the text, and thatthe Church of Greece should in the work of the WCC in accordance with the necessary pre-conditions. In the debate and vote I argued that we should remain in the WCC as observers, but this was the only proposal.
Nevertheless, in this text the phrase that the Orthodox Churches in the WCC contribute “by all means at their disposal to the testimony of truth and promotion of the unity of Christians” was corrected by the phrase, contribute “by all means at their disposal for the promotion of peaceful coexistence and cooperation on major socio-political challenges and problems.” This means that the reason for our Church’s participation in the WCC is only for social purposes, and not for the testimony of truth and the promotion of Christian unity.
In the text entitled “The mission of the Orthodox Church in today’s world” there was reference to the “human person” and the “communion of persons”. At the same time there were repeated references to “man”. So, for theological reasons and to consolidate the text, the phrase “the value of the human person”was replaced with the phrase “the value of man.”
In the text entitled “Autonomy and the means by which it is proclaimed”, a paragraph was added: “Church Provinces for which a Patriarchal Tome or Acthas been issued cannot ask for autonomy, and their ecclesiastical status remains unshakeable”.
In another paragraph of the same text, mentioning the granting of autonomy from the Mother Church to a province, the word “unanimously” was added.
These were the key suggestions by the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece for improving the texts.
I would like to express two points.
First, these additions and changes reflect a traditional ecclesiology, within the possibilities that the Hierarchy of our Church had to make such amendments. These decisions were basically unanimous and no one can argue that the “conservative” Hierarchs defeated the “progressive” Hierarchs!!!
Of course there were also proposals to withdraw completely the text “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the rest of the Christian world” for further elaboration, but they were not accepted by the Hierarchy.
Secondly, these decisions are binding for our Church, because they were accepted basically unanimously. This means that our delegation tothe Holy and Great Council has to support their inclusion in the text and has no possibility to retract.
Conclusion
Following the above, I conclude that the Holy and Great Council, with those Churches that will participate, should definitely mention explicitly the Ecumenical and Great Councils in its Message. The unhistorical, non-theological, anti-ecclesiastical “myth” that this Council was convened after 1200 years, or that it is the first Council after the Schism, must stop being spread.
With much respect, I beg and entreat the Primates of the Orthodox Churches, who will attend eventually, in particular His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, who laboured to bring things this far, to mention explicitly that this Council is a continuation of the Councils of Photios the Great, of St Gregory Palamas, of St Mark of Ephesus, of the Great Patriarchs of the East, their predecessors, some of whom were martyred for the glory of God and the Church. Otherwise there will be an additional reason for this Council to be discredited in the eyes of the Church faithful as an anti-Photian, anti-Palamite, anti-Mark (Mark Eugenicus), anti-Philokalic Council!
I feel that during the sessions of the Holy and Great Council there will be Council members who will be aware of the voice of the Prophets, the Apostles and the Fathers, the blood of the Martyrs of faith, the tears and struggles of the ascetics, the sweat of the missionaries, the prayers of “the poor in Christ”, the expectations of the pious people. Those who are neither aware of this nor understand it will be wretched.
June 2016
http://parembasis.gr» Posted By Alexey Karlgut On June 16, 2016 @ 5:08 pm
Fr. Gerasim Clear Choice in Diocese of the South Vote
Starovernik,
You give to much credit to Aparat’s intelegence! All shoud think about that as we get ready for AAC.
Meanwhile, to have a good laugh at how dim Syosset is, read the reflection they posted on OCA website, without realizing that author was speaking about them! 🙂
http://18aac.oca.org/becoming-fishers-of-men/
Alexey Karlgut» Posted By Alexey Karlgut On February 20, 2015 @ 7:44 pm
Abbuna Michael says: “The possibility of transfer to another diocese–or jurisdiction–ought seriously to be considered if the answer to question one is “no,” and the answer to question two is “yes.”
Gregg Gerasimon says: “The bishop is not simply a figurehead, along the lines of the Queen of England. He has a role, he has a purpose, his life must be integral to the church. It’s not optional. If he cannot fulfill that role for whatever reason, then he won’t be effective and cannot be a bishop. End of story.
What have we come to when we think that absentee bishops are OK? What would our forefathers in the early church think of this?”
I would reiterate again, that, Preeminence of the the diocesan church vs. centralized administration, that reflects Orthodox ecclesiology concerning the nature and prerogatives of the diocesan church, has to become a priority in church-wide discussions.
If His Grace Bishop Mathias has committed any “canonical crimes” rising to the level of being tried in synodal court (with possibility of being deposed), the charges should be brought forward, in keeping with Holy Canons of the Orthodox Church. If not, he should be restored immediately to his Episcopal ministry in his diocese!
While sensitivities of Sons of Job and Clergy Mid(western)Wives are important (in American democratic society), for the OCA it is important to be an Orthodox Church. As such, we have Statute and the Holy Canons that we must be congruent with, to remain Orthodox, and not to become a laughing stock of the rest of the The entirety of the Orthodox church (the pleroma of the church- πλήρωμα).
Article XI, Church Courts and Canonical Procedures, of “The Statute of the Orthodox Church in America” provides an outline of the canonical procedure to be observed in cases in which members of the church are accused of canonical crimes. The synodal court, comprised only of hierarchs who are members of a synod, adjudicates the rare cases which pertain only to it, i.e. primarily cases involving hierarchs. (Article XI, Section 4, h).
Canons and Statute clearly outline the “canonical crimes” for which bishop could be deposed and/removed from his diocese. Short of those, no one can/should remove diocesan hierarch from his diocese.
The 15th canon of Nicaea and the 1st and 2nd of Sardicia, repeatedly says that the transfer of bishops is absolutely forbidden. And in fact the 21st canon of Antioch which, like several other canons of this Council, is an authoritative interpretation of the Apostolic canons, absolutely forbids the transfer of a bishop for any reason whatsoever:
“A Bishop shall not go over from one diocese to another, nor arbitrarily impose himself, even though he be constrained by the laity, nor even though he be compelled to do so by sheer coercion on the part of bishops. Instead, he must stay where he has been allotted a church by God in the beginning, and not go away from it for another, in accordance with the rule which has already been previously laid down concerning this.”
Bishop can not be removed from his diocese neither by pressure of laity (Clergy Mid(western)Wives), nor by “sheer coercion on the parts of bishops”, but only by due canonical process, that is true to Orthodox Ecclesiology and Canon Law.
Fr. Alexey
» Posted By Alexey Karlgut On February 28, 2013 @ 8:10 pm
Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss
I believe that great effort needs to be made to review and change centralized administration and it’s attempts to justify it’s existence and relevance, to an absolute necessity on strengthening and growing the dioceses and parishes of the church, where, ” in the celebration of the Eucharist we become the Body of Christ and are equipped with all that is necessary to work out our own personal salvation, in and through Christ, and to bring this salvation to the world.”(SP p.7), and to proper teaching of Orthodox ecclesiology, that the sum total of the church exists within each local diocesan church and the unity of the local diocesan churches, expressed through the unity of their shepherds, create what is referred to as the “Territorial Church”, and that the diocese contains within itself, complete and total catholicity: all that is necessary to be the church, and an effort to redirect limited financial resources of parishes and dioceses of the church from Central Church Administration (CCA) to where all the Christian work is being done (i.e. parishes and dioceses), and to prevent redundancy of efforts and unjustified expenditures by CCA.
While vast majority of vital and fundamental witness, ministries, and life of the Church are manifested most directly and dynamically in local parish communities and sustained, nurtured, and empowered within the diocese, CCA is only concerned with collecting taxes to pay salaries and to perpetuate bureaucracy.
This is verified by the report of the OCA treasurer for 2010 (2011, and partial 2012), wherein it clearly states that during the year 2010 (and following years), the CCA expended over 90% of revenues from fair share assessments contributed by participating dioceses toward administrative expenses, while for the same time period reporting expenditures of 2% for charity, missions, Church growth, and seminaries (COMBINED!), and 3% for evangelization, Christian education, Christian service, youth/young adult ministries, pastoral life, vocations, liturgical music/translations, and chaplaincies (COMBINED!). And that is while reporting an operating surplus of over $450,000.00 for the year 2010, with surpluses for 2011, and 2012!
The CCA assessments during 2008-2012 at $105 per capita level (as well as current $95 level), levied upon participating dioceses, and, thereby, diocesan parishes, constitute a financial hardship in distressed economic circumstances, and hinders the ability of the parishes and dioceses to properly attend to strengthening the parishes, establishing and growing missions, and expanding witness, ministries, and Christian outreach.
Reorientation is most necessary at this time for the church to continue it’s mission!
Preeminence of the the diocesan church vs. centralized administration, that reflects Orthodox ecclesiology concerning the nature and prerogatives of the diocesan church, has to become a priority in church-wide discussions.Fr. Alexey
» Posted By Alexey Karlgut On February 21, 2013 @ 9:16 pm
Not to disagree with Oliver Douglas, who says: “The in-house apparat lawyer must not have extensive experience in federal court litigation or he would have pointed out the problems. Full contact litigation is nasty, expensive and uncovers all sorts of stuff that one may have wanted hidden.”, but, ANY Civil Court would take following into serious consideration, before accepting ANY litigation against the Church.
Nothing is more important to churches and to survival and health of their faith communities than the right to select their ministers according to the dictates of their unique doctrines and polities. The First Amendment accords churches total autonomy over such matters, protecting them not only from meddlesome legislatures and executives but also from private common law claims which threaten that autonomy and would directly abridge the fundamental right of churches to select their ministers and thus is barred by the First Amendment.
For well over a century, the United States Supreme Court has vigorously protected the autonomy of churches in ecclesiastical matters. The First Amendment’s guarantee of church autonomy secures the exclusive jurisdiction of churches over matters of doctrine, polity, religious teaching, and governance, thereby ensuring that churches can govern their spiritual and ecclesiastical affairs free from state oversight or entanglement.
An integral part of what is often called the “Church Autonomy Doctrine” is the long-recognized “ministerial exception”, which precludes civil courts from adjudicating any claim that interferes with how a church selects, regulates, or dismisses a minister. The Constitution protects not only whom a church selects to be a minister, but the ecclesiastical process by which a church arrives at the decision to make such a selection.
In these matters, the First Amendment ensures that churches answer to God and their respective faith communities, not to the state. The integrity and the very existence of almost all religious communities depend on their right to select persons for ministry who are willing to espouse the beliefs of the church, adhere to and exemplify its tenets, and are ready and able to preach and exhort others to live by its laws and precepts. The claims of any plaintiff based on assumed “privacy rights” or “employment contract” would require the very sort of civil-court inquest into, and interference with, a church’s doctrines, polity, and ecclesiastical procedures that the First Amendment flatly forbids.
The application of tort principles to the OCA would be barred by the First Amendment because it would require judicial examination of the church’s internal policies and procedures. An examining court would have to examine the procedures for extending/terminating assignments within the church, the role of the bishop(s)/administration in extending assignments, whether the bishop/administration acted reasonably within their responsibilities, and other internal policies and procedures.
When a court is required to interpret Canon Law or internal church policies and practices, the First Amendment is violated because such judicial inquiry would constitute excessive government entanglement with religion. Any inquiry into the policies and practices of the Church in hiring and supervising their clergy (including reviews of personnel files) will involve the Court in making sensitive judgments about the propriety of the Church’s supervision in light of their religious beliefs and policies, which would violate both the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clauses because it would inevitably require examination of church policy and doctrine with the intent to pass judgment on their reasonableness. The judicial inquiry into a religious institution’s (Church’s) practices of hiring, retaining, ordaining, and terminating assignments of clergy, will necessarily involve an impermissible judicial interpretation of constitutionally protected religious activities that would inhibit religion.
Fr. Alexey
» Posted By Alexey Karlgut On February 19, 2013 @ 12:30 pm
Lest there is a confusion on “due canonical procedures”, I wanted to share some facts that might be of interest and help, in this discussion.
Article XI, Church Courts and Canonical Procedures, of “The Statute of the Orthodox Church in America” provides an outline of the canonical procedure to be observed in cases in which members of the church are accused of canonical crimes. Section 1 begins by noting that “Every member of the Church is entitled to due canonical procedure in the courts of the Church.”
Article XI emphasizes the preeminence of canonical juridical process at the diocesan level and reflects Orthodox ecclesiology concerning the nature and prerogatives of the diocesan church. Indeed, it provides that, in Orthodox canonical practice, there are only two types of courts, both with different roles. The diocesan court acts as the court of first instance in almost all canonical cases. The synodal court, comprised only of hierarchs who are members of a synod, adjudicates the rare cases which pertain only to it, i.e. primarily cases involving hierarchs and, acting as the court of second instance, the cases which are appealed to it from the diocesan court, i.e. as “The Supreme Court of Appeals” (Article XI, Section 4, h).
In Orthodox jurisprudence in general and in the OCA in particular, there are no supra-diocesan courts, i.e. no national, “OCA,” “Central Administration,” “SMPAC”, or “Metropolitan Council” courts, rather only the two provided for in the Statute and Canons: the diocesan court and the synodal court, each with their specific areas of competence.
The diocesan court, by its very name and nature, is dependent upon a diocesan hierarch for its authority. Indeed, a diocesan court can only be convened by an explicit decision of the diocesan hierarch. As is noted in Article XI, Section 2, of the statute, the diocesan hierarch appoints the officers of the court who are to be chosen from among diocesan clergy and/or laity (depending upon the nature of the court.) This same section notes that the diocesan hierarch acts as the presiding officer. However, he may, for specific significant reasons, delegate another clergyman to act on his behalf. It is not clearly stated within the OCA statute, but the diocesan and local nature of the diocesan court would imply that the clergyman appointed by the diocesan hierarch to take his place would also be a member of the diocesan clergy.
However, whatever significant reasons exist, the delegation of another clergyman to act in behalf of the diocesan hierarch in no way removes the court from the authority of the diocesan hierarch. It remains a diocesan court and can only be convened at his direction and with his blessing. It further stands that, should the diocesan hierarch, acting as presiding officer or not, with someone delegated to act in his place, decides that a valid reason exists for dissolving the court, it would seem that he may do so. In the end, it is his court and he must confirm its decision (Statute, XI, 4, f).While it remains to be seen, whether or not, the Central Administration is acting in an appropriate manner, there is most certainly a process of an appeal to “The Supreme Court of Appeals” that is envisioned and existing in “The Statute of the Orthodox Church in America”, canonical tradition, and Orthodox jurisprudence, equally available to ‘defendant’ and ‘accuser’ alike.
It is not necessarily about ‘fair play’ or ‘double jeopardy’, but about faithfully following proper canonical juridical process that reflects Orthodox ecclesiology.
Fr. Alexey
» Posted By Alexey Karlgut On February 19, 2013 @ 9:53 am
And the Hits Just Keep on Comin’
DEPARTURE FROM ORTHODOX ECCLESIOLOGY
I believe that many of the problems we are seeing today could be directly attributed to the Strategic Plan for OCA, being implemented by Central Church Administration, and it’s overall departure from established Church Tradition, Holy Canons, theology, and ecclesiology. Please forgive the length of the post.
WHAT THE SP DOES:
1) Fails to recognize autocephaly
The present draft of the SP completely ignores the autocephalous status of the OCA. There is not one mention of autocephaly in the entire document. Given the current tone of inter-Orthodox relations in North America, this could be interpreted as an attempt to “cater” to other Orthodox churches present on this continent. Maybe it is simply an oversight. Maybe it is an overt attempt to redefine who we are as the Orthodox Church in America. In any case, this failure to recognize or otherwise discuss the autocephalous status of the OCA must be addressed in any future discussion of a strategic plan.
2) The SP indicates a change in the understanding of the hierarchical order of the Church
The current document, while using language that speaks of the church’s hierarchy, does so in a manner that clearly diminishes the role of the bishops joined together as Synod as the ultimate authority within the church—although this is not a new phenomenon, as the OCA statute itself already provides misleading wording that implies that the AAC and its delegated body, the MC, are somehow the ultimate authority in matters relating to administration of finances, legal matters, etc. The present process can more clearly acknowledge that the authority of the AAC and the MC are delegated by the Synod- which means that this authority rests primarily within the Synod itself and is merely delegated by the Synod at the present time, for any number of reasons. Hopefully, it is understood by all that this delegation is given by the Synod in order to utilize the expertise of other clergy and laity within the church who may have expertise in areas in which the hierarchs do not.
3) The SP changes and understates the Orthodox understanding of the role and relationship of the Diocesan Bishop to the Diocese and the role and relationship of Priest to Parish
The present form of the SP speaks of the diocesan bishop simply as the “person responsible for all aspects of the life of the Diocese” and although other definitions of his role are found within the document, it fails to adequately articulate his role, as a sharer in the apostolic succession, as a guarantor of unity in the Orthodox Faith handed to us from the Apostles, and as high priest who presides on behalf of the worshiping community. It also states that “The unity of the community comes from the Bishop’s active ministry and involvement in the lives of his people, and their consensus in following the Bishop’s leadership.”
This statement is clearly a departure from Orthodox sacramental theology and ecclesiology. The present draft also significantly diminishes the priestly ministry by defining the priest as “The priest assembles the faithful and leads all to mutually identify, nurture, and exercise their particular gifts and to recognize the charisms of others who would function as leaders of the parish.” As observed in the comments below, this reduces the priestly role to a mere facilitator in the way that any group leader is a facilitator. There is no mention within the document of the role of the sacramental nature of ordained ministry of the priest sharing in the ministry of the bishop. Is this so as not to offend the sensitivities of those who aren’t ordained – but who nonetheless share in the work of the church?
4) The SP changes the role and relationship of MC to AAC and to the Holy Synod
The ordering of the section on the “Structure and Governance of the Church” begins with the parish. As life in church is experienced by most of the faithful at the level of the local parish community, this is an understandable way to begin. To begin with the parish also seems logical, especially in order to avoid the usual and most customary level of “starting from the top.” However, the order followed after this does not always seem logical. This is particularly evident when the last body discussed in the section on church structure and governance is the metropolitan council.
Is this meant to imply that the MC, since it is listed last, is the most important of all the groups discussed? Does it imply a hierarchy of importance or is the order mixed in order to avoid showing the Holy Synod as the church’s highest authority?
Also, the section on the Holy Synod notes that “In the spirit of conciliarity, and more fully to hear the voice of the people, the Holy Synod, through The Statute of the Orthodox Church in America, has delegated the authority for legislative and administrative matters to the All-American Council and to the Metropolitan Council.” Unless the common understanding is that this delegation by the Holy Synod to the AAC is not an abdication of its authority, this document radically changes the role of the Synod and its relationship to the AAC and the MC.
WHAT THE SP DOES NOT DO:
1) The SP does not address stewardship/assessments for funding Central Church Administration (CCA)
This has been discussed and re-discussed for years. However, at the time at which the church is capturing the “vision, goals, culture and structure of the church for the foreseeable future” then now is the time to address this important and unsettled aspect of church life. Administratively, there are areas of great concern that are draining resources provided to the OCA by assessments from dioceses, deaneries, parishes, and ultimately our faithful. It is observed that according to the newly revised (by the Metropolitan Council) budget of the OCA, the Executive Officers are: 2 part-time employees (Treasurer and Director of Communications) and 2 full time employees (Chancellor and Corporate Secretary). These officers receive a combined compensation equaling $416,000.00 per year. Accordingly, that equals the cumulative assessments of 4,425 “dues paying” members of our parishes. In other words, the total annual assessment of the entire Diocese of New York and New Jersey nearly equals the amount paid to four people!
The OCA is in a serious need to review and evaluate its current staffing requirements and compensations. Another area of concern was legal fees paid by the OCA. This year alone it will equal or exceed $750,000 spent on the former Chancellor’s two lawsuits. It was observed that the Metropolitan Council is exceeding its authority and not acting in best financial interest of the OCA by tripling the amount of allocated funds for legal defense as approved and budgeted by the most recent All American Council of the Orthodox Church in America. It is noted that the Metropolitan Council is spending the equivalent of the assessments of 10,000 ‘dues paying’ parish members (nearly half of the OCA’s financially supporting membership) on the salaries of 3 officers and legal fees!
Many priests express the feeling that expenditures not authorized by the All American Council by the Central Administration and the Metropolitan Council on executive salaries and legal fees are incongruent with the reality they face in parishes, deaneries, and dioceses of the OCA (i.e. declining membership, limited/declining donations, the recession, the extraordinarily meager salaries of clergy who often survive on the wages earned by spouses, the rising cost of maintaining parish facilities, and trying to fund the critical work of evangelization, church growth, and charitable outreach.) Any SP reorganization that does not address those crucial issues is critically flawed!
2) The SP does not address the composition of AAC
For some time, the composition of the AAC has been discussed and possible alternatives have been introduced into this discussion that would make the AAC more truly reflective of the canonical relationship between dioceses. As it is currently comprised, the AAC is a representative body of individual parishes and some church institutions. It must be stated again that, given the scope of the work at hand, now is the time to address not only the composition of the AAC, but also its role in the life of the church. As well as what other territorial meetings, conferences, or conventions might be sponsored to further support and encourage ministry at all levels of the church. This need to review the composition and role of the AAC can also be said of its sub-group, the metropolitan council.
3) The SP does not address the need to restructure the Central Church Administration, sell the Syosset property, cut Assessments by 50%, and move CCA to Washington DC
There has been significant and substantial discussion of the need to restructure the central administration of the church (CCA) and to decrease assessments. This has included discussion of selling the property in Syosset, “downsizing” the CCA, and moving to the Primate’s See city or at least the Diocese of Washington. Part of this discussion is based upon the financial realities faced by the church and the financial hardship which a still significantly top-heavy administration places upon the church- as noted above. Failure to address this within the SP process is yet another failed opportunity to plot a positive course and better enable the church to face the future.
ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS AND OBSERVATIONS:
1) Re: Autocephaly
While it would be perilous to ignore the fact that our Orthodox Church in America has been through several years characterized by failures in leadership, financial stewardship, with suspicions, accusations, and violations of trust, it is even more perilous to confuse the ontological essence of the church and to overreact to an administrative shortcomings, problems, and crisis’s by remaking our church into less then what it is – Autocephalous Orthodox Church. And watering down or compromising our church’s Autocephaly violates and betrays the vision of St. Innocent, St. Tikhon, and numerous fathers of our church as Schmemann, Meyendorff, and others.
2) Re: SP process
Two primary concerns are that this process (SP) demeans the very essence of what the Orthodox Church is, and the role of the bishops in the Church (and on the parish level that of the clergy).
3) Re: Conciliarity
which is a term that’s thrown around way too much, speaks primarily of the interaction of the bishops in their shepherding of the Church— but it’s become a term that is used by many to be a “churchly” way of saying democracy within the Church, which itself is another way of saying congregationalism
4) Re: Church governance, conciliarity and catholicity, and authority
There is confusion between ‘conciliarity’ and ‘catholicity’ throughout the entire document. Conciliarity does not mean democracy. Conciliarity is not about majority or plurality or “the voice of the people”; it is not about voting and referendums. Neither is conciliarity opposed to utilizing democratic principles, voting, etc. when deemed appropriate. It is about wholeness and mutuality. Its root concept is found in the Russian word, Sobornost. This refers to conciliar structure of the Church (council of Bishops), while catholicity refers to its wholeness or integrity. The Church can only function as the Church when each part of the conciliar structure has complete integrity in its own personal life and its communal life within the Church; when each is working in the proper order to build up the whole. Each “responsibility” has to be functioning in “accountability” for it to participate in the whole.
Thus, the bishops must take full responsibility and be accountable to one another and to the Metropolitan, as well as to the entire Body of laity and clergy, for the stewardship of their diocese or area of responsibility. The Metropolitan has to accept full responsibility to maintain the unity of the whole, the Holy Synod of Bishops locally, and in relationship with Synods of other Orthodox Churches world-wide. The Metropolitan must be accountable to the Holy Synod of Bishops for his stewardship of the office entrusted to his care. Every order or function of the Church — Diocesan Councils, Metropolitan Council, Diocesan Assemblies, and the All American Councils — must be accountable to the structures above them, beside them, and supporting them.
5) Re: Authority in the church, Accountability, and Responsibility
What this document does, is consistently confuse ‘accountability’ and ‘responsibility’ and ‘authority’ in regards to Metropolitan Council, All American Council, and the Holy Synod of Bishops and the interactive relationship of these bodies. It should be noted that “accountability,” a concept that has always been part of the church’s life (though not always evident or exercised) is used here only in reference to hierarchs. Are not all members of the church, clergy and laity alike, accountable to one another? Certainly, if the hierarchs and those who assist them in the administration of the church are to be held accountable for their stewardship, the same must be said of everyone in the church for all aspects of their lives within the church. The document allows one exception to this otherwise restricted use, i.e. the section on the diocesan bishop states that the faithful are “accountable to the bishop in love,” a concept that is not further developed or explained and which comes across as a mere platitude.
Another significant term that is poorly utilized is that of “responsibility.” Responsibility is used primarily in relating the role and duty of hierarchs within the church. It is sparingly used to refer to the diocesan assembly and the MC and, in one instance, is used in reference to parishes and parishioners. The lack of responsibility given to other clergy and faithful seems to deny that everyone within the church is responsible for its life and mission. Granted, this responsibility is exercised in different ways at different levels within the church, but is true responsibility nonetheless. If this document truly wants to lift up the role of everyone within the church, each in its proper place and perspective, it might better highlight the accountability and responsibility that pertains to all. Emasculating the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America and over-empowering the Metropolitan Council (itself a historical aberration) violates true Orthodox conciliarity and catholicity, and the wholeness and integrity of our church.
Fr. Alexey
» Posted By Alexey Karlgut On February 15, 2013 @ 4:32 pm
“The OCA has reduced it’s operating costs to reduce the burden on the Church.”
Really?!
CCA Assessments per capita(Ancient History)
1950– $1.00
1967– $5.00
1973– $7.00(Current History)
1992– $40.00
1993– $45.00
1994– $46.30
1995– $48.00
1996– $50.00
1997– $52.00
1998– $53.50
1999– $54.00
2000– $60.00
2002– $85.00
2008– $105.00» Posted By Alexey Karlgut On February 15, 2013 @ 11:33 am
We have paid $8.1 million in previous three years in Central Church Administration Assessments (CCA) ($2.7 million a year according to Strategic Plan for OCA, p. 19) from our parishes and dioceses. Last three years rate of Assessments for OCA is $105.00 per capita (person) per year + 3.2 million last year, for the total of $11.3 million ($95.00 per capita this year)Over 90 percent “is spent on administrative expenses, LESS THAN 10 PERCENT IS SPENT ON THE OUTREACH MINISTRIES OF THE CHURCH.” (Strategic Plan for OCA, p. 19-20)
For those moneys we have received Absolutely Nothing of Christian Value (or Any value) to our parishes and dioceses, but continual administrative turmoil, scandals, blog wars, divisions into camps (between administrative bodies – HS, MC, Central Staff, and even within those bodies – pro +Jonah, anti +Jonah, pro Stokoe, anti Stokoe, ‘appalled Four’, etc.) -resulting in direct loss of revenues, parishioners, and potential converts in our parishes and dioceses.
Their inability to work out their differences, respect each other as colleagues, come to common ground, and work for the greater good of the church, is shamelessly put on display for the OCA laity year after year. We pay a national circus tax, a tithe on our hard-earned incomes during a severe economic depression, so these guys can stab each other in the back and whine about it to their audiences.
Creating another national department and mandate (unfunded) will waste more of our faithful’s money and clearly reorient proper Orthodox ecclisiology – Diocesan soverngnity – fullness (Catholicity) of the Church is manifested in Diocesan Bishop gathered together with his presbyters and laity, to a more papal (Syosett) central administration ecclisiology!
We have gotten nothing for our Assesments, but scandals and fights, originating with Central Church Administration, as well as losing three Primates, and over empowering the Metropolitan Council, SMPAC, and Legal Commitee of MC, and Syosett Administrators!
It is time to take our church back from amatures!
I believe that reducing National (OCA) Assessments WILL reorient our priorities and resources to diocesan and parish growth, from National Church waste.
Fr. Alexey
» Posted By Alexey Karlgut On February 14, 2013 @ 9:51 pm
His Holiness Patriarch Aleksey and His Holiness Patriarch Kyril, have made a point of supporting OCA as an Autocephalous Church in America to a great extent, but at the same time they have asked, why we are not doing any work with Russians in our parishes, including services in church slavonic and on the old calendar, that “their people” on our territories desire! We should look beyond our OCA dislike of Russians and old calendar, to missionary outreach and church growth, where possible! Why not provide what is needed? And bring more people to our parishes? Why is it when we talk about outreach and evangelization, we think it’s about reaching out to blacks and Hispanics, and not to Orthodox Russians, Ukrainians, Bulgarians, Slovaks, etc, that are here by 100,000’s and need to be ministered to? Why not? You want to grow OCA? Look under your nose!
Fr. Alexey» Posted By Alexey Karlgut On December 24, 2012 @ 10:19 pm
“you are too arrogant to listen and learn form the individuals such as myself who were there from the beginning, who are the last living connection you have to the fathers, theologians, and “architects” of the Orthodox Church in America – many you only know of by books or YouTube”
Mike, you are not the only one who was “there from the beginning, who are the last living connection”,
I was there as well! You want to get into theological or personal discussion? I am always glad to oblige!
Fr. Alexey Karlgut
I know you, your past, your history, as well as your academic accomplishments!» Posted By Alexey Karlgut On December 6, 2012 @ 5:29 pm
First Rule of Holes: When You’re in One, Stop Digging
Mike,
You owe me close to $4,000.00 in rent in Perl River, NY, and now that you are so prominent and successful, you may send it to me at 210 Hill Ave, Endicott, NY, 13760, to help a poor priest and a family with 12 children.
Always praying for you,
Fr. Alexey Karlgut» Posted By Alexey Karlgut On July 20, 2012 @ 11:03 pm
Helga says: “As for why Stokoe is doing this, I can only hope his conscience has gotten the better of him. But it might be that he’s sick or dying, or some other such reason deserving of pity. Whatever the reason, we should continue to pray for him to repent of his public and private sins, and be able to offer himself as a worthy servant of Christ.”
Dear Helga, wishful thinking! As a matter of fact, Stokoe received a letter from Fr. Ray Velencia’s attorney informing him of the lawsuit being filed against him and Ocanews. Org for defamation and other charges, one day before AAC, last week. After few days of reflection and looking at evidence on his own website, and some in-depth conversations with the spouse, ocanews.org was shut down today. Stan Drezlo got similar letter as well as few others. I think this verifies the old adage, that if you stand up to the bully, he’ll turn coward and run away.
» Posted By Alexey Karlgut On November 9, 2011 @ 10:57 pm
What Are We Getting for $105? Part I. One Priest’s Question
Dear George,
I believe that NY Resolution will be supported by majority of delegates to 16th AAC as long as they reflect on the waist of $8,100,000.00 in the last triennium by Central Administration, and prayerfully consider this resolution as a beginning of change from a top heavy and dysfunctional superstructure that produces nothing of value to the parishes and dioceses, to the system by which we will refocus our energies and finances to where actual life and outreach ministries of the Church take place – parishes and dioceses. I further believe that it will pass!» Posted By Alexey Karlgut On October 23, 2011 @ 6:23 pm
Dear Jacob,
I agree with everything you say and just want to make some historical correction. Although this resolution to decrease CCA assessments became popularly known as “the New York Plan”, as a matter of fact, we can’t take the credit for it. It was presented for consideration to last All American Council in Pittsburgh by Diocese of Western Pennsylvania (and was almost certain to pass), and was only tabled by delegates because of the election of His Beatitude Metropolitan Jonah, and the real sense that Holy Spirit has breathed new life into our ailing OCA. This sense and good will was squandered by Central Administration in last three years. The WPA resolution is still available on OCA website and could be seen at following address (though it’s next to impossible to find):http://oca.org/news/archived/15th-all-american-council-proposed-resolutions-now-published-online
Resolution #4
Subject of Resolutions: Assessments (Fair Share) Reduction
Submitted To: Preconciliar Commission Resolutions Committee
Submitted By: Diocese of Western Pennsylvania
WHEREAS the Statute of the Orthodox Church in America gives to the All-American Councils, the authority to set the rate of assessments to fund the Church:
BE IT RESOLVED that the 15th All-American Council fix the fair share amount of each of the participating dioceses at an amount not to exceed $50.00 per capita of the 2009 census of the participating dioceses for the next triennium.
And BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Metropolitan Council shall develop and prepare its budgets for the next triennium (2009-201 1) at a level which is equal to no more than $50.00 per capita of the 2009 census of the participating dioceses.
» Posted By Alexey Karlgut On October 23, 2011 @ 4:48 pm
— Original Message —–
From: John Dresko
To: pastoralcr@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2011 6:36 PM
Subject: Re: [pastoralcr] Re: Tithing, etc.We are going to a pledge system this year for one reason only. We have gone through a serious instruction period about stewardship and giving and I want parishioners to have to THINK about their giving. A pledge form does that. We probably will not use the pledges for budgeting, as I think we need to budget with vision and try to meet the spending needs rather than “seeing what we get and spending that.” I find that has no vision whatsoever and actually promotes miserliness and a temptation to donate if “I like the way the money is being spent.”
As regards the assessment, I speak as one who spent ten years trying to get the central administration to move away from the head tax. When we passed “fair share” in Toronto, it was meant to be a bridge to proportional giving at all levels. Unfortunately, as soon as we left Toronto, everyone, including the “powers that be” immediately resumed speaking of it as $105 per person. It (the amount and the language) has remained that since. No effort whatsoever was made in Pittsburgh to continue the move to proportional giving – not even lip service.
The central administration of the Church will never move away from the head tax until forced to. I have finally been converted (I’m a slow learner!) – I will be supporting the $50 proposal unless a real resolution implementing tithing at the diocesan and central levels of the Church gains traction and passes. My parish has for the past four months had to make a decision – give me my pay check or pay the assessments. Guess what my instructions on this matter were? We have a $4700 mortgage payment and our assessments (both diocesan and central) total approximately $3K per month. For what? At least our diocese does great things such as mission and clergy support. My faithful see that their assessment goes for legal expenses and outrageous salaries and benefits. We have to figure out how to inspire our parishioners to generous and Christian stewardship. We have to figure out how to make our ends meet on what the faithful can provide. Why is it different at upper levels of Church life?
Finally, I need to speak my horror at receiving a $2000 assessment to pay for the AAC. That is almost 1% of our annual budget! Again, for ten years I tried to get the administration to simply budget the AAC as part of the operating budget of the OCA. I cannot assess my parishioners any amount whatsoever. Why do we continue to allow it on any other level of the Church?
JD in LV
» Posted By Alexey Karlgut On October 22, 2011 @ 9:03 pm
Dear George, the answer is yes!
» Posted By Alexey Karlgut On October 21, 2011 @ 8:59 pm
If one substitutes “health care plan” with CCA Assessments, parallel is clear!
No one can sum it up better than Trump
Let me get this straight . . .
We’re going to be “gifted” with a health care
plan we are forced to purchase and
fined if we don’t,
Which purportedly covers at least
ten million more people,
without adding a single new doctor,
but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents,
written by a committee whose chairman
says he doesn’t understand it,
passed by a Congress that didn’t read it but
exempted themselves from it,
and signed by a Dumbo President who smokes,
with funding administered by a treasury chief who
didn’t pay his taxes,
for which we’ll be taxed for four years before any
benefits take effect,
by a government which has
already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare,
all to be overseen by a surgeon general
who is obese,and financed by a country that’s broke!!!!! ‘What the hell could possibly go wrong?
» Posted By Alexey Karlgut On October 21, 2011 @ 1:01 pm
From 105 to 50 in a New York Minute — Part III. Syosset: Ends, Means, Wants and Necessities
You have no idea!
Its like Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler, Attila the Hun rolled into one, with healthy sprinkling of Ben Franklin, Edison, Einstein, and Herman Cain together with 9-9-9 plan or 10-10-10 plan!
It is truly a podvig and I appreciate that you understood the nature of the ‘beast’!
Truly, thank you!» Posted By Alexey Karlgut On October 20, 2011 @ 10:01 pm
Russian/German/American
» Posted By Alexey Karlgut On October 20, 2011 @ 7:11 pm
Dear Sam,
“What is stopping the diocese of NY/NJ from following the lead of the dioceses that do not pay a head tax? Why must there be an All-American council resolution to fix NY/NJ’s problem?
Hoping you and yours are well,”
It’s OCA’s problem, not NY/NJ – your question may be directed to all dioceses that pay a head tax. We act as the Church in a concilliar way, not stop paying on our own, as some did in the past. Its about the direction of the church for the future.
Thanks for hoping that I and mine are well, if you are interested I have blood pressure, incontinence, gout, migraines, problem with overweight, sclerosis, tri-polar disorder, early onset of diabetes, well, you get the picture. 🙂 thanks for asking.
» Posted By Alexey Karlgut On October 20, 2011 @ 6:18 pm
Additional #’s re: current assessments
Albanian Archdiocese —————— (does not pay ‘head tax’) (14 parishes)
Archdiocese of Canada —————–(does not pay ‘head tax’) (94 parishes)
Archdiocese of Washington, D.C.
Archdiocese of Western Pennsylvania
Bulgarian Diocese ———————- (does not pay ‘head tax’) (21 parishes)
Diocese of Alaska ———————–(does not pay ‘head tax’) (92 parishes)
Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania
Diocese of Mexico ———————-(does not pay ‘head tax’) (# unknown)
Diocese of New England
Diocese of New York and New Jersey
Diocese of the Midwest
Diocese of the South
Diocese of the West
Romanian Episcopate ——————- (does not pay ‘head tax’) (112 parishes)Total not participating in per capita assessment system (nor reported in OCA census) are 333 OCA parishes, plus Mexico. Current system is neither “Fair Share”, nor equitable, nor growth oriented, or realistic based on today’s economy in North America.
» Posted By Alexey Karlgut On October 20, 2011 @ 2:01 pm
From 105 to 50 in a New York Minute — Part II. Syosset: A Trajectory of Failure
Additional numbers for CCA
While vast majority of vital and fundamental witness, ministries, and life of the Church are manifested most directly and dynamically in local parish communities and sustained, nurtured, and empowered within the diocese, CCA is only concerned with collecting taxes to pay salaries and to perpetuate bureaucracy.
This is verified by the report of the OCA treasurer for 2010, wherein it clearly states that during the year 2010 the CCA expended 90% of revenues from fair share assessments contributed by participating dioceses toward administrative expenses, while for the same time period reporting expenditures of 2% for charity, missions, Church growth, and seminaries (COMBINED!), and 3% for evangelization, Christian education, Christian service, youth/young adult ministries, pastoral life, vocations, liturgical music/translations, and chaplaincies (COMBINED!). And that is while reporting an operating surplus of over $450,000.00 for this same year 2010!
The CCA assessments at current $105 per capita level, levied upon participating dioceses, and, thereby, diocesan parishes, constitute a financial hardship in distressed economic circumstances, and hinders the ability of the parishes and dioceses to properly attend to strengthening the parishes, establishing and growing missions, and expanding witness, ministries, and Christian outreach.
» Posted By Alexey Karlgut On October 14, 2011 @ 3:26 pm
From 105 to 50 in a New York Minute — Part I. How We Got Here
Oct. 10th, 2011
We have paid $8.1 million in last three years in Central Church Administration Assessments (CCA) ($2.7 million a year according to Strategic Plan for OCA, p. 19) from our parishes and dioceses. Current rate of Assessments for OCA is $105.00 per capita (person) per year.
Over 90 percent “is spent on administrative expenses – LESS THAN 10 PERCENT IS SPENT ON THE OUTREACH MINISTRIES OF THE CHURCH.” (Strategic Plan for OCA, p. 19-20)
For those moneys we have received Absolutely Nothing of Christian Value (or Any value) to our parishes and dioceses, but continual administrative turmoil, attempts by factions on MC to remove Metropolitan, scandals, blog wars, divisions into camps (between administrative bodies – HS, MC, Central Staff, and even within those bodies – pro +Jonah, anti +Jonah, pro Stokoe, anti Stokoe, ‘appalled Four’, etc.) -resulting in direct loss of revenues, parishioners, and potential converts in our parishes and dioceses.
Their inability to work out their differences, respect each other as colleagues, come to common ground, and work for the greater good of the church, is shamelessly put on display for the OCA laity year after year. We pay a national circus tax, a tithe on our hard-earned incomes during a severe economic depression, so these guys can stab each other in the back and whine about it to their audiences.
I believe that reducing National (OCA) Assessments as set forth in a Resolution adopted by the Diocese of New York and New Jersey, WILL reorient our priorities and resources to diocesan and parish growth, from National Church waste.
While I am certainly sympathetic to the OCA treasurer’s position, as expressed in Strategic Plan that suggests that OCA freeze CCA Assessments for next triennium at current level of $105 per capita, (2.7 Million a year), what she fails to understand is that cutting the assessment from the parishes does NOT necessitate cutting the budget commensurately … they just need to find other ways to raise funds. Other jurisdictions — the GOA (Leadership 100), the AOA (Order of St. Ignatius), the ACROD (DDD Fund), all have other ways to subsidize their Church Budget.
» Posted By Alexey Karlgut On October 10, 2011 @ 8:16 pm
«« Back To Stats PageRe: NY/NJ Resolution
Dear George,
I have sent this comment to OCANews (Stokoe) over a week ago and as expected he only published the second half. Perhaps you could be kind enough to publish my comment in it’s entirety as it is discussed in one of the threads (as you see fit).
Thank you,
Alexey
PS Resolution was adopted by Diocese of NY/NJ on July 19th and can be read on diocesan website nynjoca.org under documents section of the diocesan assembly
Reasons for Assessments Reduction ResolutionWe have paid $8.1 million in last three years in Central Church Administration Assessments (CCA) ($2.7 million a year according to Strategic Plan for OCA, p. 19) from our parishes and dioceses. Current rate of Assessments for OCA is $105.00 per capita (person) per year.
Over 90 percent “is spent on administrative expenses: salaries of the Metropolitan, officers and staff, upkeep of the property, legal and other administrative expenses; external affairs and travel. LESS THAN 10 PERCENT IS SPENT ON THE OUTREACH MINISTRIES OF THE CHURCH.” (Strategic Plan for OCA, p. 19-20)
For those moneys we have received Absolutely Nothing of Christian Value (or Any value) to our parishes and dioceses, but continual administrative turmoil, attempts by factions on MC to remove Metropolitan, scandals, blog wars, divisions into camps (between administrative bodies – HS, MC, Central Staff, and even within those bodies – pro +Jonah, anti +Jonah, pro Stokoe, anti Stokoe, ‘appalled Four’, etc.) -resulting in direct loss of revenues, parishioners, and potential converts in our parishes and dioceses.
Their inability to work out their differences, respect each other as colleagues, come to common ground, and work for the greater good of the church, is shamelessly put on display for the OCA laity year after year. We pay a national circus tax, a tithe on our hard-earned incomes during a severe economic depression, so these guys can stab each other in the back and whine about it to their audiences.
I believe that reducing National (OCA) Assessments as set forth in a Resolution adopted by the Diocese of New York and New Jersey, WILL reorient our priorities and resources to diocesan and parish growth, from National Church waste.
While I am certainly sympathetic to the OCA treasurer’s position, as expressed in Strategic Plan that suggests that OCA freeze CCA Assessments for next triennium at current level of $105 per capita, (2.7 Million a year), what she fails to understand is that cutting the assessment from the parishes does NOT necessitate cutting the budget commensurately … they just need to find other ways to raise funds. Other jurisdictions — the GOA (Leadership 100), the AOA (Order of St. Ignatius), the ACROD (DDD Fund), all have other ways to subsidize their Church.
You have to find ways other than dues to balance the budget, … we do too now in NY/NJ …
Even in the Old Administration days, FOS was a viable force … and found other ways to raise monies.
I hope that the finance committee of MC and CCA will work out a more equitable proposal and MC will do some fundraising initiatives, other than dues.
» Posted By Alexey Karlgut On August 1, 2011 @ 4:59 pm
Recent Comments