OCATruth.com just posted two new essays that are must reads. The first develops the Stokoe strategy:
It is chillingly clear, both from Stokoe’s post and from checking with my sources, that the Stokoe Squad — which includes Bishop Melchizidek, Bishop Benjamin, Bishop Nikon, and Bishop Tikhon — has no intention of complying in any way with the Metropolitan’s directives, or with anything the Metropolitan says. I think they are going to do a full-court press to thwart him at every turn, and drive him out.
The second outlines procedural points and offers this startling conclusion:
I have confirmed that Tosi, Kishkovsky, and +Mel have refused to provide the Metropolitan with an account before the Chicago meeting.
Are they driving the Church into schism? We may be witnessing the beginnings of what the Episcopalian bishops did to their Church.
You know, if it’s schism they want, then let them have it. It’s high time for the ‘Piscies to go their own way and have the worldly church they’ve always wanted. Leave us Orthodox alone.. And yes, I think we’ll know who the “Orthodox” truly are when the Russians de-recognize the Appalled Four and those who chose to follow them.
Guess who just revealed the true cabal, twhich consists of just a handful of current and former members of St Seraphim’s? Mark Stokoe, that’s who, with reams of documentation. Just go and read for yourselves at http://ocanews.org/news/TheTruthAboutOCATruth4.30.11.html. Any comments, Muzhik/Dreher, Southern Comfort/Father Fester, parishioner/Jesse Stone? Any comments on your own collusion with these schismatics George?
And the point is what exactly, Carl? That people can’t blog? And how exactly are they “schismatic.” Please cite the requisite canon for me. Inquiring minds want to know.
Y’all are the ones who started the schism talk, y’all are the ones who hid behind Internet facades (except you George and I am grateful for that because I had always respected your viewpoints), y’all are the ones who attacked officers of the Church, the Holy Synod, the Metropolitan Council, and any person or value that stands in the way of your defense of the Metropolitan. The point is not that you have been defending +Jonah; the point is that you have been using underhanded, unChristian tactics to do so. The worst tactic that y’all used was , in your own words, to threaten the Church with “if it’s schism they want, then let them have it. It’s high time for the ‘Piscies to go their own way and have the worldly church they’ve always wanted. Leave us Orthodox alone.” I pray that we will eventually heal the wounds that you opened, that we will mutually forgive each other, and that you will quit following your piper, lemming-like, into oblivion.
On a personal note, it is possible that you were not in collusion with the cabal of Fr. Fester, Rod Dreher, Jesse Cone, Fr Deacon Gregory and others. I hope that you come out and say, one way or the other, how you came to be seen as part of this Team Jonah. I hope you publicly apologize for the attacks that have been made on so many people, just to defend one man. We can discuss the issue of homosexuality after this situation settles down; we can talk about homosexuals in high places after this is over; and we can talk about other topics dear to you also after this is put to bed. (Incidentally, I am a signer of the Manhattan Resolution and a die hard advocate for American autocephaly, so we do have some common starting points). Please, I beg you, come to your senses and kill this talk about schism now.
Carl, you will get no apology from me sir. I have not “attacked” anybody but defended a fine man who for some reason you harbor a great hatred for. If you could tell me exactly what it is that OCAT wrote that was wrong, hurtful, or libellous, I will let you do so now.
As for schism talk, we are not advocating it nor would we be a party to it. It is not we who are engaged in uncanonical actions, it is Bishops Benjamin and Melchisedec who are doing so. But, let’s let a Church council decide that, why don’t we?
It is wrong (perhaps even uncanonical) to accuse publicly our bishops of uncanonical actions without saying which canons that they have broken and how. Let’s just sleep on it George before we go any further. Please.
Stokoe did nothing but print e-mails showing a concerted plan by people who support Metropolitan Jonah to . . . wait for it . . . publish an internet site supporting Metropolitan Jonah. He did not lay out a single canonical charge. He did not deny that all the Bishops resisted +Michael’s attempt to reconcile the Synod. While I am dismayed that Fr. Fester has taken to publishing anonymously on the internet, he joins the ranks of priests who publish on OCASpews. Is he to be condemned while they are praised? Did Stokoe refute anything he has posted? By the way, Stokoe has provided no documentation at all, merely assertions that he has documentation. He has not disclosed how it was obtained, whether it was obtained legally, or whether any independent source confirmed the authenticity of his “documentation” before he published it. But I understand he is your hero and leader and to discuss his potential flaws is off limits.
Frankly, if we have to choose up cabals, I’ll go with Dreher, who is an actual journalist and has taken a stand against institutional corruption in churches for a long long time, before I would go with a mock newsman like Stokoe, who has a much deeper personal stake in this mess and has been shown by e-mails (I guess they do mean something after all!) to have been orchestrating behind the scenes the very events he later “reported” on.
This may be a minor point, but isn’t it illegal to hack somebody’s email account? If OCAT did that to Stokoe, shame on them. If Stokoe did it back, shame on him as well. In any case, I think we are all in a sort of danger now that hacking emails is one of Mark Stokoe’s newest hobbies. “Hide your kids, hide your wives, and hide your husbands cuz he’s snatching everybody out there”.
Yes, it is illegal to hack into someone’s email. As a certain young man somewhere South found out a couple months ago when his sentence was handed down.
now, now Hamartolos. What’s a little law-breaking when it’s done by the right people (i.e. Stokoe)?
Mr. Dreher has hidden his involvement in OCA Truth. That is lying. I actually asked him directly what his relationship to that site was, and he obfuscated. And I could give a damn about his experiences in the RC Church. I have underwear that’s older than his Orthodoxy, and yet I’m to accept his attacks, by stealth, as some kind of defense of that same Orthodoxy? He’ll land back in the Southern Baptists by the time it’s over. He never left, in fact.
Did he tell you he had no involvement (i.e. lying) or did he obfuscate?
Three laymen put together a website. They are attacked on OCASpews for saying it is run by laymen. The damning evidence is that they received background information from a clergy man. Is the party line of Stokoe-land that Mark does all his research on his own and has not received any information from bishops or clergy? We know he won’t reveal his sources (“journalistic” integrity), while all the same pillorying the owners of OCATruth for not disclosing their sources. See how this works? What is good for the goose is an outrage when done by the gander.
I hate to even go here because I have avoided the whole gay/straight debate. BUT. I guess that is the difference between us. You reject anything from Dreher because he is a recent convert, even though he stood up to the shame in the RCC. However, you will willingly follow a cradle Orthodox spokesman living unrepentantly and unexplainedly in what appears to be a gay marriage (unless there are new rules for creating in-laws) who engages in the very same internet conduct he condemns from others over whatever cliff he is ready to charge over. The man plots the institution of a course of action that he can then “break news” on and use as a platform. That is so much more outrageous than anything that OCATruth has done. But St. Mark of Ohio can do no wrong. I think I’ll see if I can get an icon and I’ll just tell everyone he is my patron saint.
Stokoe is a convert, too, for what it’s worth. And it isn’t worth anything. But he’s been Orthodox so much longer than Dreher that it’s not funny.
The big difference is that Mark Stokoe is not a liar. Rod Dreher is. The big difference is that Mark Stokoe is not sitting on a leaked copy, possibly illegally, of the SMPAC report. Rod Dreher is. The big difference is that (and let me be careful here) Mark Stokoe is not shown, by any evidence extant, to be a PR shill. Rod Dreher is.
Mark Stokoe hasn’t hidden like a coward. Rod Dreher has. Mark Stokoe set out to find the truth. Rod Dreher set out to spin it. Look at the record. And I could still give a damn about his time in the RC, and what I see really is Mr. Dreher and his ilk attempting to foment a schism to turn us into Southern Baptists. That’s where they’d be more comfortable, let them go there. That works both ways, people.
Mark Stokoe set out to find the truth. Rod Dreher set out to spin it. Look at the record.
Mark Stokoe set out to create a story (read the e-mails) and then “break the news” (without disclosing his involvement detailed in the later disclosed e-mails). That is so much more dishonorable and unethical than anything you accuse Dreher of. If Stokoe were a real journalist, he would have been fired as soon as +Tikhon released the first set of e-mails. You honestly believe that Stokoe writes without spin. Take this challenge: Go back to late February and list every complimentary or even mitigating statement that OCASpews has about Metropolitan Jonah. Then go to OCATruth and list every acknowledgement of problems that Metropolitan Jonah has. When you are done, let’s compare lists and talk about balance, spin and agendas. Ready . . . set . . . go!
I’ve read the emails. You interpret them the way you want, as do I. And I don’t believe Stokoe writes “without spin”. He absolutely has an agenda. Anyone who says they don’t is BS-ing you. As for what his site says about His Beatitude, honestly, I don’t have anything good to say about him either.
Now that I know he actively supported a website set up to make him look good, and ONLY for that purpose, what am I supposed to think?
Anon –
I thank you for being up front about your own beliefs and your willingness to admit that Stokoe has an agenda. I credit you greatly for that.
In my business, judging credibility is part and parcel of what I have to do every day. I’ve developed one simplistic but amazingly reliable barometer of the credibility of the person across the table from me.
If they are unable to see anything good in someone else (we aren’t talking about mass murderers here), if they never seen any fault in themselves, if every statement is damning to their opponent, then I conclude that the person is either being dishonest with me, not being honest with themselves, or are too invested in their agenda to be trustworthy in their accounts.
I was and am a great supporter of what Stokoe did with the Kondratick/Herman situation. When he started this crusade, my immediate reaction based on his past reporting was that something horrible must be amiss. But when I read his first three posts, my antennae went up. Because there was nothing remotely resembling even the slightest concession that there could be a benign motivation or even anything positive in the Metropolitan. The posts since then haven’t deviated from the pattern. Unfortunately, this has caused me to look at anything from Mr. Stokoe as highly suspect.
But I thank you for your considered responses. Christ is risen!
Actually, Stokoe has had access to the SMCAP report, hasn’t he? Or was he just making stuff up about how “damning” it was to +Jonah? Hmmm, if he did that, why he’d be a liar!
George, Mark Stokoe says he doesn’t have a copy of the report. I have no reason to disbelieve him.
Rod Dreher says he DOES have a copy of the report. I have no reason to disbelieve him.
Mark very well might have some of the info related in the report. If it’s damning to +Jonah, he’d say so, and he has. We know that Rod has ALL of the info related in the report, and what is clear is if it is damning to +Jonah, then he’ll hide it as long as he can. This is the different agendas of these different men. Simple as a syllogism.
I call on Dreher to release the report. And he won’t do it. Their separate behaviors both point to the same thing.
ASIATR, what’s your real name? If you don’t answer truthfully, you’re obfuscating by your own standards. See, I kind of thought that hiding one’s identity was the whole point of being anonymous.
Actually, it’s not lying. But, once you’re done having your fun, please inform us what exactly it is that OCAT said that was untrue? I’ve already exposed Stokoe’s numerous lies, half-truths, and omissions.
You sir, are a bigot. I care not for your underwear but since you think that that’s more pertinent to the conversation than pederasty, then you will have your underwear and pederasty as well. (And alcoholic bishops who resisted arrest as well as those with outstanding arrest warrants, etc.) It’s picture almost as pretty as your underwear.
If you need help with the definitions of words (including I may add “lying”), may I suggest the local public library in your fine city?
I think they should cut Bishop Mark a bit of slack. The minutes from Santa Fe read that
Looking back to Met. Jonah’s initial taking up of the post of locum tenens, we read:
In other words, one gets the impression that the Holy Synod has purview over assigning locum tenentes. In fact, according to Article 6, Section 8 of the Statute, this is a prerogative of the Metropolitan:
Now, puzzlingly enough, I’m hearing now that the DOS has never actually been declared vacant following Archbishop Dmitri’s retirement. According to the Statute, the declaration of vacancy is actually a prerequisite for assigning a locum tenens. The Synod has jurisdiction over accepting a request for retirement, but they do *not* have the authority to assign a locum tenens. They collectively presumed this authority in assigning Met. Jonah as locum tenens of the DOS to begin with, *and* in retracting this assignment and replacing him with Bp. Nikon.
So… what the heck? Does anyone ever actually attempt to follow, or even read, the Statute anymore?
At any rate, since Bishop Mark is relatively new to the OCA, I can give him a pass because any reasonable person would assume, from recent events, that the Synod actually has the authority over the assignment of locum tenentes. As the Statute makes clear, the Synod does NOT have that authority. It’s supposed to be the Metropolitan’s prerogative. And really, nobody had the authority to even give the DOS a locum tenens until the diocese was declared vacant, which they apparently never did even though they had retired the bishop.
The only explanation I can think of is that they were waiting for the DOS to be ready to proceed with the mandated diocesan assembly for electing a new bishop.
Helga, I think charity might require us to cut Mark some slack, but I’ve been hearing a roar of disgust and outrage coming out of the cathedral community over the way Bishop Mark has treated the parish. He suspended longtime cathedral Priest John Anderson on Holy Week, no explanation given, which was for some people the last straw. I talked to some old friends there on Pascha, and it took me by surprise how sad, depressed, upset, and in some cases furious they were. Two of them told me that Mark changed the processional melody that the congregation had been using since forever on Pascha, as they processed around the cathedral. Mark used the Antiochian melody, not the one the Slavocentric cathedral parish knew, which resulted in Mark and Priest David Moretti leading a procession of the faithful in which they were almost the only ones singing, and everyone else was sad and confused.
A fitting metaphor for how Great Lent has gone in that parish! I have worshipped at St. Seraphim’s many times, and having listened to my friends there tell me with deep anguish in their voices how upset they are over what’s happening, and how they are afraid that their entire parish is being broken by Bishop Mark, I am truly scared for its future. I am reasonably sure that many people throughout the DOS have no idea how bad it is at the cathedral.
My friends are telling me that the cathedral parish once described by His Beatitude Jonah as the model for OCA parish life in the US is being demoralized and in effect dismantled by Bishop Mark. The bishop might not know it, but it sounds like he’s about to have a mutiny on his hands. It’s interesting to me that I don’t hear people complaining about Priest David Moretti, who has taken well to the parish, so this isn’t explainable as the parish reacting poorly to outsiders.
I hope members of the cathedral parish will make themselves heard here. I hope what I have been told isn’t as bad as it sounds. If I had heard it from only one person, or two, I would be more skeptical. But you hear the same stories and sadness from more than a few people…
Dixit Dixie, I’ve never met Bishop Mark, and didn’t want to give him a plenary indulgence by any means. I only meant to excuse his actions with regard to advising the parish to continue commemorating Bishop Nikon as locum tenens, as he’s only treating the Statute with the same disregard as everyone else has for the past few years.
These recent accounts of his actions at St. Seraphim’s are the first credible negative things I’ve heard about Bishop Mark, but I think they demand remediation. I hope the Synod will take the case soon. My hope is that Bishop Mark is simply still sore and bitter from his experiences in the Antiochian Midwest, and that he will eventually get his head together and be able to serve the Church somewhere.
As a member of the parish of SSOC, I can assure you; it isn’t as bad as you heard.
It’s worse.
You’re going to make it all about one hymn? Really? What an issue! Get it hot off the presses! 😉
The +Mark situation runs much deeper. He and +Nikon are joined at the hip. When the Gregory Burke matter was brought to Nikon and Mark’s attention by HB, they both said they would do nothing. Mark was made aware of this situation when he came to the South. He did nothing. Of course one has to know the inside connections. +Nikon, the Albanian Bishop of Boston is very close friends with the retired +Bishop Mark Forsberg, the long-time companion of Gregory Burke. +Nathaniel, who was the Temporary Administrator of the OCA during +Jonah’s leave, went to school with Mark Forsberg in Rome. They led a colorful life in Rome! Thus, +Nathaniel did nothing while Temporary Administrator.
So the picture now becomes a bit clearer because +Jonah had made it clear that he will suspend Burke and call for a spiritual court. But if +Nikon refuses to give up the South, Burke is safe, for now.
This also may explain why +Mark (Maymon) is so reluctant to acknowledge +Jonah having any authority over him. He has told others, incorrectly, that he is an Auxiliary Bishop of the Holy Synod. Well, first of all, there is no such thing. Just look at his title on the OCA webpage
The Right Reverend Mark
Bishop of Baltimore
Administrator of the Diocese of the South
Now let’s pay attention boys and girls. We are going to have a quiz. Where is Mark a Bishop? Yes, the Bishop of Baltimore. Now in what diocese is the city of Baltimore? Correct, the Diocese of Washington. And who is the Bishop of the Diocese of Washington? That’s right, Metropolitan Jonah, who is the Archbishop of Washington. So, now, here is your question, If +Mark is an Auxiliary Bishop, which he is, who is he the Auxiliary to? Right. Metropolitan Jonah. So who is +Mark’s bishop? +Jonah, not the Holy Synod.
In fact, +Jonah can pull +Mark out of Dallas today. It is not a Synodal decision, it is a Diocesan decision of the Diocesan bishop, in this case the bishop who is the Administrator of the South is only there because +Jonah put him there and he remains +Jonah’s bishop, so with a phone call, +Mark is gone.
You would think a man in his position would know who his boss is. But all during +Jonah’s leave, Mark NEVER called him. He never even emailed him. Again, I guess +Philip knew a disobedient bishop when he saw one.
I don’t know what will happen to +Mark, maybe he will be nominated by the South, but one other thing +Mark does not know because he doesn’t care to be versed in the canons or the OCA Statute. Since he is an Auxiliary Bishop, he must be blessed by his bishop to have his name put into nomination for a vacant see. A ruling bishop of an auxiliary can withhold a name for consideration. He can also remove his name if it had already been blessed. An Auxiliary bishop, in reality has less authority than a parish priest. He can do nothing without the blessing of his Bishop and in this case Mark was too thick or too arrogant to at least keep both Nikon as LT and Jonah as his bishop informed of every move he made or a blessing for what he wished to do.
And if push comes to shove, Metropolitan Jonah, as Primate, has the statutory authority and right of Pastoral Intervention for the good of the Church into any diocese. It is an authority only the Primate has. No other bishop has that authority. Not even the Synod as a whole, just the Primate. So +Mark, you better learn how to say, “I am sorry, please forgive me. I will be a good Auxiliary now” because you really don’t have a leg to stand on in the DOS.
And finally, there will be much more about Mark’s manhandling of the Cathedral in Dallas.
Helga, this is all most distressing.
“The +Mark situation runs much deeper. He and +Nikon are joined at the hip. When the Gregory Burke matter was brought to Nikon and Mark’s attention by HB, they both said they would do nothing. Mark was made aware of this situation when he came to the South. He did nothing. Of course one has to know the inside connections. +Nikon, the Albanian Bishop of Boston is very close friends with the retired +Bishop Mark Forsberg, the long-time companion of Gregory Burke. +Nathaniel, who was the Temporary Administrator of the OCA during +Jonah’s leave, went to school with Mark Forsberg in Rome. They led a colorful life in Rome! Thus, +Nathaniel did nothing while Temporary Administrator.
So the picture now becomes a bit clearer because +Jonah had made it clear that he will suspend Burke and call for a spiritual court. But if +Nikon refuses to give up the South, Burke is safe, for now.”
THIS IS AWFUL! MAKE IT STOP!!!
SC, DD, Helga et al.
No slack should be given. Swift and certain action is required. The difference between Fr. David and +MARK is that of humility and arrogance. The same arrogance, apparently, that provoked such opposition from some in Toledo and which has now, for all there to see, come to Dallas. Humility will utlimately lead to prudence and wisdom and arrogance to imprudence and foolishness.
Was it wise to ignore St. Seraphim’s extensive and numerous Holy Week liturgy books and substitute–without advance warning–an exemely limited number of hardbound copies of the (nice and nice looking, I own two, but often different) Antiochian Holy Week Service book and expect assisting clergy, choir and people to participate the way they otherwise might have?
Was it wise, without warning, persuasion or training to introduce Byzantine melodies (I like them by the way) for Holy Week in place of what clergy, choir and people have known?
Was it wise at the beginning of Great Lent to suspend Fr. John from hearing confessions and inform everyone by diktat that confessions would now only be heard by his Grace and Fr. David? (Faithful had been confessing to and receiving guidance from Fr. John for 15 years and were now told who their new confessor and spiritual director was going to be!! This is the most unrageous and unkindest cut of all: that a person should not be at liberty to choose and retain his own confessor when that man had done nothing wrong meriting his canonical supsension.)
No wonder attendance was down 30% by Pascha and confusion, bewilderment and anger were interfering with prayer, praise and gratitude. Now, friends, the opposite of wisdom is foolishness and that is a vice which the sheep cannot afford in their shepherd.
I hope people from SS and the DOS are reading this: the leopard cannot change his spots and a person will only change his conduct if he his character is marked by humility, love and concern for others. Where are the signs of this in the current diocesan Administrator?
I hope that +JONAH or someone close to him is reading this: He must take swift action to move the man back to DC /Baltimore.
As one who has parented two brace of children, taught hundreds of students from 6th grade through graduate and professional school, coached succesful championship sports teams, engaged in business and the practice of a business-related profession for over thirty years I would suggest that to expect the change that is required of the man involved is to live in a dream-world and avoid putting the track record of Toledo and Dallas together to see what ought to be a clear as the nose on one’s face.
The temptation for Christians is always to think that mercy and forgiveness and tolerance will somehow work a miracle. But the truth is where humility and mutual love are lacking, delay and dithering while dreaming of “a better day to come because we can put all of this behind us and move on” will lead to futher destruction of once thriving parish and diocese.
Some things take a lifetime to build but can be brought to ruin in a matter of months with years required for anyting ressembling recovery.
Tiresias
Relax, Tiresias. The only thing I wanted to give Bishop Mark a pass for was having Bishop Nikon commemorated as locum tenens. That’s largely the fault of other members of the Synod; he’s just following their lead. It would be like holding him personally responsible for the hole in the ozone layer because he used hairspray in the 80’s.
As for the rest of everything he’s done, I agree that he needs to be pulled out of Dallas immediately.
Tiresias,
While it was challenging, to say the least, for us at St Seraphim during Holy Week and Pascha to adapt our worship tradition to something that Bishop Mark and Fr David were more comfortable with, I cannot impute the desire for those changes to arrogance on his part. It became clear to me in discussing with him the service order that he was quite uncomfortable not knowing the service order according to the Slavic tradition, that he was anxious to retain some of the Byzantine practices with which he was familiar. When Bishop Mark was brought to SSOC in January, the plan was for him to learn to serve in the Slavic / OCA manner. And he made great effort to do so initially. The situation became more complicated, however, when Fr Joseph Fester, who is an old hand at keeping good liturgical order in the altar and in instructing others, was moved to DC. And the situation was further compounded when Fr John Anderson was given the responsibility of serving two missions and was, therefore, present at the Cathedral only infrequently.
Rather than impute the desire to make liturgical changes to arrogance on the part of Bishop Mark, I rather think that he found himself in the uncomfortable position of having to lead (along with Fr David) the divine services without an experienced priest to lean on and in a tradition with which he was totally unfamiliar. He (they) naturally reverted back to what was familiar and comfortable. And they probably underestimated the negative reaction from the parish to these changes.
At SSOC we have been struggling with all the many changes in pastoral leadership since Vladyko Dmitri’s retirement. People are hurt and confused, and the level of anxiety is quite elevated. It is a difficult situation for us, but I imagine it is a difficult one for Bishop Mark and Fr David, too. They have made mistakes and surely will make more of them. Poor judgment, insensitivity, perhaps. But arrogance and lack of concern? I don’t think so.
This is not exactly a reply to this particular thread, but it does seem to be a good place to repeat this comment lest it be lost in old news. I have been traveling for a few days and was shocked when I returned to read some of the irresponsible speculation about +MARK (Maymon) in the comments section of George’s previous post.
Be very careful, my friends, not to be too hasty in judging +MARK (whatever his failings) with the same ferocity with which some on the ‘other side’ judge +JONAH. There seem to be rather obvious parallels in terms of some of the attitudes and slanted judgments of his motives that have been expressed. Anyone with eyes to see can easily discern the tactics of the Enemy of our souls being employed to deceive us into smearing the character what few faithful men are left in this world.
It is not my intention to justify any poor decisions +MARK may have made. The man is human. Allow him be human, just as you make allowance for +JONAH to be human.
I know +MARK. My current priest knows him even better. My former priest (also obviously a reader of this blog) is a long-time personal friend of his. A good friend of mine was his sub-deacon and personal assistant. All of us can vouch for the fact that he is in no way sympathetic to corruption – and certainly not to the moral corruption of what has been described here as the “Lavender Mafia.” Call him a poor administrator if you like. Call him inexperienced or gullible if you like. Call him ill-suited to the DOS if you like. But do not smear him with innuendo that he is somehow allied in any way with the perversion of traditional, Biblical, Orthodox Christian morality. Please, PLEASE, for the sake of the Name of Christ do not allow your impressions of him cause you to conclude anything of the sort. Nothing could be further from the truth.
It is the general theme of this blog to expose the deceptive tactics of the Enemy who has deceived some into helping to smear a good man’s reputation. In your zeal, take care lest you succumb to those same tactics when they are employed against you in order to seduce you into committing a similar calumny.
The thing that is absolutely reprehensible is that an Archpriest of the Church, Father Joseph Fester, apparently posted the initial smear against +Mark (above), posting under “Southern Comfort.” According to emails exchanged between him and Muzhik/Rod Dreher of OCATuth, it was all part of a plan to get rid of Bishop Mark:
“In an email on April 25th, Bright Monday, Fester announces the news that +Mark is “Dead Man Walking” to Dreher:
“Christ is Risen! Indeed He is Risen!
HB is going to remove Mark from Dallas…. Fr. David (Moretti) is most likely to be moved as well..”
Two days later, in an April 27th email, Fr. Fester outlines to Dreher the how the plan is to proceed :
“1. The Case For One Diocese Now, and Two Going Forward ( The combination of the DOS and Washington diocese into one with a date certain of two dioceses within 10 years.)
2. +Philip’s Problem is Now Our Problem ( The Troubled ways of Bishop Mark… maybe Philip wasn’t so wrong afterwards)…
3. The turmoil in Dallas ( How a peaceful, stable parish has been disrupted by Mark)…
Anyway, just FYI”
See http://ocanews.org/news/TheTruthAboutOCATruth4.30.11.html
I used to live in the Diocese of the Midwest, and was always pleased when +Mark came to town to serve in a pan-Orthodox liturgy. He was approachable, and had a shepherd’s heart. I could imagine him being the bishop of that town, the way it should be, without jursidictions. So I was very saddened to learn that he had left the Antiochians, figuring that it must have been a bad situation; but happy that he was welcomed into the OCA. I agree with Brian’s post – please don’t smear the man; pray for him. Who would want to be in his shoes???
Southern Comfort,
I thought that was you!
Helga–I have read the Statute many, many times and your slant is pretty good but plain wrong. You said:
“In other words, one gets the impression that the Holy Synod has purview over assigning locum tenentes. In fact, according to Article 6, Section 8 of the Statute, this is a prerogative of the Metropolitan:
“In the event of a vacancy in the office of diocesan bishop, a locum tenens, appointed by the Metropolitan, shall convoke and preside over the Diocesan Assembly whose sole purpose at this time shall be the election of a new diocesan bishop.”
Now, puzzlingly enough, I’m hearing now that the DOS has never actually been declared vacant following Archbishop Dmitri’s retirement. According to the Statute, the declaration of vacancy is actually a prerequisite for assigning a locum tenens. The Synod has jurisdiction over accepting a request for retirement, but they do *not* have the authority to assign a locum tenens. They collectively presumed this authority in assigning Met. Jonah as locum tenens of the DOS to begin with, *and* in retracting this assignment and replacing him with Bp. Nikon.”
That’s the problem for cherry picking sections and paragraphs, just like Protestants cherry picking Bible verses; you end up with the argument blowing up in your face. The Holy Synod has the following authorities spelled out in Article II, Section 7 (my highlights in bold):
“The following matters are within the jurisdiction and competence of the Holy Synod:
1. All matters involving doctrine, canonical order, morals, and liturgical practice;
2. All canonical matters pertaining to the election and consecration of bishops as provided by Article VI;
3. The establishment of new dioceses, the definition of diocesan boundaries, and the acceptance of dioceses into the jurisdiction of the Orthodox Church in America;
4. Transfer of bishops and their retirement in accordance with Article VI, Section 7;
5. The acceptance of bishops from other jurisdictions;
6. Bishops’ leaves of absence;
9. Solution of problems arising in the administration of individual dioceses and requiring the judgment of the entire episcopate;
10. Determination in all complaints involving bishops;
13. Appointment, upon recommendation by the Metropolitan Council, of the Chancellor, Secretary, Treasurer, and other officials whose competence or service extend beyond the boundaries of a single diocese;
14. Pastoral supervision over all Church organizations whose activity extends beyond the boundaries of a single diocese;
15. Appointment of committees on matters belonging to the competence of the Holy Synod;”
It is clear from the foregoing that the Holy Synod in its entirety, that is to include the Metropolitan who presides, is the holder of supreme authority and, as a hierarchical and conciliar church, that is as iot should be. No one bishop, no matter his rank or reputation has the authority that is bestowed upon the Holy Synod.
Let’s now take Article VI. The section that you quoted is immediately preceded by the following:
“Section 7. Vacancy in Office. The office of Diocesan Bishop shall be declared vacant by the Holy Synod in the event of death, voluntary retirement, medically certified incapacity, transfer, or deposition by due canonical process.”
The section that you quoted merely is a vehicle for the vacancy to be filed as soon as possible. Thus, the Metropolitan’s duty is limited to appointing a locum tenens not to act as a ruling diocesan but a temporary one for one purpose only, that is to “convoke and preside over the Diocesan Assembly whose sole purpose at this time shall be the election of a new diocesan bishop.” Indeed, by having acted as a ruling bishop for so long, +Jonah may have violated at least the spirit of these provisions. Regardless, there is no questioning the validity of the Holy Synod’s action in replacing +Jonah with +Nikon as the DOS locum tenens. Nor, is there any justification in the published decisions of Santa Fe meeting for Metropolitan Jonah to have declared reportedly that he is resuming his duties as the locum tenens. The Santa Fe decision was not conditional or time limited. It is incumbent upon +Jonah to either deny Mark Stokoe’s report or to provide solid reasons for why he seems to be in defiance of the Holy Synod.
Carl, not a single part of Article II, section 7 pertains to the appointment of locum tenentes. It says a lot of other stuff, but nothing putting the selection of a locum tenens for a vacant diocese in the hands of the Synod. The only time that occurs is when there is a vacancy in the office of Metropolitan, in which case the bishop senior by rank and date of consecration convenes the Synod, which declares the vacancy and elects a locum tenens for the Metropolitan See. For the regular dioceses, that’s covered exclusively in Article VI, section 8, which makes it explicitly clear that it’s the Metropolitan alone who appoints the locum tenens for the dioceses.
As a distinguished member of the faculty at one of the OCA seminaries likes to say, “READ THE TEXT! IT’S ALL IN THE TEXT!”
For some reason, the DOS has never been declared vacant (which is the responsibility of the Synod), and therefore the diocesan assembly cannot be convened by the locum tenens to elect a new bishop until that vote occurs. In the meantime, what was Met. Jonah supposed to do, leave them without pastoral care?
Their “decision” was made in direct contravention of the Statute. It was only effective because Met. Jonah allowed it to be. As Metropolitan, he has the prerogative to appoint the locum tenens or to take up that responsibility himself.
It doesn’t make a difference whether the Synod said Bishop Nikon’s locum tenens status was only for the duration of the Metropolitan’s leave, or that Bishop Nikon would be locum tenens until hell freezes over and the devil gives free sleigh rides. They have no right to appoint locum tenentes except in the case of a vacancy in the Metropolitan See.
I would say that the Holy Synod’s powers to transfer bishops, maintain canonical order, and “Solution of problems arising in the administration of individual dioceses and requiring the judgment of the entire episcopate” trump anything. Your narrow point about the power of the Metropolitan to appoint a locum tenens pales in comparison.
That is incorrect. Assigning a locum tenens is not a transfer of a bishop, and maintaining canonical order means they should support +Jonah here. As for the final umbrella point you listed — the assignment of locum tenens clearly does not require the judgment of the entire episcopate since the Statute places the responsibility in the Metropolitan’s hands.
Hope that clears it up.
But since we’re talking about overarching parts of the Statute that might be used, here’s one from Article IV, section 2, sub i.
Jesse, the statute which you just quoted is The Magic Bullet that should +Jonah decide to use it, will go a long way towards clearing up the corruption in the Church.
Apostolic Canon 34 is THE magic bullet.
What exactly about assigning a locum tenens requires “the judgment of the entire episcopate”? Really? The statute is clear about how a locum tenens is supposed to be selected. It does not require “the judgment of the entire episcopate” unless the vacancy is in the office of Metropolitan.
The Metropolitan has a number of prerogatives, most of the others of which are outlined in Article IV, section 2, but you could use the broad language of Article II, section 7, to argue that the Synod has the authority to do anything and everything the Metropolitan does. That is quite obviously not how things are supposed to work.
Helga is right and Carl is wrong. A basic tenet of law, including canon law, is that specific trumps general. The specific portion of the statute vesting the appointment of the locum tenens in the Metropolitan trumps the broadly worded powers of the HS.
And yet given the recent issues the matter of the various diocesan locum tenenses would seem to fall under the purview of the entire episcopate of the OCA, which collectively decided to assign new locum tenenses for the time being. The matter has been removed from Metropolitan Jonah’s care and is no longer his responsibility.
Is there some real reason why Metropolitan Jonah is not content to care for his current diocese and focus on its upbuilding and the resolution of this division within our OCA? Because taking on the care of a diocese the size of that of the South just doesn’t seem timely given the other matters in need of his attention…
Helga, Met Jonah was in fact the consecrated bishop of the South when he bacame +Met.
He served for a time a auxilliary and went through the entire vetting process and getting to know the diocese before election.
A telling line: “I wish I knew where most of the OCA laity stood on all this.”
Most of the OCA laity stands proclaiming Christ is Risen!
Most of the OCA laity say their daily prayers for the metropolitan and bishops and all those who serve the Church.
Critically, most of the OCA laity avoid the “pornography†” of rumor and innuendo sites on the internet.
† Metropolitan Jonah’s characterization, followed by his advice to avoid them all.
With all respect, Chris, that’s kind of a pious cop-out. Yes, there are rumors everywhere, and you have to be discerning about what to believe. But there really is a serious struggle going on over the future of the OCA. Nobody should be so caught up in it that they forget that Christ is indeed risen, but at the same time, we shouldn’t pretend that the struggle going on among the OCA elites has nothing to do with the rest of us. This morning when I said my prayers, I thought about this, and prayed for truth and justice to prevail, and for peace and right order to return to our church. That’s a prayer all men and women of goodwill in the OCA should be able to pray in good conscience … but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a right side and a wrong side here, and that doesn’t mean that the issues they’re fighting over aren’t important.
I just hope that I am on the right side, which is to say, the side of right … even if we lose.
Chris, I apologize if you took insult by my characterization of your reaction. I don’t mean to hurt your feelings. I just don’t want members of the laity to think that what’s going on is not something they should care about. Either we have a rogue metropolitan — and we have all seen what kind of damage they can do — or we have an abusive and conspiratorial group on the Synod and with elements of lay leadership, and they are doing grave damage to the Church and its future by trying to force out this Metropolitan. Both can’t be right, and it matters who wins this fight. During the awful Herman years, bishops told the faithful to keep their heads down and pray and not to talk about any of it. That was WRONG. It was an attempt to appeal to the piety of the faithful in an attempt to get the Synod off the hook for its indefensible inaction in the face of what Herman and his clique were doing to the Church.
No matter which side in this controversy people sympathize with, they are not wrong to be engaged by it — though you are right that people should keep things in perspective, and be discerning.
Olivier,
Excellent post, especially this:
These same bishops along with Syosset lifers are working with Stokoe and cohorts trying to remove +Jonah. What does that tell you? It tells me they are threatened by +Jonah because he’s a man not in the mold of +Theodosios or +Herman. They represent a moribund OCA and want to keep it that way.
It’s a bit of a stretch, suggesting that those whose reporting brought an end to that era of misdoing are working to solidify misdoing by ousting a reformer.
Stramger things have happened Harry. And I for one have documented amptly that Stokoe’s “reformist crusades” have been exceedingly selective.
Huh? Concerning the bishops, only five of the current eight Holy Synod members served as diocesan hierarchs under Metropolitan Herman, and only one of them (Archbishop Nathaniel) served during Metropolitan Theodosius’s time as primate. Apart from Metropolitan Jonah, only one member of the Holy Synod has been given the dignity of a title above “bishop” (again, Archbishop Nathaniel) which is indicative of their status as comparatively new hierarchs. Metropolitan Jonah would still be auxiliary Bishop Jonah had he not been selected by that same bunch of moribund hierarchs (five of them, anyway) to wear the white klobuk. I have a nice table with this data. I suppose I should really show how much turnover there is by including Archbishops Kyrill, Peter, and Job (all departed) plus Archbishop Dmitri and Bishops Nikolai and Tikhon (Fitzgerald) (all retired), none of whom are currently on the Holy Synod. These six men all served with Metropolitan Herman, and all but one (Bishop Nikolai) served with Metropolitan Theodosius.
As for the “lifers” in Syosset, who are they? The now-fired Fr Alexander Garklavs, who came in after Robert Kondratick was removed, in August 2007 (not even four years ago)? Fr Eric Tosi, who became secretary in spring 2008 (about three years ago)? Melanie Ringa, the part-time treasurer appointed in September, 2009 (a year and a half ago)? I guess you’ve got us with Fr Leonid Kishkovsky.
So. You were saying?
Father Basil, I am reposting this from “Southern Comfort””
“The +Mark situation runs much deeper. He and +Nikon are joined at the hip. When the Gregory Burke matter was brought to Nikon and Mark’s attention by HB, they both said they would do nothing. Mark was made aware of this situation when he came to the South. He did nothing. Of course one has to know the inside connections. +Nikon, the Albanian Bishop of Boston is very close friends with the retired +Bishop Mark Forsberg, the long-time companion of Gregory Burke. +Nathaniel, who was the Temporary Administrator of the OCA during +Jonah’s leave, went to school with Mark Forsberg in Rome. They led a colorful life in Rome! Thus, +Nathaniel did nothing while Temporary Administrator.
So the picture now becomes a bit clearer because +Jonah had made it clear that he will suspend Burke and call for a spiritual court. But if +Nikon refuses to give up the South, Burke is safe, for now.”
Father Basil, what I want to know is… how can you STAND IT that this is happening??!!!
The OCA has been made into a sham by these acts, which do not stop.
I don’t know all the details behind the Burke case. I know what was reported at OCATruth, but the source makes it suspicious. (After all, the letter from the bishop to Burke requesting the latter to pursue laicization and threatening indefinite suspension was brought in to support their case. Letters like that are the sort of thing for personnel files. I wonder who would have access to letters like that? Hmmm.)
I do know that His Beatitude hasn’t done a thing about Archimandrite Isidore, going so far as to concelebrate with Bishop Benjamin with Archimandrite Isidore serving as recently as November. Isidore’s suspension is at least as well known as Burke’s, and the Metropolitan could have refused to serve with Bishop Benjamin. Instead, Metropolitan Jonah chose to “affirm” the situation. His Beatitude, likewise, hasn’t done anything I’m aware of in the case of Fr Vasile Susan and his accusations. (I realize the latter are complicated by, at least in the past — unsure about now, the presence of Fr Susan’s lawsuit.) And, of course, if there’s any “there” there with Burke, why didn’t Metropolitan Jonah pursue a forced laicization with a spiritual court himself? He certainly had the chance over the past couple of years to do so.
As for Southern Comfort’s suggestion that Bishop Mark and Bishop Nikon are “joined at the hip,” well, it wasn’t Bishop Nikon or Mark Stokoe who welcomed Bishop Mark so warmly in Dallas. (And I don’t say that to suggest there’s anything wrong or bad about Bishop Mark. I don’t know, since I’ve had no dealings with him.) The Metropolitan was the one who personally shepherded him in at the St Seraphim Cathedral, by all reports.
Ok Father, let me make sure I understand you.
You are suspicious of what was reported on OCAT because they had documentation? And that means they have suspicious sources? And the fact that they have documentation to support their claims (like leaked emails) somehow invalidates their legitimacy? I suppose your standards are assiduously applied to Stokoe, his sources and documentation as well, right?
Then you are upset because +Jonah served with Isidore Brittain and +Benjamin. Brittain has been serving in +Benjamin’s diocese, so I’m sure your more upset with him. Also, isn’t it nice to see +Jonah trust his diocesan bishops to handle matters competently within their diocese? Surely this incident shows that he can’t be that much of an arrogant despot!
As for Fr. Susan’s case: clearly we can’t get too mad one way or the other about HB’s actions here, since we (1) don’t know and (2) there’s a pending lawsuit so it probably speaks well of HB and the rest of the Synod that we don’t know. So at least we know we can’t be getting too upset about that.
As for HB’s lack of action with Burke, that probably is something to get upset about.
The criticism that +Jonah was trumpeting +Mark and now decrying him doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. First of all, isn’t he suppossed to be looking for candidates for the DOS? Isn’t the assignment of +Mark proof that he was doing so in earnest? I am a member of St. Seraphim Cathedral, and my experience doesn’t make me think there’s been any inconsistency with +Jonah here. We’re getting a chance to get to know +Mark, he’s getting chance to know us, and OCA practice. As far as that goes, I don’t see what there is to get upset about. I’m sure that you will give +Jonah his due for fulfilling his role as locum tenens here.
Or do I misunderstand you?
It has been known for years and years about that one old guy with the fancy pantsy hat (sorry, I have real fear, but I have no “all due respect” left for the foolish emperors parading around with no clothes on, I am too afraid of God) and that other guy who wears a banner that says “HOLY” on it and puts the living “I AM” into the mouths of babes every Sunday, these two men living together wrongly, and even years ago, when I trusted my shepherds and leaders, as a young and foolish pup, before I grew up and opened my eyes, I heard about it. This is ongoing. WAKE UP!
It’s a culture of ineptitude and cover-up, your timeline of ordinations notwithstanding, Fr. Basil. But I will be glad to be proven wrong. If the “new” bishops don’t share in the malaise and are not part of the dumping ground of mediocre men, then let them stand up and do what is right and true.
Let them stop using Stokoe as their mouthpiece. Let them explain why Garklavs is still in Syosset after he was fired. Let them demand answers from the signatories of the leaked emails. Let them retire the homosexuals that bring scandal to the faithful.
We are done with girly-men and their homosexual enablers.
Let them stand up and be men.
Agreed. So what, exactly, has His Beatitude done in pursuit of the same course? I wrote that article at least partially in response to His Beatitude’s refusal to take the lead.
Perhaps they are.
My bishop, Bishop Melchisedek, has given me no reason to believe he’s behaving in anything less than honorable, moral, and, dare I say it, Christian fashion. He’s not the pro-gay, pro-abortion, feminist liberal he’s being painted as. He has never said anything about the Metropolitan’s opposition to his becoming a hierarch and is actively working to reinvigorate the diocese he’s been in for not yet two years. He’s a real monk (even as many claim the Metropolitan is the only one), with a good bit of service and obedience behind him.
It seems to me that all the “Syosset lifers” (as they’re called above) in this situation are in His Beatitude’s court. Why is that?
Again, I think this is a matter internal to the Holy Synod, and, while I disagree mightily with many of His Beatitude’s (in)actions, I have no desire to see him hurt, humiliated, or otherwise “brought down.” What is of greater concern is the degree to which Metropolitan Jonah’s supporters are willing to discredit anyone whom they perceive as an enemy of the one, true holy man on the Holy Synod.
Fr. Basil, Amen!
Hear, hear, Fr. Basil!
Having had the pleasure of meeting His Grace, Melchizedek, a couple of times, he struck me as a quite kind, unassuming, and very bright man. Honestly, if I may say so about a heirarch, I got the impression he was as “regular guy” as they come, with a strong common sense streak, and also with clearly a strong monastic formation.
I was unaware that the Metropolitan was opposed to his elevation to the episcopate. Can you possibly expound on that for us?
Father,
I was unaware anyone claimed HB was the “the one, true holy man on the Holy Synod”. I am also unaware of anyone claiming +Melchisedek is a “pro-gay, pro-abortion, feminist liberal”. I would be upset if people were saying that unjustly about my bishop too, so maybe if you showed that to me I would better understand your disgust.
BTW, I’ve met + Melchisedek, even before he was a bishop.
How easy it is to argue against the phantoms!
“He’s not the pro-gay, pro-abortion, feminist liberal he’s being painted as.” Who has said that?
“He’s a real monk (even as many claim the Metropolitan is the only one)…” Who has said that?
“What is of greater concern is the degree to which Metropolitan Jonah’s supporters are willing to discredit anyone whom they perceive as an enemy of the one, true holy man on the Holy Synod.” Who has said that?
Read the objections again:
Your comments answer points not made.
Certainly not a refusal, but he needs to be more aggressive. I agree with you there.
Father,
You write
I’m glad to hear that your disagreement with HB is measured. What seems to be the concern of the people like me who support HB is that what happened in Santa Fe is not over. What happened in Santa Fe is the illegal tampering of a document by a committe to purposefully make HB look bad and try to get him suspended/ involuntarily on a leave of absence because they disagree with him. This is obviously uncanonical.
Is it your understanding that this shenanigan is over, that the bishops are as apalled by the conduct of the MC as the faithful, and that they will support and work with HB while keeping their disagreements with him measured and canonical? Are you saying that we need not fear anymore attempts to oust +Jonah?
Yes, well said indeed.
Fr Basil (please forgive me in advance for what is to follow because it is driven by Stokoe’s narrative so it could be completely wrong, but for the sake of argument, let us assume that he has not prevaricated in this instance), if Bishop +Melchizedek is a “true monk” then why is he so vehemently against “the DC nuns” or the fact that +Jonah wants to build a monastery in Washington?
And since monks are known for their fidelity to obedience, why has he defied the Holy Synod by allowing a man who was fired by the Holy Synod to remain in place to continue his damage in Syosset?
As for his diocese, I pray that he does reinvigorate it. I certainly wish him well, but let us not forget that his predecessor Archbishop +Kirill of blessed memory left Pittsburgh in excellent financial shape (or so we have been led to believe).
Father Basil, I think you are trying to answer questions put to you on this forum, and I appreciate it. I don’t want to get caught up in the scenery though it’s hard not to get mad. But when you are too mad, you can’t think straight. I really would appreciate your replies to the questions posted here. Thanks.
I had a longer reply written, mainly questioning points taken at face value (mostly put forth by OCA Truth and this blog) but that lack corroboration.
Really, with the newest entry at OCAnews, I think my response here is not needed. Everything is now much, much clearer.
Fr Basil, I wouldn’t put too much stock in the latest “blockbuster” from Stokoe. Leaving aside the fact that there was probably some criminality involved in getting a hold of them, what exactly is the “scandal”? That some people set up a blog to come to +Jonah’s defense? Ever heard of the First Amendment?
Father, why are things much, much clearer? I’m not against you and for the other side, I’m for what’s right and true.
Decades ago, Archbishop Kyrill (of blessed memory), purchased the diocese of Pittsburgh a plot of land in an area which is now desirable for housing subdivision. This plot of land is where the Bishop’s home is located and the Archdiocesan Center (where the parishioners meet and OCA youth recreate). This diocese does NOT have cash and its membership is dwindling. I believe, for this reason, that Bishop Melchisedek is very familiar with financial issues and must be very concerned with financial obligations surrounding establishing/maintaining new monasteries. As you know, the Church and the OCA have financially struggling monasteries/seminaries currently existing in Bishop Melchisedek’s state.
This is still Bright Week, but after that, what will happen if the OCA laity begins to become aware of the “pornography”? If there is only a shred of truth in what is published here, then we will have an uproar among the faithful.
I am sick to my soul over this whole disgusting spectacle. If the named bishops want a schism, let them go. They will have to justify themselves before God. If the other instigators want to go on living in sin while undermining my church and metropolitan, shame on them and let them follow those bishops.
I hope this will come to a breaking point soon…. may the chips fall as they may. Many like me, will not follow the false shepherds off the cliff… we will refuse to be obedient to them, we will also tuck away our purses and we will follow the good shepherd…
Did the Holy Synod agree to an intervention on Metropolitan Jonah hoping to confront dysfunction and end codependency and secrecy in the church? They may not have known an intervention is not orchestrated from within a pattern of relationships but from without, by a professional trained leader who has nothing to lose or gain in outcomes. Everyone involved in the intervention is carefully rehearsed. If they break the intervention pattern either by getting lost in their own resentments or by saying everything was really okay, they break the intervention. They are carefully rehearsed because everyone in the relationship pattern is considered to be to a greater or lesser extent part of the pattern that needs transformation.
I think we’re witnessing the result of a confusion of strategies. Is our Synod, or the Metropolitan Council or the national staff at Syosset, deeply experienced in repentance and forgiveness or were they a group of trained professionals grounded in strategies of intervention. I’m concerned they somehow came to believe they were both. What we see now is a new level of internal disorientation as some, careful to not break the intervention, refuse to do legitimate assignments or accept direction from a legitimate body, as if doing otherwise would destroy an already mangled intervention.
If they, and by ‘they’ I mean anyone on the Metropolitan Council, the Holy Synod, Syosset, or the Metropolitan wish to use modern recovery standards, they might look over these quotes from the basic text of Alcoholics Anonymous, page 66-69.
• The more we fought and tried to have our own way, the worse matters got.
• With the alcoholic (here substitute ‘the Synod, or the Council, or the staff’), whose hope is the maintenance and growth of a spiritual experience, this business of resentment is infinitely grave. We found that it is fatal.
• We realized the people who wronged us were spiritually sick. Though we did not like their symptoms and the way these disturbed us, they, like ourselves, were sick too.
• Putting out of mind the wrongs others had done, we resolutely looked for our own mistakes. Where had we been selfish, dishonest, self-seeking and frightened?
• Where were we at fault? What should we have done instead?
• Whatever our ideal turns out to be, we must be willing to grow toward it. We must be willing to make amends where we have done harm.
In the end, both recovery and repentance isn’t something that someone else does. It’s something the suffering do within themselves; it’s an inside job. Make no mistake, there are many suffering from this mess. If you have read this far, you are one such. Please note these few quotes don’t do justice to the spiritual message of the entire text of AA, but they show the direction of focus that everyone in a dysfunctional system finally takes it they become part of the solution. Go within, find what’s useful, what’s not, and get on with life.
We, the laity, need our Metropolitan, our Synod, our national staff, our Metropolitan Council to get on with life, practice repentance, find recovery if needed, and live life on its most humble and honest terms. This anger, this argument is destructive, weakening hope and straining patience. Chicago is not too late a place to start anew. If you are one chosen to be there, please go in honest openness to confess and mend. We desperately need you to work together.
Legitimately Anonymous,
If you are saying that an intervention was attempted because there was evidence that His Beatitude had a drinking issue, or an addictive behavior, I can tell you he does not have either. He is not an alcoholic. Bishop Benjamin is a recovering alcoholic. Fr Tom Hopko is the son of an alcoholic as is Bishop Melchisidec.
His Beatitude went through a battery of tests while on his leave and he was given a clean, very clean bill of mental health. But that was not good enough for +Benjamin.
The attempt to force His Beatitude into a 28 drug and rehab program was pushed by +Benjamin. It is insulting to His Beatitude to suggest he has a drinking problem. He does not. So what type of intervention are we talking about? Recovery from what? Repentance, always, but His Beatitude’s attempts at reconciliation with the bishops on the Synod have been repeatedly rebuffed. A member of the Holy Synod has worked very hard with the help of one of his clergy to mediate a reconciliation. But no dice. What a great example these bishops give all of us. It is quite sickening.
+Benjamin first offered for +Jonah to go to the Monastery of St John the Wonderworker in Manton, CA, the monastery that +Jonah founded. Then because +Jonah did not meet +Benjamin’s expectations of what his medical/psychological program should be, a program that was NEVER outlined by the Synod, he then acted like an angry child and uninvited +Jonah to the monastery in Manton.
Then, if that was not enough humiliation to heap on +Jonah, he then pushed the spiteful Resolution out of his Diocesan Council in the West. After that, clergy and laity on the DOW DC called +Jonah and begged his forgiveness. They indeed love +Bishop Benjamin but the felt compelled by him to do what they did. But they also love +Jonah.
We are dealing with bishops who have a host of their own issues and have done a very good job of projecting their own issues onto the Metropolitan.
Now they appear to be playing the shunning game. Ignoring his requests, and individually and collectively being disobedient, the very thing they were accusing +Jonah of doing.
Couple this with “lifers” like Kishovsky and “lifer wantabe’s” like Garklavs and Tosi, church officers who consider themselves equal to their boss, and thus do not have to answer to him, you have, quite simply as one recent visitor to the OCA Chancery just before +Jonah’s return, called it, “a very toxic atmosphere.”
What is our assessment money being used for? To pay the salary of people who are only interested in the status quo of the past and the continuation of a church in decline just so they can still pull down paychecks in excess of $100K a year? For what?
Well it is indeed toxic and it is not +Jonah’s fault. Rather it falls upon those are working to remove him one way or another. Well it won’t work. You can produce your latest “report” and call it whatever you want, but the time is coming, and may be at hand that priests who make such charges must do so not hiding behind Ethics Committees and Metropolitan Soviets but come out into the light and bring formal canonical charges against His Beatitude. Bishops, you have a beef with your brother and you can’t solve it yourselves because you are too full of pride and ego, then it is time for a sister Church to step in and restore order. And if you think His Beatitude has broken canons, then bring him up on charges. But know this, if you do, and those charges are proven false, you, the accusers will be deposed. Read your canon law.
Enough of this nonsense. If these folks want a schism, then keep doing what you are doing and you will be in schism you bishops, but you can’t take your parishes and clergy with you. They have no obligation to follow you into hell. You and you alone will be in schism. Think about it.
Southern Comfort,
Perhaps I wasn’t clear. I wasn’t in favor of an intervention, but I suspect a very unprofessional one was attempted, making a bad situation worse. It’s because so many of the players have issues that I suggest they look to their own part of the problem. Telling the truth is the way out of this mess.
Legitimately Anonymous
Legitimately Anonymous,
Got it. Sorry. I stand corrected.
SC, part of the problem with the ethnic rump of the OCA and the Syosset Lifers is that for the first time in the history of the OCA, we don’t have a Metropolitan who is either a homosexual or an alcoholic. Ask any therapist, and he’ll tell you that children of alcoholics who marry a spouse who comes from a non-alcoholic background often can’t cope with the normalcy of the situation.
Metropolitan Jonah is also not a thief, or a thief-enabler, and he has passed a psychological screening. Gee, if I didn’t know better, I’d swear he sounds like a real catch.
How much would it cost to get everyone in Syosset some group therapy?
I imagine it’s pretty expensive Helga. But the costs could be picked up by the state if real criminality was involved.
The problem is, there seems to be ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong at all with HB. Yes, he has a weight problem. Yes, he needs to maintain his diet and make sure he gets good rest. But, everytime I go to my parish and I see him at the services, mingling with people afterwards, he just doesn’t look like he’s addicted to anything at all.
Let’s suppose there is a break (God forbid!). The way Santa Fe meeting was documented, in one corner, you had +Jonah, and other corner, you had all of the other bishops. So, who is being schismatic? I think it is a sin and a scandal that so many folks are willing to give up on so many bishops for the sake of one. I appeal to you George, parishioner, muzhik, etc., to quit pushing this line. Nothing good will come of it, nothing but heartache and shame.
Carl, are you saying that it is better that one Metropolitan be forced to resign than that the whole Synod should perish? Where have we heard that kind of reasoning before? Oh, that’s right.
Expedience does not remediate injustice.
Well, it is hard for me to think that the Holy Spirit would be absent in so many bishops and yet reside in the one and only bishop that you and others are championing. I am a member of the OCA and not a member of the church of any given person. If I were, that would make my church a cult and I know that it is not. I am not a cultist and while I am indeed a sinner, I am an Orthodox Christian sinner. I like to stay that way.
Sorry, Carl, but that doesn’t make much sense. You come across in your postings as someone who wants to trust in the majority because it’s easier to do, not because you are truly convinced that they are correct. Using your logic, Athanasius should have thrown in the towels against the Arians because almost all the bishops in the Church had sided with them!
We are all sinners, Carl, but that doesn’t relieve us from the responsibility to think, even if it is hard. Especially if it is hard…
It is possible that +Jonah is right and that all of the other bishops are wrong. The chances of this possibility being the real situation are reduced each time that +Jonah’s critics are slandered, facts are twisted, and unfounded speculations are proclaimed as truth. In other words, the supporters of +Jonah have been damning their own man by their reckless, unChristian, illogical and plain mean attacks. The Scriptures tell us tha we shall know each other by our fruits; the +Jonah camp is getting known for bitter and poisonous fruits.
It’s not +Jonah vs. all bishops. It’s three or four bishops, Stokoe and a handful of MC cohorts, and some Syosset lifers against +Jonah. Stokoe is their mouthpiece, but don’t assume his version of the story is accurate. It isn’t. The leaked emails prove it.
As for “twisted facts,” “unfounded speculations proclaimed as truth,” and “reckless, unChristian, illogical and plain mean attacks,” care to provide some examples? Please be specific.
The Santa Fe decisions of the Holy Synod were unanimous, to include +Jonah who agreed then and proceeded to break his word upon leaving the meeting. You do not need to rely on any blog, just look at the published official documentation and the activities of “Jonah that were reported at the OCA official site.
Twisting facts refers to misrepresenting “leave of absence.”
Mean attacks refers to the “shoot the messenger” type of orchestrated attacks on Mark Stokoe, Faith Skordinski, bishops of the Holy Synod, and many others. No stone has been left unturned and no scab not ripped open again–all in the name if defending the Metropolitan. With friends like that, +Jonah does not need any enemies.
The leaked emails may be interpreted as you do, but let us not forget that they have been selectively leaked to paint the opposition in the worst possible light. But, what is truly amiss if there was agreement amongst a number of bishops and MC members regarding +Jonah? It is their duty to identify misbehavior amongst themselves and to take corrective action, to include prior consultation and coordination. The only way that the emails could prove that the so-called cabal existed would have been if there were no facts to back up their plan to rein in the Metropolitan. However, the Santa Fee decisions make it clear that all of the other Synod members decided that there were sufficient reasons to discipline the Metropolitan. Sure, they used diplomatic words but the reality is that they pulled in the reins, replaced him as locum tenens in the DOW and DOS, and put him on a leave of absence–meaning he was to have quit his duties for the duration of the forced absence (He did not, by the way, in according to his own words and to the accounts of his activitiers in the official OCA site). To give you an example from another field, if +Jonah was a military leader, his career would be over. However, his supporters could not accept that their leader was being disciplined and launched this wrong-headed, mean-spirit and schismatic campaign.
For shame, sir, for shame!
Carl, you sure do have a different set of standards than I do. I’ve been following all this from the get-go, and I think it’s hilarious that you call it “mean-spirit” (sic) and “schismatic” when various people point out factual information calling into question the motives of His Beatitude’s accusers (for ex., Mark Stokoe’s de facto gay marriage in light of the Metropolitan’s clear position against homosexuality, to say nothing of how this compromises his ability to serve on the Metropolitan Council). What were His Beatitude and his supporters supposed to do, agree to be quiet about all the dirty business going on behind the scenes, and not point out the bad motives and sleazy manipulations taking place off stage?
You would have the Metropolitan savaged for the sake of your idea of politeness, sir. I am tickled that Met. Jonah’s supporters have not been guided by your strange sense of propriety.
Dixie, you’re my kinda gal! 😉
You just proved my point. The best defense is offense, isn’t it? can’t make a point so attack the bearer of the news, Let me be plain: those who accuse Mark Stokoe of living in sin are guilty of malicious speculation at best unless they have been a fly on the wall of his bedroom. This is not a peculiar idea of politeness on my part as I believe I could find a handful of quotes in +Jonah’s writings to support me, let alone the Holy Scriptures, the writings of the fathers, and just common decency.
Carl, you have the faith to miss mountains.
…..or to see them as molehills?
Unfortunately, Sokoe’s homosexuality is relevant. Look at it from the other direction. If a leader in the Church was living with a woman not his wife, that arrangement would and should raise eyebrows. No one really wants to ask him if he is sexually active with the woman, but since he sought a leadership role, it needs to be asked. Private is best, but if those responsible refuse to ask, it inevitably becomes a public issue.
All this is part of the public morality. When Clinton refused to resign after his dalliances with Monica Lewinsky, a shift in public morality was required to keep him in office. He called out an army of apologists to convince the body politic that chronic adultery had no relationship to the capacity for public service. Whether or not it does can be argued. That the public was forced to answer it to Clinton’s liking was something new entirely. In earlier days chronic adulterers at least had the sense to hide their sins. If caught, they would usually resign.
We already see signs of discomfort over Stokoe’s homosexuality that, if not addressed, drifts towards the normalization of homosexual behavior. That’s what Fr. Ted Bobosh’s clever phrasing is all about. It doesn’t address the moral teachings about homosexuality, it only kicks the discomfort about dealing with it down the road. That’s what lies behind toleration of openly homosexual clerics as well. Who really wants to stick their hand into this nest of biting ants?
Yes, love covers a multitude of sins as the scripture says. But when sin is elevated as normative in the larger public culture, especially Church culture, urging forgiveness in order to avoid naming sin as sin fosters the worst sort of internal confusion. It corrupts institutions. The American Episcopal Church is exhibit A.
Stokoe’s homosexuality is an issue, not because his detractors have made it one, but because he chose to elevate himself to a position of prominence in the Church. He opened this can of worms, not you, not me.
On the other hand, if you argue that private sexual arrangements are divorced from the public morality, then you are really arguing that morals have no place in the public culture. If that’s the case, every bishop could be a queen, every priest his princess, every man their consort as long as some order was maintained. The Episcopal Church seems to be managing quite well with this arrangement (albeit loosely) apart from the fact they are losing parishioners in droves.
Father,
All this talk about queens and princesses! Did you watch the Royal Wedding this morning?
Of course, I do not think that mountains are molehills, or that our bishops should be queens and their priests, princesses (I must confess the imagery does tempt me too take my, often twisted sense of humor too far…. you know the idea of guys with beards dressed up in gorgeous apparel with “ladies” in waiting). But the fact of the matter is that the situation IS serious…even perilous. You are right, Mr. Stockoe is a public figure in a public position in the Church. He can easily put an end to all the speculation by denying that his live in situation involves sexual involvement of any kind and that the rumors about that person being the “third son-in-law” mentioned in his mother’s obituary are the result of a horrendous misunderstanding. It is then left to God. Let’s hope the clarification from Mr. Stockoe comes soon.
The disastrous situation of the Episcopal Church is well deserved and self inflicted, but it seems to be a bit of a stretch to wonder whether we will go quite so far. After all, were we to openly ordain homosexuals and deny the moral tradition of the Church the rest of the Orthodox world would reject us. And, as we are doing a marvelous job of burning down our own house, it doesn’t seem that there will be many closets in which to hide our skeletons, queens, and princesses for much longer, either.
Ivan, I saw snippets a few hours ago. Every time I see something Anglican I can see the Orthodox semblances and it also makes me a bit sad because I also see what a noble Church the Church of England once was. I wish they would recover the Gospel. It could go a long way toward re-Christianizing England.
About your comment about whether we could fall into the same degree of moral confusion, check out what is happening in the Church of Finland:
The Question About Homosexuals 20.3.2007.
Ivan writes about Mark Stokoe:
It is telling that Stokoe has not publicly denied being gay, being in a gay marriage, or being recurrently guilty of sodomy, but simple denials will not settle the public issue. Stokoe has argued the gay view of gayness on his website (see here), and by openly living with another man identified publicly as a family “in-law” and widely believed, even before this controversy, to be his gay partner, he has borne public witness against the Church and assaulted the souls of many people.
To make things right, he must leave his partner, publicly admit his waywardness, publicly recant his pernicious opinions, and still then endure a lengthy period of penitential excommunication. That is the Orthodox way.
I share Fr. Hans view: Once a person accepts the authority to make decisions that impact other people– it’s the essence of transparency and accountability to ‘step up with answers or step away from authority’.
Those who dislike Mark’s message have produced creditable allegations that need answering to protect the reputation of the high church decision making body.
That said, ‘shooting the messenger’ is no substitute for answering ideas honestly and without the petty rhetoric and talk-radio style fact-shreds acting as ‘legitimacy decor’ on what is at heart an emotional agenda for some and a career agenda for others.
There is little doubt that the ‘anonymites’ various arguments crack and fall on the rocks of facts when researched, as Fr. Basil and others have done so plainly here again and again.
I hope that if the allegations are true and he does not make due changes but instead steps away from the Metropolitan Council– he still continues as a publisher.
To me, that sounds like it came right out Stokoe’s OCANews “playbook”, including the
comment which I remember him using.
If it fits…
….wait for the other one to drop!
Carl, you say,
I do not think this is what is happening here. It is a sin and a scandal to act against the canons and work devisively and conspiratorial against a bishop. If they (whoever “they” might be) want to underhandedly and uncanonically work against a bishop, I will stand up against it. I don’t care if it’s just me. And I don’t care if it is just +Jonah; do things according to Church order or submit. As for division, Stokoe’s latest piece makes it clear guys like Tosi, Kishkovsky, etc. are feeding him info. It’s also become clear that he is a duplicitous and has been trying to manipulate the general public — which I think constitutes “pushing the line”. It seems more appropriate to direct your misgivings there.
The very first thing that I read in the push back against Mark Stoke was the letter from the Dean of Saint Nicholas, a letter that scandalized me with the venom contained therein against the members of the Holy Synod. Subsequently, I have been disgusted by the character assassination campaigns against those who are critical of the Metropolitan, the great propaganda campaign to twist the plain meaning of words to justify the actions of +Jonah, and the continuing willful closing of the mind against facts. I am very sorry but your side is a sorry lot, behaving in a most unChristian and divisive way to prop up one bishop by ruining the remaining bishops of the Holy Synod. A cultish behavior that musty cease if we are to have any peace.
Carl, your accusation of cultish behavior is unfounded and not true. There are many factors that distiguish a cult none of which are present in the OCA or any other Orthodox jurisdiction:
1. A charismatic leader who demands absolute obedience to himself and arrogates to himself sole authority and even a patina of the godhead (are you really saying that is happening here?)
2. A separate source of revelation other than Holy Tradition and the Bible. (See anyone doing that?)
3. Brainwashing and manipulation of members-including cutting off communication with others outside the cult. (Don’t see any evidence of attempts to do such things, do you?)
Normal hierarchical authority even if heavy handed and/or mistaken is not cultish. Obedience to and loyalty toward one’s hierarch is supposed to be the Orthodox Christian norm. To assert a position in opposition to that norm (if that is what you are doing) is to challenge one of the foundations of the Church.
But, being Americans, we can’t abide real authority in anyone but expect our egos to be pandered to.
Michael-My problem is not “obedience to and loyalty toward one’s hierarch” but obedience to and loyalty toward one hierarch at the expense of all others. Granted that our history does contain examples of the laity not being disobedient to hierachs who were in the wrong. I do think that in each instance such acts were to preserve not individuals but essential dogmas and practices. Are you telling me +Jonah has accused all of the other fellow bishops of heresies, of sinning, of misconduct or malfeasance? Why then are the Metropolitan’s supporters are doing so?
Where is the proof that Met. Jonah has committed any non-canonical acts or has intentionally and willfully broken the OCA statutes in such a manner that deposition/retirement is called for?
If you have no such proof, then be obedient to your hierarch.
If there is no such proof (as I suspect), then his opponents need to stand down, repent and seek forgiveness of Met. Jonah and the entire OCA.
If the opponents of Met. Jonah just want him out becasue they want him out–the opponents are rebellious schimatics.
So far all of the public pronouncements against Met. Jonah are in the tone of bullies in search of a scapegoat. That is wrong.
Where is the proof?
I too was shocked by Fr. Joseph’s letter, but not for the same reason. First, keep in mind the letter was written for clergy, and was later leaked to the general public. As for the shocking element of the letter: well, it’s the same thing that’s shocking about Stokoe’s lack of integrity, the smoking guns from Solodow, Skordinski, etc. As for venom… have you read the leaked emails? Did you read Faith’s extended rant on the incompetance of the bishops, the same ones that Stokoe says can’t organize themselves “out of a paper bag”?
And how shocked were you by the news of Garklavs’ illegal tampering the SMPAC report?
As for the claim that myself and others who stand up for the due process of the Church are “cultic”, well, that doesn’t seem like a very Christian thing to say. Nor does it serve as a decent rebuttal of the arguments, or a helpful address of our concerns.
I would urge you to consider the possibility that those who, like George, voice their concerns publically are validly concerned for the wellfare of our jurisdiction. They have read and weighed what is out there, and they are appalled — but not at +Jonah. They are concerned for integrity — not as a cult of personality, and not out of busybodiness or schismatic desire. That, I believe, is why you see these posts. Please give your brethren the benefit of the doubt.
Again, right out of Stokoe’s OCANews playbook.
May I ask if you consider Hopko’s Letter on the First Day of Great Lent (which, by the way, was Forgiveness Sunday) published on OCANews scandalous also, for the same reasons?
What do you think are the odds that Carl will reply to your query?
I did not think that Father Hopko’s letter contained venom. But, while I was not scandalized by Father Tom’s letter, others may well have been. Incidentally, if we are to criticize Father Hopko for publishing his letter on Forgiveness Sunday, what are we to make of all the vile things flung against various bishops, officers and servants of the Church by the supporters of the Metropolitan during Great Lent, Holy Week and Bright Week?
I thought Fr. Thomas Hopko’s letter was problematic, both in tone and content. His apology afterward– standing by everything he said and the need to say it, while apologizing for any unkindness in tone– was even worse. A statement of apology which contains justification for what was done never impresses me as sincere. But it is not for me to be angry about it if, as he reported, the offended parties His Beatitude Metropolitan Jonah and Fr. Joseph Fester have forgiven him. I think this forgiveness speaks quite well for both men.
I agree with you Brian: an “apology” with a justification for wrongs done is no apology at all. L’excuse est pire que la faute. We are told the same thing when we confess to our priest: to justify our sins by explaining why we did what we did is but a self-deceptive attempt to minimize and rationalize our responsibility. It immunizes us to true absolution.
This is the first I have heard of Fr. Thomas’ “apology;” though his original imprudent and libellous statements were of wide circulation. The Biblical standard when one has caused injury, even accidentally, is to make complete restitution for the damage insofar as is within one’s power, without which (when the wrong done was, in fact, intentional) forgiveness can hardly be spiritually active and bear good fruit in a restored relationship. Here the damage Fr. Thomas did is hardly repaired by a tepid and little publicized “effort” to say “I’m sorry, but there was really good reason I said what I said; I’m only sorry it caused anyone pain.” For shame.
It was commendable for Fr. Thomas to urge us to honor, support and trust the Synod, and (though perhaps somewhat less so) to show the same respect towards the MC and the central administration in Syosset. But he was morally and scientifically mistaken o accuse +JONAH of being “gravely troubled.”
Based on what we now know or have probable cause to suspect, Fr. Thomas was also wrong to urge us to honor, trust and support whatever Mr. Stokhoe says.
Finally, it was unconscionable for an archpriest to proceed haughtily to warn us not to honor, support or trust anything a fellow priest says, implying the latter to be guilty of (unproven) past misdeeds and of being a person of continuing prevaricating character. This was close to actionable libel and unkind.
Unworthy public statements should be retracted publicly with an admission of fault and without excuse and the damage done should be countered by laudatory statements that set the record statement or bring proper balance to the picture. This is what Christ requires of those who bear His name and His ministry and nothing less–and we all know it–or should.
lexcaritas
Lexcaritas, you “took the words right out of my mouth.”
Also, since reading his famous/infamous Forgiveness Sunday letter, I am now wondering:
“Well, Protopresbyter Thomas Hopko, Dean Emeritus of SVOTS, and author of many books, publications, CDs, tapes and renown Lecturer and teacher on Orthodoxy and Orthopraxis, which of your two AncientFaith Radio Podcast series should I file it under:
“Worship in Spirit and in Truth,” or
“Speaking the Truth in Love”?
“You shall know them by their fruits.”
You mean Stan Drezhlo? The Voice of Albany has a blog post up today offering “proof” that the Communist Party of the USSR and the Russian Orthodox Church are meant to be together.
It was sad enough that Stan lost his khuy, but he also lost his mind.
Tell that line of reasoning to St Mark of Ephesus. Thank God he stood in the breach when every other bishop was in schism.
Now we learn something new: If all the anonymous people break away and fall into schism– the world will hear the sound one hand clapping makes.
Maybe those who want a schism in the OCA– really need a broken OCA for their own reasons.
Harry, with all due respect, you are not even a member of the OCA. You are a member of the GOA. Why don’t you just keep your cute opinions to yourself. We in the OCA are fighting for its existence. You appear to be here to just toy and play. This is not a game.
Now, now SC – be patient with Harry – he is simply working up to his tried and true screed about the great benefits to be derived from establishing a married episcopate. Harry – that’s your cue….
Schism is always cause for a heartbreaking sadness–always. Majority opinion does not always mean the truth is evident in the opinion of the majority–the Arian heresy is a perfect example. The current heresy within the Church that amounts to a form of gnostic dualism is no different.
One need not engage in speculation or character assasination to support Met. Jonah–to do so is wrong. However, it has been clear to me from the very beginning that the public voice of those against Met. Jonah has the tone of a bully–attempting to scapegoat Met. Jonah for the ‘purity’ of the OCA.
Scapegoating is always wrong. It must always be opposed by asking for irrefutable facts (not engaging in counter speculation) George, I think you have fallen down in this regard.
The mantra should be clear, passionless and unwavering: If there is a canonical and/or statutory reason to depose Met. Jonah, what is it? What is the proof? If there is not a canonical and/or statuory reason to depose him, stop the attack, repent and submit to his leadership. Let us go forward. In short: put up or shut up. Now, that gets boring, but it is the only way out of the demonic vortex created by a scapegoat mentality
There is no evidence I have seen that indicates those who oppose Met. Jonah have followed even the fundamental Biblical outline for confronting and resolving disputes in the Church. The other thing that is painfully obvious–no body seems to know or care who has authority over the toilet paper, let alone over the OCA.
I am still of the opinion that the Orthodox Church in this land will crash down to very small numbers, isolated and without a real national structure before it grows again. The ethno-centric, elitist clericalism will have to be utterly crushed. Somehow, I suspect that Met Jonah (whatever his faults) does not have a lot of sympathy for the ethno-centric, elitiest (secular), clericalism. Could be wrong, Lord knows I am wrong a lot.
.
You do not seem wrong.
Michael, you’re absolutely correct. As I understand it, +Jonah will go to the mattresses on the issue of the secularization/incipient liberalism of the OCA. (And we will be surprised by those who come out of the woodwork to support him.)
I hear your words and they’re wise, but fear of the dangers of schism are overrated. It would be better for the ‘Piscies to go their own way and leave the Orthodox alone. As JFK said about party loyalty when he was asked to defend a corrupt politician: “Sometimes loyalty to party asks too much of a man.” (Paraphrase.)
as is the Iconoclast heresy.
Do we need to wait until the next All American Conference for someone to flush out the Aegean Stables that has become the Metropolitan Council? On the matter of council member Faith Skordinski, how does she continue to hold a seat on the MC? As a former member of her parish, I know that she has not attended Liturgy there or received the Holy Mysteries for several years. She is not an OCA member in good standing, and should be barred from the council in order to have the opportunity to reflect and repent.
You think being an Orthodox Christian in good standing has anything to do with serving on the Metropolitan Council? That’s sweet.
Okay, sarcasm off. I hope there are some decent Christians on the MC who will finally understand how shamed they all are by the actions of these others.
Christ is risen!
I’m having a hard time buying that our church is headed toward schism. Seems a bit too dramatic, honestly. I grew up Orthodox in the GOA but moved to the OCA a while back because I feel that English-language worship and missionary efforts to America are important, both areas which (sadly) I felt were lacking in the GOA parishes I knew as a young adult.
I just don’t buy that there are OCA hierarchs or priests who are in favor of gay marriage or are pro-abortion, or for whatever “liberal” cause, you-name-it. I think it’s more a style issue. The fact of the matter is, many folks who have come to Orthodoxy, especially here in the South, are more used to publicly pushing their faith than more subdued “cradle” or northern counterparts. It’s not bad, it’s not good, it’s just different. It’s bound to happen, though, but I believe what is happening now is more a clashing of styles rather than people pushing different faiths or trying to push a “gay agenda” in Orthodoxy.
Please don’t get me wrong — I’m not upset with the behavior of some in the “convert” crowd. I thank God for protestant and Catholic and non-Christian “converts” to Orthodoxy every day — God knows that many our parishes would be nearly empty without them. Not to mention many of my “cradle” family members have nothing to do with Orthodoxy except when they ask me each year when is “Greek Easter.” Truth be told, anyone who is a Orthodox Christian is a convert to Orthodoxy every day.
But Metropolitan Jonah, Abp Nathaniel, Bishop Nikon, Bishop Benjamin, etc., etc. — they all MUST believe the same faith. It’s not optional. Indeed, all of us who call ourselves communicants in Orthodoxy MUST believe that same faith also. It seems to me more of a stylistic issue — Met. Jonah’s style is evidently profoundly different from Bishop Nikon’s or whomever else’s style. That ruffles some feathers, but it seems to be about it.
It seems rather that people are making this out to be much more than it is — i.e., much ado about nothing. If Met. Jonah were out of the picture, the OCA would not be sanctioning gay marriage next month. Indeed, if it did, it would separate itself from Orthodoxy and would cease to be Orthodox. NONE of the “cradle” priests who I know who’ve been priests for 50+ years would be okay with this. Their faith is the same as Met. Jonah’s — but their style is different.
It concerns me mostly because I see people rallying behind personalities, and convinced that their favorite “Orthodox star” can do no wrong. I viewed this from afar in what was going on with the AOA’s Met. Philip last year — some people just love the man, and thus he can do no wrong, no matter what his style of leadership is. Some think he’s a horrible hierarch, and thus he can do no right. I see so many parallels with Met. Jonah — some love him, thus everything he says or touches turns to gold (in this camp seems to be the “ocatruth” crowd). Some don’t really like him or his style, and thus feel that he needs to go. In Orthodoxy, we should not have these “rally figures” that we rally behind. We all rally behind Christ. Stylistic differences exist, yes, but we need to learn to work beyond that.
Christ commands us to love one another (it’s not an option). Making insane allegations that cradle OCA priests and bishops want the OCA to become the next ECUSA is patently ridiculous. I grew up in the Northeast and know hundreds of gorgeous, gothic episcopal churches that have huge endowments but no parishioners. None of us want an empty faith like that.
Even if Met. Jonah were still abbot in California, the OCA wouldn’t be ordaining its first lesbian bishop next year. And if it did, it would cease to be Orthodox. I affirm that none of the OCA leadership, even the “cradle old guard” or whatever you call them, want that. We must stop sensationalizing this.
Finally, yes, I do believe that because he is a public figure in these public discussions, Mark Stokoe needs to issue a clarification of his status. I am thankful for the work he has done in trying to make Orthodoxy more accountable. No one cares if he struggles with being gay or has homosexual tendencies — indeed, that is a cross that is one of the worst to bear or struggle with in this country, primarily because those struggling with it get little help from others, even though we are commanded to help our brothers and sisters bear their crosses (those struggling with same sex attraction mostly get ridiculed or reviled). But if he is in a gay relationship, that needs to be either publicly rejected or affirmed, or he will lose his credibility.
Christ is risen!
SO: please understand, I don’t believe that the sanctioning of perversion by the Orthodox Church is inevitable. But almost as bad would be the quiescence of the Orthodox Church in matters when great moral courage is required. (In fact, it would be worse, because we know that it’s wrong.) As I and others have pointed out incessantly, Stokoe and other liberals have no intention of purposely changing the Orthodox Church’s position on gay “marriage,” abortion, etc. Any attempt to do so would fail. Instead they propose a more clever tactic — what they hope to accomplish is the that the OC nnot speak out at all.
Now you may think that this is a bold assertion. Well, then I can be proven wrong very easily: I ask Mark Stokoe, the “Apalled Four” bishops, Fr Garklavs, etc. to please sign the Manhattan Declaration, affirm Metropolitan +Jonah’s letter to the Congress asking them not overturn Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and forthwith enjoin the parishes of their respectives dioceses to plan for annual Marches for Life. (None of this will cost any money.)
Thank you all for helping keep us in the loop. I look forward to the day the truth is revealed, for “The truth shall set us free”.
RE: Southern Comfort #43
So the clergy and others in the Diocese of the West have actually “begged forgiveness”?
Gee I havn’t heard anything like a retraction for such a duplicitous orgy of ego and insecurity as smearing the +Met publicly.
I am still gravely concerned that the minutes of the DOW of the discussion and that resolution have not one thing in common. Who would vote for a vicious resolution like that after the sweet concern expressed in the minutes. Then these same valiant priests tell their parishoners when asked WHY,
That they are saving HB from humilition.
Your want character assasination?
There it is .
You want cowardice.
There it is.
You want SHAME
There it should be.
They as a unit should publicly renounce such detrimental garbage and beg forgiveness to all of us.
Shame on everybody!
Look at this mess posted here.
It is enough to discourage any follower of Christ.
I do believe Our Lord and Savior, risen from the dead, will disown you all.
Do His work, not your own evil ways led by the deceiver.
BTW, the deceiver is not Stokoe or Fester or anyone in particular.
But Satan himself, who is roaring aloud WITH GLEE over these things being posted.
To all of you:
FOR SHAME!
ANAXIOS!
REPENT!
Don’t wait for Fester or Stokoe to repent, do it yourselves for the salvation of your own souls.
All these hierarchs will answer to GOD for their deeds.
Vengence is Mine, saith the Lord.
HE WHO HAS EARS TO HEAR………..
FESTER?? YOU MAKE ME SICK!