Krindatch: The Numbers

A couple of weeks ago, we published an interview with Mr Alexei Krindatch (courtesy of Ancient Faith Radio). As you may know, Mr Krindatch was tasked with conducting a realistic census of Orthodox Christians in America. Much hinges on his work, including (dare I say) the future viability of American Orthodoxy.

Please take the time to read his monograph.

Assembly of Bishops Research Coordinator Alexei Krindatch has released a new 40-page report titled, Five Interesting Facts About Orthodox Church Geography and Demography in the United States. The report includes the following sections:

  1. Orthodox Church Membership in America
  2. Orthodox Church Geography in America
  3. Orthodox Church Attendance in America
  4. Ethnic Culture in American Orthodox Churches
  5. Orthodox Monastic Communities in America

Download Five Facts (pdf).

View larger size.

Comments

  1. Would someone please clarify with regard to maps 2 and 3: Is the number of adherents by state and by county based on location of residence or location of parish?

  2. Carl Kraeff says

    Great report and presentations. By my calculations those jurisdictions that fall under the Church of Constantinople comprise 65% of the Orthodox, wit the GOA being the largest jurisdiction by far. I am surprised by the size of the Serbian Church and the attendance rate of the Bulgarian Church (the ones with Sofia). Another thing that struck me is how ethnic our people still are. I am sure that I will be tempted to run a few tables to see if there are any correlations between the various numbers, particularly those related to growth.

    In the meantime, George please take a look at the news release at OCA.org regarding the recently concluded meeting of the OCA Holy Synod. There many interesting tidbits that should interest you and your readers.

    • I just read the recent report on oca.org regarding the Holy Synod meeting and several things stuck out:

      1. Bishops becoming Archbishops after only five years? So is that the only criteria? They have to manage to stay alive and not get arrested for five years? What they actually do in their ministry means nothing? How pathetic.

      2. Fr. Eric Tosi discussed personnel changes. There aren’t that many people left at the chancery. Could the powers that be enlighten the populace on who/what these changes were/are?

      3. A new head of the department of external affairs? From the post it’s not clear whether Fr. Kishkovsky got the boot or not. Anyone know?

      4. What happened to any discussion of the podvorie, St. Catherine’s in Moscow? What happened to Fr. Zacchaeus?

      Not to seem overly paranoid, but the report on oca.org was pretty meaningless. Is this the new OCA, timely but pretty inconsequential “news?”

      • StephenD says

        Yes indeed..we are back to “Don’t talk,Don’t ask questions,WE know best but keep praying and paying”..fasten your seat belts…its going to get bumpy..

      • Katia,

        The OCA newsroom at oca.org appears to “report” news on a four-level basis with each more public level offering less information.

        Level 1 is OCA.org which only paints in the broadest strokes, always mindful of “legal” considerations and public relations.
        Level 2 are the Public Minutes of the Synod. These give a bit more news but just enough to let folks know that the Synod actually did meet and followed the printed agenda.
        Level 3 are the Private Minutes of the Synod. These minutes are the real substance of the synod deliberations in written form. These are the minutes that reveal what the bishops actually are interested in and what they give the most time to.
        But Level 4 is where it is at. These are the oral proceedings, the deal-making, the off-the-record proceedings, while they walk, eat and drink away from the prying ears and eyes of non-bishop types. Also far away from any legal constraints determined by what has to be written and documented for history.

        I am not saying there is anything sinister in all of this, but if you are looking for transparency and accountability, you will be disappointed. Those days are long gone especially with men who are afraid of the Internet and have been driven deeper into their veil of secrecy. Their reaction to Fr. Justin is as good an example of their fear factor. I don’t think it is unreasonable to suggest that Fr. Justin’s letter exposed something that they did not want to be subject to the light of day and they reacted. The reaction is similar to last year’s execution of the dean of the DC Cathedral when the exploits of +Mark were on full display and the synod HAD to react because one of their own was (not Jonah) was a victim of people thinking and speaking their mind. Besides, he blew their plans to remove Jonah.

        The irony, dare one say hypocrisy of punishing Fr. Justin for breaking a confidence by having his letter printed on the Internet is that this is the same body that had no problem being part of a circle that read and used private email (confidential) to destroy a senior Archpriest. Hey, George, that would make a good article, just on the principle of the idea, forget about who it involves because we know that the Grand Protopresbyter has already spoken from on high letting us know who was right and who was wrong. Just a good case study.

        Katia, if you are waiting for more real news coming from Synod meetings, I am afraid you will be disappointed. But in an effort to suggest the real happening that took place in Michigan this week, may I offer:

        1. We now know that Metropolitan Jonah MUST RECEIVE PERMISSION AND APPROVAL from the Synod to travel. That being posted on the oca.org Synod Press Release story was 100% intentional. Jonah is in control of nothing, including his own travel schedule.

        2. Chancellor Jillions has a great working relationship with Jonah. Really? That is news? Actually, Jillions has no intention of leaving his current living arrangement, boarding with Protodeacon Wheeler and the Chancellor’s wife has no intention of leaving Canada. Public statement vs. private reality.

        3. Bp. Alexander Golitzen has set a new record for advancement, even beating the record held by Jonah. Just 4 days into his episcopacy, Golitzen is named the head of the OCA External Affairs Department. This however should not surprise anyone who knows that Kishkovsky has lobbied hard for decades to make Golitzen a bishop, over the objections for decades of the Synod who put a ban on his consecration in writing. In writing, mind you, which, given the above Levels is saying something. What changed their minds? I don’t think it is much more complicated than “last man standing.” Kishkovsky got rid of all those who objected to Golitzen and Jonah didn’t object. So now Golitzen will be the face of the OCA episcopacy as we deal with other Orthodox Churches. Public statement, private reality.

        4. No news about Archimandrite Zacchaeus. Those discussions would have been done at Level 3 or 4, mostly 4 because Zacchaeus knows too much.

        5. Same thing with Fr. Justin. His letter was discussed at Level 4 or 5 and the Synod felt it had to act to send a clear message that you don’t question a bishop. They protected +Mark, they always protect their own first no matter the consequences to us folks in the parish.

        Other news you won’t hear, at least yet. +Jonah proposed the name of Bishop Mark (Maymon) to be the next Rector of St. Tikhon’s Seminary. This is good news to the South because it sends the signal that even the Synod can’t futz +Mark into the South any longer. I think the punishment of Fr. Justin was also a clear signal that the Synod’s plans to take advantage of +Mark’s DOS guest status hit a dead-end and the final nail in his coffin was Fr. Justin’s letter followed up by the knock out punch letter of Fr. Burch. Burch gets a pass because he used the DOS process to reveal their first choice against the backdrop of Fr. Justin’s letter which articulated the real feelings in the South. Checkmate.

        Of course, these are just my musings from the oca.org reports, reading between the lines, reading some tea-leaves and the lack of confidentiality that is the OCA synod itself.

        In all, it looks like a typical meeting of the OCA Synod. Lots of money spent, a few photo ops, the bishops suffered through those awful reports of staff and departments, then got to work on the things that get them excited, Level 3 and 4 stuff which has little or nothing to do with our life in the parish nor the growth of the Church but what keeps our bishops interested in coming to these meetings.

        Happy Mother’s Day.

        • Carl Kraeff says

          A fascinating analysis that is punctuated by “Of course, these are just my musings from the oca.org reports, reading between the lines, reading some tea-leaves and the lack of confidentiality that is the OCA synod itself.”

          Regarding the levels of communications, that is how 99% of organizations operate (the remaining 1% goes out of existence). After that, it got really interesting to the point of I started to think that Amos was either a fly on the wall or had some high level informant. Then, I got hit between the eyes with the disclaimer that I quoted above. So, I am at a quandary: Am I to give credence to Amos’ “musings” or am I to dismiss him as a saboteur?

          • You make your point about 99% of organizations, not sure where you got that scientific number from, but one must remember we are dealing within the professed new OCA context of transparency and accountability. One of the telling black marks on the “previous administration” was that we were led to believe that it was too secret, too hush-hush. Now you tell us that that is the way 99% of organizations operate. Dang, we got fleeced again by the Stokoe kool-aid.

            One of my points, really hidden between the lines, or not, was that we have lots of accountability now, the top accounting the bottom with a club, but even less transparency. That, I would suggest is also a reason why organizations go out of business.

        • Geo Michalopulos says

          Amos, I appreciate these insights. If I may point out a few things that might be worth pondering:

          1. Even if you are correct about point #1, His Beatitude has not ceased traveling in the slightest.

          2. As to point #2, does that mean that Fr Jillions has no intention of remaining as Chancellor?

          3. As to point #3, I know absolutely nothing about Bp Alexander or why he was previously not considered to be acceptable. Personally, I’m glad that the OCA has a bishop to head this department. Although he may be of like-mind with Fr Leonid, the idea of archpriests running departments has always been an albatross around the neck of the OCA. The Chancellor should likewise be a bishop (assuming that my take on point #2 is correct)..

          • George to your points.

            Make no mistake, Fr Kishkovsky is still running the OCA External Affairs Department. Bp Alexander will be his wiling and cooperative front man.

            As for our OCA Chancellor, so far the job isn’t what he thought it would be and has told others he is not sure he will keep the job after one year. This leads one to think he has an escape clause out of his contract with one year being the trip wire.

            No OCA Metropolitan has ever had their travel schedule approved by the Synod. The fact that this was one of the first points made in the press release is not by accident. It sent the clear message who is in charge and it isn’t Jonah. I would also suggest, if one can go back into the archives of the OCA online, that you will find that Jonah’s travel is only a fraction of what the travel schedule was of Theodosius or even Herman with international travel (besides Mexico) almost at zero. Of course you have to be invited to another Church before you take a trip.

            • Geo Michalopulos says

              Amos, since I’m not an insider to the OCA (nor do I ever want to be), I’m willing –up to a point–to defer to your understanding of these events. In any event, time will tell.

            • Amos says,

              As for our OCA Chancellor, so far the job isn’t what he thought it would be and has told others he is not sure he will keep the job after one year. This leads one to think he has an escape clause out of his contract with one year being the trip wire.

              What was he expecting? Supposedly, he was actively discouraged from applying from “everyone” he talked to (which I see as a thinly-veiled swipe at Met. Jonah). He was expecting a very difficult job, and chose to apply for the job anyway.

              Not that I want Fr. Jillions to stay, I’d be happy to pack his stuff for him and put him on a bus. I am just fed up with having OCA money wasted on job searches, only to come up with people who can’t or won’t be in it for the long haul.

              No OCA Metropolitan has ever had their travel schedule approved by the Synod. The fact that this was one of the first points made in the press release is not by accident. It sent the clear message who is in charge and it isn’t Jonah. I would also suggest, if one can go back into the archives of the OCA online, that you will find that Jonah’s travel is only a fraction of what the travel schedule was of Theodosius or even Herman with international travel (besides Mexico) almost at zero. Of course you have to be invited to another Church before you take a trip.

              Another factor is that they do not permit him to travel overseas without another bishop with him. This of course is a completely unnecessary policy that drastically increases the expense of overseas trips for the OCA.

              But hey, anything to spit in Met. Jonah’s eye, right?

              As for the invitation issue, it’s no surprise to me that while Fr. Kishkovsky was in charge of the DER, Met. Jonah didn’t get too many of those.

              • Monk James says

                Fr Robert Kondratick’s service as chancellor of the OCA set the bar very high.

                His two successors have accomplished less than half the work FrRK did in a year at about half the compensation.

                FrRK kept our OCA respectable among the other churches in spite of the foolishness of a couple of our metropolitans — no small achievement, that.

                Well, look at us now.

                • Diogenes says

                  James:
                  RSK created all the problems that the OCA currently has. Quit singing his praises; he abused his authority and we’ll be suffering from it for many more years to come.

                  • Monk James says

                    Actually, our OCA has suffered more harm ensuing Fr Robert Kondratick’s dismissal from the chancery than it did during his service as chancellor, a period in which the central administration actuall functioned. It will take some time and some serious rearrangements for us to build up the momentum we had before 2006.

                    FrRK’s reinstatement as a priest of the OCA will be the signal that things are finally returning to normal, and we can begin to heal.

                    I’m surprised that ‘Diogenes’ isn’t embarrassed to show up here again after his recently exposed malice and recalcitrant silliness.

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      Diogenes, you and other of Fr Kondratick’s detractors keep on saying the word “millions.” I guess you think if you keep repeating it it’s come true. From what I’ve seen of the penury of the OCA, I find it hard to believe there were every any “millions” to be stolen.

                      Are we talking about an urban legend here? It seems like it to me.

                  • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

                    in fact, Protopresbyter Rodion S. Kondratick created none of the problems that the OCA currently has, save only that by his rigid refusal to expose the sexual pathologies of certain dead and living hierarchs, a certain moral ambiguity informs the deeds and attitudes of today’s OCA administration throughout.
                    If anyone is teaching rhetoric or abnormal psychology, though, and needs a simple example of megalomania, Diogenes deserves a big thank-you, for his “actually” statement.

                    • Like a jackass braying, Diogenes is one of the chorus who never met Fr. Kondratick, never had any interaction with him but rely on the “word” of Stokoe, Wheeler and the SIC (and it was sick) report.

                      Now, all the synod can do is try and paddle faster just to keep up with the strong current against the OCA, and none of them look like very good swimmers.

                    • Diogenes says

                      George:
                      There were secret bank accounts. Monies given to the OCA somehow ended up in these accounts; including monies from the agricultural seed baron. When added up, millions were passed through these accounts.

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      Not good enough Diogenes. I need an actual number before I can give any credence to your allegations. Otherwise, it’s like me when I come home from a poker nite and my wife asks me how much I made and i say things like, “you should have seen me pull off a bluff with four spades showing, if only you could have been there…”

                      Big talk doesn’t cut it with a prosecuter (or my wife).

                    • Jane Rachel says

                      Bishop Tikhon said, “in fact, Protopresbyter Rodion S. Kondratick created none of the problems that the OCA currently has, save only that by his rigid refusal to expose the sexual pathologies of certain dead and living hierarchs, a certain moral ambiguity informs the deeds and attitudes of today’s OCA administration throughout.”

                      We now have a reason given to us as to why Fr. Kondratick was silent. I am sure it’s true because it makes sense that it would have happened this way. Terrible sense, but it shows his integrity. Again, integrity. I appreciate knowing this because it confirms what I had suspected all along. In fact, I’ll bet there are others who were or are similarly taking the heat unfairly for the sake of their less Christ-like brethren.

                    • Monk James says

                      Diogenes says (May 16, 2012 at 11:55 am)

                      ‘ There were secret bank accounts. Monies given to the OCA somehow ended up in these accounts; including monies from the agricultural seed baron. When added up, millions were passed through these accounts.’

                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                      STILL?! MORE LIES?!!!

                      Listen. There were no secret bank accounts. During Fr Robert Kondratick’s time as chancellor, commitments of money reallocated from unrestricted OCA accounts were made by a consensus of the officers of the OCA.

                      FrRK never misapropriated any funds to himself, as was attested under oath by several witnesses during the civil court’s D&D process prior to the OCA’s omnibus settlement with him.

                      The ADM millions were in a separate account — not a ‘secret account — administered personally by Met. Theodsius who alone had authority over those funds. .

                    • M. Stankovich says

                      So Vladyka Tikhon reports a certain “nobility.” and Jane Rachael ascribes a more “Christ-like” integrity to Robert Kondratick, who not only “knew” of the “sexual pathology” of hierarchs of the church, but apparently continuously served at the altar with them with no concern for their impact on the church, transcendent or otherwise. Outstanding! And further, Vladyka Tikhon (though he doesn’t know for sure) poses the hypothetical if Robert Kondratick was shredding documents, who is to say it was not records of the shameful sexual activities of bishops & priests (in the records for what reason?), lest his successor find them and “reveal” them.

                      Vladyka Tikon, I was at SVS when everyone already knew what you claim is the “gift” of Robert Kondratick’s integrity. NYC is a big city, but has small “communities,” and unfortunately “members” are seen where they otherwise should not be seen. Word, as they say, then spreads like wildfire. When you are young and insignificant, you depend on rationalization and compensation (“I won’t get in that communion line,” “I won’t go for the blessing at Vigil” “I have to step out during this sermon because I might vomit”). And later, you just have to trust that justice is of the Lord.

                      To say, Robert Kondratick “created none of the problems that the OCA currently has” by citing his “cover-up” of the “sexual pathology” of the leaders of the church is probably the singularly most moronic thing I have read on this blog.

                    • Jane Rachel says

                      Mr. Stankovich, this is such a strange place to try to have a conversation, isn’t it? I mean, I’ve got this full life with morning till night filled to overflowing with ridiculously low-paying but extremely satisfying work, punctuated by sounds, sights and smells of natural, northern Minnesota beauty, and then I get online. Sometimes as I work, I think of your workout there in California with the people you work with, and I always regard you with respect, because I believe you are honest and you have seen more than most. But I could be wrong about the “honest” part. How can I know anything about you, other than what you write? Well, I can’t.

                      I don’t know these people we talk about here. I’ve never met them. My real life here is filled up with wonderful people, and also, a few crackpots. But when it comes to the OCA, the bishops and priests, and what has been written online about the goings on in the OCA over the past six years, I KNOW little, yet my own, personal little life has been deeply affected by what has happened. If people have been railroaded, shut out, pushed around, hurt, vilified falsely, I want to see the truth come out, not that it will; I’m too jaded to believe the wrongs will be righted on this side of the Veil.

                      As for the thoughts you wrote above, it’s more than I can fathom. And yet, what you say is not new. Stan has broken that “news” already.

                      Lord, I pray that if You are there (yes, my faith is smaller than a mustard seed), please “make the evil be good.”

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      As usual, Jane R, very eloquent.

                      To all: this particular blog posting is about “Krindatch: the Numbers.” Please direct all commentary to Mr Krindatch’s fine work. If I see that the tenor of conversation is personalized or ad hominem, I will start doing that which I never wanted to do, and that is exercize editorial discretion (as if I don’t have enough to do working 55-60 hrs a week).

                      Monomakhos is one of the few Orthodox blogs out there that encourages free speech and honest debate. Let’s keep it that way.

                    • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

                      I agree with M. Stankovich’s characterization of seminary life. Those things never change. The old Monty Python game of “Nudge! Nudge!” is probably played nowhere more enthusiastically than in an ecclesiastical seminary, and, no doubt, the sexual high-jinks, imagined or not, of clergy and bishops are totally fascinating to the SVS or STS seminarian today. Of course, my recollection of SVS is during Chancellor/Treasurer (try to make that one fly today!) Daniel Hubiak’s day. One of the most flagrantly obvious “gay” priests I’ve ever met was a frequent visitor to the SVS campus. When I first met him, he said, “I always come around here at registration time to look over the new crop!” He said that to me in a group of four or five classmates of mine. Later on, the jobs of Chancellor and Treasurer were separated, and a new Treasurer was appointed who eventually (like the instructor of Greek at SVS) died of AIDS out in California somewhere.
                      I once visited Father Dan at the Chancery when I was looking for a Russian speaking Priest to assist me in Los Angeles, not long after i myself was ordained and named rector there. He spent much of the time doing “Nudge-Nudge” about certain persons, with whom, as some have pointed out, he served at the Holy Altar, in Syosset, In Crestwood, in East Meadow, etc.
                      Of course, even a first-year seminarian learns of the Donatist controversy, and it would be rather bizarre of him to avoid any Priest’s “communion line.”

                      I try and try, but I’m never able to make a comment that comes up to the high spiritual and intellectual standard set by M. Stankovich. How right he was to complain of the moronic character of my post!

                  • Yes, it’s clear that the compassionate approach taken by RSK to the failings of clergy (often mischaractarized as “sweeping things under the rug”) has given way to puritanical “guilty until proven innocent” approach in the OCA. A new soon-to-be-named Sex Czar, the constant plea from the administration of “we spend all of our time dealing with cases of sexual misconduct,” the order to review all past cases of sexual misconduct, the letter from the Dalai Lama of Protopresbyters warning the Synod that they must make sexual misconduct their number one priority or see the blessing of God taken away, senior archpriests and bishops denouncing a priest in his own parish after liturgy, in the presence of a detective (and then subsequently being booed out of the church by the faithful)… Donatism is indeed alive and well in the OCA. The OCA will be squeaky clean! Woo hoo!

                    • Thomas Mathes says

                      Spasi, Would you elaborate on that statement “senior archpriests and bishops denouncing a priest in his own parish after liturgy…”? I am not familiar with this story. Did I miss a posting?

              • George Michalopulos says

                Helga, you raise an interesting point about Fr Jillions. It may very well be that the nonviability of Syosset is becoming increasingly apparent to others. Presently, it’s been mainly those who are in His Beatitude’s camp and who agree with his vision of decentralized dioceses. If the Syosset/MC model was vibrant, then there’d be guys lining up for the job of chancellor.

                • George Michalopulos says

                  P.S. After all, we’re talking about pulling down a six-figure salary here. That’s more than most bishops in the OCA.

                  • George, do you know for sure how much the Metropolitan makes? I know it’s less than the other officers, but from some sources I hear $100k and others $50k.

                    • Honestly don’t know Helga. I just remember looking at the treasurer’s report before the AAC and saw how much some of the bishops made. (Notice I did not say “all” bishops.) My feeling is that outside of those 4-5 employees who work in Syosset, very few priests make over $100K. I could be wrong but that’s my gut feeling.

                • George, my worry is that if Fr. Jillions leaves, despite whatever reasons Fr. Jillions has for leaving the chancellor position, his leaving will be used to further slander Met. Jonah. “See? He couldn’t work with two successive chancellors, so clearly he must be the problem.”

                  • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

                    I know you made your comment to George, not me, Helga, but I feel I must point out that it doesn’t matter who does or does not do what: His Beatitude will be blamed. But surely we must not become mirror images of the blamers by praising His Beatitude no matter what he does or doesn’t do. And we must support him, if and when he shows any sign of having a backbone.

                • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

                  What’s this message and several previous messages by the same writer in this thread got to do with Krindatch the Numbers?

            • Carl Kraeff says

              Amos–I seem to remember that the Holy Synod took a number of actions regarding the duties and even the travel schedule of the Metropolitan and these decisions were not recent. Thus, it puzzles me that an “insider” like yourself write about this as if it is something unheard of. To me, your insistence on being anonymous and on stirring the pot calls your veracity into question. Thus, I cannot give credence to your report about Fr. Jillions,or for anything else. Sorry; I guess that is the price that one pays when one chooses to cloak himself.

              • Carl doesn’t believe me. I am not sure I can go on. The very thought of such a rejection causes me to doubt my very existence. Good bye cruel world.

                • Carl Kraeff says

                  ^^ Nice. 🙂

                • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

                  There, there, Amos! Where was Carl in the heyday of ocanews? Anonymity and anonymous character assassination reigned supreme there. Now Carl seems to believe that the Holy Synod has allowed itself to approve a Metropolitan’s (this Metropoliltan’s) itineraries before. I think he’s mistaken, and I’d just withhold belief until I could see some proof of that rather high-handed, overweening, reform-school-matron disciplining of the Metropolitan prior to this instance of it.

        • Amos says,

          I am not saying there is anything sinister in all of this, but if you are looking for transparency and accountability, you will be disappointed. Those days are long gone especially with men who are afraid of the Internet and have been driven deeper into their veil of secrecy. Their reaction to Fr. Justin is as good an example of their fear factor. I don’t think it is unreasonable to suggest that Fr. Justin’s letter exposed something that they did not want to be subject to the light of day and they reacted. The reaction is similar to last year’s execution of the dean of the DC Cathedral when the exploits of +Mark were on full display and the synod HAD to react because one of their own was (not Jonah) was a victim of people thinking and speaking their mind. Besides, he blew their plans to remove Jonah.

          My favorite part of Fr. Justin’s letter was when he brought up the 1977 election of Metropolitan Theodosius. I think that was the guarantee that the ax had to fall on Fr. Justin at some point, because it put any hope the Synod had of justifying electing Bishop Mark over the DOS popular nomination in front of a firing squad and gave it a cigarette.

          But this has not turned out too badly for either priest. Fr. Justin still has his parish. Fr. Joseph Fester may have lost his job in DC, but he has another and now that he’s in ACROD, he is safe from further retaliation in the OCA.

          1. We now know that Metropolitan Jonah MUST RECEIVE PERMISSION AND APPROVAL from the Synod to travel. That being posted on the oca.org Synod Press Release story was 100% intentional. Jonah is in control of nothing, including his own travel schedule.

          That part of the release actually made me laugh out loud, although it was sarcastic laughter. May I ask if any other bishops have to get their travel schedules approved of by other bishops?

          If I were Met. Jonah, I would deviate from the approved schedule in some small way, just to kick against the pricks. Let the reader understand….

          2. Chancellor Jillions has a great working relationship with Jonah. Really? That is news? Actually, Jillions has no intention of leaving his current living arrangement, boarding with Protodeacon Wheeler and the Chancellor’s wife has no intention of leaving Canada. Public statement vs. private reality.

          Hmm, living with his brother in law, and wifey in another country? Absolutely. No. Comment. What. So. Ever.

          Kishkovsky got rid of all those who objected to Golitzen and Jonah didn’t object. So now Golitzen will be the face of the OCA episcopacy as we deal with other Orthodox Churches. Public statement, private reality.

          Well, it’s hard for Met. Jonah to object, since apparently he can’t do so much as take a trip to the bathroom without having to get it authorized by his lords and masters. What do you know about the new Bishop Alexander? What’s his deal?

          4. No news about Archimandrite Zacchaeus. Those discussions would have been done at Level 3 or 4, mostly 4 because Zacchaeus knows too much.

          Of course, that’s unsurprising. Do you know anything about Drezhlo’s accusations that someone at St. Catherine’s has been embezzling money in the confusion since Fr. Z was taken away?

          5. Same thing with Fr. Justin. His letter was discussed at Level 4 or 5 and the Synod felt it had to act to send a clear message that you don’t question a bishop. They protected +Mark, they always protect their own first no matter the consequences to us folks in the parish.

          At least in this case, all Fr. Justin has suffered so far is a slap on the wrist. They didn’t take away his parish or anything. The sooner the DOS can get a bishop, though, the better.

          Other news you won’t hear, at least yet. +Jonah proposed the name of Bishop Mark (Maymon) to be the next Rector of St. Tikhon’s Seminary. This is good news to the South because it sends the signal that even the Synod can’t futz +Mark into the South any longer.

          Yeah, anyone who doesn’t recognize that Bishop Mark in Dallas is a dead letter doesn’t know what’s going on. Can you imagine holding an enthronement for him at St. Seraphim’s? Sticking Bishop Mark in St. Tikhon’s is his best chance for rehabilitation.

          • I just hope that if +Mark is at STS that they don’t have him teaching Ethics!

          • Sticking Bishop Mark in St. Tikhon’s is his best chance for rehabilitation.

            Who will teach the class on internet security? Or rather, insecurity? Students of St Tikhon’s: Make sure that you use STRONG passwords (a combination of letters, numbers, upper and lower case, and symbols)! And never leave your computer unlocked, especially if Bp Mark is walking down the hallowed halls of St Tikhon’s. And everyone should read the seminary’s policy on using St Tikhon’s network before logging on. I suspect Bp Mark will be regularly monitoring the information you send into the cloud.

            And regarding the new requirement for psychological testing – I agree that this should be an important part of the screening of new priests as well as transfers. Because, let’s look at this logically. Who in their right mind would want to serve in the OCA in its current incarnation? After making the decision to be a cleric in the OCA, seek professional help – immediately.

            • Geo Michalopulos says

              Spasi, I’ve heard wonderful things about Bp Mark’s academic acumen. I think him becoming dean is probably the best answer to this long, drawn-out affair.

              • He spoke at our parish for a retreat and it was the most god awful boring talk I’ve ever experienced. I practically had to prop my eyelids open to even stay awake.

            • And NEVER use your employer’s equipment (computer, cell phone) for personal communications. (Every employer I’ve had since e-mail came into the corporate arena has trained the employees that they have no legal expectation of privacy if using the employer’s hardware.) Especially, if you’re using your employer’s hardware, be SURE to sign out of your personal e-mail account.

          • Geo Michalopulos says

            I agree.

          • Diogenes says

            Uh….Met. Theodosius was elected Metropolitan in 1970. + Dimitri had the popular vote, but + Theodosius had the backing of the Synod. This worked out fine since + Theodosius received the Tomas of Autocephaly that same year. Not only did he reflect the new vibrant Orthodox Church in America as a young “nash” bishop, but was also quite smart. His downfall came when he accepted RSK as his Chancellor.

            • WRONG.

              Go back and check your dates Dio. Who was Met. In1970?

              • StephenD says

                I may be wrong but I’m pretty sure Met.Ireney was Metropolitan in 1970…those were heady times..I remember Father Schmemann coming to our parish { I must have been home from either prep school or university} and telling us what the Tomos would mean to us and the Church..everyone was so excited….even then no one trusted the then Father Theodosius {he liked the grape} but he was ethnic….sad that is what won the day over Archbishop Dmitri of Blessed Memory..

                • Diogenes says

                  StephenD:

                  You are correct and I was wrong. + Theodosius went to Moscow to accept the Tomos of Autocephaly as the Bishop of Alaska in April of 1970. Shortly thereafter he was transferred as the Bishop of Pittsburgh (1972). Met. Ireney was sick and could not fulfill his duties and Fr. Hubiak heavily interfaced. + Ireney refused to retire and it was in 1977 when + Theodosius was chosen over + Dimitri.

                  • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

                    The Bishops chose a Metropolitan who was not the popular choice when they chose Metropolltan ireney over Bishop Vladimir; when they chose Metropolitan Theodosius over Bishop Dmitri; and when they chose Metropolitan Herman over Bishop Seraphim
                    Diogenes reminds us of the time when Metropolitan Ireney “was sick and could not fulfill his duties.” What I remember from that period is how Connie Tarasar was cleverly picked to take the just-finished OCA “The Divine Liturgy” book down to the enfeebled Metropolitan Ireney as he nodded in his wheelchair at SS Cosmas and Damian, put the title page on a pad in his lap, and a pen in his hand and got it “approved.” That’s how the OCA was saddled with more of a ‘rendition” of the Divine Liturgy than a translation into good English for so many, many years.
                    It had the local Bishop and the Metropolitan “defining” the Word of Thy Truth, for example!!! As if any Bishop ever defined the Word of Christ’s Truth! (The correct word was divide or apportion. like a pie.)

                    • Jane Rachel says

                      I remember how disappointed my parish priest was when Metropolitan Herman was chosen over Bishop Seraphim; how disgusted he looked when he reported back that the popular vote had been overridden by the Holy Synod; and how wistfully sad that the Bishop of the Midwest would not be the Metropolitan.

      • Katia, a bunch of good points there. These things just make me want to punch something hard.

        I am also perplexed by the decision to elevate bishops to archbishops after only five years. However, it seems that nowadays they tend to consecrate older bishops who won’t even serve actively for 20 years. Metropolitan Jonah and Archbishop Tikhon are both exceptions to the rule, since Met. Jonah was 49 and Archbishop Tikhon was 38! Now they are 52 and 45 respectively.

        But Archbishop Nikon is allegedly nearing the end of his active tenure, and he’s only been a bishop for ten years. Bishops Michael, Matthias, and Alexander were all at least 60 when they were consecrated, and Bishop Melchisedek will be turning 70 in August. If they had to wait 20 years from their consecrations to become Archbishops, they probably would never become archbishops.

        Also, it doesn’t appear that you have to even keep from being arrested to become an archbishop, since Archbishop Benjamin was one of the ones who was just elevated. 🙂

        My point is only that we didn’t really see any justification for this, and I feel it is best to withhold judgment and condemnation of it until we know why Met. Jonah suggested and the Synod decided this.

        For the other stuff, those are fair points, but keep in mind some of the meatier stuff happened in closed session. Also, this posting just put together some highlights, and wasn’t meant to be comprehensive. They will probably release the minutes at some point.

      • Carl Kraeff says

        Katia–Would you care to disclose some personal background so that I have some context before I start responding to a, charitably put, an ignorant and belligerent post? Thanks

        • Carl,

          As I believe Amos and others have pointed out, there are stories between the stories. I, myself, grew up in the former Metropolia, now OCA, and like many others have seen a lot of changes. I’m sure that we can agree that words mean something. In the latest post on oca.org there were some things that escaped my attention in addition the items I pointed out, such as the metropolitan’s travel schedule, and I am thankful to others for pointing them out.

          If you found my post “ignorant and belligerent,” oh well. I stand by my remark that making bishops archbishops simply by virtue of the fact that they have lasted for five years pathetic. It is frankly insulting to a number of other bishops in the OCA who deserved much better treatment when they served. Will bishops like Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald be elevated as well? As memory serves me, he was elected over the new Bishop Golitzen in 1987. And seriously, was this the most comprehensive thing that came out of the meeting? This was the burning issue that all of the bishops had to come together for?

          I hope, as others pointed out, that a more comprehensive report on the Holy Synod meeting will be forthcoming.

          • Alexander says

            The whole idea of an “Archbishop” is silly. As far as clergy goes, deacons, priests, and bishops serve the Church. Period.

            The insistence that non-sacramental, “extra” administrative responsibilities, require (or inspire) super-duper titles, in my less than humble view, is ridiculous. “Archbishops” (wow, in some local churches, they get crosses on their kamilafkas), “Archpriests” (in the Serbian Church, they get to wear pectoral crosses!), and “mitred-Archpriests” (these priests, why, they get to wear jeweled crowns that look like those bishops these days insist on wearing) … come on.

            I’d even go so far as to say that applies just the same for the “primates” of local churches. So, the Bishop of Moscow has an agreed and defined set of responsibilities that make him the senior administrative bishop of a local synod of bishops, these days commonly designated as the Russian Church. Can’t we just leave it as the “Bishop of Moscow” and be done. You’d think that “arch-deacons” would love it because there’s less to bellow when they get “introduced” during Divine Liturgies.

            At some point we get close to suffering from the same vain pomposity of title that accompanies the “Bishop of Rome”: Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the State of Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God.

            BTW: Several months ago I asked why some bishops in some jurisdictions are sometimes identified with the word “Kyr,” and some are so important that they get two, “Kyr, Kyr.” Does anyone know what “Kyr” means? Perhaps simple Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) can help here.

            • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

              Very good, Alexander. But the titles and accoutrements are but symptomatic of the real crisis. No one has ever expressed it better than Saint Justin Popovich of the Serbian Church (the one who, amongst many other academic honors, was awarded an honorary SVS doctorate once):
              “…the Orthodox Church, in its nature and its dogmati¬cally unchanging constitution is episcopal and centered in the bishops. For the bishop and the faithful gathered around him are the expression and manifesta¬tion of the Church as the Body of Christ, especially in the Holy Liturgy; the Church is Apostolic and Catholic only by virtue of its bishops, insofar as they are the heads of true ecclesiastical units, the dioceses. At the same time, the other, historically later and variable forms of church organization of the Orthodox Church: the metropolias, archdioceses, patriarchates:, pentarchies, autocephalies, autonomies, etc., however many there may be or shall be, cannot have and do not have a determining and decisive significance in the conciliar system of the Orthodox Church. Furthermore, they may constitute an obstacle in the correct functioning of the conciliar principle if they obstruct and reject the episcopal character and structure of the Church and of the Churches. Here, undoubtedly, is to be found the primary difference between Orthodox and papal ecclesiology.”

              • Alexander says

                Amen.

              • Geo Michalopulos says

                Your Grace, I think we are going to be coming into a crisis in which the regalia (literally “royal accoutrements”) of the hierarchy may have to be stripped from them. Forgive me for saying this, but far too many have used them to “lord it over their fellows, as the gentiles do.”

                It really grieves me to say this.

            • V.Rev.Andrei Alexiev says

              Hold on,Alexander.I currently serve in the Serbian Church and not every Protopriest wears a cross.(I prefer “protopriest” because it’s a more literal translation from Greek or Slavonic than “archpriest”).Often,a Serbian priest may be protopriest for years before getting the jeweled cross.Just yesterday,I concelebrated with an Archimandrite,three Senior Protopriests,and one priest.I was 5th in seniority.One protopriest who was my senior didn’t have a cross.I wore my gold(not pectoral) cross,which I was awarded,according to the Russian usage,before I was elevated to protopriest.

              • Alexander says

                Yikes, Fr.! I think that proves the point. But, thanks for the clarification nevertheless.

                I suppose that the foundational question has to be asked, do “archpriests” exist in the Serbian Church? If so, does a Serbian “protopresbyter” or “protopriest” equal an “archpriest”? (Sounds like not.)

                If I have this right, protojerejstavrofor‘s are “protopriests” who get to wear pectoral crosses? (“Stavro” from the Greek for cross.) I’ve long understood — or incorrectly assumed — that a “protojerejstavorfor” was an “archpriest” and hence my assertion that in the Serbian Church archpriests get to wear pectoral crosses.

                And there’s somehow difference between a “gold cross” and a “pectoral cross”? … Really? Double yikes.

                Does any of this have anything to do with the Serbian practice of awarding blue and red sashes to certain deacons and priests?

      • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

        Good one, Katia! Of course there’s nothing shameful or egregious about the Synod’s decision to entitle all Diocesan Bishops Archbishop after 5 years service. Likewise the appearance of the new titles on the OCA website where diocesan bishops are listed the day after the Council and, not only that, but the apparently photo-shopped placing of crosses on the front of their klobuks at the same time was not shameful or egregious, it must be admitted that it’s slightly humorous. The cross on the klobuk used to be a dignity given to only certain VERY senior Archbishops and any Metropolitan. I haven’t seen any explanation or elaboration relative to that innovation anywhere.
        It’s quite bizarre that the Holy Synod now approves the Primates travel schedule in advance. A suspicious person might call it a kind of set-up. It’s almost impossible to foresee even a diocesan bishop’s actual and full itinerary ahead of time at all; however, remembering Santa Fe, it’s easy to imagine that someone on that Synod HOPES that this or that innocent unforesee invitation to the Metropolitan will result in him taking a trip not on the approved schedule, thus “violating” the “holy consensus”! (Remember, Katia, that it is I, Bishop Tikhon, who is writing this and you should be VERY careful in evaluating it, therefore.
        I, too, wonder about the Archimandrite Zacchaeus’s situation.
        Around the Church there are other happenings that would normally have been considered by the Holy Synod; for example, Bishop Matthias’s directives at his recent clergy convocation caused quite a brouhaha on that sulking site, The Orthodox Forum. Recently at least one parish in the OCA was blessed to revert to the Old Calendar, while the Miter was awarded and bestowed on a non-monastic parish priest. Why, I myself was rebuked by Metropolitan Theodosius for putting a miter on an Igumen whom I was elevating to be an Archimandrite!
        And, Katia, don’t be bothered by that Carl’s comments on your message. It’s true that the news that came from the Holy Synod’s meeting was MOST inconsequential. But this doesn’t mean that what was not reported WAS consequential!
        There actions and their failures to act in the cases of Protopresbyter Rodion S. Kondratick and Bishop Nikolai (Soraich), however, were reprehensible in the extreme, it’s my conviction.
        And I do NOT understand appointing Father Jannakos to be the Dean at St. Nicholas Cathedral, Washington, D.C. at all. (He’s been in the Bulgarian Diocese for several years, and he was the other protagonist in Bishop Benjamin’s “Excellent Adventure in Las Vegas” a while ago!

        • Lola J. Lee Beno says

          Wow . . . this is news to me, Fr. Jannakos being appointed.

          • I heard that St. Nicholas doesn’t have the money to pay a new dean? I don’t think he has been appointed yet, but the offer has been made by +Jonah, of course he has offered it to others, (Morbey, Perich) who backed out.

            If this is true, +Benjamin and the synod will have their mole at St. Nicholas watching every move +Jonah makes.

            I wonder if +Jonah got a blessing from the synod to celebrate the Service of Crowning during yesterday’s Liturgy at St. Nicholas?

            • He did a wedding during Liturgy?

              • Lola J. Lee Beno says

                Yes, he did. I was there, and a very lovely service it was. I know that in the past it was traditional practice to do weddings as part of Liturgy; it is only recently that wedding ceremonies were done as a separate service, at least here in he United States.

                • I was under the impression (mistaken?) that the bride and groom must both be Orthodox if the wedding is done as part of the Liturgy because the Eucharist is the common cup and not its reduction as practiced as a stand-alone service. If they both communed, then I can see an internal liturgical and sacramental consistency. If not, then, and again, I am no expert, it seems to be a rather curious decision on the part of +Jonah. Doubt that +Matthias would approve of such a practice!

                  • Nikos, I think you are mistaken. I think wedding Divine Liturgies are rare enough that it is not set in stone to insist that both be Orthodox for those.

                    Also, I do not think the common cup is meant to substitute for the Eucharist for a stand-alone service. At a wedding during Liturgy the common cup should also be taken, after Communion of course.

                  • Lola J. Lee Beno says

                    Yes, the bride and groom are both Orthodox. His Beatitude made a short statement (I guess, to inform the non-Orthodox wedding guests as to who can take communion) before giving communion those who lined up.

                  • Diogenes says

                    All sacramental functions were originally performed within the context of the Divine Liturgy. When mixed marriages were done, the service became separated. Baptisms are to be done within the context of the Divine Liturgy and with ALL the people present.

                    • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

                      Diogenes here blatantly uses the renovationist/ reformist password: “originally performed.” Throughout its history, our Church has relied on Tradition, that which has been handed over to us, to direct its life. “Originally” is used in the acts/canons of the Holy Councils only to announce the official abandoning of a former practice, its excision from Tradition. Thus, one Council decided that although “originally” our Saviour was portrayed in the holy images as a Lamb, WE no longer will do that.
                      Baptists, Lutherans, Zwinglians, Puritans, Calvinists and sectarian “path-breakers” of all kinds, including Renovationists, Renewers and Living Church types, as well as Ukrainian Self-Consecrators justify each of them their individual heresy or schism on the basis of “originally” this or that.
                      I was in Father Alexander’s office on a visit once when the phone rang and he had to calm down an irate Starosta in the Middle West who complained of some innovating practice of a newly assigned SVS graduate there. After calming the man down and hanging up, Father Alexander said that this was “always” happening: he would teach what went on in, especially, a history class, and the students would take their notes and eventually go out and introduce some defunct practice as “this is what I was taught by Father Alexander Schmeman. It’s sad that so many doctrinaire followers of that great teacher just didn’t get it and still don’t, apparently.
                      Archbishop Dmitri in reference to this sort of thing would complain that such references to what “originally” was done, rather than what had been received, were prima facie evidence of the failure to believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church.
                      As a reductio ad absurdam, Diogenes lays down the (i.e., his) law: “Baptisms are to be done within the context of (how’s that for weaselly?) the Divine Liturgy with ALL the people present. It’s what Diogenes and those who think as he does WANT that is to be the Law of God these days. It’s a kind of fascism, isn’t it?

                • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

                  Lola. It is true that long, long ago, in lands far away, there was no service of crowning or any special wedding service at all: A couple “married’ by coming to gether before the Bishop at the Eucharist to receive the Mysteries together: if the Bishop blessed them, they were considered to be man and wife. Very soon, however, almost as soon as the Church became the respectable organization to join in the Roman Empire under St. Constantine if you wanted to get ahead in this world, separate Christian ceremonies which would allow the courts to determine to whom property belonged in legal disputes became the rule. The Rite of Crowning celebrated separately from the Eucharist became the practice, Lola, and remained the practice since long before the days of your great-great-great grandparents in the Orthodox Church. In the late 19th and 20th centuries, however, the profession of “liturgical specialist” arose and became a part of society in religious cultures and societies calling themselves Christians. Many of these, in their researches, discovered, just like the Baptists that discovered that the “original” tradition was much simpler liturgically, reported the “original tradition” did not include a marriage ceremony “separate” from the Eucharist. Special services were soon contrived (as they are still being contrived here and there even today: the Moscow Patriarchate published a newly contrived way of combining Crowning and Eucharist within our memory. Of course, one might also point out that “originally” “weddings were not special events at all, and were certainly not community or corporatea acts of a conciliar Church, but private events involving only a man, woman, and the bishop at the time of Communion.
                  The combined marriage and Eucharist NOW is one of those “living church” or “renovationist” products” that was NOT passed on to us except in archeological monuments and ancient manuscripts.
                  In today’s “sandbox” methodology in the OCA, I’m not at all surprised that His Beatitude would be anxious to “try out” one of those new (“and according to the most ancient tradition”) rites. Weddings are not done in monasteries and monastic clergy, unless seconded in an emergency to a parish, are forbidden to perform marriage, so His Beatitude had few opportunites to do a wedding until now, and the prospect of being able to enact yet another product of the Liturgical Theology Syndrome was just too attractive to pass up. Strangely, though, it puts the opposition to His Beatitude in a strange position. They can’t use this against Metropolitan Jonah without looking like they favor a conservative approach to liturgy. ALL of Metropolitan Jonah’s opposition in the OCA is of the liturgically creative and reforming school. So, no Lola, it is the combining of wedding and Eucharist that was NOT the traditional way in the Church until recently and mostly in the United States. It was very hard for emigre Orthodox teachers to live alongside Roman Catholic and Protestant divines who were reviving and “cleansing” ancient rites almost at will, in the Black Forest, in path-breaking symposia and modernizing monasteries and, above all, in Sacred Academia.
                  Commonly, outside the liturgical sandbox and restorationist milieu, crownings took place on Sundays, after the Divine Liturgy. Ideally, the nuptial pair, if they were regular churhgoers and communed frequently,to partake of the Mysteries at the Liturgy.
                  There is, of course, no place indicated in the Typikon or service books of any Local Church which permit clergy to deviate from the Order of the Divine Liturgy as found in those documents in order perform a crowning. One would have to “come up with a way of doing it.”
                  Coming up with a way of doing something is NOT Orthodox and certainly not tradition.

                  • Anna Rowe says

                    I watched the clip of the wedding. This is the first time I’ve heard/seen of any Metropolitan performing a wedding service. Just wondering could he do it if it was not part of the liturgy?

                    • Lola J. Lee Beno says

                      Where did you see this clip?

                    • Anna Rowe says

                      Lola, it was on St.Nicholas FB.

                    • Geo Michalopulos says

                      Anna, can you post that clip on this site? I’m intrigued. Your Grace, if I remember correctly, the rite of crowning a king is done after the Gospel reading and before the Great Entrance. Is this correct?

                    • Lola J. Lee Beno says

                      Here you go, George.

                      http://vimeo.com/42092449

                    • What a beautiful wedding!

                    • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

                      Helga’s second indignant comment went like this:

                      “Since I submitted the above comment regarding Met. Jonah’s celebrating a Crowning in the Divine Liturgy, I checked Hapgood and the Greek Archdiocese services of crowning. Neither mentions the priest holding anything in his other hand when leading the couple around.”
                      Well, er, um, uh. I’ve seldom heard ever-memorable Father Alexander Schmeman wax MORE irate than when he commented on “Hapgood.” Be that as it may, I’ve served at. sung at, or performed probably more than fifty-sixty weddings or so in my life, most of them in Los Angeles, but not all, and I have photos of the weddings of many couples both here and abroad. I do not recall EVER seeing a wedding in a Russian Church where the Priest or Bishop did not hold the Holy Cross in one hand and the hands of the bridal pair in the other bound by either just epitrakhelion or epitrakhelion atop another cloth binding their wrists together. I’ve never checked with the Greek Archdiocese on any liturgical details whatsoever. First, I would consult a local Priest’s Euchologion, and then the Dean of the closest Greek Church, in order to find what is prescribed in Greek Churches. For Russian authorities, I would consult a Trebnik as well as one of the many “Desk Manuals for Clergy”, such as Nikol’sky’s, Bulgakov’s or the eight-volume one of the Moscow Patriarchate. In Bulgakov, page 1156-7: “The Priest unites the right hand of the groom with the right hand of the bride, i.e., covering them in this form of uniting the hands of the wedding pair, he also leads them three times around the analogion—In many places in our fatherland there prevails the custom, according to which the Priest, during the wedding, before the time of the triple circuit around the analogion, unites the hand of the groom and bride, covering them with a kerchief, and then places on them his epitrakhelion with his left hand, and holding in his right hand the Holy Cross accomplishes the circuiting of the analogion….” Bulgakov referenced “Father Zainatsky, page 34, for this.

                      “Also, this wedding used metal crowns, not ribbons. One of the photos on the St. Nicholas FB page shows the crowns close up, and they are definitely metal. There’s ribbon attached to the crowns, but the crowns themselves are metal. There’s a website called Orthodoxweddingcrowns.com that sells crowns just like that.”
                      I previously commented on the reliability of profit-making enterprises in retailing whatever will sell. I still don’t know how the brides’ circlet, or flapper’s head-band, got underneath her veil
                      Next:
                      “Furthermore, crowns are sometimes held overhead by the sponsor(s) during the Dance of Isaiah, but they also may leave the crowns on the heads while the sponsor holds the middle of a ribbon attached to the crowns. With the big Russian crowns, the sponsor(s) usually carry the crowns themselves, but it’s also very common with thin metal crowns like these or with Greek-style crowns for the sponsor to hold this ribbon attached to the crowns, just like we saw in the video.”
                      I commented on these strings (or reins) and who may hold them in a previous comment a few minutes ago. No one claims they’re in any Euchologion or Typikon

                      “In short, Vladyko, everything you cite to call this a “deficient” ceremony is actually within normal practice. I think you owe everyone involved in the wedding an apology for what you said earlier. Not only were you wrong, what you said has the potential to be very hurtful to the couple if they ever stumble across it.”

                      Until Christ is All in All with us, all our services are deficient and “stop-gap,” including those within “normal” practice. If my comments require an apology, then I’ll make it right after the person who filmed the wedding does so for having done so, instead of praying, and for whatever was untoward in the actual event.
                      I realize that it is almost impossible for an obese Priest to walk in front of a bridal pair WHILE holding their hands; invariably, he won’t be able to extend his arms behind him at all, and will, instead of leading them, be forced to stride alongside them, like a third party, thus constituting .a three-man couple, or Troika, as it were.
                      With such a nice wedding, I’m sure both bride and groom are so happy, so delighted, that learning of the comments of an old grump-bishop like me would not disturb them in the slightest. And if they have a Priest with attitudes like Helga’s there’s no reason to imagine they’d not find more than adequate PROOF, that I don’t know what I’m talking about!

                    • Anna Rowe says

                      I got married in St. Nicholas and Father Dimitri of blessed memory led us with a cross. We truly followed him and the cross.We had the crowns which we donated at the end. The groomsmen knew what to expect …so we had 6.This is more of the Russian Orthodox tradition. The focus of the discussion was on Metropolitan Jonah and not the couple. Afterall, it’s not common to see the Metropolitan perform a wedding.This must be his first wedding service as the Metropolitan as there would be more photos and videos posted somewhere.

                    • Monk James says

                      George Michalopulos says:

                      May 19, 2012 at 5:35 pm

                      Technically speaking, the arcane, English word for Greek-style crowns is “circlet” or “diadem.” (and if made with leaves, it would be a “wreath.”) I guess this means that the crowns that cover the entire top of the head would be “mitres.” Am I wrong about this?
                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                      The word stephanon means ‘garland’ or ‘wreath’. an open circle of branches and leaves, much like the crowns of laurel we see in classic greek and roman art worn by victorious athletes and heroes.

                  • Geo Michalopulos says

                    thank you Lola!

                    • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

                      I must say, Helga’s enthusiasm for Metropolitan Jonah apparently knows no bounds.
                      1. The Priest or Bishop should lead the newly crowned servants of God by his Epitrakhelion/Omophorion in one hand, and the Sacred Cross in the other hand, teaching thereby that not only must their life henceforth be centered on the Gospel, but that they AND the Bishop or Priest must FOLLOW THE CROSS.
                      2. The marriage is called a “crowning.” It is an awful stretch, no doubt complying with klein-buergerlich “good taste”, to use a string around the head to be a crown. A crown, whether myrtle or metal, should be something splendid, as the deeds of martyrs deserve. Why that looked more like a symbolization of a team of horses being directed by a complacent farmer, letting them “have their head.”
                      3. Saint Nicholas once had the kind of beautiful choir singing that fulfilled its function in accordance with the formula for church music of Saint Basil the Great. While the singing of the enthusiastic girls’ choir was not repulsive, but even “nice”, it was nothing like the singing that characterized Saint Nicholas (and most Russian Orthodox Churches) of former times…Nicholas Borodulia, Serge Boldireff, etc. etc.

                      There’s nothing of the Divine Liturgy in that video.

                      I’d say that it was the kind of “wedding” that Franciscan liturgical nuts would really love.
                      Perhaps it’s the first time His Beatitude has done a wedding, though. He looked nice, Helga, and so did everyone else. It was a very nice event. As an Orthodox Service of Crowning, though, it was mightily deficient.

                    • Your Grace, given the nature of your recent insults against Metropolitan Jonah, it’s probably true that I seem very enthusiastic for him by comparison. Pity this poor foolish woman, who does not yet comprehend the profound spiritual wisdom in calling anyone “disgustingly and repulsively obese.”

                      1: I’ve seen celebrants carry either the Gospel book or the cross. I have never seen anyone carry both. At any rate, it may well have been His Beatitude’s first opportunity to celebrate the Crowning and he may have just forgotten.

                      2: Their crowns are circlets and yes, circlets are actual crowns, although not as ornamental as you might be used to seeing. It’s possible that the crowns may have been provided by the couple so that they would be able to keep them in a case in their new home.

                      If you protest the lack of “precious stones”, Greek-style crowns have no more precious stones than these have.

                      I liked their crowns because they were simple enough to be easy to handle and actually be placed on their heads, instead of held aloft by the poor sponsor for the next two hours.

                      3: I am sorry that St. Nicholas can no longer furnish a choir that meets with your approval. I am sure they are properly ashamed to know they have disappointed a retired bishop who lives three thousand miles away and most of them have never met.

                    • Anna Rowe says

                      Vladyka,
                      You bring up such fond memories! Mr.Nick was a perfectionist and the choir had some great bass voices.:) So much so they were at the Kennedy Center with Nikolai Gedda as a soloist. I don’t know the circumstances of this wedding but, I prefer the crowns. They may be slavic..I don’t know. Hopefully, things are not getting watered down. I know where Tevya was coming from when he shouted “tradition!” in FOTHR.

                    • Lola J. Lee Beno says

                      The Greeks use this type of crown. I believe the groom’s side is Greek. When I got married, we used the ornate crowns that St. Nicholas keeps. Our crown bearers had to keep switching the crowns between their left and right hand. I’m sure one would have gotten a headache after wearing these ornate crowns throughout this particular ceremony.

                      Come on . . . enough with the nitpicking and be happy for the bride and groom, praying for many, many years together, for better and worse!

                    • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

                      Yes, Anna Rowe, I sang bass in that choir at the Kennedy Center concert when Nikolai Gedda was soloist. I still have a copy of the program and pictures.
                      All the Local Orthodox Churches use crowns; however, while the Russians and other Slavs prefer metal/jewelled crowns with icons on them, modern Greek usage is floral, non-metallic crowns. A narrow ribbon around the head is not a crown, although the service is called “Crowning.”
                      Usually either a ‘best man” and “maid(en) of honor” (or the bride’s and the groom’s baptismal sponsors) hold the crowns over the bridal pairs’ heads and they also circuit the Gospels, led by the Priest holding the Cross.
                      When there are no crowns, and the nuptial pair has strings or ribbons held by only one person behind them one is reminded, as in this case, of a man holding the reins of another sort of pair, letting them have their head.

                    • Since I submitted the above comment regarding Met. Jonah’s celebrating a Crowning in the Divine Liturgy, I checked Hapgood and the Greek Archdiocese services of crowning. Neither mentions the priest holding anything in his other hand when leading the couple around.

                      Also, this wedding used metal crowns, not ribbons. One of the photos on the St. Nicholas FB page shows the crowns close up, and they are definitely metal. There’s ribbon attached to the crowns, but the crowns themselves are metal. There’s a website called orthodoxweddingcrowns.com that sells crowns just like that.

                      Furthermore, crowns are sometimes held overhead by the sponsor(s) during the Dance of Isaiah, but they also may leave the crowns on the heads while the sponsor holds the middle of a ribbon attached to the crowns. With the big Russian crowns, the sponsor(s) usually carry the crowns themselves, but it’s also very common with thin metal crowns like these or with Greek-style crowns for the sponsor to hold this ribbon attached to the crowns, just like we saw in the video.

                      In short, Vladyko, everything you cite to call this a “deficient” ceremony is actually within normal practice. I think you owe everyone involved in the wedding an apology for what you said earlier. Not only were you wrong, what you said has the potential to be very hurtful to the couple if they ever stumble across it.

                    • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

                      I’ll try to respond to each of Helga’s hostile paragraphs:
                      “Your Grace, given the nature of your recent insults against Metropolitan Jonah, it’s probably true that I seem very enthusiastic for him by comparison. Pity this poor foolish woman, who does not yet comprehend the profound spiritual wisdom in calling anyone “disgustingly and repulsively obese.””
                      Please, Helga, quote ONE insult of mine against Metropolitan Jonah. You refer to yourself as “this poor foolish woman”. That’s your right: it’s a free country, and we have free speech. I’ll just have to take your word for it that you are a woman. For all i know the name “Helga” is a pseudonym, like other authors’ names here on Monomakhos. I frankly suspected you weren’t a woman at all, but a Priest on the East Coast! IMHO, there was no “profound spiritual wisdom” in my describing MYSELF as “disgustingly and repulsively obese,” so I’m not sure what got your dander up.
                      Next:
                      “1: I’ve seen celebrants carry either the Gospel book or the cross. I have never seen anyone carry both. At any rate, it may well have been His Beatitude’s first opportunity to celebrate the Crowning and he may have just forgotten.” I have never ever seen a “celebrant” of a Crowning carrying the Holy Gospel Book. In fact, Helga, i remember pointing out that the Priest or Bishop holding the Cross ahead of him indicated that the man and wife (like the Priest), must follow the Cross in everything they will do, just as their procession (which you call “Isaiah’s Dance”) is made around the Holy Gospel Book, indicating that the wedded life must be centered around the Gospel. Please, let me know where you’ve “seen the celebrants carry…the Gospel book,” in the procession.
                      Next”
                      “2: Their crowns are circlets and yes, circlets are actual crowns, although not as ornamental as you might be used to seeing. It’s possible that the crowns may have been provided by the couple so that they would be able to keep them in a case in their new home.”
                      Helga, I do not consider a headband or circlet 1/2 inch (at most) in width to be a crown or a wreath, but something from the 1920s “flapper” era.. I’m not sure how the bride’s got UNDER her veil. I am aware that there are merchants who retail all sorts and qualities of liturgical articles and even icons, but I’m also aware of their mercantile urges to provide something ‘special’ and “not your run-of-the-mill” icon or, in some cases nuptial crowns.
                      Did Metropolitan Jonah lift up the bride’s veil in order to remove the bride’s crown later?
                      Next:
                      “If you protest the lack of “precious stones”, Greek-style crowns have no more precious stones than these have.”
                      What makes you think I would protest a lack of precious stones on any wedding crowns Helga? You brought that up, not I. That would be the same mentality (basing something on the text of the Prokeimenon (Thou has set upon their heads crowns of precious stones) as the equally vapid style of referring to the three-fold circuit of the Gospels as “The Dance of Isaiah” just because the Troparion sung during ONEcircuit refers to Isaiah exulting (sometimes interpreted to mean dancing with joy, which might have been PART of Isaiah’s joy. What I like about the royal-style crowns of the Russian Church is that they usually have a cross on them.
                      Next:
                      “I liked their crowns because they were simple enough to be easy to handle and actually be placed on their heads, instead of held aloft by the poor sponsor for the next two hours.”
                      I’m not sure how Helga’s “liking” the crowns is supposed to be material. As for “the poor sponsor”, in the Russian AND Greek tradition, there is room for two groomsmen or a bridesmaid and groomsman, or two “Godfathers” to hold the crowns for five minutes apiece. As for a string or rein attached to the crowns, that string, like the white or rose-colored cloth onto which the bridal pair are led by the Priest, is a matter of ethnic custom: the cloth in the Russian wedding symbolizes the dowry of old, which might have been furs or precious textiles, etc.
                      Next:
                      “3: I am sorry that St. Nicholas can no longer furnish a choir that meets with your approval. I am sure they are properly ashamed to know they have disappointed a retired bishop who lives three thousand miles away and most of them have never met.”
                      Helga, I think you are reaching again. I nowhere said the girls’ choir at St. Nicholas did not meet my approval. In fact, I said the choir and the wedding were both nice. In the American culture I grew up in, there can be no higher praise. Or? As a former choir member, sometimes “psalomschik”, and deacon during the time when St. Nicholas had three superbly competent and gifted Priests (Archpriests Arkady Moisejew, Paul Lutov, and Dimitry Grigorieff) and one of the most magnificent-serving (and pious!) Protodeacons, Vladimir Malasch(kovich, as well as the superb and well-known choir director, Nicholai Vassilievich Borodulia (his father was also a choir director at the former “military” cathedral at the Kiev Lavra), I do not feel I should apologize when I say almost NOTHING except the mostly same outline of (most of) the services there, remains of it today, not the serving, not the preaching. That’s life, and i do not blame anyone for not having those days in their lives. It’s all really very nice there, Helga, honestly.

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      Technically speaking, the arcane, English word for Greek-style crowns is “circlet” or “diadem.” (and if made with leaves, it would be a “wreath.”) I guess this means that the crowns that cover the entire top of the head would be “mitres.” Am I wrong about this?

                    • M. Stankovich says

                      I have to wonder the “rhyme and reason” for singing, as the second revolution of this procession is made, the hymn “O Holy Martyrs, who have fought the good fight and have received your crowns, entreat the Lord, that He will have mercy on our souls.” Now, I’m no iconologist, but my general recollection is of the martyrs iconographically depicted with what has been described here as crowns of the “floral” variety, in my mind particularly reminiscent of what adorned victors of the Greek games. Likewise, the only saint remembered in the service ending in every tradition, besides Sts. Constantine and Helen, is “the Great Martyr Procopios.” After you have taken a moment to consider, I think it is quite reasonable to inquire as to whether our couple is being instructed in the way of the Cross (and there is no instruction in the Greek text beyond “the priest leads them”), or in the way of martyrdom?

                  • Diogenes says

                    So, let’s examine some of the “innovations” that Fr. Schmemann taught his students that parish staritsta complained about. Let’s start with “frequent communion.” Heaven forbid any lay person receive the Eucharist except for Christmas & Easter. Next, how about the “innovation” of Pre-sanctified Liturgies during Great Lent and in the evening no less. How about the “innovation” of Matrimonial Divine Liturgies or Baptismal Liturgies; oh how horrible & foreign. The truth is that all of these and many other things taught were indeed Orthodox and the American Church had adopted bad practices influenced by the Unia and other outside influences. What Fr. Schmemann taught was the “original” Orthodox teachings where even bishops rejected them.

                    • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

                      Why, Diogenes, the Starosta I mentioned did NOT complain about frequent communion, nor do I. After all one of Father Alexander’s mentors, Father Sergius Bulgakov, complained (1) in his diary about a visit to America in the 20s that he was appalled by the low level of sprituality and intellect in the Metropolia, and (2) that not only regular Communion, but the Mystery of Confession had practically died out in the Greek and Serbian Churches: a “sign”, said he, of the DEATH of spiritual culture in those lands.
                      The Starosta did not complain about pre-sanctified liturgies at all, nor do I. However I now note that amost invariably, the OCA clergy still keep their Friday evenings free and only have one Presanctified per week, on Wednesday evening.
                      When I matriculated at Saint Vladimir’s, the doors and curtains were opened and closed according to traditonal Russian Orthodox practice and the Service Books.
                      “Matrimonial” Liturgies as they have been introduced in our time are novelties, as are Baptismal Liturgies.
                      As I pointed out in the case of images of the Lamb, not everything “originally” done is now Orthodox. Get it?
                      You, Diogenes, are just imagining what that Starosta in the Middle West was complaining of (and that Father Alexander persuaded he had taught NO ONE to DO ).

                      Let’s not start with “frequent communion” (your quotation marks). No one ever taught that Holy Communion must become routine or “what is expected of you.” Yet, that is what obtains in many places in the OCA.
                      Ever hear of a Latin Wedding Mass? Is that what you meant by “bad practices influenced by the unia and other outside influences?:

                    • Geo Michalopulos says

                      Lola, you got the right idea.

                      As for crowns, although the ornate crowns are really ornate, Greek-style crowns are less expensive and the bridal couple can keep them, so that’s their main advantage. Also, holding the crowns over the couple as it’s done in the Slavic style can be very tiring!

        • Your Grace, Mr. Drezhlo is quoting you on his blog: two different posts of yours about Fr. Jannakos, as two different sources. Apparently, you’re not only “Love BT”, you’re also a totally separate individual who confirmed the news to Drezhlo. LOL.

          • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

            Thanks, Helga, for this. Haven’t been to Voices from Russia for a while, but; oh, that Barb, that Stash! Referred to the source of the Jannakos news as the “squiffy” Monomakhos site.

            He or whatever’s a real caution, ain’t he!

            • Geo Michalopulos says

              “Squiffy”?!? I take umbrage at that!!! (BTW, what does “squiffy” mean?) And anyway, shouldn’t it be La Drezhlo? 🙂

              • Don’t you mean COMMENTS OFF BAB’S Blog ? (COBB)

                She is also so far behind the news on the St. Nicholas priest search. Fr. Perich thought he was going to be the next dean but “surprise” +Jonah is now offering it to Fr Paul. Still not sure how all of this is going to take place given that St. Nicholas apparently doesn’t have the money for two priests. Maybe that got an estate or something.

                COBB may have to remodel his/her “Kitchen Cabinet.” 😉

                • Methinks the “Kitchen Cabinet” is just people who want to see what Mr. Drezhlo is gullible enough to publish.

                  What’s the deal with Fr. Paul Jannakos? What’s known about his background?

                  • Helga,

                    Fr. Paul Jannakos’ FB page. You might be interested in his pictorial history which intersects Bishop Benjamin and Mr. Stokoe. I make no conclusions, just a link to maybe help you.

                    Hats off to me. Looks like I got COBB (Comments Off Bab’s Blog) upset. She posted a “tsk, tsk” about me. I had to laugh that Babs gets all self-righteous about people who post under pseudonyms yet, he won’t allow comments on his monologue blog.

                    And remember, we are all konvert, right-wing nutters, vulture capitalists who bow down here on Monomahkos to the worship all things captialist. Of course all he offers us is a steady diet of silly Soviet revisionist history and the conclusion that Communism in Russia is the way to go, sans that genocide thing.

                    At least George is not afraid of the back and forth on his blog, but woe to those who challenge Comment Offs Babs.

                    Come on Babs, open up your comments so we can talk to you directly. We promise to pass the jug!

                    • Anna Rowe says

                      Nikos, or you’ll wish you had brought your own jug!

                    • Monk James says

                      It’s disappointing to hear that any one of us has negative feelings about converts to orthodoxy.

                      After all, every single one of the people who formed the first christian community in first-century Jerusalem were converts, including our greatest teachers of the faith, the twelve apostles and St Paul. They were all born jewish.

                      It takes a great deal of courage and trust in God for us to (spiritually speaking) leave the land of Ur and go to the land which the Lord promises to us, sight unseen. Emulating our father Abraham, every single one of us is a convert in one way or another.

                      Even those of us who were born into orthodox families need to be converted, maybe even several times a day, by God’s love, not to follow our sinful inclinations but to follow Christ instead.

                      Stan ‘Barbara’ Drezhlo’s fixation on this issue is just another symptom of his generally maladjusted condition. It’s strange, though, that he sees converts as some sort of political bloc in The Church. I doubt that anyone else thinks that, convert or birthright orthodox.

                      Let’s pray for him to be liberated from the demon who besets him, that he may escape his delusions, repent and be saved.

                    • Geo Michalopulos says

                      Obviously, if anybody thinks I’m a neocon-worshiping vulture capitalist, (s)he hasn’t been paying too much attention to my criticisms of the Russophobic warmongers who are pissed because Putin rained on their parade when he took over and stopped their pillaging of Russia under Yeltsin.

                  • Carl Kraeff says

                    I have not met Father Paul but I see that he has listed as friends many whom I respect and admire. Some of his postings indicate a man who is a good family man, others that show him to be conservative and spiritual. I don’t know if pne can truly rely on initial impressions, but I like him.

                    • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

                      I don’t think ANYONE dislikes Father Paul Jannakos. He, like his Father who became a Deacon late in life, is most personable, kind, and likeable. I believe his parish service everywhere has been without reproach. He’s also an EXTREMELY gifted musical talent. His wife is also just right. As I recall, she’s a well-known Serbian priest’s daughter. Father Paul’s kindness and generosity are signalized by his affectionate tolerance of Bishop Benjamin.

                    • Lola J. Lee Beno says

                      Glad to know all this . . . this is truly reassuring, if it is indeed true that he has been chosen to be dean at St. Nicholas Cathedral.

                  • ProPravoslavie says

                    “Methinks the “Kitchen Cabinet” is just people who want to see what Mr. Drezhlo is gullible enough to publish.”

                    Methinks Drezhlo’s Kitchen Cabinet is entirely a figment of his confused brain. They all write the same way.

                    • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

                      He seems to have the mystique, physique, and habits of one of those Byzantine court eunuchs. Only thing, the typical eunuch wasn’t a cross-dresser. He’s definitely not a female, not even after surgery and hormone saturation. After all, he has no uterus, can’t bear children, and he still walks and talks like a certain kind of male. There’s not an ounce of femininity or what passes as female advantage in his blatherings on Voices from Russia. He’s just got that aura and essence of the conniving court eunuch. The clothing of a suburban matron just makes him a little more of a figure of fun than your average Byzantine (and also Sassanid, Mameluke, Safavid, Ottoman, Ming-Ching, etc.,) court eunuch. Definitely a type, but doesn’t realize it.

                    • George Michalopulos says

                      Your Grace, I can’t tell you how much I respect your knowledge and appreciate the way you turn a phrase. Keep up the good work.

    • Carl, I would definately welcome any tables or monographs you could present to this blog.

      On another note, I would direct everybody’s attention to p.5, where Mr Krindatch takes into consideration “Dunbar’s Number,” and how it applies to interpersonal relationships. Once that Number is exceeded, people in a community tend not to know each other well. Personally, I’d never heard of that number but I’d always felt that a church should never exceed 300 people. According to Dunbar, the number is closer to 150. This is fascinating because the Venerable Dmitri told those starting missions to expect to start another mission once the number of adults was 125. Priests I’ve talked to state that the ratio of congregegants to priests should be no more than 100:1. Anymore than that and the parish either needs to start a mission or hire another priest. (This of course assumes that the laity partake of Confession regularly.)

      • Brian Jackson says

        It seems also to presume that the congregation is tithing–or close to it. Not so much as a matter of a legalistic duty but simply because supporting the needs of a parish with a relatively small congregation would practically demand it.

        • George Michalopulos says

          Brian, you are right. Tithing must become de rigeur if Orthodoxy is to grow in America. The only way around it would be for people to regularly attend services at monasteries since they are self-sufficient.

          • Patrick Henry Reardon says

            George believes, “Tithing must become de rigeur if Orthodoxy is to grow in America.”

            Yes.

            And congregational singing in the vernacular.

            And a biblical sermon at each service, including Vespers.

    • Thomas Mathes says

      The latest synod shows why Bishop Melchizedek was visiting 79th Street. He wasn’t negotiating away autocephaly, but was learning from the Greeks how to run a synod: First, keep bishops’ discussions from appearing on the internet. Successful up to this point. But will someone start leaking information afterwards? GOA bishops don’t have loose lips after their synod meets. Will OCA bishops be as discrete? Second, report the meeting while revealing very little to nothing. Again, successful. The OCA press release seemed modeled after GOA synod releases. Third, you seal a new order among the bishops by giving some bishops new titles. GOA made several bishops metropolitans to seal their new order. Perhaps, Metropolitan Jonah is sealing a new order among the bishops by making them archbishops. Another lesson learned well from GOA.

      • Geo Michalopulos says

        Thomas, you raise some interesting points but that is not the reason that HG went to 79th St. There were personal reasons having to do with his tenure in Greece that precipitated that venture with Fr Garklavs. (Both he and Garklavs tried to pull the same stunt at Met Nicholas of ACROD’s funeral some months before.)

        Having said that, I do see your point about “sealing the new order” by “giving some new titles,” and, yes, it does work –up to a point. Unfortunately not without unintended consequences. In the GOA it has proved to have less-than-beneficial effects. Even in the precincts of the Phanar there have been whispers of regret at having done so.

        True, if the object was to prevent a Greek “super-archbishop” from arising (a la Iakovos), it worked, all too magnificently unfortunately. Now, the primate could only be a non-entity. This is inevitable. In addition, it elevated several mediocrities to a seemingly high but meaningless status. The moral vacuum, stasis, attrition, and lethargy that has transpired in the GOA has all but ensured that that jurisdiction cannot take a leading role in promoting American unity (as it did under Iakovos). Basically, the nine “we’re-all-equal-but-the-money-goes-to-NYC-first” contraption that was forced down the GOA’s throats after Iakovos’expulsion, means that if there is to be American Orthodox unity, it’s going to be Bartholomew or nothing. The longer the ACOB process drags on, the more it becomes obvious that the entire process is most probably a ruse, the other jurisdictions will increasingly settle on “nothing.”

        And of course, the gratutious granting of metropolitan status to every Thomas, Dionysius, and Haralambos, degrades the meaning of that once-glorious title. At most, a united, local, autocephalous American Orthodox Church should have a minimal number of metropolitans, based on regionality only. No more than 5-6. (I could be wrong but I think Russia only has about 3. Please correct me if I am.)

        • Thomas Mathes says

          George, my remark about Bishop Melchizedek was intended as humor and to introduce my comparison with GOA. That is all.

        • “I could be wrong but I think Russia only has about 3.”

          Russia has had a hierarchy top-heavy with metropolitans for a long time, but then you have to remember that Russia has vast dioceses. This number has increased since 2010 with Patriarch Kirill’s ongoing reorganization of the ROC (except its ‘self-governed’ and ‘autonomous’ churches) into metropolitan districts. This goes in hand in hand with the appointment of more bishops. At least, there is now an attempt to put some logic into the system: one metropolitan has responsibility over a group of bishops and archbishops.

          In the Ukrainian Orthodox Church – Moscow Patriarchate, 14 of the ruling bishops and one vicar bishop have metropolitan rank.

          • Geo Michalopulos says

            ProPrav, thank you for correcting me.

            since we’re on this subject, I’m rather discomfitted by the OCA’s recent decision to automatically elevate every bishop to archbishop status after 5 years of service. I would be a hypocrite if I didn’t mention this because I have long criticized the GOA for going one step further and elevating every bishop to metropolitan status.

            How to solve this? I think the US should have seven archbishops: Washington, the Northeast, the South, the Midwest, the Ohio Valley, the West, the Pacific West. These archdioceses should be subdivided into several dioceses. Perhaps somewhere between 20-30 at first.

            As for the Holy Synod, it should comprise all seven archbishops and seven bishops, the latter of whom are chosen on a rotating basis.

            What do y’all think?

            • Carl Kraeff says

              I like the overall approach, except that the Holy Synod should consist of all diocesan bishops. You could have a Lesser Synod that is comprised of a mixture of archbishops and bishops to run things in between the Spring and Fall meetings.

              • George Michalopulos says

                Even better, Carl. How about a Lesser Synod made up of 3 archbishops, the metropolitan, and 3 diocesan bishops? Everybody but the metropolitan could be chosen on a rotating basis.

                • Carl Kraeff says

                  Good idea; this way each archdiocese could have a bishop on the Lesser Synod, the representative being either its archbishop or one of the bishops. This approach could foster teamwork and emphasize servant leadership. Of course, the Metropolitan would be always be a member because of his unique position.

            • abercius says

              It normally takes 15 years for a priest to become an Archpriest, barring special services warranting quicker promotion. Not every priest receives that honor. But Bishops should automatically receive it after five years of service? This feels like Congress demanding austerity in the budget while passing pay raises for themselves. This is not a move that will engender trust or respect.

              His Grace Bishop Tikhon of the West served longer and with more distinction, yet was never made an archbishop.

              Does this mass self-promotion by title-inflation make any sense? This is a model of humble servant leadership? They wasted the meeting time of the Holy Synod on this?

              Their time would have been spent better investigating why then-Bishop Nikon received the Muslim President of Kosovo in his Boston Cathedral of St. George, in March 2012 on the Sunday of Orthodoxy–of all days–without consulting the Metropolitan, a move that may have damaged our relations with the Church of Serbia. Where is Fr. Leonid’s passionate outcry against the unilateral actions of a bishop damaging our relations with other Orthodox Churches? Perhaps Bishop Alexander will set things straight… It would be nice to see the Holy Synod live by the same principles they preach.

    • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

      I thought I’d be the third person to comment on the Krindach report:
      It’s not bad.

  3. The idea of the OCA putting +Mark at a seminary as Rector is one the most hairbrain notions I can imagine. Here is a man who was thrown out of the Antiochian Archdiocese, he is run out of town on a rail by the DOS after a few months, an admitted pilferer of private emails, a confessed accomplice of Stokoe before and after entering the OCA, and we will now reward him with helping to shape the spiritual and moral character of seminarians?

    Only in the OCA!

    • Heracleides says

      Ditto. Only thing worse I can think of would be to inflict Bp. Mark of the faithful of Alaska.

      • Lola J. Lee Beno says

        That was attempted. He refused to go there.

        • To be fair, Bishop Mark suffers from Seasonal Affective Disorder which basically means he gets depressed during periods of low exposure to sunlight. Alaska can have very long periods of darkness in the winter time, and living there would be detrimental to his health. Metropolitan Philip knew this and attempted to send him there anyway.

          • Get him a big light box to help with his S.A.D. I can just hear it, “But Patriarch Kyrill, I can’t go to a diocese in the Arctic Circle because it gets too dark too early up there.”

            If a bishop tells a priest to go to another parish he goes. If an auxiliary bishop is told to take a new assignment he goes. If the priest refuses, he has no parish. If a bishop refuses, …….

            • StephenD says

              If a Bishop refuses he goes to the OCA because we are stupid enough to take him…..

            • Does Bishop Mark speak Spanish at all? If not, we could send him to Mexico. Seriously: while he’s picking up the language, it will force him to think harder about what he’s saying, and maybe it will help him learn to be nice.

            • Patrick Henry Reardon says

              Nikos proclaims, “If a bishop tells a priest to go to another parish he goes. If an auxiliary bishop is told to take a new assignment he goes.”

              I am grateful that Nikos is not my hierarch

              When Bishop Antoun was making these appointments, I found him invariably open to reason and sympathy in cases involving a priest’s health and domestic responsibilities.

              Some folks on this bog site have convinced themselves that the Antiochian Archdiocese is a tyranny.

              This has not been my experience. In the course of my dealings with Englewood during my 20 years in the Archdiocese, I have—on every occasion—received kindness, solicitude, and support.

              This experience stands in raw contrast with my memory of the hierarchy in the Episcopal Church.

          • Living up here in Minnesota I can assure you that S.A.D. can be very real and devastating. It’s not a joke to those who are dealing with it, the related depression and lethargy can be significant. In parts of Scandinavia they actually have “light” bars, places where people can go to bask in artificial sunlight to help them make it through the long northern winter nights. Alaska is large and amazingly beautiful. I’ve been there but like most visitors I was there in the summer and not in December when the sun, in some places, just peeks over the horizon or not at all.

            That being said there is a larger point here. The Scripture tells us to be kind to each other, tenderhearted, forgiving each other. We all have foibles, weaknesses, places where we struggle. Surely sins and problems need to be identified but we need to avoid the tendency to “pile on” and continue to inflict wounds on the already wounded. Which of us would like to be treated with the same public contempt that many of our Bishops have endured in this and other forums? Who among us would like our lives picked apart and exposed in this way by people who may not even know us or if they do have no insight into our depths?

            Would to God that we would pray for our Bishops with the same joy we seem to take in attacking them. Would to God that we would put the same effort into seeking after their salvation that we do in bringing them down. Please tell us, which of us could do better? Which of us would wear the mitre with perfect holiness and wisdom? Most of us have enough struggles just getting through the day with our holiness intact.

            Now I put this comment here because Helga was wise enough to state a truth and I am tired of people not just holding their leaders accountable but keeping on digging after the wound has been exposed. I came to Orthodoxy because I wanted, expected, and needed, something better than what and where I was. I make a hundred mistakes every day, sometimes hourly, but I have not and will not give up on that better, that good, that place I was looking for when I entered the doors of the Kingdom.

            Where sins and darkness are exposed seek the healing and salvation of the sinner recognizing that we, too, can easily fall into traps. When a problem emerges look to the Tradition of our Faith and seek wise and beneficial solutions. Above all seek the mind,the life, the grace of Christ so that our thoughts and lives and view of the world are transformed in the process.

            Am I expecting to much? I don’t think so because basically these are my deepest needs, I need to think and be this way, even though I often fail, because there is Life in doing so.

            Am I a dreamer? Perhaps but I’m not alone. Life is just too short for anything less.

            • Fr John,

              Every word you write is true. Yet, in this case, the person in question has admitted no wrong doing. None. His “apology” to the faithful at St. Seraphim in Dallas was not done freely. He was guilted into it and it was transparent in its lukewarm intention.

              I think a large portion of the criticism of the person in question would melt away if he truly repented of his mistakes in the South and his immoral reading of private emails and then turning them over to Stokoe.

              But, in the absence of him even thinking he was doing anything wrong, let’s even put his possible motives aside, his actions can’t be put in the “forgive and forget and let’s move on category” because he thinks there is nothing to forgive.

              I think most of us are eager to forgive him, but it is up to him to first sincerely recognize his sin.

              • So what kind of Priest would I be if I publicly badgered a penitent until I felt their confession was “sincere” enough? It is a risk to seek the good, the forgiveness, of anyone who has wronged you, either actually or in perception, but it is the risk that must be taken because it is based on the character of God. In our most degraded, hopeless, and hardened state God still seeks to salvage us from our weakness, to help us stand when we have fallen, to help us recover from our many sicknesses, to forgive us even if our confession is mumbled from embarrassed lips.

                • I don’t think what Nikos meant by forgiveness is what you mean by forgiveness, Fr. John. You appear to mean it in the sense of forsaking retaliation and allowing self-healing to begin. Nikos means it in the sense of fully coming to terms with the transgressor and acting like the transgression never happened. Bishop Mark can and must be forgiven in your sense whether he recognizes what he did was wrong or not, but if he still can’t recognize what he did was wrong, it would be dangerous to forgive him in the sense Nikos speaks of.

                  • If any person comes to us and we know for certain that they are guilty of a wrong we still need to be committed to their forgiveness, their betterment, their return to wholeness. If at all possible the first thought should be to come to the rescue of the one who is struggling. This is what we would want for ourselves. We cannot control, in the short or long term, how that person responds to our efforts but we still must act accordingly because as we do this we become like our heavenly Father who always waits for the prodigal and sends the rain even on the unjust.

                    This principle applies even to leaders in the Church. Yes, leaders are accountable as we all should be. Yes, leaders are not exempt from the Tradition of the Church. But in that light they should also not be exempt from the willingness of their brothers and sisters to forgive and restore because that, also, is the Tradition of our Faith.

                    When our leaders struggle it seems that too many of us, myself included, are like the people in the crowd around the woman taken in adultery. Already caught, already wounded, we stand ready for the final kill. When I sin I don’t want to be treated that way. I’m already a mess and I need help. Why are our Bishops any different from us in this matter?

                    A mitre is, despite its outward beauty, a kind of crown of thorns. We always demand that our Bishops support us, work for us, sacrifice themselves for us, give up their lives for us and in return? At least we should lift them up in prayer. At least we should be kind and helpful even when they make mistakes. At least we should be as thoughtful and considerate in our critique as we would like for ourselves. And when they fall we should be among those with outstretched hands ready to help them get back on their feet again.

                    • Fr John,

                      I fully accept your premise and agree with you that a mitre is a crown of thorns, even on the best of days as a bishop. But in this case we are talking about freely chosen self-inflicted wounds. When this bishop in question first turns to his lawyer and not to his brother cleric for advice and consul, it reveals a deeper choice.

                      Forgiveness is not magic in that we wave a wand and poof all is forgotten. It will take time and more time now than it should have originally because the person in question has shown an unwillingness to even begin to repent. And lest we forget, it was the bishop in question who arranged a very public “high-tech” lynching of the former dean of the DC Cathedral. Now, questioning him in public is badgering? I suppose in that case Woodward and Berstein “badgered” President Nixon. Nixon was wrong and so is this bishop.

                      You can’t have it both ways, although the bishop in question wants us think so. A public sin requires a public act of contrition and especially from our leaders who we must pray for in good times and bad. They deserve our feeble prayers but that does not give them a license to abuse.

                    • Centurion says

                      Nikos reminds us: “When this bishop in question first turns to his lawyer and not to his brother cleric for advice and consul, it reveals a deeper choice.”

                      You mean just like Kondratick (formerly Fr. K) and possibly Fr. Fester (his right-hand man for many years who saw nothing and said nothing) did when faced with the OCA investigation?

                    • Yes, and isn’t it sad that the OCA is the place where priests feel they have no option but to turn to a lawyer to be treated fairly, since they won’t get it from their bishops or the Metropolitan Council? Virtually every single priest who is currently in the crosshairs of the OCA has had to lawyer up. What does that say about the OCA leadership and the state of the OCA in general?

                      And how are those programs on church growth in the ever-diminishing OCA coming? Oh wait, that’s right. The OCA is too busy putting their energies and resources into paying lawyers and threatening priests to worry about such meaningless efforts.

                    • Monk James says

                      Centurion says (May 15, 2012 at 11:38 am):

                      ‘Nikos reminds us: “When this bishop in question first turns to his lawyer and not to his brother cleric for advice and consul, it reveals a deeper choice.”

                      ‘You mean just like Kondratick (formerly Fr. K) and possibly Fr. Fester (his right-hand man for many years who saw nothing and said nothing) did when faced with the OCA investigation?’
                      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

                      This insinuation is just another aspect of The Big Lie.

                      Apparently, ‘Centurion’ is unaware that Fr Robert Kondratick was forced to retain counsel by the fact that Met. Herman (on some very bad advice) had first hired Proskauer, Rose & Co. to prosecute FrRK.

                      I wonder what ‘Centurion’ would have done if his employer/superior came after him with a flock of vultures posing as lawyers.

                      It is very wrong for ‘Centurion’ or anyone else to condemn FrRK for pursuing his only option, given the circumstances which were contrived by faithless bishops and priests who — maybe out of envy? — conspired to crush him.

                      Besides, the embarrassing and most unchurchly process set in motion against FrRK was long ago addressed in the Church’s canonical tradition, which allows a clergyman to appeal to the emperor (civil law) when he cannot hope for justice in ecclesial courts.

                      Since this was clearly the situation with which FrRK (through no fault of his own) had to deal, it must be obvious to objective observers that FrRK’s retaining legal counsel was/is a non-issue.

              • Michael Bauman says

                Fortunately, Jesus does not seem to think quite the same way as you do Nikos. We are called to forgive with or without any repentance on the part of any one. In confession, I’ve never been asked if I really meant my confession just confronted with the words…”Go forth having no more care for the sins you have confessed.”

                Requiring a certain level of public contrition is just not something we can do. That is justice and, “In the course of justice, none of us should see salvation.”

                Of course, just because +Mark says he is sorry, does not mean it is required to vote for him as the bishop of the DOS. Even in repentance there are consequences in the world.

                May God show the way and all hearts be open to Him.

                • I seem to recall our Lord saying “To whom much is given, much is expected.” (LK 12:48). When a bishop errors in a public way and knowing that much is expected in holding such a high office, would he not be most desirous to repent in such a way as to leave no doubt in the minds of the faithful of his sincere repentance?

                  If that has been accomplished to your satisfaction, with +Mark, I am glad for you. Sadly to many he has not.

      • StephenD says

        Believe me Alaska has had worse…….

    • Geo Michalopulos says

      Niko, at some point, we’re going to have to come up with some face-saving, somewhat equitable, and non-violent solution as to where Bp Mark should be placed. All things being equal, making him Dean of STS, which is a monastery, would be the merciful thing to do.

      I really don’t see any other way out. For those who want an ecclesial court, it won’t happen for this reason alone: if Bp Mark is called to account for breaking confidences, conspiring with Stokoe, etc., it would necessitate the calling in of Stokoe. At that point, the whole morass could explode because Bp Mark wasn’t the only bishop involved in the conspiracy to oust Jonah. Indeed, it would spread down to the clerical and diaconal ranks as well. And former people on the MC. And who knows who else.

      • George,

        Respectfully, the monastery of St Tikhon and the seminary of St Tikhon are two separate entities. What Jonah apparently proposed is to put + Mark as rector, not dean, but Rector, of the Seminary to replace Bishop Tikhon because he wants to step aside due to his heavy workload.

        This would put +Mark in direct contact with students, an honor, personally I do not think he deserves yet. It just seems like +Jonah is tryIng to find a place to stick place +Mark.

        He was advised to go to a monastery for at least six months when he came to the OCA. He refused then, +Jonah acquiesced, put him in Dallas, and, well, the rest his history.

        The OCA has retired bishops before, maybe that is the real option, or see if +Philip wants him back.

        • You say he’ll shape the seminarians. Who’s to say it won’t be the seminarians who shape him?

          • If + Mark had any humility, that might be possible.

          • If you had a son going to STS would you want him to take that risk?

            • George Michalopulos says

              For mercy’s sake (and knowing how maladaptive I have been at times and relished a fresh start), the transfer of Bp Mark would be the best possible outcome given the circumstances.

    • Patrick Henry Reardon says

      Nikos says of Bishop Mark, “Here is a man who was thrown out of the Antiochian Archdiocese.”

      No, he wasn’t. I was very close to Bishop Mark’s situation, over a period of several months. This is NOT what happened.

      When Bishop Mark received the call from Metropolitan Jonah, first inviting him to come over to the OCA, he took that call in my own home. I was the first person with whom Bishop Mark discussed Metropolitan Jonah’s invitation, roughly an hour later.

      Bishop Mark was not “thrown out of the Antiochian Archdiocese.”

      To say so is a slander against both Bishop Mark and Metropolitan PHILIP.

      On the other hand, slanders against both men are rather common on this blog site.

      Very distressing.

      • Fr. Patrick,

        It is only slander if it is not true and in this case, Met. Philip reorganized his entire Archdiocese changed its structure, making diocesan bishops his auxiliaries again and shipping +Mark to the northwest knowing that he would not go. +Philip wanted +Mark gone and he succeeded. If he wasn’t going to the northwest he was going nowhere else after his tenure in Toledo was terminated. That is the truth and I am sorry if that is a bitter pill to swallow..

        Now the OCA is stuck with this man. That is our problem now, unless you all would like to take him back.

        • Patrick Henry Reardon says

          Nikos pronounces, “+Philip wanted +Mark gone and he succeeded. If he wasn’t going to the northwest he was going nowhere else after his tenure in Toledo was terminated. That is the truth.”

          No, to me this sounds like speculation.

          The promulgation of speculation is called gossip.

          Indulgence in speculation may be morally neutral.

          Gossip isn’t.

          • Fr Patrick,

            It may sound like speculation to you but it is not speculation. I don’t expect you to believe me, that is your choice, but it is also not gossip. If +Mark thought he had a future in the AOC, why would he leave? What diocese in the AOC was he going to lead after Toledo?

            I respect your opinion on this matter, but I respectfully disagree based on the facts on the ground.

            • Patrick Henry Reardon says

              Nikos asks, “If +Mark thought he had a future in the AOC, why would he leave?

              I don’t know. You don’t know.

              The answer to this question involves speculation. I, for one, am not disposed to speculate on the point.

              Nikos asks, “What diocese in the AOC was [Bishop Mark] going to lead after Toledo?”

              The answer to this question is not speculative. I believe it appears in an official statement of the Antiochian Archdiocese.

              In that same statement, Metropolitan PHILIP accused Bishop Mark of absolutely nothing. Indeed, he expressed his regret at losing Bishop Mark to the OCA. (I think nearly every parish in the Midwest Diocese shared Metropolitan PHILIP’s regret . I certainly did.)

              If we are going “respectfully [to] disagree based on the facts,” let us at least recognize that THESE are the facts.

              And in no way do these FACTS warrant the claim that Bishop Mark “was thrown out of the Antiochian Archdiocese.”

              The known FACTS do not support that inference. It ascribes to Metropolitan PHILIP a motive that he explicitly disavowed.

              • Fr Patrick,

                Just because you don’t know what I and others know does not make what we say speculation. We all saw the “glowing” recommendation +Philip sent +Mark as he left the AOC for the OCA. It is not unheard of for an employer to write such a recommendation knowing two things: he doesn’t have to worry about that employee any more, and there is no point piling on since that employee is no longer your problem. One can be most gracious under those circumstances.

                It is politics, pure and simple, sometimes not very pretty. I suppose you can ask your Metropolitan if he would entertain taking +Mark back? If he would, without reservation and with open arms, (and if he actually did) then I stand corrected and will ascribe the highest motives to +Mark’s release by the hand of +Philip.

                • Patrick Henry Reardon says

                  Nikos suggests, “I suppose you can ask your Metropolitan if he would entertain taking +Mark back?”

                  Notice the “would.”

                  In the course of this discussion, Nikos, you have used the word “would” six or seven times.

                  It is agreed among grammarians that “would” always denotes hypothesis, not facts.

                  Let me be sure I understand this: You want to ask the Metropolitan to speculate?

                  • Nicely played. Since you have already said that speculation is wrong, you shall not ask your bishop to speculate. So, you are now free of any responsibility to pursue knowing any more about this. You may go in peace.

                    • Geo Michalopulos says

                      To all (myself included): I ask that we treat the clergy and hierarchy who comment on this blog with respect. If they are wrong in fact or perceived to be wrong, please try to point it out as respectfully as possible.

                  • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

                    A small error of Father Reardon’s:
                    He said that “would” always denotes hypothesis, not facts!
                    “Would” does NOT alwaysdenote hypothesis.What an idea! It’s even more untrue that such is “agreed among grammarians.”
                    I’m sure that Monk James will agree with me that “grammarians’ hardly exist in our day, nor should they. Having said that, any of the “grammarians” of old (like “philologists”) would agree that there is nothing hypothetical or even hortatory in a sentence like, oh, “My old dog would always bark at the mailman,” Lily Tomlin’s character, Little Edith, would now add, “And that’s a fact!” Technically and originally and “grammatico-etymologically”, “would” is the past tense of “will”, as “should” is the past tense of “shall.” “Would” is, to be “factual”, often used in a subjunctive/hypothetical, or subjunctive/hortatory way, but not all the time. No doubt the AOC has someone who is good at “grammar”, with whom one may check all this.

                    • Monk James says

                      Well….not exactly.

                      The subjunctive mood of verbs in English, as Bp Tikhon notes, is heavily dependent on past-tense forms. I’d like to know the present-tense form of ‘shall, if ‘should’ expresses the past.

                      Still, the grammar of classic Greek allows us a little freedom of movement here in terms of a ‘weak/strong future’ tense (some scholars are embarrassed now to use the term ‘future more/less vivid’) and an optative mood, both of which exist in English but neither of which is officially acknowledged by the Modern Language Association (MLA) whose standards I often find indigestible.

                      But I could express my opinion about all these things, couldn’t I? And –as a lifelong student of language with a degree in such things — I’m entitled to do that, amn’t I?

                    • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

                      Monk James wrote this:
                      “The subjunctive mood of verbs in English, as Bp Tikhon notes, is heavily dependent on past-tense forms.”

                      I did NOT note or say that.

                      “I’d like to know the present-tense form of ‘shall, if ‘should’ expresses the past.”

                      The verb shall is the present tense of the verb should; as the verb should is the past tense of the verb shall. This may be confirmed by consulting most modern dictionaries of the English language. For example, both the Merriam Webster “Collegiate” dictionaries and the Oxford English Dictionary clearly state that “shall” is a present tense verb and that “should” is also a verb–“shall’s” past.

                      “Still, the grammar of classic Greek allows us a little freedom of movement here in terms of a ‘weak/strong future’ tense (some scholars are embarrassed now to use the term ‘future more/less vivid’) and an optative mood, both of which exist in English but neither of which is officially acknowledged by the Modern Language Association (MLA) whose standards I often find indigestible.”

                      My message neither discussed nor referred to, even obliquely, the (here) irrelevant and even unrelated topic of the grammar of classical Greek; likewise “weak/strong future’ tense; likewise optative mood; likewise the MLA. I have no idea why Monk James treated us to his opinions on other matters than those that Father Patrick discussed and that I responded to. I know that Monk James has no need whatsoever to establish his credentials and no need to exercise a sense of territoriality whenever language is mentioned. We have total freedom of movement here without any reference to “classic Greek” whatsoever
                      I’d like to hear what Monk James has to say about the claim of Father Reardon that “should” always denotes hypothesis, not facts.” I consider that claim to be wrong, and I’ve said so. Monk James could (indeed!) express his opinion about anything at all, of course (I’m not sure why he asked), and whether or not he has “credentials,” he is entitled to express his opinion on anything….I would recommend only the limit of relevance or appropriateness here, on Monomakhos.

          • Diogenes says

            No, it is true. The “Bishop of Detroit” told + Philip to get rid of + Mark or else. + Mark is now gone and the thievery in Detroit has been protected. And yes, monies did filter into Englewood.

      • StephenD says

        But he did the mortal sin in the Antiochian -Self ruled by Met;Phillip- Archdiocese of North America he asked for financial tranparency and he refused to be an auxillary to Met.Phillip..he was right and Met.Phillip was and is wrong…..odd how the letters from Damascus can be read several ways..

      • lexcaritas says

        Our esteemed brother and much admired (by me amontg others) Fr. Patrick says “slanders against both men [Bishop Mark and Metorpolitan Philip] are rather frequent on this blog site.” This criticism caught my attention, and I hope I am not one of the gulty parties.

        Until today I had assumed the Bishop Mark had handed Fr. Fester’s emails over to Mr. Stokoe having read in several places from eye witnesses that he [Mark] had admitted as much. Upon further inquiry, it has been suggested to me only today that his Grace actually turned the materials over privately to his fellow bishops and that it was one of their staffers who released them to the MC by reason of which they came to Mr. Stokoe who pulished them.

        Now, if this is an accurate account of what transpired, it would seem to me to cast the matter in a different light since I should think that dealing confidentially within the Synod and with Fr. Fester concerning the machiniations disclosed n the emails was appropriate. It is the release for publication that is indefensible, but could it be that Bishop Mark had nothing to do with that.?

        If he didn’t, perhpas that would explain why his apology was so tepid and seemingly insufficient and why he has been unable to admit to having done anything so terribly wrong? The supsension of Fr. Anderson from hearing Confessions wihtout explanation to the people for whom he had been their faithrul Father Confessor may not have been entirely right or wise, and introducing new Paschal music without advance warning to fellow clergy and choir was ill-conceived, but the Dialogue with the Doorkeeper is pretty riveting a lot of this could be pretty easily overlooked and would not be “disqualifying.”

        Also, I wonder if Bishop Mark’s allegedly “supercilious” attitude during this period might not be attributable to angst over all the trumoil that was affecting the Synod at that time, rippling across the Internet and then turning up in the mail right from the former chancelllor’s office, who was in so many ways a good priest. It certainly had a number of us in a tizzy and saying things we may have regretted

        Just a few thoughts in attempt to correct or mitigate anything I may have said that was or could have been thought to be unfair or defamatory.

        Christ is risen. May He forgive us all and make us more and more like Him and like the person He has created us to be.
        lexcaritas

        • Patrick Henry Reardon says

          Notwithstanding my love and respect for Bishop Mark, I have refrained from commenting about his ministry in the OCA.

          This policy is dictated by my absolute ignorance of the facts.

          That point admitted, I was less than impressed to read the hysterical indictment against him (on this blog site), recently, for knocking on the church door with his clenched hand rather than with the cross.

          It reminded me of the nasty criticisms Bishop Mark received in some (very restricted) quarters of the Antiochian Archdiocese for his inability to speak Arabic.

          Neither subject is mentioned by Saint Paul among the qualifications proper to a bishop.

          • Geo Michalopulos says

            Fr Patrick, for the record I too had an admiration for Bp Mark based on what he endured from the more retrograde parishes in his former diocese and what he tried to do get them to clean up their financial act. As noted several times, I wrote a letter to the DOS in Feb 2011 expressing my desire that His Grace be elected fortwhith. It took me several months to regrettably come to a different conclusion, and only because of the tumult that was generated by some imprudent changes at St Seraphims, which included some maladroit actions. The surreptitious reading for some months and then leaking of these emails (by whatever route), caused me tremendous anguish. And not because I find it hard to change my opinion.

            For the good of the Church, I think we should try to repair all our relationships. But that requires real repentance and a desire to make whole the damage done to certain individuals. This includes the damage done to Fr Joe. I dare say we should probably go even farther back and restore others who have been maltreated –whether because of their own actions or because of misunderstandings.

        • Geo Michalopulos says

          Lex, this is an interesting wrinkle you bring up. It is certainly possible that Bp Mark turned over these emails to the HS and then one of them or a subordinate turned them over to OCAN. If so, is it still legal for and/or ethical for Bp Mark to do so? I ask this in all sincerity. Personally, if I even accidentally hacked into someone’s private e-mail, I’d contact that person and tell them to change the password. (There’s just TMI that I’d rather not be privy too.)

          There are two factors which may mitigate against this being the case: 1) the long-established relationship with Mark Stokoe that Bp Mark cultivated while in the AOCNA, and 2) the incriminating emails that the conspirators against Met Jonah had written over many months were NOT turned over to OCAN by (allegedly) same conspirator.

          As we know from the start of this (even from OCAN if memory serves) Met Jonah came across a similar scenario by Fr A Garklavs who helped engineer the conspiracy against His Beatitude using Syosset’s computers. HB impounded them (as was his right) and used the information to compose his indictment against Garklavs (which of course was leaked to OCAN under the heading “Jonah in his own words”) but none of this sordid e-mail trail winded up on OCAN, OCAT, the Indiana List, Orthodox Forum, or my site, or anywhere else for that matter.

          Of course, this entire fracas could be settled if Bp Mark were to come forward and clear the record. All he would have to say is who he gave the emails to: Mark Stokoe (which would be terrible indeed) or the Holy Synod (which might not be as bad).

          (I leave for those legally trained to instruct us as to whether Bp Mark could look at a former employee’s emails.)

          As such, HB played it right. He kept all incriminating evidence to himself and shared it with the HS. Some other party however did the exact opposite: he gave it to Mark Stokoe who then dumped it on the Holy Synod’s lap right before the May 2011 HS meeting, where it did maximum damage to HB and had them screaming for Fr Joe’s head. (Whatever else this is, it is prima facie evidence of a conspiracy against HB.)

          In any event, this shows to me an almost complete breakdown in trust within the hierarchy and administration (MC, Syosset) of the OCA. It’s like that old cliche: “if you have to ask a lawyer, it’s probably not a good idea.”

          • Jesse Cone says

            When the event was fresh Bp. Mark usually spoke of forwarding the emails to the Synod. I’m guessing when it comes up these days that’s how he refers to it.

            However, he also did admit sending them to Stokoe.

            • Geo Michalopulos says

              Now that you mention it Jesse, I remember calling up a friend at SSOC and asking them what the heck was going on. He and two other congregants asked HG directly after this thing blew up and he admitted that he sent them to Stokoe.

              If any of them are reading this site, please feel free to comment on this. It’s vitally important that the record be clear.

            • George Michalopulos says

              Jesse, I also forgot, about 2 weeks ago you said that it was because of your confession that OCAN was able to ID you as one of the OCATs.

              • Jesse Cone says

                George, to be fair, though I went to confession with him later (which I brought up as a sign of my good faith in the man) I told him about OCAT in confidence, not in confession. There was nothing ambiguous about the fact I spoke to him about it in confidence.

                Also, I do not know that OCAN ID’ed me because of that, though the circumstances suggest it.

                The main thing I want people to get from this isn’t about Bp. Mark, but about our parish at the time. It was not the case, as some have suggested, that we were cold, uninviting, or even (as someone claimed) a “clergy killer”. Far from it. When he walked in the door, what would we have not entrusted to him?

          • George, I think you’re misremembering. Remember those screenshots Fr. Joseph Fester posted? They showed that whomever accessed his account (and remember, by that time Bishop Mark had control over the phone with the stored login) forwarded the emails directly to Mark Stokoe’s email address.

            • Geo Michalopulos says

              Helga, thank you for keeping me honest! I deserved to be called out on that. My age is showing. 😉

              • No, George, thank you for being honest enough to reconsider the events of last year when you were not sure whether Bishop Mark had sent them to Stokoe. That should indicate to the snarky peanut gallery that you are not a blind ideologue.

                • George Michalopulos says

                  As usual, you’re too kind to me.

                  • Jane Rachel says

                    Dear George, I want to take time out to say that I think you are a true gentleman, and thanks for all you’ve done blog-wise. I just plain old like you. You are cool. 🙂

                    Also, Helga, thanks for all your contributions, too. 🙂

                    And, um… well, I guess that’s it, then.

                    Thanks to all. Thanks to all the good priests and bishops out there, and to all who comment here. Seriously.:)

                    Signed, not really “Jane Rachel,” but, well, me.

          • George,

            If and when + Mark told his brother bishops, one thing is for sure, he never told Met. Jonah until the Synod meeting in Chicago. This was comfirmed by HB. So maybe +Mark told some bishops but he purposefully kept +Jonah in the dark. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out why. If +Jonah knew he would have told his Cathedral dean and +Mark, the informed bishops and Stokoe would be deprived of their ambush.

            And, there is no taking back the confession of +Mark when finally confronted by the faithful in the DOS “Why when you realized you were getting Fr.Joseph’s emails didn’t you let him know?” +Mark’s reply was “It never occurred to me.”. Yet, recall, +Mark also admitted that he was privy to the private emails for some time before he saw an email with his name in it. Is it fair to conclude that his intention to use those emails to his advantage in the fluid post Santa Fe days and with +Jonah on the ropes. He had willing allies on the Synod, especially +Benjamin who was dead set against Fester being named dean of St Nicholas and of course Stokoe who was trying to regain his credibility after his secret plans to oust +Jonah were exposed.

            • George Michalopulos says

              amos, I don’t know how I could have overlooked that. Since it’s possible that the other bishops but Met Jonah knew about these emails, then it would solidify the case of an uncanonical conspiracy against the Primate. If they didn’t know of course then we’re back to square one: Bp Mark (or an assistant of his) giving them directly to Stokoe.

              Sigh.

    • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

      Nikos! That’s hare-brained (brain like a rabbit’s), not “hairbrain!”

      • Monk James says

        I think we’ve all met a few types by now whose hair might well grow inward as well as out.
        [[;-D33

  4. The Jury says

    Well, we’re back, and we’ve decided that the Diocese of the Midwest would gladly take Mark.

  5. Also Anonymous says

    For what it’s worth, Archbishop Dmitri was a bishop for 24 years before his elevation to archbishop.

  6. Disgusted With It says

    I wonder, did +Jonah really request that they be made Archbishops, or did they (or even maybe one of them) want it and the Synod attributed it to a request from HB so that it didn’t look like they were trying to promote themselves?

    It may sound like a silly theory at first, but wasn’t Antiochian +Joseph of California just raised to Archbishop, and now all of a sudden OCA +Benjamin is raised to Archbishop too? It certainly wouldn’t be the first time the OCA has tried “keeping up with the Joneses”. As for how they did it, years ago there were rumors that +Herman wanted to be elevated to Archbishop, so the Synod was all of a sudden motivated to elevate everyone above him who was still a Bishop too. That same scenario could easily have just happened last week.

    • Alexander says

      Someone help.

      Please tell us how an “archbishop” is different from a “bishop” in the Orthodox Church?

      • Monk James says

        Alexander says (May 15, 2012 at 8:52 am):.

        ‘Please tell us how an “archbishop” is different from a “bishop” in the Orthodox Church?’
        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        In our contemporary 21st-century practice there’s a great deal of confusion in the usage of this terminology, resulting in archbishop and metropolitan becoming mere honorifics in some churches, with no administrative implications at all.

        As used in the documents emerging from the ecumenical and local synods of the first eight christian centuries, it’s clear that an archbishop is the senior hierarch of an ecclesial province which is served by several bishops, each with his own throne in his own eparcrhy. The archbishop presides at gatherings of the local bishops and arbitrates among them when necessary. In this structure, some local bishops might be metropolitans, that is the bishop of a major city (‘mother city’, literally). Metropolitans usually had ‘country bishops’ (khorepiskopoi) to assist them; these men might or might not be bishops themselves, but usually not. Metropolitans also had ‘city bishops’ in just the same way.

        The much later near-reversal of some of these relationships in Russia is not at issue here.

        The institution of ‘country bishops’ perdures in the nonchalcedonian churches, while the Church of Rome retains that office (or at least its title) in its ‘vicars forane’. None of these men is of episcopal rank.

        We can see the ancient structure at work in, say, Greece or Cyprus, where the archbishop of Athens presides over the holy synod of the nation’s orthodox church. The metropolitans of Thessalonike and Limassol might be older or ordained earlier than their respective archbishops, but it’s the archbishops who have ecclesial precedence.

        In RC practice, the title of archbishop and metropolitan have been fused together, so the presiding bishop of a province is called ‘metropolitan archbishop’. It seems to me that byzantine catholic ruthenian practice in the US follows the same model.

        The Church of England has two metropolitan thrones in England, Canterbury and York, and only those provinces call their leaders ‘archbishop’. But other CofE provinces have their archbishops, too, such as Abp Desmond Tutu of South Africa.

        In the Orthodox Church in America this is starting to get confusing because the OCA generally follows the russian style of nomenclature for the episcopate, while the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America generally follows the older byzantine model. I say ‘generally’ in both cases because none of the archbishops or metropolitans (save the primates of both churches) has any assistant bishops or heads a local provincial synod. This make the titles personal rather than ecclesial, and exposes the system to caricature and mockery.

        In North America, perhaps it would be better to eliminate the title of metropolitan altogether, and reserve the title of archbishop for the one primate, the presiding bishop, of a national/local church, whether it be Canada, Mexico, or the US. Clearly, orthodox Mexico has a great deal of growing to do before it can be independent, but a blessed combining of all the orthodox in the other two countries would make for strong churches in each of them, absolutely separate from european administration. Then maybe we can see about a patriarchate

        In my opinion, rather than grant titles and miters and other frankly unchurchly regalia to priests, the bishops ought to give up their imperial vestments (sakkos and crown and scepter, etc.) and return to vesting as priests with only the white woolen omophorion as the sign of their episcopal responsibility.

        I hope this helps a little. Please forgive any typos — I still can’t see well — and remember me in your prayers.

        • Patrick Henry Reardon says

          Father James writes: “Please forgive any typos — I still can’t see well — and remember me in your prayers.”

          Awaiting optical surgery in a couple of weeks, I understand.

          Father James goes onto my prayer list today.

        • Alexander says

          Many thanks.

          In sum, no sacredotal difference, but depending on the “recently” adopted practices of a particular local church, the honorific titles may signify different “ecclesial” or administrative responsibilities.

          Agreed: “This makes the titles personal rather than ecclesial, and exposes the system to caricature and mockery.”

        • Lola J. Lee Beno says

          Can we come up with another term in place of “primate”? Because I just can’t stop thinking about a certain series of movie (and I’m NOT a fan of that series).

        • Carl Kraeff says

          Monk James–I believe you have the timeline reversed: the Greek practice is not the older practice, which was preserved by the Bulgarian and Russian Churches. Here is an article from Orthodox Wiki that is slightly out of date regarding the latest developments in the GOA and Antioch but is otherwise correct:

          ” Archbishops and Metropolitans

          The title of archbishop or metropolitan may be granted to a senior bishop, usually one who is in charge of a large ecclesiastical jurisdiction. He may or may not have provincial oversight of suffragan bishops. He may or may not have auxiliary bishops assisting him.

          In the Slavonic and Antiochian traditions, a metropolitan outranks an archbishop. The reverse is the situation in the Greek tradition. The Antiochian tradition also uses the style metropolitan archbishop to differentiate from metropolitan bishops in the Greek tradition.

          The change in the Greek tradition came about in later Greek history, because the diocesan bishops of ancient sees (which in the Greek diaspora include most) came to be styled metropolitans, short for “metropolitan bishops.”

          The Slavonic and Antiochian churches continue to follow the older tradition, where an archbishop is a senior bishop in charge of a major see, and a metropolitan is a bishop in charge of a province which may include a number of minor and/or major sees.

          In the Greek tradition, all diocesan bishops of autocephalous churches such as the Church of Greece (the bishop of Patras being Metropolitan) are now metropolitans, and an archbishop holds his title as an indication of greater importance for whatever reason. The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America is the notable exception in the Greek practice where diocesan bishops carry the title of metropolitan. In other churches under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate such as the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia the ruling bishop is the archbishop while the other bishops are auxiliary bishops with titles of the ancient sees.”

          http://orthodoxwiki.org/Bishop

          • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

            Well, I believe that before it got all primatial, the see of Constantinople, though headed by an archbishop was part of a metropolitanate headed by a metropolitan superior in rank to him. Instead of making him head of the Metropolitanate and promoting him to Metropolitan, he pulled a fast one and named himelf (i.e., had the Emperor name him) Patriarch, then Patriarch over all the Empire (or Ecumene). Well, as soon as he outranked his own Metropolitan, things were smoothed over in the (Greek) orbit and any problems of diminished dignity were solved by making ALL archbishops superior to Metropolitans
            Relative to American Orthodox ecclesiastical dignities and indignities, it probably rankled, for example, certain ecclesiastical dignities (the OCA and Antiochene dignities) in the West when joint meetings were held and advertised, because the Greek, being a Metropolitan, was listed before them both, and the ROCOR (Kyril) was an ARCHbishop and listed before them both. Soon, the Antiochene was individually raised to be an Archbshop, and poor Bishop Benjamin was at the bottom of all joint lists (!). NOW, due to the far-seeing wisdom of the OCA’s Holy Synod, they’ll have to be listed alphabetically, no 1-B, 2-G, 3-J, and last (at last!) 4-K. (Benjamin, Gerasimos, Joseph, and Kyril.
            Some non-hierarchs may opine that such jostling for position is foreign to pious Orthodox hierarchs.
            My experience supports no such opinion, or else asks for a definition of “pious.”

            • Disgusted With It says

              Your Grace,

              Wouldn’t it be proper for them to be listed according to the order of the diptychs, and not simply according to the alphabet? (Then it would/should be Gerasimos, Joseph, Kyril, Maxim and Benjamin.)

              • Alexander says

                All form over substance.

                As many clerical acts during a Divine Liturgy seem generally to follow Union Shop Rules, i.e. who does what, stands where, and in what order follows years of seniority on the job, to this cynical layman, it seems most reasonable to list them in the chronological order of their consecration dates. This is “a-jurisdictional.”

                Doing it by diptych would always put the Pharonites first, which according to Constantinople is in accord with the Grand and Divine Order of the Universe, confirmed and forever etched in stone, I believe by St. Andrew the First Called and putative first in time bishop there. (Think about a conversation St. Peter and St. Andrew would have had: “You first. No you. No you, I insist. No, no. You first, please. He asked you first. But, He gave you the keys.” Perhaps a precursor to Sts. Abbott & Costello.)

                But, perhaps doing it by diptych is not such a bad idea when considered against Helga’s observation that the first shall be last and the last first.

              • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

                Nothing particularly proper about such a system, “Disgusted With It”. Churches are not listed in the dyptichs, only the First Hierarchs (or “Primates”) of Churches are so listed. In my time, however, I have observed a growing tendency to arrange concelebrants of various Local Churches not by their dates of ordination, or rank, but according to the order of their primates’ mention in the dyptichs. Where will it stop? EP Deacons preceding MP Metropolitans? That’s what the status-worshipping Phanariotes would like. Or maybe they’d really like the “Archons” to be listed in first place before anyone from another Local Church.

                • Geo Michalopulos says

                  YG, you hit it on the head: “status-worshipping…” I always thought that worship was reserved for the Triune God.

                • Carl Kraeff says

                  LOL.

                • Disgusted With It says

                  Thank you, Your Grace. After reading your response, I realize that it would make more sense for them to be ordered according to ordination date than by diptychs.

              • George Michalopulos says

                I say seniority.

            • “The first shall be last and the last shall be first.”

              • Geo Michalopulos says

                Who said that Helga? Probably somebody who doesn’t know better than our canonists.

                • Translated and adapted to the modern context, it would say something like, “Our diptychs say I should be seated higher than you, but it doesn’t matter, I will take the lower seat, I will take a lower status than our diptychs say I am entitled to, because I value Christ and my communion with you more than I care about where I sit at this table.”

                  • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

                    The humblest response in the case of proper order would be to follow the established order; in other words, to HUMBLY follow the Apostolic Injunction that would have all things to be “in decency and order.” In other words, ‘Although I DO want to be seen to be the most humble of all and sit behind the rest of you, thus earning (UNworthily, of course!)) I feel that true humility would be in following the Chief Apostle’s instructions.”

                    • Your Grace, will you please enlighten us about the nature of this apostolic order?

                  • George Michalopulos says

                    Helga, if that happens, then Orthodoxy will explode in America. Until then, we await the Lord’s much deserved judgment upon us.

            • Carl Kraeff says

              I am all for simplicity and servant-leadership and would be delighted if the least are listed first, or they are listed alphabetically, randomly, by age, by date of ordination. etc.–anything but rank. Perhaps the differentiating titles would be functional oners such as, in OCA’s case:

              Bishop Jonah of Washington. DC and Presiding Officer of the Holy Synod
              Bishop Tikhon of Philadelphia and Secretary of the Holy Synod
              Bishop Alexander of Toledo and the Chairman of the External Affairs Department
              etc..

              However, this would complicate things in inter-orthodox organizations and events unless everybody else adheres to the same convention. So, does the Church that adopts the simpler titles swallow her pride and let the first become least, or does She try to attain the same temporal dignities and distinctions that the others have claimed. If anything, such a Christian example by this humble Church could shame the others. But, may be not; may be human vanity and ambition is too much of a burden to overcome.

              • Alexander says

                My point was that these “ranks” — honorific at least, resume stuffers at best — are generally pointless. They are all simply bishops and there is little meaningful reason for stratification in a cross jurisdictional setting.

              • Geo Michalopulos says

                Very good question, Carl. I fear that our incessant one-upsmanship will lead to the deserved persecution of the Orthodox here in America. Lord have mercy.

              • Rdr. Benjamin says

                While I appreciate the sentiment, the reason we give our hierarchs titles like “Your All Holiness, Your Beatitude, Your Grace” is not because of the dignity of their office, but that of their Lord. Any hierarch who does not understand this and understands it in sense of “I am better than this guy because his see is only 50 years old while mine is 2000, or even “I have served longer” misunderstands the apostles teaching passed down to us to give deference to the Bishops as an image of Christ. They stand as Icons of God to us and those who do not live this way are endangering their salvation and that of those they lead.

                • Carl Kraeff says

                  “While I appreciate the sentiment, the reason we give our hierarchs titles like “Your All Holiness, Your Beatitude, Your Grace” is not because of the dignity of their office, but that of their Lord.”

                  Interesting; does that mean that we the laity should also have titles? Granted that our “office” is somewhat more diffused but we are also part of the Royal Priesthood; we also are set aside to be His disciples; we also are called to a holy life; and we are any hierarch’s equal before the Holy Chalice.

                  Your explanation is one that I have heard often and, just with the claim that priests/bishops are icons of the Lord, I believe that the explanations are an attempt to justify a practice that has worldly origins. The Imperial titles are just that: imperial. The exaggerated honorifics (“All Holy” being the most extreme and heretical example IMO) are also an attempt to differentiate between the relative importance of the several Patriarchates.

                  I guess I should point out that St John’s definitive apologia of icons did not include the claim that the clergy are icons of the Lord, however strongly this is believed by some of the faithful. I guess a practical result of that wrong belief is the faithful turning to face the priest as he censes the church, even to the point of turning their backs to the Altar, where the Lord actually is!.

                  • Geo Michalopulos says

                    Thank you Carl. Your words are very apt. While I agree that our hierarchs should be addressed with their title (i.e. “Bishop John, how are you?” “Thank you for meeting with us Archbishop Peter…”), the embarrassing “all-holiness” is unfortunate.

          • Geo Michalopulos says

            Carl, several years ago I wrote an essay about the reckless use of the title “metropolitan.” But yes, you are correct: metropolitan was a senior archbishop, who in the ancient practice at least, had suffragan bishops and even archbishops. (The Metropolitan of Kiev for example had several bishops reporting to him an one archbishop [of Novgorod] if memory serves.)

        • RomanCatholicObserver says

          “In RC practice, the title of archbishop and metropolitan have been fused together, so the presiding bishop of a province is called ‘metropolitan archbishop’.”

          Not necessarily. In the RC Church all Metropolitans are Archbishops, but not all Archbishops are Metropolitans. There are numerous “titular Archbishops”, prelates who hold the titles of extinct (‘titular’) Archdioceses but who normally work in bureaucratic or diplomatic posts elsewhere (mainly in the Roman Curia or as Papal Nuncios, as all Papal Nuncios have the rank of Archbishop).

          There are also Archbishops “ad personam”; these are prelates who rule dioceses (not archdioceses) but who have the title of ‘archbishop’. (In RC practice, dioceses are ruled by bishops, archdioceses by archbishops.). Normally, these Archbishops “ad personam” are prelates who used to work in the Vatican and who held the title of ‘Archbishop”, who were then sent to a govern a diocese (not an archdiocese). This is often seen as a demotion, and so that the prelate in question won’t be humiliated further he is allowed to keep his “Archbishop” title. On rare occasions, long-serving and outstanding bishops of dioceses are rewarded with the right to be called ‘Archbishop”, without changing the status of their dioceses. They would be “Archbishops ‘ad personam'” too.

        • RomanCatholicObserver says

          “In my opinion, rather than grant titles and miters and other frankly unchurchly regalia to priests, the bishops ought to give up their imperial vestments (sakkos and crown and scepter, etc.) and return to vesting as priests with only the white woolen omophorion as the sign of their episcopal responsibility.”

          As a Roman Catholic I am profoundly uneasy when I read Orthodox who want to inflict on their sacred liturgy the same banalizing and “democratizing” mentality that has devastated the Western liturgy.

          We Roman Catholics are busy recovering the beauty of our past, and you Orthodox want to throw yours away.

          I am not saying that there should be no changes in the liturgy but the changes should respect the heritage of the past (including the imperial and medieval ages) and on no account should considerations that are based on modern political correctness be allowed to wipe clean this heritage.

          • George Michalopulos says

            RCO, no sane Orthodox wants to banalize or “democratize” our liturgy. I saw the turmoil that Vatican II did to the Latin Mass –thanks, but no thanks.

            The regalia however are another thing. If a significant percentage of our bishops were fit men, the regalia wouldn’t matter. Unfortunately, some rather questionable characters are given royal accoutrements and it only enhances their mediocrity. That’s one reason I’d like to see true monastics (like Met Jonah) in the episcopate.

            If you would permit me, a personal perspective. When I first met the Venerable Dmitri 10-11 years ago, I always remember him wearing his cassock and woollen skullcap. It was iconic. It’s what I think most people remember when they think about Vladyka. However, whenever I attended Liturgy at SSOC, he was always vested quite beautifully as befitting any bishop. But you know what? It didn’t matter. His presence, his preaching of Christ, made us look beyond the vestments. Yes, he had beautiful vestments but that’s not what we remember. With some bishops, vestments are all they got.

            • Heracleides says

              You’ve nailed it, George. (Now, where is the double thumbs-up option?)

            • lexcaritas says

              Our brother Monk James says “[R]ather than grant titles and miters and other frankly unchurchly regalia to priests, the bishops ought to give up their imperial vestments (sakkos and crown and scepter, etc.) and return to vesting as priests with only the white woolen omophorion as the sign of their episcopal responsibility.”

              Our brother George adds with reference to ++Dimitri of blessed memory (I wish I had known him better): “I always remember him wearing his cassock and woollen skullcap. It was iconic. It’s what I think most people remember when they think about Vladyka. However, whenever I attended Liturgy at SSOC, he was always vested quite beautifully as befitting any bishop. But you know what? It didn’t matter. His presence, his preaching of Christ, made us look beyond the vestments.”

              I am moved by both comments. What they say is about humility and good shepherdship in Christ is crucial. Though a priest and pastor I love and humbly admire is wont to remind us that the Church is a monarchy, not a democracy, such a statement can only be true is we remember that His Kingdom is not of this world. Even the Church is peopled by men who fall short of the glory of God and who all too easily fall short of Christ’s likeness. Power tends to corrupt and, except in Christ, absolute power will corrupt absolutely. The crowns and eagle-tipped staff’s that are bestowed upon bishops can easily become an occasion of sin. This is not to say that they should be eliminated, but that they should be granted and accepted sparingly and soberly.

              The world would tempt us to think see bishops and patriarchs as rulers and despots to whom slavish submission and obedience is owed. But Christ teaches us that it is not to be so among us. In His Body he who would be great must be least of all, and he who would be master must be as the servant of all. This is part of the Gospel that turned the ancient world upside down—and which still does if we will let it do so and not get sucked in by secular, imperial models. For this nepsis is required. Jesus says, “Watch and pray, lest ye fall into temptation” and Burke also reminds us that “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” Now, this applies as much to the Royal Law of Liberty—the Liberty for which Christ has set us free–as it does to what we commonly think of as liberty.

              If this so-called Founding Father of the United States of America left any legacy to the world, it is the wisdom of a government comprised of three co-equal branches based on a separation of powers. They recognized all too well the temptation that even well-meaning men will abuse authority if left unchecked. Ideally, one would like to think this would not be the case in the Church. However, while the Church is a divinely created organism of which men who are pneumatikoi are members, it inescapably also has a carnal nature that remains, for now, susceptible to sin. Therefore, it is a service and safeguard to provide limits and oversight even on the power and authority of bishops—which is consistent with the instructions we have received from Sts. Peter and Paul that we should be submitted one to another and that even the spirit of prophets is subject to the prophets. I know if I were a bishop I would pray to be submitted not only to my fellow bishops but also to the priests and laypeople for whom I am to lay down my life following the model of the True and Good Shepherd.

              Forgive me a sinner, brethren, and let us truly love one another than with one accord we may confess Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the Trinity, One in essence and undivided. Pray for me.

              Lexcaritas

              • Geo Michalopulos says

                Lex, you have written what is quite probably the greatest exegesis on what it means to be a Christian servant-leader. And that you were able to tie it in to the vision of our God-inspired Founding Fathers is a veritable tour-de-force.

  7. NEWS FLASH

    COBB (Comments Off BabsBlog) has “drugged out” his famous graphs tonight to PROVE how puny Monomahkos (and thus all of us who post here) compared to how Big COBB is ( and thus how important.)

    And such language from a “lady.”

    Babs, you are such a party-pooper. Turn on your comments.

    • George Michalopulos says

      Not that I really wanna be dragged into this, but how does Babbs know how puny Monomakhos is? (Forgive the double entendre).

      • Geo Michalopulos says

        OK, my curiosity got the best of me. I decided to go to Babs’ site and see what was being said about me. Whilst skipping through La-La Land, I noticed that (s)he has a problem with Met Jonah “palling around with Right-wing Republicans.”

        You mean like this guy?

        http://oca.org/news/headline-news/metropolitan-jonah-fr.-jillions-attend-dc-reception

        • Stan just hates Met. Jonah no matter what he does. Met. Jonah is the one who had the whole “maximal autonomy” thing going on, which would seem to be up Stan’s alley.

          But nooooo. Met. Jonah has some extra adipose tissue, his ancestors didn’t immigrate to Eastern Europe like good Germans, and he has the nerve to actually believe that stuff we talk about in church, so that means he is a horrible person who must be humiliated and insulted at every possible opportunity.

          • Jesse Cone says

            I especially enjoy how Met. Jonah is attacked by the likes of Drezhlo for maintaining the OCA’s autocephaly and independent way of doing things while others rail on him for wanting (footnotes please?) to merge with the MP.

            Sometimes one can make all the right enemies.

            • Geo Michalopulos says

              Jesse, Helga, I guess we could always use La Drezhlo as a barometer of bad taste. Whoever he hates must be doing something right.

      • Bishop Tikhon (Fitzgerald) says

        It’s like the National Enquirer going on and on about more readers than The American Scholar!
        Any day Stash is going to have a headline; “Russians Find Mermaid in Sardine Can!”

    • Monk James says

      It’s just as well that Stan ‘Barbara’ Drezhlo doesn’t allow comments. It would take far more time and energy than most of us have to refute the editorials which appear on VOR, and would largely be just so much wasted effort. I remember hearing advice given to a pig farmer: ‘Don’t try to teach the pigd to sing. It’ll just waste your time and annoy the pigs.’ No, it’s better not to engage those strange ideas, no matter how rational our responses might be. Instead, we should pray for Stan’s freedom from demonic delusion and ultimate salvation.

      • Patrick Henry Reardon says

        Before I knew what I was in for, I went into that site.

        Whew! The cloven hoof was undisguised and the odor of brimstone overwhelming.

        • Geo Michalopulos says

          Indeed, before I could only go there once every couple of months, and then only to see if I had made his/her enemies list. Now that I have, I can sleep contendly for two reasons: because I made it and also because I don’t have to ever go back there.

  8. cynthia curran says

    Well, the early Byzantines use the Roman Crowning forn Emperor and their is referance to the Army and the Senate asking for a new ruler:hence the people are crowning the emperor. The emperor and empress was crown in the hippodrome mostly in the early days. As for weddiing crowns the earliest referances are 7th century.

  9. George Michalopulos says

    OPEN LETTER TO ASHLEY NEVINS:

    As usual, you have published a very perceptive (if verbose) exegesis on why we Orthodox are [fill in the blank]. It is presently in moderation. I will break my own rule and publish in its entirety iwhen you tell us which faith tradition you belong to and if you regularly attend that denomination’s services.

    If I do not answer within 24 hrs, I will delete it completely.

    thank you, Geo