Axios! Metropolitan Methodius Finds His Voice

met-methodios-thumbOne of our readers recently attended the Clergy-Laity Congress for the GOA Metropolis of Boston this last weekend. He sent me this report which we chose to publish in its entirety. I will comment below.

There was a poll on this site as to whether the Assembly of Bishops would ever speak out against the movement in this country to redefine marriage to include homosexual unions. As the country slips into a morass of immorality, it seemed that the Bishops fiddled while Rome burned, so to speak. Then, at the most recent Assembly meeting, they issued a statement in which they reaffirmed the timeless teaching of the Church on this topic. Some will say they didn’t speak forcefully enough. Some will say that they spoke too late. But let us rejoice for even those who come at the eleventh hour.

This is a way of setting the stage for this past weekend. I had a chance to be in Brookline for the Metropolis of Boston Clergy-Laity Congress under the presidency of His Eminence, Metropolitan Methodios. I somewhat expected to sleep through his keynote and so was not prepared to take notes. What I will convey, however, are those things that still stick out in my mind because they woke me up.

1. He spoke about our need to evangelize. He made reference to the end of the Gospel of Matthew and the need to re-evangelize or evangelize for the first time those around us. He identified not doing this as one of our failings.

2. He spoke out about the persecution of our Orthodox fathers, mothers, brothers, and sisters in other parts of the world, with a focus on the Middle East. He criticized the US government for its failure to extend protections to Christians who are undergoing, in his words, “a genocide.” Given all that has been going on, this wasn’t surprising. What was surprising is what he said next. He did not limit the persecution of Christians to the Middle East, where our coreligionists are paying for their faith with our lives. He mentioned the persecution of Christians in America. He identified the onslaught on Christianity from popular culture, the government, and the universities. No longer do we sit back and pretend that all is fine in our backyard. There is the recognition that even though we may not yet pay with our lives, Christianity is persecuted in our country.

3. In speaking of the persecution of Christians, he spoke out singularly and forcefully against homosexuality. In what can be surprising for a bishop of any stripe, he spoke out against a Greek politician in New England who had campaigned for and voted for an “unholy redefinition of marriage.” In referring to this politician, he used the words “a purported member of our Archdiocese.”

Should we worship our bishops? No. They are human. We should expect them to behave as bishops. We should expect them to shepherd the flocks that they have been entrusted with. We should expect them to preach. When they fail to do these things, the office of bishop should not keep them above criticism. Our criticism though should be grounded in respect and in Truth. This means we must also commend them and praise them when they do the right thing.

Despite being a member of the Greek Archdiocese, I have never shied away from criticizing our bishops for failure to speak out. I have sometimes considered our metropolitan in Boston to be chief among those who don’t speak out. This weekend though, he made me proud to call him my metropolitan. He made me proud to be part of this community. Perhaps this is the sign of a change that is taking place in Orthodoxy in our country. Perhaps this is a sign that the Holy Spirit is working through the Assembly of Bishops to have our bishops beginning to speak out on the Faith, even if it is at the eleventh hour. Perhaps that is the beginning of true unity in our Holy Church in America.

It’s ironic, isn’t it? Now that the OCA has pretty much lost its evangelical voice, some bishops in the See of Constantinople are finding theirs. First Patriarch Bartholomew gave an erudite sermon in Estonia about the theological inanity involved in redefining marriage, and now Metropolitan Methodius of Boston gave a superb presentation along the same lines. Methodius actually went further: he acknowledged the Greek Orthodox Church’s failure to evangelize and even took a local Greek-American politician to task for ignoring his Church’s teaching on so-called gay marriage.

This is huge. Usually the case is that GOA bishops run after any celebrity or politician no matter how notorious or sinful their beliefs. Is it possible that Orthodoxy in America has reached a watershed and that the GOA –whether by hook or crook–is going to lead the way in a prophetic manner?

Some may ask why? Is there a hidden agenda? Is Methodius laying down markers against potential rivals? I choose to take His Eminence at his word. Whenever a Christian pastor speaks the truth and is willing to be introspective enough to acknowledge his (or his Church’s) own short-comings, you know that he is coming from a position of moral authority. Nor should we forget that the truth does not exist merely in a platonic realm with no consequences. We would be wise to remember that Boston was the epicenter of the pederast scandal which brought the Catholic Church to its knees. This grievous scandal was brought about in no small part because some people chose not to believe in the truth.

Let us not engage in gamesmanship and wonder at dark motives. Let us instead rejoice that since the fall of Jonah, one American bishop has taken up the gauntlet. Given the fury that the Kulturkampf can unleash on those who question the status quo, this is no small thing. AXIOS!!!


  1. Trudge at SmartVote says

    Metropolitan Methodius:

    1. He spoke about our need to evangelize. He made reference to the end of the Gospel of Matthew and the need to re-evangelize or evangelize for the first time those around us.

    Essentially Methodius admitted that we have lost our Christianity, that we as Christians need to be re-Christianized, including our deacons, priests and bishops, not just outsiders evangelized. (Which begs the question, what would this evangelism look like?)

    Father John Romanides (1927-2001) had been saying this since at least 1983, as can be seen in his lectures on the nature of standard Orthodox spirituality and its understanding of purification, illumination and theosis, and how it has been largely stamped out, so that essentially there is no difference between the modern Orthodox Christian and the follower of any other religion.

    Patristic Theology lectures:

    • Sean Richardson says

      A number of years ago I read a book that said, essentially, that one of the first things that we learn when we try to evangelize, is that people in our churches don’t want the church to grow. I have seen it over and over. I tried multiple times to get priests to sponsor a church in the area where I live, an area with no Orthodox Churches of any jurisdiction, and the answer I constantly received was “If we start a church in your community, it will take away members from our church.” In other words, even the priests have admitted there are a lot of faithful living in this city of 200,000 people, but they don’t want to begin a new church. But unfortunately those faithful rarely if ever attend those churches, because it is too far.

      It’s sad, but too often we lose the vision of serving the Orthodox faithful and bringing new people to the faith, because we are too wrapped up in our own little private universe. Oh that it were different ….

      • Fr. Peter Dubinin says

        Sean – what you observe is precisely why I’ve suggested in days gone by forming up a corps of priest Church planters made up of retired military chaplains. The principal reason parish clergy are reticent to start mission plants in proximity to their parishes is because losing parishioners means less money and the first, second order effects are fairly obvious from that point. I have shared my thoughts with bishops, other clergy, but to this point – no interest. And so it goes…..

    • For Trudge says
  2. Fr. Peter Dubinin says

    Axios! Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Laity are charged to affirm, proclaim, teach the Truth that is Holy Orthodoxy. This was made very clear to me in seminary by all faculty; especially by then Bishop Herman, my homiletics instructor. I remember him instructing us, people don’t want to hear your opinion Fr. They need to hear the the voice of Christ, His Church. When we singly and collectively do this, God blesses in ways that will cause all of us to see the work of God and marvel in silence. Axios!

    • Fr. Peter Dubinin says

      Curious. Is the preponderance of negative votes because I mentioned Bishop Herman or due to the content of what I voiced?

      • Michael Bauman says

        Father probably both and probably because some folks just like to vote negative plus some mistakes.

        With this post you have 24 total votes, 17 up, 7 down. The preponderance is in the positive.

  3. Michael Bauman says

    As the bishops do meet and talk with each other under the auspices of the EA the traditionally minded may find out they are not as alone as perhaps they felt. Perhaps more will find the strength in the brotherhood and find their own public voice.


  4. Tommy Thompson says

    “It’s ironic, isn’t it? Now that the OCA has pretty much lost its evangelical voice, some bishops in the See of Constantinople are finding theirs.”

    Actions speak louder than words! While speaking of evangelism out of one side of his mouth, on the other side, he speaks of Hellenism and “we must know Greek.” The reason for this is that Holy Cross Seminary (the Greek seminary), is now producing more converts than Greek born. The massive retirees within the GOA leaves their only choice, converts to fill the void. The GOA will move toward where the OCA is today, but it will take them another 15-20 years. THEN, they will claim that THEY were the first to form an American Church (typical Greeks). The reality is that the OCA has more English, convert, NEW parishes than the GOA or Antiochians. This will even out for the GOA and OCA while with the Antiochians (Syrian/Lebanese/Egyptian) immigration, they will move back to 1950. YES, the OCA and GOA could merge, but the GOA will have to dump the idea of pushing for an “Eastern Pope” in + Bart and join a true, autocephalous American Church; the OCA. Until then, the GOA will continue to attract OCA priests to fill their void and OCA priests will find being paid $60,000.00 a year with full benefits & retirement, very attractive.

  5. Michael Kinsey says

    When the Christ sent out His servants as He promised on Pentecost, the pay package offered to them, was simply, a servant is worthy of his hire,This was and is a needed and reasonable address by the heavens to earthy needs.Being an authentically called and chosen servant of Jesus Christ, from a spiritual; perspective, is something many people would be wiling to pay for to receive, Many would be willing to pay for the calling, especially those with good and honest hearts, But, it is not for sale,nor will it ever be.
    Perhaps, the churches would be better served by lowering the pay packages of it’s clerical hierarchy and eliminate all the bennies. This would deter those who just want a good paying job from seeking employment in a service that they have no spiritual calling to, especially gay bishops. The criteria for a bishop stated by St Paul is mostly ignored, as only the academic requirements seem to carry any weight in choosing spiritual leaders.This logically leads to only those seeking a good paying job competing strenuously for the higher paying positions.The churches almost never get what they pay for.
    This child like simplicity, emperor has no cloths on caliber, will create the room for those whom the Christ calls to His service, rather than those always being driven out of the church.

  6. M. Stankovich says

    Just in case anyone besides Vladyka Tikhon is still waiting for a statement from the Ecumenical Patriarch, yesterday, CA Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law a measure originally sponsored by Assemblywoman Toni Atkins (not representing my district), D-San Diego, that allows nurse practitioners, certified nurse-midwives and physician assistants with special training to perform abortions by aspiration — in which the uterus’ contents are suctioned out — which is the most common kind of first-trimester abortion. The CA Assembly had passed the bill on a 50-25 vote in May, and the state Senate passed it on a 50-25 vote in August, with most Democrats and no Republicans voting for it.

    • Fr. Hans Jacobse says

      This is one of my chief concerns about Obamacare. People who are morally confused about the inviolability of human life will be creating committees that determine the extent of other people’s care. If they see abortion as enlightened social policy (Gov. Brown clearly does), then it’s a short jump to the elimination of the terminally ill and other ‘non-productives’ especially when rationing starts.

      If this sounds alarmist, remember Terri Schiavo. The court decided she should die.

      • M. Stankovich says

        No court determined that Ms. Schiavo “should die.” The court upheld her husband’s contention that she had expressed the opinion that, if she were living in the vegetative condition in which she ultimately was determined to exist, she would choose to terminate external support that artificially maintained that vegetative state. Ultimately, the court upheld her expressed wish, rather than make any decision in her regard. Your statement was not “alarmist”; rather it was manipulative with the intent of inducing alarm.It is typical of the Rove school of disinformation.

        My point in noting the new law in CA was to suggest that, while the “traditionalists” are falling all over themselves credentialing themselves with candied “Axios” for Orthodox bishops who are AGAIN “a day late and a dollar short,” exactly how many of you knew this bill passed in CA in April? Oh, pardon me, you were probably too busy defending the sanctity of marriage as the oral argument took place before the SCOTUS… Right… You were here, as always, bitching about something to do with Jonah, while the Prince of this world, after 26 straight state-based successful limitations to the access to abortion, CA successfully passes AB154 to join Oregon, Montana, Vermont and New Hampshire in broadening access. What do the Orthodox have to say? Axios, brutha!

        • Fr. Hans Jacobse says

          No court determined that Ms. Schiavo “should die.” The court upheld her husband’s contention that she had expressed the opinion that, if she were living in the vegetative condition in which she ultimately was determined to exist, she would choose to terminate external support that artificially maintained that vegetative state. Ultimately, the court upheld her expressed wish, rather than make any decision in her regard.

          Kinda, sorta, but not really. That was the legal justification, but it hinged on who had legal standing to proffer the “expressed wish” which was ambiguous to almost everyone. The fact that that Schiavo’s parents were willing to take legal custody of their daughter and had the means for continued medical support was not allowed in the deliberations. State troopers were called to prevent the parents from seeing her daughter as she died from her forced dehydration until after she was dead.

          The judge certainly wasn’t Solomon. He held up the child and had her cut in two anyway.

          Why not err on the side of the life? Should we justify Schaivo’s death simply because it was legal? And what happens when decisions on funding are centralized and pressure emerges to cut costs and ration services if the leaders and decision makers not only defend abortion on demand, but justify its most heinous forms? Do we believe that their low view of pre-born life will not spill over onto the terminally ill and aged? This is a reasonable and necessary question to ask.

          Do you really believe the moral outlook of our leaders and decision makers will not influence decisions about life and death of other people? Better look at the history. See: Who loves abortion more than Obama and Sebelius?

          • Michael Bauman says

            Sebelius loves abortion and doesn’t even think children in the womb are human. She is a cold, calculating, power seeker. As governor of Kansas she vetoed a $300,000 child nutrition bill because it had language in it she considered too pro-life.

        • “External support” was a feeding tube. Terri could breathe on her own. Her brain was alive, how much is hard to say, but she was definitely not brain-dead. It is possible that she may have been able to re-learn how to take food by mouth if her husband had permitted any attempts at rehabilitation.

          But because her unconsciousness was recast as brain-death, and the feeding tube as something akin to a respirator, “keeping her alive artificially”, instead of merely providing sustenance for a living woman who could not feed herself, Terri was allowed to thirst and starve to death.

        • M. Stankovich says

          It seems you have missed my point entirely: the courts are neither equipped nor intended to function as the public arbiter of moral conduct, nor to rule “as Solomon,” but “blindly” according to the rule of law (you recall the statue?). Frank Rich’s Op-Ed in the NY Times described the judge on the bench with his “head down, face in his hands,” knowing the SCOTUS had twice refused to intervene. He ruled pursuant to the law, not pursuant to what the outcome of his decision might be. That is “blind justice.”

          On the other hand, here we are again, attempting to engage “the devil [who] has been sinning from the beginning” (1 Jn. 3:8); “prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour” (1 Pet. 5:8); is the ultimate tempter (1 Thess 3:5), deceiver (Rev. 12:9), and enemy (Matt. 13:39) with basically nothing more to fight with than we did on January 22, 1973 when the decision of the SCOTUS was announced, save the March for the Sanctity of Life, the efficacy of which is unknown. The point is that those supporting abortion rights are more media savvy, more government savvy, more adept in rationalization and deceit, and outrun and outgun us. And with fewer physicians willing to be trained in performing abortions and to be subjected to the personal exposure and dangers of performing abortions, licensing of physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and nurse-midwives is a certain amount of cunning “brilliance.”

          Where is the faith that “if you shall say to this mountain, be removed, and be cast into the sea; it shall be done.” (Matt. 21:21) Are we, in fact, helpless? Are we “impotent” at the hands of skilled & organized “activists” and women’s rights advocates? Grossly so, and it is our own doing. Synods of Bishops having been releasing statements – and now on the “world-wide-web” – to what effect? California is the first “breakthrough” following 26 consecutive successful nationwide limitations on access to abortion, and it will prove to be an effective breakthrough which, undoubtedly, more states will undertake as well. When I made similar remarks following the oral arguments before the SCOTUS regarding same-sex marriage, someone scolded me by saying, “Be not deceived; God is not mocked.” (Gal. 6:7) Hmm. What are thinking now?

          • George Michalopulos says

            The trouble with your statement that SCOTUS is not a “moral arbiter” is that it sees itself precisely as that, at least since the days of Chief Justice Earl Warren. I’d say there were instances even further back, when Oliver Wendell Holmes ruled that it was alright to sterilize an imbecile (Buck). What if anything, is law but a cultures view of what is moral and permissible?

            • M. Stankovich says

              Please read my statement again. I said it is “neither equipped nor intended to function as the public arbiter of moral conduct.” I do not feel qualified to speak to how it “sees” itself, but it certainly has been forced, de facto, into this role. Perhaps early on we might rationalize that we, as an “immigrant” Church could not fully appreciate the portent of the evolving influence and dependency of the heterodox and schismatics to utilize the legal system to manipulate their views. But certainly by Roe v Wade we were quite aware of the power of the courts. Depending on your viewpoint, we are complicit or foolishly indifferent. In either case, we must renew with vigor or we must withdraw and live with our stance, and I suspect their are convincing arguments for both sides.

          • Fr. Hans Jacobse says

            George, Carrie Buck was not even “feeble minded” — the justification that eugenicists (and the Supreme Court) used to justify the mass sterilization programs (Buck v. Bell). Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes:

            It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

            Holmes, speaking for the majority, adopted eugencist reasoning in the Supreme Court ruling that held that the forced sterilization of Carrie Buck was legal.

            The Terri Schiavo case exhibits its own arbitrary reasoning that centered on several questions: 1) Michael Schiavo’s interest in removing the feeding tube and cutting hydration; 2) Terri Schiavo’s expressed wish which is vague by anyone’s standard and allegedly uttered only to Michael; 3) the medical condition of Terri Schiavo (that she was a “vegetable” is largely a fiction of the pro-euthanasia lobby); 4) the rulings of the judge about what evidence was admissible.

            Stankovich, I don’t intend to re-argue the Schiavo case here. If justice is “blind” however, there would never be split decisions, the romanticism of Frank Rich notwithstanding.

            I am still very uncomfortable that people who hold a low value of pre-born life will make decisions about what treatments the infirm and elderly will receive. Rationing is inevitable under Obamacare (if the HHS spent nearly half a billion dollars on a failed sign up system — essentially just forms and a database — and could not get that right, then chances are they won’t get much else right either). The private values of the decision makers drive public decisions. Nothing you have said challenges this.

            • M. Stankovich says

              Madonna mia! I am not defending the court nor our legal system! I am scorning those who brought moral issues to be decided in courts of law in the first place. I scorn those in the Christian Right who believe that “loading” the SCOTUS with “conservative” justices will restore Christian values and moral values to this country by a 5-4 decision! And even those justices who would forsake their own health and well-being in retirement to prevent a seated president the opportunity to appoint a replacement because they are in a particular political party. And the new “Orthodox-Political-Ecumenists” are joined at the hip with this foolishness, signing over our moral authority to “pitchmen” and talk radio. And what has it earned us so far? Frank Rich was not romanticiizing; he was describing a federal district judge who agonized knowing he had no business ruling on what they wished he judge: morality. So he ruled on the law. And the theory of the rationing of healthcare is only taught on Fox News and bartending school.

              Where is the faith that “if you shall say to this mountain, be removed, and be cast into the sea; it shall be done.” (Matt. 21:21) Is it real or is it not? Do you believe it or do you not? Frankly, I have reached a point where I want to be convinced by priests that when we battle the forces of darkness, we are being led by those armored with the Scripture, the Fathers, and Holy Tradition, and not the WSJ, Breitbart, and Drudge.

              • Glory to Jesus Christ! Glory forever!

                For the Church to abandon its interest in her community and society is to abandon our commitment both to evangelism and to philanthropia as required of us in the gospel.. If we do not care what secular society does about traditional marriage, because of a Protestant-style quietism and libertarianism, that provides the basis for also not caring about what secular society does (or doesn’t do) about abortion, sex trafficking, poverty, health care, and so on. It is “Orthodox Ayn Randism” that would lead us as American Orthodox not to involve ourselves in the public square to defend traditional marriage. Some American Orthodox inconsistently will defend involvement in issues they define politically as “social justice,” but not on marriage. They are influenced by American Protestantism, rather than an Orthodox view of society as a household, as much or more than those on the right they criticize for lack of involvement on other “secular” issues.

                Please pray for me the sinner,


                • M. Stankovich says

                  Professor Siewers,

                  You will pardon me for stating that, while I agree with your comment, it takes us not one step further than the wall I have reached: concretely, succinctly, specifically, what do American Orthodox do in the “public square” to defend marriage and all issues of “social justice?” Call for guidance & leadership from the hierarchs? Write, blog, post and cross-post to Orthodox & non-Orthodox sites declaring the issues? Offer ideas, such as a sample “commentary on Christian Marriage” to be read & distributed at Orthodox marriage services? Vote, at times for the least offensive of the candidates? Feed the hungry, aid the sick, assist the widows, protect the children, visit those in prison? Pray for the peace of the whole world? Pray for those who lead us in the secular society? Rather than accuse some of being “influenced by American Protestantism, rather than an Orthodox view of society as a household,” I see soul-numbing indifference – and so did Fr. Schmemann in his statement, “Feed the poor, but be back by 4:30 for wine & cheese.” In either case, the rumination over diagnosis, in my estimation, is complete, and in the words of the lenten hymn, “Now is the time for action.”

                  Perhaps you live in a vibrant, enthusiastic community that is motivated to pursue all social issues by the path of the Cross, with leaders who provide strength, vision, and integrity to the Orthodox community as a whole. Unfortunately, I do not. And Proposition 8, which constituted the basis for the recent Supreme Court decision, in the largest voter turnout in CA history only passed by a little more than 51%. Likewise, The NY Times, among many, hailed the initiation of same-sex marriage beginning today in the state of New Jersey, at the hand of a judge.

                  As I recall, Professor Siewers, you are among the strategic planners. A leader and definer of direction. “Let your light so shine before men.” (Matt. 5:16) We need it now, more than ever.

  7. George Michalopulos says

    You’re probably correct, Mr Panos. Regardless, the Metropolis of Boston is one of the most ethnocentric of GOA dioceses. To my mind, that makes HE’s speech even more remarkable.

  8. Well said.

  9. Which Jurisdiction? says

    I am wondering in which jurisdiction is retired

    Bishop Seraphim Sigrist? He seems to have no jurisdiction, but maybe I am wrong. He says of himself on his blog:

    I am a Bishop of the Eastern 0rthodox Church, lived in Japan for years and there had diocese, returning have taught in Eastern Christianity and Arthurian studies at Drew for a time, and written a couple of books in print and other not yet and translated a Japanese childrens book.I help out in churches here (0rthodox Church in America). Resident in New York, I am deeply involved with youth and mission in Moscow.

    Always happy to meet new friends, and if you add me I will most likely add you.

    His blog is at and his Wikipedia article suggests he was born in 1941, is a convert who graduated form St. Vladimir’s in 1967, was tonsured a monk under the Metropolia, but in 1970 was still there when the Church of Japan cam under Moscow as a part of the negotiations jfor the autocephally. so was perhaps never in the OCA although he occasionally serves in it, having returned to the US in the late 80s

    So, how does he end up on the OCA retired bishops list? He seems to travel a lot. How controlled is he by OCA hierarchy as they appear to claim him?

    • Bishop Seraphim Sigrist was under the Church of Japan, but was received into the OCA as a retired bishop about 4-5 years ago.

      • Which Jurisdiction? says

        Thank you for your information,

        The Church of Japan was under Moscow, but only after the autocephally of the Metropolia, so it makes sense that he could have the choice of either jurisdiction.

        He seems to have a pretty strong voice and to travel quite a bit.

        • Well, it wasn’t a choice that Bishop Seraphim had on his own, since he was a bishop of the Church of Japan, which since 1970 has been an autonomous church under the Moscow Patriarchate. Bishop Seraphim had to request a release from Japan and request reception into the OCA in order to join the OCA now.

          • Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald says

            “Helga”, I believe that Bishop Seraphim was removed a long time ago by the Church of Japan from the see of Sendai did not afford him a see or a parish. He returned to the U.S. then, around the turn of the century..He remained on the clergy roles of the Moscow Patriarchate, and he offered his services on an ad hoc basis to anyone who professed a use for them. The Antiochian Archdiocese seems to have used him the most, but they didn’t ask to receive him either. The Holy Synod with Metropolitan Theodosius and then with Metropolitan Herman declined to receive him into the OCA, despite encouragement and forceful representations from his old roommate from SVS, Archpriest L. Kishkovsky to receive him on the principle that “he is a good man.” Metropolitan Jonah received him…as yet another retired hierarch. I knew him pretty well in my one year visit to SVS. He had been a student at the General Theological Seminary, but had to leave it, I believe, due to unnamed psychological problems, whereupon he decided to become Orthodox and matriculated at SVS. He was a great fan of the English poet and novelist, Charles Williams, as was I. We sat in professor Litwinowicz’s (sp?) Russian class. Once we took a drive up to his parents’ home outside New York. He said his father had been a great friend of Gus Hall’s. He’s a nice, smart and kind man, but sometimes almost pathologically absent-minded.
            Until received by Metropolitan Jonah (or Metropolitan Herman in his last months as primate) he had NEVER been a hierarch in the OCA, nor in the Church of Japan when it was under the protection of the Metropolia/OCA. He was consecrated in Japan AFTER the Church of Japan became an Autonomous Church under Moscow, as a vicar of Metropolitan Vladimir before the latter returned to the U.S. after the election by the Japanese of their own Metropolitan.

  10. More gay hysteria…

    Does the sky fall in this so called moral collapse?

    Mountains and molehills…

    Sorry, George, I can’t teach my children the church is good if the church can’t reconcile homosexuality as something just less than evil. All sarcasm intended.

    Talk about oxymorons.

    Let’s evangelize by condemning those 2 tenths of a percent of society that want to marry outside the church.

    Scoooby da doo…


    • George Michalopulos says

      Mr Fall, if it was only a minority that wished to solemnize their cohabitation with pseudo-religious rites, nobody would have a problem. What the problem is is this: there is a vanguard within this population (and the Progressive movement in general) that wishes to force the acceptance of these rites throughout society. And to distort society in the process.

      • Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald says

        George, no one at all has to or had to “force” the acceptance of any rites throughout society. Look how widespread divorce has become without any advocates at ALL! Surely, it has just about destroyed matrimony as the wedding of one man and one woman, and replaced it with serial polygamy and serial polyandry. The incidence of these “gay weddings is an infinitesimal drop in the bucket compared to “no fault’ (sic) divorces. How do those no-fault divorces measure up to our Saviour’s clear and unambiguous teaching on the subject of divorce and remarriage. We deplore the possibility of (parallel, rather than serial) polygamy in Islam, and the ease of divorce there. How hypocritical to do so! There would have to be an awful lot of “gay marriages’ to distort society beyond its distortions through routine divorce!!!! There was a time in the U.S.A. when the word “divorce” was pronounced as seldom and in as hushed and fearful voice as the word “cancer!” I remember.

        • Divorce is evil. So is gay marriage. Why? Because these things harm people, especially children.

          The commitment to selfish passions at the expense of a clear understanding of reality and rational debate is very much an addiction type pathology and it is poison to any relationship or community, including our democracy here in the US.

      • Archpriest John Morris says

        The Progressive Movement has always been elitist because it believes that the elite should control the government and the government society because the average person is not intelligent enough to know what is best for them.Thus the experts should run society. Now the Progresses have also accepted the dogma of political correctness which is profoundly anti-traditional Christian, pro-gay rights, pro radical feminism, and basically believes that traditional morality is out of date because it stifles human freedom by imposing on society outdated moral values. Unfortunately this movement has taken control of almost all the main line Protestant sects and the Democratic Party especially under Obama. It also uses our educational institutions and the entertainment media to feed our youth pro-progressive propaganda. I am afraid that we have entered into a time when people who share our Orthodox beliefs will be subject to ridicule and an effort to marginalize everyone who does not accept the dogma of political correctness.

        • Bishop Tikhon Fitzgerald says

          “Archpriest John Morris” describes very accurately all the opposition to President Obama and also the Affordable Care Act. They believe the elite should elect the President NOT the voters!!!!!

    • Michael Bauman says

      What a small portion of a sexually sinful population want to do is not marriage. It is a counterfeit. At best it will demean and devalue real marriage just as heterosexual fornication and adultery do.

      The success of the activists positioning the issue as one of civil rights means that anyone who objects in any way is a bigot and the full force of the law and other government coercion will come down on us. At best we will be thought of much like the snake handlers.

      How long before such social disapproval starts erroding the faith?

      You Mr. Fall have blinders on.

  11. Michael B.,

    Mr. Fall doesn’t have blinders on, he just can’t get his head around his friendship with Mark Stokoe and his partner Mr. Brown and how their priest Fr. Bobosh has communed them for decades. He can’t quite understand how it is a problem since he has seen homosexual normalcy in his own parish. All part of the, “golly those boys are such nice guys, what’s wrong with that?”

  12. Guy Westover says

    Axios! Axios! AXIOS!
    Of all the Greek Metropolitans, I am most familiar with His Grace Methodios. He is also the one that I have the most respect for. Thought none of the Greek Bishops (save one maybe?? Help me out here please…) have lived a traditional monastic life (in a monastery for more than five years) His Grace Methodios, by all accounts of those who know him well, say he lives a very simple life, eats simple meals, has a regular prayer life and is prone to give away to other bishops in poorer countries some of the gifts given to him.
    My Grandfather, a Ukrainian priest, was rather fond of him which lays a lot considering his general
    “Grecophobia” and his insistence that Phanar was a cuss word.

    I think that at age 67 Bishop Methodios is considering his legacy.

  13. Simple question: does a text or recording of the Bishop Methodios speech exist?

  14. John Paterakis says
  15. cynthia curran says

    the Scripture, the Fathers, and Holy Tradition, and not the WSJ, Breitbart, and Drudge
    I agree, I read about a Vietnamese who converted to Islam and is involved with Al Qaeda. The right complain about our immigration policy with the Vietnamese and that we could have prevented them by coming over but our government at the time did not send funds to South Vietnam and some became boat people and we took them in. The Vietnamese helped to redevelop Westminster California as little Saigon, one really bad apple doesn’t mean they are bad. At one time before the recent elections they use to vote Republican because of the anti-communism but the right is being somewhat stereotypical here In fact in the same area about 10 years ago a white young man Adam Ganham also converted to Islam and supported Al Qaeda and he was their translator.