Well, it seems that work is progressing nicely on the Entrance of the Theotokos Monastery in Maryland. For those of you who may have forgotten, this sisterhood from Greece was invited by His Beatitude to come to America some time last year. Unfortunately, certain of Jonah’s adversaries didn’t like the idea of monasticism, so they tried to do everything in their power to have them deported. Fortunately, His Beatitude released them to ROCOR and now they can stay and practice their grace-filled ministry here in this country.
If you are so inclined, please help them out by making a contribution or, if you’re close to them, going to help them with some physical labor.
AXIOI!
(Special thanks to Byzantine, TX.)
(Entrance of the Theotokos) – The Reverend Schema-Abbess Aemiliane and her Sisters, under the guidance of the Most Reverend Archimandrite, Elder Dionysios, by the Mercy of God are now moved into the Mother of God’s new home on a magnificent property near Libertytown, Maryland, only an hour north of DC and 45 minutes west of Baltimore.
Thank you to the many donors who got us this far and thank you for your prayers! The church and the many buildings perfectly facilitate the Sisters’ monastic presence and services, expanding their capacity to receive and serve Orthodox pilgrims and seekers and to be a beacon of Orthodox Christianity near Washington, D.C.
A creative lease with a contract to purchase has made it possible to move in without a loan with the stipulation that we pay the remaining balance over the next 24 months.
Our goal is to raise $2 million to secure the monastery’s home and perform some much needed maintenance. See inside for more information about the 131 acre property.
We are awed to the depths of our souls by this miracle of God’s hand presenting the right property, at the right time, in the right way, at the right price, to facilitate this growing Orthodox monastic presence.
Are you interested in being numbered among those who are contributing to the purchase of this beautiful new home for the Sisters of the Entrance and generations of monastics to come? We need your help to make this dream come true by making a generous gift toward the purchase of the Libertytown property by clicking here.
” Unfortunately, certain of Jonah’s adversaries didn’t like the idea of monasticism, so they tried to do everything in their power to have them deported.”
This just isn’t true. The fact is that + Jonah brought these nuns here without permission from the entire Synod of the OCA. He acted unilaterally. It wasn’t “Jonah’s adversaries,” what it was is that + Jonah acted without the proper authority. The OCA had no obligation to support this. Therefore, ROCOR stepped in to try and make + Jonah’s folly acceptable. No adversaries; no attack on monasticism and no plan for deportation, but non-sanctioned, unilateral actions that couldn’t be supported.
What a ridiculous reply. “Acted unilaterally.” And that alone kept the the Synod from accepting them? Please give me a break, and start being honest about the real reason.
I swear that’s the dumbest thing I’ve read so far.
Oh wait, there was this too: “Therefore, ROCOR stepped in to try and make + Jonah’s folly acceptable.” The fact is, ROCOR has a heart for monasticism and a love for God. They saw an obvious opportunity here and already their good graces and the vision of Met Hilarion is bearing much fruit. This was not ROCOR picking up Jonah’s ‘folly,’ this was ROCOR seeing the obvious internal machinations of the OCA Holy Synod using these nuns as pawns in their continued effort to find fault with Met Jonah. They unwittingly saved them from sure demise in the OCA, and now, as always, the OCA is on the outside looking in regarding this particular matter. For these nuns to already have a magnificent property, a growing base of monastic vocations, a vision for a truly pan-Orthodox monastery is growing rapidly and being confirmed by God’s blessing.
This situation is nothing but egg on the face of all those who opposed their entry into the OCA, especially the bishops on the Holy Synod. There’s absolutely no other way to look at it, and no one who goes there will see it any differently. They’ll always be known as the monastery that the OCA rejected. (Kind of like the publishing houses that rejected JK Rowling’s Harry Potter novels and now completely regret that stupid move.)
DIogenes,
The more you open your mouth, the more you reveal your utter lack of any serious knowledge not only of the facts but the prerogatives of the First Hierarch of the OCA.
1. As Primate he is the only one who can directly invite monastics (and clergy) into the OCA. No diocesan bishop has that right. A diocesan bishop must go through the office of the Metropolitan to accept clergy and monastics from another Church.
2. Your assertion that +Jonah needed the Synod’s approval is simply not true. He did not. (See #1) The possibility that some bishops (two in particular) thought that he needed their approval is not +Jonah’s issue but theirs.
3. The fact that one bishop on the Synod knew these nuns very well, and more importantly that the nuns knew this bishop and in particular his sloppy departure from Greece caused that bishop to spread terrible rumors about the nuns. This only exacerbated the fowl stench surrounding the attempts to oust Jonah using the nuns as a club to beat up +Jonah.
4. Your assertion that the OCA had to support this move is again untrue. This was the move of the Primate who is also a diocesan bishop and the nuns were within his diocese, therefore no other bishop need bother themselves about this, but some on the Synod could not help themselves and acted in an uncanonical manner sticking their noses in the internal affairs of Metropolitan Washington Diocese.
5. The fact that ROCOR took these nuns, a move that they will richly be rewarded for in the years to come, was a blessing because of the kindness and spiritual generosity and care of Met. Hilarion of ROCOR. He did the right thing and if anything he saved these nuns so that they can minister as monastics here in the USA. He only had to do this because the OCA Synod acted in such an horrible manner.
6. And do note, the fact that +Jonah released them to the ROCOR again proves his prerogatives as the First Hierarch of the OCA because he along is responsible for releasing clergy and monastics to another Church. Again note that he did not do it with any approval from the Synod because he did not need it.
You might check your facts and at least know proper church ecclesiology before writing here again because you are coming off as an illiterate poser.
“illiterate poser” is putting it mildly.
The OCA statute is not very clear on this subject on who is responsible for monastics.
Only under Chapter 6, Diocese, does it say the following
“By virtue of his episcopal consecration and canonical appointment to his Diocese, the Diocesan Bishop possesses full hierarchical authority within his diocese. The Diocesan Bishop:
13. Shall exercise the right of supervision over the monastic communities in his diocese and appoint their superiors”
I have heard two things (not knowing if either is true). 1. +Jonah did not receive a proper written release from Greece for the nuns and therefore the Synod wasnt happy (although is a written one necessary? I dont know). And/or 2. +Mel had a problem with the nuns and wanted them gone.
Number 1 can be easily determined by asking +Jonah for a copy of the release. Number 2 cant be shown.
Robert,
The section of the Statute you quote is very clear and when coupled with Article IV Section 2, subsection 10 that the Metropolitan…..
“Receives petitions for admission of clergy from other Orthodox Churches” it is the historic and correct practice that the office of the Primate is the touchpoint between Churches (outside the OCA). The section you quote is clear once clergy and monastics are within the OCA and then assigned to a particular diocese. They then become the responsibility of the diocesan bishop.
Monastics must be under a bishop, thus a bishop must release them and another bishop receive them. Thus they are treated as clergy in the protocol of release and acceptance from one Church to another.
The DC Nuns did have proper release papers from Greece and were thus accepted properly by Jonah from another Church (Greece) into his own diocese, Washington. The same cannot be said for Bishop Mel. His “release” from Greece to the OCA was clouded because he left his home monastery without a blessing from his elder, Most Reverend Archimandrite, Elder Dionysios, who was also and still is the spiritual father for the nuns. That is tantamount to a priest leaving his parish without the blessing of his bishop. Thus any actions taken after that are, at best, are debatable and at worst uncanonical calling into question the efficacy of his consecration and standing in the OCA.
The key too all of this is that +Mel only needed to return to his monastery, present himself to the Elder, ask his forgiveness for the actions he did and the entire episode would be resolved.I am not aware that such an action on the part of +Mel has taken place.
All of this was known to +Jonah last year and was of particular insult when +Mel was made interim chancellor by the Synod. This did nothing to promote our relationship with the Church of Greece nor Constantinople who also knew of +Mel’s clouded status. I know some people do not think this is important because “WE ARE THE OCA” but it does matter since the OCA needs to do all things properly and in good order to be above any reproach.
Well, we missed that one.
Nonetheless, the DC Nuns are safe, growing and being blessed by God with an amazing new location which has all the potential to make this new community here in the USA under the God-protected omophor of Met. Hilarion a true center of pilgrimage and Orthodox witness.
Another missed opportunity for the OCA.
Regarding +Mel. I had this exact same conversation with someone on the Orthodox Yahoo Forum about 4 months ago. They sent me a PDF version of +Mel’s release papers from Archimandrite Dionysios, dated December 13, 2008 (along with the minutes) that were sent to +Jonah. I doubt they are fake but who knows.
here is what it says
*
ΙΕΡΑ ΜΟΝΗ ΠΕΤΡΑΣ ΚΑΤΑΦΥΓΙΟΝ ΚΑΡΔΙΤΣΗΣ
Ηoly Monastery of Petra GR 431 00 Karditsa
*
Tel.: 697.8118604 Fax: 244.1080716 E-mail: MoniPetras@fhc.org Web Site: http://www.MoniPetras.org
*
*
*
Reg. No. 68
13 December 2008
CANONICAL LETTER OF RELEASE
Through the present Document of our Monastery, signed and sealed with its holy seal, in accordance with the decision recorded in Section A of the Minutes of Meeting VI of our Elders’ Council on December 13th, 2008, complying with the petition of the Beatific Archbishop of Washington & New York-Metropolitan of all America & Canada JONAH, of the OCA, expressed by his Letter of Dec. 8th, 2008, addressed to us,
We Release
the great-schema brother, dear to us, Very Reverend Archimandrite Fr. Melchisedek, secular name Thomas Pleska, son of Alexander and Eugenia, formerly Professor of Dogmatics at the Theological Academy of St. Tikhon, Pennsylvania, USA, in order for him to serve the Lord from now on with all faithfulness and commitment even outside the monastic sheepfold, through His Beatitude, the aforementioned Metropolitan, who called him to this, with His Eminence, our Metropolitan of Thessaliotis & Phanariophersala, CYRIL II, attesting that his priesthood is without empediment by his sealed and signed sanction hereupon.
THE ABBOT OF THE HOLY MONASTERY OF PETRA
ARCHIMANDRITE DIONYSIOS
and the Brothers with me in Christ
I am fairly sure that Jacob was involved in previous discussions on this isue last fall. Indeed, here he is making the first comment on George’s post “Why is Bp Melchizedek Visiting 79th Street all of a Sudden?”
“Jacob says:
September 21, 2011 at 11:15 am
George,
Are you saying that the OCA Bishop of Pittsburgh came to the OCA under false pretenses? That he fabricated his status in Greece so he could come to the OCA to be a bishop? Those are serious charges. Is it safe to say the documents you have in your possession make such a scenario not only plausible but in fact the truth?
Is this why +Jonah was so against the consecration of +Melchizedek? Did he know of these irregularities or was he duped too? Is that why +Melchizedek has been apparently hostile to +Jonah?
Let us pray that the OCA Holy Synod did not know anything about this and that the damage, if true, is confined to +Melchizedek alone and the necessary actions can be taken to correct this.”
Now let’s see if he was around to see the exact copy of the above letter from Archimandrite Dionysios that I had posted on September 21, 2011 at 8:38 pm. I posted the following:
“Sure looks like he had been relesed properly. See the following. Now I am thoroughly confused. Also, George please help as the quote is being truncated at the end of the first line of the decision itself. Basically, the document affirms that +Jonah asked for +Melchisedek’s release and that it was granted.
Source: https://www.monomakhos.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/67SynSTPrakBApolythrioFrMelxjsedek13Dec08ENG-Copy.pdf
‘ΙΕΡΑ ΜΟΝΗ ΠΕΤΡΑΣ * ΚΑΤΑΦΥΓΙΟΝ ΚΑΡΔΙΤΣΗΣ
ΗOLY MONASTERY OF PETRA * GR 431 00 KARDITSA
Tel.: 697.8118604 * Fax: 244.1080716 * E-mail: MoniPetras@fhc.orG * Web Site: http://www.MoniPetras.orG
Reg. No. 67
December 13th, 2008
ASSEMBLY VI
MINUTES SECTION II
Today, Saturday the 13th of December, 2008, at 9:00 a.m., a”
Folks objected saying that it was minutes that reflected the letter but not the letter itself (Minutes of the Council of Elders of the Monastery of Petra that was presided by +Mel’s then elder and stated that +Jonah’s request for canonical release was granted with the blessing of the diocesan bishop, Metropolitan Kyrill II). They were entirely correct and I then asked if they would please ask +Jonah to produce the letter. No such luck of course.
In any case, Jacob had posted on September 21st (three times), 28 (twice), 30 (thrice), and on October 3rd. It would be difficult for me to think that he had forgotten this thread so much that he wrote to you as if there were no objections to the public lynching of Bishop Melchisedek by the supposedly Orthodox members of this blog. Please note especially the certitude by which Jacob makes his slandrous accusations.
There was a lot more to it than came out last September here than what is in your comment, as I remember. Also, I believe some of the questions you ask now were addressed then, though I don’t know who answered them. The Metropolitan does not have the letter of release, does he? That was addressed on monomakhos last September. Seems I remember there were several monasteries, and the one he was “released” from he never even went to, or so it has been said, and a wiggling around by bishops to get people off of hooks, and all kinds of problems and a tale so strange it would be almost impossible to make it up. It wouldn’t be difficult to go back to the monomakhos archives and find all of the links and info though I’m sure those who can talk about it will if they want to. One thing I am certain of. Something isn’t right about it. But that’s nothing new. Sigh.
Wow. That first sentence is one of the worst sentences I have ever written.
???
I posted the letter of release for +Mel above sent to Metropolitan Jonah. Jacob said +Mel didnt get a release from ARCHIMANDRITE DIONYSIOS. The letter above shows he did. Jacob needs to clarify his remarks above.
“[Diogenes] speak with forked tongue.”
Diogenes… hmm… he seems so familiar… where have I read this kind of word weaving, where one day he spouts off quotes from Scripture and Saints, kindly advice, and sermons while the next he spins truth into confusion, undermining, criticizing, and stabbing? (+Jonah’s “folly”?) What web is Diogenes spinning today? Isn’t the way he weaves his words familiar? It’s happened before. If Diogenes is indeed Eric Wheeler, or even someone else from that group, then all I can say is, “Remember Goliad!”
Sorry…
… this really is good news! It’s WONDERFUL to see the photo with the light coming in and the nuns looking so beautiful and shiny.
What I stated above isn’t weaving anything, but the objective TRUTH. What + Jonah hopefully has learned is that he can’t act unilaterally and expect the entire OCA to condone his unilateral actions. Even trying to move Syosset to Washington, D.C. is ridiculous and very expensive. Even + Jonah’s vision of creating a hdqtrs where he is surrounded by ONLY monks & nuns who take strict orders only from him won’t come to be. Everyone knows ROCOR is dying from within – no money. Even Moscow doesn’t really know what to make of them. Maybe + Jonah should join ROCOR or Moscow as he’s always wanted anyway. I believe the bishop-elect Fr. Golitzin would make an excellent Metropolitan for the OCA. At least he wouldn’t allow Istanbul or Moscow to use him as their doormat.
“Fr. Golitzin would make an excellent Metropolitan for the OCA. At least he wouldn’t allow Istanbul or Moscow to use him as their doormat.”
No, he’d likely just be the doormat for drunks like Bp. Benjamin and the other lavendar mafia which infest the Unholy Synod.
“Fr. Golitzin would make an excellent Metropolitan for the OCA. At least he wouldn’t allow Istanbul or Moscow to use him as their doormat.”
No, he’d likely just be the doormat for drunks like Bp. Benjamin and the other lavendar mafia which infest the Unholy Synod.
Seriously? You’re basing these assertions on what, exactly? If Met Jonah has learned anything, it’s that the oft repeated phrase that “the OCA is not mature enough for autocephaly” has proven true, and he has a long way to go to lead the OCA to any type of mature efforts.
Your statement regarding Moscow’s view of ROCOR is just complete nonsense and you know it. ROCOR coming under the MP was Moscow’s gauntlet thrown down at the feet of the OCA. And it’s laughable that you should speak of ROCOR having no money, as if the OCA is rolling in dough. If the definition of dying within is “no money,” then the OCA is on life support, as they start to tap into restricted funds to stay afloat, and get ready to sell Syosset to give themselves a few more years. Pot? Kettle? The OCA is in dire staits in that department, as they continue to throw good money after bad…
“Fr. Golitzin would make an excellent Metropolitan for the OCA. At least he wouldn’t allow Istanbul or Moscow to use him as their doormat.”
No… just a doormat for the drunkard Bp. Benjamin and the rest of the lavendar mafia which infest the Unholy Synod.
It’s been almost a year since the nuns became a non-issue for both the OCA and Met. Jonah, and I’m still surprised at the heated passions that these sisters generate. His Beatitude is the Archbishop of Washington as well as Metropolitan, and he invited the nuns into his own diocese where he has full hierarchcal authority. Met. Jonah was well within his rights to invite them to DC. The controversy surrounding them was a simple power play on the part of two or three bishops of the Holy Synod, and several members of the MC, and was wrapped up in the Metropolitan’s abortive effort to move the chancery to DC. I believe the sisters unfortunately became useful pawns in a countereffort to prevent such a move.
Pravoslavnie,
You have summed it up to a tee. What is it called, collateral damage.
Spasi:
I won’t argue with you or others here. The facts are clear and have played out accordingly. To set up a monastery for the Greek nuns without their proper release from their bishop and without the proper allocated funds from the OCA to do so, was action taken unilaterally by + Jonah. As far as ROCOR is concerned, I think all Orthodox should join this sect. Afterall, Czar Putin is back!
You should stop before you say something stupid. Oh wait, too late.
Spasi,
No need to waste your time trying to reason with Diogenes. He has shown by his own words that he is not a serious contributor to this site. He is another Ashley like writer with a particular axe to grind and Jonah is his name.
Sorry Spasi, no axe to grind. + Jonah and I are good buds; he just needs more wisdom! It will come in time, but he can’t continue to make huge blunders and expect to survive.
How does the old saying go? “With friends (“good buds”) like that, who needs enemies.”
What “huge blunders” Diogenes? Please spell them out.
The sisters never received a dime from the OCA, and at most were extended certain courtesies by the Metropolitan at his own cathedral including temporary shelter in a parish owned residence until they could get on their feet. I have yet to see anyone formally request a copy of their canonical release from Greece, but the abbess has indicated that all of their paperwork is in order so I believe this charge to be a slander.
The ROCOR bashing is getting real old. Compared to the financial situation in the mainline western churches all Orthodox jurisdictions are poor cousins. The Slavic based churches are particularly impecunious, and ROCOR is not alone as even the OCA finances are shaky. Despite this, ROCOR is not a mansion in NYC, it is the sum of its parishes and faithful and will survive. ROCOR is still in the process of transitioning from a church in exile to an outward looking missionary church. It’s present finance problems are a symptom of its growing pains and the worldwide recession.
Diogenes says: …”To set up a monastery for the Greek nuns without their proper release from their bishop …”
Pravoslavnie says:” I have yet to see anyone formally request a copy of their canonical release from Greece, but the abbess has indicated that all of their paperwork is in order so I believe this charge to be a slander.”
Good Buddy Diogenes had better explain himself.
Diogenes, as a sycophant of Melchisedek, you should be the last person asking to see “proper release” papers from anybody’s bishop. And while we’re at it, I’d like to see Lazar Puhalo’s “proper release papers” from ROCOR.
Diogenes, the nuns did have a release. There was no justification for anyone to interfere with their reception into the OCA. Met. Jonah is and always has been within his rights and prerogatives as a primate as well as a diocesan bishop.
If he wasn’t, please explain why the Synod allowed him to release them to ROCOR on his own, instead of taking direct action at the meeting. Read the minutes from last May if you don’t believe me. They “discussed” the situation, and the discussion ended with Met. Jonah’s “assurance” that he would take “definitive action”. He fulfilled that promise by releasing them to ROCOR.
Obviously, Met. Jonah’s hand was being forced. However, it’s pretty clear to me that the other bishops, despite committing what is arguably interfering with the primate’s diocese uncanonically, knew he alone had real authority over the matter.
Maybe it was a verbal release from Greece to the OCA–but no one has posted an actual written release. Email +Jonah or the nuns for it–their website says they were released from Greece, im sure they have a copy.
What’s shameful about all of this is the inability to practice Christian love to godly women. I mean come on, I’ve served in soup kitchens and I’ve seen people being given whatever they needed, no questions asked. How come when it comes to these nuns do some people have to strain on gnats wondering whether they’ve receieved any assistance? Have these people –the critics of Jonah–no shame?
These women are a blessing to us. Why should anybody begrudge them our hospitality is beyond me.
Well said George. I’ve always found the vendetta against these nuns the most shameful of all the many deplorable acts to occur within the OCA in the past few years. Many blessings to Met. Jonah for finding them a safe harbor; truly the actions of a real bishop.
Would you please answer Robert rather than do a Paul Simon and “Slip, Slidin’ Away”?
Diogenes wrote; “As far as ROCOR is concerned, I think all Orthodox should join this sect. Afterall, Czar Putin is back!”
Now, I know that a lot of people, reading that, might very well exclaim, “Oh, what a disgusting little twerp!!! But I never could, of course.
Don’t want to offend anybody, least of all all of the friends I have in the OCA aroung the country, but the more I read about the governance of the OCA is sounds more like a horse designed by a committee and held together with spit and sealing wax. Could you possibly make it any more complicated?
Paticipatory/democatic governance models simply will not work in the Church. The life of the Church is not compatible with them. I know that goes down hard with we Americans–rebels for any cause, but that’s where it sits.
Michael:
It’s quite simple. The OCA ‘s Synod of Bishops is it’s the top earthly authority. Although the Metropolitan is the figurehead of the OCA and Primate, his authority is not unilateral. He can only act with the consent of the other members of the Synod. Spending of monies on projects must be OK’d by the Synod and financial committee of the OCA.
Checks and balances have been built into the OCA after the issues of the last 10 years!
If it were that simple, there would not be the mess there is and you coveniently forgot about the Met. Council whom, it seems really muddies up the water. Checks and balances. Those are only as good as the people checking and balancing. Primate as figurehead. Wow, how’s that working for you?
The picture that is given here is of a bunch of folks running around doing their own thing and acknowledging no authority but their own engaging in Machiavellian deals that rival anything born of secular politics and ignoring just about everything else especially the Orthodox moral tradition. Way, way, way too much concern for rules regulations and form because no one trusts anyone else or even likes them. Scapegoating seems to have become the way of life. That is deadly and wholly at odds with Christianity since our Lord died once for all taking on all of our sins.
I’m sure at the parish level its not exactly that way, depending on the health of the parish, but it could easily devolve into that.
No matter where we are if we want virtuous governance we have to be virtuous ourselves. That is true no matter what the form of government. The more virtue in the governed, the more virtue in the governors. It does not necessarily work the other way ’round. It is much more likely that a venal governor will infect the governed.
Conciliarity is not the same as eqalitarianism. Seems as if you have the two confused.
Diogenes says:
March 15, 2012 at 4:35 pm:
[T]he Metropolitan is the figurehead of the OCA and Primate”
How can our Metropolitan be both “figurehead” and “Primate.”
fig·ure·head (fgyr-hd)
n.
1. A carved figure on the prow of a ship.
2. A person given a position of nominal leadership but having no actual authority.
I have a feeling that Met. Jonah was elected to be the ‘carved figure’ on the prow of the OCA, providing cover for the “real” movers and shakers who had moved in after Kondratick’s collapse. He was expected to be nothing more than a pretty face, a mascot for the nouveau OCA.
I think it says a lot about Met. Jonah that despite his relative inexperience and naivete, he wasn’t willing to be backed into a corner like that.
Diogenes, if this were true, then Garklavs would have been out of Sysset 11 months ago when he was fired by the HS. Instead, he stuck around making $140K/yr shuffling paper from one side of his desk to the other.
Garklavs should have NEVER been dismissed. The Synod fully supported him & + Jonah wanted him out. What were Garklavs crimes? Being a GREAT Chief of Staff of the OCA. He couldn’t fully support + Jonah on some of his kakamamy adventures. Not to cause serious disruption, the Synod let + Jonah have his way. Following this, + Jonah had his wings clipped and continues to be kept in check. Rumors are he continues to push his own agenda without the Synod. This can’t end pretty!
So your problem is that +Jonah has an agenda, and he pushes it? And he had people working against his agenda (probably illegally according to Skordinski’s email) and didn’t want to work with them? And you’re upset the Synod is working out their differences of agenda together and behind closed doors?
You’re line of thinking gives credence to those who suggest that certain people in the OCA want +Jonah to be a patsy and his biggest crime was not playing the part they had scripted for him.
Jesse:
You are reading too much into this. + Jonah wants to act “unilaterally” usurping authority not given to him. Again, Garklavs should never have been dismissed. Jillions is a very could replacement, but Garklavs was done wrong. Bottom line, + Jonah must learn to work with the entire Synod and MC. He is just too young and inexperienced to know how to do this. Wisdom comes with time and this is why ANY leader in the Orthodox Church is usually a well-seasoned person with good people skills.
Diogenes, please read +Jonah’s speech to the Synod from February 2011, published on OCAN in May. His Beatitude gives his justification for firing Fr. Garklavs there, listing there a number of issues which I think you should address before being able to declare that Met. Jonah somehow did him wrong.
Yeah, Dio, that darn Metropolitan not acting the way you think he should, how did you put it, oh yes, a “figurehead.”
As long as he isn’t a “figurehead” you won’t be happy. I am sorry.
Diogenes says:
March 16, 2012 at 10:29 am
“Wisdom comes with time and this is why ANY leader in the Orthodox Church is usually a well-seasoned person with good people skills.”
Then why was he elected Metropolitan at the ’08 AAC
rather than one of the “well-seasoned” bishops there?
Could it have been because of his fresh and authenic
vision for the OCA and because he is “unpolluted” by all
that had gone on previously?
Given the things done by Fr. Garglavs, it is likely that he only avoided being suspended or worse because he was doing the bidding of Synod/MC members who had their own agendas. But I see that you, Diogenes, are continuing in the tradition of rewriting history, demonizing those who disagree with you, and continuing to believe that “you are the legacy.”
Anyone who knows Met. Jonah personally knows that it would take something pretty extreme to push him to the point of firing anyone. And given the checkered history of many of the OCA episcopate, the support of the Synod does not suffice as a defense for Fr Alexander.
The really relevant point that is consistently pushed aside here is that an executive ought to be able to hire staff with whom he can work, in whom he has trust. The former chancellor did not fill the bill in either particular.
This figurehead argument does seem to have legs. And so many want to run this show! The Synod, the Metropolitan Council, Diogenes……..
Dio,
While it others have made many of the other arguments that are possible in response to you I want you to hear what words of yours signal to us that you have a fundamental bias against HB. Maybe you don’t have a bias, but you’re using words and phrases that suggest you do…because we’ve been through this before.
For example:
This is hogwash. +Jonah’s strong “unilateral” actions have been taken with reason, justification, and precedent. The problem is that there’s ambiguity in the statute and there’s a mound of momentum against him. The momentum is often cited as evidence that +Jonah is out of line. That’s when we get the overly-simplistic “Synod vs. +Jonah” statements. The fact of the matter is that even if this were the case (and it’s not) it would not mean +Jonah was wrong. It just means he has a tough row to hoe.
Either he acts decisively like a leader, or he capitulates. And thus we are back to the fact that several people believe he must act like a figurehead and neglect the cross the AAC of ’08 gave him.
And this is what is ridiculous about this whole ‘kakamamy’ situation, that the Metropolitan and First Hierarch of the church is treated as though his position is somehow ancillary to the life and direction of the OCA. It is completely unheard of for a such an attitude to be SOP, and yet, somehow in the new OCA, it is.
In normal standard Orthodoxy (that is,in the other 99.9998% of the Orthodox world [50,000/250,000,000]) if the Metropolitan or Patriarch didn’t like the way one of his underlings wore his cassock, he would be gone – no questions asked. You serve at the pleasure of the First Hierarch , and you are there to carry out his vision and direction. But in bizzaro-world twilight-zone OCALand, the Metropolitan is a ‘figurehead’ (read “meaningless, unnecessary puppet”) and therefore, let’s treat him like the hired help. In fact, probably the hired help is treated better.
And this is what is ridiculous about this whole ‘kakamamy’ situation, that the Metropolitan and First Hierarch of the church is treated as though his position is somehow ancillary to the life and direction of the OCA. It is completely unheard of for a such an attitude to be SOP, and yet, somehow in the new OCA, it is.
In normal standard Orthodoxy (that is,in the other 99.9998% of the Orthodox world [50,000/250,000,000]) if the Metropolitan or Patriarch didn’t like the way one of his underlings wore his cassock, he would be gone – no questions asked. You serve at the pleasure of the First Hierarch , and you are there to carry out his vision and direction. But in bizzaro-world twilight-zone OCALand, the Metropolitan is a ‘figurehead’ (read “meaningless, unnecessary puppet”) and therefore, let’s treat him like the hired help. In fact, probably the hired help is treated better.
Spasi:
The OCA went through the “autocratic” style of bishops which really isn’t Orthodox. RSK & + Theodosius got away stealing millions; + Herman misused church property & funds and the OCA learned! We WILL have a conciliar church where hierarchs have to answer for their actions to the Church. Your 99.9998% of Orthodox bishops are not acting as an Orthodox bishop should – according to Canon Law. Bishops are not the “emperor.” Yes, the bishop has certain responsibilities and authority, but his actions are ACCOUNTABLE and subject to review by the entire Church. This is why the Greeks don’t like the OCA. Even if all the OCA bishops decided on something, the people can reject their decisions. Just like the Kievan/Rus people did when the puppet bishop of Constantinople for Kiev, Isidore, returned from the Council of Florence to announce to the Russian peoples they were now in union with heretical Rome. THE PEOPLE, threw him out of the city and he barely escaped with his life. Kiev/Rus then announced their “autocephaly” and in reality, were the ONLY True Orthodox Church. Therefore, their case for being the “Third Rome.” Constantinople and all their Greek lackey bishops( Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, etc.) all fell into heresy. It took years before these patriarchs were forced by their people to rescind their signatures to the Council of Florence. All of these bishops sold their souls!
Same in the OCA; the bishops cannot act against the will of the people and + Jonah cannot act unilaterally in church matters where he needs consensus. This is no different than how every council of the Orthodox Church operates; always conciliar! Bishops acting in an “autocratic” manner are NOT Orthodox bishops. Did Christ act in an autocratic manner? Did He impose His will?
When I read statements like, “bishops cannot act against the will of the people,” then I honestly think there is no hope, no future, for the OCA.
The actual canonical thought is that the bishop cannot do anything out of fear of his people.
Nothing more to say… speechless (which is SO rare for me).
Spasi:
You act if this is ONLY activities in the OCA; it isn’t. Did you ever hear about the multi-million dollar real estate deals within the GOA involving + Iakavos? How about all the $$$ transferred to Lebanon & Syria? How about $$$ transferred to Russia? Etc. These issues involving the church and bishops are not isolated. You hear about the OCA because it has cleaned house and isn’t going back to all the secrecy and bishops acting autocratic. As long as ANY Orthodox jurisdiction refuses to publish publicly REAL independent audited books by certified accountants, there is something wrong. How about all the secret bank accounts and off-shore accounts? Not in the OCA.
Don’t forget those rotten Russians selling vodka and cigarettes! OMG, the shame! The church would be so much better without bishops, don’t you think? Or at least, they should just shut up and do what “we the people” tell them what to do. Between all the money, and the secrecy, and the misconduct, and the dressing them up in church, and the “Is polla eti… ” business, and throwing rugs everywhere they walk, kissing their hand, blah blah blah – what a waste! So 13th century!
Yes – everyone knows that the health of a church is measured solely by how many committees, commissions, regulations and investigations they have. Pretty soon the OCA will be clean as a whistle! Last one left, please turn out the lights.
But I’m trying to figure out how your reply was a response to anything I wrote. At this point, I think you’re just on a roll and want to get it all out. Keep it coming. I think the more you write, the more we will begin to understand the depth of the problem in the OCA.
Your definition of “CONCILIAR” is not biblical, dear friend, but rather defined as “egalitarianism.” because, as you have said so clearly, the Metropolitan is a figurehead. If he, as the First Hierarch is a figurehead to his synod and to us, then pray tell what is a diocesan bishop to his diocesan council? By your logic and definition, a figurehead.
And, if you are interested, our freedom in Christ is freedom from sin, not some misguided definition of Christian freedom within the “democratic” constructs, or worse, “all power to the soviet.”
I don’t know about you, but I am a monarchists. I have a King. My King is the King of Glory. You, however appear to be more comfortable in a “presbyterian” church structure because you seem to mistrust the episcopate. That is too bad. I hope you can get some help with that.
Also, freedom from the Law.
Not the OCA Statutes, or all the various policies and procedures and best practice and strategic plans, God forbid (how can we live without Robert’s Rules of Order?), but freedom from the Old Testament Law. Just sayin.
Diogenes asks: “Did Christ act in an autocratic manner? Did He impose His will?”
You will find out at the time of your personal final judgement which will certainly not be “concillar.”
I wonder where Diogenes learned his church history? If they taught it as he has regurgitated it, it must not have been an accredited educational institution. Metropolitan Isidor of Kiev returned to Russia with impunity and hardly any popular reaction at all for some time, until he approached Moscow in a procession with the Latin Cross (you know, with a big Corpus with the arms stretched out painfully and vertically, rather than horizontal, as on our Cross) at the head of it. This finally caused an outcry at that location. It was not “the people” AT ALL but the Great Prince of Moscow that directed and caused his expulsion. This is typical conciliarian propaganda. They also like to say that the Orthodox hierarchy agreed to the Union and the filioque, but the ‘Holy People of God” resisted and refused to approve it, and they are thus called “Guardians of the Faith.” In fact, the filioque was alive and well in the Church of Constantinople and heard in its churches from the time of the Union until the conquest of Constantinople by Sultan Mehmed, who FINALLY, commanded an opponent of the filioque, family name “scholarios” to come out of exile and be consecrated as Patriarch, replacing the last Uniate Patriarch, who fled to southern Italy and became a cardinal there.
Spasi,
The whole idea that a priest, like Garklavs, serves at the pleasure of his boss, in this case, the Metropolitan is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO PASSE’. We are all now Free Men. The late Arb. Job so anointed us.
A bishop in the new OCA, is a figurehead. We dress him up. He is of utilitarian use. He ordains. I mean, we need more Free Men, so we must put up with him. Then we dispatch him so us Free Men can do the real work. You know, Strategic Plans, MC, etc.
Spasi, you really need to get with the program. The OCA is the antithesis of all those “old world” Orthodox. We, again, as Free Men, will decide what is best. We don’t even need those “old world” Orthodox figureheads to even recognize us Free Men of the OCA.
In the new OCA, the bishops work for us Free Men. If we don’t like a bishop, we get rid of him. We tell him that we want them to have term limits. If we don’t like the bishop we say such things like “the Holy Spirit was absent in Pittsburgh.” If we don’t like our Figurehead, we say such things like he is “gravely troubled.” If we don’t like him, we force the Figurehead to take blame for everything and then we send him to a looney bin so that he can evaluated. Don’t you agree that “re-education camps” are important?”
No, Spasi, the new OCA is in full view of all those Orthodox both here and around the old world. It is quite impressive, I know you would agree.
But, dang, that darn Figurehead of a Metropolitan, he better not be a Free Man too because he won’t be a Figurehead any more if he doesn’t think like the rest of us and do what we want him to do. That would be a bad thing in the new OCA. He was not being a Figurehead when he found out that Garklavs was not working for him but against him. Our Figurehead was acting badly. He had to be put back in his place.
I know it will take you some time, but you will come to understand that bishops in the new OCA are just Figureheads. We don’t have to listen to them when we don’t want to. We only do what they say when we agree with them.
Now, don’t you feel better? Come on. Be a Free Man.
Jacob:
I think the word you’re really trying to find is “CONCILIAR.” It is to act with the entire Church and not in opposition to the Church. No different than how the Church has always worked; unless corrupted bishops try and enforce their own will contrary to the people. And when you talk about being “Free Men,” I’m sure you are referring to being “Free in Christ” as outlined in 1 Corinthians 7 – ever read it? I thought so.
Diogenes says:
March 16, 2012 at 3:46 pm:
“Free in Christ” as outlined in 1 Corinthians 7 – ever read it?
I’ve read it, and the Saints of our church have taught me i’s correct intrepretation.
Pray tell, what do you think it means?
See above…..
” POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!” (as the 70’s generation proclaimed).
Diogenes says:
March 16, 2012 at 9:48 am
“Garklavs should have NEVER been dismissed. The Synod fully supported him & + Jonah wanted him out. What were Garklavs crimes?
I’m sure you jest. Right?
You are kidding right? The fact that Garklavs actively undermined Jonah is a good thing in your book? I wonder if you’ve ever served in management?
I know that goes down hard with we Americans–rebels for any cause, but that’s where it sits.
Mmmmh, how do you think we Canadians in the OCA are “feeling”? We are the passengers on the hay-wagon in tow…. Would you mind if we have strong and secret thoughts of getting off that wagon? We should be managing to establish a Canadian church easily.
Even the Canadian Greeks are not really happy about their particular plight. The Ukrainians are more Canadian than anything else and only fear to become out-casts again if they do something Constantinople doesn’t like. Then there are Serbs and Romanians… all of us frozen together like a tongue on a flag-pole.
At least we would then have a quiet church and thus more time to prayer…
Joseph,
It is an outrage that the OCA includes the Archdiocese of Canada, especially when you have your own Assembly of Bishops in an effort to work out your own issues. You all have been the ugly step-child (no offense intended, just a metaphor) from the very start…..Orthodox Church in America (and Canada, and oh yes, Mexico).
Canada is not the USA and especially the approach to immigrants to the respective nations. Different histories, different views of government, the role of ethnic peoples, their religions, etc.
It is time for Orthodox Canadians to unite under one local Church. The OCA was a good port for you all, but it is time for all Orthodox Canadians to set sail in one ship together.
Maybe “outrage” is a bit too strong. Let me say it is wrong, as in not the best solution for the Archdiocese of Canada to most effectively administer the Gospel.
A related issue is that the Archdiocese of Canada does not (and cannot) pay the same assessments to Syosset as other OCA dioceses, because Canadian law limits how much money they can send outside the country. It really makes more sense for Canada to have its own autocephalous church.
It may be a good idea to take a short break and review the relevant portions of the OCA Statute. Please don’t get yourselves wrapped around the axle; I am putting all possible provisions so that y’all can consider their applicability. Feel free to add others if you feel I missed one.
I have not quoted the well known canonical procedure for a clergy person (monastic or other) transferring from one local church to another. However, it basically consists of the church that is losing the person to officially approve of the transfer and the church that is gaining that person to officially receive that person, all in accordance with each local church’s procedures.
Article II-The Holy Synod
Section 1-Definition and Authority: The Holy Synod is the supreme canonical authority in the Church.
Section 7-Competencies
1. All matters involving doctrine, canonical order, morals, and liturgical practice;
9. Solution of problems arising in the administration of individual dioceses and requiring the judgment of the entire episcopate;
10. Determination in all complaints involving bishops;
11. Acting as Supreme Church Court of Appeals for all matters involving bishops, clergy, and laity in accordance with Article XI, Section 6;
12. Establishment of general policies in relation to other Orthodox Churches and non-Orthodox religious bodies;
Article IV-The Metropolitan
Section 1-The Metropolitan. Among the bishops of the Church, the Metropolitan enjoys primacy, being the first among equals. He is the Primate of the Orthodox Church in America, and is the diocesan bishop of one of the dioceses of the Church and bears the title, “Metropolitan of All-America and Canada.” He supervises the internal and external welfare of the Church and represents it in its relations with other Orthodox Churches, religious organizations, and secular authorities. The Metropolitan’s name is mentioned during liturgical services by the other bishops of the Church. The Metropolitan mentions the names of the other heads of autocephalous Orthodox Churches.
Section 2-Duties The Metropolitan:
9. Has the right of pastoral initiative and guidance, and when necessary the right of pastoral intervention, in all matters concerning the life of the Church within the framework of the holy canons;
10. Receives petitions for admission of clergy from other Orthodox Churches.
Article V-The Metropolitan Council
Section 1-Organization. The Metropolitan Council is the permanent executive body of the Church Administration Which exists for the purpose of implementing the decisions of the All-American Council and continuing its work between sessions. It shall consist of the Metropolitan as Chairman, the Chancellor, the Secretary, the Treasurer, two representatives from each diocese, one priest and one layman to be elected by the Diocesan Assemblies, three priests and three laymen elected by the All-American Council. Vacancies occurring among diocesan representatives are filled by the respective dioceses. Two alternates are to be elected by the All-American Council, one priest and one layman, to fill vacancies occurring among members elected by the All-American Council. All elected members, whether representing the several dioceses or those elected by the All-American Council, may succeed themselves in office for one term only.
The Metropolitan Council may, between meetings, delegate a committee consisting of the Chancellor, Secretary, Treasurer, and two other members to meet in conjunction with the Lesser Synod of Bishops upon their invitation, to discuss normal church administrative procedures. This committee shall report back to the Metropolitan Council concerning all actions and decisions.
Section 4-Competence. The Metropolitan Council:
1. Implements the decisions of the All-American Council and of the Holy Synod in the areas of its competence;
2. Assists the Metropolitan and the Holy Synod in Implementing decisions within the areas of its competence;
3. Establishes the budget for the operations of the Church and examines all financial reports of the Church;
6. Provides for the maintenance of the central administrative bodies of the Church and for the allocation of the general Church funds;
7. Decides on the purchase, sale, or mortgaging of property of the Church, except in cases covered in Article X, Section 8;
8. Maintains an inventory of all properties of the Church;
9. Provides for the establishment and maintenance of institutions of charity and education, as well as for publications for the propagation of the Orthodox Faith;
12. Initiates, prosecutes, and defends all legal matters affecting the interest of the Church;
Article VI-The Diocese
Section 1-The Diocese The Diocese is the basic church body which comprises all the parishes of a determined geographical area. It is governed by the Diocesan Bishop with the assistance of a Diocesan Assembly and a Diocesan Council.
Section 4-The Diocesan Bishop
By virtue of his episcopal consecration and canonical appointment to his Diocese, the Diocesan Bishop possesses full hierarchical authority within his diocese. The Diocesan Bishop:
2. Has the right of initiative and authoritative guidance in all matters concerning the life of his diocese;
5. Shall appoint and transfer parish priests and other parish clergy within the limits of his diocese;
8. Shall erect parishes, missions, chapels in his diocese;
9. Shall consecrate Antimensia and churches and erect permanent altars;
13. Shall exercise the right of supervision over the monastic communities in his diocese and appoint their superiors;
14. Shall approve the decisions of the Diocesan Assembly, Diocesan Council, deanery, and parish meetings;
I have no clue what you just proved here, other than you know how to copy and paste.
Your obsession with the jot and tittle of the statute and always trying to paint Met Jonah into a corner is so exhausting, and honestly, completely unimpressive. The good news is, that poor man will be saved because of the likes of you.
Nothing to prove. Just an effort to paint a complete picture in the face of folks like you who (a) could not care less about the Statute or the canons, (b) are determined to spin everything their way (it is harder to do when these things are present for every body to see, no?), (c) are dishonestly imputing evil motives to all who are not in sync with their agenda, and (d) are hiding behind Internet names and like to pontificate without any consequence.
“…and like to pontificate without any consequence.” Telling. Because for you, Carl, it’s always about the consequences you can see extracted on someone, isn’t it? And isn’t that what this reign of terror is all about anyway?
Sounds to me like someone gets their jollies in seeing others being punished.
What reign of terror? That of the three consuls (Spasi, Amos and Jacob), and the court jester? Methinks that you are projecting.
“What reign of terror?”
Gosh, I sure miss reading that. It was always so much fun to read things like, “I’m just a reporter,” and “they did it to themselves,” and “the church must be destroyed to be rebuilt.” It’s like the good old days all over again. OCANews 2.0.
Carl Kraeff says:
March 15, 2012 at 5:02 pm
“It may be a good idea to take a short break and review the relevant portions of the OCA Statute.”
Carl, I “demand” that you put those “relevant portions of the OCA Statue” into process flow and logic diagram form so that simpletons like myself can get a grip on what you intend to prove from that.
(And if you don’t or can’t, then we will know that you are just blowing a smoke screen again.)
Ask nicely and I may consider your request. However, I do not think that you are incapable of reading or of understanding. I am not trying to prove anything for now. I am just setting up the groundwork.
I’ m not going to shadow box with you, Carl.
George wrote: “Unfortunately, certain of Jonah’s adversaries didn’t like the idea of monasticism, so they tried to do everything in their power to have them deported. Fortunately, His Beatitude released them to ROCOR and now they can stay and practice their grace-filled ministry here in this country.”
George–Why did you have to ruin your wonderful news with nasty pot shots? Name names and produce documentation please on the following points:
1. Which of +Jonah’s adversaries didn’t like the idea of monasticism?
2. Please document the efforts to deport the nuns.
3. It is accepted by all that +Jonah wanted the nuns here. What is not accepted by all is the allegation that proper canonical releases were obtained.Would you please provide documentation. As a stalwart +Jonah supporter, I would think that he would be happy to send you a copy of the official letter.
4. Do you agree with Jacob above that the Metropolitan’s competency number 10 (Receives petitions for admission of clergy from other Orthodox Churches) empowers him to accept them into the OCA? If so, would you please produce the petition as well?
Thanks.
And just who are you, Carl, to make those demands?
Just somebody who wants serious allegations, especially against the clergy. to be backed up by evidence. Last time George started this mess, he had said he had evidence; he never produced it.
In any case, are you saying that bishop slanderers should get a free pass?
“Just somebody,” Carl? Not good enough.
First, I did not demand but asked politely, using the word “please.” Not good enough? Sorry, I am not a rich man.
Second, you did not answer my question. Let me rephrase it, Dear Protodeacon, would you please tell me if in your opinion anonymous cowards should not be called into account when serious allegations are brought against an Orthodox bishop by putatively Orthodox posters?
Carl, anonymous or not, wisdom leads us to not slander or accuse anyone out of anger or envy and rarely even out of a pure heart when there is genuine wrong. Obedience is a hard virtue to cultivate and practice.
However, to me it is all part and parcel of the scapegoating mentality that seems to rule the OCA and if not abandoned, will kill it. It was publically begun with those over on ocanews.org and their disciples. It still continues.
I fell into the same trap, God forgive me, even though I should know better.
Scapegoating is not something that I ever expected to see in the Church. There is little else that is as destructive to a community than scapegoating. None of the sins reported against any of the bishops and others (even if they are as bad as reported) is as destructive as the pagan practice of scapegoating.
There is only one way to stop it that I know of: forgive your enemies, really forgive your enemies and those that despitefully use you. Always hard, harder still when one has been genuninly mistreated and still carries the scars. Necessary all the same.
We Orthodox need the OCA don’t let anyone say otherwise. I was hoping that things were getting better, but apparently not.
Carl,
What you fail to grasp is that the DC nuns are safe now. They are beyond the grasp of those who tried to quiet them by sending them back to Greece.
True facts are not slander and the people that really need to know the facts surrounding the DC nuns inside and more importantly outside OCA know the facts.
You have heard no outcry from the OCA Synod over this matter. They will continue to be quiet because they have too much to lose by stirring up this up. In particular, +Mel will be the most quiet about this because he has to most to lose. No threats here. Nothing implied. Just another sad chapter in the new OCA. The coverup was worst than the original mistake.
In the end, the DC Nuns are the winners. The ROCOR wins, even to some extent +Jonah wins because he released them and got them to safety. The OCA lost, again. It is all too bad and was so unnecessary.
And one final point, stop calling people cowards. If the moderator on this forum allows people to remain anonymous those are his rules. If you don’t like them, then take it up with him. If he doesn’t change the rules and you still don’t like it, then leave.
My name is Jacob, and I approved this message. 😉
Yes, In the end, the DC Nuns are the winners, but even moreso, WE are the winners, because we have another Orthodox monastery in the United States. This is a very, very good thing.
Carl, I can’t answer better than that.
I dont understand–what does +Mel have to lose?
I must admit that you are a very good spinmeister, I did not ask you but the good propodeacon who had challenged my right to ask for proofs, for evidence, to wit: “would you please tell me if in your opinion anonymous cowards should not be called into account when serious allegations are brought against an Orthodox bishop by putatively Orthodox posters?
You replied for him by saying: “True facts are not slander and the people that really need to know the facts surrounding the DC nuns inside and more importantly outside OCA know the facts.” Let’s see now:
“True facts are not slander…” Indeed. So why don’t you spit them out.
“the people that really need to know the facts surrounding the DC nuns inside and more importantly outside OCA know the facts.” So, I am not important enough to know these true facts. OK, I can live with that. However, you did not make your allegations in isolation but coup0led them to slanderous accusations against at least one Orthodox bishop. This, I believe is an actionable transgressions of the Holy canons, especially if you are a member of the clergy. Therefore, I can see why you are hiding behind “Jacob.” I just despise people who throw slime balls at others behind the barricades of Internet anonymity.
You should work on despising people. It really shows in your posts.
And again, if you don’t like “internet anonymity” here or elsewhere, then you should leave and only post on a site where the moderators require non-anonymity, like the Orthodox Forum. Now there is a place that is free of slanderous accusations where no slime (in your words) balls are tossed.
Well, Carl, all those bishops and priests and laymen who slandered Jonah have gotten a free pass, haven’t they? Or is irony lost on you?
I will just use Jacob’s argument above and say that truth is a perfect defense. If folks accused +Jonah of mismanagement (the “slander” was just that), they have been vindicated by +Jonah’s admission. Live with it George; if your man can live with it, why can’t you?
Last posting for tonight. I promise.
Carl, I will take you at your word that you really want to know all the facts. Tell you what, you don’t believe me, so why don’t you ask +Jonah himself? With regards to “Jonah’s admission” why don’t you call him and ask him if that section of his report was given to him to be read by the Synod or if he wrote it himself of his own freewill. Call him in Syosset or in DC. Ask him yourself. Maybe you live close to where he might be, and you can ask him in person. I have always found that to be the best way to get down to the facts.
Then when you find out, you can live with it too. OK?
Carl, your reasoning is beyond bizarre. would you please tell me what exactly HB did that constitutes Jonah’s supposed “errors”?
Now we see how bereft of direction the Stokovites are now that he shut down OCAN because “it was [ahem] time and for everything there is a season.”
Metropolitan Jonah’s Opening Address to the 16th All American Council:
“These last three years have been the three most difficult years of my life. I have been under a relentless barrage of criticism for most of this time for every forum I am meant to oversee: the chancery officers and staff, the Metropolitan Council and most troubling to me, the Holy Synod of Bishops.
I admit that I have very little experience of administration and it was a risk for the 2008 Council to elect me, the newest and most inexperienced of bishops. I have worked very hard to fulfill your expectations. But this is not an excuse.
These three years have been an administrative disaster. And I need to accept full responsibility for that and for my part in it. I did not understand the depths of the breakdown with the bishops. I thought we had a good working relationship but obviously there is something very broken. I need to regain the confidence of my brother bishops and of many others in leadership positions in our Church. I tell you all here and now that I am deeply sorry for that and I ask your forgiveness.
How to get to the root of this breakdown in trust and repair it, if possible, is the real challenge for me and I am willing to do whatever is necessary, working in close collaboration with the Holy Synod. As a first step I have agreed to begin a process of discernment that will include a complete evaluation in a program that specializes in assisting clergy, starting the week of November 14th. I have chosen to do this out love for you, the people of the Church, and for my brother bishops
I ask you all for your forgiveness, understanding, patience, prayers and support..”
Source: http://www.ocanews.org/news/16thAACJonahToBeEvaluated11.1.11.html
Now, I know that the source is suspect in your eyes. Please review above citation and provide corrections to the text as you see fit. To quickly review the salient points:
– He acknowledges that he had “been under a relentless barrage of criticism for most of this time for every forum I am meant to oversee: the chancery officers and staff, the Metropolitan Council and most troubling to me, the Holy Synod of Bishops.” Forgive me if I was wrong to think that the “barrage of criticism” was that “slander” that you wrote about. I know these things are often a matter of perception, but if the target of criticism/slander says it is criticism, who are you to say that it was slander. Besides, if it was slander and person of character would have tried to clear his good name. But, we do not have to look at subjective interpretations: if a criticism is true, it is not a slander, right?
– He acknowledges that his tenure to date could be characterized as “an administrative disaster.” And, most importantly he took responsibility for his part for causing the troubles, that is, his errors: “And I need to accept full responsibility for that and for my part in it. I did not understand the depths of the breakdown with the bishops. I thought we had a good working relationship but obviously there is something very broken. I need to regain the confidence of my brother bishops and of many others in leadership positions in our Church.” At this point, let me hasten to acknowledge that you and many others believe that he did not write these words. Does it matter? He owned them and he spoke them. To say that he was forced to utter these words is a huge disservice to +Jonah. I am not go into permutations; suffice it to say that taking him at his words is good for all concerned, especially for him.
– Finally, he says that he is willing “to do whatever is necessary…to get to the root of this breakdown in trust and repair it,…” To prove that, he announces that he will get a thorough evaluation by a facility that “specializes in assisting clergy,” even though implicitly he does not think that he needs to.
Yes, Carl. We can all read. Yes, Carl, he said those words. But, Carl, did he write them or did someone else.
He read them. and as such he “owns” them and he was obedient in going for his “evaluation.” But it does matter if he was forced to say those things, as he was, or said them out of his own conviction.
Again, if you want to know the answer, ask +Jonah yourself. Then you will know. You owe it to yourself since transparency and accountability are two virtues you prize so highly.
If you don’t want to ask him directly then we all know that you are not interested in knowing the whole truth, and we can just leave it at that. OK?
Carl, time will reveal the true meaning, importance, and impact of that. Why do you insist on using it as a club to beat him down with it?
That affirms my suspision that Carl and Diogenes are just “two sides of the same coin” in the “pocket” of the self-appointed enlightened intelligencia of the “we are your future ” group.
The Stokovites. And I believe that Melchisedek was particularly excersized about the “DC Nuns.” In fact, the Stokovites were shocked, SHOCKED, that Jonah tonsured a woman who was dying of cancer as a nun. Can you believe it? Oh the outrage! How terrible of His Beatitude!
You know Carl, your slavish obedience to legalism was what condemned the Priest and the Levite as they crossed the side of the road to escape helping the man who was mugged by thieves. It’s a good thing that a Samaritan (the white trash of 1st century Judea) happened along and ignored the Mosaic Law.
Insistence on doing things the proper way is helpful to keep us on the narrow road, no? Will you answer the questions or no?
I will: slavish obedience to protocols/procedures/policies/etc. in absence or –worse yet–in defiance of mercy and love is abominable.
Is that clear enough?
“Everyone knows ROCOR is dying from within.”
Well, I certainly do not know that. Perhaps Diogenes happened to spot my evil and reckoned that the rot was widespread. Nah, just me.
“Even Moscow doesn’t really know what to make of them.”
It’s more like a family reunion after a long separation that followed a terrible tragedy, where folks grateful to find one another again are getting along splendidly. But why would we expect an outsider who hates us to understand things that do not concern him? We can let others worry about politics, money, gossip, and “relevance.”
Hate of irrelevancy is hate of sin that leads to irrelevancy.
Hate of corruption is the hate of sin that leads to irrelevancy.
Hate of failure is the hate of sin that leads to irrelevancy.
Everyone knows the EOC is dying from within. The rot is systemic.
Ashley Nevins
Funny, isn’t it, how everyone else here is anserable to Carl K but he himself is anserable to no one.
You must be joking! I have been most forthcoming.
No joke; that’s exactly how I read you.
http://oca.org/PDF/NEWS/2012/2012-0316-OrthodoxUS101mapsAK.pdf
Interesting FACTS about the Orthodox Church in N. America. You have to see this!
Diogenes,
What group of people is the future lifeblood fact of any church?
What group of people in the church determines its relevancy future?
Is the EOC in America attracting and retaining this group of people?
How does the fact of the critical importance of this group of people determine the future of your church?
Is the EOC in America attracting more of this group of people than it is losing this group of people?
How a church attracts and retains this particular group of people determines its future in modernity America. I promise and all of my promises to the Orthodox come true. All of them. That is a FACT.
Ashley Nevins
Is monasticism a Biblical NT calling or is it a fabricated tradition of men?
Do any of you see Christ or the disciples living their lives out on a rock, in a tree or in a cave in the Gospels or NT?
Is monasticism a closed, isolated and subjective system and is Christ in the Gospels a closed, isolated and subjective system?
Is monasticism the self protection of religion tradition in closed system isolation or is it the preaching of the Gospel in open system engagement?
What is the Biblical comparison of Christ to monasticism in the Gospels or NT and that justifies the existence of monastic tradition in the church? (Please start with a specific NT scripture reference to its calling)
Is monasticism exclusive or inclusive by structure and system? Which one is Christ?
The more any church focuses on what causes it to become a closed, isolated and subjective system the more that church dies by that mind set that is not the mind set of Christ in the Gospels.
Monasticism is not about Christ evangelism and mission outreach. It is about the self centering in the self protection of tradition based religion. It is nothing more than closed and isolated self protection mechanism that can easily be turned into a cult for how it mimics the key characteristics of a cult.
Of course, a church based upon the top down totalism power and control of the closed, isolated and subjective structure and system of the Roman state church could never be turned into a cult. Jesus came to us in the Gospels as the first monastic elder and as the first Roman church/state theocratic dictatorship king ruler. Anyone can see this is the calling of the church in the NT, right?
You can see it if you believe the EOC is Gods only alone right and one true church and that therefore has the authority to make anything it wants of Christ and the NT. You can tell that both its claim and authority are NT truth by the corrupt, failed, irrelevant and dying outcome of the EOC. The claim and the outcome of the claim in the real world both match up in the Orthodox Mind and that proves that this is the only Christian mind that can determine heresy and truth. It has determined that monasticism is Christ in the Gospels as our role model and example.
It’s mystical tradition totalism authority calls it a calling from God and when there is no such calling from God. You can’t argue with the EO regarding this. It is Orthodoxy as God that defines all in Christianity as Christian or not Christian by its claim. Orthodoxy is Gods only true objective standard of Christ, Gospel and NT measure that determines that monasticism is of Christ and a calling found in the NT.
Tradition is never wrong when it is Gods only alone right and one true church and therefore above the authority of Christ in the Gospels and NT. This is why Orthodoxy just would not be Orthodoxy without the tradition of men know as monasticism. Traditions of men define Christ, the Gospels and NT calling in monasticism.
Jesus came to us as the tradition of men called monasticism and that makes monasticism our role model and example of how to live a Christ centered life in isolation, seclusion and subjectivity. He role modeled monasticism in the Gospels and NT as a calling and as His example when He walked among us. This is why the EOC is found in a closed, isolated and subjective state of exponential success in open system modernity, right?
Everyone knows that what is closed is highly appealing to what is OPEN. The open just run into what is closed. This is why you see monasticism in the EOC being the TRADITION cornerstone and foundation of EOC exponential growth in modernity through the preaching of the GOSPEL OF TRADITION.
Open system exposes closed system. It does not work the other way around in the Gospels or NT. The Sanhedrin was a monastic like closed system based upon the dead tradition of men that Christ exposed. In its closed and isolated state it had turned itself into the subjective belief that it was God and salvation and therefore by its tradition it could not be wrong. Christ could not speak into it for it being such a closed, isolated and subjective system of dead tradition based religion. It could not hear Him and so it was found in a corrupt, failed, irrelevant and dying state by its CLAIM of being Gods only alone right and one true structure and system and salvation.
Orthodox, when tradition becomes your GOD and salvation you die by subjective and closed isolation. Idolatry isolates, closes and makes subjective and that leads to corrupt church failure. The degree or level of self idolatry a church falls into is the degree or level of its FAILURE SEEN in the real world. You will never see the subtle creep of this closing of system by tradition over time and as it indoctrinates you into its closed mind set. You will be the frog in the kettle that when the temperature is slowly turned up over time the frog does not realize he is being boiled to death. The frog floats face down in the water and just like the dead by tradition church does too.
Yes, Orthodox, please explain to me how tradition does not over time turn itself into the IDOLATRY of a closed and isolated structure and system that is based upon the TRADITION of dead tradition religion. Christ is the tradition of living salvation church and not dead tradition church. What a church bases itself upon determines its outcome in the real world over time. Anyone can see the outcome difference between the living salvation church and the dead tradition church.
The tradition based Sanhedrin believed tradition is solution and salvation (Pride, works and performance is solution that fails)
Jesus Christ based church believes paradigm shift to change is solution and that Christ alone is salvation (Humility, grace and mercy is solution that succeeds)
Monasticism is closed, isolated and subjective tradition of men and it is not going to turn the EOC in America into relevancy to our modernity open system generation. It is not going to bring spiritual revival to the EOC in this generation or any future generation in America. It will only further close and isolate your church into subjective we alone are right oblivion.
I promise and all of my promises to the Orthodox come true. All of them.
Ashley Nevins
Here you go again…so ..What Church are you a member of?
You are lucky that George is a much nicer man than I am..What is funny is that I am the idiot who was wondering if ignoring you would work..
The Jews also had a history of monasticism..remember the Essenes? I am sorry you feel injured by Abbot Ephraim but you really need to take a sedative and calm down.
So I guess you didn’t have a good St Patrick’s day? Maybe have a beer, go looking for shamrocks?
“…go looking for shamrocks” might be the better of the two choices.
Ashley, I promise you, you are not making sense to anyone but yourself. Please try to convince yourself somehow that this is true. Maybe you think we can’t get what you are trying to say, but that’s not what I mean. I mean you, Ashley, aren’t making sense because your writing is disordered and fractured and nonsensical. You are writing from another place in your head, which is disconnected from the part of your brain that would help you to write like normal people write if it could, and you think it makes sense when you read it, but it doesn’t, not in the reality of this world we live in. I understand that if you could write normally you probably would. I hope maybe if you get help or keep working at getting through all the hurt you’ve been through at the hands of dummies, it will get better and your brain will heal so you can think and write straight, and feel better about things. Okay?
Jane!!! Going looking for shamrocks is a better choice than having a beer? Beer, I recently read, was defined by the Roman Church in Belgium (home of the best beers) as “liquid bread’ to explain why it was quite all right to drink it during their “Lent.” I think that this Ashley guy or girl probably doesn’t drink beer, or enough of it, so I think it’s also indicated in his case.
I thought Ashley traipsing through a green field of shamrocks might do him more good than a beer. People tend to stew into their beers when they are angry. Still it’s hard to find shamrocks when you’re in bad mood, so maybe the beer would do him more good. All the beer in our house is home brewed and it’s as good as it gets.
Actually Bock beer was invented to give the monks extra energy during the fasting of Lent.
Archpriest John W. Morris
Please forgive any typos — I’m recovering from my tenth (!) eye surgery.
Everyone should know that all the best booze in the world was first invented by christian monks for strictly medicinal purposes, of course.
And beer, because of its ingredients and preparation, is called ‘liquid bread’ in monastic tradition.
Don’t take too much medicine! Follow directions!
I’m loading up on the Bock bier now, dear Fr!
Ashley Nevins says:
March 19, 2012 at 12:10 pm
‘Is monasticism a Biblical NT calling or is it a fabricated tradition of men?’
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And then he unrolls the whole megillah again.
Back in January, when Ashley Nevins wrote us his first antimonastic screed here, I replied here with the two comments I’m including just below, since what I wrote is just as true now as it was a couple of months ago.
Perhaps AN doesn’t remember that he wrote earlier about this? Or maybe he forgot the biblically based points I raised?
» Posted By Monk James On January 23, 2012 @ 9:56 pm
Not trying to be trenchant, even if it sometimes might seem so, I should have mentioned earlier that our Lord Jesus Christ Himself lived according to monastic standards, as did His holy Mother, His stepfather Joseph, St Paul and St John the Theologian, all well attested in the New Testament.
It really does help to read The Book, and to understand The Tradition which surrounds it.
» Posted By Monk James On January 23, 2012 @ 6:53 pm
Our Lord Jesus Christ’s prophet, foreunner, and baptizer John was a lifelong nazir (jewish monk), as was our Lord’s stepbrother, James.
Both men are obviously in New Testament times, and Our Lord Himself recommended poverty, obedience, and celibacy for ‘those who could hear it’.
The more Mr Nevins expresses his views, the less it seems that he’s read the scriptures.
AN is biblically illerate. He is a perfect example of the wise old saying “Ignorance can be fixed, but stupidity is forever.”
I quit paying any attention to ANs “sermons” a long time ago. To me, they are nothing more than the incoherent “glossolalia” of a street corner doomsday evangelist of the old Watch Tower Society type.
Although I was initially excited to hear of this monastary being established so close to where I live, I became angry and frustrated when I found out that the church is hiding a known problematic priest there, with the head nun’s consent. This is no different then the other scandals in the church and Penn state. What a disappointment. I think the youngest nuns are in the dark about this but the head nun is complicit in the cover up.
Who is the priest?
The facts, please. Otherwise . . . it’s just Gossip hidden behind a pseudonymn.
agreed!
Gigi, I second Colette, Lola and StephenD, who are you talking about?
I am highly suspicious of Gigi2 Whites’ post; not only its’ content but most of all its’ intent.
I think Gigi has fallen victim to the spin machine that was formed to raise suspicions about the nuns.
I think its kind of like Ashley Nevins…no facts,no content just a hand grenade thrown into the room…
There are facts, just look for them, starting with Father Symeon Kharon who was investigated. Numerous priests from St. Nicholas cathedral in Wash. DC were questioned and provided ample evidence, which was squashed by the higher authorities. Despite ample evidence that would have led to him being sanctioned, Father Symeon is still being hidden at the monastary. Of course, he also has other aliases so you will have to do some digging. A good place to begin is on pokrov.org–do some digging and go from there. Here, I will help you begin to uncover what is really going on: http://www.pokrov.org/display.asp?ds=Person&id=825
And lest you think I have hidden agendas, I do and they are not hidden. My agenda is to protect the public from being possibly victimized when they go up to the monastary seeking guidance and spiritual healing. Of course, speaking up is not popular and often the ‘whistleblowers’ are demonized. Fine, so be it. But at least I am not aligning myself with somebody who is clearly dysfunctional and has no business being a practicing priest. Shame on the head nun for covering for him. Clearly very wrong. And of course I am concerned about the safety of the three young nuns who are very innocent and in the dark about all of this. And of course I am concerned that my facts are immediately being shot down by this board–that does not surprise me considering the Catholic Church and Penn state–but really, I think you should look at yourselves and ask why are you not more concerned? Blind faith in some cases is not good and it protects people who should not be protected.
I think it is important the BrendanVoyager blog quoted a March 2011 posting by Muzhik (I think of OCA Truth fame) that indicates that there is something to Gigi’s allegation. You can check it out at http://brendanvoyager.wordpress.com/2011/06/28/and-they-criticize-the-catholic-church/
Well…..it all needs to be investigated and people including Met.Jonah need to explain what is going on….is Father Symeon sexually compromised? Lets get the facts….that Rod Dreher sure pops up on odd places…
To be clear, what I have said is that there is “smoke”; I have not said that there is “fire.” The evidence that we have so far proves nothing, but it does suggest that Gigi is not making this up, that she has some reason (no matter how small) to think that there is an issue.
Here is how I came to the above conclusion. In the brendanvoyaer post, the juxtaposition of these two paragraphs:
Muzhik: “Based on my informed opinion, I do not believe HB is guilty of what his accusers say. If I thought he was, I wouldn’t be posting here in his defense. But I do believe he has not exercised the vigilance he ought to have done. My view is that he still thinks he’s running a monastery, and that he is focused on the “healing” of sexual deviants in the clergy, without proper attention to the integrity of the priesthood and the needs and rights of the faithful. This is what clericalism is: a sense that priests are more important than the ordinary people.”
Either Muzhik or brendanvoyager: “Mark Stokoe reports that the SMC report concerned, in part:’ issues relating to the allegations against Archbishop Seraphim of Ottawa; issues surrounding Fr. Symeon Kharon, a monastic who, together with and a group of nuns from Greece, was brought by the Metropolitan to start a monastery in the DC area,,,’ ”
So, Mizhik and/or brendanvoyager both think that there is an issue here. No proof of anything, of course, but certainly enough to cause some caution in deciding the veracity or motives of Gigi.
As far as I can tell, Carl, only you, Gigi2, and Stokoe advance the idea (innuendo?) that there is an issue here.
in·nu·en·do/ˌinyo͞oˈendō/
Noun:
An allusive or oblique remark or hint, typically a suggestive or disparaging one.
Carl Kraeff says:
April 6, 2012 at 7:46 am
“To be clear, what I have said is that there is “smoke”; I have not said that there is “fire.” The evidence that we have so far proves nothing, but it does suggest that Gigi is not making this up, that she has some reason (no matter how small) to think that there is an issue.”
Carl is again “speaking out of both sides of his mouth at once.”
Dang Carl you are such a sucker for this bulls#*t. You were the perfect foil for Stokoe. I can now see how you so willingly swallowed the amendment to the AAC financial resolution. This whole matter with Fr. Symeon is closed based on no evidence of any wrongdoing. This was the BS being spread by a bishop and a former member of the MC.
All that is new is another poster trying to breath life into a dead story.
Dear Protodeacon and Jacob–If I had not read the remarks by muzhik, I would not have posted anything. As it turns out, Jacob just confirmed that there was indeed an issue with Father Symeon. Would it have been so had for those people in the know, such as Jacob, to have said so earlier and put a lid on it? That being the case, I am mystified that anyone is being criticized for remarking that there was indeed an issue with the good Father who was apparently imported by +Jonah along with the nuns. Now, this whole thing has got to me thinking that the problem with the nuns was more involved than an issue with canonical release. Indeed, the more I think of this as a Monomakhos regular (that is with extreme suspicion), the more it seems probable that the issues of Bishop Melchisedek’s canonical release and the purported mistreatment of the DC nuns were smokescreens to cover some malfeasance by a certain highly placed OCA hierarch.
In the meantime, the clock is still running for Jacob to rebut me; as of now, it has been 51 hours with no response.
You are sick. Pure and simple. The accusations against the good Father were vile and baseless. Those who proffered them when confronted ran away. I will not repeat such vileness although I am sure you would like that. Your thinking is twisted and sinful. You sound as if because some know more than you that you therefore have a right to know what they know and because you don’t know you therefore conclude only the worst. You need help.
In the meantime you can just keep looking at your clock. I will reply when I reply. But your latest fishing expedition only delays my reply.
If I need help, so do you, George, Helga, Spasi, et al. Here is a good woman who said she has had a problem with Father Symeon and folks here started to get on her case. I said, wait a minute, there may be something to it because an august person such as Muzhik quoted Stokoe’s report on what was in the report. I clarified it further. Then, you and the Protodeacon jumped on my case. The problem was, you and you alone, confirmed that there was an issue. Gigi is vindicated, I am vindicated, Stokoe and Muzhik are vindicated–none were/are rumor mongers. And, apparently Father Symeon is also vindicated based on your word that the issue is moot since the charges were not substantiated. Thus, all is good and functioning as it should be, except for your refusal to admit that the $50 assessment goal is a figment of your rich imgination. Thank you very much.
PS: Since you cannot admit to such an obvious mistake, how can I believe you when you say the charges against Father Symeon were groundless? Is this yet another instance of an overactive imagination?
Carl, I never said the charges against Fr Symeon were groundless. I merely pointed out that the charges against him come from the same tainted source as the campaign against His Beatitude (which btw has been completely discredited). More to the point, they come from a leak from a confidential (!) report. How can we trust anything at all from sources such as these? Sources which were put in place to depose a sitting Metropoitan?
» Posted By Gigi2 White On April 5, 2012 @ 2:09 pm:
“I have a plan to address this; I have the information that can be confirmed and I have contacts. More will be revealed……”
WE ARE WAITING!;
(and what she comes up with and presents us here better be a great deal more substantial and provable than just innuendo based on rumor, hearsay, gossip and biased sources).
You are right; I am going to quit lumping you together with the usual suspects. BTW, I repeat: I would not have said anything at all if it had not been for the Muzhik blog entry. It was Muzhik, and Muzhik alone, who elevated Gigi’s posting to a corroborated issue. Of course, Jacob couln’t help himself and admitted the veracity of Stokoe’s entry: I hasten to add that Jacob said this to inform us that the issue had been resolved. I can live with that; there still remains Gigi’s personal testimony which has not been proven OR disproven.
Carl Kraeff says:
“there still remains Gigi’s personal testimony which has not been proven OR disproven.”
Yes, but from now “the ball is in her court,” and we’ll see how “good” her “return volley,” if any, will be.
Innocent until proven guilty. Or do you prefer it the other way around Carl? You’ve got Fr. S and +Met and the Nuns all guilty of accusations that could have been blown way out of proportion. Fr. S is an odd character. I could see how his oddness and awkwardness could be misunderstood, but that does not make him guilty of anything,other than being odd. It sounds as if an investigation took place. But if people didn’t think it important enough to tell what happened when asked then maybe they rethought it and saw it as a misunderstanding-who knows. You certainly don’t have enough to go on to make your accusations. Nor can +Met be blamed if he tried to investigate and people wouldn’t talk. He did the right thing. The nuns are now not under +Jonah, so if someone wants to “go after” Fr. S. they need to talk to his elder and or ROCOR. +Jonah has shown reasonable actions with his parish, I do not see why people are still wanting to go after him. This seems to be intertainment anymore to some and an obsession. . . . take a break Carl. Furthermore, it is out of character for +Jonah to “Cover -up” anything. Again, this is unfair, coming from someone who does not understand the people they are accusing. Fianlly I can’t see Fr. Vladimir serving with anyone he felt was guilty of such a crime. This whole proposal is just not sound. If anyone was molested or worst, I would be the first to go after a certain priest, but I just don’t think anything of the sort happened. . . . and if that did happen, then it is up to the individula(s) to tell the proper authorities when they are especially if the ask.
My impression of Fr. Symeon is that he is a very pious and idealistic man, one who still has his head wrapped in the clouds of the Holy Mountain. In my several encounters with him I found Fr. to be a very friendly and social individual who really enjoys the company of other people. He is a man who always remembers names, and is quick with a greeting, a smile, and a slap on the back. Fr. is a relatively young man for a hieromonk, and has been in a monastic environment for quite some time. Although I don’t know anything of the underlying nature of the accusations, I believe that his relative youth and outgoing personality could have combined with his eccentricities and inexperience to rub someone the wrong way. I can easily see this happening. Mrs. Pravoslavnie formed a different opinion of him, in that she thought him somewhat aloof as if he didn’t want to deal with women. In any case we are being told there has already been an investigation that did not turn up any evidence. Neither have we heard of any civil investigation. Without an injured party or witnesses we are only reading third hand recycled gossip from a case that long ago ceased to be a case. I think that refocusing on the Holy Week ahead is a good idea.
The irony is, before coming to this forum, I was not even aware of the controversies around the formation of this monastary. Despite what you may think, I am not OCA or ROCOR nor do I have any issues with either group–in fact, I dont know much about either so how can I form any opinions about them? I did not even know what ROCOR stood for until I did a google search to figure out what it meant. Most of the information on this site is new news to me LOL. I dont expect you to believe me but it is the truth.
I suggest you re-read my posts. My only concerns are regarding Fr. Symeon’s behaviors and the head nun’s covering this up and for public safety; I spoke openly about my disappointment in the situation. Everything I have stated is true, Fr. Symeon knows it and if Fr. Symeon wants to call us, he can (he has a cell phone) as he knows who we are and what we know (although there are many people that are concerned and that know what is going on, I am pretty sure he would be able to figure it out) and he knows the priest to call that can facilitate contact with us (this priest is also in the know). And we can arrange for yet another meeting with him to discuss his behaviors, although at this point we are not sure there is any point to this as it has not worked in the past. “Nothing changes if nothing changes” and this is especially true if a person is help rejecting. So, you can believe whatever you want. And now that I have been made aware that the head nun is covering for him, I am less inclined to meet with him without an explanation from her….maybe I have no right to desire this but it is how I feel in my heart. And because all of this regarding the behaviors and coverups has disappointed and angered people who are in the know–that is why I want an explanation from her. Again, I dont expect to ever get it but I can express my feelings and wishes and hope for the best!
I think what is making everybody so reactive to what I am writing is that there has been a lot of controversy and backstory regarding the monastary….and again, frankly, I could care less about that as I see that as a separate issue to what I am concerned about. Maybe they are not separate but to me they are. I am not anti-monastary nor do I know anything about OCA, ROCOR or most of what has been discussed on this site. And frankly, I do “get” your reactions as I had very similar angst in my disappointment and letdown regarding what is going on at the monastary.
Anyway, I hope everybody has a good holy week. Lord help us all and keep us safe, including the vulnerable pilgrams.
“I am not OCA or ROCOR nor do I have any issues with either group–in fact, I dont know much about either so how can I form any opinions about them? I did not even know what ROCOR stood for until I did a google search to figure out what it meant.”
You know practically nothing about either Church but you claim to know a lot of inside information about a scandal that affects both. How believable is that?
Good catch.
Granted that it would be unlikely, it is not impossible. For example, the cross-jurisdictional group that was raising funds for the Monastery included AOCA and GOA members.
So Gigi, after following your link above, it appears that Pokrov’s sole source for its minimal information (a whooping half-sentence) on this priest is Mark Stokoe. Big deal. Do you actually have anything substantive to relate or is this simply more smoke-and-mirrors from the OCA Lavender Mafia?
I checked out both Pokrov.org and BrendanVoyager blog.
No substance at all at either of those two places for Gigi2 White and Carl K. to “build a case” on.
The facts are ample and very disturbing….but what is even more disturbing is the fact that the bishop investigators decided to cover it up and protect Fr. Symeon. And of all places to hide him, in a monastary where vulnerable pilgrims will be going for guidance and vulnerable nuns live. I am very upset by all of this and very disappointed lest anybody here think I am wishing the monastary to fail. Nothing could be further from that BUT if they continue to hide this predator, bad things will happen. Past behavior is predictive of future behavior, again proven over and over again in the Catholic church and Penn state. And yes, I chose my wording carefully, to accurately describe what we are dealing with. A predator.
I am not alone in my upset; there are many priests who testified against him that are livid. Not all priests are bad but bad priests should not be protected. My goal is to have him removed from the monastary, to have the monastary be required to list on their website what priests are up there doing the various services and when, and to have the head nun apologize for aligning and protecting him and to have her get guidance for her conduct as she is possibly under the influence of fallen angels.
I have a plan to address this; I have the information that can be confirmed and I have contacts. More will be revealed……
Nothing but innuendos so far.
Name the priests who were interviewed. Interviewed by whom? When? Where? Either put up or shut up Gigi2White. And, by the way, since you are so much “in the know” please share with us the person who first spread these rumors about the priest in question and who picked up the rumor and spread it to Stokoe. You must know since you know so much. Why not just spill the beans, that is, of course if you have the beans.
These are serious and strong allegations. Why post this info here? If you have a plan, why reveal that on the internet? This kind of of gossip hurts so many. If you have facts and you have not properly reported them appropriately – you are guilty and involved. Pseudo or no pseudo. I personally don’t want to see anymore of these “beans” as this is meant to create hate.
Gigi, where did you get this supposed information on Fr Symeon? I have met him and found him to be a good man. As far as saying “numerous priests from St Nicholas…provided ample evidence,” would this include Fr Denis Bradley?
St. Nick had only so many serving priests at that time, with far fewer now. Would “numerous priests from St. Nicholas” include Fr. Vladimir Danyelevich? He was released from St. Nick with the nuns, and appointed monastery chaplain by Met. Hilarion. Fr. Vladimir serves in the monastery every weekend assisted by Fr. Symeon.
“Numerous priests from St. Nicholas cathedral in Wash. DC were questioned and provided ample evidence, which was squashed by the higher authorities. Despite ample evidence that would have led to him being sanctioned”
What exactly did they testify about? What are the facts? Who are the higher authorities? You throw this out there now back it up…
And . . . what about ROCOR hierarchy? Last I understood, the monastery is now under ROCOR.
Cui bono? Given the nun’s experience while in the OCA, this smells like an attempted character assassination of the hieromonk in question in order to discredit the monastics and their friend, former benefactor, and protector Metropolitan Jonah. If there is ample evidence however, it should be laid on the table and judged fairly. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. So far there is only a half sentence snipe from Mark Stokoe that is regurgitated on Pokrov.org. I also find it hard to believe that nothing was done about a predator priest when both the Metropolitan and the monastery were in very weak positions, and under attack by members of the OCA Holy Synod and the MC. I can’t think of a single bishop or MC member who came out in support of the Metropolitan or the nuns during the “coup” attempt last year, and a misconduct coverup would have played right into their hands. I also don’t think any of the nuns is so blinkered or naive as to put themselves and others in danger. Something stinks here, but I’m not so sure it’s the priest in question.
Stephen’s right. All that’s being peddled here is guilt by whispering campaign. We need something more concrete than this.
Thats true…they were transferred to ROCOR or ROCOR rescued them after the flap at St.Nicholas which I will never understand why a group of nuns were so frightening….having said that….was the priest transferred to ROCOR too ? If he is sexually compromised was ROCOR informed?
As far as things stand now, it seems to me that Gigi2s’ and Carl’s assertions are pure innuendo based only on gossip and hearsay. And I’m wondering why Gigi2 chose to post her(?) “concerns” here rather than on Pokrov and if someone directed her(?) to do so. I’m also wondering why Gigi2 thinks that Fr. Symeon owes her a personal call to “clear things up” for her.
I’m wondering that, too. Never mind, we’ve got more important things to do – get through next week.
Lola is right. We should focus on the upcoming week. A good time for reflection and healing.
“Having completed the forty days that bring profit to our soul,
we beseech Thee in Thy love for man:
Grant us also to behold the Holy Week of Thy Passion,
that in it we may glorify Thy mighty acts
and Thine ineffable dispensation for our sakes,
singing with one mind:
O Lord, glory to Thee!”
(Vespers stichera for Lazarus Saturday.)
The only thing any of us are “owed” are for our priests to adhere to the ethical standards of conduct. No matter where the priest is located.
PdnNJ, please read the black print and not just the white print. I have no interest in talking to Symeon nor did I state that I expected him to call. There is no need for anything to be cleared up as things are clear and as I have stated; and I am not sure how it can be gossip or innuendo when he participated in meetings about his behavior–but whatever LOL. If he is somehow struck with amnesia and has no inkling about his problematic behaviors, there are many who can remind him and we are just a phone call away.
Denial, not just a river……
As I said before, Gigi, what you assert so far, I believe, is nothing more than innuendo based on gossip and hearsay. You should take your “case” to Pokrov where it belongs and get much greater attention and support (that is, if you really do have a “case”).
PdNJ, I for one am glad that Gigi chose my site to post her concerns. If there is merit to them, then so be it. If on the other hand it’s just the last-gasp of Stokovism, so be it as well.
In the meantime, Lola is right, let us concentrate on the final week and our Lord’s passion.
Geo Michalopulos says:
April 7, 2012 at 11:57 am
“In the meantime, Lola is right, let us concentrate on the final week and our Lord’s passion.”
To repeat what I posted above in reply to Lola (just in case you missed it):
“Having completed the forty days that bring profit to our soul,
we beseech Thee in Thy love for man:
Grant us also to behold the Holy Week of Thy Passion,
that in it we may glorify Thy mighty acts
and Thine ineffable dispensation for our sakes,
singing with one mind:
O Lord, glory to Thee!”
(Vespers stichera for Lazarus Saturday.)
One of the most egregious things about this is that this is yet again another example of journalistic malfeasance by OCANews as well as pastoral malpractice by the previous Metropolitan Council.
What do I mean by this? I’ll tell you: did any note that these allegations came from the supposedly SMPAC report? In other words, a man who may very well be innocent has now had his name dragged through the mud.
This is egregious. It is also par for the course unfortunately. I suppose the only silver lining is that such buffooneries will derail the proposal to have a highly-paid Sex Czar shuffling paper in Syosset. If the previouis goons on the SMPAC can’t be trusted to keep matters confidential, then what makes us think that it’ll be any different with yet another bureaucrat?