Part 3 in the ongoing saga that is the 16th All-American Council.
It’s fairly clear by now that the bad faith of certain elites (of which more below) is still evident. Fr John Jillions, the new Chancellor spoke in the graceless fashion about His Beatitude that we’ve now come to expect from the Old Guard. He’ll undoubtedly fit right into the Cesspool of Syosset. Fr Ted Bobosh, the spiritual father of Mark Stokoe, resorted to Scripture (specifically the Gospel of Judas) in which he opined that it was entirely appropriate to kick a man when he’s down. And of course, Mark Stokoe — the former Golden Boy of Syosset– decided to use his previous sources on the Synod (most probably Bp Mark Maymon, his previous accomplice on this Synod as well as the Antiochian) to give the name of the facility that His Beatitude has selflessly condescended to check himself into. Bp Benjamin Peterson showed desperation and paranoia in his opening remarks about “buttons” and “agendas.” When asked about leaks, he responded in Nixonian fashion as to whether the Holy Synod should “frisk” each other. (Stokoe was unavailable for comment.)
Not all was cowardice and calumny however. Maureen Jury, a delegate from Dallas, asked the other bishops if they would likewise take credit for the mistakes of the past since they are also heads of the Church. While some of the others looked down at their shoes, Peterson answered in an angrily condescending fashion to a lady in a manner unbefitting a Christian gentleman. This episcopal intimidation did not work however; Fr Chad Hatfield, Dean of St Vladimir’s Seminary, seconded Mrs Jury’s question and didn’t take no for an answer. In another venue Fr John Parker of South Carolina likewise took Jillions to task for his membership in a homosexual activist group which believes the arrant nonsense that homosexual couplings should be sanctioned by the Bride of Christ. As can be expected, these people were from the South and rose to the occasion. There must be something in the water down there.
Special recognition must go to Fr Alexander Webster, who challenged the Metropolitan Council for the past injustices they visited upon Fr Gregory Jensen. They of course were unable to appreciate the gravity of their villainy. He also questioned Melanie Ringa who presented the Treasurer’s Report. Ms Ringa failed to mention that the former Chancellor (Fr Alexander Garklavs, who was fired in February of this year) would continue to draw his $135,000 compensation package for an indefinite period “perhaps for four months.” There was no line-item on the Budget for this slush-fund. Webster pointed out that under these circumstances, the Budget was at best “incomplete.” (Others would not be so charitable and say it was more along the lines of “dishonest.”) In both instances, Webster exposed the intellectual bankruptcy of the Regime. He was answered by either hemming and hawing or deafening silence depending on the mental acuity of his interlocutors. Somewhere crickets were chirping.
Fr. John Reeves beclowned himself when he made an impassioned plea to preserve the $105 assessment. His analogy was so strained that it was met with nervous silence. Nobody was fooled, even those who have fooled themselves into believing all the Happy Talk coming out of Syosset. (He made no mention of his conspiratorial pact with Stokoe either.) The nervousness of the Regime is apparant even as your humble scribe writes these words. (Personally, I feel that if it were up to a secret ballot the New York Plan would pass overwhelmingly.) Nevertheless, the Regime will pull out all the stops to preserve the status quo. They may even direct their handmaidens on the present Synod to vote against it should it become necessary.
Stokovism is alive and well. Perhaps its progenitor expects to ride back into Syosset on his white steed to take up his rightful place (side-saddle of course). The question however is which Stokovite will be the last one to turn the lights out in Syosset?
When did Bishop Maymon get pulled back into this? The first anyone seemed to hear of the St. Lukes was when Amos posted it here right? Stokoe didn’t post anything about it until the day after. Sorry if its been covered in the comments there are just too many to keep up 100%.
You have outdone yourself in emulating Stokoe’ turgid prose. FYI, his recent postings have a model of factual reporting, which once you admired.
Mark Stokoe just reported that the New York plan passed. The question is if Syosset and the bishops will somehow overrule the reported 269-173 (!) majority. I can’t imagine what kind of people would dare do such…never mind…strike that. Syosset has been exposed in front of all, and it has no credibility left.
Look here:
http://rebeccaam.livejournal.com/
From her blogging it sounds like they actually are keeping the $105 for the next year and then “reduce at discretion of MC.”
The $50 proposal that we had seen and discussed was not allowed to make it onto the floor. Long story short: it seems as if the Statute was turned an its head to look as though the AAC works for the MC rather than the other way around. We’ll know more when the dust settles.
Team Due Process just took a sucker punch to the gut!
As a side note, it seems that “Team Due Process” T-shirts just aren’t selling well among teenage girls. Is Due Process not as sexy as Edward and Jacob?
And I thought Stokoe had led me to a gold-mine by bringing in Twilight references.
I think Due Process is WAY sexier than Edward or Jacob.
That’s not what I got from Rebecca’s blogging at “http://rebeccaam.livejournal.com/”. It seems that there is a move toward tithing/proportional giving, that many of the folks who backed the reduction spoke of it in terms of a triggering event rather than killing CCA or forcing the move the DC, and therefore, the original proposal was amended to allow a transition to proportional giving…I really like Bishop Michael’s statement as paraphrased by Rebecca: “thing that disturbs me that we’re sliding down to 22,000 and I don’t believe it – it’s what we’re reporting because people are choosing not to pay the head tax. Embarrassing to go to EA with 11 other bishops representing 22,000 people – it’s not honest, and it’s not transparent. Understand that it’s precarious now, but we’ve got to change this because it’s a failing system. If we don’t do this, then what? And if not now, then when? System came from my people (Carpatho-Russians) founded on union model of dues. Not biblical. Needs to change.” I love this bishop!
.
It would be like the government of Greece determining the population by the number of tax-payers.
22,000 is that segment of the OCA that pays its taxes.
We may be relying on too few indicators of Church size and health. It may be that we should consider a suite of indicators, such as the following at the parish level:
Membership indicators: number of souls, families, members, members who tithe, children, seniors, other demographics
Average attendance indicators: Mid-week services, Sunday services (Saturday Vespers, Hours and Divine Liturgy), Feast days, Great Feasts
Outreach indicators: Number of inquirers, catechumens, marriages, adult baptisms/chrismations, child baptisms, attendance at outreach festivals, donations to local, regional, national and international charitable causes
Structural indicators: Number and type of regularly held services, number of readers, number of altar servers, number and type of clergy (down to sub-deacon level)priest turnover, whether there is a book store, choir that serves at all services, etc..
The AAC works works for the MC? Thats like saying the voters work for congress!!!!! Who are the the folks who supported this twisted reasoning on the floor?
Oh, sheesh.
Easy now. The only thing that happened is that the majority of the delegates like and respect the MC, unlike some folks here. Live with it.
LMHO
Carl you should be working on Madison ave. How you came up with that conclusion about the Mc is a real stretch. The compromise passed because the pro $50 forces knew that the Synod would veto the $50 if it passed. It is obvious you have never been at an AAC.
I can’t wait to see how the MC gets right to work on years two and three. I am so glad that Momomahkos is here to keep them from wheasling out of goIng to proportional giving reflective of a $50 amount.
You do your spin, I do mine: I do not mean anything but differing interpretations, certainly not lying on either part. I have never been to an AAC, but I recall critiquing the Statute years ago for not being internally consistent. For example, it cannot logically say that the AAC is the highest legislative and administrative authority within the Church if the Holy Synod has the veto power over every resolution. Anyway, I do understand realpolitik and one would be correct to presume that the bishops have the most power and influence than any other participants. And, this is as it should be; sobornost does not mean democracy.
Agreed.
Carl Kraeff says:
November 3, 2011 at 5:00 pm
Some might take it that the only thing that happened is that majority of the delegates abandoned their bothers and sisters in the parishes and administration of the Diocese of NY/NJ to their present financial difficulties for the next three years and possibly(probably?) longer, in favor of retaining the higher standard of living for the Syosset employees in the meantime.
Can you live with that?
PdnNJ (who?) has it just right when he writes:
‘Some might take it that the only thing that happened is that majority of the delegates abandoned their bothers and sisters in the parishes and administration of the Diocese of NY/NJ to their present financial difficulties for the next three years and possibly(probably?) longer, in favor of retaining the higher standard of living for the Syosset employees in the meantime.’
It really IS expensive to live on Long Island now, but not as expensive as the exorbitant salaries + benefits we’re paying the officers of the OCA.
Our OCA officers who MUST (IF they must) live in the vicinity of Syosset must be paid in parity with officers of other not-for-profit organizations who live and work in the area, not comparably to officers of for-profit corporations who merely live in the area and commute to Manhattan for work.
How much do we pay our priests serving parishes on Long Island? I can almost guarantee that they don’t get $100k + $45k in benefits. Why, then, should the current officers of the OCA, the chancellor and the secretary and the treasurer be so richly compensated? Especially since they do next to nothing!?
Just five years ago, Fr Robert Kondratick was being paid about $60k as chancellor, and that’s about average for his level of responsibility. I don’t know the value of his benefits above that, but I can say for a fact that FrRK worked a whole lot harder than his successors at Central and accomplished a great deal more while earning a great deal less. And — just for a certain few of our correspondents — NO — FrRK didn’t steal any money from the OCA.
As I recall, Met. Jonah was also originally given a $100k plus benefits package. When it became clear that we couldn’t long sustain this level of compensation for him and for the officers of the OCA, he VOLUNTARILY took a 50% paycut. Maybe he was hoping that the officers would follow his good example, but they didn’t. They still collect their exorbitant salaries and produce NOTHING useful. Nada! Zero! Zilch!
Our people are good and generous, but but they’re not stupid. They will certainly not continue to fund an organization which takes the hard-earned nickels and dimes of pensioners and widowed babas and other poor people and uses that really sacrificial contribution to keep just a few people in luxury while the rest of us just scrape by.
Since the officers of our OCA are about to have their compensation packages cut in half, I’d like to think that their devotion to The Church won’t cause them to leave us and seek employment elsewhere. We’ll see.
May the Lord be merciful to us all.
Yes but Mr.Robert Kondratick had access to the company credit cards for his Brooks Bro. suits ,tanning parlors and other stores. Read the Sic report
Stephen
StephenD writes: ‘Yes but Mr.Robert Kondratick had access to the company credit cards for his Brooks Bro. suits ,tanning parlors and other stores. Read the Sic report’
That’s merely an aspect of The Big Lie. Were Fr Robert Kondratick guilty of half the things contained in that fantasy report frankensteined together by the SIC, he’d be in prison now.
But when the DA and the judge examined the background of all those charges, they determined that they were without merit and so directed an omnibus settlement, to which the OCA’s attorneys and FrRK’s attorney agreed. The OCA then paid FrRK $250k — not the other way around.
STOP BELIEVING THE BIG LIE!
“But when the DA and the judge examined the background of all those charges, they determined that they were without merit”
I think this bears repeating.
It does not bear repeating. Robert Kondratick settled this case for $250,000, knowingly giving up his right to appeal, reinvestigation, admission of new “evidence”, reassertion, reconsideration, “testimony before the highest authority of the OCA, the Synod of Bishops,” everything! He accepted $250,000 worth of justice. This will never, ever be an issue for the Synod of Bishops again. Never.
The in-the-world-but-not-of-the-world Monk James argues & re-presents “facts,” “details,” and proofs of injustice – “THE BIG LIE!” – ad nauseium, but the BIG LIE is to suggest that anything he has to say is other than moot. Indicating that this was an omnibus settlement is saying nothing more than it concluded all issues between all parties, further emphasizing that it is over. Whatever issues of conflict existed between these parties have now been settled for $250,000.
And why do you not hear from Robert Kondratick , “victim,” himself? While it is suggested that “integrity and innocence” prevent him from lashing out against his “Inquisitors – I have no way of knowing – as Mr. Papoutsis has noted elsewhere, settlements universally include “non-disclosure,” and to join the chorus of injustice would cost him exactly… $250.000. Thus, we clonclude with the “traitors” of Verdi’s Un Ballo in Maschera: Ha, ha! The tragedy is revealed as farce!”
If this portends a “grassroots” effort to rehabilitate Robert Kondratick as “tanned, fit, and ready for service,” I would suggest that he kick it off by mailing every “dues payin'” member of the OCA $1.00 as symbolic evidence of his omnibus transfiguration; this would sill leave him with $50,000 in the bank, which is, give or take, $45,000 more than in mine.
Mr. Stankovich, I can’t answer your comments with tape over my mouth. Good way to silence the one who says to everyone else but you, “THEY LIED.”
Jane Rachel,
If you are referring to my statement, “Shut up,” it was a “jab” at one of your previous posts – above, below, who knows – “If you tell me… Shut up.” It was intended as a joke, not as an insult or an attempt at censorship. I apologize if I gave that impression.
Oops. “He settled” is not important. What is important is: “HE WAS CLEARED.”
Stanky,
Do us a favor. Keep you opinions about RSK to yourself. The civil suit settlement has nothing to do with the church court. The Synod can take up the case anytime it wants to. Your ignorance of that fact makes the rest of your blathering akin to you farting in the wind.
You are out of your league on this topic. Stick to rehabilitating those who have to listen to you because they have no choice.
Cool.
Christ is risen! Truly risen!
Dear Friends —
M.Stankovich is being aggressively ignorant here. The truth is out there for him and everyone else, but ‘There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see.’
So, here’s a brief series of responses to his latest expressions of confusion.
First, we must acknowledge that the omnibus settlement was agreed to by BOTH the OCA and Fr Robert Kondratick. MS consistently writes as if FrRK was somehow compromised by the settlement, which was mutual, and had no more or less effect on him than on the OCA.
Second, the while the omnibus settlement does indeed (as is the customary requirement in law) estop both parties from further litigating any and all matters active at the time of the settlement, it prevents neither party from ameliorating their relationship apart from civil law. It’s just that they can’t go to court again about matters already resolved in law.
Third, this means that the OCA (as it should) is perfectly free to admit its mistake (made by Met. Herman) to go to law against FrRK, who then had no option but to get his own attorneys to oppose the OCA’s moves against him. This is sad and unchristian, but that’s the lamentable truth about why FrRK had to lawyer up. Any and all movements on the part of the OCA to restore FrRK to the priesthood are not prohibited under the terms of the omnibus settlement. Such movements should be encouraged and applauded.
Fourth, the cash amount of the settlement in no way represents anything like ‘justice’ for FrRK and his family, who’ve been mistreated and held up for public scorn by people he loved and trusted as he sought to protect the OCA from scandal. Obviously, that didn’t work. But that money was a way for civil law to acknowledge that FrRK had been so betrayed and mistreated by the very people whose reputations he sought to protect in order to protect the good name of the OCA. Knowing what he does now, he wouldn’t have done that then. But that’s water over the dam.
Fifth, almost all of the settlement money was used by FrRK to pay his attorneys. MS’s insinuations about FrRK’s use of that money are specious, malicious, unfounded and cruel. While he’s probably not as smart as he thinks he is, perhaps he can understand that he owes FrRK and all of us an apology.
The laity and clergy who did all the injustices against FrRK, and the laity and clergy who continue to think that he deserved those injustices, must all repent their false judgements and confess their sins.
I’ll tell you something which bears repeating: Unless and until Fr Robert Kondratick is reinstated as a priest of the OCA, our church cannot even imagine being healed.
That’s how deep the corruption runs, and that’s how deep we must go for our redemption.
Lord, have mercy on us, for we are weak.
Peace and blessings to all.
Monk James
“Fr. Robert Kondratick”? Last time I checked, by order of the Holy Synod of the OCA it’s Robert Kondratick. But, hey, what else can we expect from a “Monk” who’s not really a monk; unless there’s some Canon I’m not aware of that allows a man to be a monk without a bishop or a monastery.
Chris, why are you so angry?
Let me see if I grasp the logic here:
The monk, who is not a lawyer but plays one in the OCA, agrees with me that Robert Kondratick entered into an omnibus settlement with the OCA that, equally, ends any further causes of action between himself and the OCA.. Here the monk (e)stops, but I expanded that this also means he terminated any right to further appeal, “re-opening,” request for reconsideration “on merit” (e.g. the monk’s vacuous – look it up, Nikos, it’s a reference to “gas” – claim that every witness, to a person, LIED), or any other stretch-of-the-imagination claim he should have put forward at his trial. Further, the monk identifies Robert Kodratick’s (real) legal counsel by name, and now suggests that he was a particularly expensive lawyer, but makes no suggestion that the (real) lawyer was unqualified or incompetent. The monk likewise makes noe to assertion that Robert Kondratick was impaied or could not contribute to his own defense. suggests no conclusion to reach other than Robert Kondratick freely and consciously entered into a settlement with the OCA and this matter is concluded. Any word proceeding are, in fact moot:
Of a case, issue, etc.: not (or no longer) having practical significance or relevance; abstract, academic.
My point has absolutely nothing to do with guilt or innocence. Robert Kondratick, by freely & consciously entering into a cash settlement, gave up his right to further argue his guilt or innocence. He was given the opportunity to demonstrate his innocence at trial – facing his accusers and challenging the merits of the evidence – and he freely, consciously, and with the advice of paid (real) counsel, chose not to avail himself, for whatever his reason. It is moot.
So, at what point should I begin my apology and repentance? As near as I can tell, the monk has affirmed every point I make in his points 1-3. And there my argument concludes.
Chris Banescu writes:
‘November 5, 2011 at 9:13 pm
“Fr. Robert Kondratick”? Last time I checked, by order of the Holy Synod of the OCA it’s Robert Kondratick. But, hey, what else can we expect from a “Monk” who’s not really a monk; unless there’s some Canon I’m not aware of that allows a man to be a monk without a bishop or a monastery.’
Since the Holy Synod’s putative ‘deposition’ of Fr Robert Kondratick from the priesthood was predicated on layers upon layers of lies and false assumptions, that deposition is null and void and of no effect. That particular injustice is in need of redressing so seriously that — I put it to you once again — our OCA will not even begin to be healed unless and until FrRK is reinstated as a priest of the OCA.
Each and all who condemned him based on The Big Lie need to withdraw that condemnation and admit that they were deceived and mistaken, and welcome FrRK back with all the kindness they can muster, since — all through this painful period — he condemned none of them.
Because he is a christian gentleman, FrRK has accepted this humiliating punishment with good grace, and has never served as a priest since his putative ‘deposition’.
But whence come CB’s several ad hominems against me, personally?
All this does is show him up for the pointless debater he is. He cannot successfully counter the argument, so he attacks the arguer.
In this particular case, he fails to acknowledge that all of us owe allegiance to the sacred authority of our bishops. Otherwise, we’d be outside The Church. I am not now, nor have I ever been without a bishop in the OCA — Met. Herman’s inability to understand or properly interpret and apply the canons notwithstanding.
CB also belies his complete misunderstanding of monastic practice here. There are several forms of monastic life, and cenobitic (koinobiotikos ‘life in common’) is only one of them.
I started out in a community of monks, but it seems that this wasn’t God’s will for me these last thirty years or so, but it might be again. Oddly, I stayed in place while all the other members of the community went elsewhere for reasons having nothing to do with me, with the possible exception of the hegoumen. I wouldn’t be surprised if CB has something snide to say about that, too.
People should write about what they know, or ask respectful questions about things they don’t know. They should not display their ignorance so aggressively that they thereby undermine their own credibility and reputations.
Monk James–Procedural issues may determine the outcome of a case just as readily as the merits of the evidence. To say that the charges had no merit is vastly different than to say that a case is not prosecutable. You do need to back up your claims with evidence; please cite for us the prosecutor or the judge saying that the charges had no merit. Thanks, Carl
Such citations are unavailable and unnecessary, anyway.
While there were procedural and statutory issues complicating and invalidating the ‘spiritual court’ which immorally and illegally convicted Fr Robert Kondratick on trumped-up charges, there were no such procedural issues or other complications at work in the D&D and pretrial depositions in civil law.
During that process, it became clear that the SIC’s absurdities were not crimes committed by FrRK or anyone else, for that matter. Has no one noticed that no indictments emerged from the testimony offered to the State of New York? Bad accounting and worse interpersonal behavior, but no crimes.
Obviously, then, and ipso facto, the DA and the judge decided to recommend the omnibus settlement because the OCA’s charges were without merit in law.
This is not a difficult exercise in elementary deductive reasoning. I trust that it’s clear enough for everyone to understand.
Carl, if your reasoning is sound that Fr.RSK is guilty, then why is it true that no indictments emerged from the testimony offered to the State of New York?
Dear Friends — Please forgive me for quoting M. Stankovich in full here. There’s not a ‘reply’ button under his post, so I’m not sure where this note will appear. I just wanted to keep the conversation easier to follow, and I hope this works for you. I’ll try to interpolate my responses to MS within his message, identifying them by bold print. Monk James
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
M. Stankovich says:
November 6, 2011 at 1:16 am
Let me see if I grasp the logic here:
The monk, who is not a lawyer but plays one in the OCA,
M. Stankovich knows nothing of my education, training, and experience. This is a base ad hominem and ought to be disregarded.
agrees with me that Robert Kondratick entered into an omnibus settlement with the OCA that, equally, ends any further causes of action between himself and the OCA..
This is true only in civil law. It’s entirely possible for the OCA and for Fr Robert Kondratick to renegotiate their ecclesial relationship.
Here the monk (e)stops,
Were there footnotes? My copy of this post seems not to include them. Hmmmm…
but I expanded that this also means he terminated any right to further appeal, “re-opening,” request for reconsideration “on merit” (e.g. the monk’s vacuous – look it up, Nikos, it’s a reference to “gas” – claim that every witness, to a person, LIED), or any other stretch-of-the-imagination claim he should have put forward at his trial.
I’d be very surprised if M. Stankovich could adduce any statement on my part asserting that EVERY witness lied. Several of them did, in fact, lie, including at least one priest and bishop — but that’s far from ALL the witnesses. Maybe MS could correct himself and repent and apologize for his excessive rhetoric here?
Further, the monk identifies Robert Kodratick’s (real) legal counsel by name,
I did? I don’t think so. Maybe M. Stankovich could correct himself and repent and apologize for his excessive rhetoric here?
and now suggests that he was a particularly expensive lawyer, but makes no suggestion that the (real) lawyer was unqualified or incompetent.
Are there unreal lawyers? Anyway, why would I do that?!
The monk likewise makes noe to assertion that Robert Kondratick was impaied or could not contribute to his own defense.
Not sure I understand this gibberish, but why (if I do understand it) would I do that, either?!
suggests no conclusion to reach other than Robert Kondratick freely and consciously entered into a settlement with the OCA and this matter is concluded.
Yes. Both the OCA and Fr Robert Kondratick agreed to an omnibus settlement which means that neither FrRK nor the OCA may return to civil law with issues resolved under the terms of the settlement UNLESS one or the other party to the settlement breaches its terms. The OCA came very close to breach and might actually have violated the terms of the settlement, but FrRK is not inclined to pursue this in law. The fact remains that the OCA paid $250k to FrRK — not the other way around. This is not an insignificant fact, even though neither side admitted fault.
Any word proceeding are, in fact moot:
Of a case, issue, etc.: not (or no longer) having practical significance or relevance; abstract, academic.
My point has absolutely nothing to do with guilt or innocence. Robert Kondratick, by freely & consciously entering into a cash settlement, gave up his right to further argue his guilt or innocence. He was given the opportunity to demonstrate his innocence at trial – facing his accusers and challenging the merits of the evidence – and he freely, consciously, and with the advice of paid (real) counsel, chose not to avail himself, for whatever his reason. It is moot.
So, at what point should I begin my apology and repentance?
Well, it might be good of M. Stankovich to admit that he hasn’t understood any of the facts presented, and go on from there.
As near as I can tell, the monk has affirmed every point I make in his points 1-3.
I did no such thing. M. Stankovich seems immune to any understanding of the facts of this case, and prefers to go on and on with his own distorted version of reality.
And there my argument concludes.
I suppose we should be grateful for that. Myself, though, I was hoping that my continuing to present the facts ad nauseam (as M. Stankovich misspellingly complained elsewhere) might have caused him to be SO nauseated that he’d vomit forth the last of his bile and start feeling better. A good retch often precedes a restoration to good health. And maybe he has finished puking. ‘Hope springs eternal.’ I wish MS a swift and full recovery and a return to good health of body, soul, and spirit.
Stephen, During the first official visit of Patriarch Alexi II, Protopresbyter Rodion S. Kondratick obtained the use of Rupert Murdoch’s jet. He also had access to discretionary funds donated by other rich instances. Members of the Patriarch’s entourage who were hierarchs of high rank, body guards, Protodeacons, kellejniks, you name it, were given something like the hospitable treatment visitors from the American Church had received on many occasions. Perhaps a bodyguard DID go home to, oh, Kolomensk with a Brooks Brothers suit. Perhaps it was easier to use the company credit card and reimburse the company through a check to the comptroller, Fr. Strikis. These are all “perhaps’s” . I’m just demonstrating ONE of several plausible scenarios where a company credit card used by Protopresbyter R.S Kondratick was used to purchase items for guests of the OCA. Did anybody go to the Brooks Brothers outlet and ask if they have Protopresbyter R.S. Kondratick’s measurements available? Did the tanning salon remember a Protodeacon coming in for a tan? Probably not. All we KNOW, Stephen, is what the SIC members under Bishop Benjamin’s direction, most of them from his diocese, surmised, based on the assumption that Protopresbyter R.S. Kondratick bought everything for himself, in an amazingly unsophisticated, gross, unclever spree with no regard for the paper trail.
Yeah, sure. That’s the Father Bob everybody knows, right? Had to be dumber than the S.I.C. members, right? Yeah, sure.
Give us a break.
So what you are saying is the representative of a large American agricultural firm, wishing to curry favor in Russia, handed the OCA a wad of cash. The cash was to pay for the “expenses” (which might have included suits, jewelry, entertainment, salons and other various charges) for the Russian delegation. These charges were incurred on the AMEX card of an OCA representative, and thus reimbursed through the Central Administration!
While it would appear the OCA representative was living high on the hog, in fact he was responsible for entertaining the Russian Delegation with the money from large American agricultural firm.
That’s what I was thinking. Not only now, but for almost six years. It was the first thing that came to mind, and the most obvious. If it’s true, let it be made known. It’s time for the hoodwinked priests to admit they were wrong, talk to their parish members, and start to turn things around. It is not over until the fat lady sings. YES. IT MATTERS.
RE Jillions… membership in a homosexual activist group
What is the name of the group?
“We are Legacy” – google it; there’s a blog.
Thanks.
I’ve googled it, and there’s nothing. Care to offer more specific information?
I am sorry but I cannot find it. Would you please provide a link? Thanks, Carl
http://www.wearetheirlegacy.com
That is correct. Sorry for leaving out one word. I didn’t stay around long enough once I’d taken a look at that site and so didn’t remember what the name of the group was.
FYI: That ‘Good Samaritan’ image–no, it most certainly is not an icon–is pretty gay.
Sure is. Creepy.
Father John Jillions is not a member of a homosexual activist group as far as I know. A photograph of Fr. Jillions’ brother-in-law, Protodeacon Eric Wheeler, is on the wearetheirlegacy.com web site. Father Jillions says some interesting things on his web site, but I can’t find the link right now.
Someone might also like to ask Fr John Jillions about his views on abortion.
You know… if everyone in the OCA was gathered into one place they could fit in Boulder, CO. In 2009, Forbes Magazine voted Bolder #1 among “America’s Top 25 Towns To Live Well.” I wonder what the town council meetings would be like?
At this point, the OCA is smaller than some universities.
Helga comments: “At this point, the OCA is smaller than some universities.”
A priest of Bishop Melchisedek’s diocese told me, this week, that his diocese is smaller than certain parishes in the Antiochian Archdiocese.
Fr.
I am a parishoner in Western PA. There are about 50 parishes and I know that mine has 90 dues paying adults. What are the largest Antiochian parishes and how many adult members do they have? If you don’t mind me asking how large is your parish?
JDWatton observes, “I am a parishoner in Western PA. There are about 50 parishes and I know that mine has 90 dues paying adults.”
If the figures given me by a priest in your diocese are correct, your parish is third largest in the diocese.
Things are not what they were when I belonged to the Diocese of Pittsburgh two decades ago. In those days Vladimir Soroka, Paul Ziadik, and Paul Suda—three memorable names—had hundreds of parishioners in Ambridge, New Kensington, and Allison Park.
What I see in Western Pennsylvania now is terribly sad to me. That’s where our family joined the Church.
Since inquiry was made, however, I will mention that the larger parishes in the Antiochian Archdiocese—and mine is certainly not among them—number their parishioners in four figures.
Indeed, they number their Sunday School kids in the hundreds.
Fr Patrick knows whereof he speaks. I’ve been to two Antiochian parishes near me and they are massive and their attendance on a typical Sunday is easily in the high hundreds.
Having said that, numbers are certainly a barometer of success. I personally don’t think any parish should have more than 300 parishioners (adults and children combined). +Dmitri of blessed memory told us when we started our mission that once we had 100+ adults, we’d need to start thinking about a new mission.
Why do I say 300? Because I think it’s important that everybody knows everybody. Why start a mission at ~125 adults? Because I believe ~24 adults is a critical mass. In a growing faith, creativity is important and must not be stifled.
George, in the biz so to speak, at 125 families a priest can know everyone and spend social time with them. Once above that things start to give. Once a parish reaches 250 families, he’s busy doing weddings, baptisms, hospital visits, and so forth and won’t know everyone in his parish and has little time to spend socially even with people he does know.
This is a rule of thumb in parishes in all denominations, BTW — elementary sociology.
Add in the distance factor, as well. An urban parish is going to have a harder time keeping people connected because a good percentage will likely be residing in suburban locations.
I agree with George and Father Hans on this one. I’d like to point out that in the Orthodox Church as in most Christian faith communities, a charismatic leader as Rector can be the main factor in phenomenal growth, while a, shall we say, anti-charismatic priest as Rector can be the main factor in the disappearance of even old familiar faces. In the old days, when Fr. George Stephanides, Fr. George Massouras, Fr. Nicholas Liberis, Fr. Gabriel Ashie, Fr. George Romney, Fr. Dimitri Gisetti and others were major figures in SoCal clergy circles, I remember how Fr. Gabriel wanted always to cite “the way i do that is” as the reason for the large size and growth of his parish. It’s a common trait of many such charismatic clergy: a strange blindness to the fact that it is not their innovative or terrrically smart strategy that brought all those sheep in, but, first, God, and second, third, fourth and fifth, etc., the popularity of their charismatic persons. Of COURSE other factors affect parish size and growth. Urban blight and flight, immigration, migration, and so on. But I feel that no church convention of parish clergy and elected lay representative is going to come up with some miraculous method of growing, attracting converts and so on which will make a diocese, denomination, or parish grow. ‘”American know-how” doesn’t work in the Body of Christ. Try to imagine St. Basil the Great, St. John of Damascus, St. Mary of Egypt, St.
Seraphim of Sarov, St. John of Kronstadt, St. Herman of Alaska,etc. worrying over “church growth” or “decreasing attendance,” or “lack of something to attract and keep the youth” or calling the youth “the future of the Church” and so on. Never happen. But many of us, converts and those born into Orthodox families wanting to fit in, just can’t let the idea go that all the tried and true methods of the American mainline churches and synagogues aren’t the answer to perceive “problems”. Problems! That’s the word that American Orthodox like to use in place of sins, especially in the Mystery of Penance, when they confess. The whole MC gang for decades has dedicated themselves to “problem-solving”, particularly as that process is followed in business. Just remember that Christ gives the growth
We Do Not. We are stewards of growth that Christ gives us. One last note: every dollar given in alms, as to I.O.C.C., is worth thousands of dollars given to missions, whether external or internal. Bread to the really hungry, that is life and growth of the Church. The Church does not “need”: seminaries, sunday schools, “outreach”, sermon-preaching. It needs to give Itself away constantly. Many well-meaning Orthodox, some of them posting here and on other fora get rather exercised about all the things that Gentiles seek and “go after” someone like Metropolitan Philip Saliba. Is there anyone at all who doubts that charity is not famously the very top priority in his life and work in the Church? He is without doubt the leading Orthodox hierarch of our time in works of charity, in word and deed.
Now, I’m getting tired of myself and of trying to swat at some of the Prince of Lies’ servants buzzing around in the air, some of them even here. The council’s over. God help us and be with all!
Auf Wienerschnitzel!
Your Grace, one of the things that sealed my own entrance into the DOS in the OCA was when John and I (the other co-founder of our mission) witnessed the both of us went to St Seraphim’s together to meet with the Venerable +Dmitri was the length of people lined up for Confession during the Sat Vigil.
Being in the GOA, we didn’t know what to expect. And of course we never saw that. (My first Confession in 20 years was at 35 years old. My extended family thought I was ready to join a cult –but that’s another story.) I’d say that there were about 50-60 people there, lined up about 10 deep. Two priests were hearing confessions so there were two lines and the 3rd priest was saying the Matins.
It was a powerful testament to true Orthodox evangelism.
Fr, I actually meant 125 adults, not necessarily families. I think 125 families (mom, pop, 2 kids) is way too much for one priest to handle. That would mean hearing about 60 confessions per week.
George, yes, but only if they come to Church every Sunday. I don’t know the figures in the AOA or OCA, but in the GOA the rule of thumb is that only about half of the parishioners on the books are in Church on any given Sunday.
George calculates, “I personally don’t think any parish should have more than 300 parishioners (adults and children combined).”
I don’t think I am able to pastor more than 100 parishioners by myself. I have a bit under 200 right now, but I also have another priest and a deacon.
The various comments about “everyone knowing everyone else” are also right on the money, in my opinion.
In the case of our Antiochian congregations in four figures, bear in mind that they already belong to immigrant groups that have their own cohesion. This is one of the reasons these large Antiochian congregations truly “work”—the people really do know one another.
Still, the pastors of these congregations are VERY busy. Men like Fathers George Shalhoub and Nicholas Dahdal crown at least 50 marriages every year and baptize more than 100 new members.
If a priest baptizes 100 new members every year, he will soon have a Sunday School of more than a thousand.
I suspect each of these parish priests—and others like them—spend 100 hours pastoring each week. THAT is a lot of work.
Fr Patrick, you bring up an excellent point. IMHO, Orthodoxy will never be a mature faith in this country unless every parish (and I mean even missions) have a deacon attached to the altar. I’mt hinking of more mature married men known for their piety and obedience would make excellent candidates. As the parishes grow, these men should also be ordained as assistant (and unsalaried) priests.
The education requirements are the problem. Having a Masters degree to be a deacon is ridiculous. Yeah, I know, late vocations, but that is very difficult too.
jacksson
I am in the New Kensington parish. I have no reason to doubt the information you recieved on the Pittsburgh diocese.
Patrick Henry Reardon says:
November 3, 2011 at 9:20 pm
Can the larger size of the Antiochian parishes be attributed to recent immigration from the middle east?
If the OCA gathered in the recent immagration from Russia and eastern europe, would the gap in size close up?
PdnNJ inquires, “Can the larger size of the Antiochian parishes be attributed to recent immigration from the middle east?”
Most certainly.
“If the OCA gathered in the recent immagration from Russia and eastern europe, would the gap in size close up?”
Honestly, I don’t know.
In the case of our own congregation in Chicago, we have benefited considerably from immigration from Romania. These devout Romanians (as well as some Serbs and others) have blended marvelously with the otherwise “convert” ethos of the parish.
Well, for starters, they’d try to have the Mayor committed for crackpottery. Then they’d vote themselves a payraise, and grant domestic partner benefits for gay employees and their same-sex partners. Some would probably quietly wonder how they could apply for benefits quietly without letting the people figure out what they were up to.
Maybe I should have used Bell, California for my example.
I suppose the argument could be made that Metropolitan Jonah is crazy for staying in the OCA, and not running for the hills!
Perhaps not all that different than recent Synod meetings.
Well, you have to start somewhere. I remember a Baptist pastor friend of mine who took over a dying church many years ago in a neighborhood that had changed from White to Latino. I think he told me that, when he took over, the church was at about 100 members, with many of them entrenched in the “old ways” and uwilling to reach out to new people.
He said, “I preached the church down to about 10 people, and then we began to build.” By the time I came along the church was multi-ethnic and thriving. I don’t know how many people they had, but there were 3 Sunday services and other ministries going on constantly throughout the week.
There’s good news – Fr. Chad and Maureen Jury were BOTH just elected to the MC! They were the ones who asked those questions on the first night! AXIOS and AXIA!
They are indeed AXIOI!!! I pray that the new MC will take notice of their sterling Christian witness. With these two sterling Christians on it, it is possible that the MC will begin to shake off its Stokovite torpor.
Two good additions on the MC. With the two DOS members returning and with Maureen on board, the “let’s continue to beat up Jonah” MC default mode will not be so easy. I think it speaks volumes that these two stood up and confronted the bishops on their own dysfunctional behavior the past three years and would not let it go. They tried to dismiss Maureen, (because she is a woman?) but Fr. Chad would not let them. He forced them to speak. Some did better than others. Benjamin was his usual erratic self.
But, they both get elected to the MC. Would anyone like to connect the dots to see where those gathered in Seattle feel about Jonah, the Synod, the MC? We will not let Jonah be thrown under the bus. And if you try, it is going to be a very very rocky next three years in what will be left of the OCA.
Not a threat, just a word to the wise. May it be sufficient. A glimmer of hope, I feel today.
Indeed Amos, indeed. When one of our correspondents first broke that Fr Chad and Maureen had been elected, I almost let out a Rebel Yell but was restrained because I was at work. Yes, it’s going to be very hard for the Stokovites on the MC to fall back into the “let’s treat +Jonah abominably” mode that has been par for the course. I also doubt they will be hearing illogical meanderings from a learned archpriest about “keeping the dream of the OCA alive.” The same dream that took us down to 22,000 members and made us the laughingstock of American Orthodoxy.
Holy cow! Maureen Jury is on the Metropolitan Council! Those poor Syossetites have no idea what’s about to hit them. God love her, she’s going to be an incredible force for good there. This is terrific news indeed. It’s clobberin’ time!
I think the election of Ms. Jury to the MC was a clear signal that the MC did a piss poor job the last three years. It was a rebuke of their piling on Jonah. She is nobody’s fool and she will not go quietly into the night if she sees HB getting beat up or be a party to MC “group think.”
Maureen stood up and spoke well on several occasions at the AAC. She did her homework. She networked very effectively and I believe her question to the Synod if they too would go get help with Jonah, followed up by Fr Hatfield, who also got elected to the MC, proved a seminal moment in the push back against those who wanted to hang Jonah with all things negative the last three years. To be sure, those two people will inject a bit of balance and sanity in the MC.
Consider the upgrade in the MC with Jury and Hatfield replacing Stokoe and Skordinski. Amen and Amen!
And while we are at it, Hopko was muzzled at the AAC. This made up position of him being the MC “chaplain” is just stupid. It is the Metropolitan’s Council. There is no need for someone who calls the Metropolitan “gravely troubled” to be advising anyone. Fr. Thomas, go home. Your day has passed. Your attempt to oust the Metropolitan failed. Your agenda was rejected. Take a hint and move on.
This site will keep a close eye on the MC and I would hope that it will stop hiding in Executive Session except for legal discussions, and even then if only absolutely necessary. This past MC did too much back room dealings that cost the OCA way too much money. Time to stop that baloney.
I’ve seen mention of Fr. Hopko being “muzzled” at the AAC, but was he even there? Friends of mine were looking for him, but did not see him.
Laura, that’d be even more of a “muzzling.” To bad Kishkovsky was there though. His speech was utterly graceless. These people have no shame. Plus, Benny was wearing a fuschia/burgundy-colored cassock; everybody else was wearing black.
I would have rather had Fr. Hopko than Fr. Kishkovsky, because at least then we could have been spared Fr. Kishkovsky’s brutally boring speech, and also held Fr. Hopko responsible for betraying his former student.
Well, I know of large churches in the Byzantine ere like Hagia Sophia which was the imperial church. I think that the last version of Hagia Sophia which was the best design church of its day and huge whether the money was based upon taxes or confiscated property- those senators that supported the installment of Hypatius to replaced Justinian lost their property. I think that since maybe 30,000 people died in the Nika Sedition it should have been the best and largest church as a compensation for all those deaths. I agree smaller churches with less members are better than larger ones.
What is the definition of a “dues paying member?”
In the 16th AAC Reports of the Officers of the OCA, in the treasurers report is the sentence: “The second budget being presented, Budget #2, at $50 per dues paying member, translates into $1.1 million annually based on our current census of 22,000 members.”
(Note: I am aware of the Alexei Krindatch report in the Religious Congregations and Membership Study 2010 where the OCA is listed as having 84,900 Total Adherents and 33,800 Regular Church Attendees. He defines these phrases in his report.)
What is a “dues paying member?”
The number of people for which the dues paying Diocese forward Syosset a check in the amount of $105.00.
I should have been more specific. What criteria does the Diocese use to determine who is a dues paying member? If it’s different for every locale, what would be the general rule? For example, only adults, only regular attenders, only people that financially contribute regularly? If it’s a married couple with only one income, do they count as one or two people?
Would someone please write and post a summary news wrap-up on what actually happened?
Some of us have two or three jobs that prevent us from filtering out details from the long, long, long, long comments threads.
Father Alexander: An appeal for a wrap-up, perhaps?
Thanks for the prompt, Terry. However, I’m still reeling a bit from last week and trying to sort the wheat from the chaff. Perhaps by the weekend I might be able to provide such a wrap-up–from my vantage point, of course.
Tmatt, I’m working on something now. Getting a lot of different perspectives. From my immediate vantage point I think it was a clear victory for Truth, Justice and the American Way. The Stokovites ran out the clock on the NCC resolution so that’s a minor loss but I think our participation in that odious organization is not for much longer (I hope so anyway).
Psst…. the following is rumored to have been “overheard…” at the close of the AAC in Seattle. Ogle it here:
http://s1235.photobucket.com/albums/ff436/Heracleides/