Friday, October 31. 2008
So if the Metropolitan was persuaded by the other Bishops to resign, why not just announce it that way from the beginning? Why not just tell the whole story from the start, instead of having to explain, re-write, justify or apologize later for not doing so?
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Surprise, surprise, surprise! An LLC with full control over St. Tikhon's. What's next? What kind of leaders are the OCA growing and choosing? Wasn't RSK + Herman's hand picked guy to run the OCA?....
#1 Anonymous on 2008-10-31 07:00
I cannot go into detail about what is going on at Saint Tikhon's, but there are a lot of people trying to work things out for the better. Sad to say, however, that there are some who are not. Please help out. Anyone who does business with St. Tikhon's bookstore needs to contact Bishop Tikhon and let him know that you will cease doing business with them until Met. Herman's former archdeacon is relieved (fired) from his position at the bookstore. The board of directors managed to accomplish this task where the seminary is concerned, but seeing as how the bookstore is officially connected with the monastery the former Met. was able to see that his golden boy retained his position there. That place has been the hub of ....... for quite some time, and the archdeacon has been the one benefiting from it.
#1.1 Anon. on 2008-10-31 20:23
Could you please give a little more information as to exactly what has been going on at the St. Tikhon's Bookstore. I am no fan of the archdeacon, and I could believe pretty much anything that might be said about how he's benefiting from 'goings on' at the Bookstore, but I would like to be able to express a bit more clearly to Bp. Tikhon as to why I will no longer be doing any business with the store.
I also wonder why it's taking so long for any information to come out about the mortgage Met. Herman took out on the monastery. Who knew abouit it? What was the money used for? How does Met. Herman justify his actions? What was Bp. Tikhon's role in all of this? What is his role now? Any and all information will be gratefully received.
#1.1.1 AnonPriest on 2008-11-01 21:14
St. Tikhon's needs to become a monastery, retirement community for clergy and a camp, but cease as a seminary. There is no need for two OCA seminaries. Both should be combined on the campus of St. Vlad's and if necessary, the name could be changed to: "Ss. Vladimir & Tikhon Seminary." The OCA can't afford two seminaries nor more of the financial scandals created at St. Tikhon's.
#1.1.2 Anonymous on 2008-11-02 17:06
It is enough that he was the archdeacon to a bishop involved in a financial scandal. For that reason alone he should not be able to work in any position within the Church, and especially not one in which money crosses his hands. For this reason he was fired from his position at the seminary, but for some unknown reason Bishop Tikhon refuses to fire him from his job at the bookstore, where he not only receives a salary but a car allowance as well. The SIC report is out. His involvement is well known. He needs to go.
(Editor's note: Perhaps I missed something, but as far as I remember, you are incorrect. The Archdeacon is not mentioned in the SIC report.)
#22.214.171.124 Anon. on 2008-11-03 14:21
This is a really odd exchange. To suggest that anyone Metropolitan Herman knew shouldn't be trusted with money implies the suggestor's intelligence. A word of advice from me would be< STOP IT.
The logic is bizarre.
He was a friend of someone that let things happen, so he must be a crook.
#126.96.36.199.1 Daniel E. Fall on 2008-11-04 17:42
Hi there Mark,
I made this comment on Fr. Ted's blog as well, but I just want to make a minor clarification/addition to one of Fr. Ted's statements about what Archbishop Job said regarding Bishop Hilarion:
Fr. Ted quotes, “+Job is totally opposed to +Hilarion of Vienna being elected as he does not think a Russian bishop can help our bishops to work together. It will introduce a new problem into the Synod not a solution.”
The reason Archbishop Job gave (in the form of a question) as to why he did not want +Hilarion to be Metropolitan of the OCA was this: “How are we supposed to be truly autocephalous when we can’t even bring forth candidates from our own Church?”
I feel this is critical to understanding Archbishop Job’s statement of opposition to any candidate from outside of America.
North America is a big, confident land. We are not "provincial." In this global world, if we want to bring over real talent and leadership, we can. We are not limited to the mediocrity of our current Synod. An autocephalous church does not = an insular church.
Please keep in mind the many examples of hierarchs brought to other churches to LEAD. E.g., St. John Chrysostom (Antiochian in Constantinople) and Anastasios of Albania (A Greek). The Church is one.
Our bishops, His Eminence Job included, are just scared of being led by anyone, much more so by someone who is not one of them.
(Editor's note: Analogies, by defination, limp, but yours are truly lame. St. John shared the same secular cultural traditions, mother tongue, political structures, and educational traditions as those he would lead in Constantinople. None of those proposed to come to the OCA can claim the same.
Archbishop Atanasios, who is one of the greatest living Orthodox prelates, was not "brought" to Albania - he was sent. The Albanians, such few as were left, had little to say about it. The OCA in 2009 is hardly in the position of the Albanian Church in the 1989.
The Church is one - but that does not mean its clerics are interchangeable. We have had two Bishops brought over in the past twenty-five years - Bishop Basil Rodzianko and Archbishop Peter L'Huillier. Both were interesting, talented men. Yet, I suggest you ask anyone in the Diocese of the West about Bishop Basil's short term in office and I think you will find unanimity that it was difficult at best. I know, I was there, and the cultural differences and expectations between Americans and Russo-Serb-Englishmen were vexing. And we all know how badly Archbishop Peter's ideas distorted our Church, and how badly his ministry ended.....
So going far-abroad, as opposed to the near- abroad (like Canada) ( to use the Russian expressions) seems not to have worked, even though both +Basil and +Peter came with the highest recommendations from well-known leaders of the OCA. Is there any reason to expect a third attempt will be better?
If people are so bent on drafting from abroad, since we now have multiple vacancies in our dioceses , why not convince these men to take one of these, convince the dioceses to nominate them, convince the Synod to elect them, and then show all of us their good works and skills as they build them up. If that becomes the case, I too will stand in that line to propose they become the next Metropolitan....
Otherwise, it seems to me, you are just buying a pig in the poke. And here, secular wisdom says it all: caveat emptor.
There are no good choices in this election, only not so good, bad, and really bad ones. Since we all want the OCA to be healed, let us approach this as doctors do and first do no harm. )
#2.1 Anonymous on 2008-10-31 13:49
Not having a candidate from out side America would preclude candidates from Mexico and Canada, eh? In fact, I would agree that we would be better served by being able to elect a metropolitan from NORTH America, rather than by going back to the Mother Church for a bail-out. There are, however, many more changes is ethos and attitude that need to take place within our own Holy Synod, and in the whole concept of the office of the Metropolitan itself. It is this reassessment of the office and role of the Metropolitan that needs to be examined in electing a new First Hierarch. Being a coporate CEO and business manager is bound to compromise the spiritual leadership role of any First Hierarch. There is no need for any hierarchs to have such excessive access to the funds of the Church. It is quite sufficient for those entrusted with the treasury to provide money above and beyond their alloted income, to hierarchs when it is needed, and even to purchase his travel tickets, etc., for him when he needs to travel in an official capacity. Perhaps there should also be some limits on the size of entourages that travel with officials of the Church, though that would have to be set by agreement among the bishops themselves.
By the way, Archbishop Job was quite correct in not wanting to advise people how to vote. Those decisions need to be made by the individual. Partisan secular politics can only cause more divisions in the Church. I recall that we once had a Republican Party event held at New Grachanitsa. However, the steel workers who have given so selfishly of their labour to build the Cathedral there were, naturally, mostly democrats, and they voiced their upset over the matter. We do need to keep partisan politics out of the Church, and the hierarchs really should not be voicing partisanship with regard to secular politics.
Forgive the digression. However, to those attending the consecration of Abott Jonah, be wary, it's not just a Halloween mask, Bishop Nikolai of Stika is an invited guest. Don't be treated by his tricks.
(Editor's note: Wow, that was a scary Halloween fright! According to the Diocese of the South,
+Nikolai has not been invited to Dallas for the consecration, and will not be attending.)
#3 SW.O.R. on 2008-10-31 10:19
I think we should take Archbishop Job at his word that he will retire in two years. That being the case, there is no need to consider him for the office of Metropolitan. In effect he has taken himself out of consideration in that he would not even fill out his 3 year term.
And, knowing that he won't get the 2/3 vote nor would garner the support of the Synod, why would he even put his name into consideration knowing it would be rejected?
So that our Church can come together deal with our past and look to the future, let the good Archbishop Job prepare his own diocese for their next bishop and let the AAC decide from the other candidates.
And to all those who have the misguided idea of considering Bishop Hilarion of the MP, for our next Metropolitan, forget it. There has been no request from the HS to speak with him and there will be no request. The meeting of SVS clergy with Hilarion was not with the blessing of the HS and did, in fact more harm by confusing the issue.
#4 Anonymous on 2008-10-31 11:13
What an arrogant assumption concerning Archbishop Job. Who are you to say what period of service as Metropolitan constitutes an acceptable minimum?
It is clear what this is all about--there are two viable candidates for Metropolitan--+Job and +Seraphim. A vote for any other candidate is a vote for Archbishop Seraphim. Archbishop Job apparently believes, I'm sure correctly, that even if he got a sizable majority of votes from the AAC, the Synod would never select him. That is why it is imperative that Archbishop Job receive the two-thirds vote necessary to bypass the Synod.
Whatever his attractive personal qualities, Archbishop Seraphim would be a disastrous choice for Metropolitan as evidenced by his behavior pre and post scandal. Unless a majority of the AAC votes for him, his imposition by the Synod will signal a return to "business as usual" and a setback from which the OCA is unlikely to recover.
#4.1 Kenneth R. Tobin on 2008-10-31 12:37
Arrogant? I am only quoting Archbishop Job's own words. And an acceptable term is three years, by God's Grace, not two or when, like Archbishop Job, decides he will retire. If someone is going to be Metropolitan, don't you think it should be until he is unable to serve because of health or when the Lord takes him?
Look, here is the deal, this website of Mr Stokoe is promoting Archbishop Job. Fine. It is his website and he has a right to his choice. But that does not mean that there are others who see it a different way. Thus, as we build consensus, it would be best not to use terms like arrogant. Don't you agree?
At the same time, this website has been quite dutiful to point out the weaknesses of other potential candidates, like Archbishop Seraphim, which apparently you agree with. But to say that Seraphim would be disastrous is quite harsh. But your crystal ball might be better than mine.
And who is to say it will be Seraphim? I don't know and neither do you. At this point it is just speculation which is not becoming such a decision, but we have been given license on this venue to do just that.
In the end, we will be lead by the Grace of the Holy Spirit and we should stand behind whoever is elected no matter if "our" man got the vote or someone else.
#4.1.1 Anonymous on 2008-10-31 14:35
"Even if he got a sizable majority of votes from the AAC, the Synod would never select +Job. That is why it is imperative that Archbishop Job receive the two-thirds vote necessary to bypass the Synod... +Seraphim's imposition by the Synod will signal a return to "business as usual" and a setback..."
The SIC report proved +Seraphim knew, covered up, intimidated whistleblowers and deceived his own flock; he was part of the scandal, and he continues to be part of the scandal. (He should have been reprimanded, not made Administrator.) He knew not only from Fr Zacchaeus; as Mark Stokoe explained, “+Seraphim knew of the Bob's secret accounts in 1999 because I called him and told him everything as a member of the MC when John Kozey first spoke out. I begged him to help us. He did nothing. He did nothing when Fr. Zaccheus told him of Bob's attempted embezzlement in 2004. He did nothing when Eric Wheeler spoke out in 2005. Rather, in 2005, 2006 and 2007 he published letters from the Synod, and from himself personally, dismissing, minimizing and denying the scandal.” Knowing of Bob's embezzlement, he approved of Bob's reappointment as Chancellor, effectively throwing his own lambs to the wolf. And the thing is, he still won't admit these sins against Christ's Church! If he (and our other bishops, past Syosset officers and Bob's Administrative Committee members) would only come clean with specific admission of wrongs --tell all in a spirit of humility (not self justification) and repentance, then trust could begin to be reestablished. But NO ONE HAS ADMITTED THEY DID ANYTHING SPECIFICALLY WRONG. Even after being exposed by the SIC report, +Seraphim and +Nikon continue to make self-justifying statements mixed with generic apologies.
I'm sure +Hilarion is a very good man, and what he has written tells me he may have a vision for the type of liturgical renewal we need, but he is not for America. If we have to import our leaders, we have no business calling ourselves autocephalous. We are not the Metropolia anymore. Let the ethnic jurisdictions depend on the "Old Country" to tell them what to do. The Orthodox Church in America is God's work; our autocephaly is His work and His will for America; He will raise up an indigenous, true leader for us. It may not seem so sometimes, but there are genuine Christians among us!
And yet, of those bishops we have now, almost none have proven themselves as more interested in the good of their flock than in their own mitres. To a man, they did NOTHING when Archbishop +Job was unjustly and outrageously threatened with deposition --twice! (With friends like that, who needs enemies?) But besides that, almost none of them have proven they have the vision to lead a truly American Church, or rather, to lead America to the Church. +Benjamin I'm sure is a wonderful man (no doubt a much better Christian than me!), but he is retired Bishop Tikhon's hand-picked successor (which says alot), and apparently a liturgical Russophile who I am told chastized a parish for wanting to hear the so-called "silent" prayers and wrote of the "proper" liturgical use of curtains and other clericalisms.
I risk my own archpastor's ire when I say this, because he is quite tired of people distinguishing him from his brother bishops, but it is true that Archbishop +Job is the exception. Not that I've agreed with him in everything, but that he is the only one to have stood up for the flock of Christ the past three years. He is the only one who asked the question, "Are the allegations true, or false?," and he would not back down from that stand for truth. Several people have been key to the OCA finally turning a corner in this scandal, but it is not an exaggeration to say that if Archbishop +Job had not taken the stand he did, we would still be under +Herman, still have Bob as Chancellor, still be lied to, still not know what happened, and probably still be arguing over whether anything improper ever occurred.
This is why for the next few years, the interim between now and the AAC of 2011, he is the only one to be our metropolitan. We need this time to finish the investigation and get over the scandal, and we need Archbishop +Job's integrity --time and again facing deposition for his stand for the truth-- to get through the next three years, which will only postpone his retirement a few months. He will not let us down in our hour of greatest need.
Just answer this question: Of the bishops currently on the Holy Synod, who do you trust to tell you the straight truth?
Father Mark Hodges
Or, Fr Hodges, NO METROPOLITAN until 2011. A rotating Locum tenens, works fine for me.
#188.8.131.52 Anonymous on 2008-11-01 18:31
I realize that I have been opposed to +Hilarion before (because of what happened in Sourozh) but having read his interview with Bouteneff on the SVS website, I think it is possible he has "grown-up" since his debacles in Brussels and England. I also have a bad set of nerves when it comes to bringing in a "foreigner" to be bishop since the last two turned out so badly. But honestly, look at the track record of the one's who are native, and suddenly the "foreigners" don't look that shabby. Of course, not being "as" bad and an evil person doesn't make you that good, but at least you aren't the worst. Plus, +Hilarion is already "vetted," you can read the interview and decide for yourself if he's right for North America. Also, I strongly disagree that simply bringing in a "foreigner" would demote our autocephaly or bring into question our own ability to choose a bishop. The ancient Patriarchs of Jerusalem and Alexandria regularly bring in "foreigners" as bishops. Granted, it is for different and odd reasons, but I don't see anyone questioning their status because of it. We actually do have quite slim pickings in the quality department, so I'm willing to consider "foreign" quality, because what I really want is quality. When a corporate company has the problems the OCA has had, the Board usually first fires the CEO, and then brings in someone external. Either an external CEO or an external management consultant to advise the new internal CEO. Bringing in the external entity does not call into question the corporation's existence.
To balance out all the possible option, what I would like to see happen is that +Job become Metropolitan until the next AAC, and +Hilarion is made archbishop of the Midwest. The Midwest will very quickly figure out how "American" +Hilarion can be, and at the next AAC we could decide whether he is fit to be Metropolitan, or, if he doesn't work out at all, whether he should be transferred somewhere else. Based upon what +Hilarion said in the interview, I would at least like to see him sit on the Synod. And, let's face it, we have a great lack of diocesan bishops at the moment, +Hilarion could help fill in one of these vacancies while also serving to give the OCA some direction and a vision for the future. I happen to like the vision he outlines in the interview, we could use him around more.
That being said, the chances of either +Job or +Hilarion being Metropolitan are slim. Like +Job himself has made clear, the Synod won't choose either of them. For this reason I support the "raffle" proposal, it has ancient historical precedent and it would take the decision out of the Synod's hands. Where is the Holy Spirit when the Synod gets together to decide who should be their boss? In these types of things the only things that win the day is popularity and who can shout the loudest. At the very least, the Synod's votes should be by secret ballot, and those whose names are being considered should be allowed to vote (they may abstain from writing a name if they want). I'd hate to see what the Synod decides if the sanest voices are not a part of the decision process. Better, would to have two rounds of "binding votes" with the second round having the choices limited to the top five or ten or so from the first round, a clear majority winner from this would be Metropolitan unless the Synod together makes the case that the candidate is unfit. As it is, statistically the choice will almost always go to Synod, where, like I said, they choose who they want to be their boss, which almost always means that the most pliable and weak person will be Metropolitan (because the last thing the diocesan bishops want is a Metropolitan who will try to "get in their way"). Call me cynical, but I feel that this is the culture the Synod is living in at the moment.
So, yes, I feel that there is some measure of truth to the comment that the current bishops oppose +Hilarion as Metropolitan because he is "strong." The don't want to be bothered by a strong Metropolitan. +Job least of all, he is an ecclesiastical Libertarian, he wants everything to stay on the diocesan level (which is why the Midwest wants a 50 dollar assessment to the CCA, which means that the diocesan assessment will have to rise, same money, but it will stay in the diocese, which is what +Job wants). I'm not judging +Job's policies, I'm just saying that there are reasons why +Job opposes +Hilarion, and it's not about the OCA or personal reasons, it's largely about ecclesiastical structure.
#184.108.40.206 Anonymous on 2008-11-01 18:38
Fr. Hodges do you have the money to continue the investigation ? What if the sic report was fudged by our so called bishops ? I believe your going to see many different results on all of these lawsuits. I think they'll be other liars that will be brought out and your friend Bob will might make you eat your words. I was in church when you visited Venice and claimed you had family down there. You have alot of interest in Bob !!
(Editor's note: Unfortunately for those name in it, there is no evidence the SIC report was "fudged" in anyway. None. And despite three years of threats from the supporters of RSK, there is no evidence as yet to even suggest the Church court, the Synod, and now the SIC Report were incorrect in their judgements. None. So nice try, Florida, but you will have to do better than aimlessly throwing mud at the wall, hoping some sticks.)
#220.127.116.11 Anonymous on 2008-11-02 04:23
Your a pipsqueak mark and without this site you would be a nobody !! RSK will get his money and will have the last laugh. Get a life !
#18.104.22.168.1 Anonymous on 2008-11-02 15:37
I hardly think that (a) being handpicked by +BT "says a lot," by inferring bad character on the part of +BEN. Ridiculous. Because +BT was a bad bishop, everything he touched is suspect in quality? Silly. Or (b) that because he's issued instructions concerning curtains ("and other clericalisms" -- what on earth is that?!) he's should be regarded askance. Foolishness. Clearly, you are not a resident of the DOW. But we'd like to keep our beloved bishop here, thank you very much.
#22.214.171.124 Rdr. John on 2008-11-02 16:29
Like Rdr. John says. Please let us keep our bishop. We need him, especially after Tikhon. I'm not sure what the issue is with the silent prayers, anyway; the priest serving is wearing a microphone in our parish, and we can usually hear them if we listen. And, of course, we can always read them. They are not a secret. And I can't get too worked up about the curtain, either. I have no pressing need to observe the priest communing, and If I did, I could visit at St. George (Antiochian) and watch Fr. Alban to my heart's content.
#126.96.36.199.1 Scott Walker on 2008-11-03 10:58
Here is another example of the perseverance of the "old culture" of the OCA.
On Sept 4, a statement from the Synod regarding +Herman's "retirement" was posted on the OCA website:
“On September 4, 2008, The Holy Synod of Bishops received a letter from His Beatitude, Metropolitan HERMAN. In this letter, His Beatitude asks for Retirement, effective immediately, 'in the best interests of The Orthodox Church in America, and taking into consideration the current condition of my health.'
Effective this date, The Holy Synod of Bishops grants His Beatitude’s request to retire from the Office of Metropolitan of All America and Canada of the Orthodox Church in America."
Now we learn from a meeting with +Job that:
"Metropolitan Herman did not resign for health reasons even though that has been suggested as the reason. He said the scenario was the other bishops agreed he had to resign - +Dmitri as the senior bishop was given the task of conveying this message to Metropolitan Herman. +Dmitri asked Herman to accept the decision of the other bishops. Metropolitan Herman acquiesced. "
While the Synod has the right to describe their actions any way they want, or not at all, why, I must ask, can the Church not be told the truth? What is gained by this misrepresentation of what facts?
If we are truly committed to building a culture of openness and communication, the Synod (like the MC and the administration) needs to examine their practices and have a thorough discussion of how those practices do or do not contribute to the culture being built.
They are free not to do so, or to do so and decide to make no changes, but they need to realize the impact such decisions will have on the Church. We must call upon our leaders, at every level, to actively lead this process.
#5 Dr. Dmitri Solodow on 2008-10-31 13:40
Fr Gassios, in his Reflection, says that, in regards to whom we should elect to be Metropolitan at the upcoming AAC, "we need a leader knows what is weak in him that God’s strength would be manifested in him. Those who say they have no sin will never know “the fullness of Him who fills all in all.” Even though +Archbishop Job says he wants to retire in two years, he is the ONLY one currently in the Synod of Bishops who meets this criterion. May God move the delegates at the upcoming AAC to elect +Archbishop Job as Metropolitan, and may God also move +Archbishop Job's heart to accept it, knowing that is what we need for the immediate future, even if that "future" may be only for the next two years!!
#6 David Barrett on 2008-10-31 19:12
What about Bishop +Jonah? He's new and not tainted (so to speak).
#6.1 Philippa on 2008-11-02 20:22
So, the Synod of Bishops lied about Herman's resignation.
Why in heaven's name are these people still running the OCA's dioceses? They are no more truthful than politicians.
Wait, now I get it - they ARE politicians. Silly me, I thought they were bearers of Christ's cross, and lights to the world.
#7 Fooled Again on 2008-10-31 19:44
I really commend those persons who continually are trying to take the OCA to the higher ground in which it is supposed to function. Bravo.
I believe we have made some great progress in getting the OCA's house in order and, to me, the continual comments on this site demonstrate that much more needs to be done.
Good luck, and God's speed to those who will be attending the AAC and I hope much more constructive actions will be discussed and voted for.
I am disappointed that I cannot go to this AAC; I have had to take much time off of work for necessary training days to learn about Response to Intervention (RTI). Any body out there know about this problem-sovling model? It would work very well for the OCA! I highly recommend this effective problem-sovling model that is being used by school organizations across the country. Just google Response to Intervention (RTI) and you will see how this could be adapted to church life in all its aspects.
All in all, this would have been just too much time off with how busy we are already. But my husband, Fr. Paul, will be there to witness this historic AAC.
I really applaud all those people and efforts who are continually trying to make the OCA a better organization.
It will take continual persistence, patience, and resiliency. Prayer and fasting should help too!
#8 Patty Schellbach on 2008-11-01 08:18
the church is NOT an organisation, but the BODY OF CHRIST.(theology 101)
(editor's note: Wrong. The Church is the Body of Christ. It also happens to be an organization, as it is incarnate in the world, just as our Lord, who was God, was incarnate in the world as a man. That is theology 101.)
#8.1 Anonymous on 2008-11-03 00:39
Dear AAC attendees,
Please do not print off the reports as you were told to do since they would not be available at the AAC. It is very costly and a total waste of time since 2 copies were delivered by MAIL to your parish today. Over a ream of paper can't be cheap to send via the mail.
Why can't those in Syosset follow THEIR own instructions? The financial report was 183 pages and costly to copy.
#9 Anonymous on 2008-11-01 16:53
Glory to IC XC!
They also sent the giant packet to those of us who are not registered and will not be attending. Even if I were attending, there's no possible way that I could get even a significant portion of that bundle read before the Council. Too much, too late.
Why wouldn't an online copy be sufficient for those who aren't going to attend (and will not be paying to attend nor for such a voluminous compilation of reports) but might be interested to read it?
Fr. Bartholomew Wojcik
#9.1 Rev. Bartholomew Wojcik on 2008-11-02 19:28
Fr. Hopko never proposed + Hilarion as "his" choice for met of the OCA. He did say, "Maybe he should be considered." If you know Fr. Hopko, this is his way of saying, "Why not?" Fr. Hopko also knows Alfeev doesn't have a shot in hell. First, Alfeev screwed up terribly in Europe and caused serious church divisions. Second, Alfeev is VERY closely connected with Moscow politics. When he came to the US for a visit, he came with 200 from the Moscow political elite & church. Alfeev believes very strongly in re-uniting all former Russian entities around the world under Moscow. On the other hand, Alfeev is a fantastic Orthodox scholar & musician.
Bottom line, + Hilarion would be a disaster for the OCA. He would be a good teacher at St. Vladimir's!
(Editor's note: Fr. Hopko is indeed proposing Bishop Hilarion. I refer you to the article on the home page today which makes Fr. Hopko's position quite clear. Not that this, in anyway, contradicts further opinions....)
#10 Anonymous on 2008-11-02 18:16
An interesting filing from the PA Dept. of State database can be found here:
It appears that the monastery (which was named St. Tikhon's Monastery, LLC) changed its name with the state on 3/10/06 to St. Tikhon Bookstore, LLC, with the archdeacon as president. An ammendment was filed on 1/22/07, but you have to have an account to view it. I did not find any other filing for the monastery, but someone more versed than I am in how to use the database might be able to find something.
There are two filing in the UCC database for the monastery here:
#11 Anonymous on 2008-11-03 06:36
In regards to this statement ""Though St. Tikhon’s Monastery is supposed to have a 5 member board of trustees made up of monks, apparently Metropolitan Herman some years ago re-formed it as a Limited Liability Company with himself as president and his deacon (Alexei Klimatchev) as treasurer. The Metropolitan then appointed himself the executor of the monastery and engaged in financial dealings in this capacity. The investigation into these actions continues."
Why in the world are we still allowing these two men to live at St. Tikhon's? Are they still on the payroll? How can a good thorough complete investigation be done if they are the ones still working there, don't they know what they want to hide and not let anyone know about?
#12 noname on 2008-11-03 10:38
Well, an illegal LLC to control St. Tikhon's & the Bookstore results in an illegal mortgage on the same property. This is blatant fraud! This is the SAME reason people go to jail. So let's see:
-Met. Theodosius theft of money & fraud.
-RSK theft of money & fraud.
-Met. Herman fraud & theft
-Met. Herman's deacon for theft and fraud
Is there something in the water?
#13 Anonymous on 2008-11-06 06:23
The author does not allow comments to this entry