Tuesday, November 18. 2008
Your comments and thoughts about the Questions or Metropolitan Jonah's reponse are welcome.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
I think that Metropolitan Jonah answered the questions just as the leader of a Church should. His were not the answers of a lawyer, answering each question in detail. His answers instead cut to the heart of the matter. Most importantly, I do not think that he tried to cover up the truth with pious words because he did not shy away from addressing each major allegation; he just did not give journalistic or lawyerly expositions.
My heart is so full with awe and joy at what has happened, I cannot find the words to express myself. Anyway, thanks be to God! And thanks to all of the other Jonahs in the Church--starting with Mark, and all of the posters at this site. Even the Mr. ALL CAPS GUY, who provided a context and a certain amount of levity in the grimmest of times.
#1 Carl on 2008-11-18 15:57
What good questions--and what a pathetic response. Many of the questions are forward looking and deserve more than the curt dismissal they received in Pittsburgh. Some are even of expressed concern to the new Metropolitan.
A far better course would have been (and still is) to suggest that answers would be forthcoming from the bishops in a written response to the whole Church in the very near future. Certainly Metropolitan Jonah is more than capable of answering many of these question. Are the other bishops? Do they want to?
#2 Kenneth R. Tobin on 2008-11-18 15:57
I can't believe it. After all that has happened, after this great great Council, after the Holy Spirit, out of NOWHERE has given us His Beatitude Jonah to lead us out of the nightmare of the past years, the lawyers are at it again. Bishop Jonah's address, so beautiful and full of Christ's compasssion and love, and yet fully aware of the realities of the evil that has dogged us, bravely calling a spade a spade, clear eyed and unsentimental in the need to do away with corruption and autocracy in the Church, is not up to the standards of Messrs Tobin and Fall. Or perhaps , gentlemen, you will miss the daily soap opera of nefarious Syossett and your own roles as professional critics. I believe Mark's website has done a tremedous service to the church and has laid the groundwork for the election of a man like Metropolitan Jonah. But you have to know when to stop (I don't mean stopping the website or even criticism, but the inability for even one day to experience joy and thanks giving for something wonderful - humanly imperfect, yes, and certaily with lots of work still to be done -but something wonderful). Stop the meanspiritedness already! Messrs, Tobin and Fall, you need not reply to my remarks since I won't be here to read them. This is my last day of reading this website. Basta.
#2.1 Peter Von Berg on 2008-11-18 18:59
Grazie! Forgive me if I don't join you in oblivious rapture. I know you don't intend to read this--but you never know.
#2.1.1 Kenneth R. Tobin on 2008-11-19 08:08
If I had been at the AAC, I doubt I would have given any hierarch a standing ovation.
I hope that Jonah doesn't intend to discount business practices for love. That is the same line many charming men have used to justify extramarital affairs. ...but I love her, so it justifies anything I'm doing wrong...
The love of the church would be Herman's very excuse to why he let things happen, for example.
Its just an observation of mine.
A more positive observation is that our new Metropolitan appears to be a very respectful fellow and he understands that imperialism lends itself to abuse.
I didn't see anywhere that he talked about spreading the word of God as our highest calling.
What is our highest calling as Orthodox Christians? Is it to go to church on Sundays and fast during Lent? That question, in my opinion, he left unanswered, and that, it seems to me, needs to be the central thought behind the strategic plan.
#3 Daniel E. Fall on 2008-11-18 16:48
Throughout his three main presentations (Tuesday night, Wednesday's sermon at the liturgy, and his talk at the banquet) His Beatitude Jonah spoke little about "Orthodoxy" specifically and noted that it's certainly not about ritual or religion, only a small percentage of what we do as Christians is about worship - 5% - he felt. It also was not so much what we have to say, but what we do - how we treat one another and our neighbor. Our vocation, he clearly and repeatedly said, is to bear witness to Christ and His Kingdom.
This would seem to be what he saw as our "highest calling" and the "central thought behind the strategic plan." That's not so bad, is it?
#3.1 Fr John Shimchick on 2008-11-18 18:40
It is true that people need to return to God and a more simple lifestyle. More and more people are feeling the deep pain of the current economic frenzie. I wish + Jonah well and hope that he remembers that you can stand tall without standing on someone.
#3.1.1 MP on 2008-11-24 13:48
Dear Mr. Fall,
First, I hope you don't mind if I also address the comments of Mr. Tobin that preceded yours.
It is true that this particular address fell short of addressing some of the questions. However, in his address at the close of the Council, Metropolitan Jonah did cover the strategic plan, to include the mission, vision, and some very specific community-serving objectives. Moreover, he did so as recommendation, not dictat. He thus demonstrated his adherence to his ecclesiastical principles that he laid out on Tuesday. True, he did not cover the Romanian situation, but I would argue it would have been unwise for him to have delved into those uncharted waters.
As I said earlier, it would not have been a good idea for the Metropolitan to start giving detailed answers to those questions. His main job is not to be policeman, prosecutor, judge and hangman. It is to be Chairman of the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church in America. He essentially said that he agreed with the SIC Report, that his two predecessors were rotten and the Synod dysfunctional, that a main reason for that was the imperial hierarchical mindset, and that people were right to feel anger and disappointment and to insist on accountability. I think that he was called on by his temperament, beliefs and the Holy Spirit to also encourage folks to move on.
Folks, words can only do so much. Give this man a chance to demonstrate by his actions what kind of leader he is. He may disappoint initially in not going as rigorously after his predecessors as some of us would want. But, he may also satisfy by not tolerating such behavior in the future. Like Reagan said let us "trust but verify." I think that +Jonah knows and accepts that--a feeling that is shared at least by Mark and many other accountability stalwarts who sit at the Metropolitan Council. I trust that we will hear in a timely fashion if any shenanigans occur anywhere.
#3.2 Anonymous on 2008-11-18 20:08
Let's remember that the Synod, prior to the election of Met. Jonah, set aside the SIC recommendation regarding the strategic planning process, which they had approved in Sept, and replaced it with a process they firmly control. The Synod will meet alone to determine the vision and mission of the OCA, then they will select the people who will work on the strategic plan.
So much for cooperation, shared participation and conciliarity.
I love and respect our new Metropolitan, whom I have known for years. His immediate challenge is to help the Synod understand that things have changed. They are, after all, the same group who covered up the so-called financial scandal for years.
Proving by their past actions that they must be in charge, even when the matter is beyond their competence, they will now undertake responsibility for strategic planning. Good luck. This is a field with real content, tools and processes. Do they really think they know what they are doing?
Is this to be a sham process, designed to strengthen the dioceses, make the Metropolitan Council a gathering of diocesan bishops and their selected local appointees, and the AAC a meeting of diocesan bishops and their local councils? This is the position of several on the Synod.
Met. Jonah is certainly one of our best and brightest. The OCA needs its best and brightest to be thoroughly involved in its workings. Pray he can make that possible.
#3.2.1 Unusually Anonymous on 2008-11-20 18:57
I think you should listen again, if you have at all, to the Metropolitan's talks during the Council, especially his talk at the formal dinner on Wednesday evening. There you'll find his very direct answers to your final question.
#3.3 David Maliniak on 2008-11-18 21:11
>I didn't see anywhere that he
>talked about spreading the word
>of God as our highest calling.
Did you listen to either his sermon at liturgy on Wednesday morning or his speech at the dinner Wednesday night?
In both he emphasized mission and outreach in very bold and ambitious terms, not just paying lip service but going into considerable detail about the actions and programs he wants us to pursue in order to accomplish this.
#3.4 Rebecca Matovic on 2008-11-19 04:23
There is absolutly no way that anyone can say that the questions asked have been answered. We have legitimate questions and we are entitled to answers. I for one, would still like the answers to these questions.
#4 No Way on 2008-11-18 21:39
"I didn't see anywhere that he talked about spreading the word of God as our highest calling."
Ah, but it IS in his words. If you look closely, he said exactly what St Seraphim of Sarov said: "Acquire a spirit of peace, and a thousand around you will be converted."
Dan, I'm sure you know about the law of diminished returns. There was a discussion of how much really do we want to pursue lawsuits. And I can tell you that Met Jonah's words cut to my very heart. We could have the greatest organization in the world, but "If we are Christians, we have the choice: Do we choose to enter into the love of Jesus Christ for one another -- including our hierarchs, including our priests, including those who have betrayed us, including those who have failed us miserably, including those whom we judge and criticize and -- all to own damnation?" [Met. Jonah]
We have the organization. Every one of the old administration is gone. We have good people there now. The question we have to ask ourselved is, isn't it time to concentrate on the very thing you are recommending, i.e. converting people, American people, to Christ?
#5 Michael Strelka on 2008-11-19 06:38
For one hundred years, our Father among the Saints, Noah preached to the people and called them to repentance---and only 'dumb' animals listened to him!
For each of us, repentance must begin AT HOME. We must stop simply looking to Syoset or to St. Tikhon's or to St. Vlad's or wherever. We must now begin by looking WITHIN. Each of us must check the evil and darkness within our own heart and then resolve to begin living an Orthodox Christian life in the midst of our own family. We begin (as Vladyka Andrei of Rockland County used to say) by the daily discipline of prayer in our own lives, and then by fasting, by giving to those who are hungry and thristy and poorly clad and then by visiting those who are sick or in prision. We make our Confession once a month (or with some regularity) to our spiritual father and receive Holy Communion WELL PREPARED as possible. We begin living a holy life and reading from the Gospels daily...and we model this within our own family and then they begin to do the same thing. Then another family sees the example and begins...and then another and another. Then the whole neighborhood and then the whole parish...and then the whole town...and then the whole state and country...etc. etc. If we don't each begin with ourselves...then the temptation is to be always looking to Syoset or somewhere else...or to someONE else to set the example and begin---we must begin withIN---and we need to begin NOW...TODAY!
Don't look to metropolitans and bishops (good example though some are)---look withIN!
Humbly in His Holy Name,
Fr. Pius, priestmonk
#5.1 Fr. Pius on 2008-11-19 09:04
Dear Fr. Pius,
You are so very right with all you have said in this post.
I read and try to act on one of Fr. Tom Hopko's "55 Maxims for Christian Living" every day. It is a slow process but it works. Numbers 31 and 32 read, " (31) Be simple, hidden, quiet and small. (32) Never bring attention to yourself.
We can only change ourselves. Never should we put our trust in "princes, in sons of men in whom there is no salvation". This is a lesson we should have learned many times over already.
God has set us on a new path. Being in Pittsburgh last week not as a delegate or observer, I can tell you.....it was a new day for our church. A cloud lifted. It won't be easy nor should we expect it to be. Even the "good old boys club " knows their times of partying are over. We are a church not a club and it's time to start acting like it.
A good place to start is reading the 55 Maxims for Christian Living.
God Bless you with good health and the ability to help us find our way.
#5.1.1 Anonymous on 2008-11-19 16:11
Good advise Fr. Pius. However, we also must hold our leaders to account for their action and their feet to the fire if necessary, or ultimately we will witness another situation like we just lived through for 30 years. If it werent for the faithful of the OCA, their determine resolve to expose and correct the corruption, I doubt very seriously that Bishop Jonah would be our new Metropolitan. All the introspection and breast beating wouldn't have changed a thing.
#5.1.2 Rich Kendall on 2008-11-19 18:39
I don't think I placed any emphasis upon introspection in the least. I suggested a MUCH more of an active living out of our faith...filled with prayer and putting 'flesh' on the Gospel by acts of charity and frequent reception of the Holy Mysteries. It is precisely with the graces received by living this way of life that we (I hope to God!) received the inspiration to participate in the life of the Church more fully and even to elect a metropolitan who will give us a new beginning. If we elected a metropolitan in a spiritual vacuum then we will have accomplished NOTHING! What I actually said: now that we have done this...we need to focus on the universal call to holiness...ALL of us: metropolitan, bishops, priests, deacons, monastics and laity! The emphasis is the the future rather than the past. Whatever legal ramifications are brought against those who failed us will be up to those who have that responsibility, but our own time should now be spent on getting serious about living an Orthodox Christian life...rather than dwelling on the past. While this is being done we must be always vigilant and make one another accountable: metropolitan, bishops, priests, etc. etc. (everyone---so that this never happens again).
Salvation is our goal...and as St. Seraphim of Sarov said: "Acquire the spirit of inner peace and THOUSANDS around us will be saved!" Inner peace will never be aquired by 'beating a dead horse"! My reflection was meant to turn our focus OUT to the world and challenge us to serve the poor, the sick, the naked, the thirsty, and those in prison (with or without bars)---and bring the Gospel to them. Or, I suppose we can sit in our cozy little saved parishes and homes and figure out ways to further discipline and punish those who have offended us. My suggestion is to turn over all legal matters to the legal authorities (courts or whomever) and then get 'busy' getting the "Great Commission" accomplished: preaching the Gospel and if necessary, use words! (live it for all the world to see!)
In His great mercy,
Fr. Pius, priestmonk
#18.104.22.168 Fr. Pius on 2008-11-21 17:45
I pray the best for us under His Beatitude Metropolitan JONAH, and have hope for the future under his leadership, but regarding answering questions and the perpetrators of scandal admitting what they did/didn't do so as to move past the scandal, the AAC was a failure. What a divine opportunity lost!
One clergyman put it: "Basically, there was no sign of repentance. The 'Service of Repentance' on Monday evening was a great disappointment for many, in that it amounted to a Compline Service with a talk attached at the end. The challenging questions that were asked remained unanswered, avoided, or dismissed. Bishop Benjamin of San Franisco and the West, as chairman of the committee, did deliver a good summary of the SIC Report; but his evasion of the questions that followed was further marred by a certain sarcasm, condescension and irritation directed toward the floor and the various speakers who posed their questions or comments with restraint and respect. When asked a challenging question about the apparently 'light' disciplinary actions taken against the two former metropolitans, Bishop Benjamim managed to elicit a ripple of uneasy laughter by his sarcastic retort that in "this age" we don't whip people and throw them in dungeons. Clearly, a re-entrenchment of episcopal authority and 'prerogatives' - that bishops are only accountable to each other - was on display, much to the dismay of many of the delegates, including myself. Of all members of the Church, how sad that it is our bishops - our spiritual leaders - who see an act of public repentance as a weakness that must be avoided. Spiritual authority is grounded in humility and moral strength, not in juridical and legalistic attitudes. What a lost opportunity to set an example that would have had a powerful impact on all who were present! Then the past would really have been "buried" once and for all. The Holy Synod chose otherwise."
#6 OCAmemberAACobserver on 2008-11-19 15:16
Regarding the bishop's repentance; they did not want to do anything that would be documented as an admission of their guilt. Sad, very sad. However, there is good news! + Dimitri will be completely retired soon; + Job will be completely retired; a new bishop has been found for Western PA; new bishops will be found for the Midwest and South. By the next AAC, the most senior bishop will be + Seraphim. THINGS ARE A CHANG'IN!
#6.1 Anonymous on 2008-11-20 06:16
I am personally pleased that such light disciplinary actions were meted out - if you think losing your job (Met. Herman, Fr. Bob) and priesthood (Fr. Bob), and having all your failings and errors broadcast around the world to your former peers is 'light'. If they were to receive penances and punishment worthy of their actions, then I, too, would have to start receiving penances and punishments as severe for my sins. It would be the only fair and just thing. I'm not sure I could handle such medicine in Confession and be saved; I'm not sure anyone would ever go to Confession again. Perhaps we should take up 'shunning' as the most appropriate response to sin and failure in our midst since there doesn't seem to be any way we will accept acknowledgment of guilt and accountability apart from heads on platters, canonical 'scarlet letters' and perhaps tar and feathers. (It was also made very clear by Moscow that should the entire Synod resign, autocephaly would immediately be 'lost' and the parishes of the OCA would be back under Moscow, so that isn't really an option - or should it be?...).
That being said, it has been a wonderful work of the Church for this site and many individuals to stand up for the defense of the OCA, for truth, for charity, for honesty and against fraud and theft committed under cover of intimidation. It would be a shame for such good, sober actions to spin out of control in a search for closure (which can easily be a euphemism for revenge against those that have hurt and betrayed us - quite un-Christlike and unbefitting Christians). Let's take 'yes' for an answer to our request for change and accountability and say 'no' to cynicism, which would be nothing more than a win for the old guard tactics that sought to divide and conquer to their own aggrandizement.
"Trust, but verify" is indeed a good watchword going forward. We have the 'verify' part down pat after 3+ years of practice, now let's work on the 'trust' part - oh, and prayer, fasting, regular confession and communion, almsgiving, chastity, humility, love, etc. the lack of which by the laity (and clergy and bishops?) are the major spiritual causes behind this entire scandal.
I wasn't at the AAC and I only read what was posted here from what Met. Jonah said, and perhaps I missed something in my quick read.
If Metropolitan Jonah preached about missions and outreach then I'm glad for all the corrections, but Peter ought to realize this website has been THE source of change in the OCA (to the chagrin of many).
And for those of us who have been critical, it hasn't been through meanspiritedness. It has been through the shock of realizing we had thieves in charge and understanding those thieves had the full power to do nearly whatever they chose.
I'm cautiously optimistic for the OCA and very glad about the elevation of Jonah to Metropolitan.
#7 Daniel E. Fall on 2008-11-19 18:56
It is sad to see that there are still many who feel the need for anonymity in these comments pages. I don't want to blame them, as I am sure there are many with good reasons, but it seems even some of those making quite unexceptionable comments feel happier keeping their identity under wraps. I hope those who are doing so will reconsider. We need to step forward with openness, and putting aside our anonymity is an important part of this process. I hope people will begin to feel this freedom soon. And I do sincerely hope any real reasons for fear of self-identification will begin to evaporate.
#8 Mat. Donna Farley on 2008-11-19 22:48
MH and MT along with Klimashev need to be further investigated. Most especially are questions still related to the houses left to MH and Martin P. All the expenses and bookstore profits re: MH and Klimashev. Is the Bookstore St.Tikhons Monastety/Seminary,or privately owned and operated? What were the salaries.What was the share of the profits from sales,and to whom? Houses built on Monastery land belong to the Monastery and not to individuals. Has anyone read the wills of Julia the departed? BT has to really become a Bishop and act accordingly and not leave things to his Chancellor. There are many comments being made and questions asked as to why MH is living so close to the Monastery. Doesnt he and MT have to go thru some period of repentance?
#9 anon on 2008-11-20 13:45
Has anyone seen klimitchev's new jewelry store in Honesdale? Where did that inventory come from? Does he still work for the bookstore? ..... I know they don't come from family money. As long as he, and Herman are still around St Tikhons, they serve as a constant reminders to students and parishoners, of (the question) where did our money go?
#9.1 observer on 2008-11-25 16:31
I don't mean to be frivolous here, but while we're dispensing with the imperial conception of episcopacy, can we also dispense with the symbolism as well? Viz. the imperial crown and mantle and the eagle rug for starters? After all, if the Metropolia is dead, Byzantium is even more so...why must American Orthodox concern themselves with such outdated trappings?
(Editor's note: I will agree the eagle rugs have little meaning or even symbolic value these days - even in the Old World. As an urban phenomena, and an imperial official, standing over the"city" once had meaning for Chrsitians. In this age, sans empire and when most of the world is in urban centers, it is simply an anachronism, the bane of altar boys.
Nor am I alone in this opinion: a most senior cleric, looking at the row of nine orlets in front of the Bishop's chairs pointed them out to me as "Episcopal Pizzas", from the point of view that they were "expected to be delivered on time..." But others will disagree, fearful that to dispense some symbols might mean a re-examination of more.... I imagine that the practice will simply fade as more and more Bishops dispense with it, and fewer and fewer churches even have rugs.)
#10 Anthony on 2008-11-20 18:02
If one believes that the Holy Spirit has been guiding the Church all along, then such seemingly 'trivial' things as orlets, etc. cannot be done away with unilaterally. This is, again, something for the conciliar Church - which means more than clergy/laity/bishops but also the intercommunion of local churches - to deal with as a whole. This is not the kind of thing for the least of the autocephalous churches to take the lead on as if she did not have bigger fish to fry. If it isn't important, than leave it alone for more important things.
Also, once one starts going down this utilitarian path it can get pretty hairy, pretty quickly as anyone acquainted with the history of Protestantism or post-Vatican II Roman Catholicism can attest. At a certain point, quite localized, historically conditioned actions become 'universalized'. These very specific things become carriers of common, universal meaning. This is often seen in the fine and performing arts, we see it in our own cultural heritage, and it is true of the seemingly frivolous symbolism of the Orthodox Church. What was to the Jews of Isaiah's time a reference to a generic 'young woman' is to a later generation revealed to be The Virgin. I'm not sure I want to be the one that decides what is or is not important, and I'm not sure I trust even the most highly trained and eminent scholars to define what is and isn't important - I'll stick with Tradition and the ancient landmarks thank you. I'm not sure ours is a generation holy and sober enough to avoid our own Reformation or Vatican II fiasco.
The things that need to go will be let go by accident or through inability - we don't need to cultivate additional carelessness or work at making mistakes. We 20th-21st Century Orthodox here and abroad have shown we are more than capable in those realms already. Let's let the Holy Spirit take the lead on determining what is frivolous. He will likely focus on some of the more important things first and let us practice editing once we have learned how to pray, fast, give alms, forgive, love, seek first the Kingdom of God and follow the canons.
Dear Mr. Orr,
Thank you for explaining why you are so much against any changes to the status quo. It turns out that you are simply cautious and conservative, not simply against change per se: you are willing to embrace change if the Holy Spirit takes the lead.
I am also conservative: to the point that I tend to think that the enlightenment has been more a problem than a boon. It is indeed problematic when we rely on man to perfect mankind (a leap of faith shared by most Leftists--as defined by Erik Von Kuehnelt-Leddihin).
However, I do have a problem with your epistemology: how do we know when the Holy Spirit has determined what to keep and what to discard amongst our "frivolous" practices?
You made a point of stressing the first things: "to pray, fast, give alms, forgive, love, seek first the Kingdom of God and follow the canons." A thoroughly Biblical list, except of course the last (the bit about following the canons). For argument sake, let us accept "following the canons" to be on par with the rest. If so, how come you are so vehemently against upholding the canons regarding married bishops? Wait, let me guess: We cannot do things like this unilaterally--we would need the entire Church to agree to it. But, how will this issue can be resolved if no independent Orthodox Church puts the issue on the table?
In Orthodox ecclesiology, each bishop (and therefore each local church) is co-equal with all the other bishops (and local churches) when it comes to the fullness of faith and the Body. It has been a practice for each regional church (following the distinctions made by +Jonah) to decide such issues in a conciliar fashion. Indeed, regional churches have made changes to the practices of the whole or part of the Orthodox world.
In the relatively recent times, I am thinking about Julian vs. Gregorian calendars; frequent vs. infrequent communion; vesperal liturgies vs. non; mystery vs. sacrament; talking with the oriental churches vs. not; requiring all government officials to take communion at least once a year vs. not allowing non-Orthodox to take communion; orletz vs. none; priestly beards vs. none; etc. Now, I acknowledge that some of these variations in the last 100 years were obviously more "frivolous" than the others. Nonetheless, none of these variations occurred with any outward manifestation of the Holy Spirit (such as at Epiphany and Pentecost).
I have made my point not to deride Orthodox practices but to point out that dissimilar practices have not significantly detracted from the essentials of our faith. Indeed, most Orthodox folks' celebration of Christmas on December 25th happens reverently and joyously, whether this holy day falls in December or January. During weekdays, I have been at vesperal liturgies (with many people) and non-vesperal liturgies (with a few people) and yet I cannot say that one practice is better than the other. I personally do not believe in calling a bishop His Grace, Eminence, Holiness, etc. is necessary but I would not cause a minor scandal by failing to do so when the protocol requires it.
The point is that the Holy Spirit did not announce that we should do this and that: I think that God-fearing Christians thought about these practices, prayed to the Lord for guidance, searched the guidance already given to us in the Holy Scriptures and the other elements of our Holy Tradition, and made changes. Since the laos did not repudiate those changes, they took effect as solid Orthodox practices.
Now, I would draw the line at changes to our essentials, particularly to the Holy Scriptures and to the Christological decisions of the ecumenical councils. Given that unbreachable premise, would you reconsider your position in light of Orthodox history and theology?
#10.1.1 Carl on 2008-11-24 18:12
Since this is off-topic for OCANews.org, I have posted a response to these comments here:
Thanks to Carl for his thoughtful response.
I can't agree with your position that the Holy Spirit inspired the use of orlets, etc., and that such objects/practices can only be revised through a council. I'm sorry, I don't mean to offend, but this seems to border on the ridiculous. Orthodoxy has acquired an untold number of culturally determined practices throughout its history, from Byzantium to the Turkish yoke and on to Imperial Russia, from eagle rugs to cylindrical hats for clergy to Russian liturgical colours. All of them have attached mystical/symbolical meanings, most of which are aetiological and spurious. Is this what the HS inspired? No! Let the OCA be true to its own autocephaly and not be afraid to reform - dreaded word! - reform Orthodoxy in the service of the Gospel in the North American cultural milieu.
#10.1.2 Anthony on 2008-11-26 04:08
It's important to stand tall without standing on someone. Hopefully +Jonah will be a victor without having victims.
#11 MP on 2008-11-21 09:31
The author does not allow comments to this entry