Wednesday, August 26. 2009
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
Who was the co-signature on the checks?
According to George Samra's letter only (3) three people are signatories on the accounts.
So, given two signatures are required according to Achdiocesan Policies, to whom does the second signature belong?
1. The Pastor --- Josph Antypas, who buries the former Treasurer at age 92 (TWO YEARS AGO)?
2. Treasurer ---- Illhemie Hackem (who reposed 2 (two) years ago or George Samra, the current Treasurer?
3. The Council Chairman --- Norgrove who was not registered on the checking account at the time?
Given George Samra was the ONLY LIVING Treasurer at the time, oh no, he's the one blowing the whistle, so he's eliminated.*
*Let's see, the Chairman of the Council, Norgrove is more likely than the treasuer who is blowing the whistle.
But is he more likely than the Parish Priest, Joseph Antypas who teaches our future clergy for the Archdiocese?
Perhaps Norgrove did not realize George Samra was not a 92 year old woman?
Perhaps Joseph Antypas simply borrowed one of her ink pens and did not realize the existential difference between someone's personal items and one's self?
Surely, not the priest as he is called to much higher standards than anyone else, as he leads the community by example in word and deed.
Perhaps both signatures were forged?
Needless to say whoever forges signatures cannot be eligible for the Parish Council or be a member in good standing.
Does not even Civil Law recognizes this as inherently criminal?
Certainly, NO ONE CURRENTLY INVOLVED IN CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR can hold a place of LEADERSHIP within the CHURCH.
Love to be a fly on the wall as we have fillet of ____________ the forger.
#1 abed-antipass abed-philip on 2009-08-26 09:39
Hopefully, the Detroit Newspaper will be there.
Sadly the prsence of secular meadia may actually enable people to behave in a much more civil manner
Force the issue of a more transparent and focused meeting
#2 abed-antipass abed-philip on 2009-08-26 09:41
Fr Joseph Antypas says,
George Samra's "accusations are groundless and baseless"
I found no accusations, did you?
Fr. Joseph says if George believed these things to be true, he should report it immediately to the POLICE!
George this is one instance where I would follow the words of Christ for sure, "do as they say, but not as they do."
Contact the POLICE!
You have wise Counsel on this one. Fr Joseph told yu to do it.
#3 anonymous on 2009-08-26 09:48
"George Samra's "accusations are groundless and baseless"
To which someone responded:
"I found no accusations, did you?"
No. I did not. Indeed, that fact is what is most astounding about this story. No one has accused anybody of anything.
If this newspaper account is accurate (which I have no way of knowing), the treasurer of a parish has been refused Holy Communion for asking questions about problem he found in the parish's financial records.
I surely hope this is not true.
#3.1 Father Patrick Reardon on 2009-08-28 14:48
The story asserts Bishop Mark has for these many months blessed the excommunication of the parish treasurer that complained of the couple dozen checks co-signed by the dead lady.
Either the bishop must think the Treasurer is a liar and deserves to be excommunicated or just hasn't bothered for these many months to go see the checks and if they are as the treasurer has said to find out whether the lady who signed them is dead or alive.
The banks have records of the checks, they either match what the treasurer has proffered up or not. Shouldn't take more than a week to check.
#4 Harry Coin on 2009-08-26 14:02
What are you talking about? Bishop Mark is nowhere mentioned in the story.
I highly doubt he would "bless" the excommunication of a Tresurer for trying to do his job.
#4.1 JPS on 2009-08-26 15:43
Are you reading a different report of the matter? The Detroit News did not report any action by Bishop +Mark, and I checked my own reading of the article by doing searches for bishop, Bishop, Mark and MARK. No mention. Nor do I recall seeing His Grace mentioned at all in connection with this matter thus far, except as a recipient of Mr. Samra's e-mail complaining about being denied access to parish accounts and finding checks countersigned by his deceased predecessor and dated after her death.
Why do you believe that Bishop +Mark blessed Fr. Joseph's denial of communion to Mr. Samra? or that he was being denied communion for months? So far as I have read, it was only on 16 August that Fr. Joseph denied him communion. Perhaps you could enlighten the us with your other sources.
#4.2 Subdeacon David [Yetter] on 2009-08-26 15:44
Harry where do you get your information from?
Obviously you read something different than everyone else.
Please re-read the article and retract your comments if necessary.
#4.3 abed-antipass abed-philip on 2009-08-26 16:38
Bp. Mark does not appear in the story.
It is possible Bp. Mark was never contacted about the excommunication. Certainly, I think it most unlikely that this priest — who is the man's open enemy — asked him for a blessing.
(In a case such as this, incidentally, it would only be sensible for a priest to consult his bishop. However, a bishop's blessing is not required simply to ban someone from the chalice, which seems to be what is meant here by "excommunication." The imposition by such bans by priests has formed part of the therapeutic practice of the Church from early times.)
I also see no reference to the length of time the treasurer was excommunicated for. (It is also possible that the excommunication was an on-again, off-again thing. A poster here, allegedly from the parish, has stated that he was communed this weekend.)
Back to the issue of Bp. Mark — excommunication aside, he probably knew something of the controversy. But his position was precarious for months. These are the Metropolitan's friends, the race card is being played, and—most significantly—an intervention on his part would seem, to many, to be far from impartial. Fr. Antypas's and Khalife's attitudes toward him have been obnoxious (criminal, in the latter's case), and both went on a mission to Syria to enable Bp. Mark to be booted off his throne. And then there was the aftermath of that.
With regard to the financial allegations, if he did know of them, it would have been a wise move to let them get fought over in-house—and bubble over, if need be. If anything is going on, after all, it's been going on for years already. And, now — now that this is a full-fledged and public crisis — it could hardly cause scandal if he stepped in, nor could Met. Philip have anything to complain about.
#4.4 A Fellow Orthodox Christian on 2009-08-26 16:48
From my perspective as a parishioner I want to think that all the immortal geopolitical chess-game church politics dynamics you mention that occupy the princes and emperors of the world are not as important to local bishops as whether a little guy parishioner has been properly or improperly booted from the community on the basis during his volunteer church treasurer job he claims to have found a couple dozen checks co-signed by a dead lady.
Since the matter involves a priest, if the bishop isn't mentioned in the story, not once, I find reason to worry.
#4.4.1 Harry Coin on 2009-08-27 09:21
Harry, you're not making sense, here.
1) The story doesn't mention Bp Mark
2) You worry
3) Therefore, Bp Mark has known about this and isn't worried or has refused to take a look at the checks.
Please set emotions aside for a second and think about this situation and what "logic" you are deriving from silence concerning Bp Mark from a newspaper article.
#188.8.131.52 Phileas on 2009-08-27 12:55
I didn't suggest that Bp. Mark liked having to deal with politics.
Politics is, however, a reality — just like the political rhetoric you use in your post. Moreover, it is not a worldly political issue but a pastoral one, that Bp. Mark would have appeared vindictive to some of his flock if he had intervened before this (i.e. without maximum justification).
Again, I doubt that Bp. Mark knew what had been done to the treasurer. Fr. Joseph would not have told him. The treasurer himself, meanwhile, seems to have kept the irregularities "in-house" until just now. Indeed, considering the hostility many in the parish seem to feel toward their bishop, the treasurer might have thought it would hurt his credibility to run to Bp. Mark for any reason. Certainly, he makes no mention of the bishop in his extremely frank letter.
#184.108.40.206 A Fellow Orthodox Christian on 2009-08-27 21:39
"The story asserts Bishop Mark has for these many months blessed the excommunication of the parish treasurer that complained of the couple dozen checks co-signed by the dead lady."
What??? Bishop Mark isn't even mentioned in the story, not once.
#4.5 Anonymous on 2009-08-26 17:03
Come on this is a simple deal to clear up. All Joey Antypas needs to do is to have an independent audit and the facts will be in the open. I doubt he will do this....
#5 man in black on 2009-08-26 19:10
There is a very much more troubling side to this story: it is Archdiocese policy that clergy are NOT to be signatories to parish checking accounts. This was given to us in an Archpastorial Directive over a decade ago in the wake of a similar controversy. Most priests are not signers as a result.
What is fascinating is that Antypas, +ANTOUN and +PHILIP are all check signers.
If they followed their own teachings, they would be above reproach.
#6 anonymous Antiochian priest on 2009-08-26 21:39
What is fascinating is that Antypas, +ANTOUN and +PHILIP are all check signers.
If they followed their own teachings, they would be above reproach.
Haven't we learned this lesson by now? We are obliged to hear their pastoral counsels while never imitating their corruption. Matt:23. They (Our God protected shepherds) are also commanded not to accept the greeetings so loved by the Pharaisee's. When was this piece of Holy Tradition first discarded?
Edicts are for the edicted not the Edictors!
#7 Kevin Kirwan on 2009-08-27 13:19
FYI: Mark= His Grace Bishop Mark Of Toledo
Subject: Re: St. George's meeting yesterday
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 11:06:22 -0400
Good Morning everyone,
I am writing that letter today after that outstanding meeting we had yesterday at St. George. Last week some people thought they had uncovered some juicy scandal, but last night the traitors from our parishioners discovered the facts about the Towers and the checks. It is shameful and disgusting when these traitors plot to accuse people of doing wrong in our church. These traitors, along with their supporters, took notes and ideas from Mark, and it is so clear now how bad things arise when these people stick to that Mark , and prefer him to be their Bishop-- they should move to Toledo and live in his headquarters, and leave our Parish council so we can flourish here amongst our honest people.
As I said yesterday, and I was surely loud enough, when you don't like someone and that person is acting like a devil, and hates people that are immigrants from the old country, it is sure enough that I will never have respect for that person and I will never allow him to come to my house, as I consider my second house to be St. George of Troy. It is a free country to say whatever I want about another person, and I must say it to whomever is involved in the situation, which is why I was so disturbed by these traitors and their plot against some people in our Church, accusing people of stealing and doing illegal things, mainly regarding the refinancing issues. These people should some forward and apologize in front of all the board members and the priest for their behavior and misunderstanding of these facts and their accusations that went along with it. When people talk behind others backs without being fully informed and create a ruckus, I cannot have respect for these people, nor will I ever have respect for them. If these traitors and their follwers want to know truth about Mark and what happened for the last 10 months, they should come forward and ask questions, because we are willing to share truthful answers so people can find their right path. They shouldn't defend him when he does not deserve to be defended. I disrespected him yesterday and I said enough about him illustrating how bad he is. Mark is the one who brought up the issue of auditing in the convention, and these traitors took the idea from him. The result of the vote at the convention of this auditing issue was cast aside and voted against, so the people should have respected this decision. This is exactly the truth, and this is my personal opinion and nobody can change my mind about Mark, he is an instigator who relishes in creating problems and drama for attention, also in an attempt to gain parishioners who are weak and willing to follow his crooked path. And another example of his failures was demonstrated by the lack of attendees for the Teen SOYO Convention for the Mid-West in Ohio. These numbers are usually in the thousands and the goal of the convention is to profit for the parish who host the convention, not to only entertain two hundred people or so, 3 security/body guards, and lose money as they claimed, which led Mark to send a letter to raise more money to cover these losses. This would never have happened had their been great leadership from the start, and it is a shame that this has happened to create a new bad memory in the history of our Archdiocese, we should be creating great milestones, not regressing.
I want to say few words about Very Rev. Father Joseph and Father Ayman, these two people have my full support and respect, and I trust them with my life. About Father Antypas, he is the one who put the church together, worked hard to build it up, and gain us the respected reputation that we have as a one of a kind parish in our Archidiocese. To my fellow council members and to my good friend and Chairman of our parish council, Neil, you did a great job, and you have the whole respect from me and I will always be there to support your visions regarding our Church and whatever happens. You and your family are very honest, down to earth people, as I was reminded yesterday. About my good friend and my older brother George Darany, this person is the icon of St. George, and of our Archdiocese. And we should take lessons and ideas from this man. One thing about George, if he ever had any doubt about any issues discussed in the Free Press, I guarantee that he would have been the first person to come forward and bring it up. He is one of the only people that you can trust 1000% for his honesty in regards to anything going around in the Church or within the Archdiocese, and the same goes for my dear friend and brother Nick Antakli, who is a great great man. May God bless my Brothers George Darany and Nick Antakli and their families, and I wish to gain other people like them who stand up and support our issues, like in yesterday's meeting. To my good friends, Ken, Jerry, and Dennis, you are the people who have supported our Church for a long long time, and I have full respect for you and your families, and if I said something to offend you, I sincerely apologize, because I consider you to be family.
Finally, I want to say something about our parishioners, go support St. George. If you have any issues, please bring it up to the Parish Council face to face, don't discuss them via e-mail. Let these devils realize themselves and appologize for causing all these problems in our parish. As a great person said whom I admire and love, and may God grant Met. Phillip many many years, "If you have to stab me, don't stab me in the back, stab me in the heart." This is advice that these traitors should have listened to. As one Church we can all be proud of, together we can resolve any problems or hardships that we might face, as long as we stick together, remain honest and supportive, and face our issues head first. Our parish will rise to the top and no one will be able to weaken our foundation. Thank you all for your time, and I look forward to our successful future together in our Church.
#8 Delegate #1 on 2009-08-27 14:19
Subject: Re: Concerns requiring and audit at St. George
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 13:40:00 -0400
To the parishioners of St. George, good afternoon. I would like to reply to yesterday's email from George Samra:
First, the bylaws don't mention anything about St. George Towers. Second, meetings for the Towers are called by the
management and the President of the Board. It says in the email that in 1985, the Towers had $1,000,000, I want to
say that informations is absolutely wrong, and to ask the previous board members and the previous priest about that
information. The books and the audit of the Towers are public to everybody and we have a CPA accounting firm that
audits the records on a monthly basis. In 2004, I want to inform you that if it wasn't for me taking the intiative to work
to remortgage the Towers and the interest rate, which was 7.63% the previous years and the payment of the Towers
was over $50,000 monthly, nothing would have been done. After negotiating and meeting with St. James Mortgage
and Mr. Bill Swor Jr. (the attorney), after over one year and a half of hard work, we reached a new mortgage rate
around 6%, saving on the Towers (which is in particular saving on HUD because they are the owners) over $156,000
yearly. This changed the deficit that was occuring from 2000 to 2004 to a surplus, which paid off all the debts and the
overdue payments, and also put over $60,000 in CDs every year with St. James, who are the people that hold these
If the treasurer or anyone in the Church are that anxious to know about these things, they should come forward and
ask these questions because the board members of St. George knew about it and were informed about it in most of the
meetings that were going on. After I put over one year and half of my life and personal time working on that project,
this is how I am repaid, along with other good people, by a treasurer who accuses others of stealing or improper
budgeting or working. By the way, the last word for the finances is not up to our Church's President, Chairman,
Treasurer, parishioners or anybody, it is up to HUD for their approval. And I hope the Treasurer takes note of this.
Regarding the banquet facility, every board member is given the report every month at the meetings, but the board
members don't seem to care about what is happening to the Church, and so don't ask any questions regarding any
reports. If blame is going to be put on anyone, it should not be me, but instead the Treasurer and the parish council who
remain uninvolved in these issues. Everything and every activity and every event is written down in the Church
reservation booklet, and anyone can even go further as to ask Ahmad in the kitchen for anything or any question for
which they wish to know about, and I wish people would ask. Even our Chairman, Neil Norgrove, knows everything
that is going on in that Banquet, and questions or concerns could be directed to him as well.
If whomever is reading these emails cares about the Banquet facility, you should be supporting that Banquet facility
since the first day. As an example of what I mean, one should not eat and drink at the facility every Sunday for the
weekly coffee social for the last 15 years without donating a dollar to compensate. It is naive for people to believe that
this food comes to the Church for free, and it is narrow-minded that it would not occur to them also to open their
pockets to help defray these costs and donate a few dollars. This example is for everyone that attends these Sunday
Coffee socials, and even for the parents who have children attending Sunday School who have their snacks and juices
As for another subject I would like to address, I want to tell Mark not to get involved in our Church, and let him keep
his work and his worship in Toledo, Ohio. Also, I would like to clear the air with George Samra (the Treasurer) and
everyone else reading this email, that I never mentioned any type of threat, nor did I say anything to his friend, David
Thomas. In fact, Father Ayman was standing right there and can attest to this. I don't understand why after everything
I try to do for this Church, that everyone sees me as a target to accuse of threatening people's lives, because I am not
this kind of person. And I would appreciate that these ludacris accusations end once and for all, AGAIN. Also, I think
George's mind was not with him during our conversation because he obviously didn't understand what I was trying to
tell him. Furthermore, he was so distracted in fact at that time, that he even left his petition papers that were his
"secret" on the table for everyone to see. So this confirms in my eyes, that he was concentrating on another matter
and not on my words, which explains why he would say these crazy threats that I never made. I feel like I am reliving
the same issues that occured shortly ago with Mark, and you all can see now how carefully and particular I am being
with my words and the message I am trying to convey to everyone.
I hope that I will see everybody who wants to attend as Parish Council Member or Observers, who is interested in these
matters at the Board Meeting on August 26th, and I hope they come with some questions about anything they want to
know regarding our Church. However, I want to clarify to the three of you: David Thomas, George Samra, and
Deacon Jeff, and also to all other potential observers and parishoners that David and George are no longer Parish
Council members, and Jeff no longer St. George's deacon, but that they may attend as observers only, and bring along
with them anyone they wish, including Mark.
Enough is enough, and it seems ridiculous to me that for any problem within St. George, that someone might go to
Mark to resolve it since he doesn't have anything to do with our church nor does he have any authority in St. George of
Troy. His duties are restricted to Toledo, Ohio, and I would like to urge him to keep it that way. If we needed outside
help, we would not go to him, but to Met. Philip. My whole respect is for Metropolitan Philip and he knows exactly
what the truth is, and remains informed of all these interactions and disagreements, and may God grant Sayedna many
many years to come. And he knows that I am a server of the Archdiocese and the church, and have been for many
years, and that I am devoted to the well-being of St. George, and his Archidiocese.
I hope all of these matters have been addressed in this email, and should anyone have any further questions, issues, or
concerns, please feel free to attend the board meeting, as I said before. Thank you for your time.
#9 Delegate #1 on 2009-08-27 14:26
The disrespect to your Bishop, His Grace Bishop Mark, and your insulting statements warning him to stay away from your parish, say more about you than all of your explanations. His Eminence has confirmed, along with the decision of the Holy Synod of Antioch, that His Grace Bishop Mark is, indeed, a diocesan Bishop, and his concern is NOT just his immediate vicinity. You know this, in spite of all your protests to the contrary. It pains me and many others that such a man as you, with such disrespect for his own Bishop, would be found appropriate to represent our God-Protected Archdiocese to the Holy Synod. That is shameful! The responsibility for that poor decision lies with Englewood, and it is a little bit of the reason so many believe there is a crisis of leadership in the Antiochian Archdiocese.
#9.1 Brian Jackson on 2009-08-29 08:48
You must be new here. Delegate #1 is the online handle of an anonymous supporter of financial transparency (and opponent of Met. +Philip's neo-papalism), chosen because he or she was a delegate to this summer's Archdiocesan Convention. i suspect Delegate #1 has great respect, love and admiration for Bishop +Mark.
Delegate #1 is posting for public comment e-mails sent by Mr. Walid Khalife, a council member of St. George, Troy, whose "threaten the Holy Synod tour"* to Damascus earlier this summer got some press here, and whose colorful use of language in e-mails to Bishop +Mark, Fr. Patrick Reardon and an erstwhile parish council chairman from All Saints, Chicago (as reported here) got the FBI to pay him a visit.
It is Mr. Khalife whose disrespect for his bishop is showing, not Delegate #1, so taking the poster to task for disrespect is rather off the mark.
*I am indebted to "The Ochlophobist", Owen White for that witticism.
#9.1.1 Subdeacon David [Yetter] on 2009-08-29 21:24
Thank you David, I thought my forwarding of the message was clear but the postings can be confusing... especially after reading Khalife's emails.
As an aside... it seems that St George of Troy will be the proving ground for much that was discussed in Palm Desert.
#220.127.116.11 Delegate #1 on 2009-08-31 16:45
Hey,Walid buddy,if Metrpolitan Philip is so great and knows the truth,and Bishop Mark is so bad,why did Metropolitan Philip have Mark made a bishop in the first place?
#9.2 Anonymous on 2009-08-29 09:45
It is a blessing to read these letters from Mr Khalife.
They indicate precisely----and plainly for all to see---exactly the kind of obloquy, rebellion, disrespect, and general nonsense Bishop Mark has been obliged to endure since he was enthroned as the Bishop of the Diocese of Toledo.
When I mentioned this unfortunate circumstance to my parish council some months ago, Mr Khalife (to whom I have never addressed a single word) wrote to tell me:
“I hope one day i will catch you and i will teach you a good lesson because i believe in old arabic mentality hoe [sic] a person should be treated when they start lying and not saying truth about the person that you are mentioning.”
I am grateful that Mr Khalife did not oblige me to come to Troy for this tutorial. We could have it right here in Chicago.
To my parish council I further suggested to my parish council that this meeting---in consideration of my age and general physical condition---should take place in the parking lot of a local funeral home.
I doubt I would survive "a good lesson . . . in old arabic mentality."
#9.3 Father Patrick Reardon on 2009-08-29 14:16
“Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.”
What I am about to say has nothing at all to do with the financial matters of St. George about which I know nothing.
If I were the one who wrote the words I read above I would fear for my soul. I would fear for my parish, for my priest, and for the Archdiocese I believed I was supporting.
My priest would rightly discipline me in love for such public invective against my bishop (diocesan or not) no matter what his failings may be. If my priest failed to do so for the sake of my soul, I would hope my bishop would; and if my bishop failed, I certainly hope my faithful friend the Metropolitan would attempt to save me from such folly.
If a BISHOP, the image of Christ in our midst, has no business ‘meddling’ in the affairs of my parish, then what can my parish possibly have to do with Christ?
Help us, save us, have mercy on us, and keep us O God by Thy grace.
#9.3.1 Brian Van Sickle on 2009-08-30 06:48
*I guess the old addage "tell the same lie often enough and people will begin to believe it," applies here.
Perhaps even walid is beginning to believe his own spin?
#9.4 anonymous on 2009-08-29 15:02
Antypass signed checks with a dead woman's name and his own, and he continues to chair the meeting?
Perhaps Troy, MI has a bad case of Stockholm syndrome?
The way to take your church back is to STOP GIVING!
Do not give to St. George, until an AUDIT takes place.
Do not give to St George until the Checkbook is opened for St GEORGE TOWERS.
Do not give to St George until the BANQUET HALL IS AUDITED.
DO NOT GIVE ANY MONEY TO FR. JOSEPH FOR WEDDINGS, FUNERALS OR BAPTISMS UNTIL
A. He apologizes to George Samra and re-instates him as the TREASURER
B. He apologizes to David Thomas and re-instates him to the Council.
C. He apologizes to the other council members he threatened before the meeting Wednesday evening.
D. He apologizes to the family of the deceased treasurer for signing her name to checks for the last two years along with HIS OWN NAME.
KEY to the solution --- DO NOT GIVE!
#10 anonymous on 2009-08-27 17:30
Finally, we get to one of the real issues. This priest is signing checks! I beleive that says it all. In my parish, the preist is NO WHERE NEAR the money nor does he want to be near it. In fact. if a priest is near the money; I believe there is a real problem. I remeber PTL (Pass the Loot) I think they signed alot of checks too.
I hope and pray this whole ugly situation within the Archdiocese is resolved in upright, honest and Christian way. Let us all pray that the Holy Spirit will come upon us and CHANGE US to do the real will of God.
#11 Bubba on 2009-08-27 19:46
I am sure many of us are curious as to what transpired at the Parish Council meeting in Troy?
#12 Kevin Kirwan on 2009-08-28 12:49
Wow. One big irony I see here. Compare and contrast how the "traitors" wrote about Fr. Joseph and how Walid writes about "Mark." (Bishop Mark)
I suppose if the "traitors" had written with similar real animosity then perhaps Walid would have already made good on his threat to bring gunfire into the situation?
Having read enough of Walid's crazy rants (maybe they have some modicum of reasonableness in Syria...I don't know) I could not suffer to remain in a Parish where a man like that is a respected member. I wouldn't visit his house...and since apparently the Temple is his "second house" over which he apparently has say in matters...well...no thanks.
#13 irenaios on 2009-08-29 07:53
Wow, this group at St George hovering around their 'priest' and renouncing any connection to the shepherd, +Bishop Mark who the local priest is subordinate to, resembles, more than anything, else a bunch of Protestants preparing for a church split. If some of these people truly represent or are typical of those in the 'old' country, then it is no wonder that there are more convert Orthodox in America than total Orthodox in those old world countries. My advice to some of the the St George community is to move on to a more truly representative Orthodox church, one that operates within Tradition of the church and not the precepts of man. Lord have mercy.
#13.1 Yanni on 2009-08-29 13:18
Under current Antiochian polity can Bishop Mark transfer Fr Antypas? If so, he should do so and put him in a nice small parish where he can have plenty of time to reflect on the virtue of humility. If not, he should press Metropolitan Philip (via cc'd communications to the Patriarch) detailing the now easily documented history of this situation and the obvious need that a transfer of Fr Antypas...
#14 Amazed and Confused on 2009-08-30 04:34
Prediction: Bishop Mark will be transferred to Alaska.
Also, the meeting went well and the people from HUD were there and cleared everything up. There was NOTHING wrong. It was all fabrications. It was public and I am pretty positive HUD would not be involved with anything illegal. Just an FYI.
#15 William on 2009-08-31 07:31
Perhaps, if the checkbook register was openned as it should be to the Board of Directors, i.e., the Parish Council and the TREASURER, one would have a better idea if everything was truly above board.
Why excommunucate some one for asking questions?
Walid khalife curses like a sailor on leave and terrorizes the people at the meeting. Yes, walid who is not even eligible for the archdiocesan board of trustees because of his former felony plea.
I guess if you shut the process down and that were the goal, you may call it a good meeting! Aye?
Thank God I do not live in Troy.
But then again there are MANY --- ORTHODOX CHURCHES in th area.
#15.1 anonymous on 2009-08-31 18:57
Bp. Mark should immediately place canonical sanctions on Walid Khalife for disrespectful remarks about him which demean the integrity of the holy episcopacy. Likewise his pastor, Archpriest Joseph Antypas should be reprimanded for allowing such disrespectful actions by Khalife without admonishing his spewed venom. Realistically, it is well known that Met. Philip will countermand Bp. Mark. In this regard let the patriarchate be the final arbiter. Surely there are members of the Holy Synod who are monitoring this ugliness and surely they will defend the integrity of the episcopacy, Orthodox ecclesiology and discipline.
#16 Disgusted Antiochian Priest on 2009-08-31 21:05
As long as the "victim" mentality prevails amongst the Bishops +Philip will continue to treat them as "auxillaries"If Bishop Mark feals like an"auxillaty" he will do nothing to Walid and fr.Antypas,if on the other hand he accepts the fact that he is the ruling Bishop of Toledo he will excomunicate Walid and suspend and place fr.Antypas into the hands of the church spiritual court and they will deal with him according to the teaching of The Orthodox Church and not according to the "theology"of +Philip>Let +Philip "pull the rug from under him"then the Synod of Antioch will have to suspend/defrock +Philip for putting his nose in another bishops diocese.If they do not,then the whole structure of the Orthodox Church is a fraud and should be exposed as such!As long as these Bishops behave as"auxillaries" +Philip will treat them as such and so will his minions.They have to act as the ruling bishops of their respective dioceses that they were appointed to be.If on the other hand they continue with the "victim mentality"they owe it to their flock to retire and spend the rest of their lives begging God to forgive them their sin of deserting their flock so that the power hungry "wolf"(read +Philip)can devour them.Can Antioch ignore this ?Only if they dont mind becoming more of a laughing stock to the rest of the Orthodox world!!!Wake up you ruling diocesan Bishops and defend the faith and the faithful flock that has been entrusted to your care-what do you have to lose-you dont think that +Philip will defrock or move you or send Walid ro "teach"you how torespect a manwho has lost ALL credebility not only inthe AOC but in world wide Orthodoxy.Its time for him and his minions to answer to the civil authorities of this country of ours-since they have NO FEAR to answer before the"dread judgment"-since they dont seem to belive in it as they have shown by their actions.May God have mercy on all of us.
#16.1 Abbuna Habib on 2009-09-01 18:43
The people concerned with growth and missions should really be watching this situation, as it is all over the public spaces potential supporters and converts certainly are wondering whether officials will act to protect parishioner donations. It appears confirmed that check signatures were forged. What happens next depends on whether donor money was is in fact wrongly withdrawn and whether impartial competent people are involved to give confidence to that determination.
We will learn by observing actions in this case whether the AOA bishops are in fact auxilliary to Englewood or actual diocesan bishops. Has any official above the parish level issued any statements as yet?
#17 Harry Coin on 2009-08-31 21:27
The author does not allow comments to this entry