Can somebody tell me how and why the newly-nominated bishop's consecration date has been set when he has not yet been confirmed by the Synod of the OCA?
(Editor's note: Because he has already been vetted by the Synod. Unless some extraordinary facts previously unknown to the Synod came forth, why would they not elect a man they had already said was worthy to be candidate, after he had been elected?)
Because, the Holy Synod can decide that Moriak is needed in another diocese, or that Moriak will request to return to the American Carpatho-Russian Diocese with the quickly failing health of Met. Nicholas. Because it is the responsibility of the Holy Synod to elect. Because, although your process was done in good order it only reveals the diocesan indication to the Synod who the diocese is asking the Synod to consider. So until they do elect or not elect Moriak, setting a schedule is premature and not in good order.
(Editor's note: Or, Jesus could return before May 15th. Or, or, or. "Good order" means being prepared, not for every possible contigency, but for reasonable ones. None of the things you mentioned are reasonable for our Synod to undertake, given nothing the Diocese has done, has been a secret. The Metropolitan was/is the locum tenens after all, and approved all of this. So your concerns are, to be frank, narrowly-drawn, and somewhat silly.
Very interesting! If either of the two other candidates would have been chosen by the Assembly, would the date for their consecration been announced also?
(EDITOR'S NOTE: The date was announced at the diocesan council meeting the day before the election - the day before we even voted. So, yes.)
Thank you for your quick reply. Then I do have a question about the principle of "conciliarity" of which the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) aspires. Is the decision of the gathering of Synod of bishops of the OCA part of being conciliar?
The Diocese gathers the information on the candidate, brings them before the assembly, asks the Holy Spirit for guidance, votes, nominates, and then PRESENTS him to the Synod for radification. I would like to suggest that by announcing a date when it WILL take place, it marginalizes the last important step. AFTER the Synod makes its choice known, THEN in harmony with the diocese announces the date, place and time.
Without conciliarity in word AND deed, you land up with democracy.
(editor's note: Of course conciliarity involves the Synod! They vetted the three potential nominees even before they were announced as nominees - if the Synod had a problem, they would not have been chosen as finalists. The conciliar was not from A- B- C, but an interactive one, with A-B and back to A, and back to B and then to C etc. Conciliarity is hierarchical, but not despotic; open but not anarchic; etc. And yes, the demos does have a say, because that demos in this case is the Laos Tou Theo - the People of God. )
Mr. Editor, thank you again for your prompt reply and the dialogue on conciliarity. Why then not be patient and wait until the Synod confirms the decision of the Assembly of the Mid-West?
(Editor's note: Patience had nothing to do with it. As all three candidates had been vetted by the Synod before standing for nomination, the Synod was, in effect, saying, all three were acceptable, and if nominated, short of some bolt out of the blue event, would be elected by the Synod. To "pretend" otherwise would not indicate patience but silliness. A typical wedding takes a year to plan: this event will be much bigger, and last over three days, involving hundreds of schedules. Letting people know the next step - and the need to budget for same as parish assemblies happen in the Autumn - seems prudent, transparent and inclusive, and indictactive of good order. "Let's pretend we don't know what is going to happen, and the not let anyone know, for seven weeks" does not. Feel free to disagree.)
Glad you mentioned a wedding! The couple could set any date it wants, get the florists and rent the halls, hire the caterers and the rent the tuxedos, but if they do not obtain the blessing, they will not be married in the church. The family of the couple could put pressure on the church all it wants, but without the blessing of the church, the union will not take place.
Is it "silliness" to ask a couple getting married to refrain from announcing a date until they get the blessing to get married in Church? Not at all.
Why then would it be "silliness" then to ask a diocese to refrain from announcing a date for a consecration until they get the blessing from the Synod of Bishops? Based on our great discussion, you say yes, and I say no.
Why is it "silliness" to have the Synod declare in session: "It seems good to us and the Holy Spirit that We wish to announce the date that the Diocese of (fill in any See's name) has chosen for the consecration of Bishop (imja rek)" ?
Ultimately, it is the bishops who must perform the consecration, not the priests, deacons and laity. There is apostolic tradition by which we must all follow. That we are in agreement.
It is most proper that these candidates were "vetted." That is a separate issue and has nothing to do with the Synod's act of nominating him in official session next month respecting the wishes of that diocese. Without that act, the candidate will not be consecrated. Asking the Holy Spirit to come upon a man is awesome!
So, again, if "conciliarity" is important, and especially in the American Orthodox experience, then all must pray and wait for the Synod of Bishops to give their blessing. Silliness?
I feel really blessed to have been able to participate as a delegate in the Assembly. Special thanks to the nominating committee and the Chancellor for doing such a great job ! I personally think the process that was developed should be adopted by the Central Church as the standard for all Diocese. It was inclusive, thoughtful, conciliar and honest. Axios ! Axios ! Axios !
(Editor's note: Thank you. I fully agree. Whether one voted for Fr. David, Paul or Matthias, it was a wonderful experience of conciliarity in action, and kudos again to the three candidates for witnessing such wonderful Christian fellowship amongst themselves for all the delegates and observers. All this nonsense of a "beauty pagent" or fear of "a political process" or "an unseemly parade" was shown to be nonsense, as the candidates interacted, prayed, laughed, shared, and witnessed their faith to all present in word and deed. Our new nominee has a wonderful advantage as he begins his new ministry in a new diocese in a new jurisdiction, as it turns out, because he knows we chose him by a majority, and then by acclamation and unanimous consent. This was not an arranged marriage, a shotgun marriage, but a marriage entered into with eyes - and hearts - wide open.
What more hopeful start could anyone ask for? Anybody who doesn't do it this way is missing out. ...)
I listened to all the questions posted on youtube and answered by the delegates and decided question 6 and the way it was answered was the most important to me. Then I relistened a couple more times to each guy and this was my comment posted on facebook on Sunday responding to Fr. Chris Maciolek.
"Thank you Fr. Chris. I'd like to comment on question six. Is there a better forum? Fr. Moriak answered it best I thought and I was the most critical of him because I know some Moriak folks. He is less eloquent than Fr. G, but answering ...doing what's best for the entire church was the answer I was looking for.. Fr. G was most concerned over canonical correctness, but I think the canons didn't consider this problem, and I got the idea Fr. Moriak would step away from canonical purity for the best solution. Fr. Mahaffey (least eloquent) didn't address the D word much, but I did appreciate the way he answered and admired his humble self corrections midsentence. I think follow ups would be appropriate/fair for the areas where questions weren't answered well. I don't expect my bishop to be fast on his feet necessarily.
I'd like one more question about personal integrity and the will to do the right thing even when it is difficult and examples from each (as clergy).
Have all the necessary documents been accurately translated from Arabic to make certain this can proceed? Is it certain that this position is for a diocesan bishop and not an auxilliary?
(Editor's note: Ouch. While the OCA serves the Divine Liturgy in 11 languages on any given Sunday (English, French, Spanish, Slavonic, Romanian, Albanian, and 5 native languages in Alaska) the position posting was done in English, and it is very much for a diocesan bishop. )
Are you Nuts serious? You mean to tell me that without the input, machinations and intrigues of foreign clergy under the thumb of Islamic or Communist States and God knows what else you elected an American Bishop to shepherd in America?
How dare you resort to open and democratic principles to choose those worthy among yourselves. It's.. why it's just not Orthodox!
Heck you probably even looked into his background to see if there was any scandalous conduct. Oh the humanity!
Anybody interested in starting an OCA Mission/Church in my area?
don't denigrate the mother churches you know nothing about. the serbian church was led for many years by a true saint of our days, patriarch pavle, whom i personally knew and there are many other truly saintly hierarchs in all churches. and yes, there are bad ones too, as there are bad people everywhere,with the EXCEPTION of the united states, where there is no corruption, no crime, and all people love each other so much and are so happy. how could one be unhappy having mc donalds and walmart...............
Well, some of us know that Serbian Church and know it well. Patriarch Paul was certainly the exception to the rule.
You're right, we're all sinners of whom we all are first. We pions in the laos as well as the ordained young, never married episcopos.
But the beauty of the American experience is that we eventually get to the bottom of it. It may take subpoenas and years of dogged persistence through sites like this, but the bad apples get weeded out.
Some bishops in the Americas elect to behave as if they live under a the protection afforded by a Tsar, Commissar, tribal elder, or some other sugar daddy. But here, sooner or later, it comes out in the wash.
It happened to Theodosius, it happened to Herman, it happened to Nicholai. Currently in the cross hairs is Philip. Exposure in spades will come to anyone who thinks deceit and immorality are subject to secrecy.
From what I have been hearing, after he is consecrated, its expected a few priests will leave the ACROD for the OCA as well (just a rumor at this point). Does anyone know yet if theres anyone slated to handle the parish Fr. Moriak left in the ACROD?