Tuesday, January 25. 2011
The More Things Change...
...the more they stay the same. Alas. Your comments are welcome. (And on a personal note: No, I am not dead, sick or silenced. Thank you for your many emails of concern. I was on a month vacation from OCANews.org, just like last year at the same time.)
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Mr. Kraeff, on the last thread, accuses our editor, myself, and potentially many others of an overreaction to Metropolitan Jonah's comments on OCA independence. We are supposed to be reassured by the context of his remarks in support of North American unity. Balderdash!
I have seen few persons able to "talk the talk" and not "walk the talk" on the scale of Metropolitan Jonah. What is crystal clear, whether or not we we wish to acknowledge it, is the Metropolitan's subservience to the Russian Church to the point of embarrassing cow-towing. Add to this his "kinder and gentle" clericalism and you have a recipe for disaster that rivals the "accomplishments" of Metropolitans Herman and Theodosius. I may need to order "Bring Back Herman and Theodosius" buttons before long!
Despite the wishful thinking of many on this site and in the OCA, the past five years have not yet resulted in substantive and permanent progress and reform. Yes, there has been some positive change as Mark delineates in his excellent summary of change v. intransigence. But any objective evaluation of the good versus the bad can only result in a conclusion that we are back to square one, or the future, if you prefer. Indeed, as I suggest above, it may be worse than that if unconditional surrender of autocephaly is the end result.
The only saving grace is the light shown on the wounds of the OCA by this site. At least we know where we stand.
KRT
I have seen few persons able to "talk the talk" and not "walk the talk" on the scale of Metropolitan Jonah. What is crystal clear, whether or not we we wish to acknowledge it, is the Metropolitan's subservience to the Russian Church to the point of embarrassing cow-towing. Add to this his "kinder and gentle" clericalism and you have a recipe for disaster that rivals the "accomplishments" of Metropolitans Herman and Theodosius. I may need to order "Bring Back Herman and Theodosius" buttons before long!
Despite the wishful thinking of many on this site and in the OCA, the past five years have not yet resulted in substantive and permanent progress and reform. Yes, there has been some positive change as Mark delineates in his excellent summary of change v. intransigence. But any objective evaluation of the good versus the bad can only result in a conclusion that we are back to square one, or the future, if you prefer. Indeed, as I suggest above, it may be worse than that if unconditional surrender of autocephaly is the end result.
The only saving grace is the light shown on the wounds of the OCA by this site. At least we know where we stand.
KRT
#1
Kenneth R. Tobin
on
2011-01-25 09:35
Dear Mr. Tobin--I honestly do not remember reacting to any "overreaction" on your part or anybody else for that matter. I was afraid that some of us would jump to conclusions before reading the Metropolitan's entire presentation. In any case, it seems to me that if anybody is accusing anybody, you seem to be doing a fair job of indicting yourself. Let's all calm down a bit and recognize that some of us look at a glass as half full and others perceive the same glass as half empty. I just feel that some of us are so hurt with previous misbehavior that we look at a half empty glass and call it almost empty.
#1.1
Carl Kraeff
on
2011-01-25 18:33
Calm down a bit?
The EA is one of the oddest things I've ever witnessed. Show me first on the EA website where spreading the Word is the reason for the EA, and then tell me I'm wrong.
Our Metropolitan needs to say so instead of making the natives restless with suggestions about revising our status to maximal autocephaly and lots of trips to the Mothership.
End foreign rule over American churches..start there.
The EA is one of the oddest things I've ever witnessed. Show me first on the EA website where spreading the Word is the reason for the EA, and then tell me I'm wrong.
Our Metropolitan needs to say so instead of making the natives restless with suggestions about revising our status to maximal autocephaly and lots of trips to the Mothership.
End foreign rule over American churches..start there.
#1.1.1
Daniel E. Fall
on
2011-02-06 09:24
welcome back !
I must say that I am very disappointed in Met.Jonah...now all we need is Father David Brum becoming Bishop of DOS.
Good to see that Bishop Mark is here safe and sound..and Met Phillip is still running folks out of this "self ruled" Archdiocese...does "self ruled" mean ruled by himself?
I must say that I am very disappointed in Met.Jonah...now all we need is Father David Brum becoming Bishop of DOS.
Good to see that Bishop Mark is here safe and sound..and Met Phillip is still running folks out of this "self ruled" Archdiocese...does "self ruled" mean ruled by himself?
#2
Stephen
on
2011-01-25 09:35
Thanx - Now I understand "Self-Ruled" - It's by one guy!
#2.1
Anonymous
on
2011-01-25 15:15
Yes, Stephen, It does! Now, how long will it take others to receive that revelation?
#2.2
Mark Sudia
on
2011-01-26 15:20
What are the converts thinking...those precious wonderful converts to whom Met.Philip said "Welcome home!'.
Why hasn't Gilchrist spoken out..or even Frederika Matthews-Green? If they really studied Orthodoxy they should know his methods are Unorthodox and on a purely personal level just plain mean? Have they feathered their nests? Does Met Phillip control access to speaking engagements at the Parish Life Gatherings or Antiochian Women gatherings therefore cutting off those fees if one crosses him?
What the hell is really going on...I just thank God Im in the OCA...didnt think I'd say that a few years ago!
In 2007 a Greek Orthodox parish in the Metropolis of Atalanta had a split because of language and ,to be really honest, who would control the parish..The new priest wanted more people involved thus cutting the "power structure" out of it as much as they would have been...they wanted to open a mission with another jurisdiction {how canonical is that?} and when I suggested the OCA they demurred because of the scandal..I wonder what they are thinking now.Of coarse their priest will not speak out..too dangerous.
Why hasn't Gilchrist spoken out..or even Frederika Matthews-Green? If they really studied Orthodoxy they should know his methods are Unorthodox and on a purely personal level just plain mean? Have they feathered their nests? Does Met Phillip control access to speaking engagements at the Parish Life Gatherings or Antiochian Women gatherings therefore cutting off those fees if one crosses him?
What the hell is really going on...I just thank God Im in the OCA...didnt think I'd say that a few years ago!
In 2007 a Greek Orthodox parish in the Metropolis of Atalanta had a split because of language and ,to be really honest, who would control the parish..The new priest wanted more people involved thus cutting the "power structure" out of it as much as they would have been...they wanted to open a mission with another jurisdiction {how canonical is that?} and when I suggested the OCA they demurred because of the scandal..I wonder what they are thinking now.Of coarse their priest will not speak out..too dangerous.
#2.2.1
Stephen
on
2011-01-27 06:57
Kh. Frederica and Fr. Gregory Mathewes-Green have made one public statement, concerning the controversy over +PHILIP's 2009 transfer of seminarians from OCA seminaries to Holy Cross; it is on the Archdiocese's website at http://antiochian.org/node/20528.
#2.2.1.1
Jason Barker
on
2011-01-27 10:51
Mark, other than Fr. David Moretti, which midwestern priest has Met. PHILIP removed?
(Editor's note: Fr. Paul Albert was removed from St. Elias parish in Sylvania, OH. He has since been released into the OCA, and is now serving a Romanian OCA parish under Archbishop Nathaniel in the Detroit area.)
(Editor's note: Fr. Paul Albert was removed from St. Elias parish in Sylvania, OH. He has since been released into the OCA, and is now serving a Romanian OCA parish under Archbishop Nathaniel in the Detroit area.)
#3
Bubba
on
2011-01-25 11:13
yes, at the expense of a young promising OCA seminarian who had visited the parish and was hoping to go there after graduation.
#3.1
Anonymous
on
2011-01-25 12:15
The parish has needed a priest for a while and Vladica Nathaniel has decided Fr. Paul can best serve it. God's will is done - I'm sure that He will bring the seminarian you speak of to a parish that is an even better fit for him.
How did Metropolitan Jonah go from "Authority is accountability, not power," to this?
#4
Cordelia
on
2011-01-25 11:46
I want a "dump Jonah" online petition now....
We need an organized effort, and STOP the Alaskan consecration now.
We need an organized effort, and STOP the Alaskan consecration now.
#5
The Whale
on
2011-01-25 14:34
I think you are RIGHT!...... However, who could become Met? Everyone else is an equal disaster in their own way. This is probably why + Hilarion is being played up so big. I'm sure a contingent will try to force him down our throats as the NEW Met! As far as Alaska is concerned, Fr. Oleksa should be made Bishop. You say, "He's married, he can't!" BALONEY! Married bishops are Orthodox Tradition. + Ireney was married. St. Tikhon was married!
#5.1
Anonymous
on
2011-01-25 15:22
......
Mark, did you miss this terribly disrespectful comment?
Please remove it. It is bad enough that people have to see this type of disrespectful name calling on another website .....
(Editor's note: I did miss it. Sorry.)
Mark, did you miss this terribly disrespectful comment?
Please remove it. It is bad enough that people have to see this type of disrespectful name calling on another website .....
(Editor's note: I did miss it. Sorry.)
#5.1.1
Anonymous
on
2011-01-25 16:16
Dump Jonah, sure. But, please leave the married bishop thing alone. It is a good idea, but it ain't gonna happen in your lifetime.
Lets concentrate on the basics. ....
Lets concentrate on the basics. ....
#5.1.2
The Whale
on
2011-01-25 19:19
Look, Oleksa is in Alaska. No one knows Alaska better than he. Why shouldn't he be bishop? Because he has a wife? 11 of the 12 Apostles were married. Married bishops were common in the early church. Many Russian bishops were and are married. What's the issue? The Holy Spirit doesn't work with married men? Sex is somehow dirty or unholy? Why should Alaska have to accept some (one) Jonah is forcing on them?
#5.1.2.1
Anonymous
on
2011-01-26 07:40
Fr. Oleksa is a wonderful speaker - and knows Alaska's issues - but he is a terrible administrator. Charisma cannot overcome lack of managerial skills. His short tenure at St. Herman is proof of that.
#5.1.2.1.1
justamom
on
2011-01-31 09:43
The "married bishop thing" isn't even a particularly good idea. It creates at least as many problems as it solves.
#5.1.2.2
Morton
on
2011-01-27 05:33
His Beatitude Metropolitan Ireney was a married priest. When his matushka reposed, he became a Monk and a Bishop.
The ancient married bishops were essentially the elder or "overseers" of the largest parishes in the ancient church.
I can't imagine an Orthodox Bishop in the 21st century raising a family, and guiding the "family" that encompasses the faithful of an entire diocese, such as (For instance), the Midwest.
And I absolutely don't see how a man supporting a family could be the seated Primate of the church, whether Archbishop, Metropolitan or Patriarch.
Also, can you imagine H.E.+Philip, (in his youth), as a married Bishop, serving the growing Archdiocese, and also raising a family?
If he had been able to achieve such a feat, he'd probably have retired at 65 or 70, provided he didn't suffer a fatal heart attack first.
And finally, consider this: One reason the married episcopate was eliminated, was so that bishops couldn't will their diocese to their sons.
Can you imagine, (I hope not), Philip passing the Archdiocese on to a son, who might have been even more of a tyrant than he has shown himself to be?
Eispolla Eti Despota. . . Many years to the Despot!!!
The ancient married bishops were essentially the elder or "overseers" of the largest parishes in the ancient church.
I can't imagine an Orthodox Bishop in the 21st century raising a family, and guiding the "family" that encompasses the faithful of an entire diocese, such as (For instance), the Midwest.
And I absolutely don't see how a man supporting a family could be the seated Primate of the church, whether Archbishop, Metropolitan or Patriarch.
Also, can you imagine H.E.+Philip, (in his youth), as a married Bishop, serving the growing Archdiocese, and also raising a family?
If he had been able to achieve such a feat, he'd probably have retired at 65 or 70, provided he didn't suffer a fatal heart attack first.
And finally, consider this: One reason the married episcopate was eliminated, was so that bishops couldn't will their diocese to their sons.
Can you imagine, (I hope not), Philip passing the Archdiocese on to a son, who might have been even more of a tyrant than he has shown himself to be?
Eispolla Eti Despota. . . Many years to the Despot!!!
#5.1.3
Mark Sudia
on
2011-01-26 16:45
Mark:
None of the reasons of why celibates & monks were chosen for bishops in the Byzantine/Roman Empire exist today. Progeny of bishops can't inherit church property today and educated clerics are not only found in monasteries. Marriage does not negate one from ordination nor consecration in the Orthodox Church. Married bishops would create MORE bishops and smaller dioceses. California alone can be divided into 3 or 4 dioceses. If the President or Chairman of a major corporation can be married and juggle home and work, why can't a bishop? Married men are also more psychologically "stable" than celibates or monks. (Are you related to the Akron Sudia's?)
None of the reasons of why celibates & monks were chosen for bishops in the Byzantine/Roman Empire exist today. Progeny of bishops can't inherit church property today and educated clerics are not only found in monasteries. Marriage does not negate one from ordination nor consecration in the Orthodox Church. Married bishops would create MORE bishops and smaller dioceses. California alone can be divided into 3 or 4 dioceses. If the President or Chairman of a major corporation can be married and juggle home and work, why can't a bishop? Married men are also more psychologically "stable" than celibates or monks. (Are you related to the Akron Sudia's?)
#5.1.3.1
Anonymous
on
2011-01-27 07:19
Oh, this is too good...
First, your use of the quotations around "stable" almost seem to imply you don't believe it.
>>"Married men are also more psychologically "stable" than celibates or monks."
... he says with absolute authority. Okay. I've been married to the same woman for more than 20 years. That means I'm more psychologically "stable" (whatever that means) than all the bishops around the world? Really?? I'm more psychologically stable than Elder Porphyrios or Elder Paisios were in their prime of holiness? Come on...
First, your use of the quotations around "stable" almost seem to imply you don't believe it.
>>"Married men are also more psychologically "stable" than celibates or monks."
... he says with absolute authority. Okay. I've been married to the same woman for more than 20 years. That means I'm more psychologically "stable" (whatever that means) than all the bishops around the world? Really?? I'm more psychologically stable than Elder Porphyrios or Elder Paisios were in their prime of holiness? Come on...
#5.1.3.1.1
Anonymous
on
2011-01-28 02:52
Yes, Regina and Ed Sudia are my aunt and uncle. I hope they're well, since I rarely hear from them, and i can't call at present, because I've only got minutes phones.
As for your other points, I'll address them as best I can. First, I wasn't suggesting the marriage restricts men from being ordained or consecrated.
My point was that H.B Metropolitan Ireney was a married priest first. Then, when his wife reposed, he took monastic vows, and became a bishop.
Personally, I believe that in some cases,(and ironically, you've cited them as well), it's better for a man to marry and raise a family before becoming a Monk and Bishop.
As for male offspring possibly inheriting the diocese of a father who is a bishop, don't discount the possibility. Just because it HASN'T happened since ancient times, doesn't mean that it CAN'T happen today.
As far as California is concerned, I think, if my memory is correct, (and please let me know if it isn't), that we presently have 25 or 30 parishes in California.
Even if there are between 30 and 50, the Holy Synod "could" form a Diocese of San Francisco and California, so that it's bishop has a smaller diocese to minister to.
But, before that happens, His Grace Bishop Benjamin needs to receive a request from the faithful in California to do so. Then, he can raise the possibility at the next meeting of the Holy Synod.
In fact, I proposed it to him either before, or during the scandal, and he shot the idea down.
I believe that his answer said something about the possibility of having fewer bishops, and larger diocese. The logic of that response still escapes me.
Also, remember that if and when that happens, the synod will most likely be creating a Diocese of Seattle and the West, which means that two separate episcopal search processes would be transpiring roughly in the same geographic region, (i.e.the Western United States), at the same time.
I believe it should and will happen in God's time. if sooner, then rejoice and be glad all people of California and of the Western United States, for God has answered your prayers.
Until then, everyone who truly believes it should happen MUST pray for it to happen. Then God will know that many want it, and it may please him to answer "Yes" to your prayers.
As for your other points, I'll address them as best I can. First, I wasn't suggesting the marriage restricts men from being ordained or consecrated.
My point was that H.B Metropolitan Ireney was a married priest first. Then, when his wife reposed, he took monastic vows, and became a bishop.
Personally, I believe that in some cases,(and ironically, you've cited them as well), it's better for a man to marry and raise a family before becoming a Monk and Bishop.
As for male offspring possibly inheriting the diocese of a father who is a bishop, don't discount the possibility. Just because it HASN'T happened since ancient times, doesn't mean that it CAN'T happen today.
As far as California is concerned, I think, if my memory is correct, (and please let me know if it isn't), that we presently have 25 or 30 parishes in California.
Even if there are between 30 and 50, the Holy Synod "could" form a Diocese of San Francisco and California, so that it's bishop has a smaller diocese to minister to.
But, before that happens, His Grace Bishop Benjamin needs to receive a request from the faithful in California to do so. Then, he can raise the possibility at the next meeting of the Holy Synod.
In fact, I proposed it to him either before, or during the scandal, and he shot the idea down.
I believe that his answer said something about the possibility of having fewer bishops, and larger diocese. The logic of that response still escapes me.
Also, remember that if and when that happens, the synod will most likely be creating a Diocese of Seattle and the West, which means that two separate episcopal search processes would be transpiring roughly in the same geographic region, (i.e.the Western United States), at the same time.
I believe it should and will happen in God's time. if sooner, then rejoice and be glad all people of California and of the Western United States, for God has answered your prayers.
Until then, everyone who truly believes it should happen MUST pray for it to happen. Then God will know that many want it, and it may please him to answer "Yes" to your prayers.
#5.1.3.1.2
Mark Sudia
on
2011-01-30 17:47
Please show evidence that St.Tikhon(I presume you mean St.Tikhon of North America,later Patriarch of Moscow and Confessor) was a married man.I know about Metropolitan Ireney;he was OCA Primate during my St.Tikhon's years,1972-76.
#5.1.4
V.Rev.Andrei Alexiev
on
2011-02-04 15:34
Oh, great, another uninformed person ragging on Fr. Gerasim Eliel. Why don't you actually get to know the guy before you summarily declare him unworthy to be Bishop of Alaska?
(Editor's note: My concern is not with him personally, for as you say, I don't know him. My concern is with the process which is neither accountable, nor transparent, nor open. The last two times this has been in Alaska, it ended in disaster. Maybe it is time to try another way. We had two good experiences in WPA and in the Midwest. But in typical OCA practice, lets ignore the two successes, and continue with the process which resulted in disaster, and hope for the best. It's just stupid.)
(Editor's note: My concern is not with him personally, for as you say, I don't know him. My concern is with the process which is neither accountable, nor transparent, nor open. The last two times this has been in Alaska, it ended in disaster. Maybe it is time to try another way. We had two good experiences in WPA and in the Midwest. But in typical OCA practice, lets ignore the two successes, and continue with the process which resulted in disaster, and hope for the best. It's just stupid.)
#5.2
Cordelia
on
2011-01-26 00:12
I'll give you a reason.
CSB
I know them from California, DANGER!
Ask Pokrov about them. That alone should send Gerasim packing.
CSB
I know them from California, DANGER!
Ask Pokrov about them. That alone should send Gerasim packing.
#5.2.1
The Whale
on
2011-01-26 14:59
What is CSB? People who live in California would like to know so that they can avoid that danger or report it to the authorities. Please enlighten all of us reading this website. We've had enough dangerous situations in the Archdiocese. We don't need to cover up any more.
(Editor's note: CSB stands for the "Christ the Saviour Brotherhood". You can read two articles about them - a positive one by Metropolitan Jonah, and a critical one by Melanie Sakoda on the Pokrov.org website by typing in Christ the Saviour Brotherhood in their search.)
(Editor's note: CSB stands for the "Christ the Saviour Brotherhood". You can read two articles about them - a positive one by Metropolitan Jonah, and a critical one by Melanie Sakoda on the Pokrov.org website by typing in Christ the Saviour Brotherhood in their search.)
Let's put this in perspective. The last two bishops of Alaska, Gula & Nicolai, came from the Christ the Savior (Johnstown) indoctrination. They failed miserably. The current Bishop of NY also came out of that environment (jury is still out). The bishop candidate now being considered for Alaska is + Jonah's buddy and comes from the Order of Man's indoctrination. These people are wiggling themselves into mainstream Orthodoxy and + Jonah stands with them. So WHY are we again experimenting with Alaska? Are we destined to destroy Orthodoxy in Alaska? Fr. Oleksa is already the functioning bishop of Alaska - why is a convert outsider needed?
#5.2.2
Anonymous
on
2011-01-27 08:15
"Let's put this in perspective. The last two bishops of Alaska, Gula & Nicolai, came from the Christ the Savior (Johnstown) indoctrination. They failed miserably."
On what grounds do you blame their failures on their seminary?
"The current Bishop of NY also came out of that environment (jury is still out). The bishop candidate now being considered for Alaska is + Jonah's buddy and comes from the Order of Man's indoctrination."
On what grounds do you question Fr. Gerasim's Orthodoxy? You will have to come up with something more concrete than the fact that he is a convert. If you can't, you may as well go grab an X-Acto knife and slice the Pauline epistles out of your Bible, and the second half of Acts. While you're at it, go get the Synaxarion and cut out Mary of Egypt, Moses the Ethiopian, Helen and Constantine, Vladimir and Olga, and all those other scuzzy converts who aren't as Orthodox as you. Since the poor Publican is no longer with us, either (convert! no Orthodox mindset! hiss!), for you we will soon be celebrating the "Sunday of the Pharisee" - how appropriate!
"These people are wiggling themselves into mainstream Orthodoxy and + Jonah stands with them."
Well, that does tend to be what we converts do... wiggle ourselves into the mainstream. We are, after all, mutants with dangerous superpowers, deftly infiltrating your communities even though we are not fit to mingle with decent kind. Maybe we should be registered and branded so you can tell us apart from the "real" Orthodox.
I may be a convert, but Orthodoxy is the only faith I know. Maybe you cradles forget that you were once unbaptized heathens yourselves, before someone said the Creed for you, and a priest dunked you. The same things happened to me, only I was a few decades late, so I read the Creed myself.
I imagine Fr. Gerasim had much the same experience. Our conversions do not make us less than you who were merely received earlier in life than we were.
"So WHY are we again experimenting with Alaska? Are we destined to destroy Orthodoxy in Alaska? Fr. Oleksa is already the functioning bishop of Alaska - why is a convert outsider needed?"
Because Fr. Michael is not eligible to be consecrated as a bishop, and he also supports the current selection process as well as its prime candidate, Fr. Gerasim. Mark Stokoe reported this awhile back. I wonder how many unique IP addresses are clamoring for Oleksa, anyway - it seems all of you missed this tidbit of information.
Secondly, if I had to guess, I would guess that Met. Jonah wants Fr. Gerasim to be Alaska's bishop because Fr. Gerasim is someone he knows and trusts. There are some pretty pervasive liturgical abuses going on up there, in addition to an epidemic of substance abuse and poverty. Do you really think that dragging an overworked Alaskan priest away from his community and slapping a mitre on his head will somehow help things? There aren't many single Alaskan priests, and yet there are people on here complaining all the time about bishops being chosen merely because they happen to be single, not because they have any leadership qualifications. Did it ever occur to anyone that Fr. Gerasim may well have more qualifications to be a bishop than your everyday parish priest?
I'm not a fan of forcing a bishop on a diocese after letting other dioceses choose their own candidates, but I can imagine an argument being made for the process being used for this circumstance. I'd like whatever argument there is to be made more publicly than it has been, because if this is the plan, the OCA has been handling the PR end rather poorly. But if you think Fr. Gerasim is inferior just because he is a convert, I dare you to find and name anyone ready, able, and willing other than Fr. Gerasim himself!
On what grounds do you blame their failures on their seminary?
"The current Bishop of NY also came out of that environment (jury is still out). The bishop candidate now being considered for Alaska is + Jonah's buddy and comes from the Order of Man's indoctrination."
On what grounds do you question Fr. Gerasim's Orthodoxy? You will have to come up with something more concrete than the fact that he is a convert. If you can't, you may as well go grab an X-Acto knife and slice the Pauline epistles out of your Bible, and the second half of Acts. While you're at it, go get the Synaxarion and cut out Mary of Egypt, Moses the Ethiopian, Helen and Constantine, Vladimir and Olga, and all those other scuzzy converts who aren't as Orthodox as you. Since the poor Publican is no longer with us, either (convert! no Orthodox mindset! hiss!), for you we will soon be celebrating the "Sunday of the Pharisee" - how appropriate!
"These people are wiggling themselves into mainstream Orthodoxy and + Jonah stands with them."
Well, that does tend to be what we converts do... wiggle ourselves into the mainstream. We are, after all, mutants with dangerous superpowers, deftly infiltrating your communities even though we are not fit to mingle with decent kind. Maybe we should be registered and branded so you can tell us apart from the "real" Orthodox.
I may be a convert, but Orthodoxy is the only faith I know. Maybe you cradles forget that you were once unbaptized heathens yourselves, before someone said the Creed for you, and a priest dunked you. The same things happened to me, only I was a few decades late, so I read the Creed myself.
I imagine Fr. Gerasim had much the same experience. Our conversions do not make us less than you who were merely received earlier in life than we were."So WHY are we again experimenting with Alaska? Are we destined to destroy Orthodoxy in Alaska? Fr. Oleksa is already the functioning bishop of Alaska - why is a convert outsider needed?"
Because Fr. Michael is not eligible to be consecrated as a bishop, and he also supports the current selection process as well as its prime candidate, Fr. Gerasim. Mark Stokoe reported this awhile back. I wonder how many unique IP addresses are clamoring for Oleksa, anyway - it seems all of you missed this tidbit of information.
Secondly, if I had to guess, I would guess that Met. Jonah wants Fr. Gerasim to be Alaska's bishop because Fr. Gerasim is someone he knows and trusts. There are some pretty pervasive liturgical abuses going on up there, in addition to an epidemic of substance abuse and poverty. Do you really think that dragging an overworked Alaskan priest away from his community and slapping a mitre on his head will somehow help things? There aren't many single Alaskan priests, and yet there are people on here complaining all the time about bishops being chosen merely because they happen to be single, not because they have any leadership qualifications. Did it ever occur to anyone that Fr. Gerasim may well have more qualifications to be a bishop than your everyday parish priest?
I'm not a fan of forcing a bishop on a diocese after letting other dioceses choose their own candidates, but I can imagine an argument being made for the process being used for this circumstance. I'd like whatever argument there is to be made more publicly than it has been, because if this is the plan, the OCA has been handling the PR end rather poorly. But if you think Fr. Gerasim is inferior just because he is a convert, I dare you to find and name anyone ready, able, and willing other than Fr. Gerasim himself!
#5.2.2.1
Cordelia
on
2011-01-31 00:14
Are you certain that H.G. Bishop Innocent (Gula) failed as the Bishop of Alaska?
Could he have found something that Their Beatitudes Theodosius and Herman didn't want others to know? Could that be why he had to "retire" so soon after being consecrated?
If he was such a "failure," then how do you explain that some faithful and clergy reported seeing visions of him following them, and warning them that "bad times" were coming?
As for H.G. Bishop Nicolai, it's possible that he had some psychological.problems, in addition to the moral issues revealed on the web. And I'm probably being extremely kind.
I know what I read , and at least some of it was proven true. As for him being a "Failure," maybe he actually succeeded in doing one good thing.
He brought the faithful together to begin solving the problems created by himself, and also under The late Archbishop Gregory, and previous Bishops of Alaska.
The Alaska Lands issue has been settled, and the Diocese now owns all of the properties within its boundries. So he ended up doing at least one thing "Right.'
Therefore, he wasn't a total "failure" after all. Was he?
Could he have found something that Their Beatitudes Theodosius and Herman didn't want others to know? Could that be why he had to "retire" so soon after being consecrated?
If he was such a "failure," then how do you explain that some faithful and clergy reported seeing visions of him following them, and warning them that "bad times" were coming?
As for H.G. Bishop Nicolai, it's possible that he had some psychological.problems, in addition to the moral issues revealed on the web. And I'm probably being extremely kind.
I know what I read , and at least some of it was proven true. As for him being a "Failure," maybe he actually succeeded in doing one good thing.
He brought the faithful together to begin solving the problems created by himself, and also under The late Archbishop Gregory, and previous Bishops of Alaska.
The Alaska Lands issue has been settled, and the Diocese now owns all of the properties within its boundries. So he ended up doing at least one thing "Right.'
Therefore, he wasn't a total "failure" after all. Was he?
#5.2.2.1.1
Mark Sudia
on
2011-01-31 16:00
I wasn't trying to bash Bishop Nikolai...
I don't know about the people of Alaska, but I don't hold anything against him...
The intention of my post was to point out the flawed reasoning behind declaring Fr. Gerasim Eliel an unworthy episcopal candidate simply because of the process being used by the diocese, unfounded assumptions about his background, the mere fact that he's a convert, or whatever.
I don't know about the people of Alaska, but I don't hold anything against him...
The intention of my post was to point out the flawed reasoning behind declaring Fr. Gerasim Eliel an unworthy episcopal candidate simply because of the process being used by the diocese, unfounded assumptions about his background, the mere fact that he's a convert, or whatever.
#5.2.2.1.1.1
Cordelia
on
2011-02-02 01:18
I see that my comment has some received some editing and hope Mark will allow me to clarify that I do not approve of or excuse any wrongdoing that may or may not have been perpetrated anywhere in the OCA by anyone.
The redacted form seemed to leave that aspect open, and I wanted to be clear that all I meant was that I was not trying to, er, unresolve, any issues that are at rest.
The redacted form seemed to leave that aspect open, and I wanted to be clear that all I meant was that I was not trying to, er, unresolve, any issues that are at rest.
#5.2.2.1.1.1.1
Cordelia
on
2011-02-04 12:16
Alaska, like the OCA, needs to heal. Fr. Oleksa can handle the situation well with a circle of priests to help him. Again, we don't need to be "EXPERIMENTING" again with Alaska. Yes, Gordon if Puffers' good buddy and it's time for + Jonah to resign. As far as converts are concerned, many are very good, others wish to IMPOSE THEIR ideas on Orthodoxy. We don't need more experimentation moving dioceses, enforcing fundamentalism, etc. WHAT THE OCA NEEDS IS HEALING!!!
#5.2.2.1.2
Anonymous
on
2011-02-01 08:41
he also supports the current selection process as well as its prime candidate, Fr. Gerasim.
A prime candidate implies that there is a secondary candidate. There isn't. In this entire joke of a 'selection' process, the faithful of Alaska are being given one choice - which is in fact no choice at all. The fix is in and all is settled except the crying (which is likely down the road). To paraphrase Bp. Benjamin: 'Move along, there's nothing to see here.'
A prime candidate implies that there is a secondary candidate. There isn't. In this entire joke of a 'selection' process, the faithful of Alaska are being given one choice - which is in fact no choice at all. The fix is in and all is settled except the crying (which is likely down the road). To paraphrase Bp. Benjamin: 'Move along, there's nothing to see here.'
#5.2.2.1.3
Hereacleides
on
2011-02-03 16:07
Just for the record, Christ the Savior Seminary in Johnstown, PA and the Christ the Savior Brotherhood are 2 separate entities. The wording of this posting may lead one to believe there is a connection.
#5.2.2.2
Fr. Dennis Buck
on
2011-01-31 08:43
Mark, I didn't mean that you were badmouthing Fr. Gerasim, and I do share your concerns over the process being used in Alaska. What concerns me are the people badmouthing Fr. Gerasim because of the process, while entirely overlooking the matter of his personal worthiness to be a bishop. If I may make a suggestion, I think your coverage of the situation would benefit from getting his perspective.
As for the people saying he would be bad because of the CSB, I think that is nuts. Does Fr. Gerasim force his spiritual children to live crypto-monastic lifestyles? Does he hide behind a legion of followers and/or an inability to speak English? Has anyone ever even cast a credible aspersion on his character?
I wonder if they have forgotten that Fr. Gerasim has spent the past year and a half living at St. Vladimir's. You know, the Schmemannary? The people who until quite recently would freak out over cassocks and prayer ropes? A crazy Ortho-cult master would stick out like a sore thumb in a place like that.
And finally, for those of you trying to recruit Fr. Michael Oleksa to be bishop, you should remember that Fr. Michael was the one who likened the current process in use in Alaska to an "arranged marriage", and defended it.
As for the people saying he would be bad because of the CSB, I think that is nuts. Does Fr. Gerasim force his spiritual children to live crypto-monastic lifestyles? Does he hide behind a legion of followers and/or an inability to speak English? Has anyone ever even cast a credible aspersion on his character?
I wonder if they have forgotten that Fr. Gerasim has spent the past year and a half living at St. Vladimir's. You know, the Schmemannary? The people who until quite recently would freak out over cassocks and prayer ropes? A crazy Ortho-cult master would stick out like a sore thumb in a place like that.
And finally, for those of you trying to recruit Fr. Michael Oleksa to be bishop, you should remember that Fr. Michael was the one who likened the current process in use in Alaska to an "arranged marriage", and defended it.
#5.2.3
Cordelia
on
2011-01-28 10:26
Oh, you mean Gordon from the Christ the Savior Brotherhood/ Order of Mans. Com'on!
#5.2.4
Anonymous
on
2011-01-30 16:36
Mark,
Just when I thought you were going soft on us, you surprised me with an excellent commentary. Thanks very much!
I truly hope that you will continue to keep the heat on about transparency and accountability. The OCA simply has too much at stake to let many of these unresolved matters fade away. Sadly, I think Metropolitan Jonah is turning out to be a disastrous choice for the OCA. His lack of any experience has shone through like fireworks on the fourth of July. And what, exactly, is the obsession with Russia? The last time I checked, Patriarch Kirill hasn't made any "unofficial" trips to the U.S. (nor have any other heads of autocephalous churches for that matter) yet Jonah can't seem to wait to go back to Russia and work on his church slavonic.
He has now had ample time to "figure out" the OCA. If he doesn't want to lead the OCA he should resign. If he doesn't like what he's gotten himself into, no one is holding a gun to his head. He does an enormous disservice to the OCA by continuing to play Metropolitan and not accepting the work that goes along with the position.
And what, exactly is the latest with the Archbishop Seraphim situation? After all of the talk about the investigative committee, there has been nothing for well over a month.
So let me get this straight and just to make sure I'm up to date: Kondratick walked away scot free and can continue to parade around in a black cassock in an OCA church, Herman gets to keep the house that he didn't pay for and live with his assistant, the archdeacon Klimitchev gets to walk away without any liability, the +Seraphim investigation continues without any update, Kondratick's former sidekick gets a promotion, and Metropolitan Jonah feels that the OCA's autocephaly isn't really that important. Nice to know the church is moving in a positive direction. Gospodi Pomilui!
Just when I thought you were going soft on us, you surprised me with an excellent commentary. Thanks very much!
I truly hope that you will continue to keep the heat on about transparency and accountability. The OCA simply has too much at stake to let many of these unresolved matters fade away. Sadly, I think Metropolitan Jonah is turning out to be a disastrous choice for the OCA. His lack of any experience has shone through like fireworks on the fourth of July. And what, exactly, is the obsession with Russia? The last time I checked, Patriarch Kirill hasn't made any "unofficial" trips to the U.S. (nor have any other heads of autocephalous churches for that matter) yet Jonah can't seem to wait to go back to Russia and work on his church slavonic.
He has now had ample time to "figure out" the OCA. If he doesn't want to lead the OCA he should resign. If he doesn't like what he's gotten himself into, no one is holding a gun to his head. He does an enormous disservice to the OCA by continuing to play Metropolitan and not accepting the work that goes along with the position.
And what, exactly is the latest with the Archbishop Seraphim situation? After all of the talk about the investigative committee, there has been nothing for well over a month.
So let me get this straight and just to make sure I'm up to date: Kondratick walked away scot free and can continue to parade around in a black cassock in an OCA church, Herman gets to keep the house that he didn't pay for and live with his assistant, the archdeacon Klimitchev gets to walk away without any liability, the +Seraphim investigation continues without any update, Kondratick's former sidekick gets a promotion, and Metropolitan Jonah feels that the OCA's autocephaly isn't really that important. Nice to know the church is moving in a positive direction. Gospodi Pomilui!
#6
Anon.
on
2011-01-25 17:20
ABHP Seraphims lawyer(Seraphim DID NOT have to attend) had a court date on Jan-10 , whether this was to set a trial date is not known.
During Mark's well deserved month off I spent a lot of time researching as many Orthodox Churchs world wide as I could.
My conclusion is that worldwide Orthodoxy is SICK.
(Editor's note: I will not opine about the wellness of worldwide Orthodoxy; needless to say as the Body of Christ ,it is perfect. That being said, the body may have picked up some schmutz along the way, that can be washed away in God's time. As for the Archbishop's case, his lawyer did appear in court on Jan. 10 to discuss procedural matters. It is expected that a trial is not in the offing until late this year at the earliest. You're in for a long watch. )
During Mark's well deserved month off I spent a lot of time researching as many Orthodox Churchs world wide as I could.
My conclusion is that worldwide Orthodoxy is SICK.
(Editor's note: I will not opine about the wellness of worldwide Orthodoxy; needless to say as the Body of Christ ,it is perfect. That being said, the body may have picked up some schmutz along the way, that can be washed away in God's time. As for the Archbishop's case, his lawyer did appear in court on Jan. 10 to discuss procedural matters. It is expected that a trial is not in the offing until late this year at the earliest. You're in for a long watch. )
#6.1
CIRCUS WATCHER
on
2011-01-25 20:09
The obsession with Russia goes back to his days at the former Father Herman's publishing business including the resurrection of 'Russky Palomnik'. It was part of the whole HOOM-CSB shtick of being the 'authentic' orthodox in order to save the Church from itself. Of course they were so authentic that they allied themselves with two child molesters ('metropolitan' Pangratios & 'bishop' Benedict) and the defrocked 'father' Herman and had their 'new Sarov' priestly training at the Blanco 'monastery'.
Fr. Gerasim was at 'father' Herman's monastery during the time of the unholy alliance with Pangratios, Benedict & CSB/HOOM. This was when the HOOM/CSB community was split over the discovery that Pangratios was a self appointed, self annointed 'metropolitan' and that he was a child molester. He certainly was aware of the controversy and yet he went along with it. It is bad enough that he is now an OCA priest but to be a Bishop is an outrage.
+ Jonah is a disaster for the OCA. During a time where it could be recovering from its past it is simply repeating the same mistakes and making new ones. Pitiful.
Fr. Gerasim was at 'father' Herman's monastery during the time of the unholy alliance with Pangratios, Benedict & CSB/HOOM. This was when the HOOM/CSB community was split over the discovery that Pangratios was a self appointed, self annointed 'metropolitan' and that he was a child molester. He certainly was aware of the controversy and yet he went along with it. It is bad enough that he is now an OCA priest but to be a Bishop is an outrage.
+ Jonah is a disaster for the OCA. During a time where it could be recovering from its past it is simply repeating the same mistakes and making new ones. Pitiful.
#6.2
Ex Cult Member
on
2011-01-28 08:42
Schmemann ...saw that clericalism was fostered by seminary community life...." - William C. Mills
http://www.williamcmills.com/resources_crackingclericalcaste.pdf
Intellectualism + elitism = clericalism; mix in mammon worship and the result is disastrous as is obvious.
The situation won't get better until laity starts locally really BE-ing church, selecting and training priests in the parish, electing bishops locally and holding priests, monks and heirarchs accountable by denying their entitlements so as not to allow them to be wards of the Church and think of themselves as a "higher" spiritual caste. Localism, like with secular society, is antidote to politics and its career celebrities who set themselves apart from their constituency and for whom "power" is corruption.
Clericalism, even when presumed to be "kind and gentle", is still clericalism and together with mammon worship, is the heart of the problem with Orthodoxy in the lower 48, which started out badly from the get go. "Orthodoxy" in the lower 48 was introduced by the expatriate "diaspora" who came from the east facing west in search of mammon. Proper orientation of he Church is east not west, like in Alaska which was evangelized in THE Way of proper Christian mission by those who came from the west facing east.
The lower 48 will never be properly evangelized until laity start living communally as the Church did historically during the Age of the Martyrs, in Celtic Christianity in Ireland, and in peasant communes in Holy Rus.
Especially see excerpt at bottom of page from -
A Celtic model of ministry: the reawakening of community spirituality
http://lifegivingspring.info/LGS/about/study/
I think Fr. Oleska absolutely should be Bishop of AK, and also Metropolitan. He's one of few I've heard who really understands Orthdoxy. See his article -
http://www.jacwell.org/Supplements/alaskan_orthodox_mission_and_cosmic.htm
http://www.williamcmills.com/resources_crackingclericalcaste.pdf
Intellectualism + elitism = clericalism; mix in mammon worship and the result is disastrous as is obvious.
The situation won't get better until laity starts locally really BE-ing church, selecting and training priests in the parish, electing bishops locally and holding priests, monks and heirarchs accountable by denying their entitlements so as not to allow them to be wards of the Church and think of themselves as a "higher" spiritual caste. Localism, like with secular society, is antidote to politics and its career celebrities who set themselves apart from their constituency and for whom "power" is corruption.
Clericalism, even when presumed to be "kind and gentle", is still clericalism and together with mammon worship, is the heart of the problem with Orthodoxy in the lower 48, which started out badly from the get go. "Orthodoxy" in the lower 48 was introduced by the expatriate "diaspora" who came from the east facing west in search of mammon. Proper orientation of he Church is east not west, like in Alaska which was evangelized in THE Way of proper Christian mission by those who came from the west facing east.
The lower 48 will never be properly evangelized until laity start living communally as the Church did historically during the Age of the Martyrs, in Celtic Christianity in Ireland, and in peasant communes in Holy Rus.
Especially see excerpt at bottom of page from -
A Celtic model of ministry: the reawakening of community spirituality
http://lifegivingspring.info/LGS/about/study/
I think Fr. Oleska absolutely should be Bishop of AK, and also Metropolitan. He's one of few I've heard who really understands Orthdoxy. See his article -
http://www.jacwell.org/Supplements/alaskan_orthodox_mission_and_cosmic.htm
Gee, what are you going to tell his matushka?
#7.1
Cordelia
on
2011-01-26 00:13
"Gee, what are you going to tell his matushka?"
Keep up the good work, as behind every "good man" there's a "good woman".
Keep up the good work, as behind every "good man" there's a "good woman".
Really, because I could have sworn we came out of the kitchen and said, "Sisters are doin' it for themselves! Standin' on their own two feet, and ringin' on their own bells!"
Seriously, though, if I were her I'd be rather offended by what you wrote. Under present conditions, she'd either have to be dead or shipped off to a monastery, and no one has asked her if she is inclined to the monastic state.
And if for some reason the Orthodox Church decides to end a 1300-year-old practice and allow married men to be bishops again, what will that mean for her? Alone at home while her husband traverses the Diocese of Alaska making pastoral visits? Or perhaps she would go with him, but be unable to hold down a job of her own, or see her family and home very often?
Seriously, though, if I were her I'd be rather offended by what you wrote. Under present conditions, she'd either have to be dead or shipped off to a monastery, and no one has asked her if she is inclined to the monastic state.
And if for some reason the Orthodox Church decides to end a 1300-year-old practice and allow married men to be bishops again, what will that mean for her? Alone at home while her husband traverses the Diocese of Alaska making pastoral visits? Or perhaps she would go with him, but be unable to hold down a job of her own, or see her family and home very often?
#7.1.1.1
Cordelia
on
2011-01-27 11:42
"Alone at home while her husband traverses the Diocese of Alaska making pastoral visits? Or perhaps she would go with him, but be unable to hold down a job of her own, or see her family and home very often?"
Well, Cordelia, this would just about sum up my life as the wife of a priest who serves as a military chaplain. And yes, we are still married after 26 years of this kind of life. Go figure.
Well, Cordelia, this would just about sum up my life as the wife of a priest who serves as a military chaplain. And yes, we are still married after 26 years of this kind of life. Go figure.
#7.1.1.1.1
Matushka Wendy
on
2011-02-01 16:59
May God bless you and your ministry, Matushka Wendy.
#7.1.1.1.1.1
Cordelia
on
2011-02-04 08:39
It is encouraging to hear D. Stall's concise assessment of clericalism, and the stress on the importance of Christian community and shared life, as well as the comment on the fact that the indigenization of Orthodox Christianity (as Fr. Michael Oleksa wrote a couple of decades ago) has barely begun in North America outside of Alaska. I believe that it has been happening to some degree in the Archdiocese of Canada (OCA), which very often feels ignored, neglected, misunderstood and mistreated and, in the present circumstances, abandoned by the OCA.
I think that the article by Fr. Michael Oleksa and other things which he has written regarding indigenization are essential reading for anyone seriously interested in Orthodox mission in North America. A great weakness in theological training is the lack of awareness of the philosophical underpinnings and assumptions out of which North America was produced and within which it exists.
It seems sometimes that it is the Americanization of Orthodoxy which is taking place, rather than the Orthodoxization of America, though I believe that the latter is inevitable, and therefore poses concerns to world Orthodoxy, which has become tangled with, and shaped by. many things not Orthodox, and therefore is alarmed at the potential of Orthodox indigenization in North America. Also I agree that Fr. Michael Oleksa is already the bishop of Alaska, though it is up to the Alaskan Orthodox to decide and for the OCA to listen to them. Having spent time in Christian communities within Protestantism, and having inherited a little priest-less mission called the Theotokos of the Life-Giving Spring, for service to which I was ordained at age 65 a year ago, I find considerable common ground with D. Stall's comments and the links provided with the comments.
Thank you for raising these concerns!
Priest Anthony Estabrooks
I think that the article by Fr. Michael Oleksa and other things which he has written regarding indigenization are essential reading for anyone seriously interested in Orthodox mission in North America. A great weakness in theological training is the lack of awareness of the philosophical underpinnings and assumptions out of which North America was produced and within which it exists.
It seems sometimes that it is the Americanization of Orthodoxy which is taking place, rather than the Orthodoxization of America, though I believe that the latter is inevitable, and therefore poses concerns to world Orthodoxy, which has become tangled with, and shaped by. many things not Orthodox, and therefore is alarmed at the potential of Orthodox indigenization in North America. Also I agree that Fr. Michael Oleksa is already the bishop of Alaska, though it is up to the Alaskan Orthodox to decide and for the OCA to listen to them. Having spent time in Christian communities within Protestantism, and having inherited a little priest-less mission called the Theotokos of the Life-Giving Spring, for service to which I was ordained at age 65 a year ago, I find considerable common ground with D. Stall's comments and the links provided with the comments.
Thank you for raising these concerns!
Priest Anthony Estabrooks
#7.2
Priest Anthony Estabrooks
on
2011-01-26 08:50
You wrote, "Intellectualism + elitism = clericalism"
Elitism is certainly a key element of clericalism: the cleric believes him- or herself--I include both genders because, while clericalism is most definitely a problem in the Orthodox Church, it exists among all religious groups--not merely to have a position of spiritual responsibility (even authority), but to be inherently superior to people below that person in the hierarchy. While any clergyperson can potentially fall into the trap of clericalism, in my experience the worst cases tend to be people who were generally unsuccessful in their personal and/or professional lives before ordination, and see the pastorate as a way of "proving" their superiority and giving them the ostensible grounds for demanding the slavish adoration they desperately crave.
You are somewhat mistaken, however, in directly linking intellectualism and clericalism. While the two certainly can go together, of course, I've also met more than my share of ministers steeped in clericalism who are proudly anti-intellectual (just as I've even encountered a few Orthodox whose clericalism is partially manifested in a staunch aversion to personal hygiene).
Elitism is certainly a key element of clericalism: the cleric believes him- or herself--I include both genders because, while clericalism is most definitely a problem in the Orthodox Church, it exists among all religious groups--not merely to have a position of spiritual responsibility (even authority), but to be inherently superior to people below that person in the hierarchy. While any clergyperson can potentially fall into the trap of clericalism, in my experience the worst cases tend to be people who were generally unsuccessful in their personal and/or professional lives before ordination, and see the pastorate as a way of "proving" their superiority and giving them the ostensible grounds for demanding the slavish adoration they desperately crave.
You are somewhat mistaken, however, in directly linking intellectualism and clericalism. While the two certainly can go together, of course, I've also met more than my share of ministers steeped in clericalism who are proudly anti-intellectual (just as I've even encountered a few Orthodox whose clericalism is partially manifested in a staunch aversion to personal hygiene).
#7.3
Jason Barker
on
2011-01-26 09:28
Jason, consider that "anti-intellectualism" and aversion to hygiene are mere facets of intellectualism. See definition(s)-
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intellectualism
I link intellectualism and elitism with clericalism in response to Mills statement that "Schmemann ...saw that clericalism was fostered by seminary community life....", and in response to supporting references to Schmemann that Mills cites in his article - Cracking the Clerical Caste: Towards a Conciliar Church
http://www.williamcmills.com/resources_crackingclericalcaste.pdf
Graduate school is a "small pond", seminary a smaller one, and Orthodox seminary yet an even smaller one, each with their big fish to fry. On top of that exclusivity (which tempts toward elitism), seminary is mostly intellectually oriented. An MDiv thesis or PhD dissertation on some obscure facet of Orthodoxy doesn't amount to a hill of beans in furthering theosis of a candidate for priesthood (the main "energy" by which priests are enabled to serve laity), or in preparing them intellectually, practically, and creatively for spiritual guidance of laity in response to all the sorrows, trials and tribulations that must be born in the world, in order to not be "of the world". Lack of practical awareness of such world situations is one of the things cited by Schmemann in his analysis of clericalism based on his lifelong exposure to seminary environment.
Intellectualism comprises a lion's share of seminary "training" for the priesthood and exists mainly for the satisfaction of secular credentials for academic accreditation, which results in nothing but secularization of the Church by way of the priesthood. Met. Jonah himself stated in his talk on Spiritual Maturity that the Church in America is suffering from a lack of spiritual maturity, particularly of the priesthood (proverbial blind leading the blind). A cursory survey of online celebrity priesthood "speakers", "authors", bloggers, and forum "commentors" is sufficient to witness such immaturity evident in clericalism's intellectualism. While clericalism can certainly stem from underachiever syndrome of former occupation of 2nd career priesthood candidates, I consider that but one of many manifestations of intellectualism's clericalism. A key word here is "career" (as in professional), as opposed to priest as member of laity who is "first" because they "serve" all others.
To better understand the secular style of "schooling" that serves nationalism by way of its "efficiency", and the effect of such schooling on society and community (much less the Church), see John Taylor Gatto, especially "Land of Frankenstein" -
http://lifegivingspring.info/LGS/living/economy/education/
and American Education History Tour
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/historytour/history1.htm
His Grace also mentioned in other statements about the need to cut costs (which is admirable toward reform of the elitist aristocratic life of heirarchy which burdens laity with such entitlements), such as in selling and moving Church headquarters from the high rent district of Syosset to a more national central location. Disappointingly, he has not acted upon those statements, but has acted very differently from the reform stance he initially took as Mark elucidates, which is another illustration of the definition(s) of clericalism's "intellectualism", devotion to intellectual pursuits ("talk" instead of "walk"; "all hat and no cattle" as is said in Texas), excessive emphasis on abstract, intellectual matters (as opposed to practical reality, action, BE-ing). Tellingly, the link to the audio recording of that "spiritual maturity" talk is now inactive at the OCA website,
http://www.oca.org/metropolitan-jonah/
but can still be found here -
http://atlantaorthodoxchurches.org/stjohn/sounds/2009_DOS_Keynote.mp3
Seminary as secular accredited "school" is evidence of the Church's loss of Salt for Society, and transformation into mirror of the world instead of icon of the Kingdom of Heaven that convicts the world by its presence in the world without being "of the world". Further evidence is in the Church's secular m.o., its bureaucratic institutional "administration" that is no different than that of secualr government or corporate business, replete with "committees", "strategic plans", etc. etc. but little to no intrinsic Divine Wisdom for Real effect in Christian terms.
I do agree with you that intellectualism most definitely infects laity as well, and that laity is just as culpable as the priesthood, monastics and heirarchy for secularization of the Church. The Church is a body, so if one organ becomes diseased (i.e. the liver), that puts stress on the other organs of the body that then become diseased also. So not only must that disease be treated by reform of "seminary", but also by way of parish "community". Intellectualism in laity manifests in penchant for endless reading of books and devotion to ritual. Holy Writ sums up such intellectualism in 2 Timothy 3:7 -
"always learning but never able to acknowledge [i.e. embody] the truth", which is part of an epistle referencing Godlessness in the Last Days.
http://niv.scripturetext.com/2_timothy/3.htm
As Fr. Oleksa states in The Alaskan Orthodox Mission and Cosmic Christianity, the Church is "beyond" all such foolishness -
"The mission of the Church includes but also extends beyond the conversion of human persons to a liturgical/ doctrinal/ ethical system or code. It extends beyond the building of church structures, temples, schools, seminaries or the publishing of theological books and spiritually-oriented periodicals. It extends beyond the celebration of services, the valid administration of sacraments, beyond preaching, teaching, converting and forgiving. The mission of the Church extends to the whole created universe, to the sanctification of the cosmos in the Name of its originator, sustainer and goal, Jesus Christ who comes to "make all things new" not just at the end of time but now, here, today".
After my honeymoon with the Church Triumphant ended a few years after being received into the Church, I had to face the reality of the Church militant. My website, Life Giving Spring,
http://LifeGivingSpring.info/LGS/
represents 8 years of coming to terms with what I experienced as someone from a professional design background, applying the design process to analysis of the "problem", and understanding of the "goal" of the Church as stated by Fr. Oleksa. Sadly, I see no way for the Church to even begin to realize those goals as long as it "follows" the dictates of secular living in its seminary "schooling", heirarchal "administration", and atomized lay "living" and "working" which financially supports the whole body of church as mirror of the world. As Wendell Berry states in God and Country, the "church" (including laity) has made its "peace" with the most destructive "economy" in human history.
http://home2.btconnect.com/tipiglen/godandcountry.html
The Church desperately needs to start finding ways of being Salt for Society that looks very different from typical, secular, consumerism. Forming Intentional Communities for interrelationship of God, Man and Creation is a way of doing just that.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intellectualism
I link intellectualism and elitism with clericalism in response to Mills statement that "Schmemann ...saw that clericalism was fostered by seminary community life....", and in response to supporting references to Schmemann that Mills cites in his article - Cracking the Clerical Caste: Towards a Conciliar Church
http://www.williamcmills.com/resources_crackingclericalcaste.pdf
Graduate school is a "small pond", seminary a smaller one, and Orthodox seminary yet an even smaller one, each with their big fish to fry. On top of that exclusivity (which tempts toward elitism), seminary is mostly intellectually oriented. An MDiv thesis or PhD dissertation on some obscure facet of Orthodoxy doesn't amount to a hill of beans in furthering theosis of a candidate for priesthood (the main "energy" by which priests are enabled to serve laity), or in preparing them intellectually, practically, and creatively for spiritual guidance of laity in response to all the sorrows, trials and tribulations that must be born in the world, in order to not be "of the world". Lack of practical awareness of such world situations is one of the things cited by Schmemann in his analysis of clericalism based on his lifelong exposure to seminary environment.
Intellectualism comprises a lion's share of seminary "training" for the priesthood and exists mainly for the satisfaction of secular credentials for academic accreditation, which results in nothing but secularization of the Church by way of the priesthood. Met. Jonah himself stated in his talk on Spiritual Maturity that the Church in America is suffering from a lack of spiritual maturity, particularly of the priesthood (proverbial blind leading the blind). A cursory survey of online celebrity priesthood "speakers", "authors", bloggers, and forum "commentors" is sufficient to witness such immaturity evident in clericalism's intellectualism. While clericalism can certainly stem from underachiever syndrome of former occupation of 2nd career priesthood candidates, I consider that but one of many manifestations of intellectualism's clericalism. A key word here is "career" (as in professional), as opposed to priest as member of laity who is "first" because they "serve" all others.
To better understand the secular style of "schooling" that serves nationalism by way of its "efficiency", and the effect of such schooling on society and community (much less the Church), see John Taylor Gatto, especially "Land of Frankenstein" -
http://lifegivingspring.info/LGS/living/economy/education/
and American Education History Tour
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/historytour/history1.htm
His Grace also mentioned in other statements about the need to cut costs (which is admirable toward reform of the elitist aristocratic life of heirarchy which burdens laity with such entitlements), such as in selling and moving Church headquarters from the high rent district of Syosset to a more national central location. Disappointingly, he has not acted upon those statements, but has acted very differently from the reform stance he initially took as Mark elucidates, which is another illustration of the definition(s) of clericalism's "intellectualism", devotion to intellectual pursuits ("talk" instead of "walk"; "all hat and no cattle" as is said in Texas), excessive emphasis on abstract, intellectual matters (as opposed to practical reality, action, BE-ing). Tellingly, the link to the audio recording of that "spiritual maturity" talk is now inactive at the OCA website,
http://www.oca.org/metropolitan-jonah/
but can still be found here -
http://atlantaorthodoxchurches.org/stjohn/sounds/2009_DOS_Keynote.mp3
Seminary as secular accredited "school" is evidence of the Church's loss of Salt for Society, and transformation into mirror of the world instead of icon of the Kingdom of Heaven that convicts the world by its presence in the world without being "of the world". Further evidence is in the Church's secular m.o., its bureaucratic institutional "administration" that is no different than that of secualr government or corporate business, replete with "committees", "strategic plans", etc. etc. but little to no intrinsic Divine Wisdom for Real effect in Christian terms.
I do agree with you that intellectualism most definitely infects laity as well, and that laity is just as culpable as the priesthood, monastics and heirarchy for secularization of the Church. The Church is a body, so if one organ becomes diseased (i.e. the liver), that puts stress on the other organs of the body that then become diseased also. So not only must that disease be treated by reform of "seminary", but also by way of parish "community". Intellectualism in laity manifests in penchant for endless reading of books and devotion to ritual. Holy Writ sums up such intellectualism in 2 Timothy 3:7 -
"always learning but never able to acknowledge [i.e. embody] the truth", which is part of an epistle referencing Godlessness in the Last Days.
http://niv.scripturetext.com/2_timothy/3.htm
As Fr. Oleksa states in The Alaskan Orthodox Mission and Cosmic Christianity, the Church is "beyond" all such foolishness -
"The mission of the Church includes but also extends beyond the conversion of human persons to a liturgical/ doctrinal/ ethical system or code. It extends beyond the building of church structures, temples, schools, seminaries or the publishing of theological books and spiritually-oriented periodicals. It extends beyond the celebration of services, the valid administration of sacraments, beyond preaching, teaching, converting and forgiving. The mission of the Church extends to the whole created universe, to the sanctification of the cosmos in the Name of its originator, sustainer and goal, Jesus Christ who comes to "make all things new" not just at the end of time but now, here, today".
After my honeymoon with the Church Triumphant ended a few years after being received into the Church, I had to face the reality of the Church militant. My website, Life Giving Spring,
http://LifeGivingSpring.info/LGS/
represents 8 years of coming to terms with what I experienced as someone from a professional design background, applying the design process to analysis of the "problem", and understanding of the "goal" of the Church as stated by Fr. Oleksa. Sadly, I see no way for the Church to even begin to realize those goals as long as it "follows" the dictates of secular living in its seminary "schooling", heirarchal "administration", and atomized lay "living" and "working" which financially supports the whole body of church as mirror of the world. As Wendell Berry states in God and Country, the "church" (including laity) has made its "peace" with the most destructive "economy" in human history.
http://home2.btconnect.com/tipiglen/godandcountry.html
The Church desperately needs to start finding ways of being Salt for Society that looks very different from typical, secular, consumerism. Forming Intentional Communities for interrelationship of God, Man and Creation is a way of doing just that.
I found your comment about Celtic spirituality truly interesting, and I have sometimes seen icons of Irish saints in Orthodox Churches. Alas, one must accept all of the concept of Irish spirituality, and I'm afraid Orthodoxy would run for the hills if it were even tried. Granted, they had communities that lived, worked and prayed together. These are truly remarkable.
It is also well know that they had "mixed" houses - monasteries of both men and women, and yes, often familes as well. These mixed houses were almost always led by a female abbot (Orthodoxy would have problems with this ... but wait, it does get even more interesting). In addition, recently I was in an Orthodox Church about 40 miles from where I live, and there was an icon of a female saint. One layman, a professor/teacher saw me examining this icon and pointed out that many if not most, or even all, early Irish saints were far more aligned to Greek and Egyptian monasticism than they were to Rome, and should be counted, truly, as Orthodox saints. What he pointed out then astonished me more ... here was an Orthodox female saint and she was consecrated a bishop! He did point out there is some controversy about his consecration (the bishop doing the consecration was elderly and may or may not have fully understood the ramifications of what he was doing). None-the-less, and yes, I did check into this, here we have an Orthodox saint, she was both a woman and a bishop (at the most, but definitely a priest).
And there we have some of Celtic spirituality.
It is also well know that they had "mixed" houses - monasteries of both men and women, and yes, often familes as well. These mixed houses were almost always led by a female abbot (Orthodoxy would have problems with this ... but wait, it does get even more interesting). In addition, recently I was in an Orthodox Church about 40 miles from where I live, and there was an icon of a female saint. One layman, a professor/teacher saw me examining this icon and pointed out that many if not most, or even all, early Irish saints were far more aligned to Greek and Egyptian monasticism than they were to Rome, and should be counted, truly, as Orthodox saints. What he pointed out then astonished me more ... here was an Orthodox female saint and she was consecrated a bishop! He did point out there is some controversy about his consecration (the bishop doing the consecration was elderly and may or may not have fully understood the ramifications of what he was doing). None-the-less, and yes, I did check into this, here we have an Orthodox saint, she was both a woman and a bishop (at the most, but definitely a priest).
And there we have some of Celtic spirituality.
#7.4
Sean O'Clare
on
2011-01-26 17:04
Sean,
First - congratulations on a superb post. The much-maligned Irish still have it all over the continental Imperial Church!
I agree - the Byzantine Orthodox Church would run for the hills if Celtic Christianity were even tried within it.
This female Bishop of yours - would you be referring to St Bridget of Kildare by any slight chance? She was merely following in the Tradition of St Mary Magdalene!
What you could have also said was that this Celtic Christianity is the oldest gentile form of Christianity in the world - established at Llantwit Major in Wales c35CE by St Joseph of Arimathea - before Philip's evangelisation of the Ethiopian eunuch.
St Joseph's links to Jesus are by Blood, not merely a "called" Apostle. And gave a purer form of "The Way" in Jerusalem to the Celts than anything the Pauline Imperial Roman Church had on offer.
The concept of "Diocese" was foreign to the Celtic Church - witness the trouble St Columbanus encountered on the continent when his evangelisation was challenged by jus-Romanus Bishops. He simply pointed to his "authorisation" by his Rev. Mother Abbess and considered that this was all that was necessary - he regarded both the concept and function of a Diocese - such as he encountered on the continent, as so much obstructive stuff-and-nonsense in the evangelisation department.
Finally, Bishops in the Celtic Church were only able to function as Bishop as they were subordinate to and in submission to Reverend Mother Abbess! No submission to Rev. Mother Abbess as their Spiritual-Director = no legitimate capacity to function as a Bishop! Try this one in Orthodoxy and watch every Imperial Orthodox Bishop gag and recoil in horror!
Sean, bless you as you continue to post in this vein. In a light paraphrase of a well-known aphorism, it is better to light a Celtic light than to curse the Byzantine darkness.
(Editor's note: I'm sorry, Mary Magadelene? Are we talking about Orthodox Christianity or The DaVinci Code?)
First - congratulations on a superb post. The much-maligned Irish still have it all over the continental Imperial Church!
I agree - the Byzantine Orthodox Church would run for the hills if Celtic Christianity were even tried within it.
This female Bishop of yours - would you be referring to St Bridget of Kildare by any slight chance? She was merely following in the Tradition of St Mary Magdalene!
What you could have also said was that this Celtic Christianity is the oldest gentile form of Christianity in the world - established at Llantwit Major in Wales c35CE by St Joseph of Arimathea - before Philip's evangelisation of the Ethiopian eunuch.
St Joseph's links to Jesus are by Blood, not merely a "called" Apostle. And gave a purer form of "The Way" in Jerusalem to the Celts than anything the Pauline Imperial Roman Church had on offer.
The concept of "Diocese" was foreign to the Celtic Church - witness the trouble St Columbanus encountered on the continent when his evangelisation was challenged by jus-Romanus Bishops. He simply pointed to his "authorisation" by his Rev. Mother Abbess and considered that this was all that was necessary - he regarded both the concept and function of a Diocese - such as he encountered on the continent, as so much obstructive stuff-and-nonsense in the evangelisation department.
Finally, Bishops in the Celtic Church were only able to function as Bishop as they were subordinate to and in submission to Reverend Mother Abbess! No submission to Rev. Mother Abbess as their Spiritual-Director = no legitimate capacity to function as a Bishop! Try this one in Orthodoxy and watch every Imperial Orthodox Bishop gag and recoil in horror!
Sean, bless you as you continue to post in this vein. In a light paraphrase of a well-known aphorism, it is better to light a Celtic light than to curse the Byzantine darkness.
(Editor's note: I'm sorry, Mary Magadelene? Are we talking about Orthodox Christianity or The DaVinci Code?)
#7.4.1
John Battye
on
2011-01-27 04:50
John, thank you VERY much for your post. And yes, I am referring to St. Bridget (late 5th to early 6th century). I have studied a bit about Celtic Christianity and I feel there is much to learn there. As a convert to Orthodoxy, I feel we shouldn't necessarily throw everything out that we learned, and studied and cared about in our previous church (after all, it did lead us to Orthodoxy).
Your points about Celtic bishops are likewise well taken. Our notion of a diocese would be completely foreign to them. By the way, it is interesting to note that after the Council at Whitby, much of English and Celtic Christianity took a decided turn toward Rome (as for example, the Orthodox calendar was scrapped in favor of the Roman determination of when Pascha should fall). But that was in 633. There also seems to be a bit of evidence suggesting that in the 700's Rome finally told Ireland to stop having women as priests. Up until that time it was not unusual at all to have women priests, abbots, to have them in authority over male bishops, and yes, even that one example (if there are more, I am not aware) of a woman as a bishop and abbot.
I suppose we can't change history, for better or worse, I'd just like to see us, as an Orthodox body, try to stop hiding the parts we don't like or agree with.
Your points about Celtic bishops are likewise well taken. Our notion of a diocese would be completely foreign to them. By the way, it is interesting to note that after the Council at Whitby, much of English and Celtic Christianity took a decided turn toward Rome (as for example, the Orthodox calendar was scrapped in favor of the Roman determination of when Pascha should fall). But that was in 633. There also seems to be a bit of evidence suggesting that in the 700's Rome finally told Ireland to stop having women as priests. Up until that time it was not unusual at all to have women priests, abbots, to have them in authority over male bishops, and yes, even that one example (if there are more, I am not aware) of a woman as a bishop and abbot.
I suppose we can't change history, for better or worse, I'd just like to see us, as an Orthodox body, try to stop hiding the parts we don't like or agree with.
#7.4.1.1
Sean O'Clare
on
2011-01-27 16:28
My point in referencing Celtic Christianity was not to call attention to the fact that when a region and people have historically been evangelized, they did not continue their old way of life or live individualistically and atomized amongst nonChristians, but settled adjacent to monasteries in new groups comprised of spiritual "family", which gave rise to later villages once the region became Christianized. Such is the Orthodox way of mission (as opposed to violent western conquering form of mission seen in Frankish Roman catholicism), and was also the case in Alaska, where indigenous peoples became curious about St. Herman and came to live in contact with him.
Similarly to pagan Ireland and Alaska, North America is an unevangelized region contrary to any babel about the US being a "christian" nation. As such, I think it is counterproductive to evangelization (and spiritual maturity upon which such evangelization depends) for Christians to live amongst heterodox, nonchristians and atheists as if suburban neighborhoods and commuting can be comparable to Orthodox villages and as if the industrial urban corporatist consumerist way of life is not at odd with human theosis. To ignore that impossibility renders Christianity impotent, removes its "salt", and hides its "light" from the world instead of putting that light on a lampstand and hilltop.
Similarly to pagan Ireland and Alaska, North America is an unevangelized region contrary to any babel about the US being a "christian" nation. As such, I think it is counterproductive to evangelization (and spiritual maturity upon which such evangelization depends) for Christians to live amongst heterodox, nonchristians and atheists as if suburban neighborhoods and commuting can be comparable to Orthodox villages and as if the industrial urban corporatist consumerist way of life is not at odd with human theosis. To ignore that impossibility renders Christianity impotent, removes its "salt", and hides its "light" from the world instead of putting that light on a lampstand and hilltop.
1) There have been parishes that have tried to live communally in the "lower 48"--they quickly become cult-like (e.g., Ben Lomond).
2) Not everyone came to the "lower 48" in search of mammon--some came seeking refuge from wars and persecution.
3) The Russians didn't come to Alaska seeking a place to continue the life of Holy Rus--they definitely came for mammon.
4) The solution to clericalism is not closing seminaries, but much more difficult: changing the whole culture of the church. Close them, and you'll just end up with poorly educated priests who are just as prone to clericalism--perhaps even more inclined to it, since they will likely feel inferior to educated clergy peers in Roman Catholic and Protestant churches, and even to the educated members of their congregations, and so will cling to their ordained state as something that distinguishes them.
I don't think, I hope that I am not, afflicted with clericalism. I'm probably towards the opposite extreme: I work a full-time secular job, so most of the week I am just "Mark"; I own a clerical shirt and collar, but am not sure I could find them quickly; my cassock comes off as soon as possible after church; I can't stand "clergy in bulk" (I was depressed for a week after the last deanery meeting I attended.) But still there are pushes towards clericalism: laity who disapprove of my not having long hair and beard, church dinners at which there are "clergy tables"--insisted upon by the laity, etc. So clericalism is not just a seminary by-product--if anything, it could be lessened by a good seminary education.
That's what I have to say about that.
2) Not everyone came to the "lower 48" in search of mammon--some came seeking refuge from wars and persecution.
3) The Russians didn't come to Alaska seeking a place to continue the life of Holy Rus--they definitely came for mammon.
4) The solution to clericalism is not closing seminaries, but much more difficult: changing the whole culture of the church. Close them, and you'll just end up with poorly educated priests who are just as prone to clericalism--perhaps even more inclined to it, since they will likely feel inferior to educated clergy peers in Roman Catholic and Protestant churches, and even to the educated members of their congregations, and so will cling to their ordained state as something that distinguishes them.
I don't think, I hope that I am not, afflicted with clericalism. I'm probably towards the opposite extreme: I work a full-time secular job, so most of the week I am just "Mark"; I own a clerical shirt and collar, but am not sure I could find them quickly; my cassock comes off as soon as possible after church; I can't stand "clergy in bulk" (I was depressed for a week after the last deanery meeting I attended.) But still there are pushes towards clericalism: laity who disapprove of my not having long hair and beard, church dinners at which there are "clergy tables"--insisted upon by the laity, etc. So clericalism is not just a seminary by-product--if anything, it could be lessened by a good seminary education.
That's what I have to say about that.
#7.5
Mark (a priest)
on
2011-01-26 18:07
Mark:
"Clericalism" is not "fundamentalism." Those clerics wishing to parade around with long hair/pony tails, long beards, cassocks all the time in public are "FUNDAMENTALISTS." They are playing 18th century Russian or Greek priest in 2011 America. Western clerical dress is perfectly acceptable - even Saint Tikhon realized this. Those pushing to look like we belong in some foreign country are just pure WRONG!
"Clericalism" isn't generated by seminaries. In fact, most of those who exercise clericalism are the UNEDUCATED bishops & priests. Case in point, + Tikhon (retired). Clericalism is when bishops and priests think they are of some exalted class appointed by God to RULE over the Orthodox. This borders on meglomania and is enhanced by a false teaching of what a priest & bishop are. So, clericalism & fundamentalism are quite different, but BOTH occur among the uneducated clergy rather than the educated!
"Clericalism" is not "fundamentalism." Those clerics wishing to parade around with long hair/pony tails, long beards, cassocks all the time in public are "FUNDAMENTALISTS." They are playing 18th century Russian or Greek priest in 2011 America. Western clerical dress is perfectly acceptable - even Saint Tikhon realized this. Those pushing to look like we belong in some foreign country are just pure WRONG!
"Clericalism" isn't generated by seminaries. In fact, most of those who exercise clericalism are the UNEDUCATED bishops & priests. Case in point, + Tikhon (retired). Clericalism is when bishops and priests think they are of some exalted class appointed by God to RULE over the Orthodox. This borders on meglomania and is enhanced by a false teaching of what a priest & bishop are. So, clericalism & fundamentalism are quite different, but BOTH occur among the uneducated clergy rather than the educated!
#7.5.1
Anonymous
on
2011-01-27 08:43
1) Communal living that becomes "cultish" is evidence of spiritual immaturity and the fact that such "communities" were most likely never intentional. See Creating A Life Together by Diana Leafe Christian, editor of Communities magazine for IC.org for several decades. After investigating why communities fail, Diana found that they usually were vaguely organized without a mission statement and did not practice consensus building or use consensus for decision making. The fact that nonchristians can and have successfully built communities, and Orthodox Christians have not (will not or cannot) in this age of mass individualism, competitiveness and greed, only serves to further communicate to the world the superfluous nature of Orthodox "religion".
2) Out of the Orthodox who came to the lower 48, some did come for refuge instead of primarily seeking economic opportunity, only to succumb to the consumerist western way of life because they lived individualistically like everyone else in the premier land of radical individualism, and their children grew up into American "culture" with "christian" confused and subordinated to their ethnic identity instead of being steeped in Orthodoxy as their ontological identity.
3) The fact that there were Russian presumed laymen who came to Alaska for mammon, and didn't evangelize the indigenous people, only preyed upon them, only proves that Orthodox Christianity isn't "religion" but spiritual healing. Fr. Herman and other Saints of North America defended the First Peoples from such treatment of their own Russian countrymen because these Saints understood First Peoples to also be created in the divine image and likeness of God. Because of this, Alaska indigenously became Orthodox Christian instead of remaining culturally pagan with a superficial "christian" veneer, or adding "christian" to the
4) I never suggested that seminaries be closed outright. I do think, they should be "restored" to a Christian model of education instead of the secular dictated "degree" programs they currently are. I also think there is nothing wrong with a parish priest training a candidate for the priesthood whom the parish "elects" to serve them. I do not think that the only form of "seminary" that is acceptable, is the one that mirrors the image of the world's "universities".
I find clericalism has less to do with collars, hair and tables than with spiritual immaturity over maturity, and rationalism (cerebral-ism) over BE-ing.
2) Out of the Orthodox who came to the lower 48, some did come for refuge instead of primarily seeking economic opportunity, only to succumb to the consumerist western way of life because they lived individualistically like everyone else in the premier land of radical individualism, and their children grew up into American "culture" with "christian" confused and subordinated to their ethnic identity instead of being steeped in Orthodoxy as their ontological identity.
3) The fact that there were Russian presumed laymen who came to Alaska for mammon, and didn't evangelize the indigenous people, only preyed upon them, only proves that Orthodox Christianity isn't "religion" but spiritual healing. Fr. Herman and other Saints of North America defended the First Peoples from such treatment of their own Russian countrymen because these Saints understood First Peoples to also be created in the divine image and likeness of God. Because of this, Alaska indigenously became Orthodox Christian instead of remaining culturally pagan with a superficial "christian" veneer, or adding "christian" to the
4) I never suggested that seminaries be closed outright. I do think, they should be "restored" to a Christian model of education instead of the secular dictated "degree" programs they currently are. I also think there is nothing wrong with a parish priest training a candidate for the priesthood whom the parish "elects" to serve them. I do not think that the only form of "seminary" that is acceptable, is the one that mirrors the image of the world's "universities".
I find clericalism has less to do with collars, hair and tables than with spiritual immaturity over maturity, and rationalism (cerebral-ism) over BE-ing.
"Because of this, Alaska indigenously became Orthodox Christian instead of remaining culturally pagan with a superficial "christian" veneer"
Not a fully accurate statement; it would be nice to romanticize this aspect of my people's history, but it is intellectually/historically dishonest and inaccurate, and it helps no one. Sounds like something you would find in an airy-fairy book published at SVS.
For some good reading free of church propaganda try:
Memory Eternal: Tlingit Culture and Russian Orthodox Christianity Through Two Centuries by Sergei Kan
Shamanism and Christianity: Native Encounters with Russian Orthodox Missions in Siberia and Alaska, 1820-1917 By Andrei A Znamenski
Not a fully accurate statement; it would be nice to romanticize this aspect of my people's history, but it is intellectually/historically dishonest and inaccurate, and it helps no one. Sounds like something you would find in an airy-fairy book published at SVS.
For some good reading free of church propaganda try:
Memory Eternal: Tlingit Culture and Russian Orthodox Christianity Through Two Centuries by Sergei Kan
Shamanism and Christianity: Native Encounters with Russian Orthodox Missions in Siberia and Alaska, 1820-1917 By Andrei A Znamenski
#7.5.2.1
Moses
on
2011-01-31 11:10
Thank you for the update.
Re: financial transparency and accountability of the Met himself in the new order post scandal.
1. Thank you for explaining on the other section that Met Jonah had spent $20,000 of OCA funds seeking to quash a subpoena in the Fr Susan case "on principle" then had gone to the area against advice, apparently been served, so the $20,000 was essentially lost. Can you elaborate on the "principle" itself and what cmte or council was consulted before this money was spent or is presently required to be consulted when the Met spends money. I ask partly because of the Met council's vote against a move to DC in contrast to Met Jonah's recent comments about a move. To whom is the Metropolitan of the OCA now accountable?
2. Can you shed light on how unofficial trips (such as the recent one to Russia) and official trips are funded and who if anyone authorizes expenditures for travel by the OCA Met under unofficial or official conditions?
3. Finally, I read that only the monasteries under Met J's control are exempt from visits by OCA auditors. I can't fathom why that might be.
Can you shed light on these matters?
Thank you!
Editor's note: Great questions. #1 As a citizen, he is accountable to the laws of the United States of America. They can put you in jail, or worse Gitmo. He is accountable to the Statute of the OCA and the Synod in all things pertaining to his Metropolitanate. They can remove you from office. He is accountable to the Metropolitan Council in financial and legal matters pertaining to the OCA. They can not fund you, leading to problems with Synod and/or the government. He is accountable to his Diocesan Bylaws as a Diocesan Bishop, and depending on how they are written, his Diocesan Council. They can make your life miserable. Most importantly, he is accountable to God, and his conscience, both of which can torment you for all eternity.
#2. If it is an official trip ( stemming from an invitation, for example, to a significant event or or ocassion), the OCA would pick it up. If it is personal, the Metropolitan pays. Who decides?
Well, he does upon advisement from his administration. The MC has made it clear, however, that there is a travel budget, and when it is used up, it is used up.)
#3. It is unfathomable to me too. I suggest that people ask the monasteries why they would not want their books inspected and reviewed by the OCA's auditors, who are all professionally trained and helpful churchmen and women. I personally would not contribute to any church organization that did not take advantage of a free, independent audit or review from an organization under whose jurisdication it "claims" to be. But that's me. )
Re: financial transparency and accountability of the Met himself in the new order post scandal.
1. Thank you for explaining on the other section that Met Jonah had spent $20,000 of OCA funds seeking to quash a subpoena in the Fr Susan case "on principle" then had gone to the area against advice, apparently been served, so the $20,000 was essentially lost. Can you elaborate on the "principle" itself and what cmte or council was consulted before this money was spent or is presently required to be consulted when the Met spends money. I ask partly because of the Met council's vote against a move to DC in contrast to Met Jonah's recent comments about a move. To whom is the Metropolitan of the OCA now accountable?
2. Can you shed light on how unofficial trips (such as the recent one to Russia) and official trips are funded and who if anyone authorizes expenditures for travel by the OCA Met under unofficial or official conditions?
3. Finally, I read that only the monasteries under Met J's control are exempt from visits by OCA auditors. I can't fathom why that might be.
Can you shed light on these matters?
Thank you!
Editor's note: Great questions. #1 As a citizen, he is accountable to the laws of the United States of America. They can put you in jail, or worse Gitmo. He is accountable to the Statute of the OCA and the Synod in all things pertaining to his Metropolitanate. They can remove you from office. He is accountable to the Metropolitan Council in financial and legal matters pertaining to the OCA. They can not fund you, leading to problems with Synod and/or the government. He is accountable to his Diocesan Bylaws as a Diocesan Bishop, and depending on how they are written, his Diocesan Council. They can make your life miserable. Most importantly, he is accountable to God, and his conscience, both of which can torment you for all eternity.
#2. If it is an official trip ( stemming from an invitation, for example, to a significant event or or ocassion), the OCA would pick it up. If it is personal, the Metropolitan pays. Who decides?
Well, he does upon advisement from his administration. The MC has made it clear, however, that there is a travel budget, and when it is used up, it is used up.)
#3. It is unfathomable to me too. I suggest that people ask the monasteries why they would not want their books inspected and reviewed by the OCA's auditors, who are all professionally trained and helpful churchmen and women. I personally would not contribute to any church organization that did not take advantage of a free, independent audit or review from an organization under whose jurisdication it "claims" to be. But that's me. )
#8
Nicole
on
2011-01-25 20:46
Dear Nicole:
I must have missed whatever "explanation" might have been given about the supposed expense involved in the alleged quashing of some kind of a subpoena. I'll bet it was interesting.
But as someone who issued literally hundreds of them ... and was served with some and quashed a few in 27 years of active litigation ... and as someone who has known the Metropolitan for a couple of decades or so, let me recommend that this is really a highly speculative line of, well let's be frank, uneducated guesswork, to be pursuing, and very unlikely to yield anything that you or I should consider reliable.
A subpoena is a legally authorized order that tells someone to do something whether they want to or not, and exposes them to legal penalties if they don't. Theoretically at least a subpoena aids in the discovery of truth and the attendance of reluctant but necessary witnesses at proceedings which will help resolve the case in question.
The power of subpoena was historically regarded as so important that it was reserved only to judges and/or their clerks. After all, it purported to interfere with all other duties and considerations in a person's life, and to require the person to shelve them all and instead do what the court process says. Traditionally an application for the order would explain to the issuing power why it was legally necessary to use the power of the state to force the person in question to do what the requesting party wanted. My hard-headed old mentor, the Hon. Harry Brauer, refused to issue many a subpoena (and quashed plenty of others) once he figured out what was really afoot.
Why? Because in the litigation explosion of recent decades the subpoena was extended, at least here in CA, to attorneys too. And not just the good guys, i.e. yours and mine, but opposing attorneys too. Anyone with more than a few months of litigation experience knows first hand some of the unspoken purposes, not to say outright abuses, to which the subpoena power can be put. And I saw each one of the following with my own eyes, some of them dozens of times:
- causing the other side difficulty and expense, whether by the cost of opposing the subpoena or the process of complying,
- inconveniencing an opposing party by fixing the subpoena date on a day when you know the person has plans - or even urgent needs, like an operation or a speaking engagement, to be elsewhere, and then refusing to modify it,
- punishing the person subpoenaed for having failed earlier to do something the issuing party wanted, like accede to a settlement demand,
- intimidating the other side in advance of settlement negotiations,
- demanding information the law doesn't authorize that would invade the privacy of an individual or an institution.
I wouldn't be surprised if sharper minds or current practitioners could come up with a few more, but I think you get the idea. If money was spent to quash a subpoena, there's a host of perfectly moral reasons to want to modify or quash it, and an attorney with devious or even mixed motives who issues one in the first place will often be very inflexible when approached to withdraw or modify it.
What really happened in this case and why? We are never going to know the real motives, good, bad, mixed, on the issuing side.
Or on the side that defended. They could be utterly pristine or very devious. Based on long, personal acquaintance with His Eminence (I have exchanged all of two sentences with him since his elevation) I can confidently say he knows very little about litigation and was doubtless very dependent on the advice of those who claimed they did know.
Did they? Presumably. Is the allegation about quashing true? Who knows? Was their advice good, and the least expensive decision possible? Maybe ...or maybe the lawyer was spinning the meter a bit. Is the expense figure cited correct? I would be surprised if it is, especially if furnished by the Church's "critics." And supposing there actually was such expense incurred at the time, it could have been in a futile (or very well-calculated) effort to show the opposition that if it did not settle early it was going to be in for an exceedingly expensive case of trench warfare where every square inch would be contested with litigation's equivalent of blood: money.
And, if spent, was it even church money, or was an insurance company paying some or all? I dunno. And if the insurance company was defending and was paying, you can bet your next to bottom dollar, and probably the one under it too, on this: the insurer, not Syosset or anyone with an office there, was actually calling virtually all the shots. It is one of the lesser known ( to the layperson) terms of insurance policies that when the carrier undertakes to defend you, it has the almost unfettered right to control the decisions in the case.
Did the legal advisers tell the Metropolitan in advance, "Look, this is gonna cost you (or the Church or the carrier) $20,000 to fight?" It is rare that a churchman asks such a question, let alone gets a clear, accurate prediction in advance from the attorney he is asking because, for one thing, the attorney doesn't know how hard the other side will fight or what facts or circumstances may come to light to tip the case for or against enforcement of the subpoena.
Which is all to say that if today one, as a layman, is seeking to draw important conclusions about His Eminence or his administration based on 2nd, 3rd or _ hand comments and allegations about what may have happened or been spent in one particular side-eddy of a swiftly-flowing lawsuit under circumstances and legal subtleties you and I can only guess at, one is probably in need of a much better range of choices for engaging his/her mental powers.
Now that I have barked for a while, I will go and lie down now.
love,
Fr. George
I must have missed whatever "explanation" might have been given about the supposed expense involved in the alleged quashing of some kind of a subpoena. I'll bet it was interesting.
But as someone who issued literally hundreds of them ... and was served with some and quashed a few in 27 years of active litigation ... and as someone who has known the Metropolitan for a couple of decades or so, let me recommend that this is really a highly speculative line of, well let's be frank, uneducated guesswork, to be pursuing, and very unlikely to yield anything that you or I should consider reliable.
A subpoena is a legally authorized order that tells someone to do something whether they want to or not, and exposes them to legal penalties if they don't. Theoretically at least a subpoena aids in the discovery of truth and the attendance of reluctant but necessary witnesses at proceedings which will help resolve the case in question.
The power of subpoena was historically regarded as so important that it was reserved only to judges and/or their clerks. After all, it purported to interfere with all other duties and considerations in a person's life, and to require the person to shelve them all and instead do what the court process says. Traditionally an application for the order would explain to the issuing power why it was legally necessary to use the power of the state to force the person in question to do what the requesting party wanted. My hard-headed old mentor, the Hon. Harry Brauer, refused to issue many a subpoena (and quashed plenty of others) once he figured out what was really afoot.
Why? Because in the litigation explosion of recent decades the subpoena was extended, at least here in CA, to attorneys too. And not just the good guys, i.e. yours and mine, but opposing attorneys too. Anyone with more than a few months of litigation experience knows first hand some of the unspoken purposes, not to say outright abuses, to which the subpoena power can be put. And I saw each one of the following with my own eyes, some of them dozens of times:
- causing the other side difficulty and expense, whether by the cost of opposing the subpoena or the process of complying,
- inconveniencing an opposing party by fixing the subpoena date on a day when you know the person has plans - or even urgent needs, like an operation or a speaking engagement, to be elsewhere, and then refusing to modify it,
- punishing the person subpoenaed for having failed earlier to do something the issuing party wanted, like accede to a settlement demand,
- intimidating the other side in advance of settlement negotiations,
- demanding information the law doesn't authorize that would invade the privacy of an individual or an institution.
I wouldn't be surprised if sharper minds or current practitioners could come up with a few more, but I think you get the idea. If money was spent to quash a subpoena, there's a host of perfectly moral reasons to want to modify or quash it, and an attorney with devious or even mixed motives who issues one in the first place will often be very inflexible when approached to withdraw or modify it.
What really happened in this case and why? We are never going to know the real motives, good, bad, mixed, on the issuing side.
Or on the side that defended. They could be utterly pristine or very devious. Based on long, personal acquaintance with His Eminence (I have exchanged all of two sentences with him since his elevation) I can confidently say he knows very little about litigation and was doubtless very dependent on the advice of those who claimed they did know.
Did they? Presumably. Is the allegation about quashing true? Who knows? Was their advice good, and the least expensive decision possible? Maybe ...or maybe the lawyer was spinning the meter a bit. Is the expense figure cited correct? I would be surprised if it is, especially if furnished by the Church's "critics." And supposing there actually was such expense incurred at the time, it could have been in a futile (or very well-calculated) effort to show the opposition that if it did not settle early it was going to be in for an exceedingly expensive case of trench warfare where every square inch would be contested with litigation's equivalent of blood: money.
And, if spent, was it even church money, or was an insurance company paying some or all? I dunno. And if the insurance company was defending and was paying, you can bet your next to bottom dollar, and probably the one under it too, on this: the insurer, not Syosset or anyone with an office there, was actually calling virtually all the shots. It is one of the lesser known ( to the layperson) terms of insurance policies that when the carrier undertakes to defend you, it has the almost unfettered right to control the decisions in the case.
Did the legal advisers tell the Metropolitan in advance, "Look, this is gonna cost you (or the Church or the carrier) $20,000 to fight?" It is rare that a churchman asks such a question, let alone gets a clear, accurate prediction in advance from the attorney he is asking because, for one thing, the attorney doesn't know how hard the other side will fight or what facts or circumstances may come to light to tip the case for or against enforcement of the subpoena.
Which is all to say that if today one, as a layman, is seeking to draw important conclusions about His Eminence or his administration based on 2nd, 3rd or _ hand comments and allegations about what may have happened or been spent in one particular side-eddy of a swiftly-flowing lawsuit under circumstances and legal subtleties you and I can only guess at, one is probably in need of a much better range of choices for engaging his/her mental powers.
Now that I have barked for a while, I will go and lie down now.
love,
Fr. George
#8.1
Fr. George Washburn
on
2011-01-26 22:41
Dear Fr George: Thank you for your reply. Perhaps for context it would help you to see my original question on the More News thread and Mr. Stokoe's reply there, reprinted below in quotations marks. I said "squash" not quash that time --you can tell I'm not a JD Best, Nicole
"Another website alludes to $20,000 of OCA funds being used to squash a subpoena of Met Jonah to testify in Fr Susan's case. Could you please shed light on this matter in upcoming news? Thank you.
(Editor's note: That is true. The Metropolitan was told to avoid Chicago lest he be subpoened in this case, which he had nothing to do with. He went, got subpoened, and now has spent $20,000 fighting it on principle. Go figure.)
#16 Nicole on 2010-12-30 02:40"
Best, Nicole"Another website alludes to $20,000 of OCA funds being used to squash a subpoena of Met Jonah to testify in Fr Susan's case. Could you please shed light on this matter in upcoming news? Thank you.
(Editor's note: That is true. The Metropolitan was told to avoid Chicago lest he be subpoened in this case, which he had nothing to do with. He went, got subpoened, and now has spent $20,000 fighting it on principle. Go figure.)
#16 Nicole on 2010-12-30 02:40"
#8.1.1
Nicole
on
2011-01-27 14:45
I want to thank you Fr. George for your comments. They are always insightful and enlightening and I appreciate them. It has been a couple decades since last I spoke with you (are we getting old or what?). I pray our paths will cross again in the near future. Once again, thank you for your insightful comments.
#8.1.2
Sean O'Clare
on
2011-01-27 16:35
Fr. George,
Nice post. You brought out some excellent points about how the unfortunate legal system works. However, it's still hard to argue with the basic axion: "do it right the first time and you probably won't end up in a lawsuit." Had Metropolitan Jonah and the Holy Synod chose to act immediately about the whole +Seraphim matter when it first surfaced, they wouldn't be staring down a potential lawsuit. Had the Holy Synod hired qualified staff for investigations, the whole Koumentakos incident might have been avoided. Had their been an unbiased audit of the books and records of St. Tikhon's monastery and bookstore it probably wouldn't be mortgaged like it is today and a certain archdeacon would never have been allowed to start ridiculous businesses and commingle items like he was. Until the powers that be get the point of doing things right the first time instead of pretending that they don't exist, the OCA is going to continue to suffer through many more $20,000 legal bills to quash subpoenas.
Nice post. You brought out some excellent points about how the unfortunate legal system works. However, it's still hard to argue with the basic axion: "do it right the first time and you probably won't end up in a lawsuit." Had Metropolitan Jonah and the Holy Synod chose to act immediately about the whole +Seraphim matter when it first surfaced, they wouldn't be staring down a potential lawsuit. Had the Holy Synod hired qualified staff for investigations, the whole Koumentakos incident might have been avoided. Had their been an unbiased audit of the books and records of St. Tikhon's monastery and bookstore it probably wouldn't be mortgaged like it is today and a certain archdeacon would never have been allowed to start ridiculous businesses and commingle items like he was. Until the powers that be get the point of doing things right the first time instead of pretending that they don't exist, the OCA is going to continue to suffer through many more $20,000 legal bills to quash subpoenas.
#8.1.3
Anon.
on
2011-01-28 10:31
The outliers are now making their moves folks. Stay resolute, stay focused, and keep speaking the truth in love. These are all the FRK loyalists/beneficiaries who have been lying low and have been looking for the emergence of weak flanks. We must continue to shine the light of public accountability into these dark corners. The battle continues. Met. Jonah's watering down of the strategic planning is deja vu of the way FRK would disingenuously support healthy processes and then gut them once everyone flew home. This is a sign of weakness and lack of a vision other than worn out clericalism.
#9
Anon.
on
2011-01-25 20:53
Dear Mark,
Good reporting.
Now the issue of the St. Tikhon report and "Black mold issue".
What has been done to help those whose health was
compromised with the black mold?
Also the death rate of seminarian wives under 55 is out of proportion, with their sicknesses and in some case deaths occuring while their husbands are on the seminary property.
(Editor's note: I have no knowledge of that. If you do, please contact me. )
Good reporting.
Now the issue of the St. Tikhon report and "Black mold issue".
What has been done to help those whose health was
compromised with the black mold?
Also the death rate of seminarian wives under 55 is out of proportion, with their sicknesses and in some case deaths occuring while their husbands are on the seminary property.
(Editor's note: I have no knowledge of that. If you do, please contact me. )
#10
Anon.
on
2011-01-25 21:19
In fairness to this discussion comparing Metropolitan Jonah's policies with those of the +Theodosius and +Herman eras, there is no evidence of the financial malfeasance and corruption that was rampant up until the Fall of 2008.
(Editor's note: I have never suggested otherwise. Let me put it another way: +Theo misused the OCA, +Herman mortgaged the OCA, and +Jonah just wants to give it away. Clearer?)
(Editor's note: I have never suggested otherwise. Let me put it another way: +Theo misused the OCA, +Herman mortgaged the OCA, and +Jonah just wants to give it away. Clearer?)
#11
Bruce W. Trakas
on
2011-01-26 01:19
Mark, you are correct to refer to a dead OCA as a real possibility. But, I think you look at that as a bad thing when in reality it is the best possible outcome for everyone concerned. The OCA has proven over and over again that it is incapable of running a tight ship, and it has scandalized many of the faithful over the years. It would be much better to take advantage of 2000 years of Orthodoxy and connect with an Orthodox Church that can deliver the goods. We Americans are pretty proud of ourselves, but that pride is not serving us well. We do not seem to be able to field a decent set of bishops no matter how many times we try.
(Editor's note: You mean a "tight ship" like the Antiochian Archdiocese? Or the GOA in Queens? Or how about a foreign body that has 2,000 years experience like the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, or Constantinople? As for not fielding a decent set of bishops, at least two OCA dioceses scoured the world, and came up with pretty good candidates: one elected by 2/3 on the first ballot, and the other by an clear majority on the second, after weeks of public interviews. It's a great beginning, giving them instant credibility, and one I would recommend to other dioceses as well ( Alaska, South, Bulgarians....).
(Editor's note: You mean a "tight ship" like the Antiochian Archdiocese? Or the GOA in Queens? Or how about a foreign body that has 2,000 years experience like the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, or Constantinople? As for not fielding a decent set of bishops, at least two OCA dioceses scoured the world, and came up with pretty good candidates: one elected by 2/3 on the first ballot, and the other by an clear majority on the second, after weeks of public interviews. It's a great beginning, giving them instant credibility, and one I would recommend to other dioceses as well ( Alaska, South, Bulgarians....).
#12
Anonymous
on
2011-01-26 06:30
"...deliver the goods..."?????
#12.1
Fr. Dennis Buck
on
2011-01-28 11:20
Welcome back, Mark. I'm glad you are safe and well. I thought your hiatus would be over after Epiphany, so I got worried when all this time passed and no new information. I think we were all waiting for the next shoe to drop, which we know will happen. I also thank you for forcing us all to go on hiatus, since we can get really wrapped up in this mess and not step away from it. It was a good long break, and now it's back to work to fix God's Holy Church.
I think we should all pray for Mark and thank him for his devotion and courage to OCANEWS.org and to the Orthodox faith. He obviously loves God more than the leaders who think they know what's best for us (or who want what's best for themselves.) You have provided us with so much information and with a forum to air our grievances. It makes a difference when you don't have to bury all of this deep inside - that's not healthy for anyone. God bless you and grant you many years to continue this wonderful ministry that reaches people all around the globe and means so much to all of us.
It's hard to believe that we are almost finished with 2 years of mess in the AOCANA. Remember Sunday, March 1, 2009, when we walked into church and opened our bulletins to such shocking news. Well, March 1, 2011, is right around the corner, and year 3 will begin shortly, with no resolution in sight. Get ready, folks, cause I truly think it will get worse before it gets better, and we'll be in for a rocky year. But we must always be strong and faithful, knowing that God will take care of us and protect us. And we must do our part and not be silent. Keep those comments and new articles coming, and if you want to be anonymous, that's okay - it's actually safer and better for you. MP is looking to punish anyone who gets in his way, so watch your backs and don't let him come near you. After all this time and all the years he has lived his, punishment is the best thing he can do - that's pretty pathetic. ...
Happy New Year everyone - may it be healthy and productive.
I think we should all pray for Mark and thank him for his devotion and courage to OCANEWS.org and to the Orthodox faith. He obviously loves God more than the leaders who think they know what's best for us (or who want what's best for themselves.) You have provided us with so much information and with a forum to air our grievances. It makes a difference when you don't have to bury all of this deep inside - that's not healthy for anyone. God bless you and grant you many years to continue this wonderful ministry that reaches people all around the globe and means so much to all of us.
It's hard to believe that we are almost finished with 2 years of mess in the AOCANA. Remember Sunday, March 1, 2009, when we walked into church and opened our bulletins to such shocking news. Well, March 1, 2011, is right around the corner, and year 3 will begin shortly, with no resolution in sight. Get ready, folks, cause I truly think it will get worse before it gets better, and we'll be in for a rocky year. But we must always be strong and faithful, knowing that God will take care of us and protect us. And we must do our part and not be silent. Keep those comments and new articles coming, and if you want to be anonymous, that's okay - it's actually safer and better for you. MP is looking to punish anyone who gets in his way, so watch your backs and don't let him come near you. After all this time and all the years he has lived his, punishment is the best thing he can do - that's pretty pathetic. ...
Happy New Year everyone - may it be healthy and productive.
Having found refuge in an OCA parish that I love after the AOANA debacle, I'm deeply saddened by this report. Lord, have mercy!
Thank you, Mark, for your service to us here. Keep up the good work.
Thank you, Mark, for your service to us here. Keep up the good work.
#14
Karen
on
2011-01-26 08:47
I think we see in +Jonah the classic paradox that riddles the Orthodox Church. We want, on the one hand, our monks to be humble and spiritual and self-sacrificing, yet on the other hand only our monks can become bishops and once they do, then they are supposed to be strong leaders, great organizers, financial wizards and cany politicians and become all of these things over-night. Alas, I fear monk Jonah is the product of what we've demanded him to be, he just hasn't made the transition to what we have demanded +Jonah to be.
Yet, is this so bad? People in power (ex. +Philip) tend to want to extend that power. I suppose we can't have it both ways ... but for my part, I will take the humble monk as bishop over the megalomaniac. At least the humble monk has a chance to bring us closer to the Heavenly Kingdom through his example.
But thank you Mark for calling for, regardless of who is in leadership, absolute transparency. If we had that, then perhaps many of the other issues would be resolved as well.
Yet, is this so bad? People in power (ex. +Philip) tend to want to extend that power. I suppose we can't have it both ways ... but for my part, I will take the humble monk as bishop over the megalomaniac. At least the humble monk has a chance to bring us closer to the Heavenly Kingdom through his example.
But thank you Mark for calling for, regardless of who is in leadership, absolute transparency. If we had that, then perhaps many of the other issues would be resolved as well.
#15
Sean O'Clare
on
2011-01-26 10:04
Sean: Maybe it's time that We the Faithful of the O.C.A. wake up and realize that NO Metropolitan can be a strong leader, great organizer, financial wizard, and canny politicians, after all, none of them are, (or can be), like the late Archbishop Iakovos, who apparently had all of these qualities.
Why should we expect the Metropolitan to be the "jack of all trades, and master of none?"
A Bishop, regardless of his (exalted) title is first and foremost the Spiritual Leader of the (part of) the Entire Church that is entrusted to him.
Like the President of the United States, The Metropolitan, (and each Diocesan Bishop), have assistants to preform the other duties.
Although I'm not a Canon Lawyer, I don't believe there are ANY Canons that state that ta bishop, (insert Title here. . . ) is expected to be a Super human administrator, while also being the Spiritual Father of His part of the church.
That would be far too much of Philippian expectation to hold for any Bishop, except for. . .
Obviously other responsibilities are also necessary, Let H.B. Metropolitan Jonah grow into the position, by delegating duties for which he isn't trained to others who are experts at them.
But, let us also pray that as the Primate of the O.C.A., he is able to fulfill his responsibilities according to what God requires of him, rather than what we "Think" of "Believe" he should do.
When he makes mistakes, (and as a man, he will), let us pray that he recognizes them, and corrects them through the Grace of God.
Then, he will be the Metropolitan of all America and Canada who will truly lead us toward the administratively united church in America that we all agree we should ALL be members of.
Why should we expect the Metropolitan to be the "jack of all trades, and master of none?"
A Bishop, regardless of his (exalted) title is first and foremost the Spiritual Leader of the (part of) the Entire Church that is entrusted to him.
Like the President of the United States, The Metropolitan, (and each Diocesan Bishop), have assistants to preform the other duties.
Although I'm not a Canon Lawyer, I don't believe there are ANY Canons that state that ta bishop, (insert Title here. . . ) is expected to be a Super human administrator, while also being the Spiritual Father of His part of the church.
That would be far too much of Philippian expectation to hold for any Bishop, except for. . .
Obviously other responsibilities are also necessary, Let H.B. Metropolitan Jonah grow into the position, by delegating duties for which he isn't trained to others who are experts at them.
But, let us also pray that as the Primate of the O.C.A., he is able to fulfill his responsibilities according to what God requires of him, rather than what we "Think" of "Believe" he should do.
When he makes mistakes, (and as a man, he will), let us pray that he recognizes them, and corrects them through the Grace of God.
Then, he will be the Metropolitan of all America and Canada who will truly lead us toward the administratively united church in America that we all agree we should ALL be members of.
#15.1
Mark Sudia
on
2011-01-26 17:34
Mark,
All well and good points but when was the last time the president of the United States ran off for an unofficial visit to Moscow? When was the last time the president of the United States decided to give a speech and say something like "maybe the Brittish were right?" When was the last time the president of the United States preferred to live in New York rather than the White House?
As every president of the United States has felt the heat and pressure of the awesome responsibility given to them and made sacrifices for the sake of their country, I personally don't feel that it is too much to ask of the metropolitan of the autocephalous OCA to: (1) stand and defend the autocephaly upon which the church in America was founded, (2) to live in the headquarters given to him, and (3) visit and support the churches of his autocephalous region rather than flying off to a distant land. Is this too much to ask?
All well and good points but when was the last time the president of the United States ran off for an unofficial visit to Moscow? When was the last time the president of the United States decided to give a speech and say something like "maybe the Brittish were right?" When was the last time the president of the United States preferred to live in New York rather than the White House?
As every president of the United States has felt the heat and pressure of the awesome responsibility given to them and made sacrifices for the sake of their country, I personally don't feel that it is too much to ask of the metropolitan of the autocephalous OCA to: (1) stand and defend the autocephaly upon which the church in America was founded, (2) to live in the headquarters given to him, and (3) visit and support the churches of his autocephalous region rather than flying off to a distant land. Is this too much to ask?
#15.1.1
Anon.
on
2011-01-27 08:24
Very well stated ... thank you!
#15.1.2
Sean O'Clare
on
2011-01-27 16:33
"... I don't believe there are ANY Canons that state that a bishop, (insert Title here ...) is expected to be a superhuman administrator, while also being the spiritual father of his part of the church."
There is a need to eliminate the clericalism among our hierarchs that requires only clergy fill administrative roles within the greater Church, roles for which there is greater pool of more qualified candidates among the laity.
There is a need to eliminate the clericalism among our hierarchs that requires only clergy fill administrative roles within the greater Church, roles for which there is greater pool of more qualified candidates among the laity.
#15.1.3
Mark C. Phinney
on
2011-02-04 05:02
A humble monk can become the wise leader IF he's called and chosen by God. God don't make no mistakes, as they say. A charismatic speech doesn't mean there's a calling or that the Holy Spirit has chosen!
#15.2
karen jermyn
on
2011-01-26 17:55
I repeat the inability of the Heirarchs of the OCA to tell the whole truth about past transgressions is proof positive in light of the things I had experienced and heard within the OCA during those times that the truth is HUGE and not in a good way and that a big player during those times were elements within the Patriarchal Church in Moscow!
(Editor's note: I am afraid God is the only one who knows the "whole truth". If you would like to share what part of it you know that is HUGE, and how "elements" of the Russian Church were "big players", feel free to share.)
(Editor's note: I am afraid God is the only one who knows the "whole truth". If you would like to share what part of it you know that is HUGE, and how "elements" of the Russian Church were "big players", feel free to share.)
#16
Anon1
on
2011-01-26 17:28
I was disturbed enough that the whole financial investigation had not be given over to the IRS to resolve the matter of who stole how much and had they included the amount on their income tax return, but hoped that secrecy was a thing of the past. Hyperclericalism is a virus in the Orthodox Church that destroys the balance, and even undermines the very meaning and role of the Bishop and priest. Any idea of pushing the lay people out of the governance of the Church is ill advised and not Orthodox. The "whole fulness of the Church catholic is there where the bishop and the laity are gathered together to serve the Eucharist." Not where a bunch of Bishops are gathered, but where the bishop and the laity are gathered. The hierarchs are not the Church, and not even "princes of the Church. We may say that they (we) are shepherds, but must not forget that shephers also lead their sheep the slaughter sometimes. We must not allow the OCA to fall into hyperclericalism and synodal secrecy. The Holy Synod is not a "holy mystery."
Interesting.
The current Metropolitan is somehow wrong in not wanting to live at Syosset.
The last Metropolitan was criticized for not living in Syosset.
The last Metropolitan was criticized for living outside of his diocese.
The current Metropolitan is being criticized for not living outside of his diocese.
Can anyone explain to me the logic of all of this?
(Editor's note: The former metropolitan was criticized for not living in his diocese, but in another; or more specificallly for refusing to leave his old home, the residence of the bishop of that former diocese, to take up a new home in his new diocese as would be proper. In this case, the new Metropolitan refuses to live in the existing residence of his diocese, preferring another, also in his diocese. Analagous to a parish priest who refuses to live in the rectory. Fine, I guess, but it is perhaps unfair to expect the parish to pay for both - and to expect the entire parish staff to move with him.; and expect the parish to pay for that as well. I hope that makes things more clear....)
The current Metropolitan is somehow wrong in not wanting to live at Syosset.
The last Metropolitan was criticized for not living in Syosset.
The last Metropolitan was criticized for living outside of his diocese.
The current Metropolitan is being criticized for not living outside of his diocese.
Can anyone explain to me the logic of all of this?
(Editor's note: The former metropolitan was criticized for not living in his diocese, but in another; or more specificallly for refusing to leave his old home, the residence of the bishop of that former diocese, to take up a new home in his new diocese as would be proper. In this case, the new Metropolitan refuses to live in the existing residence of his diocese, preferring another, also in his diocese. Analagous to a parish priest who refuses to live in the rectory. Fine, I guess, but it is perhaps unfair to expect the parish to pay for both - and to expect the entire parish staff to move with him.; and expect the parish to pay for that as well. I hope that makes things more clear....)
#18
Evan Kalenik
on
2011-01-27 05:15
Since the OCA has decided to narrow its focus to the United States by transferring its national see from New York to Washington, DC, the metropolitan's residence is properly in DC, not metro New York (where Syosset is). A minor detail, but still not one to get on Vladyka Jonah's case over.
(Editor's note: Since when did the OCA abandon Canada and Mexico, which, when I last looked, were part of the OCA? You are confused. The OCA has decided not such thing.)
(Editor's note: Since when did the OCA abandon Canada and Mexico, which, when I last looked, were part of the OCA? You are confused. The OCA has decided not such thing.)
Last I looked Syosset was in the Diocese of New York and New Jersey and not in the Diocese of Washington DC.
Why should he live in Syosset?
If the Metropolitan did live there you can bet that there would be folks saying he should be living in his own diocese and not in the diocese of another bishop.
+Herman was wrong not to have moved, in my opinion. Last I looked my opinion also agreed with canon law.
To pick on the Metropolitan for not living at Syosset just sounds like dumping on for no reason other than to stir the pot.
(Editor's note: Syosset is in the Diocese of Washington DC as a stavropegial institution, just as New Skete, also in NY is; or St. Tikhon's in PA is, or, well, you get the picture.)
Why should he live in Syosset?
If the Metropolitan did live there you can bet that there would be folks saying he should be living in his own diocese and not in the diocese of another bishop.
+Herman was wrong not to have moved, in my opinion. Last I looked my opinion also agreed with canon law.
To pick on the Metropolitan for not living at Syosset just sounds like dumping on for no reason other than to stir the pot.
(Editor's note: Syosset is in the Diocese of Washington DC as a stavropegial institution, just as New Skete, also in NY is; or St. Tikhon's in PA is, or, well, you get the picture.)
#18.2
Evan Kalenik
on
2011-01-27 21:05
OK, let's re-cap of what has and is going wrong. + Jonah, please pay attention.
1) The entire financial mess with + Theodosius and RSK has been white-washed. No one has been held accountable while millions of $$$ disappeared. + Theodosis' hands were slapped and RSK still sits in a position of authority within an OCA church in Florida. No charges filed.
2) + Herman abused his authority over STOTS for many years. Monies disappeared, mortgages were done illegally and mismanagement was continuous. + Herman's hand was slapped, no charges have been filed and + Herman lives in a house he swindled on STOTS property with his helper. The investigation has been white-washed.
3) Since + Jonah has been elected, he has made at least 3 trips to Russia (WHY?) and has made many speeches stating that the OCA's autocephaly should be given up or modified - not what a leader of the OCA should be doing. He has repeatedly called for the sale of Syosset, the move of OCA hdqtrs to Wash., D.C. and a change in Chancellor. He has forgiven Fester, # 2 in the RSK admin, and has appointed him as Dean of the Wash, D.C. Cathedral - next to become Chancellor.
4) There are other issues, but these are quite enough. + Jonah is not the leader the OCA envisioned nor wanted. He should resign and open a monastery somewhere and become abbot. Let a "REAL" person who believes in the OCA lead. Does anyone remember Ms. Chapman the Russian Sleeper-Agent?
1) The entire financial mess with + Theodosius and RSK has been white-washed. No one has been held accountable while millions of $$$ disappeared. + Theodosis' hands were slapped and RSK still sits in a position of authority within an OCA church in Florida. No charges filed.
2) + Herman abused his authority over STOTS for many years. Monies disappeared, mortgages were done illegally and mismanagement was continuous. + Herman's hand was slapped, no charges have been filed and + Herman lives in a house he swindled on STOTS property with his helper. The investigation has been white-washed.
3) Since + Jonah has been elected, he has made at least 3 trips to Russia (WHY?) and has made many speeches stating that the OCA's autocephaly should be given up or modified - not what a leader of the OCA should be doing. He has repeatedly called for the sale of Syosset, the move of OCA hdqtrs to Wash., D.C. and a change in Chancellor. He has forgiven Fester, # 2 in the RSK admin, and has appointed him as Dean of the Wash, D.C. Cathedral - next to become Chancellor.
4) There are other issues, but these are quite enough. + Jonah is not the leader the OCA envisioned nor wanted. He should resign and open a monastery somewhere and become abbot. Let a "REAL" person who believes in the OCA lead. Does anyone remember Ms. Chapman the Russian Sleeper-Agent?
#19
Any Moose
on
2011-01-27 07:05
I don't know if Metr. Jonah is another Anna Chapman but your point is well taken. I'm sure that if the Moscow Patriarchate wants to know what's going on in the OCA, they can pick up the phone and call, send a letter, or send an email. It does not require the head of autocephalous church to fly thousands of miles away just so that he can perform the great blessing of water in the snow. There's plenty of snow at the continental divide and it's in the U.S.
Maybe he has a perfectly good reason for going to Russia, it would just be nice if he shared it with the rest of the OCA. If it's a private matter, then just say so.
As Mark said in a previous post, Metr. Jonah's two predecessors made an enormous mess of things, one of them in particular was St. Tikhon's monastery. Bishop Tikhon and Fr. Sergius the abbot of the monastery, have done a fantastic job of slowly and carefully building back up these institutions. Neither of them have complained about the messes that were presented to them. They simply went about working very hard and their labors have been blessed. I would love to see Metropolitan Jonah do the same thing. Instead of looking and longing for something thousands of miles away, get back to Syosset, look his own staff in the eye and deal with the situations confronting the OCA.
Maybe he has a perfectly good reason for going to Russia, it would just be nice if he shared it with the rest of the OCA. If it's a private matter, then just say so.
As Mark said in a previous post, Metr. Jonah's two predecessors made an enormous mess of things, one of them in particular was St. Tikhon's monastery. Bishop Tikhon and Fr. Sergius the abbot of the monastery, have done a fantastic job of slowly and carefully building back up these institutions. Neither of them have complained about the messes that were presented to them. They simply went about working very hard and their labors have been blessed. I would love to see Metropolitan Jonah do the same thing. Instead of looking and longing for something thousands of miles away, get back to Syosset, look his own staff in the eye and deal with the situations confronting the OCA.
#19.1
Anon.
on
2011-01-27 10:45
"There are other issues, but these are quite enough. + Jonah is not the leader the OCA envisioned nor wanted."
Actually the OCA doesn't "envision" or "want" -- it is a disparate group of Orthodox parishes and diocese. I'm surprised you are privy to these deepest desires of so many.
"He should resign and open a monastery somewhere and become abbot." I would hope that he would like nothing better than to do that.
"Let a "REAL" person who believes in the OCA lead."
Hmmmm....... you mean a real "man" unless you're open for a female metropolitan to take the reins. That will really bring the Greeks and Antiochians into the OCA fold.
"Does anyone remember Ms. Chapman the Russian Sleeper-Agent?" What?? I know who she is, but what does this have to do with anything? What are you implying?
Actually the OCA doesn't "envision" or "want" -- it is a disparate group of Orthodox parishes and diocese. I'm surprised you are privy to these deepest desires of so many.
"He should resign and open a monastery somewhere and become abbot." I would hope that he would like nothing better than to do that.
"Let a "REAL" person who believes in the OCA lead."
Hmmmm....... you mean a real "man" unless you're open for a female metropolitan to take the reins. That will really bring the Greeks and Antiochians into the OCA fold.
"Does anyone remember Ms. Chapman the Russian Sleeper-Agent?" What?? I know who she is, but what does this have to do with anything? What are you implying?
#19.2
Any Mouse
on
2011-01-28 03:10
So yet another year of calls for "reform" of the Orthodox Church... the ironic qualities of this website have been and continue to be truly impressive.
#19.3
Anon
on
2011-01-30 16:53
The OCA is never going to actually become the Orthodox Church in America. It hasn't so far and it won't in the future. But the prinicples that the OCA champions like English liturgies, a church enculturated in this country, evangelism, non-phyletism and American leadership are important. Our church (the OCA) can forward these absolutely imperative principles while at the same time acknowledging that the jurisdictional situation here remains terrible and needs fixed. Being open to options that birth a unified church in the US is not giving away the store. We believe we are right. The Ecumenical patriarchate thinks it is right. Everybody needs to give up something to make this work. But some people have become so entrenched in their position ...it is almost like the Republicans and Democrats. Only worried about scoring the next victory or proving the other guy is wrong and never get ANYTHING accomplished.
(Editor's note: The Orthodox Church in America is exactly that, Scott. It simply isn't the whole Orthodox Church in America. Perhaps it will one day be, perhaps not. Reasonable people can disagree - but I have learned one should never say "never".
(Editor's note: The Orthodox Church in America is exactly that, Scott. It simply isn't the whole Orthodox Church in America. Perhaps it will one day be, perhaps not. Reasonable people can disagree - but I have learned one should never say "never".
#20
Scott Yonkin
on
2011-01-27 08:44
Can you expound on the problems associated with overlapping jurisdictional boundaries and explain why it was okay to disregard the canons for the last hundred years for pastoral need, but now the canons are relevant.
I can't respect the bishops who can't get past fiefdom logic, so far I think it is all of them.
What are the risks to a change to a new rule, and it is a new rule if you haven't followed it?
What are benefits?
I can't respect the bishops who can't get past fiefdom logic, so far I think it is all of them.
What are the risks to a change to a new rule, and it is a new rule if you haven't followed it?
What are benefits?
#20.1
Daniel Fall
on
2011-02-02 17:49
Daniel: Actually, The Canons are always relevant. The problem isn't that it's suddenly wrong after 100 years to ignore them.
The problem IS that the overlapping jurisdictions began when the Romanoff Empire collapsed, and communications between the R.O.C., and the American Archdiocese collapsed.
And we're only beginning to solve those problems, through the actions of the recently[formed Episcopal Assembly of North America.
Remember, If H.E. Archbishop Alexander had accepted his authority to consecrate bishops on 1919, then Archimandrites Theofan Noli, and Mardary Uskokovich would have been consecrated as Bishops of the Albanian and Serbian diocese, respectively.
But, because the Bishops of the Russian Archdiocese weren't certain of their authority to consecrate bishops after regular communication with the Mother Church ended, they hesitated.
That was when St. Nicolai Velimerovich, (of Zicha), arrived to care care for the Serbians, and when Fan Noli returned to Albania, to subsequently be consecrated bishop of the Albanians in 1923. And He returned to N. America in 1930.
And don't forget how H.E. Archbishop Meletios, (later Ecumenical Patriarch), transferred the administration of the Greek parishes from himself as Archbishop of North America, to himself as Ecumenical Patriarch, when he moved to Constantinople. (oh yes, that's Istanbul, today).
That's where the problem began.
And then, there was the Russy and Antachi schism that split the Syro-Arab Diocese, (Future Antiochian Archdiocese) into rival parts.
And, there's also the continuing anomaly of the Patriarchal Parishes and R.O.C.O.R. existing within the territory of the Autocephalous O.C.A., which will hopefully be healed in the near future.*
So, it was never "Right" for these divisions to occur. But they did.
The devil truly worked his a... off to split the church in America.
Now, after nearly 100 years, our bishops have the extraordinary task of healing all of those divisions.
On that note, there is no clear vision of exactly how that will occur. But when it does, I suspect all of the Holy Fathers of the East will be shocked into acting according to the Canons, since 1/3 recognize the O.C.A.; 1/3 don't, and 1/3 are waiting to see what the 0ther 1/3 will do.
Theoretically, that's 4/3's. and 3/3'ds equals a united church.
In God's time, all will be corrected, and when that happens, It will truly be a good an pleasant thing to see brothers dwelling together in unity.
Until then, we wait to see if and when the results of the EA's endeavors produce positive fruits.
I hope that answers your question.
(Editor's note: Great Answer. Unfortunately, as I was reading your peaen of praise to the nascent EA, I kept hearing this voice and seeing this beautiful woman offering me an apple composed of 4/3rds and telling me how good it would be if I would only take one bite.... Sorry. Hene Ma Tov, and all that, but I can still her voice...)
The problem IS that the overlapping jurisdictions began when the Romanoff Empire collapsed, and communications between the R.O.C., and the American Archdiocese collapsed.
And we're only beginning to solve those problems, through the actions of the recently[formed Episcopal Assembly of North America.
Remember, If H.E. Archbishop Alexander had accepted his authority to consecrate bishops on 1919, then Archimandrites Theofan Noli, and Mardary Uskokovich would have been consecrated as Bishops of the Albanian and Serbian diocese, respectively.
But, because the Bishops of the Russian Archdiocese weren't certain of their authority to consecrate bishops after regular communication with the Mother Church ended, they hesitated.
That was when St. Nicolai Velimerovich, (of Zicha), arrived to care care for the Serbians, and when Fan Noli returned to Albania, to subsequently be consecrated bishop of the Albanians in 1923. And He returned to N. America in 1930.
And don't forget how H.E. Archbishop Meletios, (later Ecumenical Patriarch), transferred the administration of the Greek parishes from himself as Archbishop of North America, to himself as Ecumenical Patriarch, when he moved to Constantinople. (oh yes, that's Istanbul, today).
That's where the problem began.
And then, there was the Russy and Antachi schism that split the Syro-Arab Diocese, (Future Antiochian Archdiocese) into rival parts.
And, there's also the continuing anomaly of the Patriarchal Parishes and R.O.C.O.R. existing within the territory of the Autocephalous O.C.A., which will hopefully be healed in the near future.*
So, it was never "Right" for these divisions to occur. But they did.
The devil truly worked his a... off to split the church in America.
Now, after nearly 100 years, our bishops have the extraordinary task of healing all of those divisions.
On that note, there is no clear vision of exactly how that will occur. But when it does, I suspect all of the Holy Fathers of the East will be shocked into acting according to the Canons, since 1/3 recognize the O.C.A.; 1/3 don't, and 1/3 are waiting to see what the 0ther 1/3 will do.
Theoretically, that's 4/3's. and 3/3'ds equals a united church.
In God's time, all will be corrected, and when that happens, It will truly be a good an pleasant thing to see brothers dwelling together in unity.
Until then, we wait to see if and when the results of the EA's endeavors produce positive fruits.
I hope that answers your question.
(Editor's note: Great Answer. Unfortunately, as I was reading your peaen of praise to the nascent EA, I kept hearing this voice and seeing this beautiful woman offering me an apple composed of 4/3rds and telling me how good it would be if I would only take one bite.... Sorry. Hene Ma Tov, and all that, but I can still her voice...)
#20.1.1
Anonymous
on
2011-03-01 08:46
The lay people are also responsible for the Faith, and for their "Local Church." If the laity do not have a position and manifest it, then they get what one might expect. Talk is cheap; involvment is sometimes uncomfortable, but lack of involvement is a cop-out and one who is not involved hardly had a right to complain when things go in a way that is opposite to what they thought was right.
THIS WEBSITE HAS DONE MORE HARM TO THE CHURCH! ONLY TILL NOW DO WE FEEL THE EFFECTS OF GOOD PEOPLE LEAVING THE CHURCH! THOSE OF YOU WHO WORRY ABOUT MONEY! YOU WILL NEVER FINd HAPPINESS! HOWEVER! PEOPLE LIKE RSK AND OTHERS WILL FIGHT BACK!! BY THE WAY,HOW ARE YOUR ATTORNEY FEES! OR IS THE OCA PaYING! HOW MUCH HAS THE MC spent on LEAGAL fEES? TWO MILLION? PLEASE COMMENT? MAYBE ITS TIME TO PICKET YOUR CHURCH AGAIN!
(Editor's note: Nowhere near. Welcome back All Caps Guy.)
(Editor's note: Nowhere near. Welcome back All Caps Guy.)
#22
Anonymous
on
2011-01-28 09:39
If a bishop can't stand to live in his diocese isn't it roughly like being "married" but not wanting to live in the same house as your spouse? Obviously the episcopal candidates are given a pass on certain matters of sacraments. They probably won't celebrate many marriages and won't have one of their own so little details like that could escape their attention. Married people have this concept figured out. Another of thousands of reasons to have married bishops.
#23
Bob Koch
on
2011-01-28 16:59
The OCA is up the creek without a paddle.
How did it come to this?
(Editor's note: Well, there was this guy named Adam, this woman named Eve, an apple God said they shouldn't eat, and a snake....)
How did it come to this?
(Editor's note: Well, there was this guy named Adam, this woman named Eve, an apple God said they shouldn't eat, and a snake....)
#24
Anthony
on
2011-01-29 04:48
Touché!
But, as I'm sure you know Mark, most Protestant churches have long since built structures of accountability into their methods of governance precisely because of original sin's effect on human nature.
But, as I'm sure you know Mark, most Protestant churches have long since built structures of accountability into their methods of governance precisely because of original sin's effect on human nature.
#24.1
Anthony
on
2011-02-01 06:51
I can't get past the EA stuff, sorry if I'm on the wrong thread. I have a few critical questions based on this paragraph from the EA website. I'll open them here, again; maybe some bishop can read and giggle, or actually recognize I've given much to Orthodoxy and even its growth and take me partially serious.
"The Assembly has been established in accordance with the Decision of the 4th Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conference, convoked in Chambésy, Switzerland, June 6-12, 2009, at which met representatives from all the universally-recognized autocephalous Orthodox churches. These representatives recognized substantial canonical ‘anomalies’ in the organization and life of the Church in these regions, and realized that, though these anomalies had arisen from specific historical circumstances and pastoral needs, they nonetheless present a number of serious problems for the faithful; moreover, they give an appearance of disunity in the one holy Church. As such, these representatives unanimously agreed to the formation of the assemblies of bishops to heal, as quickly as possible, these anomalies."
Certainly, the substantial canonical 'anomalies' refer to overlapping jurisdictional boundaries? The claim in the next sentence, or actually, the same run-on is that these anomalies 'present a number of serious problems for the faithful, and give an 'appearance' of disunity; it is further suggested it is a wound that needs healing. (?)
So my questions...
1. If the canons were avoided for pastoral reasons in the past, then is it not true the canons were invalid at that point? Sorry, but a rule is only a rule when it is followed all the time, not just when it seems convenient. Don't blame me for not being receptive to the old rule; it isn't a rule anymore. The real story for all the bishops and they have missed, is the canons have an error. Why isn't there one single theologian or bishop who refuses to admit the 'canonical anomaly' means the canons need to be rewritten? And if something needs to heal, it means it is a wound. What part of a whole country of Christ's churches can a bishop explain to me is a wound? Wounds cause pain, where is the pain felt?
2. This number of 'problems' for the faithful. Will some bishop please summarily list these problems? I have thoroughly enjoyed the cultural dynamics offered by overlapping jursdictional boundaries and it has enhanced my participation in pan-orthodox celebration and even just going to a different church from time to time to meet people or go to their fund raising dinner, etc. In my entire life, I've never experienced one single problem. And, if there are problems, I hate to mention, there have been benefits for the faithful. Proximity of church is important, for one. If someone doesn't go to a church because its GOA, I guess that can go on the problem list.
3. This 'appearance' of disunity claim. I'd like someone to explain the significance of this. Isn't this sort of the potemkin village problem? I can only think of one disunity item that bothered me in the last 40 years. That'd be Metropolitan Philip recently modifying seminarian locations or threatening, etc. But, if you think about it, any bishop, even in a unified church could do the same thing, so not sure the 'disunity' changes that. The only thing I've ever found to be an odd anomaly is the leadership of churches thousands of miles away making decisions for churches here.
4. With change comes risk. It is a reason many people enjoy the status quo and fear the word itself. In this particular example, are there no risks? If the body doesn't identify risks in strictly returning to these fiefdom rules, they aren't worth much. What if the church(es) lose people? Isn't the entire assembly a failure then?
Isn't there one single bishop willing to challenge the canons, or did they all drink the water at that hotel?
"The Assembly has been established in accordance with the Decision of the 4th Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conference, convoked in Chambésy, Switzerland, June 6-12, 2009, at which met representatives from all the universally-recognized autocephalous Orthodox churches. These representatives recognized substantial canonical ‘anomalies’ in the organization and life of the Church in these regions, and realized that, though these anomalies had arisen from specific historical circumstances and pastoral needs, they nonetheless present a number of serious problems for the faithful; moreover, they give an appearance of disunity in the one holy Church. As such, these representatives unanimously agreed to the formation of the assemblies of bishops to heal, as quickly as possible, these anomalies."
Certainly, the substantial canonical 'anomalies' refer to overlapping jurisdictional boundaries? The claim in the next sentence, or actually, the same run-on is that these anomalies 'present a number of serious problems for the faithful, and give an 'appearance' of disunity; it is further suggested it is a wound that needs healing. (?)
So my questions...
1. If the canons were avoided for pastoral reasons in the past, then is it not true the canons were invalid at that point? Sorry, but a rule is only a rule when it is followed all the time, not just when it seems convenient. Don't blame me for not being receptive to the old rule; it isn't a rule anymore. The real story for all the bishops and they have missed, is the canons have an error. Why isn't there one single theologian or bishop who refuses to admit the 'canonical anomaly' means the canons need to be rewritten? And if something needs to heal, it means it is a wound. What part of a whole country of Christ's churches can a bishop explain to me is a wound? Wounds cause pain, where is the pain felt?
2. This number of 'problems' for the faithful. Will some bishop please summarily list these problems? I have thoroughly enjoyed the cultural dynamics offered by overlapping jursdictional boundaries and it has enhanced my participation in pan-orthodox celebration and even just going to a different church from time to time to meet people or go to their fund raising dinner, etc. In my entire life, I've never experienced one single problem. And, if there are problems, I hate to mention, there have been benefits for the faithful. Proximity of church is important, for one. If someone doesn't go to a church because its GOA, I guess that can go on the problem list.
3. This 'appearance' of disunity claim. I'd like someone to explain the significance of this. Isn't this sort of the potemkin village problem? I can only think of one disunity item that bothered me in the last 40 years. That'd be Metropolitan Philip recently modifying seminarian locations or threatening, etc. But, if you think about it, any bishop, even in a unified church could do the same thing, so not sure the 'disunity' changes that. The only thing I've ever found to be an odd anomaly is the leadership of churches thousands of miles away making decisions for churches here.
4. With change comes risk. It is a reason many people enjoy the status quo and fear the word itself. In this particular example, are there no risks? If the body doesn't identify risks in strictly returning to these fiefdom rules, they aren't worth much. What if the church(es) lose people? Isn't the entire assembly a failure then?
Isn't there one single bishop willing to challenge the canons, or did they all drink the water at that hotel?
#25
Daniel E. Fall
on
2011-01-29 11:11
No takers? That says lots.
#25.1
Daniel E Fall
on
2011-02-01 17:59
I don't understand much of this. And some of it I find very disturbing. But I do know something about the parish participation in the AAC. I talked to Bishop Benjamin about this a few months ago and he said the problem isn't that lay people are in the AAC, or that there is a very great number of lay people in the AAC. Rather, the problem is that the parishes don't have canonical standing. They are a ministry of the diocese. He said the problem is how to get the laity into the ACC as part of the diocesan representation instead of as parish representation.
Later, I was thinking about this, and it seems like an easy problem to fix. I see five possible solutions:
Possible solution 1. All that has to happen is that all the people at the diocesan assemblies elect themselves as diocesan representatives to the AAC.
Possible solution 2. The diocesan assemblies can elect other people to represent the dioceses in the AAC.
Possible solution 3. The diocesan councils can elect representatives to the AAC.
Possible solution 4. The bishops of the dioceses can elect representatives to the AAC.
Possible solution 5. A combination of all of the above.
Later, I was thinking about this, and it seems like an easy problem to fix. I see five possible solutions:
Possible solution 1. All that has to happen is that all the people at the diocesan assemblies elect themselves as diocesan representatives to the AAC.
Possible solution 2. The diocesan assemblies can elect other people to represent the dioceses in the AAC.
Possible solution 3. The diocesan councils can elect representatives to the AAC.
Possible solution 4. The bishops of the dioceses can elect representatives to the AAC.
Possible solution 5. A combination of all of the above.
regarding parish participation in the AAC, Mr. Karnes reports that Bishop Benjamin told him that there is no canonical basis for parishes, and therefore parish representation at the AAC would not be appropriate. I have no reason to doubt either the veracity of Mr. Karnes nor his ability to comprehend and relay Bishop Benjamin's views on this matter. Indeed, knowing Bishop Benjamin's reported vehement opposition to anything that smacks of "congregationalism," it is likely that he did indeed say this and that he believes that parishes are nothing but ministries of the diocese.
First, I wonder how does the Diocese of the West (DOW) conduct diocesan assemblies? Doesn't the DOW parishes "tithe" to the diocese as is done in other dioceses? When Bishop Benjamin assigns a priest to a mission or church in the DOW, is this assignment made to a building, a name, or a parish? It is apparent to me that parishes do exist, at least for diocesan purposes.
Second, I wonder what "canon" means and why the Holy Church had been compelled and/or chosen to establish canons? Is it not true that canons are rules that were adopted in reaction to some crisis and/or wrong doing? That not all canons have the same prescriptive value? Sure, it is easy enough for a bishop, priest or even lat person to pluck out a canon and proclaim its applicability today. I would submit that to say that parishes have no standing just because there is no canon that supports such is a serious misunderstanding of what canons are and how they should be used today.
Third, proceeding from the (Orthodox) premise that canons are rules promulgated by a local church, aren't the Official Documents of the OCA--particularly the Statute--similarly binding on the OCA bishops, priests and laity? If that is so, the parishes do have as much as standing as if they had been "blessed" by an ecumenical council.
First, I wonder how does the Diocese of the West (DOW) conduct diocesan assemblies? Doesn't the DOW parishes "tithe" to the diocese as is done in other dioceses? When Bishop Benjamin assigns a priest to a mission or church in the DOW, is this assignment made to a building, a name, or a parish? It is apparent to me that parishes do exist, at least for diocesan purposes.
Second, I wonder what "canon" means and why the Holy Church had been compelled and/or chosen to establish canons? Is it not true that canons are rules that were adopted in reaction to some crisis and/or wrong doing? That not all canons have the same prescriptive value? Sure, it is easy enough for a bishop, priest or even lat person to pluck out a canon and proclaim its applicability today. I would submit that to say that parishes have no standing just because there is no canon that supports such is a serious misunderstanding of what canons are and how they should be used today.
Third, proceeding from the (Orthodox) premise that canons are rules promulgated by a local church, aren't the Official Documents of the OCA--particularly the Statute--similarly binding on the OCA bishops, priests and laity? If that is so, the parishes do have as much as standing as if they had been "blessed" by an ecumenical council.
#26.1
Carl Kraeff
on
2011-01-31 13:04
This New York Times report may have something to say on the present Antiochian crisis and the role that this website plays.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/weekinreview/30shane.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/weekinreview/30shane.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
#27
Delegate #1
on
2011-01-29 15:43
Dear Delegate. I am unable to open this link via Blackberry. Can u please provide keywords or the title for a search of the NYT? Thx much.
#27.1
Nicole
on
2011-01-30 19:13
The Israelites asked for a king...
#28
Anonymous
on
2011-01-29 18:23
to the people who want married priests
all this will do is cause more divisions
and you know this will happen -
all this will do is cause more divisions
and you know this will happen -
#29
sasha ressetar
on
2011-01-29 20:45
We already have married priests, honey.
#29.1
Matushka
on
2011-01-30 18:35
"We already have married priests, honey."
Thank you, Matushka. This helps. Being an old person and easily confused, I was wondering if things had changed when I wasn't watching.
Thank you, Matushka. This helps. Being an old person and easily confused, I was wondering if things had changed when I wasn't watching.
#29.1.1
Patrick Henry Reardon
on
2011-01-31 16:25
Sasha --
I think it would come as a surprise to your father (not to mention your mother), that we shouldn't have married priests!
I think it would come as a surprise to your father (not to mention your mother), that we shouldn't have married priests!
#29.2
Rebecca Matovic
on
2011-02-01 09:27
ahhhhhhhhhhhmeant married bishops!!!!!!!!!!
#29.2.1
sasha ressetar
on
2011-02-01 15:09
Fundamentalist Christianity, also known as Christian fundamentalism, is defined by historian George M. Marsden as "militantly anti-modernist Protestant evangelicalism." Marsden explains that fundamentalists were evangelical Christians who in the 20th century "militantly opposed both modernism in theology and the cultural changes that modernism endorsed. Militant opposition to modernism was what most clearly set off fundamentalism."
Orthodox Fundamentalism and "Insufficiently Converted Orthodox"
By An Orthodox Observer
There is a certain sort of Orthodox convert from Protestantism who has
been insufficiently converted from the outset. The "fundamentalist"
mindset was received and nurtured from his Protestant days, and
indicates a deep epistemological and theological/spiritual problem. Such
a person has never really converted to a full-fledged Orthodoxy, with
all that that entails in obedience and how one decides issues as an
"Orthodox Christian." They have not accepted the Orthodox faith in its
entirety, in faith and submission, yielding up their private judgment
(that is, a system of "authority" whereby the individual ultimately is
the arbiter of truth over against a Christian institution or
God-ordained Christian leaders) and believing that God uniquely guides
the Orthodox Church and protects Her from error by the Holy Spirit.
I hasten to add that I am not claiming that such persons are not
technically Orthodox at all. I am saying, rather, that they haven't
properly learned how to think and believe like an Orthodox (or have
learned that but refuse to consistently abide by the Orthodox
understanding and outlook). They didn't fully enter into the "Orthodox
mind." One can, for example, be too intellectual in a "leftish" way;
leaning towards liberalism or atheism, or religious indifferentism, or
in a goofy, wacko "far right" way.
Fundamentalism in these "half-converts" is cultivated from within what
they falsely think is the "Orthodox" paradigmatic framework (and in
Protestantism prior to that). The Orthodox so-called "traditionalist"
who is also a convert generally wasn't brought to fundamentalism as an
Orthodox; he already was a "fundamentalist" because that is a mental
outlook and way of interpreting information and knowledge and factual data.
This "fundamentalist" mentality or mindset occupies some common "mental
ground" between Orthodox and Protestants because it is prior even to
theology. It is a shortcoming in one's philosophical outlook and how
those who disagree are regarded. Yet it is much more psychological than
theological at bottom. Hence the ubiquitous paranoia, conspiratorialism,
consignment of everyone to the left of them to "liberalism" or
"Neo-Orthodoxy," etc., etc. These types of individuals are sort of the
modern-day Pharisees. The particular brand gets added to the
pre-existing psychological mixture. These "half-converts" bring their
"mix" to Orthodoxy.
Protestantism and fundamentalism are two different things, but with much
overlap in practice (i.e., sociologically). Protestant ideas flow from
the inherent principles of Protestantism (sola Scriptura, private
judgment, sola fide, et al). The fundamentalist psychological mindset,
on the other hand, is not inherent to Protestantism, but brought to it,
and is logically or mentally prior to it (even though in practice it is
characteristic of and largely confined to a large sub-group of the
"conservative" or "traditionalist" Protestants). It is (ultimately or
immediately) anti-intellectual and psychologically paranoid, with a huge
fortress mentality (similar to right-wing wacko stuff or quack science
or secular versions of conspiratorialism).
The "fundamentalist mindset" in either Protestantism or Orthodoxy (but
especially in the latter) is an aberration and a foreign element. It
doesn't logically or conceptually flow from the intrinsic principles of
either system. But it is much more typically characteristic (i.e., it
coincides or co-exists with), a certain sort of Protestant (derived
historically from the fundamentalist-modernist controversies of the late
1800s up through the Scopes Trial in 1925 and beyond). "Half-converts"
usually learn this type of outlook in a Protestant environment, as far
as its precepts go.
I think fundamentalism is at bottom a psychological malady and a failure
of the intellectual imagination (a difficulty in understanding the
criteria of plausibility, credibility, and in building or espousing
intellectual systems; theological or otherwise). The hyper-dogmatism
often observed in the insufficiently-converted Orthodox
fundamentalist/"traditionalist" is a combination of both the private
judgment principle and (usually) some sort of radical, profound
psychological insecurity (characteristic of many anti-Orthodox as well).
To truly understand and convert to magisterial, Orthodoxy would be the
end of such nonsense and over-reliance on and extreme overconfidence in
one's own opinions. After all, Orthodoxy has real authority: canons,
councils, bishops, catechisms . . . So the Orthodox fundamentalist ends
up being a typical "cafeteria Orthodox." This is why I've always argued
that both Orthodox liberalism and "traditionalism" have the same liberal
root of "pick-and-choose" and private judgment: the deadly combination
of what is worst in both liberal theology and Protestantism (insofar as
it is heretical and non-Orthodox).
It's like Communism and Naziism. If you go too far left or right on the
political spectrum, you come around full circle: it is a matter of
extremes vs. the "center" (Orthodoxy). So the further right one goes
theologically or ecclesiologically or in their formal principles of
authority, the further left they also go. Liberals question the judgment
and authority of bishops; so do Orthodox fundamentalist "traditionalists."
One camp is nominalistic and spiritually bankrupt; the other is
prideful, legalistic, and has lost faith in the guidance of Holy Mother
Church by the Holy Spirit. The liberals are against sound reason and
rationality (cf. Francis Schaeffer: Escape From Reason); so are the
fundamentalist/"traditionalists." Both factions lack faith and spiritual
vision.
It all comes out basically the same in the wash. One is either Orthodox
or extreme, and the extremes tend to meet and have common ground, as a
result of their fringe nature. Orthodoxy is like the center of the earth
(or perhaps the equator). Liberalism and "traditionalism" are akin to
the north and south poles; they are a world apart geographically but
there isn't a whole lot of difference between them in terms of climate
and landscape.
In today's Orthodoxy we have many converts. Many in the laos, priests and bishops. So, how does this fundamentalism manifest itself? Those in the laos believe they can only be "real" Orthodox if they follow a monastic way of life or try to emulate it. The hair grows long, their beards become long and straggly, they stop sleeping with their wives, women begin to look like peasants from 18th century Russia, etc. Priests grow pony-tails, long beards, wear cassocks all the time - parading in public and doing 30 plokons at every icon, etc. Bishops are even worse! These convert bishops take their model from 18th century Russia, Greece, Syria, etc. They have no idea what Orthodoxy is in the 2011. Compounding this by being celibate and they are divorced from normal marital life. They enforce their priests to hold 3 hour services, they require their priests to always wear their cassocks (as if we lived in 18th century Russia, etc)., they believe all their priests should wear Muslim enforced liturgical head gear, etc. It goes on and on!
So, how do we get beyond this? Fundamentalism in Orthodoxy must be exposed! They must be confronted with their views and pharisaical actions. They must understand that Orthodoxy in 2011 does not have to look like 1800. Orthodoxy is a "living" faith which transforms societies and people. (Read Lossky) Orthodox don't have to look like monastics. Priests need to look like they belong in 2011, not 1800. Bishops who wish to rule as if they are abbots, need to return to a monastery. Leadership belongs to those who REALLY understand the Orthodox world in 2011!
Orthodox Fundamentalism and "Insufficiently Converted Orthodox"
By An Orthodox Observer
There is a certain sort of Orthodox convert from Protestantism who has
been insufficiently converted from the outset. The "fundamentalist"
mindset was received and nurtured from his Protestant days, and
indicates a deep epistemological and theological/spiritual problem. Such
a person has never really converted to a full-fledged Orthodoxy, with
all that that entails in obedience and how one decides issues as an
"Orthodox Christian." They have not accepted the Orthodox faith in its
entirety, in faith and submission, yielding up their private judgment
(that is, a system of "authority" whereby the individual ultimately is
the arbiter of truth over against a Christian institution or
God-ordained Christian leaders) and believing that God uniquely guides
the Orthodox Church and protects Her from error by the Holy Spirit.
I hasten to add that I am not claiming that such persons are not
technically Orthodox at all. I am saying, rather, that they haven't
properly learned how to think and believe like an Orthodox (or have
learned that but refuse to consistently abide by the Orthodox
understanding and outlook). They didn't fully enter into the "Orthodox
mind." One can, for example, be too intellectual in a "leftish" way;
leaning towards liberalism or atheism, or religious indifferentism, or
in a goofy, wacko "far right" way.
Fundamentalism in these "half-converts" is cultivated from within what
they falsely think is the "Orthodox" paradigmatic framework (and in
Protestantism prior to that). The Orthodox so-called "traditionalist"
who is also a convert generally wasn't brought to fundamentalism as an
Orthodox; he already was a "fundamentalist" because that is a mental
outlook and way of interpreting information and knowledge and factual data.
This "fundamentalist" mentality or mindset occupies some common "mental
ground" between Orthodox and Protestants because it is prior even to
theology. It is a shortcoming in one's philosophical outlook and how
those who disagree are regarded. Yet it is much more psychological than
theological at bottom. Hence the ubiquitous paranoia, conspiratorialism,
consignment of everyone to the left of them to "liberalism" or
"Neo-Orthodoxy," etc., etc. These types of individuals are sort of the
modern-day Pharisees. The particular brand gets added to the
pre-existing psychological mixture. These "half-converts" bring their
"mix" to Orthodoxy.
Protestantism and fundamentalism are two different things, but with much
overlap in practice (i.e., sociologically). Protestant ideas flow from
the inherent principles of Protestantism (sola Scriptura, private
judgment, sola fide, et al). The fundamentalist psychological mindset,
on the other hand, is not inherent to Protestantism, but brought to it,
and is logically or mentally prior to it (even though in practice it is
characteristic of and largely confined to a large sub-group of the
"conservative" or "traditionalist" Protestants). It is (ultimately or
immediately) anti-intellectual and psychologically paranoid, with a huge
fortress mentality (similar to right-wing wacko stuff or quack science
or secular versions of conspiratorialism).
The "fundamentalist mindset" in either Protestantism or Orthodoxy (but
especially in the latter) is an aberration and a foreign element. It
doesn't logically or conceptually flow from the intrinsic principles of
either system. But it is much more typically characteristic (i.e., it
coincides or co-exists with), a certain sort of Protestant (derived
historically from the fundamentalist-modernist controversies of the late
1800s up through the Scopes Trial in 1925 and beyond). "Half-converts"
usually learn this type of outlook in a Protestant environment, as far
as its precepts go.
I think fundamentalism is at bottom a psychological malady and a failure
of the intellectual imagination (a difficulty in understanding the
criteria of plausibility, credibility, and in building or espousing
intellectual systems; theological or otherwise). The hyper-dogmatism
often observed in the insufficiently-converted Orthodox
fundamentalist/"traditionalist" is a combination of both the private
judgment principle and (usually) some sort of radical, profound
psychological insecurity (characteristic of many anti-Orthodox as well).
To truly understand and convert to magisterial, Orthodoxy would be the
end of such nonsense and over-reliance on and extreme overconfidence in
one's own opinions. After all, Orthodoxy has real authority: canons,
councils, bishops, catechisms . . . So the Orthodox fundamentalist ends
up being a typical "cafeteria Orthodox." This is why I've always argued
that both Orthodox liberalism and "traditionalism" have the same liberal
root of "pick-and-choose" and private judgment: the deadly combination
of what is worst in both liberal theology and Protestantism (insofar as
it is heretical and non-Orthodox).
It's like Communism and Naziism. If you go too far left or right on the
political spectrum, you come around full circle: it is a matter of
extremes vs. the "center" (Orthodoxy). So the further right one goes
theologically or ecclesiologically or in their formal principles of
authority, the further left they also go. Liberals question the judgment
and authority of bishops; so do Orthodox fundamentalist "traditionalists."
One camp is nominalistic and spiritually bankrupt; the other is
prideful, legalistic, and has lost faith in the guidance of Holy Mother
Church by the Holy Spirit. The liberals are against sound reason and
rationality (cf. Francis Schaeffer: Escape From Reason); so are the
fundamentalist/"traditionalists." Both factions lack faith and spiritual
vision.
It all comes out basically the same in the wash. One is either Orthodox
or extreme, and the extremes tend to meet and have common ground, as a
result of their fringe nature. Orthodoxy is like the center of the earth
(or perhaps the equator). Liberalism and "traditionalism" are akin to
the north and south poles; they are a world apart geographically but
there isn't a whole lot of difference between them in terms of climate
and landscape.
In today's Orthodoxy we have many converts. Many in the laos, priests and bishops. So, how does this fundamentalism manifest itself? Those in the laos believe they can only be "real" Orthodox if they follow a monastic way of life or try to emulate it. The hair grows long, their beards become long and straggly, they stop sleeping with their wives, women begin to look like peasants from 18th century Russia, etc. Priests grow pony-tails, long beards, wear cassocks all the time - parading in public and doing 30 plokons at every icon, etc. Bishops are even worse! These convert bishops take their model from 18th century Russia, Greece, Syria, etc. They have no idea what Orthodoxy is in the 2011. Compounding this by being celibate and they are divorced from normal marital life. They enforce their priests to hold 3 hour services, they require their priests to always wear their cassocks (as if we lived in 18th century Russia, etc)., they believe all their priests should wear Muslim enforced liturgical head gear, etc. It goes on and on!
So, how do we get beyond this? Fundamentalism in Orthodoxy must be exposed! They must be confronted with their views and pharisaical actions. They must understand that Orthodoxy in 2011 does not have to look like 1800. Orthodoxy is a "living" faith which transforms societies and people. (Read Lossky) Orthodox don't have to look like monastics. Priests need to look like they belong in 2011, not 1800. Bishops who wish to rule as if they are abbots, need to return to a monastery. Leadership belongs to those who REALLY understand the Orthodox world in 2011!
#30
Anonymous
on
2011-01-30 14:58
I have just two observations on your comments with which I fundamentally :), or substantially, agree.
First, why can't you use your name? Certainly there are no personal references in the post and you seem to be speaking from the Orthodox mainstream so ridicule or retaliation seems remote. I just don't get this constant need to remain anonymous since it detracts from the credibility of any comments to which it is attached.
Secondly, one hopes that the thrust of your remarks is not to silence the exercise of personal conscience and judgment and to rely exclusively on some clerical magisterium. It is possible to derive some positive lessons from the Protestant Reformation in Western Europe, among which is the inevitable corruption of religious institutions too detached from the Body of Christ which they should be serving. And not all tradition or traditions are good or should be retained.
At the risk of being a labeled a cafeteria Orthodox, I remind you of the ancient dictum which still applies: In essentials, unity; in non-essential, liberty; in all things, charity. Surly, that is the will of our Lord.
KRT
First, why can't you use your name? Certainly there are no personal references in the post and you seem to be speaking from the Orthodox mainstream so ridicule or retaliation seems remote. I just don't get this constant need to remain anonymous since it detracts from the credibility of any comments to which it is attached.
Secondly, one hopes that the thrust of your remarks is not to silence the exercise of personal conscience and judgment and to rely exclusively on some clerical magisterium. It is possible to derive some positive lessons from the Protestant Reformation in Western Europe, among which is the inevitable corruption of religious institutions too detached from the Body of Christ which they should be serving. And not all tradition or traditions are good or should be retained.
At the risk of being a labeled a cafeteria Orthodox, I remind you of the ancient dictum which still applies: In essentials, unity; in non-essential, liberty; in all things, charity. Surly, that is the will of our Lord.
KRT
#30.1
Kenneth R. Tobin
on
2011-01-31 08:15
They must understand that Orthodoxy in 2011 does not have to look like 1800.
I agree, our priests in 2011 should look like Orthodox priests do in Russia, Greece, Cyprus, etc. today.
Conciliarity isn't a pass to do whatever seems good in one's own mind and then everyone's duty bound to accept it. Conciliarity is about not seeking one's own and moving forward by consensus (if not unanimity) as we plumb the mind of the Church.
Besides, walking down just about any street in any place in America one can see men with long hair and beards. It's no big deal and doesn't mean they think they're in 19th century Russia.
(Editor's note: Priests in Greece, Cyprus and RUssian can look very different, so I am not sure what that means. Moreover, I am not convinced that anyone in America need look like someone in Greece, Cyprus or Russia to be authenticately Orthodox. If that was the case, the whole idea of the enculturation of Orthodoxy into America is rather moot.)
I agree, our priests in 2011 should look like Orthodox priests do in Russia, Greece, Cyprus, etc. today.
Conciliarity isn't a pass to do whatever seems good in one's own mind and then everyone's duty bound to accept it. Conciliarity is about not seeking one's own and moving forward by consensus (if not unanimity) as we plumb the mind of the Church.
Besides, walking down just about any street in any place in America one can see men with long hair and beards. It's no big deal and doesn't mean they think they're in 19th century Russia.
(Editor's note: Priests in Greece, Cyprus and RUssian can look very different, so I am not sure what that means. Moreover, I am not convinced that anyone in America need look like someone in Greece, Cyprus or Russia to be authenticately Orthodox. If that was the case, the whole idea of the enculturation of Orthodoxy into America is rather moot.)
#30.2
melxiopp
on
2011-02-01 08:45
http://orthodoxhistory.org/2009/12/07/cassocks-or-collars/
#30.2.1
George
on
2011-02-01 16:51
Thank you for posting this link. The article concludes:
"More broadly, I would emphasize that diversity in clergy appearance has been pretty standard throughout American Orthodox history. Also, whatever their personal preferences, saints like Raphael did not impose their own views on their clergy. Flexibility, it seems, is generally to be preferred."
My goodness. Common sense. Why not let the local clergy wear what works best for them in their local context? The culture of this continent is far from completely homogeneous.
"More broadly, I would emphasize that diversity in clergy appearance has been pretty standard throughout American Orthodox history. Also, whatever their personal preferences, saints like Raphael did not impose their own views on their clergy. Flexibility, it seems, is generally to be preferred."
My goodness. Common sense. Why not let the local clergy wear what works best for them in their local context? The culture of this continent is far from completely homogeneous.
The way the word Fundamentalist has been used in this discussion would not be recognized by a Fundamentalist. Fundamentalist is a specific historical term and means something peculiar to American Protestantism in the 20th Century. I think, it might be better if we used Fundamentalist correctly, using another word to describe the spiritual pathologies that, so far, in this conversation are mistakenly being called Fundamentalist.
The Fundamentalist movement began at Princeton University some time around 1905. It was combating those people such as Julius Welhousen who spent their carrers attacking the reliability of the Biblical histories, the Prophets, the Virgin Birth of Jesus, his miracles, his Deity, and and his Resurrection. Though they were Protestants, they stood in the gap in American society and defended these ideas, many of which which we as Orthodox Christians hold to and confess. You can read their pamphlets here: http://www.xmission.com/~fidelis/volume1/volume1.php
I think some words that could be used in place of the incorrectly used Fundamentalist are extremist and radical.
The Fundamentalist movement began at Princeton University some time around 1905. It was combating those people such as Julius Welhousen who spent their carrers attacking the reliability of the Biblical histories, the Prophets, the Virgin Birth of Jesus, his miracles, his Deity, and and his Resurrection. Though they were Protestants, they stood in the gap in American society and defended these ideas, many of which which we as Orthodox Christians hold to and confess. You can read their pamphlets here: http://www.xmission.com/~fidelis/volume1/volume1.php
I think some words that could be used in place of the incorrectly used Fundamentalist are extremist and radical.
The Danger of Amnesia
August 1984
Although we are fast approaching the Bicentennial of the Orthodoxy in America, we are still a young Church, and the country in which we are called to serve Christ is a young country. We are, therefore, full of hopes and possibilities, the reality of which is demonstrated by the dynamism of the American society, but also by the evidence of a slow, but steady progress of Orthodoxy. However, all true civilizations have discovered that the energy of youth should not be immediately directed to action, but should first given the opportunity to learn at the school of experience of others, in order to benefit if future responsible service from the wisdom of the past.
In the Orthodox Church this rather obvious truth is not simply matter of common sense. It has absolute, theological dimension, because we believe that there is no church without Tradition. The Orthodox faith is not a sect improvised by an enthusiastic preacher in the American Bible-belt; it is catholic faith of the Apostles, the Fathers, the councils, the saints of all ages, an there is no way in which one can live it, or preach it, before learning first and becoming rooted in Holy Tradition. This requires responsible effort and patience. To Bypass this responsible process, by simplified “super-Orthodox” heresy-hunting, by growing of beard and hair, or the formal preservation of the nineteenth-century liturgical minutiae would be caricature of traditionalism, Indeed – as anyone cognizant of the early Church, o of St Basil the Great, or of Photius of Constantinople, or of Orthodox historical and theological literature of the last two centuries knows – one cannot preserve Holy Tradition by freezing it in forms and formulae of one particular historical moment. If one does that, one cuts oneself from the past, as well as from the living responsibility of the present: the Russian Old Believers are a tragic example of this.
Holy Tradition implies uncompromising and total faithfulness to the apostolic preaching, unchanging, but also living and saving. It alone teaches how to avoid the pitfalls – so typical of Protestantism – of fundamentalism and liberalism. It alone allows us to separate not only Truth from falsehood, but also the essential from secondary. Maintained by the succession of bishops, it also requires knowledge and discernment by all. In our youthful enthusiasm to build the Church in this country, let us build the Church catholic – which is two thousand years old – and fight the dangers of ignorant amnesia.
Fr. John Meyendorff. “Witness to the World”, S. Vladimir Seminary Press. Crestwood, N.Y. 1987. Pages 192-193.
August 1984
Although we are fast approaching the Bicentennial of the Orthodoxy in America, we are still a young Church, and the country in which we are called to serve Christ is a young country. We are, therefore, full of hopes and possibilities, the reality of which is demonstrated by the dynamism of the American society, but also by the evidence of a slow, but steady progress of Orthodoxy. However, all true civilizations have discovered that the energy of youth should not be immediately directed to action, but should first given the opportunity to learn at the school of experience of others, in order to benefit if future responsible service from the wisdom of the past.
In the Orthodox Church this rather obvious truth is not simply matter of common sense. It has absolute, theological dimension, because we believe that there is no church without Tradition. The Orthodox faith is not a sect improvised by an enthusiastic preacher in the American Bible-belt; it is catholic faith of the Apostles, the Fathers, the councils, the saints of all ages, an there is no way in which one can live it, or preach it, before learning first and becoming rooted in Holy Tradition. This requires responsible effort and patience. To Bypass this responsible process, by simplified “super-Orthodox” heresy-hunting, by growing of beard and hair, or the formal preservation of the nineteenth-century liturgical minutiae would be caricature of traditionalism, Indeed – as anyone cognizant of the early Church, o of St Basil the Great, or of Photius of Constantinople, or of Orthodox historical and theological literature of the last two centuries knows – one cannot preserve Holy Tradition by freezing it in forms and formulae of one particular historical moment. If one does that, one cuts oneself from the past, as well as from the living responsibility of the present: the Russian Old Believers are a tragic example of this.
Holy Tradition implies uncompromising and total faithfulness to the apostolic preaching, unchanging, but also living and saving. It alone teaches how to avoid the pitfalls – so typical of Protestantism – of fundamentalism and liberalism. It alone allows us to separate not only Truth from falsehood, but also the essential from secondary. Maintained by the succession of bishops, it also requires knowledge and discernment by all. In our youthful enthusiasm to build the Church in this country, let us build the Church catholic – which is two thousand years old – and fight the dangers of ignorant amnesia.
Fr. John Meyendorff. “Witness to the World”, S. Vladimir Seminary Press. Crestwood, N.Y. 1987. Pages 192-193.
#31
George
on
2011-01-31 06:51
I happen to agree with the assessment made here. The OCA was always a very forward looking "American" church. It was only in Dallas (South) and CA yrs ago that the OCA looked like a "cult" and identified closely with ROCOR. This was probably a result of + Dimitri's influence along with + Tikhon (retired). Now, with + Jonah, the OCA looks like the "CULT BEARERS" have taken over. These people are taking the OCA back to 1930. I don't want to go there and most intelligent members of the OCA don't want to go there. I want my priest to look like an American Orthodox priest in public, not some leader of a weird "cult." I don't like where this current leadership of the OCA is going and I'm afraid we are going backwards! We aren't Russians or members of some foreign country. I think it's time for another change!
#32
Anonymous
on
2011-01-31 08:50
You are embarrassed of a priest who looks like a priest? For shame! Would the Lord embarrass you with his long tunic?
#32.1
Cordelia
on
2011-01-31 23:49
Clerical garb should be left in church. Street garb should be worn on the street. Or maybe you'd like to reverse this? Priests parading around in public with cassocks, cross, long hair with pony tails, funny hats, etc. Then in church, wear street garb - suits; just like the Protestants!
#32.1.1
Anonymous
on
2011-02-01 09:02
I've never seen a fully vested priest walking down the street in my life, so your statement about church clothing does not apply. Cassocks and riassas are fine for walking down the street. That's what Orthodox priests all over the world do. Many priests find it makes a great "conversation starter" because people are curious. And if it's just not a cassock situation, there is nothing wrong with them wearing ordinary street clothes.
Roman collars are ugly and silly-looking. All they do is get Orthodox priests in trouble for being seen with a wife and children, and sometimes people become combative. They assume he is a Roman Catholic priest carrying on with a woman illicitly, or that the children are his molestation victims. Even if they are kind, they usually assume he is a priest of the Roman Catholic or Protestant sects. How is that any better than people assuming he's a Muslim because of his cassock?
What need do Orthodox priests have for the costumes of heretics and schismatics?
If the argument is that the ugly collars are "what priests wear in this society", why don't we ask Orthodox priests to exchange their "Byzantine Emperor" vestments for something more RC/Protestant, too? Is the distinctiveness of the Orthodox faith really supposed to be confined to our church walls?
Roman collars are ugly and silly-looking. All they do is get Orthodox priests in trouble for being seen with a wife and children, and sometimes people become combative. They assume he is a Roman Catholic priest carrying on with a woman illicitly, or that the children are his molestation victims. Even if they are kind, they usually assume he is a priest of the Roman Catholic or Protestant sects. How is that any better than people assuming he's a Muslim because of his cassock?
What need do Orthodox priests have for the costumes of heretics and schismatics?
If the argument is that the ugly collars are "what priests wear in this society", why don't we ask Orthodox priests to exchange their "Byzantine Emperor" vestments for something more RC/Protestant, too? Is the distinctiveness of the Orthodox faith really supposed to be confined to our church walls?
#32.1.1.1
Cordelia
on
2011-02-02 13:11
Cordelia:
You must be a convert or ROCOR. This push to be "Fundamentalist Orthodox" is plain ridiculous! We are American Orthodox, we ARE NOT Russian Orthodox from Russia; we ARE NOT Orthodox from the Mideast or Greece; etc. Wearing and parading around town in cassocks and "playing priest" with long hair & beards with funny hats is just ridiculous. You "FUNDIES" have to get beyond being "Super-Orthodox" and try to be real Orthodox in America.
You must be a convert or ROCOR. This push to be "Fundamentalist Orthodox" is plain ridiculous! We are American Orthodox, we ARE NOT Russian Orthodox from Russia; we ARE NOT Orthodox from the Mideast or Greece; etc. Wearing and parading around town in cassocks and "playing priest" with long hair & beards with funny hats is just ridiculous. You "FUNDIES" have to get beyond being "Super-Orthodox" and try to be real Orthodox in America.
#32.1.1.1.1
Anonymous
on
2011-02-05 08:48
Actually, we are Orthodox Christians first and foremost, and Americans only second. The routine of proclaiming and promoting "This is America!" differs not one whit from the routine of proclaiming and promoting Greek, Russian, Arab, Romanian, Inuit, or any other culture. American culture is not inherently superior to other cultures. What holds us together is the Orthodox faith. If we sincerely believe what we are taught, our true home is in heaven, not in one of the kingdoms of "the world." As for garments, like it or lump it, appropriate clerical garb for our people is Orthodox Christian in cut and style and, therefore, is quite visually distinctive from its Roman Catholic and Protestant counterparts. Why on earth does this give some people the hives?
#32.1.1.1.1.1
Antonia
on
2011-02-09 19:14
Antonia:
You miss the issue. There is NO reason for foreign bishops to be telling the Orthodox in N. America how to run or operate our churches. Yes, we are all members of the Church "militant" and Church "triumphant," but on a pure organizational level, on a canonical level, on a level instituted by the Holy Apostles, FOREIGN BISHOPS HAVE NO AUTHORITY OUTSIDE THEIR OWN LOCAL TERRITORY! All the dioceses of foreign bishops in N. America or elsewhere around the world, are NON-CANONICAL and an ABERRATION! Local bishops run local churches without outside interference!
You miss the issue. There is NO reason for foreign bishops to be telling the Orthodox in N. America how to run or operate our churches. Yes, we are all members of the Church "militant" and Church "triumphant," but on a pure organizational level, on a canonical level, on a level instituted by the Holy Apostles, FOREIGN BISHOPS HAVE NO AUTHORITY OUTSIDE THEIR OWN LOCAL TERRITORY! All the dioceses of foreign bishops in N. America or elsewhere around the world, are NON-CANONICAL and an ABERRATION! Local bishops run local churches without outside interference!
#32.1.1.1.1.1.1
Anonymous
on
2011-02-10 10:59
'Foreign' is in the eye of the beholder.
For instance, are MP bishops in Ukraine foreign? Was St. Nicholas of Japan a foreign bishop in Japan? Were Greek bishops in Rus foreign? Depends on who you talk to and how they understand the very term 'foreign'.
Canonically, the pertinent question is whether a bishop and local church has jurisdiction in a given place. That local church could be based on the other side of the world and the local bishop could speak not a word of the local language, but he is not 'foreign', canonically.
The very issue of jurisdiction in North America and the 'so-called diaspora' is in dispute. The EP argues for jurisdiction in all these places; the MP (and its autocephalous and autonomous churches) argue for jurisdiction in certain places; and Romania, Antioch, et al argue they have jurisdiction over their ethnic groups individually, worldwide, regardless of other bishops, dioceses, etc. In this context, 'foreign' can mean a lot of things. To Bucharest, this would mean allowing Romanians under a non-Romanian bishop in South America; to one in the OCA this could mean being under a Greek or non-American bishop; etc.
You may have a particular understanding of this term and what 'should be', but that does not mean you are right or that anyone agrees with you. It also borders on American phyletism itself, or at least a kind of Wilsonian self-determination that is 'foreign' to Orthodox ecclesiology.
For instance, are MP bishops in Ukraine foreign? Was St. Nicholas of Japan a foreign bishop in Japan? Were Greek bishops in Rus foreign? Depends on who you talk to and how they understand the very term 'foreign'.
Canonically, the pertinent question is whether a bishop and local church has jurisdiction in a given place. That local church could be based on the other side of the world and the local bishop could speak not a word of the local language, but he is not 'foreign', canonically.
The very issue of jurisdiction in North America and the 'so-called diaspora' is in dispute. The EP argues for jurisdiction in all these places; the MP (and its autocephalous and autonomous churches) argue for jurisdiction in certain places; and Romania, Antioch, et al argue they have jurisdiction over their ethnic groups individually, worldwide, regardless of other bishops, dioceses, etc. In this context, 'foreign' can mean a lot of things. To Bucharest, this would mean allowing Romanians under a non-Romanian bishop in South America; to one in the OCA this could mean being under a Greek or non-American bishop; etc.
You may have a particular understanding of this term and what 'should be', but that does not mean you are right or that anyone agrees with you. It also borders on American phyletism itself, or at least a kind of Wilsonian self-determination that is 'foreign' to Orthodox ecclesiology.
#32.1.1.1.1.1.1.1
melxiopp
on
2011-02-24 14:20
I'm a layperson. I don't know much about Orthodox ecclesiology.
I do know one thing.
If you start reconfiguring bishops to one bishop one city jurisdictions in the USA, it'll be a big problem.
If the canons haven't been followed because of this issue, then they haven't been relevant for years, so why suddenly now?
Its good to be the idiot sometimes and this idiot suggests reviewing what the 'problems' are related to the violation of the rule and whether the benefits are greater, etc. This idiot also suggests reviewing old, outdated rules that failed a century ago or so before trying to now follow them.
I do know one thing.
If you start reconfiguring bishops to one bishop one city jurisdictions in the USA, it'll be a big problem.
If the canons haven't been followed because of this issue, then they haven't been relevant for years, so why suddenly now?
Its good to be the idiot sometimes and this idiot suggests reviewing what the 'problems' are related to the violation of the rule and whether the benefits are greater, etc. This idiot also suggests reviewing old, outdated rules that failed a century ago or so before trying to now follow them.
#32.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1
Daniel E. Fall
on
2011-02-25 20:48
people who think like you make me wish i was an atheist
#32.1.1.1.1.2
sasha ressetar
on
2011-02-16 10:57
Mark,
Did you catch that Chambesy II is coming up in February, 2011? I was just curious if you knew what the agenda was and who is planning to attend.
(Editor's note: Gee, I must have missed that notice on the Episcopal Assembly website. It's not there? Oh, that's right, American's aren't invited to Chambesy, just told what to do from there....)
Did you catch that Chambesy II is coming up in February, 2011? I was just curious if you knew what the agenda was and who is planning to attend.
(Editor's note: Gee, I must have missed that notice on the Episcopal Assembly website. It's not there? Oh, that's right, American's aren't invited to Chambesy, just told what to do from there....)
#33
Anon.
on
2011-01-31 11:05
I agree Orthodoxy in 2011 does not need to look like Orthodoxy in 17th century Russia. But please God do not let it look anything like Bennie Hinn in his Neruh sorta vestments.
I for one would be content with modern day presbyters imitating the true high priest of our Faith in all matters fashionable.
OK that would be a little severe maybe two sets of work duds?
I for one would be content with modern day presbyters imitating the true high priest of our Faith in all matters fashionable.
OK that would be a little severe maybe two sets of work duds?
#34
Kevin Kirwan
on
2011-01-31 11:29
"I for one would be content with modern day presbyters imitating the true high priest of our Faith in all matters fashionable."
Sandals, too, Kevin. Don't forget the sandals.
Sandals, too, Kevin. Don't forget the sandals.
#34.1
Patrick Henry Reardon
on
2011-02-01 13:17
Sandals, too, Kevin. Don't forget the sandals
Our Franciscan brothers are way ahead of you. I think however at least until Spring exceptions for socks and boots when appropiate may be in order?
Our Franciscan brothers are way ahead of you. I think however at least until Spring exceptions for socks and boots when appropiate may be in order?
#34.1.1
Kevin Kirwan
on
2011-02-01 20:38
Really? This article has been up for a week, and no one has pointed out that Mark must be a Rush fan?
#35
Nick Roth
on
2011-02-01 06:24
Among the most interesting challenges of these times is that the survival of the Church may very well depend on the people of the Church becoming more holy, wise, and filled with grace than their leaders.
#36
Macarius
on
2011-02-01 12:09
An interesting thought. Please consider writing a reflection on the subject.
#36.1
Mark C. Phinney
on
2011-02-04 04:43
It is an amazing thing what the 1st Amendment protects. Just read any of the posted entries. I find it fascinating that people make such horrific criticisms of the Church and its leaders when they've never had the opportunity to spend time in their presence.
This is very sad and it's a shame you all have too much time on your hands. God gave you lives, might want to start living them in a positive manner.
This is very sad and it's a shame you all have too much time on your hands. God gave you lives, might want to start living them in a positive manner.
#37
Madam
on
2011-02-04 14:37
The author does not allow comments to this entry
Calendar
|
May '13 | |||||
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||