Friday, August 24. 2007
Comments on Reflections
Your comments on two recent reflections are welcome. Is enough being done with sexual misconduct?
There are now 2 episcopal vacancies in the OCA, in WPA and the Bulgarian Diocese. How do we go about choosing new Bishops? How is conciliarity expressed in this important decision?
There are now 2 episcopal vacancies in the OCA, in WPA and the Bulgarian Diocese. How do we go about choosing new Bishops? How is conciliarity expressed in this important decision?
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Well, I answered 'no' to the closing set of questions posed by David Barrett. We know that before any of the meetings of OCA's higher-ups there will be prayers to The Holy Spirt to invoke insight and guidance, etc. Awhile ago, in reference to acts of prayer and fasting by the laity, I agreed that prayers at times like these are to encouraged -- God always answers our prayers, but sometimes the answer is "no".
Could one take this as a sign that the OCA was somehow a flawed idea in the '70's as has been suggested in another post?
If prayers to the Holy Spirt are unfulfilled is the message "hey, your worldly errors are not my doing -- you fix them." .. (excuse the paraphrase of The Holy Spirit, but I think He might speak in plain English)
Yes, this will be resolved according to Christ's timetable; not the attorney's; not the bishops (who must lose all track of time with their heads in the sand) The months and years that this has been festering and now exposed seem interminable to us. The money is gone, to read the OCA's site outlining revised accounting practices allows us to extrapolate backwards to the abuses. The bishops turned a blind eye to all of this, easy to do when so many perks came out of $yo$$ett.
The lack of any coherent policy on sexual misconduct, considering potential victims and the OCA as a corporate entity will be the downfall of the OCA. Why, the Catholic Church must have more that OCA's one million faithful; look what happend there. To hear that records of meetings to codify and enact safeguards, sample policies, scenarios and safeguards were ignored for years -- well what wouldyou expect? Hindsight being 20/20.
The admonitions of Saint Paul in David's reflection have fallen upon deaf ears with the OCA's higherarchy in every facet of their responsbility. Finally, to those who pull out the platitude "... only a few 'bad apples" please use the rest of the adage as well. SPOIL THE WHOLE BUNCH.
Could one take this as a sign that the OCA was somehow a flawed idea in the '70's as has been suggested in another post?
If prayers to the Holy Spirt are unfulfilled is the message "hey, your worldly errors are not my doing -- you fix them." .. (excuse the paraphrase of The Holy Spirit, but I think He might speak in plain English)
Yes, this will be resolved according to Christ's timetable; not the attorney's; not the bishops (who must lose all track of time with their heads in the sand) The months and years that this has been festering and now exposed seem interminable to us. The money is gone, to read the OCA's site outlining revised accounting practices allows us to extrapolate backwards to the abuses. The bishops turned a blind eye to all of this, easy to do when so many perks came out of $yo$$ett.
The lack of any coherent policy on sexual misconduct, considering potential victims and the OCA as a corporate entity will be the downfall of the OCA. Why, the Catholic Church must have more that OCA's one million faithful; look what happend there. To hear that records of meetings to codify and enact safeguards, sample policies, scenarios and safeguards were ignored for years -- well what wouldyou expect? Hindsight being 20/20.
The admonitions of Saint Paul in David's reflection have fallen upon deaf ears with the OCA's higherarchy in every facet of their responsbility. Finally, to those who pull out the platitude "... only a few 'bad apples" please use the rest of the adage as well. SPOIL THE WHOLE BUNCH.
#1
J. Murray
on
2007-08-24 10:06
Dear brothers and sisters in Christ,
I am a member of the Antiochian Archdiocese and I would like to offer my thoughts as a contrast and comparison to what is happening currently within the OCA.
It is interesting to me to compare the roles and characters of the metropolitan. I have known Metropolitan Philip for close to 20 years and I have also had the pleasure to know both Metropolitan Theodosius as well as Metropolitan Herman.
In the case of Metropolitan Philip I believe that he has always seen himself as the protector and defender of the faith and a living connection between the faith of the Patriarchate in Antioch and the faith as it is lived in America. To say that there are differences is a mild understatement. Countries like Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and others share a somewhat harsh dictatorial style of leadership. I believe it is safe to say that this same style is also prevalent in countries like Russian, Bulgaria, and Romania, just to name a few. People that have grown up with it are often more comfortable with this style of leadership; however America is very different. Whether we admit it or not, America was founded on an ideal of self determination. We don't take well to being told what to do. We believe that democracy really works and that we can, indeed, change the world if we so desire. A simple example of this just the average parish council. I don't know of any Antiochian or OCA Orthodox Churches where there isn't a parish council. It is important to most people yet I have also been associated with some ROCOR parishes where the average person has no idea who is on the parish council.
If you simply take a look at who Metropolitan Philip surrounds himself with you can see this blending of the two worlds. He surrounds himself with competent, intelligent, successful men and women who are actively engaged in the running of the Archdiocese. When he takes trips back to the Patriarchate he is always flanked not just by clergy but by lay men and women that he trusts to tell him the truth.
In a number of open statements to the clergy of the archdiocese the metropolitan has requested that priests and deacons not wear their cassocks and riassas out in public but rather to wear black suits. He has specifically used the example of St. Tikhon not wearing his riassa in public on some occassions. And yes, some of the bi-annual conferences can seem more like grand business meetings than times for spiritual development but I believe it is importatnt to understand that these types of meetings are vital to the continual growth and development of a healthy church. I'm not going to debate whether or not clergymen should always wear their cassocks but I believe the point that Metropolitan Philip is making is that clergymen should also be seen and heard in public forums not just in church. They should be actively engaged in the lives of their parishioners and it is simply easier to do this in a black suit as opposed to a long black robe.
In contrast to Metropolitan Philip, I believe Metropolitan Herman seems to see himself as somehow an extension of the role of a metropolitan in Russia. How else do you explain the lack of any serious involvement in the OCA by non-clergy? How many of you have ever actually sat down with Metropolitan Herman when it wasn't a very formal affair? I believe it was in Maryland that Metropolitan Herman did a question and answer session and look at how poorly it turned out. The pomp and circumstance truly has its place but there are also times when people must a bit more real and engaging. When he was faced with something other than dikiri and trikiri he was totally befuddled. Faced with difficult questions from average parishioners he became angry and defensive. Sorry but this is the reality of life in America. We're not in Russia anymore.
Some of you might be amazed at this but about 25 years ago the now retired Bishop Tikhon used to go out to breakfast at local restaurants with many of the young people in his parish after early Divine Liturgies. I really had a great deal of respect for him in those days because he showed me that he was truly human. He would kindly sit and answer everyone's questions no matter how strange or bizarre the questions were. I don't know what happened in later years however based on some of his internet posts he somehow lost the kindness and friendliness he exhibited over 25 years ago. So much of what has transpired in the OCA lately would not have occurred if there was a genuine willingness to be human and not some sort of image of what either a bishop or metropolitan is "supposed to be."
Another interesting contrast is the difference between the Antiochian's board of trustees and the OCA's Metropolitan Council. Correct me if I'm wrong but the role of the metropolitan council is to implement the decisions of the All American council. Taken literally, if there were no decisions made then there would be no role for the metropolitan council and thus the Holy Synod is the sole governing organization in the whole OCA. Pardon the insult but this sounds like nothing but "pay, pray and obey" to the laity. Like I said about Metropolitan Philip, who does Metropolitan Herman surround himself with these days? When he went to Russia and to all of the other countries a few years ago, who did he surround himself with? When you look at pictures of Metropolitan Herman with the metropolitan council how many pictures are of him embracing anyone that isn't a clergyman?
I fully acknowledge that the music and liturgical practices of the OCA are more edifying than those of the Antiochian Archdiocese (sorry but it's my opinion). I also fully acknowledge that most of the bishops in the OCA are much more well versed in the services of the Orthodox Church. But what does it matter if there is a complete disconnect between the bishop and the parish?
I have been to many services in OCA churches. I was also a choir director in an OCA parish many years ago and there is a very sad theme that I have seen repeated over and over. When the services are over people scatter to their own little place and start to gossip. Most people rarely get to know the bishops first hand. The bishops come for a once a year visit, they stay for a few hours and then leave. I have even heard OCA bishops publicly criticize their fellow bishops.
In contrast to this most Antiochian bishops do not come into the church with all of the pomp and circumstance that you see with a visit from an OCA bishop. I have never seen an Antiochian bishop actually vest in the center of the church and I have seen numerous occassions where an Antiochian bishop would actually laugh at themselves. I have also never seen an Antiochian bishop berate either a clergyman making a mistake when referring to himself as "father" or when a parishioner makes some sort of error in protocol. I have however seen OCA bishops go ballistic if some minor detail was missed (God forbid you would miss an "Eis Polla").
I have also seen the Antiochian Archdiocese deal swiftly and directly with people and events that were wrong. There have been cases of sexual indiscretion on the part of priests, priests that have disbanded their entire parish councils, priests that have taught absolutely bizarre heretical ideas, and numerous other types of scandals. I can't speak to how each and every one of them was handled but most of them that I am aware of were handled very quickly and effectively regardless of whose diocese it was. These issues would have never been resolved as fast as they were if the bishops saw themselves as the kings soleley of their own diocese and stimied any involvement from brother bishops outside of their diocese.
I'm not saying that everything is perfect in the Antiochian Archdiocese but I do sincerely feel that it is much healthier than the OCA at the present moment and maybe there are a few lessons to be learned.
First, we are not in the old country any more. Things that were absolutely normative for countries like Russia are not normative in the United States. It is simply not enough to have good well run services and leave. People not only need to feel engaged they need to be engaged. And yes, in America we do feel empowered to have opinions (right or wrong). It is simply not a country where the vast majority of people accept being told what to do. There has to be a true back and forth dialogue.
Second, it is not a sin to surround yourself with honest, successful people. In fact it's probably a good thing. Ordination and/or elevation to the episcopacy does not give anyone special powers to understand employment laws, tax codes, or financial statements.
Third, the metropolitan must truly be seen as first amongst equals. He must be respected by his fellow bishops and he must respect them as well. As I have read the numerous letters back and forth on this web site between Metropolitan Herman and his fellow bishops I have been amazed at the lack of respect. I have known several bishops in the Antiochian Archdiocese that have not agreed with all of the decisions of the metropolitan but they have to my knowledge never made public comments about them. They have not used the internet to make biting comments about others. And most especially they have never seen their particular diocese as off limits to the metropolitan.
Fourth and most importantly there should be love. When I was a very young boy my mother explained to me that I needed to take the garbage cans out every week because she loved me. I told I didn't understand how making me take out the garbage cans had anything to do with taking out the garbage and she told me that she was trying to teach me responsibility. Love is not just taking someone to Disneyland, it must also involve discipline and instruction. I have not agreed with everything that Metropolitan Philip has done but it is a fact that he is respected as a leader by his flock, lay and clergy, because he offers not just love and affection but discipline and guidance. In the Antiochian Archdiocese there is one translation, there are approved musical compositions, there are prescribed rubrics, there are prescribed rules for parish councils, bishops, officers, parish council members and others. You will be very hard pressed to find much difference between a service in Buffalo, NY as you would in Phoenix, AZ. I believe that it is a fact that you would not find anywhere near this same level of consistency in the OCA. There are multiple translations, multiple variances in rubrics, and numerous variations in how each diocese is administered. What's the point of having a Holy Synod if the bishops don't like or respect one another or if they can barely agree on anything? It just doesn't work if people say that they are of one mind and turn right around, get on a plane and go home and do something different.
As the priest says in the Divine Liturgy, "in faith and love draw near," people need to feel loved and they need to be loved. The initial scandal that was brought to light by Dn. Wheeler could have been brought to light years ago if there was culture of love instead of fear of retaliation. The financial mismanagement probably could have been resolved years ago with a lot less expense if there had been a culture of embracing lay men and women with particular skill sets appropriate to the positions rather creating an insular world of handling everything within the confines of those who wear black robes. Even the financial scandal of the Alaskan lands could be resolved if there were more people willing to love.
I am not aksing anyone to join the Antiochian Archdiocese but I do believe that these are points that should be considered as the OCA goes forward.
I am a member of the Antiochian Archdiocese and I would like to offer my thoughts as a contrast and comparison to what is happening currently within the OCA.
It is interesting to me to compare the roles and characters of the metropolitan. I have known Metropolitan Philip for close to 20 years and I have also had the pleasure to know both Metropolitan Theodosius as well as Metropolitan Herman.
In the case of Metropolitan Philip I believe that he has always seen himself as the protector and defender of the faith and a living connection between the faith of the Patriarchate in Antioch and the faith as it is lived in America. To say that there are differences is a mild understatement. Countries like Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and others share a somewhat harsh dictatorial style of leadership. I believe it is safe to say that this same style is also prevalent in countries like Russian, Bulgaria, and Romania, just to name a few. People that have grown up with it are often more comfortable with this style of leadership; however America is very different. Whether we admit it or not, America was founded on an ideal of self determination. We don't take well to being told what to do. We believe that democracy really works and that we can, indeed, change the world if we so desire. A simple example of this just the average parish council. I don't know of any Antiochian or OCA Orthodox Churches where there isn't a parish council. It is important to most people yet I have also been associated with some ROCOR parishes where the average person has no idea who is on the parish council.
If you simply take a look at who Metropolitan Philip surrounds himself with you can see this blending of the two worlds. He surrounds himself with competent, intelligent, successful men and women who are actively engaged in the running of the Archdiocese. When he takes trips back to the Patriarchate he is always flanked not just by clergy but by lay men and women that he trusts to tell him the truth.
In a number of open statements to the clergy of the archdiocese the metropolitan has requested that priests and deacons not wear their cassocks and riassas out in public but rather to wear black suits. He has specifically used the example of St. Tikhon not wearing his riassa in public on some occassions. And yes, some of the bi-annual conferences can seem more like grand business meetings than times for spiritual development but I believe it is importatnt to understand that these types of meetings are vital to the continual growth and development of a healthy church. I'm not going to debate whether or not clergymen should always wear their cassocks but I believe the point that Metropolitan Philip is making is that clergymen should also be seen and heard in public forums not just in church. They should be actively engaged in the lives of their parishioners and it is simply easier to do this in a black suit as opposed to a long black robe.
In contrast to Metropolitan Philip, I believe Metropolitan Herman seems to see himself as somehow an extension of the role of a metropolitan in Russia. How else do you explain the lack of any serious involvement in the OCA by non-clergy? How many of you have ever actually sat down with Metropolitan Herman when it wasn't a very formal affair? I believe it was in Maryland that Metropolitan Herman did a question and answer session and look at how poorly it turned out. The pomp and circumstance truly has its place but there are also times when people must a bit more real and engaging. When he was faced with something other than dikiri and trikiri he was totally befuddled. Faced with difficult questions from average parishioners he became angry and defensive. Sorry but this is the reality of life in America. We're not in Russia anymore.
Some of you might be amazed at this but about 25 years ago the now retired Bishop Tikhon used to go out to breakfast at local restaurants with many of the young people in his parish after early Divine Liturgies. I really had a great deal of respect for him in those days because he showed me that he was truly human. He would kindly sit and answer everyone's questions no matter how strange or bizarre the questions were. I don't know what happened in later years however based on some of his internet posts he somehow lost the kindness and friendliness he exhibited over 25 years ago. So much of what has transpired in the OCA lately would not have occurred if there was a genuine willingness to be human and not some sort of image of what either a bishop or metropolitan is "supposed to be."
Another interesting contrast is the difference between the Antiochian's board of trustees and the OCA's Metropolitan Council. Correct me if I'm wrong but the role of the metropolitan council is to implement the decisions of the All American council. Taken literally, if there were no decisions made then there would be no role for the metropolitan council and thus the Holy Synod is the sole governing organization in the whole OCA. Pardon the insult but this sounds like nothing but "pay, pray and obey" to the laity. Like I said about Metropolitan Philip, who does Metropolitan Herman surround himself with these days? When he went to Russia and to all of the other countries a few years ago, who did he surround himself with? When you look at pictures of Metropolitan Herman with the metropolitan council how many pictures are of him embracing anyone that isn't a clergyman?
I fully acknowledge that the music and liturgical practices of the OCA are more edifying than those of the Antiochian Archdiocese (sorry but it's my opinion). I also fully acknowledge that most of the bishops in the OCA are much more well versed in the services of the Orthodox Church. But what does it matter if there is a complete disconnect between the bishop and the parish?
I have been to many services in OCA churches. I was also a choir director in an OCA parish many years ago and there is a very sad theme that I have seen repeated over and over. When the services are over people scatter to their own little place and start to gossip. Most people rarely get to know the bishops first hand. The bishops come for a once a year visit, they stay for a few hours and then leave. I have even heard OCA bishops publicly criticize their fellow bishops.
In contrast to this most Antiochian bishops do not come into the church with all of the pomp and circumstance that you see with a visit from an OCA bishop. I have never seen an Antiochian bishop actually vest in the center of the church and I have seen numerous occassions where an Antiochian bishop would actually laugh at themselves. I have also never seen an Antiochian bishop berate either a clergyman making a mistake when referring to himself as "father" or when a parishioner makes some sort of error in protocol. I have however seen OCA bishops go ballistic if some minor detail was missed (God forbid you would miss an "Eis Polla").
I have also seen the Antiochian Archdiocese deal swiftly and directly with people and events that were wrong. There have been cases of sexual indiscretion on the part of priests, priests that have disbanded their entire parish councils, priests that have taught absolutely bizarre heretical ideas, and numerous other types of scandals. I can't speak to how each and every one of them was handled but most of them that I am aware of were handled very quickly and effectively regardless of whose diocese it was. These issues would have never been resolved as fast as they were if the bishops saw themselves as the kings soleley of their own diocese and stimied any involvement from brother bishops outside of their diocese.
I'm not saying that everything is perfect in the Antiochian Archdiocese but I do sincerely feel that it is much healthier than the OCA at the present moment and maybe there are a few lessons to be learned.
First, we are not in the old country any more. Things that were absolutely normative for countries like Russia are not normative in the United States. It is simply not enough to have good well run services and leave. People not only need to feel engaged they need to be engaged. And yes, in America we do feel empowered to have opinions (right or wrong). It is simply not a country where the vast majority of people accept being told what to do. There has to be a true back and forth dialogue.
Second, it is not a sin to surround yourself with honest, successful people. In fact it's probably a good thing. Ordination and/or elevation to the episcopacy does not give anyone special powers to understand employment laws, tax codes, or financial statements.
Third, the metropolitan must truly be seen as first amongst equals. He must be respected by his fellow bishops and he must respect them as well. As I have read the numerous letters back and forth on this web site between Metropolitan Herman and his fellow bishops I have been amazed at the lack of respect. I have known several bishops in the Antiochian Archdiocese that have not agreed with all of the decisions of the metropolitan but they have to my knowledge never made public comments about them. They have not used the internet to make biting comments about others. And most especially they have never seen their particular diocese as off limits to the metropolitan.
Fourth and most importantly there should be love. When I was a very young boy my mother explained to me that I needed to take the garbage cans out every week because she loved me. I told I didn't understand how making me take out the garbage cans had anything to do with taking out the garbage and she told me that she was trying to teach me responsibility. Love is not just taking someone to Disneyland, it must also involve discipline and instruction. I have not agreed with everything that Metropolitan Philip has done but it is a fact that he is respected as a leader by his flock, lay and clergy, because he offers not just love and affection but discipline and guidance. In the Antiochian Archdiocese there is one translation, there are approved musical compositions, there are prescribed rubrics, there are prescribed rules for parish councils, bishops, officers, parish council members and others. You will be very hard pressed to find much difference between a service in Buffalo, NY as you would in Phoenix, AZ. I believe that it is a fact that you would not find anywhere near this same level of consistency in the OCA. There are multiple translations, multiple variances in rubrics, and numerous variations in how each diocese is administered. What's the point of having a Holy Synod if the bishops don't like or respect one another or if they can barely agree on anything? It just doesn't work if people say that they are of one mind and turn right around, get on a plane and go home and do something different.
As the priest says in the Divine Liturgy, "in faith and love draw near," people need to feel loved and they need to be loved. The initial scandal that was brought to light by Dn. Wheeler could have been brought to light years ago if there was culture of love instead of fear of retaliation. The financial mismanagement probably could have been resolved years ago with a lot less expense if there had been a culture of embracing lay men and women with particular skill sets appropriate to the positions rather creating an insular world of handling everything within the confines of those who wear black robes. Even the financial scandal of the Alaskan lands could be resolved if there were more people willing to love.
I am not aksing anyone to join the Antiochian Archdiocese but I do believe that these are points that should be considered as the OCA goes forward.
#2
Michael Jensen
on
2007-08-24 10:12
A large part of the source of scandals plaguing the O.C.A. can be directly traced to the failure of our bishops – the failure to conduct proper oversight of the affairs of the church. It is not too soon to consider readjusting our qualifications for candidates to the episcopacy. In the coming year, we will have an opportunity to begin a much need revitalization of the Holy Synod. Presently the see of Western Pennsylvania/Bulgarian diocese is vacant; there is a possibility that vacancies may occur in Alaska, if +Nikolai does not survive the investigations underway, and in the South, should the aging +Dmitri retire. It is even conceivable that our much beleaguered primate, the Most Blessed Herman, may opt to lay down his office.
According to O.C.A. statutes, the rules for nominating and electing a ruling diocesan bishop require that the nominating and electing process be conducted within the diocese for which the vacancy is to be filled. Candidates for the position need not necessarily be drawn from the territorial limits of the diocese. Unfortunately, this is not the way we have been filling vacancies in the recent past.
As someone has accurately pointed out on the website some time ago, a candidate is selected by the Syosset, i.e. the Holy Synod to be consecrated bishop and given a titular see such as the Bishop of Baltimore, remains a floater for a while and when the time is ripe a floating bishop is posted to a diocese as an auxiliary (OCA Statutes, Article VI, Section 5). The representatives, both clerical and lay, are presented with an auxiliary bishop who is inevitably elected to be ruling diocesan bishop when the see falls vacant. The process is forced and denies the true intention of the statute (Article VI, Section 10) governing nominations and elections of ruling bishops.
Here are possible foreseeable scenarios invoking (Article VI, Section 5): some candidate, say, from the Eastern Pennsylvania diocese is handpicked to be a bishop, is consecrated bishop and at some not too future date is presented to the Western Pennsylvania diocese as candidate for ruling bishop, the diocesan assembly may feel it has no alternative. After all, it already has an auxiliary.
Again, we may have another candidate, say, from the Eastern Pennsylvania diocese, who is handpicked to be a bishop, consecrated bishop and at some not too future date is presented to the Diocese of Alaska as candidate for ruling bishop, the diocesan assembly may feel it has no alternative. They can’t ask the auxiliary to leave, can they?
And finally there is another foreseeable scenario where yet another candidate, say, from the Eastern Pennsylvania diocese, is handpicked to be a bishop, consecrated and at some not too future date is presented to the Diocese of the South as candidate for ruling bishop, the diocesan assembly may feel it has no alternative. An auxiliary bishop is already here; it would be rude to elect someone else.
The above three scenarios are, of course, all hypothetical and nothing like them is likely to occur!!! Not in a million years.
It is time to return to the original intention of the statute and allow diocesan assemblies to nominate and elect on their own initiatives their own candidates, none of which are non-ruling bishops consecrated in advance and literally shoved down local throats. This is not to say we have not gotten a good bishop or two by the “smoke filled room” method. What is important is that the faithful feel empowered to select absolutely freely their own bishop without any covert pressure to elect an existing non-ruling bishop who was forced on them as an auxiliary.
Further the qualifications for candidates should be raised to include at least the following:
1. humility
2. at least 10 years pastoral experience [this may not have been earned as a parish priest, but as a social worker, deacon, or counselor; therefore the candidate may not necessarily be a priest but a layman with a long distinguished record of service to the church and community]
3. humility
4. at least of a certain age (35 or 40)
5. humility
6. a bachelor’s degree, an MDiv
7. humility
8. sobriety
There should be disqualifying factors: anyone desperately wishing to be a bishop, sometimes manifested by the fact that they secretly keep a set of episcopal vestments long before they are elected, even as early as seminary days. Please, no self-selected candidates need apply.
The canons prescribe some requirements that have been routinely ignored such as the candidate for bishop must have memorized the entire Psalter. Bishops have been known to have wives. I remember attending the millennium of the baptism of Rus celebrations at St. Vladimir’s Cathedral in Kiev in 1988 and watching then Metropolitan Filaret emerge from his chauffeured car and noticing a woman in the back seat. I asked the priest standing next to me who she was and he responded nonchalantly that it was +Filaret’s wife. Everyone knew and his priests admired the fellow. Too many canons are honored only in the breach; some are rightly ignored, others need to be ignored and yet other qualifications need to be imposed.
So with the above in mind, I say if the candidate is a married man, additional qualification should obtain:
1. at least 50 years of age
2. all children are of at least 18 years of age
3. wife must consent to her husband’s consecration [she will not be required to retire to a monastery – heck, she could even work as the bishop’s secretary, not unlike so many matushki who are Sunday school teachers and choir directors]
The inclusion of married men will considerably broaden the pool of candidates. If we elect celibates to the episcopacy, they must honor their vow of celibacy, which means no mistresses or boyfriends. Winking at or overlooking such transgressions must stop.
Radical? Perhaps, but not as radical as having the entire episcopate resign and enter monasteries as was done in the 20th century Church of Georgia or continuing as we have been for the last 15 years.
According to O.C.A. statutes, the rules for nominating and electing a ruling diocesan bishop require that the nominating and electing process be conducted within the diocese for which the vacancy is to be filled. Candidates for the position need not necessarily be drawn from the territorial limits of the diocese. Unfortunately, this is not the way we have been filling vacancies in the recent past.
As someone has accurately pointed out on the website some time ago, a candidate is selected by the Syosset, i.e. the Holy Synod to be consecrated bishop and given a titular see such as the Bishop of Baltimore, remains a floater for a while and when the time is ripe a floating bishop is posted to a diocese as an auxiliary (OCA Statutes, Article VI, Section 5). The representatives, both clerical and lay, are presented with an auxiliary bishop who is inevitably elected to be ruling diocesan bishop when the see falls vacant. The process is forced and denies the true intention of the statute (Article VI, Section 10) governing nominations and elections of ruling bishops.
Here are possible foreseeable scenarios invoking (Article VI, Section 5): some candidate, say, from the Eastern Pennsylvania diocese is handpicked to be a bishop, is consecrated bishop and at some not too future date is presented to the Western Pennsylvania diocese as candidate for ruling bishop, the diocesan assembly may feel it has no alternative. After all, it already has an auxiliary.
Again, we may have another candidate, say, from the Eastern Pennsylvania diocese, who is handpicked to be a bishop, consecrated bishop and at some not too future date is presented to the Diocese of Alaska as candidate for ruling bishop, the diocesan assembly may feel it has no alternative. They can’t ask the auxiliary to leave, can they?
And finally there is another foreseeable scenario where yet another candidate, say, from the Eastern Pennsylvania diocese, is handpicked to be a bishop, consecrated and at some not too future date is presented to the Diocese of the South as candidate for ruling bishop, the diocesan assembly may feel it has no alternative. An auxiliary bishop is already here; it would be rude to elect someone else.
The above three scenarios are, of course, all hypothetical and nothing like them is likely to occur!!! Not in a million years.
It is time to return to the original intention of the statute and allow diocesan assemblies to nominate and elect on their own initiatives their own candidates, none of which are non-ruling bishops consecrated in advance and literally shoved down local throats. This is not to say we have not gotten a good bishop or two by the “smoke filled room” method. What is important is that the faithful feel empowered to select absolutely freely their own bishop without any covert pressure to elect an existing non-ruling bishop who was forced on them as an auxiliary.
Further the qualifications for candidates should be raised to include at least the following:
1. humility
2. at least 10 years pastoral experience [this may not have been earned as a parish priest, but as a social worker, deacon, or counselor; therefore the candidate may not necessarily be a priest but a layman with a long distinguished record of service to the church and community]
3. humility
4. at least of a certain age (35 or 40)
5. humility
6. a bachelor’s degree, an MDiv
7. humility
8. sobriety
There should be disqualifying factors: anyone desperately wishing to be a bishop, sometimes manifested by the fact that they secretly keep a set of episcopal vestments long before they are elected, even as early as seminary days. Please, no self-selected candidates need apply.
The canons prescribe some requirements that have been routinely ignored such as the candidate for bishop must have memorized the entire Psalter. Bishops have been known to have wives. I remember attending the millennium of the baptism of Rus celebrations at St. Vladimir’s Cathedral in Kiev in 1988 and watching then Metropolitan Filaret emerge from his chauffeured car and noticing a woman in the back seat. I asked the priest standing next to me who she was and he responded nonchalantly that it was +Filaret’s wife. Everyone knew and his priests admired the fellow. Too many canons are honored only in the breach; some are rightly ignored, others need to be ignored and yet other qualifications need to be imposed.
So with the above in mind, I say if the candidate is a married man, additional qualification should obtain:
1. at least 50 years of age
2. all children are of at least 18 years of age
3. wife must consent to her husband’s consecration [she will not be required to retire to a monastery – heck, she could even work as the bishop’s secretary, not unlike so many matushki who are Sunday school teachers and choir directors]
The inclusion of married men will considerably broaden the pool of candidates. If we elect celibates to the episcopacy, they must honor their vow of celibacy, which means no mistresses or boyfriends. Winking at or overlooking such transgressions must stop.
Radical? Perhaps, but not as radical as having the entire episcopate resign and enter monasteries as was done in the 20th century Church of Georgia or continuing as we have been for the last 15 years.
#3
Terry C. Peetq
on
2007-08-24 10:13
Very good suggestions that will significantly improve the current dysfunctional situation and virtual abscence of meaningful due process and the input of the people.
The only other requirement I would add is that at minimum of two (2) or possibly three (3) candidates should be selected for each position so the people and the clergy have a real and clear choice. We should never again have to deal with the "here's the only candidate we have, now vote for him" scenarios of the past.
The only other requirement I would add is that at minimum of two (2) or possibly three (3) candidates should be selected for each position so the people and the clergy have a real and clear choice. We should never again have to deal with the "here's the only candidate we have, now vote for him" scenarios of the past.
Michael,
Thanks for posting this reflection about the contrast between the AOC and the OCA. I remember a few years ago a AOC Bishop became drunk and disorderly at a casino in Traverse City. As I recall Met. Phillip dealt with the situation in a hurry. There was no prolonged investigation and such. The Bishop as I recall retired. I would welcome the OCA being absorbed by Met. Phillip and the AOC. That would be the start of a true American Orthodox Church. In fact, I am considering leaving the OCA to join the local AOC church. I have always been impressed with the out reach, education, love of Christ, that draws the converts. In closing, I am tired of the entire OCA culture from the Bishops down to the gossip at coffee hour.
David Rudovsky Charleroi Pa.
Thanks for posting this reflection about the contrast between the AOC and the OCA. I remember a few years ago a AOC Bishop became drunk and disorderly at a casino in Traverse City. As I recall Met. Phillip dealt with the situation in a hurry. There was no prolonged investigation and such. The Bishop as I recall retired. I would welcome the OCA being absorbed by Met. Phillip and the AOC. That would be the start of a true American Orthodox Church. In fact, I am considering leaving the OCA to join the local AOC church. I have always been impressed with the out reach, education, love of Christ, that draws the converts. In closing, I am tired of the entire OCA culture from the Bishops down to the gossip at coffee hour.
David Rudovsky Charleroi Pa.
#5
Anonymous
on
2007-08-25 03:44
Terry,
Opening the Orthodox episcopate to married bishops would create another entire mess. Essentially, it would likely become a "career goal" for some priests and taint everything they did.
I converted to Orthodoxy from the Episcopalians. I spent some time in a suburban Chicago Episcopal parish, where it was openly and repeatedly acknowledged that the rector (a heterosexual, married man with children) wanted to become a bishop, and that this played into every decision he made - particularly about building projects, etc. His reputation in the wider church was always in mind.
It's simply a bad idea.
Michele Hagerman
All Saints Antiochian Orthodox Church
Chicago, IL
Opening the Orthodox episcopate to married bishops would create another entire mess. Essentially, it would likely become a "career goal" for some priests and taint everything they did.
I converted to Orthodoxy from the Episcopalians. I spent some time in a suburban Chicago Episcopal parish, where it was openly and repeatedly acknowledged that the rector (a heterosexual, married man with children) wanted to become a bishop, and that this played into every decision he made - particularly about building projects, etc. His reputation in the wider church was always in mind.
It's simply a bad idea.
Michele Hagerman
All Saints Antiochian Orthodox Church
Chicago, IL
#6
Michele Hagerman
on
2007-08-25 05:32
I totally agree with you. This Synod lacks integrity and mouths one thing and does another. It's sad! Orthodox unity is necessary NOW!
#7
Margo P
on
2007-08-25 07:50
Eureka! Like the Antiochians, Let every OCA Bishop surround himself with successful (yet) honest businessman and lawyers do away with the mystery of confession, do the dissolution-of-the-monasteries-thing-Met. Philip style, get even more with-it beyond just apingthe appearance of Roman Catholic and Protestant clergy by enshrining the American Protestant, make that American Evangelical Protestant ethos and put away old school, Old Country ascetical pieties that only get away with the selling out...er, marketing. errr....evangelization, yeah, that's it, of this country and then we'll be just as healthy as the Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese!! "Self Ruled", I like that, it's so Me Generation! We have indeed been missing out here in the benighted OCA if being "self ruled" is the key to paradise!
#8
Anonymous
on
2007-08-25 07:59
Terrible things are happening in the OCA. The efforts of so many to set things right are laudable, necessary, our duty even as Orthodox Christians. But there are dangers inherent in how we act, in what we say on this board. Let us not turn into Woodwards and Bernsteins or treat each post like "I Claudius" or a soap opera - "What are the rascals up to now ?" Beware of becoming Jacobeans. the French Revolution was much worse than that which it set out to replace. Even more so the Russian Revolution. So when I hear people talk about leaving the OCA or saying it should be dissolved, let us take a step back and think - why is this happening? Because Satan has set out to destroy the OCA, that's why. So if Satan started off by using corrupt or ungodly clergy or hierarchy to bring dishonor on our church, the evil one is EQUALLY using the overzealous reformers to ALSO destroy the church. Be indignant, but don't fall into Satan's trap of giving up on our church or of hoping it goes under, or of leaving it. That is Exactly what he wants you to do. Another point. Recently there have been a number of posts re the fact that we are Americans, we read Thomas Jefferson, we don't follow ways of the old country, bishops should marry, vestments are old fashioned, and no one can tell me what to do. Beware, beware of this temptation (I of course out of good manners will not even mention the word"Protestantism"). On this point I would greatly encourage everyone to read the chapter entitled "Orthodox Christianity and the American Spirit" in Fr Thomas Hopko's wonderful book, "All the Fulness of God".Published by St. Vladimir's Seminary Press.
#9
Peter Von Berg
on
2007-08-25 08:24
yes,but not only is it a bad idea,it would excommunicate the oca from world orthodoxy.ONLY an ALLORTHODOX synod,sort of an oecumenical council might be able to make such a change.besides,married men can be just as bad as celibates,in fact,a married man needs more money and might be even more tempted.after all,a married man was chancellor.it has to do with the personality.most of our old bishops were just wonderful:mitropolit LEONTY,IRNINEY,archbishops JOHN garclavs and prince shahavskoy,KYPRIAN the list goes on.may their memory be eternal!personally, i think our present bishops are not bad either.may GOD help them.
#10
Anonymous
on
2007-08-25 09:24
Thank you Michael,
I enjoyed reading your reflections and you seem very humble and honest in your assessment. Thank you for sharing. I think you said many wise and insightful things, particularly about love and respect, particularly with our bishops.
Even though I am in the OCA, I have been to many Antiochian services. My husband helped serve with a fellow Antiochian priest friend at an Antiochian mission in CA this past year, both graduates of SVS (and me too). Now we live out east serving a small OCA mission.
I have had a long standing interest in anthropology and I have often wondered if the geographical areas of Orthodoxy have given these countries their own particular expression in both personality and liturgical practice.
For instance, the mediterranean is a warmer climate, for most of the year, than northern Russia and the Balkan countries in general. The mediterranean personality appears to be, on a prima facie observance, more warm, gregarious, and extroverted. You may know what I mean.
The Arab and Greek priests do not seem as introverted and quiet as the Russian priests. Has anyone else sensed the difference between the northern, stoic personality, which may have evolved to endure the hard winters, and the warm, gregarious mediterranean personality who was surrounded by warmer weather, water, and a greater variety of flora and fauna.
Look, for instance, at our Holy Week tombs. The Greeks and Antiochians put flowers right on the bier. The Russians don't. Why? Perhaps of climate differences throughout the centuries. There were flowers to gather in the mediterranean climate. There were no flowers to gather in northern Russia! The mediterranean climate allowed for palms and the northern climate allowed for pussy willows. While some churches are mixing these cultural differences, there probably can be much more of a mixing of what remains just cultural. I don't recall learning at SVS a theological reason not to put flowers on a tomb, or not to serve pussy willows for Palm Sunday.
I really believe the two contrasting cultural areas were informed by the two very contrasting weather climates:
The Greeks and Antiochians light candles in the narthex and the Russians light candles inside the nave. Why would this be so? If one looks at climate, the candles would probably make a mediterrranean church unbearably hot with all the great body heat fromt he people in the warmer climate. Centuries past, there was no air conditioning and this practice of no candels inside the church probably was born of practicality. In Russia, ANY source of heat in the nave would have been welcomed to try to keep people warm! Thus, how odd we would not light candles in a Greek or Antiochian church near the iconostasis whereas in the Russian church this is "standard operating procedure."
I could be wrong, but just in simple reflection, I would think climate may have had a big part to do with this and other practices:
High back and low back vestments for the priests: Perhaps climate: Cold versus hot.
Different cultural foods: Climate and what the earth can sustain in such weather differences. Taboli or potato pancakes for lent. Very differnt foods.
But I have also noticed the Greek and Arab personality appears to be a more gregarious, or extroverted personality than the Russian or Slavic personality. They are both good and holy personality types, but how they connect with people seems different. My mother was Italian and my father Czcheckoslovakian. She was much like the Greek and Arab personality I meet and my father much more like the stoic Russian. I think climate had much to do with this.
Also, look at how the personality may center around cultural (due to weather) occupation. The mediterraneans are often restaurant owners and businessmen and the Russians were peasants working their farms (climate differences).
The mediterraneans saw centuries of busy ports with ship traders and merchants who had to be good with people contact, who developed interpersonal skills for economic survival. The Russians did not grow up around seafaring ports, trade, and people. They were farmers and needed to stay warm and had a limited plants that would thrive in a colder climate. In this cold, harsh climate, they survived with a more stoic personality.
Michael, I think you made some good observations. The theology of the Orthodox church is the same. But the cultures seem to have quite a contast. For how could this not be? The mediterranean and the sea is much different than the northern snow, trees, and the cold. BUT WE MUST continually learn from each other. I can sense what you say about +Philip being very different as a personality than +Herman.
The OCA needs to have policies and procedures and to take them seriously. But we also need respect and love within and among our bishops. Let us pray that we continue to learn from each other.
Patty Schellbach
I enjoyed reading your reflections and you seem very humble and honest in your assessment. Thank you for sharing. I think you said many wise and insightful things, particularly about love and respect, particularly with our bishops.
Even though I am in the OCA, I have been to many Antiochian services. My husband helped serve with a fellow Antiochian priest friend at an Antiochian mission in CA this past year, both graduates of SVS (and me too). Now we live out east serving a small OCA mission.
I have had a long standing interest in anthropology and I have often wondered if the geographical areas of Orthodoxy have given these countries their own particular expression in both personality and liturgical practice.
For instance, the mediterranean is a warmer climate, for most of the year, than northern Russia and the Balkan countries in general. The mediterranean personality appears to be, on a prima facie observance, more warm, gregarious, and extroverted. You may know what I mean.
The Arab and Greek priests do not seem as introverted and quiet as the Russian priests. Has anyone else sensed the difference between the northern, stoic personality, which may have evolved to endure the hard winters, and the warm, gregarious mediterranean personality who was surrounded by warmer weather, water, and a greater variety of flora and fauna.
Look, for instance, at our Holy Week tombs. The Greeks and Antiochians put flowers right on the bier. The Russians don't. Why? Perhaps of climate differences throughout the centuries. There were flowers to gather in the mediterranean climate. There were no flowers to gather in northern Russia! The mediterranean climate allowed for palms and the northern climate allowed for pussy willows. While some churches are mixing these cultural differences, there probably can be much more of a mixing of what remains just cultural. I don't recall learning at SVS a theological reason not to put flowers on a tomb, or not to serve pussy willows for Palm Sunday.
I really believe the two contrasting cultural areas were informed by the two very contrasting weather climates:
The Greeks and Antiochians light candles in the narthex and the Russians light candles inside the nave. Why would this be so? If one looks at climate, the candles would probably make a mediterrranean church unbearably hot with all the great body heat fromt he people in the warmer climate. Centuries past, there was no air conditioning and this practice of no candels inside the church probably was born of practicality. In Russia, ANY source of heat in the nave would have been welcomed to try to keep people warm! Thus, how odd we would not light candles in a Greek or Antiochian church near the iconostasis whereas in the Russian church this is "standard operating procedure."
I could be wrong, but just in simple reflection, I would think climate may have had a big part to do with this and other practices:
High back and low back vestments for the priests: Perhaps climate: Cold versus hot.
Different cultural foods: Climate and what the earth can sustain in such weather differences. Taboli or potato pancakes for lent. Very differnt foods.
But I have also noticed the Greek and Arab personality appears to be a more gregarious, or extroverted personality than the Russian or Slavic personality. They are both good and holy personality types, but how they connect with people seems different. My mother was Italian and my father Czcheckoslovakian. She was much like the Greek and Arab personality I meet and my father much more like the stoic Russian. I think climate had much to do with this.
Also, look at how the personality may center around cultural (due to weather) occupation. The mediterraneans are often restaurant owners and businessmen and the Russians were peasants working their farms (climate differences).
The mediterraneans saw centuries of busy ports with ship traders and merchants who had to be good with people contact, who developed interpersonal skills for economic survival. The Russians did not grow up around seafaring ports, trade, and people. They were farmers and needed to stay warm and had a limited plants that would thrive in a colder climate. In this cold, harsh climate, they survived with a more stoic personality.
Michael, I think you made some good observations. The theology of the Orthodox church is the same. But the cultures seem to have quite a contast. For how could this not be? The mediterranean and the sea is much different than the northern snow, trees, and the cold. BUT WE MUST continually learn from each other. I can sense what you say about +Philip being very different as a personality than +Herman.
The OCA needs to have policies and procedures and to take them seriously. But we also need respect and love within and among our bishops. Let us pray that we continue to learn from each other.
Patty Schellbach
#11
Patty Schellbach
on
2007-08-25 09:55
Michael Jensen wrote:
"I have also seen the Antiochian Archdiocese deal swiftly and directly with people and events that were wrong. There have been cases of sexual indiscretion on the part of priests, priests that have disbanded their entire parish councils, priests that have taught absolutely bizarre heretical ideas, and numerous other types of scandals."
My response:
My friends and I run a website for survivors of abuse in the Orthodox churches. Based on our experience, it is a serious mistake to believe that the Antiochians have a better handle on clergy misconduct than other jurisdictions in general, and the OCA in particular.
Melanie Jula Sakoda
"I have also seen the Antiochian Archdiocese deal swiftly and directly with people and events that were wrong. There have been cases of sexual indiscretion on the part of priests, priests that have disbanded their entire parish councils, priests that have taught absolutely bizarre heretical ideas, and numerous other types of scandals."
My response:
My friends and I run a website for survivors of abuse in the Orthodox churches. Based on our experience, it is a serious mistake to believe that the Antiochians have a better handle on clergy misconduct than other jurisdictions in general, and the OCA in particular.
Melanie Jula Sakoda
Thats a heckuvan indictment againt married clergy. It would seem certain, though, given the moral ambivalence of some of our purpotedly celebate hierarchs underscored by the mess we now have to clean up, that wrong-headed ambition is not limited to those who share a home with a spouse.
In any event, the abuse, or potential for abuses, of some thing is no invalidation of its proper use.
In any event, the abuse, or potential for abuses, of some thing is no invalidation of its proper use.
#13
Anonymous
on
2007-08-25 13:27
Michael,
thank you for your post. there is only a minor point I wonder if you could clear up. I have been told that one reason that you can have uniformity in the Anthiochian Archdiocese is that Met. Phllip is the only "ruling" bishop. The other bishops are auxilliary (or what ever the correct word is). This also allows him to act quickly.
And boy, do I agree about the cassocks vs. black suits. People should listen to us, not think, "Boy they look weird." Everyone seems to forget that St. Patriarch Tikhon told his priests to "dress like an American gentleman."
I don't know who we could select from among our mostly sorry excuses for bishops to be the next Met. But I cringe when I look at all their long beards and hair. I think the way our bishops dress is off-putting to Americans and gets in the way of our message (if the OCA had a message right now.) I am still pretty much in dispair.) So sorry for those I may have offended.
Someone who may be "learning Arabic" soon.
In Christ,
Linda Weir
thank you for your post. there is only a minor point I wonder if you could clear up. I have been told that one reason that you can have uniformity in the Anthiochian Archdiocese is that Met. Phllip is the only "ruling" bishop. The other bishops are auxilliary (or what ever the correct word is). This also allows him to act quickly.
And boy, do I agree about the cassocks vs. black suits. People should listen to us, not think, "Boy they look weird." Everyone seems to forget that St. Patriarch Tikhon told his priests to "dress like an American gentleman."
I don't know who we could select from among our mostly sorry excuses for bishops to be the next Met. But I cringe when I look at all their long beards and hair. I think the way our bishops dress is off-putting to Americans and gets in the way of our message (if the OCA had a message right now.) I am still pretty much in dispair.) So sorry for those I may have offended.
Someone who may be "learning Arabic" soon.
In Christ,
Linda Weir
#14
Linda Weir
on
2007-08-25 17:45
Because you have a current crop of weak bishops, trying to fix it with married priests is just as weak an idea as trying to cure the RC priest shortage with married men. Have the patience to stick with your Tradition. Otherwise you look like a bunch on whining Americans. BTW, this reflection is a non-starter.
#15
Anonymous
on
2007-08-25 22:04
After re-reading the instructions of the Holy Apostle Paul to Timothy (1 Tim 3) and Titus (Titus 1), and the 12th Canon of the Council of Trullo and comments on it, it seems good to me that the following men only can become bishops:
Men who fit all of the qualifications listed by St. Paul
AND THEN: with the consent of his wivef if still living, if his wife agrees that her husband is called to the episcopacy, the wife will consent to become a monastic or celibate "on her own" as well. NOT DIVORCED. Then after at least 7 years as a monk having proven himself worthy and true to the call, the man may consecrated a bishop.
But, that's what seems good to me. Perhaps unattainable.
Rdr. Alexander
Men who fit all of the qualifications listed by St. Paul
AND THEN: with the consent of his wivef if still living, if his wife agrees that her husband is called to the episcopacy, the wife will consent to become a monastic or celibate "on her own" as well. NOT DIVORCED. Then after at least 7 years as a monk having proven himself worthy and true to the call, the man may consecrated a bishop.
But, that's what seems good to me. Perhaps unattainable.
Rdr. Alexander
#16
Rdr. Alexander Langley
on
2007-08-26 11:27
Linda,
The Antiochian bishops are no longer auxiliary bishops. That ended several years ago when we received "self-ruled" status from Antioch. We have regular dioceses with regular "ruling" bishops.
The Antiochian bishops are no longer auxiliary bishops. That ended several years ago when we received "self-ruled" status from Antioch. We have regular dioceses with regular "ruling" bishops.
#17
Michele Hagerman
on
2007-08-26 15:12
I enjoyed Patty's comment and I think there probably is a connection between one's cultural environment and the development of that culture. That being said, I've met plenty of warm folks who are of Slavic descent, and I've met some Greeks who are a bit rude. So while it probably plays a role, I don't think it is an across-the-board generalization. But if we are to truly have an American Orthodoxy, Greek and Arab customs must somehow meld with Slavic customs in the "melting pot" that we like to call America.
If one reads the writings of Fr Alexander Schmemann, in the early days of American Orthodoxy, he (and I imagine Frs Georges Florovsky, John Meyendorff, etc., also) visualized an American Orthodoxy blending ALL of our Orthodox cultural heritages that are found in America, not a rejection of Greek or Arab or Romanian Orthodoxy if they were subsumed under the umbrella of the autocephalous OCA. In fact, Fr. Alexander was quite frustrated at people making an idol out of Russianness or Russian traditions (with a small "t") and equating that with good Orthodoxy.
I think the fear of losing those cultural idiosyncrasies has made many non-Slavic Orthodox uncomfortable about joining an autocephalous American Orthodox church under the OCA umbrella, and this is before all these financial and other improprieties were made public. There are exceptions, but the OCA is by and large Russian-style Orthodoxy in the English language. And I suppose the Antiochians are by and large Byzantine-style Orthodoxy in the English language. There's no reason, however, that the OCA cannot accommodate non-Russian style worship such an American congregation that wants to do congregational-style singing, and ther's no reason that the Antiochians can't have a parish that uses Slavic-style worship. Then, we would begin to progress toward unity in America.
Needless to say, the OCA lost a dynamic leader with the untimely death of Fr. Alexander Schmemann, and sadly, no one (in my humble opinion) has really risen up to take his place. I've read that the success of the OCA's autocephaly really hinged on his dynamic personality... I hope that is not true, but things seem to have crumbled in the 20+ years after his passing. Ironically, I imagine he is looking down from heaven now, quite frustrated by the goings-on in the church he worked so hard to build up in America.
On the priestly dress issue, I think some are attracted by the other-worldliness of seeing a priest or bishop in a cassock walking down Main Street, USA. But to say that that same cleric is ineffective if they are wearing "American" clothes is really nonsense, and the quote above from St Tikhon of North America attests to that fact. Our bishop (Bishop Antoun, Antiochian/Miami and SE) does not wear a beard, purportedly because in the past some little American children were afraid of him in a long beard! If that's not a good reason for a bishop to trim his beard, I don't know what would be one.
Finally, on the subject of married bishops, a married bishop does not a good bishop automatically make (obviously), but married bishops certainly did exist in the early Church. The father of my patron saint (St Gregory the Theologian) was indeed a married bishop, as were others. The church could bring this back, but like any "innovation" (and it would not really be an innovation anyway), it would be met with kicking and screaming!
If one reads the writings of Fr Alexander Schmemann, in the early days of American Orthodoxy, he (and I imagine Frs Georges Florovsky, John Meyendorff, etc., also) visualized an American Orthodoxy blending ALL of our Orthodox cultural heritages that are found in America, not a rejection of Greek or Arab or Romanian Orthodoxy if they were subsumed under the umbrella of the autocephalous OCA. In fact, Fr. Alexander was quite frustrated at people making an idol out of Russianness or Russian traditions (with a small "t") and equating that with good Orthodoxy.
I think the fear of losing those cultural idiosyncrasies has made many non-Slavic Orthodox uncomfortable about joining an autocephalous American Orthodox church under the OCA umbrella, and this is before all these financial and other improprieties were made public. There are exceptions, but the OCA is by and large Russian-style Orthodoxy in the English language. And I suppose the Antiochians are by and large Byzantine-style Orthodoxy in the English language. There's no reason, however, that the OCA cannot accommodate non-Russian style worship such an American congregation that wants to do congregational-style singing, and ther's no reason that the Antiochians can't have a parish that uses Slavic-style worship. Then, we would begin to progress toward unity in America.
Needless to say, the OCA lost a dynamic leader with the untimely death of Fr. Alexander Schmemann, and sadly, no one (in my humble opinion) has really risen up to take his place. I've read that the success of the OCA's autocephaly really hinged on his dynamic personality... I hope that is not true, but things seem to have crumbled in the 20+ years after his passing. Ironically, I imagine he is looking down from heaven now, quite frustrated by the goings-on in the church he worked so hard to build up in America.
On the priestly dress issue, I think some are attracted by the other-worldliness of seeing a priest or bishop in a cassock walking down Main Street, USA. But to say that that same cleric is ineffective if they are wearing "American" clothes is really nonsense, and the quote above from St Tikhon of North America attests to that fact. Our bishop (Bishop Antoun, Antiochian/Miami and SE) does not wear a beard, purportedly because in the past some little American children were afraid of him in a long beard! If that's not a good reason for a bishop to trim his beard, I don't know what would be one.
Finally, on the subject of married bishops, a married bishop does not a good bishop automatically make (obviously), but married bishops certainly did exist in the early Church. The father of my patron saint (St Gregory the Theologian) was indeed a married bishop, as were others. The church could bring this back, but like any "innovation" (and it would not really be an innovation anyway), it would be met with kicking and screaming!
#18
Gregg G.
on
2007-08-26 16:26
"Let us live a life in agreement with our appearance, as the Fathers say, lest we take on a character alien to it."
- Abba Dorotheos of Gaza
Abba Dorotheos said this at the end of a beautiful discourse on the symbolism of each part of monastic garb (e.g. belt: represents "the mortification of unreasoning passions", the outer garment: "on our shoulder which represent the cross", headcovering: "sign of innocence and childhood in Christ").
Each part of what clothes our Bishops and Priests have symbolism that is just as rich, just as rich in admonitory potential.
It would be sad and unwise for our hierarchs and priests to cast off their BATTLEDRESS in order to satisfy the whims and fancies of the unconverted (both non-Orthodox and Orthodox).
Whatever their shortcomings, the Bishops and Priests are icons of Christ, AT LEAST in the externals of their battledress. In the military it is said that "we salute the uniform, not the man."
Priests and Monks have told me that their distinct appearance actually serves to attract inquirers when they are public.
Why should our clergy want to be ignored by coustuming themselves in the RC black suit and dog collar or dressing like a Protestant salaryman?
- Abba Dorotheos of Gaza
Abba Dorotheos said this at the end of a beautiful discourse on the symbolism of each part of monastic garb (e.g. belt: represents "the mortification of unreasoning passions", the outer garment: "on our shoulder which represent the cross", headcovering: "sign of innocence and childhood in Christ").
Each part of what clothes our Bishops and Priests have symbolism that is just as rich, just as rich in admonitory potential.
It would be sad and unwise for our hierarchs and priests to cast off their BATTLEDRESS in order to satisfy the whims and fancies of the unconverted (both non-Orthodox and Orthodox).
Whatever their shortcomings, the Bishops and Priests are icons of Christ, AT LEAST in the externals of their battledress. In the military it is said that "we salute the uniform, not the man."
Priests and Monks have told me that their distinct appearance actually serves to attract inquirers when they are public.
Why should our clergy want to be ignored by coustuming themselves in the RC black suit and dog collar or dressing like a Protestant salaryman?
#19
Anonymous
on
2007-08-26 17:10
I regard much of what Michael has written as insightful.
The OCA can certainly learn much from the AOC.
But, it seems somewhat ironic that the Antiochian system is actually monarchical in practice, although benevolently so, while the OCA's synodical system is more truly conciliar.
Much of the success of the Antiochian adaptation undoubtedly lies with Metropolitan Phillip; in the likely lesser hands of a successor it could easily be a disaster - witness what has happened in the Russian Patriarchal diocese of Sourozh.
By the same token, the conciliar system can work well with built in checks and balances - it all depends on the calibre of the bishops. And that seems to be clearly becoming the crucial question: How can we ensure a high calibre of candidates for the episcopacy?
An educated laity highly competent in their own callings will not be long-suffering of episcopal incompetence. This too, is a question of cultural adaptation. For all its faults, the old imperial Russian system of clergy formation brought forth clergy who seemed able to combine piety with intelligence and administrative acumen - witness Tikhon and Leonty to cite just two examples. Yes, it was a simpler world, but they actually had greater crises to contend with than today's higher clergy and more difficult conditions.
So the question remains, why has not American church life brought forth suitable episcopal candidates? Which brings me back to a previous comment I made - autocephaly was premature. This is becoming quite evident now. The metropolia in 1970 was impatient and proud, and should have been exploring options for increased contact with old world Orthodoxy, not seeking autocephaly -Goodness, much of the eastern heartland had only been Orthodox since the turn of the century! What impact does that have on church life? Don't underestimate the effects of uniatism, nor disrespect the value of traditional Orthodoxy (and I mean traditional, not Traditional!). Remember, Metropolitan Phillip originates from the mother church, not the local church, as have all of the successful (if I may be permitted to use that less than apt description) bishops the American church has had. Consecrating widowed priests is an understandable intermediate measure. So is the Romanian practice of carefully selecting an archimandrite from the mother church who can adapt to American church life. But both options only underline the need for this question to be seriously addressed.
The OCA can certainly learn much from the AOC.
But, it seems somewhat ironic that the Antiochian system is actually monarchical in practice, although benevolently so, while the OCA's synodical system is more truly conciliar.
Much of the success of the Antiochian adaptation undoubtedly lies with Metropolitan Phillip; in the likely lesser hands of a successor it could easily be a disaster - witness what has happened in the Russian Patriarchal diocese of Sourozh.
By the same token, the conciliar system can work well with built in checks and balances - it all depends on the calibre of the bishops. And that seems to be clearly becoming the crucial question: How can we ensure a high calibre of candidates for the episcopacy?
An educated laity highly competent in their own callings will not be long-suffering of episcopal incompetence. This too, is a question of cultural adaptation. For all its faults, the old imperial Russian system of clergy formation brought forth clergy who seemed able to combine piety with intelligence and administrative acumen - witness Tikhon and Leonty to cite just two examples. Yes, it was a simpler world, but they actually had greater crises to contend with than today's higher clergy and more difficult conditions.
So the question remains, why has not American church life brought forth suitable episcopal candidates? Which brings me back to a previous comment I made - autocephaly was premature. This is becoming quite evident now. The metropolia in 1970 was impatient and proud, and should have been exploring options for increased contact with old world Orthodoxy, not seeking autocephaly -Goodness, much of the eastern heartland had only been Orthodox since the turn of the century! What impact does that have on church life? Don't underestimate the effects of uniatism, nor disrespect the value of traditional Orthodoxy (and I mean traditional, not Traditional!). Remember, Metropolitan Phillip originates from the mother church, not the local church, as have all of the successful (if I may be permitted to use that less than apt description) bishops the American church has had. Consecrating widowed priests is an understandable intermediate measure. So is the Romanian practice of carefully selecting an archimandrite from the mother church who can adapt to American church life. But both options only underline the need for this question to be seriously addressed.
#20
Anthony
on
2007-08-26 17:19
Linda, I agree with you, and Michael.
I read something a short time ago, that if a Priets or Bishops beard in longer than the beard on a goat he should get a new goat.
As a life long ORTHODOX, seventy five years, now in a MISSION CHURCH, it is tough to evangelize, when the first question comes out of a newcomer,why does your priest have a long beard? My answer is that he has a lawsuit against Gillette!
When a group of engineers came to my office and saw the ORTHODOX HERALD magazine on the table in the waiting room, one asked, what cult is this? I said the cult of "13". He counted and said there are only twelve. He wanted to know why they were dressed in black and had long beards, and I said they can't find another one with a long beard. We don't make it easy for newcomers to become ORTHODOX.
Steve Babish
St. James--- Brother of the Lord
Kansas City, MO
cell; 816-853-8685
I read something a short time ago, that if a Priets or Bishops beard in longer than the beard on a goat he should get a new goat.
As a life long ORTHODOX, seventy five years, now in a MISSION CHURCH, it is tough to evangelize, when the first question comes out of a newcomer,why does your priest have a long beard? My answer is that he has a lawsuit against Gillette!
When a group of engineers came to my office and saw the ORTHODOX HERALD magazine on the table in the waiting room, one asked, what cult is this? I said the cult of "13". He counted and said there are only twelve. He wanted to know why they were dressed in black and had long beards, and I said they can't find another one with a long beard. We don't make it easy for newcomers to become ORTHODOX.
Steve Babish
St. James--- Brother of the Lord
Kansas City, MO
cell; 816-853-8685
Dear Anonymous,
I found your post really quite sad. Your post seems to suggest a number of things that things that I never remotely suggested. First, I never suggested that a bishop or metropolitan surround themselves solely with businessmen. My suggestion is that they surround themselves with learned men and women that are well trained in their chosen professions. Second, you suggested in your post some strange notions about confession. Sadly, I have seen a number of churches deemphasize confession to the point that it is something people remember only in their childhoods. And quite tragically this has occurred in almost all of the Orthodox jurisdictions in America, not just the Antiochian Archdiocese. The same can also be said about vigil services in most parishes. As to the lack of monasteries in the Antiochian Archdiocese your are correct. It is a tragedy that the Antiochian Archdiocese has not put a greater emphasis on monasticism. As to the Roman Catholic dress, it is not my favorite but I understand why Orthodox clergymen in the Antiochian and Greek Archdiocese have adopted it.
Dear Anonymous friend, we all have faults and thankfully we have a merciful saviour. I would kindly ask that you reread my post. Like I said, there is much that I do and do not like about the Antiochian Archdiocese but at the end of each day I believe that Orthodoxy in America is better with it than without. Is it a perfect model for the rest of Orthodoxy in America? Certainly not, but it offers much that is good and much that I believe the OCA can learn from.
I found your post really quite sad. Your post seems to suggest a number of things that things that I never remotely suggested. First, I never suggested that a bishop or metropolitan surround themselves solely with businessmen. My suggestion is that they surround themselves with learned men and women that are well trained in their chosen professions. Second, you suggested in your post some strange notions about confession. Sadly, I have seen a number of churches deemphasize confession to the point that it is something people remember only in their childhoods. And quite tragically this has occurred in almost all of the Orthodox jurisdictions in America, not just the Antiochian Archdiocese. The same can also be said about vigil services in most parishes. As to the lack of monasteries in the Antiochian Archdiocese your are correct. It is a tragedy that the Antiochian Archdiocese has not put a greater emphasis on monasticism. As to the Roman Catholic dress, it is not my favorite but I understand why Orthodox clergymen in the Antiochian and Greek Archdiocese have adopted it.
Dear Anonymous friend, we all have faults and thankfully we have a merciful saviour. I would kindly ask that you reread my post. Like I said, there is much that I do and do not like about the Antiochian Archdiocese but at the end of each day I believe that Orthodoxy in America is better with it than without. Is it a perfect model for the rest of Orthodoxy in America? Certainly not, but it offers much that is good and much that I believe the OCA can learn from.
#22
Michael Jensen
on
2007-08-26 20:02
in patriarch tikhon's time diversity was not excepted in america as it is now.an other truly great saint and wonderworker st.john of san francisco always dressed in traditional orthodox garment and had long hair and beard.there are many americans who's interest is awakened when they see a traditionally dressed priest.christ said my kingdom is not of this world,he predicted that the world would hate us,so if we are weird to some hamburger americans,so be it.study arabic and enjoy your tabouli.
#23
Anonymous
on
2007-08-26 20:37
It seems we are getting side-tracked from the issue at hand. The original intention of my reflection was not to open up a can of worms to see if we should start consecrating married men to the episcopacy. It was to return to our basic and primary source of what God says in Scripture about what are the criteria that should be considered for currently viable candidates to the episcopacy, as well as those are already in that office within our Holy Synod.
#24
David Barrett
on
2007-08-27 04:08
I dont understand this insistence on celebate clergy, be it of priests in the Latin-Rite Roman Church, or bishops in our own Orthodox Churches. I also and esp dont understand the above suggestion on St Paul's requirement being addended to require the wife to become a monastic before the husband-priest can become a bishop (in addition to sounding totally unnecessary (St Paul and the HS might be given the benefit of the doubt for having got it right, after all) and sadly Augustinian, it would whittle down the alrealdy diluted pool of applicants to none).
More generally, the insistence on a monastic hierarchy is just silly ... inasmuch as that requirement is deemed satisfied by the mere outward ritualistic taking of vows: total form over substance. Meanwhile, such "monks" take 6 figure salaries plus booty from parish visits and otherwise live day-to-day lives that resemble monasticism only in the black robes and the beards they wear and the absence of a lawful spouse. So why bother insisting on monks as bishops when we all know darned well that they are not?! Its self delusional.
The requirements should be as laid out by St Paul, without addendum. If the man is a true monastic, great; if not, also great. It doesnt matter. Who are we triying to fool, anyway? We should just be looking for a few good men as set forth St Paul's recruiting standards.
More generally, the insistence on a monastic hierarchy is just silly ... inasmuch as that requirement is deemed satisfied by the mere outward ritualistic taking of vows: total form over substance. Meanwhile, such "monks" take 6 figure salaries plus booty from parish visits and otherwise live day-to-day lives that resemble monasticism only in the black robes and the beards they wear and the absence of a lawful spouse. So why bother insisting on monks as bishops when we all know darned well that they are not?! Its self delusional.
The requirements should be as laid out by St Paul, without addendum. If the man is a true monastic, great; if not, also great. It doesnt matter. Who are we triying to fool, anyway? We should just be looking for a few good men as set forth St Paul's recruiting standards.
#25
Anonymous
on
2007-08-27 05:10
I'm not ready to write off the entire Holy Synod in one fell swoop. I don't know many of them, and I do still trust His Eminence Archbishop JOB.
As none of us are in their shoes, let's at least remember that God is truly in charge, and whether we see it or not, some of the bishops maybe doing their very best in this most ugly situation.
Rdr. Alexander
As none of us are in their shoes, let's at least remember that God is truly in charge, and whether we see it or not, some of the bishops maybe doing their very best in this most ugly situation.
Rdr. Alexander
#26
Rdr. Alexander Langley
on
2007-08-27 07:59
"Someone who may be "learning Arabic" soon."
Linda-you will no more have to learn Arabic than anyone coming into the OCA has to learn Slavonic (with certain exceptions of course).
Linda-you will no more have to learn Arabic than anyone coming into the OCA has to learn Slavonic (with certain exceptions of course).
#27
Michael Strelka
on
2007-08-27 09:10
Dear Michele,
Not really. New bishops in the AOCA must first be approved by Antioch before they are consecrated here in America. It may be a mere formality, but nonetheless the AOCA is not in the same status as the OCA who can consecrate its own bishops without consulting Moscow, for example.
Not really. New bishops in the AOCA must first be approved by Antioch before they are consecrated here in America. It may be a mere formality, but nonetheless the AOCA is not in the same status as the OCA who can consecrate its own bishops without consulting Moscow, for example.
#28
Anonymous
on
2007-08-27 11:11
I have to take exception to the sentence here that says "Each part of what clothes our Bishops and Priests have symbolism that is just as rich, just as rich in admonitory potential." That is not quite true. While most of the vestments have not only viable symbolism and function (such as the palitsa, the large diamond hanging on the right side of a priest or bishop, signifying that he has the blessing to hear confessions), other items of significance carry a symbolism from the secular, fallen world. The most obvious is the circular eagle rug, copies of which are scattered at various places the bishop will stand during the divine services. This is a throw-back to the caesaropapic function of the bishop in centuries past. In fact, some of this is even found in our liturgical practices. At a hierarchical Liturgy, just before the Trisagion, the deacon standing outside the royal doors completes the prayer that the bishop or priest has just enumerated by saying, "And unto ages of ages!", while turning and gesturing towards the back of the church with his orarion. This is not an acknowlegement of the faithful present in church, but was a gesture added to our Liturgy centuries before to acknowledge the Byzantine emperor! It seems to me that, with our current crises (and I again use that word in the plural) facing our Church, we have more pressing issues to concern us at this time besides beards, shaving, and vestments. While these topics are items that will and should be addressed at some point, our more immediate concerns are and should be with the spiritual interiority of our hierarchs rather than the material externals.
#29
David Barrett
on
2007-08-27 13:54
Interesting is Matushka Gvosdev's statement that the draft document produced by the 2000 committee charged with designing a policy and procedure for handling sexual misconduct in the OCA neglected to include policy deliberately dealing with episcopal offenders. And when she (and probably other "experts" on the committee) pointed this out to the relevent authorities in the OCA, no attempt was made to rectify this glaring omission. This is all the more interesting given the fact that for at least a decade or so prior to that time, persistent rumors had been circulating in various corners of the Church about moral malfeasance at the very highest echelons of the OCA.
Even if the persistent rumors are entirely without foundation--as remains a very real possibility until proven otherwise--it seems more than just oversight that the pertinent amendment was not made in the final document to cover the case of possible episcopal malefactors.
Given the strenuous efforts of +Herman, Kucynda and the Syosset cabal to keep the focus unremittingly of the financial misappropriations and to never allow it to devolve to the underlying allegations (several times referred to in passing on this site) of moral impropriety, which is alleged to involve blackmail and hush money, it behooves the acute membership of the OCA to demand that a public investigation be undertaken and the necessary information shared with the membership.
Failure to do so will not only invite a more serious intervention by civil authority, given the nature of the crimes involved, but will also provide real ammunition to those recent voices alleging serious fundamental weaknesses inherent in the OCA's post-Tomos autocephalic life. As the redoubtable Ann Landers used to like to say, "Wake up and smell the coffee burning!"
And with regard to those voices calling for a married episcopate as a way out of the present quandry of widespread poor calibre leadership in the OCA, those individuals would be well advised to pay a little more attention to Church history. The medieval Church both East and West resolved the ubiquitous problems connected to the married episcopate--nepotism, alienation of church resources to family members, marriage breakdown, etc--by establishing the norm of the celibate bishop married only to his diocese and flock. Given all the present allegations concerning the alienation of OCA resources to ineligible 'receivers', one can just imagine how this problem would be compunded if the receivers in question were members of the bishops' wider families!
Also, given the question of the desirability of returning to very early church practice of married bishops, I am surprised that some of the many OCA members who are ex-Episcopalians have not bothered to point out the experience of their former Church. One does not have to read many of their diocesan periodicals to encounter one or another of their bishops complaining about the pressures their family life is forced to experience within the diocesan fishbowl and how they want their homelife kept at some distance from the intrusions of the chancery office--and presumably the infrequent crises that come through that office. These same gentlemen often seem very preoccupied with their upcoming retirements at age 65 and often spend several years getting themselves 'ready' for it--much like any CEO in industry. (Could this be referred to as a "lame-duck" episcopacy at that juncture?) And it is far from unknown for such retirees to subsequently take up such 'retirement' positions as Governor-General of certain countries, or ambassador to the U.N. or ombudsmen in provincial legislatures, etc. Then there is the evolving role of the "First Lady" both on the local diocesan and even world stage in Anglican officialdom--clearly in imitation of current civil political models with its populist tastes. I can't seriously imagine that any educated Orthodox would want our Church to ape that model of "episcopacy."
It is, nevertheless, quite true that the present exaggerated monastic model of episcopacy found particularly among the Russians provides in general poor quality and ineffectual episcopal candidates. Anyone familiar with the contemporary Russian episcopate both at home and abroad doesn't have to go very far to find dozens of glaring, unsuitable candidates. And this quickly reveals its pathology in the quality of general church life. And the Greeks worldwide, who make no such pretence as to creating bishops from true monastics, have no better success with their candidates who are chosen primarily for a political and fundraising role among the well-heeled of the "diaspora" for the benefit of the "center". Truly, the sad shape of the Orthodox episcopate today is not limited to the OCA and has a lot to do with the general disunity and chaos prevalent throughout the Orthodox community worldwide. I would urge OCA members to think long and hard about all the ramifications involved in making significant changes to this pivotal ecclesiastical position. This does not, however, obviate the necessity of providing for real accountability, transparency, and due process for all ranks in the Church in North America, including especially the episcopate.
Even if the persistent rumors are entirely without foundation--as remains a very real possibility until proven otherwise--it seems more than just oversight that the pertinent amendment was not made in the final document to cover the case of possible episcopal malefactors.
Given the strenuous efforts of +Herman, Kucynda and the Syosset cabal to keep the focus unremittingly of the financial misappropriations and to never allow it to devolve to the underlying allegations (several times referred to in passing on this site) of moral impropriety, which is alleged to involve blackmail and hush money, it behooves the acute membership of the OCA to demand that a public investigation be undertaken and the necessary information shared with the membership.
Failure to do so will not only invite a more serious intervention by civil authority, given the nature of the crimes involved, but will also provide real ammunition to those recent voices alleging serious fundamental weaknesses inherent in the OCA's post-Tomos autocephalic life. As the redoubtable Ann Landers used to like to say, "Wake up and smell the coffee burning!"
And with regard to those voices calling for a married episcopate as a way out of the present quandry of widespread poor calibre leadership in the OCA, those individuals would be well advised to pay a little more attention to Church history. The medieval Church both East and West resolved the ubiquitous problems connected to the married episcopate--nepotism, alienation of church resources to family members, marriage breakdown, etc--by establishing the norm of the celibate bishop married only to his diocese and flock. Given all the present allegations concerning the alienation of OCA resources to ineligible 'receivers', one can just imagine how this problem would be compunded if the receivers in question were members of the bishops' wider families!
Also, given the question of the desirability of returning to very early church practice of married bishops, I am surprised that some of the many OCA members who are ex-Episcopalians have not bothered to point out the experience of their former Church. One does not have to read many of their diocesan periodicals to encounter one or another of their bishops complaining about the pressures their family life is forced to experience within the diocesan fishbowl and how they want their homelife kept at some distance from the intrusions of the chancery office--and presumably the infrequent crises that come through that office. These same gentlemen often seem very preoccupied with their upcoming retirements at age 65 and often spend several years getting themselves 'ready' for it--much like any CEO in industry. (Could this be referred to as a "lame-duck" episcopacy at that juncture?) And it is far from unknown for such retirees to subsequently take up such 'retirement' positions as Governor-General of certain countries, or ambassador to the U.N. or ombudsmen in provincial legislatures, etc. Then there is the evolving role of the "First Lady" both on the local diocesan and even world stage in Anglican officialdom--clearly in imitation of current civil political models with its populist tastes. I can't seriously imagine that any educated Orthodox would want our Church to ape that model of "episcopacy."
It is, nevertheless, quite true that the present exaggerated monastic model of episcopacy found particularly among the Russians provides in general poor quality and ineffectual episcopal candidates. Anyone familiar with the contemporary Russian episcopate both at home and abroad doesn't have to go very far to find dozens of glaring, unsuitable candidates. And this quickly reveals its pathology in the quality of general church life. And the Greeks worldwide, who make no such pretence as to creating bishops from true monastics, have no better success with their candidates who are chosen primarily for a political and fundraising role among the well-heeled of the "diaspora" for the benefit of the "center". Truly, the sad shape of the Orthodox episcopate today is not limited to the OCA and has a lot to do with the general disunity and chaos prevalent throughout the Orthodox community worldwide. I would urge OCA members to think long and hard about all the ramifications involved in making significant changes to this pivotal ecclesiastical position. This does not, however, obviate the necessity of providing for real accountability, transparency, and due process for all ranks in the Church in North America, including especially the episcopate.
#30
Sartor Resartus
on
2007-08-27 14:44
Why answer with the disrespectful "gillette" crack not with something truthful like: "Orthodox Christian piety begins in the Holy Tradition of the Old Testament. Our relationship to the Lord God, holiness, worship, and morality was formed in the ancient times of the Bible. At the time of the foundation of the priesthood the Lord gave the following commandments to the priests during periods of mourning, And ye shall not shave your head for the dead [a pagan practice] with a baldness on the top; and they shall not shave their beard... (Lev. 21:5), and to all men in general, Ye shall not make a round cutting of the hair of your head, nor disfigure your beard (Lev. 19:27). The significance of these commandments is to illustrate that the clergy are to devote themselves completely to serving the Lord. Laymen as well are called to a similar service though without the priestly functions. This outward appearance as a commandment was repeated in the law given to the Nazarene, a razor shall not come upon his head, until the days be fulfilled which he vowed to the Lord: he shall be holy, cherishing the long hair of the head all the days of his vow to the Lord... (Numbers 6:5-6). The significance of the Nazarene vow was a sign of God's power resting on the person who made it. To cut off the hair meant to cut off God's power as in the example of Samson (see Judges 16:17-19)."
I'm puzzled as to why the directives attributed to St. Tikhon on the subject of beards and dress are made out to be some sort of "orders" to abandon traditional Orthodox dress and grooming.
The context of these directives were not to avoid weirdness, but
oikonomia necessitated by difficulties facing the early Orthodox immigration to America, an oikonomia directed towards priests who had to work in jobs outside of the Church in order to support themselves and their flocks.
It is both dishonest and an insult to the Saint's memory that his use of justifiable oikonomia in what was then a relatively new mission is now invoked as a standard of Orthodox practice in a local Church that is more than two centuries old.
I'm puzzled as to why the directives attributed to St. Tikhon on the subject of beards and dress are made out to be some sort of "orders" to abandon traditional Orthodox dress and grooming.
The context of these directives were not to avoid weirdness, but
oikonomia necessitated by difficulties facing the early Orthodox immigration to America, an oikonomia directed towards priests who had to work in jobs outside of the Church in order to support themselves and their flocks.
It is both dishonest and an insult to the Saint's memory that his use of justifiable oikonomia in what was then a relatively new mission is now invoked as a standard of Orthodox practice in a local Church that is more than two centuries old.
#31
Anonymous
on
2007-08-27 15:29
PS:
I hope I did not confuse anyone when I talked about the Holy Friday "bier." The Russians do not utlize the heavy wooden bier or epitaphios that sits right on top of the tomb. The Greeks and Antiochians utilize this wooden structure, that is usually decorated with red and white carnations and/or roses.
When the Greeks and Antiochians finish their Friday evening (Holy Saturday Lamentations or Praises) service, the priest picks a flower right from the bier to be able to give to each of the faithful venerating it (this is so touching and moving). The Russians, on the other hand, do not decorate a "bier" but they DO OFTEN put beautiful flowers AROUND the bier, and sometimes wreaths of flowers right on the winding cloth placshinitsa (Mark, can you get spell check for us?) itself.
I have seen a Greek style bier decorated, but to the have extra flowers set to the side so that the priest can pass these out but then have a decorated bier for Holy Saturday and Pascha evening. Sometimes the Greeks and Antiochians do not utilize the bier after the Friday evening services... (it was picked clean of flowers so there is no more bier to utlize!)
Our cultural traditions are very rich! I did not know the great passion that the Greeks and Antiochians have for decorating this bier until we were placed in an OCA church with many Greeks and Antiochians! The Russians also decorate the tomb and they all look beautiful.
The greater mixing of these cultural traditions would be very nice. I hope that all of our seminaries may do a better job at teaching these "small t" traditions within the different ethnicities to better prepare the priests. They are so lovely and I have had to learn them AFTER I had attend SVS!
Patty Schellbach
I hope I did not confuse anyone when I talked about the Holy Friday "bier." The Russians do not utlize the heavy wooden bier or epitaphios that sits right on top of the tomb. The Greeks and Antiochians utilize this wooden structure, that is usually decorated with red and white carnations and/or roses.
When the Greeks and Antiochians finish their Friday evening (Holy Saturday Lamentations or Praises) service, the priest picks a flower right from the bier to be able to give to each of the faithful venerating it (this is so touching and moving). The Russians, on the other hand, do not decorate a "bier" but they DO OFTEN put beautiful flowers AROUND the bier, and sometimes wreaths of flowers right on the winding cloth placshinitsa (Mark, can you get spell check for us?) itself.
I have seen a Greek style bier decorated, but to the have extra flowers set to the side so that the priest can pass these out but then have a decorated bier for Holy Saturday and Pascha evening. Sometimes the Greeks and Antiochians do not utilize the bier after the Friday evening services... (it was picked clean of flowers so there is no more bier to utlize!)
Our cultural traditions are very rich! I did not know the great passion that the Greeks and Antiochians have for decorating this bier until we were placed in an OCA church with many Greeks and Antiochians! The Russians also decorate the tomb and they all look beautiful.
The greater mixing of these cultural traditions would be very nice. I hope that all of our seminaries may do a better job at teaching these "small t" traditions within the different ethnicities to better prepare the priests. They are so lovely and I have had to learn them AFTER I had attend SVS!
Patty Schellbach
#32
Patty Schellbach
on
2007-08-27 18:40
re: "...our more immediate concerns are and should be with the spiritual interiority of our hierarchs rather than the material externals."
About those "material externals":
"Church rituals are the outward signs of our immaterial relationship with the Living God. Dostoevsky wrote a remarkable parable about the growth of sectarian antiritualism in Russia during the last century:
'They carry a vessel of very precious liquid; all fall down, all kiss and adore the vessel containing this precious life-giving fluid. And then, suddenly, people stand up and begin to cry: You blind! Why do you kiss the vessel? It is only the live-giving fluid contained in it that is precious; only the contents is precious and not the container; but you are kissing glass, simple glass; you adore the vessel and the glass, ascribing all the holiness to it, and you are forgetting about the precious fluid that it contains. You idol-worshipers! Throw away the vessel and break it. Adore only the life-giving fluid, and not the glass!'
"And the glass was broken, as we read further in Dostoevsky's parable, and the life-giving fluid, the precious contents, is poured out on the earth and disappears into the earth. They have broken the vessel and lost the liquid. 'What miserable, unhappy, benighted people!' exclaims Dostoevsky as he ends his parable."
- Fr. Victor Potapov
About those "material externals":
"Church rituals are the outward signs of our immaterial relationship with the Living God. Dostoevsky wrote a remarkable parable about the growth of sectarian antiritualism in Russia during the last century:
'They carry a vessel of very precious liquid; all fall down, all kiss and adore the vessel containing this precious life-giving fluid. And then, suddenly, people stand up and begin to cry: You blind! Why do you kiss the vessel? It is only the live-giving fluid contained in it that is precious; only the contents is precious and not the container; but you are kissing glass, simple glass; you adore the vessel and the glass, ascribing all the holiness to it, and you are forgetting about the precious fluid that it contains. You idol-worshipers! Throw away the vessel and break it. Adore only the life-giving fluid, and not the glass!'
"And the glass was broken, as we read further in Dostoevsky's parable, and the life-giving fluid, the precious contents, is poured out on the earth and disappears into the earth. They have broken the vessel and lost the liquid. 'What miserable, unhappy, benighted people!' exclaims Dostoevsky as he ends his parable."
- Fr. Victor Potapov
#33
Anonymous
on
2007-08-27 20:23
Dear Sartor Restartus,
Thank you for your most informative, clarifying and challenging posting. I am grateful to have the benefit of your experience and reasoned reflection upon it. I can only wish your comments had been presented as a "Reflection" and perhaps gained an even wider audience.
I finished reading your words with the same now familiar reaction: Why! oh why! can't we learn from the experiences of others!
There is so much recent history in so many other churches that could be useful to the OCA as it struggles to "navigate" it's own troubled waters.
Thank you for your most informative, clarifying and challenging posting. I am grateful to have the benefit of your experience and reasoned reflection upon it. I can only wish your comments had been presented as a "Reflection" and perhaps gained an even wider audience.
I finished reading your words with the same now familiar reaction: Why! oh why! can't we learn from the experiences of others!
There is so much recent history in so many other churches that could be useful to the OCA as it struggles to "navigate" it's own troubled waters.
#34
Jean Langley Sullivan
on
2007-08-28 07:22
It's not about the length of the hair and beard. It's about following Christ. What in the world do Nazirite vows have to do with those of us living in the 21st century of the New Covenant? Grow your hair past your behind or shave it all off, IT DOES NOT MATTER! Do you love God? Do you love your neighbor? Pay attention to those two concerns and let the hair and beard nonsense alone. BTW, I have hair almost to my shoulders and a full beard, so I suppose that I look satisfactorily Orthodox. My heart, however, is too far from Christ, and I can't help but think that He is more concerned with the state of that heart than the appearance I present.
#35
Scott Walker
on
2007-08-28 11:22
"Let us live a life in agreement with our appearance, as the Fathers say, lest we take on a character alien to it."
- Abba Dorotheos of Gaza
- Abba Dorotheos of Gaza
#36
Anonymous
on
2007-08-28 15:42
Let's wake up to the new millennium! The days when Roman collars signified "good, trustworthy man and confidant" are gone. To many, collars now announce cruel moralism and pedophilia coverups.
The cassock is a mission tool. It identifies us Orthodox as representing something other than the barren Western Christianity most Americans know. " Priests wearing a cassock and beard can (and do) get a hearing with the increasing number of people, especially younger people, who would want nothing do do with the same man in Western clergy-wear.
(And, before anyone raises the point: No, the cultural impact of the OCA, with its eight gazillion members, has not managed to make the cassock synonymous with theft and sexual blackmail.)
Yes, some people find it strange, and not in a good way. But clergy also testify of being asked by children, out of the blue, if they were Jesus or even "God." I'd like to hear from any collar-wearing priest who's been asked that on the street.
At a different level, this resonates with many adults, too. (One southern cleric who dresses in the "traditional" manner told me about parking once in a dimly-lit underground lot and walking to the ticket-office, where the attendant exclaimed, "Oh, when I saw you, I thought you was Jesus come to take me home!)
It's what's inside that counts. But what's outside is a symbol of that, and so the collar tells an untruth, and a mission-crippling one at that. "Inside" the Orthodox faith — however little some of us may live it — is a mystery of holiness and deification that few in the West even know exists.
Once upon a time a cassock would have led to nothing but shunning. But multiculturalism has its contingent benefits. Once upon a time fasting seemed un-American, and doing so while, for example, away at school would have been painfully awkward. Now Orthodox I know who are in college report that they can fast and be thought of as perfectly normal (or even respected for it if it's noticed).
The pastoral counsels of the saints are not to be torn from the context of their times and used as thought-terminating proof-texts. St. Tikhon responded to the pastoral needs of the Church and the American people in his time. We should emulate his careful wisdom in evaluating those of our own times.
The cassock is a mission tool. It identifies us Orthodox as representing something other than the barren Western Christianity most Americans know. " Priests wearing a cassock and beard can (and do) get a hearing with the increasing number of people, especially younger people, who would want nothing do do with the same man in Western clergy-wear.
(And, before anyone raises the point: No, the cultural impact of the OCA, with its eight gazillion members, has not managed to make the cassock synonymous with theft and sexual blackmail.)
Yes, some people find it strange, and not in a good way. But clergy also testify of being asked by children, out of the blue, if they were Jesus or even "God." I'd like to hear from any collar-wearing priest who's been asked that on the street.
At a different level, this resonates with many adults, too. (One southern cleric who dresses in the "traditional" manner told me about parking once in a dimly-lit underground lot and walking to the ticket-office, where the attendant exclaimed, "Oh, when I saw you, I thought you was Jesus come to take me home!)
It's what's inside that counts. But what's outside is a symbol of that, and so the collar tells an untruth, and a mission-crippling one at that. "Inside" the Orthodox faith — however little some of us may live it — is a mystery of holiness and deification that few in the West even know exists.
Once upon a time a cassock would have led to nothing but shunning. But multiculturalism has its contingent benefits. Once upon a time fasting seemed un-American, and doing so while, for example, away at school would have been painfully awkward. Now Orthodox I know who are in college report that they can fast and be thought of as perfectly normal (or even respected for it if it's noticed).
The pastoral counsels of the saints are not to be torn from the context of their times and used as thought-terminating proof-texts. St. Tikhon responded to the pastoral needs of the Church and the American people in his time. We should emulate his careful wisdom in evaluating those of our own times.
#37
A fellow Orthodox
on
2007-08-28 16:32
Mr. Walker,
I said my two cents about internals and externals above, but let me comment on your questions about the Old Testament references made by Anonymous (2.5.2.1). The question "Do you love God? Do you love your neighbor?" is a good reminder to those who are so concerned with Orthodox externals that they no longer remember the simplicity of the gospel. But just because we must first of all do the one does not mean that we should neglect the other (Mt 23:23).
You speak about having a heart far from Christ — well,I'm in the same boat. But that's why we look for guidance to the Saints and to the Fathers and Mothers of the Church: because their hearts were close to the Lord, closer than ours.
I feel as though many commentators are ignoring this, speaking as though our forbearers simply didn't exist. You, perhaps, didn't know that there are Fathers who make explicit reference to these Old Testament passages in this context — not as supposing that we are still under the Law, but as respecting what it has to teach us even now. (And,indeed, Christ said that not a bit of it will pass away, so it's probably good for something!) Of course, we must ask ourselves how we should relate those teachings to the life of the Church in our age. And that's not easy, but one thing's for sure: we can't begin by dismissing them as ludicrous "nonsense."
But that happens a lot (both on this board and elsewhere). For example, doesn't it seem likely that, if the post-Constantinian Church-State relationship had been flatly antithetical to the gospel, the Saints — who we say lived the gospel best of all — would have sensed that? And if the Dionysian corpus was basically a bunch of Gnostic heresy, doesn't it seem like some patristic writers would have noticed? (The ancients, note, didn't accept anything that had an important name scrawled on the cover: they were perfectly aware that theological texts could be spurious.) I mean, St. Gregory Palamas talked about "the divine Dionysios"! Is it possible that he understood the texts — whoever wrote them — a bit better than Fr. Jillions? Mightn't his experience of noetic prayer and the Uncreated Light have given him a leg up in noticing utter perversions of the gospel?
I think so. If our hearts are far from Christ, so are our minds. But it is just this "mind of Christ" that we understand the Saints to have possessed to a far greater degree than we do. Tradition is of course not static, but living, and people do sometimes forget that. But a living tradition is a continuous tradition, and we simply cannot live it if, when we run into something that's hard to reconcile ourselves with, we just turn to the past and say "what a bunch of nonsense."
Maybe we should try saying, "This seems really strange to me. But, then again, I'm no St. Basil the Great. Why were there holy people before me who thought this could help people come closer to salvation, closer to Christ? Are we doing it wrong — is that the problem? Am I missing something?"
If we drill down, there's water to be found, maybe where we least expect it.
I said my two cents about internals and externals above, but let me comment on your questions about the Old Testament references made by Anonymous (2.5.2.1). The question "Do you love God? Do you love your neighbor?" is a good reminder to those who are so concerned with Orthodox externals that they no longer remember the simplicity of the gospel. But just because we must first of all do the one does not mean that we should neglect the other (Mt 23:23).
You speak about having a heart far from Christ — well,I'm in the same boat. But that's why we look for guidance to the Saints and to the Fathers and Mothers of the Church: because their hearts were close to the Lord, closer than ours.
I feel as though many commentators are ignoring this, speaking as though our forbearers simply didn't exist. You, perhaps, didn't know that there are Fathers who make explicit reference to these Old Testament passages in this context — not as supposing that we are still under the Law, but as respecting what it has to teach us even now. (And,indeed, Christ said that not a bit of it will pass away, so it's probably good for something!) Of course, we must ask ourselves how we should relate those teachings to the life of the Church in our age. And that's not easy, but one thing's for sure: we can't begin by dismissing them as ludicrous "nonsense."
But that happens a lot (both on this board and elsewhere). For example, doesn't it seem likely that, if the post-Constantinian Church-State relationship had been flatly antithetical to the gospel, the Saints — who we say lived the gospel best of all — would have sensed that? And if the Dionysian corpus was basically a bunch of Gnostic heresy, doesn't it seem like some patristic writers would have noticed? (The ancients, note, didn't accept anything that had an important name scrawled on the cover: they were perfectly aware that theological texts could be spurious.) I mean, St. Gregory Palamas talked about "the divine Dionysios"! Is it possible that he understood the texts — whoever wrote them — a bit better than Fr. Jillions? Mightn't his experience of noetic prayer and the Uncreated Light have given him a leg up in noticing utter perversions of the gospel?
I think so. If our hearts are far from Christ, so are our minds. But it is just this "mind of Christ" that we understand the Saints to have possessed to a far greater degree than we do. Tradition is of course not static, but living, and people do sometimes forget that. But a living tradition is a continuous tradition, and we simply cannot live it if, when we run into something that's hard to reconcile ourselves with, we just turn to the past and say "what a bunch of nonsense."
Maybe we should try saying, "This seems really strange to me. But, then again, I'm no St. Basil the Great. Why were there holy people before me who thought this could help people come closer to salvation, closer to Christ? Are we doing it wrong — is that the problem? Am I missing something?"
If we drill down, there's water to be found, maybe where we least expect it.
#38
A fellow Orthodox Christian
on
2007-08-28 17:52
VERY WELL SAID,THANK YOU!
#39
Anonymous
on
2007-08-28 19:56
As the priest says in the Divine Liturgy, "in faith and love draw near," people need to feel loved and they need to be loved.
Let's not forget what that call begins with, Michael:
"In the fear of God..." That needs to come first, and it is something apparently lacking around the OCA.
Rdr. Alexander Langley
Let's not forget what that call begins with, Michael:
"In the fear of God..." That needs to come first, and it is something apparently lacking around the OCA.
Rdr. Alexander Langley
#40
Rdr. Alexander Langley
on
2007-08-29 13:22
I dont understand this insistence on celebate clergy, be it of priests in the Latin-Rite Roman Church, or bishops in our own Orthodox Churches. I also and esp dont understand the above suggestion on St Paul's requirement being addended to require the wife to become a monastic before the husband-priest can become a bishop (in addition to sounding totally unnecessary (St Paul and the HS might be given the benefit of the doubt for having got it right, after all) and sadly Augustinian, it would whittle down the alrealdy diluted pool of applicants to none).
Check out the Quinisext Council (Council of Trullo), canon 12.
I honestly don't understand it either.
But what I suggested was a possible way to satisfy both the requirements from St. Paul as well as from that canon. Indeed it would be very difficult to find such a man, these days at least. A widower would do. Isn't that the case with Bishop NIKON (Liolin)?
Would you agree that it should not be TOO EASY for a monastic to become a bishop?
Rdr. Alexander
Check out the Quinisext Council (Council of Trullo), canon 12.
I honestly don't understand it either.
But what I suggested was a possible way to satisfy both the requirements from St. Paul as well as from that canon. Indeed it would be very difficult to find such a man, these days at least. A widower would do. Isn't that the case with Bishop NIKON (Liolin)?
Would you agree that it should not be TOO EASY for a monastic to become a bishop?
Rdr. Alexander
#41
Anonymous
on
2007-08-29 13:31
Interesting...
First, a council long ago decided that it knew better than Saint Paul. It could be that the council was indeed guided by the Holy Spirit to rework or as software companies say "update" Saint Paul.
Now, we have an individual, Sartor Restartus, speak on this issue with the same authority as that council with nary a claim to have been guided by the Holy Spirit. He does not event bother to mention Saint Paul.
I guess it really does not matter that the Church continues to uphold an unbiblical practice. Along with Tevye the Milkman who so memorably sang "Tradition," most folks seem to be quite content in their cacoons.
However, we also see people of supposedly impeccable Orthodox credentials berating those who dare question church practice on the basis of the source of our theology--the Holy Scriptures.
Like I said, interesting...
Carl
First, a council long ago decided that it knew better than Saint Paul. It could be that the council was indeed guided by the Holy Spirit to rework or as software companies say "update" Saint Paul.
Now, we have an individual, Sartor Restartus, speak on this issue with the same authority as that council with nary a claim to have been guided by the Holy Spirit. He does not event bother to mention Saint Paul.
I guess it really does not matter that the Church continues to uphold an unbiblical practice. Along with Tevye the Milkman who so memorably sang "Tradition," most folks seem to be quite content in their cacoons.
However, we also see people of supposedly impeccable Orthodox credentials berating those who dare question church practice on the basis of the source of our theology--the Holy Scriptures.
Like I said, interesting...
Carl
#42
Carl
on
2007-09-01 13:42
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 | ||