The Antypas Letter

It is interesting that the Antypas letter clearly reveals no appreciation for being under a diocesan structure. But again, there is an ambiguity in the Antiochian ecclesiology that seems to have understood an archdiocese as comprising a group of dioceses versus a chief diocese among those of a region.

#1 Anonymous Friend of the Archdiocese on 2009-04-09 06:46

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Fr Joseph Antypas. You continue to vindicate Bishop Mark and continue to stick your foot in your mouth. Please keep speaking up on this issue! You continue to show the entire Archdiocese, nay, the entire world, the light of truth. As we heard in the Scriptural story of Joseph, even what you intend for evil, God intends for good!

One other important part of this article, almost hidden within it, that should not be missed, was the following: The Archdiocese is also reportedly paying his (Bishop Demetri's) salary again, through a recent gift to the Diocese of Mexico that coincidently matches the new Mexican auxiliary's salary. How clever of Sayidna PHILIP. I wonder if this "gift" will appear in the notes of our next set of financial statements?

#2 An East Coast Priest on 2009-04-09 06:50

God bless you all!

#3 William on 2009-04-09 07:08

.... May the Lord bring healing to Fr Joseph and the inner corcle who have been orchestrating things behind the scenes. Sadly, they have been working tirelessly to discredit the Diocesan Bishops most especially His Grace Bishop BASIL, His Grace Bishop ALEXANDER and His Grace Bishop MARK.

.....

Furthermore the attacks on Bishop MARK in Fr Joseph's letters are unsubstantiated. His own parish has been dying since he asumed the pastorate...

As one who attempted to visit MARK at the Chancery, I found him reluctant to allow the faithful to see the deploreable condition of the residence. How would he host anyone without a budget to do so? Who would serve the guests while he visits with them?

The priests of the inner circle have a much greater income than their own Diocesan Bishops. Did they invite any of the Bishops to their home? What do their homes look like? Perhaps, we could ask which home?

Perhaps if the money of the Diocese stayed in the Diocese the Bishop could repair the place and find resources to entertain.

The spiteful letter of the Detroit Clergy did in fact circulate throughout the entire Archdiocese as they intended. Perhaps they only sent it to a few, but we all know how that works, don't we?

Sadly, what a so-called educated man and a supposed educator like Fr Joseh calls an apology was in actuality a *defense*. It should not have been posted at all, as it only re-inforced the idea that they have NO RESPECT for their Bishop. Thus, how can they say they honor their Bishop?
....

They wanted Bishop Demetri back as someone who is compromised has no moral authority over them. ...

#4 anonymous on 2009-04-09 07:12

WHERE IS THE ANTYPAS LETTER MAN?

(editor's note: Be careful what you ask for!)

#5 Anonymous on 2009-04-09 07:17

Well Fr. Joseph's confidential "leaked it himself letter" certainly goes a long way in justifying his outrageous conduct?

I would suggest a good Public Relations firm to help or better yet a firm Gag Order from Englewood to avoid the ongoing embarrasment of these self absolving missives

I am assuming of course that His Grace Philip has not or would not give his blessing to this nonsense. Such assumptions may at this point be a stretch.

#6 Kevin on 2009-04-09 07:19

Everyone has to understand the history of these people and then maybe some of this will make sense. + Philip brought a number of old country students to the US to study for the priesthood and become his trustworthy soldiers. Fr. Constantine Nasr is the brother-in-law to Fr. Antypas. And, most of these old country priests are related or at least share the same vision - Met. Philip is King and Old Country forever! So, + Philip has built a loyal band of infiltrating soldiers among all the Antiochians nationwide. After all, he gave them an education, he placed them in rich parishes, he stands by them no matter what and they regard him as God on earth. + Philip controls them and can have them make trouble for any priest, parish or bishop - a truly Byzantine methodology for infiltration and control.
So, + Philip has created the perfect control mechanism and method to maintain power. Even the Pat. in Damascus bows to + Philip and gets his annual payment of millions.
For the Antiochians, + Philip has truly become the REAL Patriarch & Emperor. From him flows all grace and money. Whoa to those who fall from + Philip's grace or those bishops who rub his "secret army" the wrong way - they will suffer. Look at those who spoke out against Joe Allen, + Philip's adopted son.
Sounds too Byzantine? Well, it is and it's absolutely true....

#7 Anonymous on 2009-04-09 07:43

Which decision was inspired by the Holy Spirit to give self- rule or to take it away? The Holy Synod is not INFALLIBLE. Even if all the Bishops and Patriarchs met they could err! What poor theology! Hopefully, MP has some better qualified theologians lined up to teach the St Stephen's courses as the ones who have written on this web site have exhibited their inadequacies. "*It is better to keep silent than to be thought dumb than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.*"

#8 anonymous on 2009-04-09 07:44

Mark

Just tell me, How can one respond if there is not letter,

Therefore, Why are you opening such a page for comments on the Antypas letter.

Why are you hidding it?

Sue an Orthodox parishioner

(Editor's note: The letter, in its entirety, may be linked to from the article on the front page of the site .)

#9 Anonymous on 2009-04-09 07:45

Which decision was inspired by the Holy Spirit to give self- rule or to take it away. The Holy Synod is *NOT INFALLIBLE*. Even if all the Bishops and Patriarchs met they could err! What poor theology! Hopefully, MP has some better qualified theologians lined up to teach the St Stephen's courses as the ones who have written on this web site have exhibited their inadequacies. "*It is better to keep silent than to be thought dumb than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.*"

#10 anonymous on 2009-04-09 07:58

It's fascinating to me that Fr. Joseph says that Bp. Mark ought to "be like His Grace Bishop Thomas" with regard to the recent decision of the synod. Unless I missed it somewhere, Bishop Thomas has as yet made no public statements nor sent any letters nor taken any position whatsoever with regard to the decision.

It's even amusing that some of the stuff posted about him online seem to be claiming him for various conflicting "sides" in the question. One moment, he's a "more contemplative Bishop" in the mold of Bp. Basil who is in danger of retirement because "whose perspectives contrast with Philip's vision for Orthodoxy in America" (from Stokoe's first article), and in the next moment, he's the Metropolitan's man. And yet all these comments are based on, well, nothing.

Will the real partisan bishop please stand up?!

#11 A Reader on 2009-04-09 08:01

Anybody else would be suspended!!!!!

#12 Herod Antypas on 2009-04-09 08:54

As a member of the Antiochian Archdiocese I am shamed and disgraced by this public conflict between Fr. Joseph and Bp. Mark. And it is Fr. Joseph who appears to be the greater aggressor, as judged both by the plaintive tone of Bp. Mark's intial correspondence to Met. Philip and by Fr. Joseph's calculated open publishing of his "personal and confidential" letter to "the press." Apparently, it's important for the world to know that Fr. Joseph's apology was not an attempt at a genuine and humble response to Bp. Mark's insistence (that much was evident from the apology itself), but mere toadying and insincere compliance with an order from Metropolitan Philip. THIS is obedience?

Of course one may have grievances and difficulty with one's superiors. This is a not-uncommon condition in the North American Archdiocese. Witness the "letter to Sayedna" and other, mostly anonymous, comments posted elsewhere on this site. And certainly, as the Apostle Paul says somewhere, "there must be strife among you that the genuine may be proved." But this PUBLIC castigation of a hierarch is little else than heavy-handed intimidation. Hence the shame. One wishes those worthy priests of Greater Detroit knew how to give the new guy a break; for the sake of unity in the Archdiocese, at the very least, if not more perfectly out of respect for the man and his God-given office.

What legitimate means of recourse have the formerly "captive" clergy (employing the ample resources at their disposal) undertaken to rectify whatever injustices they feel have been perpetrated on them by the Right Reverend Bp. Mark? What reasonable and dispassionate efforts have been made to befriend, encourage, and support the pastor of the Diocese of Toledo, beyond having Fr. John Estefan's unnamed, but "properly hospitable" wife do +Mark's laundry while he was still a priest in G.R.? What legitimate rights and privileges of the office of presbyter were denied those aggrieved priests by their "captor," Bp. Mark?

Perhaps those men feel they had exhausted every honorable avenue of intercession for deliverance from their "captivity." Perhaps they were left with no other choice than to consider indulging in schemes and manipulations. Who knows? But the haughty tone and mean-spirited content of this letter make clear that bald antagonism and influence-peddling have not been off-limits in this dispute.

If this is the regard displayed for bishops among the venerable of the Antiochian Archdiocese, is it any wonder there are those presbyters whose faith in Christ and love for God's people are tempered by an all too pragmatic fear of depredations carried-out by this manifestly arbitrary and self-willed earthly-mindedness within the church? Who is truly in captivity here?

Next week we will petition God with these words, singing "Bring more evils upon those who are glorious upon the earth!" May our crucified Lord grant to us earthly-minded and disgraced ones His great mercy on that day!

And in that way, may God help us by His Grace to bear this shame, if only for the sake of Him who bore all shame for us and for our salvation.

#13 withheld (Link) on 2009-04-09 09:19

Fr. Antypas is the captain of the "Machine" group that supports every move of Metropolitan Philip. And why not? He has accompanied him to the Middle East on many occasions and benefited from his company warming accolades and furtherance of the "Order" to th expense of a real spritual home for his parish. Blind following! The mentality of "My Metropolitan right or wrong", is held by the captive many clergy who cannot speak out. The new atty TIMELINE reveals ALL. To think that Fr Antypas exalts in the sad decision of the foreign Mid. Eastern Synod is pathetic at best. Most of the "emigre" clergy born in far off lands, like their Metropolitan, enjoy the benefits in the new "land" but would never "go back" only to lose their power, wealth and position that the "New World" has given them. Fear not. Fr Antypa, your Gold Medal is coming!

#14 Anonymous on 2009-04-09 09:58

Wow Fr. Joseph. You got some chutzpah!

#15 Kevin Klein on 2009-04-09 11:02

I cannot address the perception another Priest may have of Bp. MARK, but my own impression is that His Grace has been, to both my parish and me, a thoughtful, pastoral, and thoroughly Christian presence in our lives. I have no "pull" in the Archdiocese but I think he is an asset to the Church and I hope he will stay with us here in the Midwest for many years.

Fr John Chagnon
St. Elias Orthodox Church
LaCrosse, WI

#16 Fr John Chagnon (Link) on 2009-04-09 11:30

I fully support Fr. Antypas and his parish is actually very large. God grant him many years because of his obedience. You all are doing worse damage than any Patriarchal decision with these posts on the website. We will not succumb to the OCA like you intend.

#17 William on 2009-04-09 11:39

Now finally Mark prints a letter worth reading! I am in full agreement with Fr. Antypas and his letter. Thank God he had the guts to speak up. I was wondering why he ever apologized in the first place.

#18 Anonymous on 2009-04-09 12:15

my problem with all the above comments is that nobody reflects on the issues that fr. antypas raises. rather, everyone is focusing on whether there is some kind of feud. I know father antypas as a wonderful and intelligent priest. he brings up some valid points that nobody seems to question in this forum. i used to be a member of st. john the divine...it is practically dead in the midwest. I remember Bishop mark wanting to stop st. john the divine elections simply because a member did not kiss his hand. father antypas points out that this once viable organization has fallen under bishop marks leadership.

Everybody chastises his remarks of fours years of captivity, yet when he clarifies what captivity means in this letter, nobody has anything to say.

#19 Anonymous on 2009-04-09 13:02

The apology letter which was printed on the Antiochian website was, indeed, an attempt to show that there was no intention to insult the integrity of our bishops. Many negative comments from various individuals have atacked Fr. Antypas, but their attack lacked the knowledge of the original statement. Fr. Antypas' letter to Bishop Mark was addressed to clarify what Fr. Antypas had meant by 'four years of captivity'. We have read much worse, unfair ,and unsubstantiated comments againt +Met. Philip and nothing was done. Your comments should focus on the issue(s). Do not make an Ad Hominem arguments. Attack the principle not the person.

#20 Anonymous on 2009-04-09 13:10

I also would add that Fr. Antypas is widely respected person within his community and has helped pave the way for many to assume the responsibility of service to the church. Countless people, through his guidance, have gone on to St. Vladimir's seminary and he continues to be an outstanding educator at the Antiochian House of Studies/ St. Stevens program. Thus, if he makes these comments, it is because he firmly believes that what he has witnessed in the last 4 years is a decline in what was a strong and vibrant regions. Sometimes its hard to hear the truth....and that is exactly what he does....is tell the truth.

#21 Anonymous on 2009-04-09 13:14

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE FATHER JOSEPH ANTYPAS LETTER TO BISHOP MARK BE PUT ON THE FRONT PAGE OF THE WEBSITE SO THAT EVERYONE CAN SEE THE TRUTH.

wHY DID YOU LINK IT SOME WHERE SO NO ONE CAN FIND IT EASY....

STEVEN FROM KY

(Editor's note: That's funny, Steve from KY, your IP says you are from Miami, Fl. Hmmmm. Anyway, the letter is easily accesible through the link. )

#22 Anonymous on 2009-04-09 13:19

Are you kidding us? Oh, yes, this took some real balls. Fr Antypas' Metropolitan just threw his brother bishops under the bus, having stabbed them in the back. Oh, yes, it takes a "real man" to kick someone while they're down...

#23 get real on 2009-04-09 13:42

Is this the return of "All caps guy?"

#24 Antionymous on 2009-04-09 14:16

How can you say they have no respect for their bishops. That is a ridiculous statement, plus no one has said anything about any bishops except people on this forum in regards to Metropolitan PHILIP. Try to put an exact statement in place before you say clergy are disrespecting their bishops. Just because clergy support the decision does not mean they dislike their bishop, give me a break. Self conscious issues at best. 4 years of captivity probably meant a lot of things. All the decision did was take us 4 years back to a smoother Archdiocese, in no way has it taken us 100 years back as people claim. Unless they were here with the early immigrants and were really devote til this day meaning they are over 100 years old to understand, but that is not the case here. That is another ridiculous statement. May Christ bless all the priests who support this as well as those who don't, it is personal preferance on this forum, but obedience to Patriarchate since we are and should remain under the SEE of ANTIOCH.

God bless you all
William

#25 William on 2009-04-09 14:36

I believe that Father Joseph has apologized because he is a man of God, humble, obediant, and mercyful. he is a man of forgivness. mostly he is a true soldier

hOWEVER i AGREE WITH YOU HE SHOULD NEVER HAVE APOLOGIZED

Mary

#26 Anonymous on 2009-04-09 14:42

As a point of observation, I would like to say that I read Fr. Antypas' original statement, followed by Bishop Mark's letter to metropolitan philip concerning that statement. I really dont see the malicious slander that Bishop Mark refers to. Is it the captivity remark?
Also, when you look at Fr. Antypas' response to Bishop Mark's statement, I honestly dont see anything wrong with what he said. I dont think it is a vicious attack, but rather it seems to be a very respectful letter that addresses points that he finds disturbing. I would also like to point to one other point that Fr. Antypas states in his letter and that is that not once in the last 4+ years has Bishop Mark done anything to point out any wrong doing by Fr. Antypas. In fact, wasnt it Bishop Mark that appointed Fr. Antypas dean of michigan deanery? According to the letter it was Fr. Antypas who helped bring in former lutherans into orthodoxy.
I honestly believe that Fr. Antypas has a concern for the church in this region and did not have an agenda as some people claim in dethroning any bishop. In fact, it was Fr. Antypas that traveled to Damascus with Met Philip to help re-structure this archdiocese into dioceses. To think that he would work behind the scenes to undo all this work seems far-fetched to me.

#27 Anonymous on 2009-04-09 14:53

I've read through these pages many times over the past weeks and my heart breaks. The harsh words, the simple lack of basic Christian respect that so often breaks out, the labels we are using on each other. When this is over things said here will take years to undo.

When struggles come our true character is revealed and the distinct lack of civility that so often appears in our comments is very unflattering. As I've said before I hope no one considering Orthodoxy ever wanders on to these pages because I can only imagine what their response would be. We have to do better.

Remember the people we are writing about, whether we agree with them or not, are our brothers and sisters in Christ and should be treated accordingly. Treat everyone on this site like you would like to be treated yourself.

Don't forget to pause and think a while before simply pressing the "submit" button. Words are like bullets and once let loose they cannot be recovered. Take a deep breath, say a few prayers, make sure what you're about to say will make things better and not worse.

Implying motives to people you do not know is both morally and intellectually wrong. I have no direct idea why one Priest feels the way they do unless they tell me directly. I cannot comment on why a Bishop does what they do if they have not provided this information. Without that solid information anything is just conjecture at best and gossip at worst. There are many other things to fill the silence we are experiencing that are much better than conspiracy theorie and our best and often uneducated guesses. We'd all like to have answers right away but we have to resist the temptation to create our own before the real ones come along.

Finally I think there is a distinct need for people to stop hiding behind pseudonyms and lurking in the shadows of anonymity. When we use our real names we stop being objects and start being people. When we use our real names we have to think about what we say and measure our words for both tone and content. When we use our own names we take a stand for constructive dialogue over against name calling and innuendo. Why should anyone believe that something a person has to say is valuable or constructive if they themselves don't respect the validity of their own view enough to attach their name to it?

Again, I may be a fool and I'm certainly a sinner with a limited vision but I also think we're called to higher things not just when all is easy but even when the times are difficult.

Thank you for listening.

Fr John Chagnon
St. Elias Orthodox Church
LaCrosse, WI

#28 Fr John Chagnon (Link) on 2009-04-09 15:02

Mark- How is it that Bishop Mark's letter to Metropolitan Philip got onto this website? You say that he had no control? How did you get the letter then? At least Fr. Antypas was trying to clarify the timeline by himself submitting his letter to that organization. To say that Bishop Mark or any of his supporters did not have anything to do with the letter appearing on this site is to suggest that most readers on this site are naiive.

(Editor's note: I said no such thing. I simply pointed out that no matter how it got here, or whether the Bishop knew it was coming, or didn't, ( and that is a question I cannot answer, only he can) the Bishop could not know, or direct, how it was used or even if it would be used. I then pointed out the irony of Fr. Antypas blaming the Bishop over something he had no control over, versus Fr. Antypas insisting on where and when his letter be published. )

#29 Anonymous on 2009-04-09 15:05

Let's face facts. Antypas and Shalhoub have tried to undermine Bishop Mark since his election. There are countless stories of them disrespecting him, stabbing him in the back, being two-faced, etc. All the while, they do Metropolitan Philip a disservice by outwardly supporting him, but in their own parishes defying his own edicts and directives. Fr. Antypas has a lot of support from a certain group of people in his parish, this is true, however, there is another group that is very frustrated with his ways, but feels they can do nothing because of his relationship with the Metropolitan. A very educated and learned man a pastor does not make. ....

Someone should bother to ask why one of the Archdiocsesan chancellors whose home parish is Troy does not attend services there anymore, but rather drives all the way to Toledo to his son's parish each week.

As for Fr. Shalhoub, in addition to his open and flagrant disrespect for Bishop MARK, the canonical infractions this man has committed are too many to mention. The frequent and open communing of non-Orthodox, what he has said to the seminarians and students at the Antiochian House of Studies over the years (including the comments about communing Moslems married to Orthodox), inter-faith services in his sanctuary, weddings during the Dormition fast and others with no dispensations, sub-deacons reading the Gospels, a well-circulated picture of Jamie Farr (the actor) autographing the Gospel book (yes, the Holy Gospel book that sits on the Holy Altar table) on the Altar Table itself while Fr. Shalhoub looks on with glee. This picture appeared for a time on one of his deacon's myspace or facebook site last fall and was widely circulated at the time and the list goes on. There are many others, but these are easily substantiated.

The same can be said for Fr. Constantine Nasr with regard to Bishop Basil and Fr. Antony Gabriel with regard to Bishop Alexander. They have masterminded this plot. God help them! At least now people will see them for what they are. In a way I feel sorry for MP because those who are close to him and he trusted turned out to be his biggest problems in the end. They have misadvised him, manipulated their relationship with him to their own advantage, disgraced the office of the bishop by their underhandedness and disdain for their respective bishops and shown their true colors by their letters posted here and by numerous comments over the past several years.

For a priest, any priest, to have such open and public disdain for his bishop, is reprehensible. It will be even more reprehensible if they are allowed to get away with it. The bottom line is to these priests, they never had and never will have any bishop but Metropolitan Philip and they simply did not like someone looking over their shoulder or making it known that he didn't like how they operated with regard to their questionable and sometimes uncanonical practices.

If Bishop Mark is moved and these priests are able to remain unscathed and continuing in their un-Christian and un-Orthodox ways, God help this Archdiocese and Church!

#30 Anonymous on 2009-04-09 15:17

Fr. Antypas is a wonderful, intelligent priest who carries the Holy Spirit in his person. Very few in the archdiocese could match either his knowledge of Orthodoxy or his deep spirituality.

What I personally have observed among many of the converts (myself included) is that their understanding of Orthodoxy is highly westernized. It takes time and effort to understand the mind of the Fathers. Fr. Antypas frequently speaks of this and is totally supportative of our struggle.

Fr. Antypas is also the only priest I have met who focuses on what is truly important: "becoming by Grace what God is by nature". I have gone to other churches where the priests concentrate on nothing but external rituals.

I had a discussion with Bishop Mark that was personally harmful to me. Father Antypas witnessed that discussion. He did not publically embarass Bishop Mark by correcting the Bishop's comments. He simply published the correct information in the weekly church bulletin without any reference to the Bishop or the conversation. I pray for Bishop Mark, but I also stay away from him.

Personally, I couldn't care less whether the Bishops have full or auxilary status. We see the the Bishops so infrequently and have so little contact with them, it wouldn't change my spiritual life if we had no bishops at all.

#31 Anonymous on 2009-04-09 15:19

I would like to mention a few misconceptions that were stated above. First, Metropolitan Philip has been around far too long (over 40 years) to fall into a trap of being swayed by clergy that can manipulate him. He is not some puppet that can be played as some here have suggested. Furthermore, I think that people should stay away from making unsubstantiated remarks like the one said about the chancellor going to toledo for services. I know for fact that Mr. Koory goes to St. George in Troy because I have seen him at the lenten services on Mon, Wed, and Fridays all lent long at St. George in Troy. In fact, he and Fr. Antypas have given presentations together which I attended. The reason why he goes to toledo is not because of any wrong-doing by fr. antypas as the above person had suggested, but rather because he goes to see his son and grandchildren as he attends sunday services.
Honestly, there are so many unfounded statements and speculation that people come up with in order to satisfy the curiosity of their minds. I suggest we follow what Fr. John had mentioned and think about what we say before press the submit button.

#32 Anonymous on 2009-04-09 16:05

Let's see communing muslims or not having clergy for coffee. I looked all day for a canon or Scripture regarding hosting priests for coffee. I did not find any. I do think there are canons against communing non-Orthodox. Which one can one be deposed for?

#33 anonymous on 2009-04-09 16:15

Also, I ask the above person who talks about Fr. Antypas having uncanonical practices. What are they? What is uncanonical about what he does that he would worry about a Bishop watching over his shoulder? I know him to be one of the most wonderful priests and feel blessed that he is the one leading our community.

#34 Anonymous on 2009-04-09 16:19

What happens to the Archdiocese when Metr. Philip either reposes or retires? I think I will put on my track shoes then. Should be interesting....
I haven't seen much speculation here, but it will happen, unless the Lord returns first.

#35 Iakovos in the Hesperides on 2009-04-09 16:42

The facts are the facts and all above can be substantiated. Fr Antypas, Nasr, A. Gabriel, Shalhoub, etc are the "inner circle" of Metropolitan P. They know how the bread is buttered. It does not matter to them of whatever rank any Bishop has. Suchy ecclesiology!! April 24 meeting will see Bps Antoun, Thomas & Joseph just pleased to be where "they are". The meeting has been fully orchestrated. Again, how true the cries for ONE Church in America free of domination from abroad anywhere. Who said a Boston Tea Party? Should we have stayed under England? I'm more than certain the old country followers would habe bought more tea than dumping it as was done with the USA/Canada Bishops.

#36 Anonymous Priest on 2009-04-09 16:44

Several have asked about the issues of Fr Antypas' letter. For instance, why is the Fellowship of St John the Divine dying? Having been in that region/diocese for 20 years, what I have seen is an organization that long ago lost its connection to people in the parishes. The "old timers" who hung on still operated as if it were the Syrian Social Club. The "converts" don't need an organization like that to be involved in Church life - they usually are because they are seeking the life of the Church. And the 20 and 30 Somethings who had grown up and stayed in the Church found other things to do, which usually had more meaning, were open to new ideas, and didn't waste time in generally useless meetings. So for Fr Antypas to blame Bp Mark for the past 4 years (when this priest was so antagonistic to what the Bp did try to accomplish) is nonsense, to be polite.

#37 Anonymous for a reason on 2009-04-09 17:04

I've been a student of his at the Antiochian House of Studies, and to be honest, he lectures were some of the dullest and most incoherent I've ever heard. I really have no clue how he ever got chosen for such a position.

#38 A student on 2009-04-09 17:17

As a member of the laity I am horrified to read the vicious letter posted by Fr. Joseph Antypas for the world to see. It has long been clear to many members of the Midwest Diocese that the rude and frankly, obnoxious behavior of the Detroit area priests has been an undeserved cross that Bishop Mark has had to endure. Bishop Mark has not divided the diocese; instead he has been infinitely patient under very difficult circumstances. Fr. Antypas can rant and rave as much as he likes, but the evidence of the crude behavior is too widespread for +MP to ignore. May God forgive him.

#39 anon on 2009-04-09 17:51

William,

Perhaps you were not around four years ago, when you claim the Archdiocese was less turbulent. Who was writing articles against the Metropolitan four years ago? Who was talking about leaving the Archdiocese or Antioch four years ago (besides +PHILIP, threatening the Patriarch)? You must be living in a dream world if you think this decision is going to bring peace to the Archdiocese.

Furthermore, I am opposed to this decision out of obedience for a constitutionally called synod meeting and constitutionally made decision in 2003. I find no reason to be obedient to a decision made unconstitutionally by the Holy Synod of Antioch. How can one authentically call the February 24, 2009 meeting a synod meeting when there was not a quorum that signed the decision?

I have no problem with people who are in favor of this decision, so long as they are in favor of it being done in a transparent manner. Had this decision been announced, discussed, and done according to the Patriarchate Constitution, I would simply accept a decision against which I am opposed.

#40 Anonymous Antiochian Priest on 2009-04-09 17:56

I'm loooking forward to when we have broken all the shackles of foreign domination and and are one united American Orthodox Church. This duplicity coming out of Englewood/Damascus/Phanar is only pushing us all in that direction...

#41 Antionymous on 2009-04-09 18:32

This is a joke all of you people are turning this into a soap opera...things like this should be done internally, and on the web preach the words of God! Do not make this amusing for people to laugh about our Faith and in the future lose Faith...

#42 I on 2009-04-09 18:34

He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

#43 Anonymous on 2009-04-09 18:58

You are mistaken, my friend. Fr Antypas did not travel this country and overseas to help make dioceses. Fr Antypas worked with +PHILIP to gain autonomy (or what came to be called self-rule, in the end).

It cannot be understated that the diocesan structure was forced on +PHILIP by the Holy Synod of Antioch in order to check his power. They did not want him being a sole act and having self-rule. It was they who forced the diocesan structure, especially Metropolitan George Khodre.

Because the Holy Synod was never comfortable with self-rule in the first place, they have no problem with eliminating the diocesan system, which was only necessary in their mind if +PHILIP had self-rule. Since they have taken that away (despite +PHILIP's claim to the contrary), they don't care about the dioceses.

In the end, what this means vis-a-vis Antypas is that he did not intend to create a diocesan system. He only wanted +PHILIP to have self-rule. That the Englewood insiders did not want dioceses is evidenced by the fact that Sayidna ANTOUN was never enthroned as Bishop of Miami.

#44 Anonymous Antiochian Priest on 2009-04-09 19:11

I was born in the church so I have been around and seen a lot in every diocese. Maybe not as much as others, however I beg to differ because we all know when things go on if your active and a member of organizations on a national level.

Let me explain, in truth the decision was a very random out of the blue act which i do disagree with in the way it was presented. I agree, notification or a National Meeting with the laity present would be great, ESPECIALLY amongst the hierarchs and Metropolitan. However I am in agreement with this because each diocese became different, I travel a lot and see it. It is not change in the tradition of the individaul parish but the practice in some degrees. Priests were ordained without even a seminarian degree or even going to seminary, things were changed within each diocese dramatically from the most common form of liturgics (i can not be for certain, this is word of mouth). Again, there are multiple examples however I do not want to cause more topics to arise from this site.

The clergy who spoke out in agreement knew the way it was, as well as many others who have not commented yet because they know how pathetic this website is and do not want to get smashed by people who abviously will strike and anything they disagree with. Considering you all are afraid to post your names is a shame because obviously from this website the majority of viewers are on the other side of the coin that I am. Think about it, these priests stood up and said how they felt, all being veteran priests of this archdiocese that has saw a lot of things. Don't even go into the ethnic commonality of them because that is purely ignorant. Look at Fr. Peter Gilquist, or Fr. John Morris, or many others that were here a long time, I'm not sure what Fr. Peter Gilquist thinks, i just put his name as an example veteran priest who is not of the same ethnicity. So please do not bring that point up because it holds no validity in the eyes of many, only some. However I will admit, people on both sides of the isle have communicational issues at times.

I have thought long and hard about this subject, if we want to go to canonical law, I guarantee you in each of the diocese, jurisdictions, etc they are broken either by accident, ignorance, or purpose for good reason only. This doesn't mean we should allow this, but it happens, even in our American political system. It is silly for me not to think this way, but we don't live in an ideal world. The church is run administratively by people, broken by sin, just like us, however we pray as well as they pray for that God leads us in the right direction.

Most clergy I have spoken with are in an agreement with this except for a mass of the newly ordained in the last 5-10 years. Let me say, I pray that our Archdiocese is a God protected Archdiocese and have faith in that, therefore I am obedient, however I do personally DISAGREE with the presentation of the announcement that was sent out. It was surprising, but most clergy expected this sooner than later due to everything that has been going on under the table, i.e. diocesan issues.

So in conclusion, I can not convince anyone who has strong convictions and I am happy many have strong convictions, but until you realise the extent of these diocesan issues you will not understand why so many are in acceptance of this change.

God bless everyone,
William

#45 William on 2009-04-09 19:18

Vicious letter? What part of the letter do you find vicious? I think it is straight to the point and explains itself properly and points to the truth of what has been happening in the region. And why do you say rant and rave? It is a letter in response to statements made by Bishop Mark as the original statement being filled with "slander and disrespect" which is very difficult for me to see when reading the letter.

#46 Anonymous on 2009-04-09 19:21

When we use our real names, we are also transferred, left unassigned, or punished in some way. So instead of judging us for lurking in anonymity; instead of "implying motives to people you do not know," please understand that some of us have seen what happens to +PHILIP's dissenting voices and we wish to remain anonymous for that reason, and that reason alone.

Also understand that there are some on this website that know a lot more about this situation and other problems going on in our Archdiocese than you, so they may not be speaking rumors or gossip, but out of an experience or knowledge to which you are not privy (though I will not deny there is also a lot of rumor, gossip and speculation--but that is primarily, if not exclusively, in the comments section, not the main articles).

Thanks for understanding, Fr John. I have no doubt you are a good man. Blessed remainder of Lent, Holy Week, and Pascha.

#47 Anonymous Antiochian Priest on 2009-04-09 19:24

The number of "Anonymous" posts on this site worries me.
Very strange.

(Editor's note: In a culture of fear, it is the only way many feel safe enough to speak. Some are genuine expressions; others are shills for various points of view. Sometimes, and more often than not, an anonymous voice will reveal something that could not be revealed in any other way. Caveat Emptor is always the best advice, whether buying a car, or reading on line. The point is that we have to learn to talk to each other, without fear, and this is as good a place to start as any. If we can learn to do it respectfully and thoughtfully without repercussions here, perhaps we can move from the cyber world to the more physical one, and learn to do it face to face. But until that day, this will have to do.... The worst possible world would be for all this to fester in silence....)

#48 Aglaios Hoff on 2009-04-09 19:25

It was not because someone refused to kiss his hand, it was because the person did not have the blessing of the parish priest. The disdain for proper order, disdain for one's priest and disrespect for one's bishop were only symptomatic of the person who also said MP was a tyrant. You may want to get your facts straight. Sometimes we hear a part of the story that validates what we want to believe. I was there too.

#49 anonymous on 2009-04-09 20:21

The Midwest was terribly damaged by Bp Demetri's arrest, conviction and imprisonment. It takes time and consistency for healing to occur. Fr Joseph complains and complains. He and one of his parishioners also sent out letters last November criticizing Bp MARK (a board of trustee member). He should have been deposed then. ...

The FSJD is only a hollow shell sitting on a wad of money. The talk is endless about what they used to do. There is very little talk about what they are currently doing. Why? Ask them what they DO! TALK!

The Order of St Ignatius suffered as the President of the Order was the one who took (or went with) Bp Demetri to the Casino where he got drunk and groped a woman's breast. A number of the members dropped out after this and others refused to join. Fr Joseph as the national spiritual advisor has done nothing to help revive its membership. Did Fr Joseph and Fr Shalhoub ever treat him in this way?

The Antiochian woman always remain strong. They have been well organized and remain faithful regardless. They are focused on Christ.

The old guard appointees of Bp Mark's predecessor have only erected barriers and fought tooth and nail to undermine....

Last faLL Fr Joseph circulated a letter throughout the archdiocese stating he did not paricipate in meetings, such as the fall gathering and plc as they no longer seemed fruitful and their time had come to an end. Perhaps, his insulting letters from last November should be added to the collection to show his *inconsistency and duplicity*.

MP letters and talks in the "time line" show his credibility is shot. .

Let's move on to the real matters. MP has deceived the faithful, conspired with his friends to undermine the diocesan bishops. He has supplanted the Constitution, the Board of Trustees and the faithful. It is time for a Tea Party.

We need a new leader who will cleanse the Archdiocese and behave morally, ethically and transparently.

We need a fiull and complete audit of the Archduiocesa books.

DO NOT LET FR ANTYPAS DISTRACT YOU FROM THE REAL ISSUES --- THE CONSPIRACY TO DEPOSE THE DIOCESAN BISHOPS AND RETURN ALL FINAL DECISIONS TO ENGLEWOOD, NJ.

THIS DECISION DID NOT NORMALIZE THE SITUATION IN THE LEAST. IT REVERSED THE MOVE TO NORMALIZATION.

Fr George Shalhoub and Fr Joseph Antypas never treated Bp Demitri like this. They would never treat an Arab Bishop like this.

#50 anonymous on 2009-04-09 21:10

he "Fellowship" is the creation of Metr. Philip when he replaced long held Senior SOYO. (Youth Groups). This broad based and cloudy assembly of ideas where "all" of the parish family could fit into some shere of service. Sounds great and everyone can fit in, but where? The former Senior Soyo groups were established in the '50's as a vible "chapter" in every single Antiochian parish church. As a convert I saw this all fall away into the misty aura of "service somewhere". That's the cause of the Fellowship dwindling in Mid west ad all over.

#51 Name Withheld on 2009-04-09 22:02

I am from Ky. Visiting friends in Florida, Do you have a problem with that?

(Editor's note: Whatever....)

#52 Anonymous on 2009-04-10 04:32

Let me explain something.

The decision from the Holy Synod was puzzling to me. Like many people I'm not an expert on the canons of the Church but I did wonder why this was done and the answer is "I don't know". I wish I had more information and I wish I had it right away, don't we all, but that information hasn't been forthcoming.

So at this point I have two choices. I can fill the silence with my own speculations and that of others who may have more or less of a clue than I do or I can search out responsible information, pray, and wait for the situation to unfold.

It would be easy, in the National Enquirer sense of the word, to just say "Metropolitan PHILIP did this because he wants to be a Pope with a college of Arab Cardinals around him" or some such emotional and highly speculative response. But I don't know him and to make that kind of a charge against a Bishop based on some gut feeling of an anonymous poster is intellectually and morally suspect. My guess is that things are just a tad bit more complex then any one sound bite.

In the same way I'm also puzzled by Fr. Antypas' experience of Bp. MARK because mine has been different. Bp. MARK has served our little parish in western Wisconsin well and has been kind and pastoral to me. I've never felt "captive" under his care. But, again, I don't know Fr. Antypas or the specifics of his relationship with Bp. MARK, and mostly I find it none of my business, so when I hear of these things I can either join in the fray or pray for them both and I feel the second is more constructive.

All I've been trying to say is that there is a danger in making sudden opinions on limited information in matters regarding people most of us don't know on a personal basis. We are not these people's Father confessors and we shouldn't pretend to be. I'd surely like a nice long letter from the parties involved explaining in detail their motivations and thoughts on these matters but it hasn't come yet and until something like this happens my guesses run the risk of being wrong and damaging but my prayers will never be.

I think if we paused just for a moment in the middle of choosing sides, calling each other names, and trying to guess what people are thinking (or worse yet using our imaginations to fill in what we think someone else is thinking) we might in that quiet space allow room for the Holy Spirit to get a word in edgewise. That might be helpful.

Thank you for listening.

Fr John Chagnon
St. Elias Orthodox Church
LaCrosse, WI

#53 Fr John Chagnon (Link) on 2009-04-10 06:22

Yeah, both parishes that I have been involved with don't seem to know what to do w/ "The fellowship." They have nominal officers who try to think of something to do every year. Do we really need a "fellowship" to organize parish "game night?"

#54 Antionymous on 2009-04-10 06:24

William,

I am glad that we found at least one point of agreement on this topic: that we both disagree with the process and presentation of this decision.

You say, "It is not change in the tradition of the individaul parish but the practice in some degrees." You are right. And that is why the changes were not a problem. As long as one is obedient to the overall tradition, it does not matter if individual practices vary to some degree. Sayidna PHILIP, although fighting some of these minor disagreements in practice in the Eastern rite, has implicitly accepted this argument by accepting the Western rite. Same tradition, different practice. If you have a problem with various practices, then you should openly speak out against the Western rite.

You correctly point out: "Priests were ordained without even a seminarian degree or even going to seminary." Yes, my friend, they were ordained and it was Sayidna PHILIP who approved their ordination. Each of them was ordained only after being approved by Sayidna PHILIP's ordination review board. In fact, it was some of the diocesan bishops, like Bishop BASIL, who were the most vocal against this practice.

You say: "things were changed within each diocese dramatically from the most common form of liturgics (i can not be for certain, this is word of mouth)." At least you admit that you do not know this personally, but taking it on the word of others (something that others on this site, in support of the decision, have called gossip). Tell me, my friend, what changed dramatically in liturgics? I know of nothing, but how can I argue the point when you give no specifics. My friend, as you see, I am willing to discuss this in a friendly manner, but I cannot argue against non-specifics.

You said: "Think about it, these priests stood up and said how they felt, all being veteran priests of this archdiocese that has saw a lot of things." Well, there are a lot of veteran priests standing up on the other side. Many have written the Metropolitan personally, others in the form of clergy brotherhoods. You saw one such letter out of DOWAMA.

You said: "Don't even go into the ethnic commonality of them." I won't because that is a non-issue to me. This is not an ethnic issue by any means, and I have argued that point since this decision was made. So please, don't attack what you think I think, but what I actually say.

You said: "However I will admit, people on both sides of the isle have communicational issues at times." YES!!! And this is the heart of the problem. Sayidna PHILIP communicated with the priests who are his friends better than with the diocesan bishops. The diocesan bishops never knew what to expect from him at meetings. The diocesan bishops (or at least some of them) had a difficult time being able to talk to Sayidna PHILIP on the phone because he would not take their calls. As we have agreed, communication is a big part of the problem, and this all would have been solved if Sayidna PHILIP would have openly notified the bishops and Archdiocese of the problems. Then we could discuss openly and, if the Holy Synod made the same decision, accept a decision with which we disagree.

You noted that "Most clergy I have spoken with are in an agreement with this except for a mass of the newly ordained in the last 5-10 years." Well, again, how can I criticize that? What is your sample group? Is it representative of the entire population of clergy in the Archdiocese? I doubt it. I don't doubt your statement, but you need to realize that if you have an unrepresentative sample group, it will skew your view of the population. This is basic statistics.

We agree on this: "Let me say, I pray that our Archdiocese is a God protected Archdiocese."

You say: "I can not convince anyone who has strong convictions." How do you know? People who have strong opinions can change their minds if they are open to discussion and fact. Are you admitting that you will not change your mind based on facts, because you have a strong conviction?

You conclude: "but until you realise the extent of these diocesan issues you will not understand why so many are in acceptance of this change." My friend, you don't even know who I am. I am not using my name for a reason. But facts are facts. You don't need my name, you can listen to the facts and the argumentation I present. That is sufficient. But don't assume that I don't understand the diocesan issues. I talk to Sayidna PHILIP regularly and I have spoken with him about the diocesan issues frequently, and I simply disagree with him.

#55 Anonymous Antiochian Priest on 2009-04-10 06:42

{{ However I am in agreement with this because each diocese became different, I travel a lot and see it.}}

What is wrong with "different?" Is there no room for diversity and a manifest varitey of gifts? As every bishop is different, doesn't it stand to reason that every diocese will be as well? Is every family the same?

And what kind of "differences" are you talking about exactly?

{{Priests were ordained without even a seminarian degree or even going to seminary,}}}}

This is misleading. All ordinations have come thorugh Englewood. (Part of the arguemtn that we never really had dioceses in the first place.) There are indeed priests who have been ordained w/out seminary, and you can agree or disagree with that wisdom. I happen to think its often useful or necessary. (Biut thats another issue)But make no mistake, no one has been ordained w/out +MP's blessing.

{{things were changed within each diocese dramatically from the most common form of liturgics (i can not be for certain, this is word of mouth)}

Again what kind of changes are you talking about?

{{{Most clergy I have spoken with are in an agreement with this except for a mass of the newly ordained in the last 5-10 years}}}

You obviously havn't spoken to clergy in my neck of the words.

{It was surprising, but most clergy expected this sooner than later due to everything that has been going on under the table, i.e. diocesan issues.}}

Again, you obviously don't hang out in my neck of the woods....

{{{until you realise the extent of these diocesan issues you will not understand why so many are in acceptance of this change. }}}

Do YOU understand the extent of these diocesan issues?

Respectfully,

#56 Antionymous on 2009-04-10 06:50

American? We're all foreign, just several generations watered down unless your native american. We are all american, just have different family values and mentalities, respect others preferences, they have nothing to do with anything.

#57 William on 2009-04-10 06:51

In many ways, I think the letter of Fr. Antypas may be a complaint about Bishop Mark's personality, reflecting not confrontation, but instead avoidance which these priests have interpreted as a sign of weakness. If he had come to the midwest diocese, immediately demanding that the priests hold regular services and quit offering Communion to anyone who comes in the door, that kind of confrontation might have worked. But for this priest to complain that the Bishop had not invited them to coffee nor sent a thank you note to someone who did his laundry or perhaps seemed unappreciative of gifts lavished on his person seems very petty. If Bishop Mark complained about rudeness, he was speaking to the office of Bishop, no matter WHO IS BISHOP. Fr. Antypas must know that there have been plenty of witnesses who have seen the rude and crude behavior of the Detroit priests.

So what, according to Fr. Antypas, are the terrible acts committed by Bishop Mark against these priests? Is he a bad man? Has he done anything wrong while Bishop? I just don't GET IT.

#58 anon on 2009-04-10 06:56

Another comment. I have been to recent Parish Life Conferences where lots of people have been admitted to the Order of St. Ignatius, but exactly, what is its purpose, other than to raise money for +MP? Does it have some sort of spiritual purpose? I'm confused. Unfortunately because of recent events, people are leaving the Order,and that that is NOT Bishop Mark's fault. As for the Order of St. John the Divine, I have not seen Bishop Mark discouraging membership in this group. It seems to me that if this kind of organization is to thrive, it is incumbent on priests at the Parish level to promote membership. The Bishop visits once or twice a year. What can he do personally to get people to join? To blame Bishop Mark for lack of interest simply lacks credibility, and Fr. Antypas strains our credibility when he dredges up these "excuses" for opposing our beloved Bishop.

#59 anon on 2009-04-10 07:07

It is curious to read these letters being outside the AOCA. The primary advocates of each side sound so reasonable taken individually..."the bishop is a tyrant", "the priests are convivers". And each veiw has their supporters, some by name, some without. I know my own preferences, so far as they matter, concerning how I would like the see the recent Synodal deciscion controversy play out. It can be judged by those canons and rules that provide for Church structure and governance, but this other matter, though related is so personality driven. Depending on who is speaking or defending whom one party is either darn near a living saint, or darn near an ordained devil. Given the situation on the ground I supposed having to deal with this by those effected by it is unavoidable, but the more I read, the more it feels like poison. This cannot be good for anyone's souls.

I do think there is probably a correct and an incorrect side in all this speaking only with respect to the core facts, but it is increasingly distressing to see how angry this is making everyone. As the desert fathers said, even righteous anger is just as blinding as unrighteous. So what to do, what to say except Lord have mercy on us all.

If there is any personal lesson I am taking away from watching how this all unfolds it is this, how do bishops and priest manage to save their souls given all the tempations they must face in the exercise of their given ministry and authority. I begin to understand why even those knowing they were being called to such office tried so hard to flee to the deserts instead.

#60 Robert Hegwood on 2009-04-10 07:09

I am from the midwest. I say to you in all Christian charity that the day Demetri Khoury was arrested was the day we were freed from true captivity. It is astounding that he should again be in the position of leading the faithful.

As for (Fr.) Joseph Antypas' letter to Bp. Mark: Shame on him for his disrespect and disloyalty to a Bishop of this God protected Archdiocese. If Joseph Antypas has personal grievances with Bishop Mark then he should himself make time to come and talk about those things until they are resolved. 70 X 7 if need be.
There is absolutely no excuse for his insubordination. He is a man under authority and he should at least act the part.

I found his "letter of apology" to be similar to one that a child who was forced to write one would write. It lacked sincerity.

God is Good. He does answer prayers and that is what we must do now, Pray. Pray fervently that God will deliver us from captivity once again.

#61 anonymous on 2009-04-10 07:17

I think if Bp. MARK is guilty of anything, its being ignorant of how important hospitality is to Arabs. Its taken me a while to figure that out....its just a different way of thinking, but if we love our flock we have to work hard at knowing them.....

#62 Antionymous on 2009-04-10 07:26

William,

Your criticisms reveal that you do not understand that the Archdiocese was still run in an uncanonical manner even before the decision in February. All seminarians were apprved by MP. Every single Ordination must be approved by MP.

His buddies may request Ordinations of those NOT QUALIFIED or WITH IMPEDIMENTS and BOOM it happens even without the Diocesan Bishop's Consent. They were simply told to do it or Bp ANTOUN would.

MP behaved in manner which would have subjected him to being DEPOSED even BEFORE the Change in February. The bishops tolerated because he is old and change is difficult. Perhaps that was their mistake from the beginning.

Every Bishop has served somewhat differently just as every priest has some minor differences. Mp, Bishop Antoun, Joseph and Basil all served differently even before the 2003 decisions to grant self-rule. There is legitimate diversity and there are things that are simply wrong, like communing muslim women, kibbee naee on Great and Holy Saturday (Troy, MI), etc..

Violations of the Holy Canons are of GREATER IMPORTANCE than whether a parish does the Alleuia verses after the Epistle or the Beatitudes instead of antiphons. The Archdiocese even publishes books with divergent rubrics. Those in the Liturgikon differ from the Red Service Book, etc.

Did we need all this chaos because some priests have longer hair, a fuller beard, prefer a cassock to a suit coat or wear sandals. *Lord Have mercy*. *MP is straining at a gnat and smalling a camel*. *May the Lord have mercy on his soul for the damage he has one to the Archdiocese, the Diocesan Bishops, the Board of Trustees, the Order of St Ignatius, the faithful of the Archdiocese, all Orthodox faithful who are watching and those who were seeking the fullness of the faith but are questioning whether we have it*. *Lord have mercy*!

Why is it that Diocesan Bishops who violated NO CANONS are removed from heir positions and MP breaks numerous CANONS and *NO ONE MAY CHALLENGE HIMWITHOUT BEING DISCIPLINED. ON WHAT BASIS MAY HE EVEN DISCIPLINE THEM. ? LOYALTY TO HIM. NOT TO THE CHURCH! NOT T THE CANONS. NOT TO THE HOLY SCRIPTURE*.

#63 a little better informed on 2009-04-10 09:59

My friend, I do not state examples because I know that they will eventually pop up on this site or do not want to cause more damages if I haven't already, but mine have been minor accusations with some bases and some with no bases posted on this site for again certain reasons.

I must restate this, I wrote "things were changed within each diocese dramatically from the most common form of liturgics (i can not be for certain, this is word of mouth)". Please read the line in brackets. I wrote that on the original post, therefore it is just hearing that, I am not for certain so I can not state that as fact and I wrote that. Just to clarify.

I promise you i have been in your neck of the woods.

This entire issue should only focus on whether one agrees with it being canonical or not canonical. No more no less. I have and admit I posted things irregardless of this point that is the most important aspect we should be debating on, a friendly and mature level, which I need to do as well. thank you for your direction in that aspect.

My questions are as follows:

1. Why is it Canonical?
2. Why is it not Canonical?
3. Where is the status and authority of the Patriarch if we are currently in the See of Antioch? Shouldn't we follow this authority until otherwise directed.

Again, yes, I know Metro PHILIP was at differences 4 years ago because he wanted Autonomy. I was in support of that as well. However, I personally am in support of any decision the church goes with currently because it does not affect me as a layman. On the other hand, no question is it hard for clergy and most of all the beloved hierarchs, but again. We are part of the Archdiocese and need to stand as one, but voice as one, not several anonymous individuals. If you have concerns about the decision I pray they will be answered because God only knows we need them, however I am obedient towards this, just as you are obedient in going to church, confessing, etc.

Anyways, Those 4 questions on a friendly level with an honest heart response an non-offensive would be deeply appreciated for many.

God bless you all and myself, William

Explain how it is not canonical?

#64 William on 2009-04-10 10:33

My intention was not to offend in any of my posts and so if I have please accept my apologies. There has been good information passed on through this site and perhaps I was too inclusive when speaking about people making anonymous posts.

I know there is pain, struggle, and concern not just related to this decision but to other things that have happened in the Archdiocese. I speak with other Priests and I hear what people have to say. I also know that I don't know everything.

I came to Orthodoxy in my late 30's after journeying far and wide to find it. I believe in it's truth, its promise, and its call on my life. I know there are problems and struggles in the Church, I know that there are many sins (not the least of which are mine) but I also believe that we can and should be better and I would like to hold on to, and hold out for, that better for as long as possible. I never wish to grow tired and cynical even if the evidence for it is overwhelming because I know that when I do a part of my soul will die.

I'm aware of the storm at sea but I'm trying very hard not to repeat St. Peter's mistake and sink because I took my eyes off from Christ. I care very much for this Faith, as do many, and I would wish that even when we disagree the tone and shape of our disagreements would still be within the vision of this Faith. I believe that people are counting on us, as Priests. to help them, lead them, and be calm in the face of these things and provide an example of all good things even if our hearts tremble inside or grow weary.

I'm sure that I'm naive in saying things that probably don't even need to be said. God forgive me. I've said before that I may be a fool but I still believe in what Orthodoxy should be, what it can be, and I'm going to try my best, God helping me, to see that become real at least in my life. My prayer remains that this will also happen even in these days regardless of what we may have to face.

Thank you for listening to me. Thank you for your corrections. Thank you for your thoughts. I wish you all God's greatest blessings in the coming Holy Week and a joyous Pascha.

Fr John Chagnon
St. Elias Orthodox Church
LaCrosse, WI

#65 Fr John Chagnon (Link) on 2009-04-10 11:20

Oh, I heard, all right. ...

He may well be a brilliant man, but it was hard to see it under that fog of distorted loquacity. Sorry, but this man really shouldn't be a teacher to students in the Archdiocese....

#66 A student on 2009-04-10 11:42

Metropolitan PHILIP moved priests to parish they could handle and perform well at. There are many "rich" or blessed parishes that had many transfers because of issues at that parish and the priest. Therefore to say he purposely placed them there is absurd. Look at other large parishes, how many priests got transferred. Boston had many, Miami, etc. Most priests transfer until they either do all they can at that parish or issues arise. ...

#67 WRONG on 2009-04-10 11:45

William,

I am going to respond to your questions below, by starting a new thread. We are getting to the point now where we cannot even fit a sentence on one line because of the indents!!!

So, please direct your attention towards the bottom for my response.

#68 Anonymous Antiochian Priest on 2009-04-10 12:19

....
People must ask, "Who will control the AOCA?" Will it be old country priests and bishops with old country attitudes or will it be American priests and bishops without phyletistic tendencies? Is the answer really to put an old country bishop in Toledo? Of course, this may keep the rich Arabs in Detroit happy and writing their checks, but is this really the answer? Short term, maybe, but it shows that ethnocentrism isn't dead yet in the AOCA!

#69 Anonymous on 2009-04-10 12:30

In response to William from above.

Your questions, I must admit, are rather strange since you initially said that the canons did not matter much. I can only assume that you are beginning to see some of my points on the other issues, so you are reverting back to this one issue. Perhaps still you disagree, and that's fine, but at least you seem to understand our reasons for opposition.

You asked the following questions:

1. Why is it Canonical?

Many of us believe it is not canonical. I personally sympathize with some of the Metropolitan's issues. I don't want to state publicly what I agreed with, but there were some instances where certain diocesan bishops (not all) perhaps stepped out too far on a few issues.

The Metropolitan has a canonical right to call them out on this. However, this should be/must be done within the context of the Local Holy Synod. If the Metropolitan does this properly, then the Holy Synod may act on it and call the brother bishop back in line. This actually happened with at least one issue last year.

This leads to your second question.

2. Why is it not Canonical?

First, you should look at the document posted in the newest article on OCANews, the brief analysis.

This decision is not canonical because the Local Holy Synod, constitutionally, has the sole right to govern itself based on our 2003 agreement with Antioch and our own legally-filed Constitution. In 2005, Metropolitan PHILIP re-iterated this point, telling the Holy Synod of Antioch that they had no right to intervene in our government of the Archdiocese.

Further, it is unheard of in the canons that a group of bishops, an entire synod, would be demoted without cause or canonical infraction. We'll move now to your next question.

3. Where is the status and authority of the Patriarch if we are currently in the See of Antioch?

The authority of the Patriarch and Holy Synod vis-a-vis our self-ruled Archdiocese is clearly spelled out in our 2003 agreement (the "Geneva Resolution") and in our Constitution (both the one we approved in 2004 in Pittsburgh and the one that the Patriarchate revised in late 2004). The Archdiocese is bound by doctrinal decisions of the Holy Synod/Patriach. The Archdiocese is bound by ecumenical witness decisions and the decisions related to sacramental unity with other Christians and sacramental practices in general. However, the government of the Archdiocese is exclusively given over to the Local Synod of the Archdiocese.

Finally, you asked: "Shouldn't we follow this authority until otherwise directed."

My answer is, "absolutely!" I agree that we should follow this authority. However, in this situation, the Patriarch/Holy Synod overstepped their boundaries. We should continue to be obedient to the Patriarch in matters which we have constitutionally agreed. We should not, however, allow the Patriarch/Holy Synod to affect the government of our self-ruled (i.e. self-governed) Archdiocese. Otherwise, we are not really self-ruled.

I would be happy to answer any other questions you have.

#70 Anonymous Antiochian Priest on 2009-04-10 12:43

As a naturalized citizen, I consider myself American. Period.

Really William, you should give up your obdurate attitude. Nobody is going to take you seriously if you simply ignore what other people say simply becuse you do not like what they are saying.

#71 Carl on 2009-04-10 18:05

I understand where you are coming from. But the Antiochian Archdiocese could cease to be part of the Church and the Church would still exist. That is to say, we must choose to be faithful to the Church. We cannot assume that whatever the Antiochian Archdiocese does is what the Church does or is what the Church is. The Antiochian Archdiocese must constantly choose to be faithful to the Church. The Church should define us; not we the Church.

#72 Anonymous Antiochian Priest on 2009-04-10 18:25

anonymous antiochian priest, huh? why dont you be like Fr. Antypas and sign your name to your comments. Stop hiding yourself! If you want to be taken seriously and are a firm believer of your comments, then attach your name to your words. Otherwise, like Fr. John said, if you have you dont have enough respect for your convictions to sign your name, then I have no respect for your opinions. It's easy to criticize and make comments with anonymity, but it takes a man to stand behind what he says, and thats why I respect Fr. Antypas.

#73 Shannon Holtz, Detroit, Michigan on 2009-04-10 18:26

RE #26 "Personally, I couldn't care less whether the Bishops have full or auxilary status. We see the the Bishops so infrequently and have so little contact with them, it wouldn't change my spiritual life if we had no bishops at all."

Without the bishops there would be no sacraments, without the sacraments there would be no Church, without the Church there is no salvation. And that wouldn't change your spiritual life?

Un-cannonical, heretical or just plain stupid, the Orthodox Church in the west is in a sinful state. It is a sin which we all share--a common sin of ignorance and self-will.

"If the people, which are called by My name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." II Chronicles 7:14

#74 Michael Bauman on 2009-04-10 20:54

Shannon,

Whether you like my comments or not, one would assume that you would at least treat me with respect, as I have done with others in my comments. If I have not done so somewhere, please point it out so that I may repent.

Anywho, the reason that I am not like Fr Antypas in signing my name is because I am openly disagreeing with the Metropolitan, unlike Fr Antypas (who might sign his name even if he disagreed, we don't know). If I agreed with the Metropolitan, I would do it openly, so that I could be rewarded. You know, if I really had no integrity, then I would publicly agree with the Metropolitan and sign my name, and then I would come back on in disagreement and sign it anonymously, but I digress.

Perhaps, Shannon, you would be willing to take care of my children and wife if I begin signing my name? You see, I really don't have much of an income or a retirement (I have so little respect for myself, as you have gleaned from my anonymous postings, that I left behind a great job and great income to serve God's people and to be belittled by those who have enough self-respect to sign their name), and what I do have is at the sole discretion of the Metropolitan. This same Metropolitan has been known to withhold retired priests' housing allowance because people 'signed their name' in disagreement with him. Perhaps it is because of that reason that I don't sign my name? I don't know, just something to think about. Perhaps that is a possibility besides not having enough respect for my convictions.

Of course, there is always the possibility I could make up a name that looks real. Or I could use someone else's name. That would be really cruel!!!

Or, I could just assume that some people who read these comments will read my words. They speak for themselves. If you want to criticize me, then I respectfully ask you to criticize me for what I have to say. Tell me where I am mistaken in my analysis and understanding of this event, so that I may correct myself when wrong. And then, like I did with William, I could have a friendly discussion with you where we might actually find out we have some agreements after all!

Blessed feast!

(Pssst, don't tell anyone, but I understand that you are frustrated that I have made some good points in my argument with William and he has begun to see my position, even while disagreeing with it [that's fine, by the way, we can agree to disagree]. I understand that you found nothing to criticize in my argument, so instead you had to revert to the old trick of attacking me for being anonymous. Don't worry, I understand, but I won't tell anyone.)

#75 Anonymous Antiochian Priest (I'm really John Chrysostom, so listen to what I hav on 2009-04-10 21:30

We're not biting on that at this time. The issue has been discussed numerous times on this site. Fr. Joseph has no fear of receiving a notice of suspension. Anyone opposing this decision and Metropolitan PHILIP does. When the time is right, we'll speak out together.

#76 Phileas on 2009-04-10 23:13

You must have written a very very bad thesis and must have faild his class for you to say that.....Wow.........

He must have made so many correction that you did not like...........

You check your work man........

A student of Fr. Joseph Antypas

Father Joe Thanks a million for being there for me, if I ever to take any clases that you offer, I sure will again and over and over again from you,

Hay, I think I know you my self you must been in my class too......

Your bodie

#77 Anonymous on 2009-04-11 02:39

And this man, Fr Antypas is the Spiritual Advisor for The Order of St IGNATIUS? What spirit does he have writing such a disrespectful letter about his Diocesan Bishop. If anyone wrote such a letter to MP he would be deposed immediately. Pehaps members of their Order should suspend their support until he is removed! ....

Once again, the only thing that will get MP's attention is the income statement. The inner circle have exposed themselves and continue to expose their animosity. How can they be the leaders of our Holy Church? How can they be the ones to influence who is the next Metropolitan? Why does MP tolerate? He validates them in their sinful behaviour. Why?

#78 anonymous on 2009-04-11 06:01

Father Joseph's class was the only one that had any depth to it. It's nice to sit around and tell stories, but I'd prefer to do that with coffee after Liturgy. When I'm paying to attend, driving to PA and devoting a week of my life to classroom education, I want to learn. Enough of the fluff and "feel good" sessions. Bring on serious education.

A fellow student.

P.S. Did you understand Lossky?

#79 Anonymous on 2009-04-11 11:56

My Priest echoed these sentiments. What IS Met. Jonah & Philip up to? Guess no one invited the Greeks over (2X in 1 mo.) Anyone who thinks the clergy are non-fearful go to Disneyworld. Even the Disney characters use caps n' lower case.

#80 Anonymous Mid West laywoman on 2009-04-11 12:58

I can't help but wonder as to the reason Fr. Antypas decided to post his damaging letter to +Mark and air his "dirty laundery"!!! Did "his master's voice" tell him to do that? And what can be gained from such an act. Could it be that Fr. Joseph's master enjoys airing dirty laundry on the web and creating chaos!!! What a pity...very sad situation for the Antiochian Archdiocese that can only be resolved by the grace of God!

#81 anonymous for sure on 2009-04-11 18:49

All bishops are equal.

There is no higher charism in the church than the office of bishop.

No, bishop(s) answer directly to another bishop. Bishops answer to their synod of bishops. Orthodoxy rejected the notion of SUPERBISHOPS years ago.

The Metropolitan chairs the synod like an older brother, but he does not even have a vote on matters unless there is a tie or his vote would make a tie. The problem within AOCA synod was that MP COULD NOT GET HIS WAY. He even stated the bishops did nothing wrong (nothing wrong canonically whereby he could take action against them).

Given he could not control each and every decision, he reversed the situattion to an aberrent state. He calls it *NORMALIZATION*, meaning he is now THE INFALLIBLE POPE OF NORTH AMERICA. This has already been stated several times before, but there is a lot to digest.

No bishop did anything wrong last summer to trigger this decision. MP cannot let go of power, nor cease making decisions in favor of his buddies even when they COMPLETELY VIOLATE ARCHDIOCESAN POLICIES, such as CASINO NIGHTS in AKRON, OH; LIVONIA, MI or TROY, MI, communing by intinction and vacuuming up the body of Christ with a shop vac. Get the picture? Loyalty of his buddies is more important than how we regard the Body of Christ. ....

The problems Metropolitan PHILIP has with his Bishops is that they TRULY BELIEVE and take the FAITH seriously. This he calls *FUNDAMENTALISM*.

#82 no bishop is under another on 2009-04-11 22:15

"Implying motives to people you do not know is both morally and intellectually wrong. I have no direct idea why one Priest feels the way they do unless they tell me directly. I cannot comment on why a Bishop does what they do if they have not provided this information. Without that solid information anything is just conjecture at best and gossip at worst."

Father, bless!

#83 rwprof (Link) on 2009-04-12 05:26

RE #26 "Personally, I couldn't care less whether the Bishops have full or auxilary status. We see the the Bishops so infrequently and have so little contact with them, it wouldn't change my spiritual life if we had no bishops at all."

Without the bishops there would be no sacraments, without the sacraments there would be no Church, without the Church there is no salvation. And that wouldn't change your spiritual life?

I should have said "diocesan bishops". My bishop comes to our parish once a year. After liturgy he spends time with the "important people" and sits at the clergy table at the coffee social. I have no contact with him and no personal knowledge of what he's like. It simply doesn't matter to me if he comes to our parish or doesn't come to our parish.

“Without the bishops there would be no sacraments, without the sacraments there would be no Church, without the Church there is no salvation. And that wouldn't change your spiritual life?”

Christ is the Head of the Church. Since He has promised to remain with us in the Church until the end of the age, there would be a Church and sacraments even if a nuclear holocaust removed every ordained clergyman from the entire planet. The active parties in all sacraments are Christ and the Holy Spirit. In the house churches of the Jerusalem church, the owner of the house (male or female) held the bread and wine as they were consecrated by Christ through the Holy Spirit. There was no sacrament of marriage or penance in the East for hundreds of years. In Paul's churches, people confessed to each other and asked Christ's forgiveness. He gave it. Marriages were sacramentally blessed if bride and groom asked Christ to bless their union. Otherwise for 600 years in the early church married people lived in sin.

While today no one in their right mind would deny someone the sacraments in the church, under *emergency circumstances*, lay people, the temples of the living God, can still ask Jesus Christ to baptize, to consecrate the Eucharist, to marry, to forgive sins and to be merciful to the dead. And He will.

Ordination is the only sacrament lay people have never performed in the church. That was reserved for the “overseers” to provide for good order and correct teaching in the Church.

We carry the Church with us. If by Divine Providence I were shipwrecked on a desert island with a group of non-Orthodox, I would still practice my faith. If they wished to convert, I would catechize them, baptize them, and confirm them with blessed coconut oil. We would assemble as Church on the Lord ’s Day to share a Eucharistic meal, offering coconut flesh and coconut milk for Christ to consecrate. We would ask Christ to marry the betrothed, to forgive our sins which we confessed to each other, to anoint the sick, and to bury our dead with a proper funeral. All these were done by lay people in the early church, and can still be done today if there is a correct understanding of each sacrament. Baptism, for example, must be done using the Trinitarian formula.

And two years hence when we were discovered by Google Earth, we would be rescued and return to parishes near our homes. The converts would be Chrismated into their local parishes.

P.S. I have verified this reply with two Orthodox priests who have a thorough understanding of the Orthodox faith.

#84 Anonymous on 2009-04-18 15:21

This is satire, right? Or yoiu didn't take the same classes I did....

#85 Antionymous on 2009-04-21 07:34

The Antypas Letter

OCA News

Thursday, April 9. 2009

The Antypas Letter

Calendar

Quicksearch

Archives