Monday, April 27. 2009
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
I noticed something glaringly missing from this latest, precicely crafted announcement: No mention of 'Self-Ruled.' Maybe it should be called the "Self-Willed Archdiocese."
#1 anon. ant. on 2009-04-27 20:24
Someone told me the other day they felt sorry for MP and folks should take it easy on him.
He made this mess and it will be his legacy! The best thing he could do for his legacy is to show true Christian humility, apologize for his machinations, remove or retire his accomplices and ask the Holy Synod to reverse the situation
Oh yes, he should also have a complete and thorough audit prepared before calling the police, the FBI and Homeland Security. This will make their job much easier.
#2 anonymous on 2009-04-27 20:37
Did anyone hear if the bishops discussed Jamie Farr signing the Gospel Book on the Altar Table at St Mary in Livonia, MI? They should at least be able to take action on that. Its a no brainer!
This may hve been a good first step in uniting the Bishops and healing the Archdiocese. Purge out the OLD Leaven!
#3 anonymous on 2009-04-27 20:50
Notice that the announcement refers to the “Holy Synod of The Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America,” not the “Holy Synod of The Self-Ruled Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America,” as previous materials have read. Is this a sign that Metr. Philip understands that he's been caught in a huge lie?
Sic semper tyrannis,
#4 Nemo on 2009-04-27 21:34
Keep up the good work. Keep getting the word out about this.
Whoever is behind this, it is a shame that the Ancient See of Antioch, and the example set out for us and our bishops by St. Ignatius, is being tarnished by the actions of a few.
I pray that the spirit of St. Ignatius Theophorus fall upon all our Bishops, shoring up the faithful, and shaming the unworthy.
What did Bishop Alexander write? I can make a stab at it. Perhaps:
A) I do not wish to purchase a memorial page in the Commemoration book at this time.
B) I refuse to divulge my aunt's Baklava recipe.
C) I hereby resign as Regional Director for the Jerusalem Taskforce
D) There is an Orthodox Church in America, leave it alone.
E) All of the above
F) A and C only
---- Any of which would make it awfully tough to turn it in to the free and autonomous folks in Damascus, Syria, the Point of Reference for all Antiochian bishops, especially the Auxiliary ones.
(Editor's note: You may just have invented the latest Orthodox parlor game:" What Would You Write?" 10 words or less. All Answers become property of Antioch.)
#6 Ba'ab on 2009-04-27 22:48
What is very telling is that Bishop Joseph who previously invoked the rights and authority of a ruling diocesan hierarch, even encouraging brother bishops to make decisions commensurate to a ruling hierarch, suddenly rolled over and relinquished such assertions in "obedience" to the Holy Synod.
1. Loyalty to his ethnic roots over the sacred canons?
2. Intimidation - that unless he complies he will face permanent negative consequences in the present and future?
3. Promises were made. If he went along with "the company line" he would be rewarded "down the road."?
For such a previously strong voice his present silence and timid posturing certainly raises serious questions that clergy and laity who heretofore respected him are now very troubled.
#7 Anonymous on 2009-04-28 06:11
About those insisting that Mark Stokoe should keep his nose out of other people's -- that is, the Antiochians' -- business: Well, as one who shares in the life and experience of being a NORTH AMERICAN Orthodox Christian together with all the rest of us, despite the outrage of our persisting juristictional distinctions, Mr. Stokoe's attention to the troubles of his fellow North American Orthodox whose parishes happen to be of the Antiochian jurisdiction would be very much his business, wouldn't it?
Or could the observation rely on too sweeping a generalization? Could it be -- could it just possibly be -- that some of those who're cheering the action of the Antiochian Patriarchal Synod insist on the illusion of our separate "multi-North-American" indentities as fostered by our various jurisdictions since, without them, their comfortable places in their Good Ole Boy networks would dissolve into thin air?
#8 Augustine on 2009-04-28 08:39
From the beg. Bp Joseph is for Bp Joseph. And rec'd without an election (with Dimitry of Mexico?) unlike Met Bashir & Saliba, and Bishops Antoun & Basil. Bad precedent at best all agreed - but Met P accepted him "by letter". Why? Think about it. Those at the election of Bp Basil knew of Met P. displeasure as the results read! The Met. even put up his Archdeacon who never had a parish, just hoping he'd be elected. The laity love Bp Basil and could not be fooled. Bp Joseph .... Met P. wanted him to get his US citizenship and do we wonder WHY ??
#9 Anonymous Western Laymen on 2009-04-28 08:45
4. He wants to succeed +Philip as Metropolitan so has to stay in Antioch's good graces.
#10 JPSmith on 2009-04-28 08:53
Every day that goes by makes the Metropolitan's position that much more foolish and indefensible. Thank God for the internet and those who can intelligently and eloquently point ot the skewed reasonings and non-canonical, unprincipled, rationilizations that His Grace of lesser graces's attempts to bully through.
I'm convinced there can be no good end to this minus the Metropolitan's complete about face or repentance as it is better known. The odd's of that happening given his ministerial history are not good, not impossible mind you, but not good.
#11 Kevin on 2009-04-28 09:53
A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS!
As disgusting as this is, this picture and link should be posted for everyone to see how undisciplined the detractors of Bishop Mark are.
http://ochlophobist .blogspot. com/2009/ 04/what-mean- mark-was- trying-to- confront. html
#12 Anonymous on 2009-04-28 11:17
A correction - not ONLY all American Orthodox are watching it, the ENTIRE Orthodox World is watching it.
#13 Anonymous on 2009-04-28 12:04
FYI ... The Antiochian Website now has posted the document which Metropolitan PHILIP wanted signed, along with names of the bishops who signed it and the mysterious "note."
#14 Anonymous on 2009-04-28 12:13
This brings up a good point, and one I had been wondering for some time in reading many of these posts. Why did Bishop Joseph and Bishop Thomas sign the "broader" document? I presume Bishop Antoun signed out of loyalty to the Metropolitan (and the fact that he has always been a de facto auxiliary, not having been enthroned himself). But what are Bishops Joseph and Thomas' reasons for signing?
#15 Chanter in Antiochian Archdiocese on 2009-04-28 12:44
How about: "completely supine..."? Bishop Joseph is a reliable, predictable functionary. When in doubt he just makes stuff up. That's how he acts, and that's how he treats people. The good people in his diocese should buy him a one-way fare back to Damascus. That would be a great investment, probably tax deductible.
#16 Anonymous on 2009-04-28 12:48
Mark: The resolution in .pdf format is posted on the "self-ruled's" website. It contains the signatures of those who signed it. It reveals that +Alexander wrote on his signature line: "This decision is already in effect and does not need my signature". I guess some realized that canonical consent of a diocesan bishop is necessary before his rank or dioceses can be affected, the meeting was an attempt to correct the situation by obtaining their post hoc consent. +Alexander words lack "do not need my consent" but "do not need my signature". Ergo, "do what you want -- and I will do what I want".
#17 Nick Katich on 2009-04-28 13:31
That Jamie Farr photo URL has been posted several times. I'll call bs on this until someone from that parish can validate the location and the book. I mean, the allegation is so nuts it really requires verification before people just run off and tell their friends. I'm not saying it's not exactly what people claim, but not just on the basis of this pic.
Gospel book: It has that hard cover like a gospel book, but I really can't tell if it is or not or some other book that contains other luminary visitors to the parish.
Altar: that must be one huge altar because the photo doesn't show the tabernacle, candles and what not that I've seen on our altar. I'd like to say that the microphone eliminates it from being the altar but I know better than that. In addition, from which angle is this being taken? I don't think it's taken from the royal doors (they have a hard black back of the altar there?). From the side? If so, that is one large altar and altar area -- the chair is several steps back in the background.
(editor's note: I think if the parish deacon posts it on his Facebook page, claiming it was the Gospel book and the altar, reasonable people can assume the deacon is telling the truth and acept the photo for what it appears to be. There exist at least one more photo of an additional celebrity signing the book as well - it appears to be a Coptic Orthodox cleric.)
#18 Curiouser and curiouser on 2009-04-28 17:33
I especially love how the website spins the failed resolution as being "one result of the Special Meeting" -- attempting to characterize it as a product of the day's discussion, as opposed to having been crafted beforehand. As if anyone will buy that.
#19 Antiochian Parishioner on 2009-04-28 18:23
Does anyone know what happened to B Nikolaia??? is he still in the US? Just wondering- ladi daa daa!
So, after reading the document in question on the archdiocesan Web site (and drinking something to get the taste out of my mouth), it appears that, besides Metr. Philip, we have two real bishops willing to make a stand, one bishop thoroughly disgusted but not willing to cave, one heir presumptive to the metropolitical throne, and two lapdogs. I hope those in the Dioceses of Ottawa, Toledo, and Wichita will support their bishops while those in the Eastern, Southeastern, and Western Regions will chastise their administrators for only looking out for themselves.
Sic semper tyrannis,
#21 Nemo on 2009-04-28 18:50
Just went to the Antiochian website to see the document Metropolitan Philip wanted signed. Considering they put it fron and center on the home page, it looks to me they are setting things up to try and depose Bishops Mark and Basil for disobedience. I would suggest we all pray and do everything we can to support Bishop Mark and Bishop Basil. Considering the recent events of the OCA, the Romanians, the Antiochians, etc. it seems that our beloved Orthodox church is in the midst of a titanic struggle. May God have mercy on us.
It may very well be that an incident such as the one involving Fr. Shalhoub is what triggered this insanity in the first place. As the enthroned diocesan bishop, it would be Bp. Mark's place to discipline Fr. Shalhoub; as merely an auxiliary, Bp. Mark could do nothing while Metr. Philip ignored yet another of his buddies' indiscretions. This whole madness could exist for the sole purpose of allowing Fr. Shalhoub and all the rest of Metr. Philip's cronies to continue to get away with whatever they want without fear of interference. Disgusting.
Given that evidence of Fr. Shalhoub's misdeeds are out in the open, it would be very interesting for Bp. Mark, as the diocesan bishop, to force Metr. Philip's hand by publicly disciplining Fr. Shalhoub. Metr. Philip's options would be limited and his actions would help reveal his true intent in all of this.
Sic semper tyrannis,
#23 Nemo on 2009-04-28 19:06
Oh what a mess MP has made of things. The NASTY HOLY Canons still stand in his way. He has never liked them and now he needs the Holy Synod of Antioch to engage in his dirty little game before the whole world. Will the Holy Synod of Antioch turn its back on Holy Orthodoxy?
I heard some requests are going to the various Metropolitans and the Patriarch asking for the decision to be revoked or declared null and void once all the Metropolitans are gathered for their Spring Meeting (Before Pentecost).
How can only half the Metropolitans amend the By-Laws of an entire Patriarchate. This looks like another Robbers Synod to me!
Perhaps MP will be the one who is "robbed" when the other Metropolitans arrive who were not invited to the first meeting in February.
Men will be boys!
#24 men will be boys on 2009-04-28 19:08
Expert handwriting analysis of the signatures could be enlightening (especially MP and BJ). Interesting that even the signers wrote 'Bishop", not "Auxilliary Bishop".
#25 anon. on 2009-04-28 20:34
If you look at the photo of the Syriac priest (non_chalcedonian) signing the Gospel book you know it is the same Holy Table and book taken from ther Proskemedia table facing the Holy Table.
TRY THESE SITES
This is apparently not an isolated incident:
Priest from India
Priest from India
Perhaps they store their guest book on the altar...
I was not aware that Antioch had a bishop in India...
Lots of commentary on these sites for +MP to read regrding the priest he vehemently defends. These guys are really taking him down.
#26 anonymous on 2009-04-28 21:08
That is not an Indian Priest, that is an Indian bishop who has been received, in an Orthodox Church that he is not in communion with, as an Orthodox bishop would be! Note that the royal doors are open, which he would have walked through to stand in front of the altar to sign the Gospel book. The clergy who allowed this to happen should be deposed!
#27 Anonymous on 2009-04-29 13:50
The Bishop or should we say Archbishop who validates this behavior from a priest should be deposed.
#28 anonymous on 2009-04-29 17:12
The author does not allow comments to this entry