Friday, August 7. 2009
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
I died when I want to.
wow to you scribes and pharises, mr. who is " I am scared now" why are you trying to play the roll of God judging +Philip and all his followers, heresy in the Church started by Presumption of things is not true, but you believing in it, you miss understood of the part "I die when I want to" Obviously you don't want to understand, now I am scared, also I was there but the last part was not true.
My prayers to all of you, and for you people who are against the MP do what every good Christian will do, PRAY FOR HIM.
Remember Love your enemy.
#1 FG on 2009-08-08 17:14
Well others can now believe Met. P. is IMMORTAL. He should contemplate the Parable of the Rich Man. He will ptobably close his days in Florida where no one dies! Maybe he can write a chapter for the movie Cocoon> What an ego, indeed. Who needs clergy/laity. Only a everlasting Metropolitan!
#2 Anonymous on 2009-08-09 00:30
Yes, we should pray for our "enemies", but that doesn't mean we just forget about corruption and heresy. (those two things IMO always go hand in hand, at least they have in the past throughout history) The Church has so many times in the past obviously failed to love the enemies within, Christian killing Christian, from the Arian controversy to the Reformation and beyond, indeed. But loving one's enemies doesn't mean accepting bad behavior, corruption or heretical teachings. There is a proper balance between loving our enemies, and just ignoring wrong doing. So far, the Orthodox Church is taking the latter stance, ignoring wrong doing out of some misguided "love" for people. Indeed, we are to love as Christ loves, which we as Christians often do not do, in this I agree with you. But we also cannot allow corruption or t ego trips to take control of the Church, otherwise the latter result will be worse than the first. (ie: see the Great schism) Sadly, it's beginning to feel like we've reached a point of no return in the Orthodox Church as a whole, and I mean worldwide, as the idea of blind obedience is completely pervasive within the teaching of the Church at large, and frankly I just don't see such a teaching in the ancient Church or in the New Testament, or the Old Testament for that matter.
Let's love our enemies, for certain, but to tolerate corruption and things of this nature isn't love, it's sticking one's head in the sand. If Jesus had stuck His head in the sand, and ignored corruption the Gospels would be a LOT shorter than they actually are.
#3 Chuck Shingledecker on 2009-08-09 12:38
I am sorry but I did not quite understand what you were trying to say except that Metropolitan Philip did not say "I die when I want to" or as the reflection said, "I'll die when I feel like it." Please tell us what Metropiltan Philip actually said and/or meant to say. Thanks, Carl
#4 Carl on 2009-08-09 18:35
This is the most ignorant article I have ever read about the MP. The Metropolitan was in fact telling off the people who sadly wish ill for him, then humbly said when God is ready for him. If you heard him speak at the Assembly, you all will really understand that all this negative garbage coming from anonymous people is BS. God bless Metropolitan PHILIP and the Archdiocese and may God have mercy on the souls of those that spread trash anonymously.
#5 William on 2009-08-09 21:30
You sound like a broken record. I have another response for you but it's not appropriate for a Church setting. So have some more Kool Aid.
#6 Kevin Klein on 2009-08-10 13:31
Way to go William... anonymous people should all be anathema!
William--Are you saying that +Philip was being sarcastic? That he immediately corrected himself by saying something like "I was kidding, I'll go when God is ready"? Thanks
#8 Carl on 2009-08-10 16:33
How ignorant of us. I'm sure that if we but understood the nuanced theological depths of Met. Philip's words we would have realized he was merely echoing the Prophet Simeon telling God he was ready to roll any time now. It's a little discouraging to think that any time I see the bishop is coming to visit my parish I have to think of a good reason not to be there. There lies the strength of Orthodox disunity. When the embarassing bishop (and that is pretty much every one of them, OCA, you name it) shows up I can go visit another parish and not expose my children or myself to such un-helpful people. It gets me out, and saves face. I can tell the kids all about the theory of bishops in the Church and effectively never have to explain away their actions. The less seen they are the better.
#9 ba'ab on 2009-08-11 11:20
I'm sorry you feel this way.
I do wish bishops sent more local church specific epistles, let alone the indepth knowledge of churches to give these epistles.
I wish bishops that lived in diocesan residences, could survive on 40 thousand or so (dependent on travel) and give the rest back to the diocese.
I wish episcopal visits could be simple so the bishop could actually see how worship is carried out
However. Though hurt by the way my bishop handled the scandal (more his silence), I trust hm fully spiritually, I know that he has a gift to see into people and meet them where they are. I know that he has my priests best interest in heart. I know that he is doing the best he can against a number of extenuating circumstances and culture that forces him into a certain ingrained way of dealing with things.
Perhaps my bishop is an exception?
#10 Reader Michael on 2009-08-11 15:50
for how long are you going to continue printing reflections made by anonymous people that do nothing but criticize the metropolitan with nothing less than drama and sensationalism in their commentaries. i value those reflections made by fr. reardon where he not only signs his name, but offers a sincere critique without nonsense talk.
the current reflection makes me think that you had nothing better to post, so went with the first thing that could attract you some readers. it is quite annoying to say the least.
it really doesnt make any difference what these anonymous dogs have to say, the fact remains that we have our metropolitan of 43 years plus and pray that he stays with us the bare minimum of another 43 years.
rather than these posters to pray and give thanks to God that we have our metropolitan in good health, they are eager like vicious dogs, waiting for him to pass. and the sad thing is, you seem to be one of them, unfortunately.
#11 i hate dogs on 2009-08-11 17:46
I DIE WHEN I WANT TO DIE....If you take it from the original Brooklynese it means, "don't _____with me." HEY, it is Middle Eastern hyperbole...Met. P. is scrappy, he is a fighter, yet his phlosophy is rooted in the Bible.
I personall find him an amusing, yet inspiring personality. You could have a psychological field day analyzing his personality.
I didn't drink any Koolaid, I just feel that he is a true leader who sometimes gets carried away with his accomplishments. So what is wrong with self-promotion for a good cause like the AOC?
#12 George from Brooklyn on 2009-08-11 17:53
This is not about the Antiochians, but about the story regarding financial scandal allegations in the Ethiopian Church. Over a third of my parishioners at SS Cyril & Methodius in Milwaukee are from Ethiopian immigrant families. Most of these are well-educated and professional people. I shared the story with them last Sunday. Our Council President, an Ethiopian who has a doctorate in Economics, commented that we should be skeptical of stories like this coming out of Ethiopia because they may be motivated not so much as desire for the truth as by secular political considerations. The present Ethiopian government, which is linked closely to the USA and acts as an American surrogate in Somalia, is nonetheless a very autocratic and politically repressive regime. This government also represents & favors one ethnic group within Ethiopia. This government brought in the present patriarch (from New York), who also fits the ethnic requirement. Thus the patriarch is linked to the present Ethiopian regime. Those who oppose this regime can do so by undermining the patriarch. This is not to say that the allegations are necessarily false - just that we must be sophistocated enough to know that we can't take all newspaper reports as fact - or as unbiased quests for truth. We Americans should know that, after being lied to and bamboozled into the Iraq War, with the mainstream media cheering it on. My parishioners are not supporters of the current Etiopian regime which has restricted civil rights, free speech, and labor rights; but they are shrewd enough not to buy into media reports until they are corroborated.
This whole thing should once again make us thankful that the OCA is not yoked to any secular government or political ideology (conservative or liberal or whatever) and that we have been able to deal with our own financial scandal without intervention or assistance by any government. And that we had no coopting government to protect corrupt churchmen from open inquiry, as some Orthodox churches might have!
#13 Fr Thomas Mueller on 2009-08-11 19:59
The Metropolitan was making a statement to those that wished ill of him as a joke and quickly said when it's God's time. You can hear the entire thing on AncientFaithRadio.com.
#14 William on 2009-08-12 07:43
Thank you for putting into words what so many of us feel. The far-reaching and long-lasting corruption, sexual misconduct, double standrads, lies and blatant cheating make it difficult for many of us to carry on because continued support of this behavior is sinful. By looking the other way, we are not forgiving, we are irresponsible. I see it as my christian duty not to support this sickness and evil.
I will forgive the offenders if they show remorse, ask for forgiveness, and change their ways. It may not be easy, but life is a continuous struggle. Why should the offenders be exempt?
#15 Anon on 2009-08-12 13:28
this is true Christianship, as you know mr. kevin klein, Orthodoxy is way of life, not trying to say some thing that is not appropriate for a Church setting, we are mature adults and first of all we Supposedly are christians even if we disagree with each other, respect should be part of our lives as Christians. in everything we discuss.
the using of names very immature, and to respond to mr. Chuck. first I like to thank you for the proffecianalism in responding, I never said not to fight for the truth, and I am not defending the MP, because he is able to defend himself way better than I can. there should never be a blind obedience, and there are many ways to fight corruption, but the problem is who to believe? is there really corruption?
during the convention MP answered most of the questions that people asked, but some of the ansewrs were not what the people wanted to hear, and that is the way of life, and that does not mean it is the wrong answer. we point the finger and call names b/c people disagreed with us, like some people are doing now, to fight corruption lets have all the facts and the proofs, then stand up and show it. but don't use the street language, be a good christian, through my works I show my faith.
my prayers for all of you my brothers.
#16 FG on 2009-08-12 14:39
I'm disappointed by all of this too, but let's not get carried away. The Church has seen far worse times than these with her bishops; at one time something like two-thirds of the world's bishops were being carried away by Arianism.
There are a number of good bishops in this country, although some are assuredly corrupt. I know one of the good ones personally, and he has been very involved with my family and I in difficult times and in ways that we did not deserve or merit (we are not old friends of his, and have very little money to contribute to projects and campaigns, etc.).
In the worst of times, throughout the history of God's people, there has always been a remnant preserved who will not bow the knee to money, fame, or power. This remnant has always included leaders, prophets, bishops. To forget this now is to give up what hopes we have, and we must keep our hopes in front of us in these times.
#17 Jackson Downs on 2009-08-12 18:20
Amazing the chutzpa of posters like, "i hate dogs" who rail upon you and this website for allowing anonymous posters to comment upon the situation in the AOC and upon relieving themselves of such concerns opt to be unidentified...Unless of course "i hate dogs" is an actual name?
(editor's note: "Chutzpah" is only partly correct. To assert what he did how he did so means this moisheh kapoyer is truly farblondzhet!)
#18 Kevin Kirwan on 2009-08-13 06:30
I DIE WHEN I WANT TO DIE....If you take it from the original Brooklynese it means, "don't _____with me." HEY, it is Middle Eastern hyperbole...Met. P. is scrappy, he is a fighter, yet his phlosophy is rooted in the Bible.
And this 'don't______with me, attitude is rooted in what teaching of Christ regarding the conduct of those he has called as shepherds?
Defend the actions of Met. Philip to your hearts content but c'mon have some decency and integrity. You certainly cannot use sacred scripture or the teachings of Christ to excuse or defend such arrogance.
To do so merely demonstrates unfamiliarity with your supposed subject matter.
#19 Kevin Kirwan on 2009-08-13 06:47
Dear Carl and I Hate Dogs (and Friends):
Please let me reiterate something I have said periodically here before. We must continue to confront and reject one of the major premises of the way this site characteristically runs which allows the vast majority of posters - and as far as I can tell every single one of the people who say silly, judgmental, irresponsible things about others - to do so without giving their true, full name. That premise is that since it might cost something to take full responsibility for what one says here, we have the right to take anonymous, hasty cost-free pot-shots at those "on the other side."
Of course there really is no "other side," but rather only another limb or organ of the same Body of Christ to which we all hopefully belong. And when we pop off and say hurtful, anonymous things about the others we really wound the whole Body - and of course ourselves.
By the pseudonyms you take it seems pretty clear that most of you have nothing legitimate to fear from being what this site supposedly exists to advocate: accountable. It tends to expose the whole structure of the exchanges here for what they really are from Mark on down to the least of us - behaving with essentially no accountability. As far as I can tell Mark Stokoe (and everyone who pops off pseudonymously) is far less accountable to anyone for what is said or done here than the bishops who get criticized are.
I would like to recommend a new convention here: that we refuse to take seriously or respond to any controversial post that fails to give either the individual's full name or a very convincing reason on the face of the message why the writer should not be accountable in the form of signing his/her true first and last name. It might weed out a lot of junk that we do not need.
I have addressed "Carl" and "I Hate Dogs" directly because I think the kind of broad brush name calling you have indulged in lately is counter-productive. Cari, or someone purporting to be a Carl, recently posted the following astonishingly ignorant and un-Christian sentiments in a sentence on the Charles Ajalat resignation thread: "I am saddened that the supporters of +Philip are such a sorry lot; more thugs than anything else."
The true spirit of Orthodoxy would preface such a remark, if it even could be made by someone actually focused on his own repentance, with "I am saddened that I have been led by my own sinful thoughts to suppose that others are a sorry lot of thugs." But to anonymously judge, label, and reject a whole class of people - many thousands of his own brethren actually - in such a degrading and dismissive way ought to strike us as not only shockingly un-Christian, but also even poisonous. If you bite and devour one another with words, St. Paul writes in Galatians, watch out - you might just gobble each other up!
And "I Hate Dogs," by his very name, as well as some of what he writes, shows that he too is at least partially betraying what he says he seeks to safeguard: Christ's Church. He sees and deplores that others with their anonymous, accusing tongues are wounding the Body of Christ by unfair comments - and then in a truly astonishing display of our humanity - proceeds to do the very same thing right back: anonymously use his tongue to wound them with words like hate and dogs.
We need to require better of ourselves and one another, and if we can't do so - and then deliver on it - then we probably ought to abandon this whole exercise.
(Editor's note: A point of clarification: Mark Stokoe does not use pseudonyms, nor does poster Carl. Like Fr. George we both always sign our name. I know Fr. George did not mean to intend to suggest we did not.
Personally, I have always encouraged everyone who posts to sign their real names. That they don't, is their decision. Like God, I allow them free will to do the right thing, even if they don't. Like God, Fr. George calls them to a higher standard on the basis of their membership in His Church. In that, Fr. George and I do not disagree. )
#20 Fr. George Washburn on 2009-08-13 06:49
I just listened to the recording of Metropolitan Philip's address. You are correct, he did say "To the ones who wish me dead, I'll die when I feel like it...(applause and singing of many years)...seriously, I'll go when God calls." The problem here is the 'in your face" aspect of his sarcasm or joke; I would expect that from a street politician or a union official but not a bishop.
The rest of the address is but one long self-defense punctuated by a litany of "I did this" and "I did that." The tone of the address was in turn defensive and combative. Overall, a sad performance--he sounded like Richard Nixon saying "I am not a crook."
#21 Carl on 2009-08-13 07:22
Dear Father George,
I plead guilty of overstatement. I should have said "some of the supporters of Metropolitan Philip are thugs." I have no excuse but just an explanation: I was very angry at the attempt by "SO MUCH FUN" to threaten and bully Mark; I was angry at Metropolitan Philip himself for his very unfortunate use of the Mark Twain quip about dogs; I was disgusted by the forging of documents; I was not happy with the Metropolitan's address; I was extremely turned off by the presence on the Board of two convicted felons--you get the picture, I was not and am not a happy camper.
Now, in the overall scheme of things, my overstatement pales in comparison with the outrageous conduct by the Metropolitan and SOME of his supporters. I am admitting my mistake and will strive not to over-generalize in the future.
In Christ, Carl (My real name)
#22 Carl on 2009-08-13 07:42
I appreciate the opportunity to dialogue with Mark about this. I only have a moment to reply to one small, but worthwhile point concerning the use of only one's true first name, not the full name. I can agree that in theory it is a step up from merely "anon" and at least two steps up from a nasty moniker, but it still does virtually nothing to identify the writer unless the name is so unique that only one person in the Orthodox Church has it and we all know who.
#23 Fr. George Washburn on 2009-08-13 08:54
I was at the convention as a delegate. First of all, anyone could have entered that meeting and voted. There was no roll call of delegates and no sign in of parishes. In other words, it was a free for all. No doubt there were many people in the room who were friends of the Metropolitan but weren't official delegates of their parish so they could cheer him on. I had a letter from my parish council stating I was an official delegate.
But what truly sickened me was the ridiculous show put on by our Metropolitan and his friends in order to avoid the audit. What a farce! The Metropolitan actually seemed to think that by verbally listing the assets of our church he could satisfy an IRS agents questions. And the laity who wanted the audit were looked upon as traitors because where you stood on having an audit was a litmus test to one's loyalty to our "leader." Sheesh! Any reason why we shouldn't join the GOA and OCA and have a real audit to avoid the liablity of a "free" IRS audit?
I understand the hyperbole of his declaration of dying when he wants to because I am of the Arab tribe. But what I couldn't stomach was his reference of comparing his priests to dogs. In Arab culture, to refer to someone as a dog is the worst thing you can call someone.
Finally, his listing of his own accomplishments in order to work the crowd up into a frenzy was obviously planned. Where is the humility? Sure, he did establish some of our organizations and that did take foresight but without the labor and financial support of the laity, these organizations would have shriveled up and died many years ago.
As my sitoo would have said, "Hadam!"
#24 Delegate #3 on 2009-08-13 09:21
Might I dare to ask - since you purport to possess such a high regard for not wounding the body of Christ - where were your words of wisdom at the convention? Where you present when Sarah Hodges was being wounded by the jeers of those present - including your fellow clergy? If yes, why the silence? Is it perhaps easier for you to chastise those who critique Philip on the net than it is to do so with those who support the man in person, in public, in the presence of Philip?
Questioning the "love,"
#25 Heracleides on 2009-08-13 10:32
Dear All and particularly Father George,
I would like to give you a taste of what the supporters of +Philip say and you judge if these are not the words of bullies and thugs. Thanks, Carl
July 25th, 2009 | Author: admin
At his speech to the general assembly, Metropolitan PHILIP shoots the sick Dogs and saves them from their own misery…
In his speech in front of the general assembly sent a message to all the dogs who barked for months and months against our God-blessed Archdiocese and her angel Metropolitan PHILIP. His speech was the bullet that shot all these dogs and released them from there misery. All the hopes of dividing our one God-protected Archdiocese vanished in front of the loving and honest dialogue between His Eminence and his children.
Everyone heard the speech, learned how silly and stupid the accusations that were fed, published and adapted by the many anonymous posters in the ocanews.org.
Your speech Sayedna made our blood boil in our veins. Your speech showed us how loving, honest, transparent and STRONG leader and father you are. Your speech Sayedna was like a bullet that put the sick dogs to sleep and rest from their miseries, the miseries of envy, hatred and evil hearts.
Sayedna, in your speech you quoted Tomas Aquinas and said that “if you give a dog bread he will bite you” but I say to you Sayedna, there is an Arabic proverb that says: “the dogs bark and the caravan moves on…” Sayedna you are the KING of this Archdiocese…there will always be sick dogs who bark around, but they will not stop us from following your steps in building this God-protected Archdiocese.
God Grant you Many Years….
July 25, 2009 at 10:27 pm
As a matter of fact, dogs have more sense than the people on OCANEWS…..hopefully they got the bullet that was aimed at them!
A Priest Wife says:
July 25, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Sayedna Philip’s speech was wonderful. He put all those evil people in their places! Mark Stokoe and all those other miserable souls on OCA should just give it up. No one is even listening to them anymore. Mark and his clan are like those annoying bugs that have no place or meaning on this earth, but you cant get rid of!! Mark and OCA, its time to shut up and listen to your master, Metropolitan Philip! Hes not going anywhere so get used to it people!!!
Dog's hunter says:
July 25, 2009 at 10:48 pm
my only complain about your post admin that nowadays dogs have some dignity…however all those people who doubted and accused the Metropolitan are closed to bugs than dogs,something like cockroaches…and Metropolitan Philip crushed them with his shoe
George Samaan says:
July 26, 2009 at 7:34 am
A Lebanese priest….you say such things is a shame…were u raped by your father or older brother ? I think you have a problem….I think it is an insult to call you a dog..you are nothing but a stupide jackass…
(Carl: The Lebanese Priest had said "Admin: allah yissa3dak….I’m sure Philip is paying a good salarey. if you are comparing humans —-created in the image and likeness of God—- to dogs, you are not even a Christian.")
(Carl: I know that Mark has never responded in kind. He was also kind enough not to publicize these kinds of comment from the supporters of Metropolitan Philip. Since I am not as good a person as Mark, I do want y'all to be a bit more familiar with the context for my anger. Now you know.)
#26 Carl on 2009-08-13 16:08
In keeping with my suggestion that we no longer dialogue here with people who do not identify themselves with first and last names unless they make a good faith representation as to why, other than sheer preference not to be personally known and accountable for their views, I prefer not to exchange with you unless you make such a good faith representation. I can't see any effective way to question the bona fides of someone who asserts that it is REALLY necessary for the poster to remain anonymous, but I think this will be a better place if we at least require that and refuse to speak with those who are just hiding opinions under a cloak of convenience.
As to the factual question posed, I had reserved a parishioner's condo in Palm Desert for the week, but my father in law died on Monday, the day I was scheduled to drive down there. After notifying the chancery I stayed to be of support to my wife and family. I was conscious of a duty to please my bishops and to participate as best I could in what would obviously be a difficult conference, but those plans seemed to be trumped by the ill-timed family distress. (By the way you can read in yesterday's NT Times online the obituary of my father in law, Prof. Mark Rosenzweig.)
#27 Fr. George Washburn on 2009-08-13 16:43
someone purporting to be a Carl, recently posted the following astonishingly ignorant and un-Christian sentiments in a sentence on the Charles Ajalat resignation thread: "I am saddened that the supporters of +Philip are such a sorry lot; more thugs than anything else."
If you want to denigrate Carl as un-Christian I suppose that is your unique clerical prerogative being righteously exercised. Unfortunately for this our God Protected Archdiocese his expressed sentiments are not based in ignorance or even an unfortunate misunderstanding
There is for lack of a better word thugs then and thugs now, not merely supporting our Metropolitan but acting in his behalf and serving at his pleasure in official capacities in this Archdiocese.
I do not think I need go over the rap sheets of Fawaz El Khoury, Walid Khalife and the recently rehabilitated and soon to be restored Bp. Demetri.
I kind of like Heracleides take on your concerns and with him I am also questioning the love.
#28 Kevin Kirwan on 2009-08-13 19:48
Haddam - actually HARAM! Shame!
I was there it as a shameful meeting. I don't call it a convention - clergy/laity (GOA), and All Amer. Coucil (OCA) are more CIVIL. I've attended both as guest/observer.
No humility only loud cheering from the Met.'s loyalists all beholden to him and deeply enrenchted over many years. Audit? As my neighbor said, "What's to hide?" Sarah your tyhe besr and too bad the spineless could'nt back you up!
Enjoyed the character (rel of new Chancellor) with addressing the head table as, "You Guys !!" Pathetic.
Maybe what IS Needed is a lawsuit and IRS investigation? Hate to see it but maybe the only recourse to that programmed sessions of blindedness!
#29 Anonymous Priest on 2009-08-13 20:27
How disingenuous to refuse to dialogue unless you get someone's first and last name! You actually need that because why? Very reasonable and honest people have very real reasons to wish to remain anonymous. That does not diminish what they have to say, nor their accountability. The truth is the truth, whether spoken by someone who presents their name, address, phone number and anything else you require of their bona fides, or some poor honest Orthodox Christian posting anonymously.
That you wish to keep the discussion at a level befitting members of the Body of Christ is one thing. Setting yourself up as judge to decide who is worthy of dialoging is quite another.
#30 Anonymous on 2009-08-14 06:05
That being the case (your absence from the convention) you now have the good fortune afforded by Mark to further chastise others for their un-Christian behavior. I therefore eagerly await your wise reflection denouncing your fellow clergy and all others present who had the audacity of wounding the body of Christ by publicly humiliating Sarah Hodges with their Christ-like jeers. No doubt it will succinct and to the point.
#31 Heracleides on 2009-08-14 09:28
Things have gotten oddly heated on this discussion thread of late. Maybe folks could quiet down while we see what the Board of Trustees will do at their next meeting.
I really have nothing to add to this thread other than what I wrote in my last post to the Ajalat Resigns thread (number 20 in the threaded view, 25 in the linear view), I will not bother repeating it here.
#32 Subdeacon David [Yetter] on 2009-08-14 10:41
No, nothing will happen at the Oct. Board Meeting! Met P. will simply state (as he carefully planned) that the Conv. did not want an audit.
What a same. Would any of those big wealthy business leaders on the Board do without an audit ?? Every parish should have an annual audit (like the OCA & Greek) made up of two or more (non parish council independent) parishioners ... elected at the Annual meeting for the coming year. No cost just check n' balance! WHAT'S TO HIDE ???
#33 Anonymous Priest (western DIOCESE) on 2009-08-14 17:35
The author does not allow comments to this entry