Friday, October 30. 2009
News From Around Orthodox America
Your comments are welcome.
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Deacon Pasonik 's construction company built most of the buildings on the monastery and seminary grounds
I believe it was Ronny Franks Construction Co. who did much of the work while Dn. Michael's company offered the architecture services. Maybe there is a connection there as well though.
I believe it was Ronny Franks Construction Co. who did much of the work while Dn. Michael's company offered the architecture services. Maybe there is a connection there as well though.
#1
Anonymous
on
2009-10-30 11:30
I read, with trepidation, the announcement of the Ecumenical Patriarch, +Bartholomew, posted today on this website. The reason I say "with trepidation" is because the tone of this announcement smacks of the flavor of artificially imposing Canon 28 of Chalcedon on the Orthodox in America! In other words, it sounds like a prelude to a subsequent message from +Bartholomew that might say, "Based on Canon 28 of Chalcedon, the Ecumenical Patriarch is directly over all the churches in the Diaspora! Therefore, the autocephaly of the OCA is invalid!" I pray this is not what will be coming down the pike! It goes against the ecclesiological theology of our Church, down through the centuries!
#2
David Barrett
on
2009-10-30 12:20
Just a thought here, and I'm interested in hearing some thoughtful replies. Would all jurisdictions coming under the Ecumenical Patriarch here in America be the worst thing? I mean, such a thing could almost have taken place at the Ligonier Conference back in 1994 under Archbishop Maximos, and I've heard many people in the Antiochian Archdiocese over the years lament the aftermath of that conference as a "near miss."
Here is my general line of thought: it seems remotely possible that the OCA and Antiochians could come together in the next several decades, given leadership that found it mutually beneficial, but does it really seem to anyone that the Greek Archdiocese would be tempted to join such an organization? I doesn't seem so to me. And although coming under an "old world" Patriarch half a world away doesn't seem extremely inviting, and seems at first to be regressive, wouldn't it be the quickest road to a real unity here?
Ah, but the quickest road is not always the best road, you say. True. But honestly, how overbearing is the Ecumenical Patriarch in the day-to-day operations of the GOA, or the Ukrainians, many of whom who are under his omophorion now? That is, aside from GOA hierarchs having to travel to Istanbul to sit on councils because of their "Metropolitan" status?
Think about it. I'm not necessary lobbying for it, but I'd love to hear some comments.
Here is my general line of thought: it seems remotely possible that the OCA and Antiochians could come together in the next several decades, given leadership that found it mutually beneficial, but does it really seem to anyone that the Greek Archdiocese would be tempted to join such an organization? I doesn't seem so to me. And although coming under an "old world" Patriarch half a world away doesn't seem extremely inviting, and seems at first to be regressive, wouldn't it be the quickest road to a real unity here?
Ah, but the quickest road is not always the best road, you say. True. But honestly, how overbearing is the Ecumenical Patriarch in the day-to-day operations of the GOA, or the Ukrainians, many of whom who are under his omophorion now? That is, aside from GOA hierarchs having to travel to Istanbul to sit on councils because of their "Metropolitan" status?
Think about it. I'm not necessary lobbying for it, but I'd love to hear some comments.
#3
Jackson Downs
on
2009-10-30 14:09
The best thing for Orthodox Church is to revoke the autocephaly of the OCA.
Amen to that!
(Editor's note: Speaking of revoking autocephalies - in the context of the first debates in the early '70's about the autocephaly of the OCA, the Church of Finland officially asked Constantinople for a list of things that "qualified" a local church for autocephalous status. The question was not rhetorical - for Archbishop Paul was openly considering whether or not it was time for the Church of Finland to become autocephalous, rather than autonomous. After much hemming and hawing, the EP actually produced a list, which includes, among other things a functioning seminary and monasteries, the ability to consecrate bishops, a solid base of parishes and other institutions, a desire for autocephaly, etc. (Interestingly "good relations with the government" was included, but that is Europe, right?). As the late Archbishop pointed out, ironically, the Church of Finland fulfilled all these requirements, as did the OCA; Constantinople, however, did not. No functioning seminary or monastery on its "historical centers", fewer and fewer parishes, etc. The EP was not amused. Finland, choose not to seek autocephaly, awaiting another day. But if we are going to use the EP's own standards about autocephaly, and enter into discussions about who gets their revoked, well, it is probably not a good road to go down, friend.)
Amen to that!
(Editor's note: Speaking of revoking autocephalies - in the context of the first debates in the early '70's about the autocephaly of the OCA, the Church of Finland officially asked Constantinople for a list of things that "qualified" a local church for autocephalous status. The question was not rhetorical - for Archbishop Paul was openly considering whether or not it was time for the Church of Finland to become autocephalous, rather than autonomous. After much hemming and hawing, the EP actually produced a list, which includes, among other things a functioning seminary and monasteries, the ability to consecrate bishops, a solid base of parishes and other institutions, a desire for autocephaly, etc. (Interestingly "good relations with the government" was included, but that is Europe, right?). As the late Archbishop pointed out, ironically, the Church of Finland fulfilled all these requirements, as did the OCA; Constantinople, however, did not. No functioning seminary or monastery on its "historical centers", fewer and fewer parishes, etc. The EP was not amused. Finland, choose not to seek autocephaly, awaiting another day. But if we are going to use the EP's own standards about autocephaly, and enter into discussions about who gets their revoked, well, it is probably not a good road to go down, friend.)
#4
Anonymous
on
2009-10-30 14:27
+Bart's message is disturbing at best! Read through the lines and he is doing the same as he has always claimed, "Unity of the Orthodox in North America, but ONLY under himself." He can't proclaim the OCA invalid because it isn't. In fact, his refusal to ignore the autocephaly of the OCA is reason enough NOT TO TRUST HIM. Now, here's what may happen. +Bart may be able to exert pressure on +Jonah to compromise the OCA position. If this should happen, the laos must rise up and remove him. The model for unity in Orthodox America was established in 1970 via the autocephaly of the OCA. Even in the earliest documents of SCOBA, this name was the name they agreed on to unite under. Both +Iakavos & +Philip reneged in joining the OCA leaving us with today's issues and +Bart trying to STEAL AMERICAN ORTHODOXY. This is no more than "Ecclesiastical Colonialism" which isn't canonical nor consistent with the model established by Christ & His Apostles of "local churches" ruled by "local bishops." What +Bart's model is, is Roman Catholic.
WAKE-UP PEOPLE! Look what +Bart is really trying to do!
WAKE-UP PEOPLE! Look what +Bart is really trying to do!
#5
Anonymous
on
2009-10-30 15:16
It is at least worth noting that roughly 2/3 of all Orthodox Christians in America are already united -- under the EP.
#6
A Reader
on
2009-10-30 16:25
Jackson,
I agree that "the quickest road is not always the best road." Especially in this case! I believe that the Anonymous poster of comment #5 is correct in labeling this type of situation "ecclesiastical colonialism!" If, say, +Philip were to either retire or have to step aside due to health issues (remember, he is in his late 70's, after all!), and +Bishop Basil became the Metropolitan of the AOCA, I could reasonably envision the following: 1) +Basil working with +Jonah to merge the AOCA with the OCA; 2) the other smaller jurisdictions then following suit (the Serbians, the Romanians [coming back into the OCA fold], etc.); then, 3) the Greeks, as the last "hold-outs" for unity, would be embarrassed at being the only outsiders, and then, probably reluctantly, acquiesing and joining the rest, to finally bring about jurisdictional and ecclesiastical unity to Orthodox America!!! Anyone else have a spin on this?? I'd be very open to hearing the possibilities.
(editor's note: Unfortunately, David, this is exactly the kind of OCA "triumphalism" that irritates our brethern. There is no evidence Bishop Basil wants to leave the Patriarchate; nor the Serbs, Romanians, etc. In fact, the evidence is just the opposite. Waiting for Greeks to stop "holding out" is probably a waste of time - the Turks have been doing it for 500 years in Istanbul, and yet, there they are. Finally, you assume, falsely, that jurisdictional unity is a matter of grave concern to most Patriarchates, and to most people. The evidence indicates it is not. Better those who want to be the Church in America be it, and let those who want to live in exile from a place they have only visited but have not intention of ever living in, do so as well. Welcoming such diversity is a very American thing to do - and allows one to savor/suffer/ watch the irony of those who most decry American culture taking full advantage of it. In the end there will be unity here. Just don't sweat it, or rush it. Better it is done right, than quickly. )
I agree that "the quickest road is not always the best road." Especially in this case! I believe that the Anonymous poster of comment #5 is correct in labeling this type of situation "ecclesiastical colonialism!" If, say, +Philip were to either retire or have to step aside due to health issues (remember, he is in his late 70's, after all!), and +Bishop Basil became the Metropolitan of the AOCA, I could reasonably envision the following: 1) +Basil working with +Jonah to merge the AOCA with the OCA; 2) the other smaller jurisdictions then following suit (the Serbians, the Romanians [coming back into the OCA fold], etc.); then, 3) the Greeks, as the last "hold-outs" for unity, would be embarrassed at being the only outsiders, and then, probably reluctantly, acquiesing and joining the rest, to finally bring about jurisdictional and ecclesiastical unity to Orthodox America!!! Anyone else have a spin on this?? I'd be very open to hearing the possibilities.
(editor's note: Unfortunately, David, this is exactly the kind of OCA "triumphalism" that irritates our brethern. There is no evidence Bishop Basil wants to leave the Patriarchate; nor the Serbs, Romanians, etc. In fact, the evidence is just the opposite. Waiting for Greeks to stop "holding out" is probably a waste of time - the Turks have been doing it for 500 years in Istanbul, and yet, there they are. Finally, you assume, falsely, that jurisdictional unity is a matter of grave concern to most Patriarchates, and to most people. The evidence indicates it is not. Better those who want to be the Church in America be it, and let those who want to live in exile from a place they have only visited but have not intention of ever living in, do so as well. Welcoming such diversity is a very American thing to do - and allows one to savor/suffer/ watch the irony of those who most decry American culture taking full advantage of it. In the end there will be unity here. Just don't sweat it, or rush it. Better it is done right, than quickly. )
#7
David Barrett
on
2009-10-30 16:50
The GOA is already under the omophorion of EP now. The OCA and the AOCA coming together would be nice, but without the GOA, without much meaning overall. All three need to be joined into one 'Patriarchate' of North America with the EP being first among equals in Constantinople. Then, all of the Metropolitans could be divided up around the nation with lots of bishoprics in other, smaller areas more or less answering to the local Metropolias.
#8
Yanni
on
2009-10-30 16:51
"No functioning seminary or monastery on its "historical centers", fewer and fewer parishes, etc."
Why not the EP move the "Second Rome" to New York or Washington?!?
(Editor's note: That would ignore Moscow, the Third Rome, not to mention the first, Rome, which is still kicking. Alas, the fourth Rome, Washington, is being eclipsed by Beijing, the Fifth. At what point friends, do we just wake up and smell the century and stop worrying about Rome, any Rome, at all, and be the Church? Or are you suggesting that we can not be the Church without a Rome?)
Why not the EP move the "Second Rome" to New York or Washington?!?
(Editor's note: That would ignore Moscow, the Third Rome, not to mention the first, Rome, which is still kicking. Alas, the fourth Rome, Washington, is being eclipsed by Beijing, the Fifth. At what point friends, do we just wake up and smell the century and stop worrying about Rome, any Rome, at all, and be the Church? Or are you suggesting that we can not be the Church without a Rome?)
#9
William Kosar
on
2009-10-30 17:21
Want to understand Chambesy? Go here:
http://frted.wordpress.com/?s=chambesy
This is a blog written by Fr. Ted Bobosh and does an excellent job in analyzing Chambesy. Take a look!
http://frted.wordpress.com/?s=chambesy
This is a blog written by Fr. Ted Bobosh and does an excellent job in analyzing Chambesy. Take a look!
#10
Anonymous
on
2009-10-30 17:38
David: You know the answer to your own concerns or were you sleeping in Erickson's classes?
Jesus Christ sent His Apostles into all the world to establish the Church. Wherever the disciples went, they established "local" churches with their own bishops to run their own churches. This is the "model" set up by Christ. As you know, there are even Canons condemning bishops not of a local territory interfering with churches not under them. What do you think Chambesy is? It is +Bart and the "old country" patriarchs trying to rule over the world - a typical RC idea.
Regarding the OCA being "invalid," this is RC terminology. Is it ONLY +Bart who has authority to grant autocephaly? Is ONLY he the keeper and decider of who is in the Church and who isn't? Does "grace" ONLY flow from +Bart and is he the keeper of the Holy Spirit? Again, this is an RC idea. So, does Orthodoxy throughout the world allow +Bart impose his RC model of the Church upon everyone or do we being "followers of the Truth" follow what Christ and His Apostles taught?
Jesus Christ sent His Apostles into all the world to establish the Church. Wherever the disciples went, they established "local" churches with their own bishops to run their own churches. This is the "model" set up by Christ. As you know, there are even Canons condemning bishops not of a local territory interfering with churches not under them. What do you think Chambesy is? It is +Bart and the "old country" patriarchs trying to rule over the world - a typical RC idea.
Regarding the OCA being "invalid," this is RC terminology. Is it ONLY +Bart who has authority to grant autocephaly? Is ONLY he the keeper and decider of who is in the Church and who isn't? Does "grace" ONLY flow from +Bart and is he the keeper of the Holy Spirit? Again, this is an RC idea. So, does Orthodoxy throughout the world allow +Bart impose his RC model of the Church upon everyone or do we being "followers of the Truth" follow what Christ and His Apostles taught?
#11
Anonymous
on
2009-10-30 20:32
Who are the members of the STIC?
(Editor's note: From OCANEWS.org 6/26/09:
The new Special Committee is being chaired by Bishop Nikon of Boston and includes Fr. Michael Matsko, a member of the Metropolitan Council from the Midwest, Fr. John Steffaro, a priest from Ohio, Fr. Mark Sherman, a former member of the Metropolitan Council from New England, as well as Fr. Steven Vernak, a priest from Harrisburg PA. It includes one layman, Mr. Larry Skvir, from St. Stephen’s Cathedral in Eastern Pennsylvania. Mr. Sergei Givotovsky, a member of the Metropolitan Council Legal Committee, has agreed to serve as legal advisor.)
(Editor's note: From OCANEWS.org 6/26/09:
The new Special Committee is being chaired by Bishop Nikon of Boston and includes Fr. Michael Matsko, a member of the Metropolitan Council from the Midwest, Fr. John Steffaro, a priest from Ohio, Fr. Mark Sherman, a former member of the Metropolitan Council from New England, as well as Fr. Steven Vernak, a priest from Harrisburg PA. It includes one layman, Mr. Larry Skvir, from St. Stephen’s Cathedral in Eastern Pennsylvania. Mr. Sergei Givotovsky, a member of the Metropolitan Council Legal Committee, has agreed to serve as legal advisor.)
#12
Anonymous
on
2009-10-30 22:28
"But honestly, how overbearing is the Ecumenical Patriarch in the day-to-day operations of the GOA, or the Ukrainians, many of whom who are under his omophorion now?"
Except for that whole Spyridon thing. And he only got unloaded because of yet another bitter protest. Go google Voithia and see if any of that -- umm, stuff -- is still around. Believe me, there was a truck load.
Fortunately this won't happen -- Pat. Ignatius has no motivation to do this, MP I don't think has a motivation to do this. MJ doesn't have any obvious reason to do this. And even if Humpty-Dumpty got back together again, then what? Wow, we can all hold hands and sing Kumbaya but then what? Constantinople (or whatever they're calling it) won't grant autocephely to the barbarians in the diaspara. I'm not seeing a big win for this so-called unification just for the sake of unification.
To be honest -- if the US needed to be under an old world patriarch in order to reorganize and become united before becoming truly autocephalous, there is only one patriarch we should be under -- that of Russia. Only because they have proven that they will grant autocephely to a New World Church. Every other patriarchate wants to cling to their New World empire -- so why should they give it to Constantinople for free?
I guess this attitude just shows our cussedness...
Except for that whole Spyridon thing. And he only got unloaded because of yet another bitter protest. Go google Voithia and see if any of that -- umm, stuff -- is still around. Believe me, there was a truck load.
Fortunately this won't happen -- Pat. Ignatius has no motivation to do this, MP I don't think has a motivation to do this. MJ doesn't have any obvious reason to do this. And even if Humpty-Dumpty got back together again, then what? Wow, we can all hold hands and sing Kumbaya but then what? Constantinople (or whatever they're calling it) won't grant autocephely to the barbarians in the diaspara. I'm not seeing a big win for this so-called unification just for the sake of unification.
To be honest -- if the US needed to be under an old world patriarch in order to reorganize and become united before becoming truly autocephalous, there is only one patriarch we should be under -- that of Russia. Only because they have proven that they will grant autocephely to a New World Church. Every other patriarchate wants to cling to their New World empire -- so why should they give it to Constantinople for free?
I guess this attitude just shows our cussedness...
#13
Anonymous
on
2009-10-31 00:30
Dear David,
You would have done better to say that you fear Patriarch Bartholomew would try to impose HIS INTERPRETATION of Canon 28 of the 4th. It is only since the time of Patriarch Meletios, in the 1920's, that the Phanar has tried to sell this rather strained and twisted understanding of Canon 28; so this is just another innovation, to be rejected vigorously. Further, it is unlikely our Holy Synod and/or AAC would submit to such nonsense. And if the Phanar does make the proclamation you fear, so what? It is unlikely Moscow and its friends will acquiesce; so we will not be totally isolated. And we've already been through periods of being called "uncanonical" by the Greeks, who then refused to serve with us. But here we are. And if it pleases God to preserve us, then our house will be of brick; and you-know-who can huff and puff his phanariote lungs out, and we'll still be here.
Fr. Philip
You would have done better to say that you fear Patriarch Bartholomew would try to impose HIS INTERPRETATION of Canon 28 of the 4th. It is only since the time of Patriarch Meletios, in the 1920's, that the Phanar has tried to sell this rather strained and twisted understanding of Canon 28; so this is just another innovation, to be rejected vigorously. Further, it is unlikely our Holy Synod and/or AAC would submit to such nonsense. And if the Phanar does make the proclamation you fear, so what? It is unlikely Moscow and its friends will acquiesce; so we will not be totally isolated. And we've already been through periods of being called "uncanonical" by the Greeks, who then refused to serve with us. But here we are. And if it pleases God to preserve us, then our house will be of brick; and you-know-who can huff and puff his phanariote lungs out, and we'll still be here.
Fr. Philip
#14
Igumen Philip (Speranza)
on
2009-10-31 03:33
Yes, but here is my point, exactly. What does it mean to steal American Orthodoxy? How much authority would he really be trying to exert over the American Church, even if all were to come under him? I say this looking at the Churches here in America that are already under him.
Wouldn't we rather all be united as one American Church, even if it were under an old world patriarch? And wouldn't that be a better road toward eventual autocephaly, because we could have one united voice, across traditions, asking for it? The issue of OCA autocephaly is a political one, and there is a lot of water under that bridge. I don't think the OCA has much of a chance of rallying other jurisdictions under its banner to create a unified Orthodoxy. Certainly not the GOA.
Wouldn't we rather all be united as one American Church, even if it were under an old world patriarch? And wouldn't that be a better road toward eventual autocephaly, because we could have one united voice, across traditions, asking for it? The issue of OCA autocephaly is a political one, and there is a lot of water under that bridge. I don't think the OCA has much of a chance of rallying other jurisdictions under its banner to create a unified Orthodoxy. Certainly not the GOA.
#15
Jackson Downs
on
2009-10-31 04:33
The "quickest road" would become the "best road" if the EP moved to the United States.
#16
Milos Konjevich
on
2009-10-31 10:49
Chill. It's just the same old political rhetoric. Metropolitan Jonah cannot act independent of the synod so don't worry about a council of Florence moment. And, I sincerely doubt the OCA synod would secretly meet to renounce the autocephaly. It would just cause schism and there has been too much of that over the past hundred years.
#17
D. Homiak
on
2009-10-31 16:45
Met. Maximos was at Ligonier in 1994 then titled "Bishop." The leader in that time was Archbishop Iakovos.
#18
Anonymous
on
2009-10-31 20:08
A great day for OCA deacons.
Was deacon Klimitchev--"attempted to be interviewed by telephone" ever contacted, or has he disappeared off the face of the earth?... What of his.... house, swimming pool, motorcycle and religious jewellery business? Not one word.
Now, in the same diocese, a brand new deacon-swindler ordained by a brand new bishop. Will things never change? What will it take, Elijah swooping in on a fiery chariot aiming lightning bolts at St Tikhon's?
Was deacon Klimitchev--"attempted to be interviewed by telephone" ever contacted, or has he disappeared off the face of the earth?... What of his.... house, swimming pool, motorcycle and religious jewellery business? Not one word.
Now, in the same diocese, a brand new deacon-swindler ordained by a brand new bishop. Will things never change? What will it take, Elijah swooping in on a fiery chariot aiming lightning bolts at St Tikhon's?
#19
hierodeacon Amvrosi
on
2009-10-31 21:09
I'm rather new to this entire business of the EP 'reigning' over all other Orthodox churches. I never knew it was the case in all my years as an Orthodox person = 42.
I like to take a business perspective when I look at this plan/idea. From a business perspective, if you think of every Orthodox church in America like a McDonalds, and you merge all of them under a contiguous leadership, you could effectively eliminate the higher levels of management in the organization, and you would probably eliminate the underperforming stores, or rather churches, if you will. You'd also probably require all of them to sort of operate in a similiar fashion, which would stop some of them from collapsing from internal management failures as well and you could require them to speak in a certain language, like Latin, for a fun example. Or even English, which might be okay long term, but might be bad today.
But churches aren't really supposed to be run like a business. They aren't supposed to be designed for profit. Ultimately, they are a group of people and like it or not, their leaders are elected by some body.
There are Christians in the world that take on the abortion fight, rather than trying to convert people to Christianity, and I think its a waste of energy and resources as it is easier to convert people to Christianity and ultimately more fruitful. It may not be the best analogy, but I think the Bishops that are not under the EP don't need to worry about the EP and ought to focus on bringing Christianity to more people, rather than fighting a fight with someone that isn't even considered their government. So from my perspective, the discussion of full unity under the EP is sort of silly because it isn't even as silly as Christians fighting our government on something of substance. As Christians, sharing the message is the biggest message, and that is best done with local control.
The EP will never be recognized by most Orthodox in America. The Metropolitans could foolishly agree to it, but the people wouldn't stand for it because it is a valueless proposition. The EP could be mentioned in Liturgy and most Orthodox would think 'blah, blah, blah, NO'.
Ultimately, from my perspective, the only way the churches would come under the EP is if there were some tangible benefit to doing so and frankly, I only see risks.
However, that being said, it would surely be worthwhile for the OCA to recognize the EP and treat the EP with some type of respect. I'll leave that heavy lifting/thinking to Metropolitan Jonah.
If we think of the EP as a sort of federal government, for another twisted perspective, would the EP offer the OCA some type of security it doesn't have? I doubt it.
Again, I just don't see any value in it, and only see risks.
I like to take a business perspective when I look at this plan/idea. From a business perspective, if you think of every Orthodox church in America like a McDonalds, and you merge all of them under a contiguous leadership, you could effectively eliminate the higher levels of management in the organization, and you would probably eliminate the underperforming stores, or rather churches, if you will. You'd also probably require all of them to sort of operate in a similiar fashion, which would stop some of them from collapsing from internal management failures as well and you could require them to speak in a certain language, like Latin, for a fun example. Or even English, which might be okay long term, but might be bad today.
But churches aren't really supposed to be run like a business. They aren't supposed to be designed for profit. Ultimately, they are a group of people and like it or not, their leaders are elected by some body.
There are Christians in the world that take on the abortion fight, rather than trying to convert people to Christianity, and I think its a waste of energy and resources as it is easier to convert people to Christianity and ultimately more fruitful. It may not be the best analogy, but I think the Bishops that are not under the EP don't need to worry about the EP and ought to focus on bringing Christianity to more people, rather than fighting a fight with someone that isn't even considered their government. So from my perspective, the discussion of full unity under the EP is sort of silly because it isn't even as silly as Christians fighting our government on something of substance. As Christians, sharing the message is the biggest message, and that is best done with local control.
The EP will never be recognized by most Orthodox in America. The Metropolitans could foolishly agree to it, but the people wouldn't stand for it because it is a valueless proposition. The EP could be mentioned in Liturgy and most Orthodox would think 'blah, blah, blah, NO'.
Ultimately, from my perspective, the only way the churches would come under the EP is if there were some tangible benefit to doing so and frankly, I only see risks.
However, that being said, it would surely be worthwhile for the OCA to recognize the EP and treat the EP with some type of respect. I'll leave that heavy lifting/thinking to Metropolitan Jonah.
If we think of the EP as a sort of federal government, for another twisted perspective, would the EP offer the OCA some type of security it doesn't have? I doubt it.
Again, I just don't see any value in it, and only see risks.
#20
Daniel E. Fall
on
2009-10-31 21:29
A new scandal emerged Thursday as the OCA revealed that the IOCC has raised "0 million" dollars since 1992, in a press release posted to OCA.org:
http://www.oca.org/news/1980
(Assumedly this is a typo, but I got a laugh out of it, a welcome relief, as all of this EP stuff is too grim to bear.)
http://www.oca.org/news/1980
(Assumedly this is a typo, but I got a laugh out of it, a welcome relief, as all of this EP stuff is too grim to bear.)
#21
Anonymous
on
2009-11-01 16:52
"It is at least worth noting that roughly 2/3 of all Orthodox Christians in America are already united -- under the EP."
Well, since they must be members of his "diaspora," they should all go back to Istanbul and fortify a church with maybe 500 people!
Well, since they must be members of his "diaspora," they should all go back to Istanbul and fortify a church with maybe 500 people!
#22
Anonymous
on
2009-11-01 20:50
The Patriarch speaks too many flowery, pietistic words. This is the same Patriarch that recently defrocked the godly Arch. Fr. Daniel Byantoro for doing the work of Christ in Indonesia despite Istanbul's attempts at hegemony over the fledgling mission in Indonesia begun by Fr. Daniel.
The longer and more flowery these Patriarchal pronouncements, the more their sincerity should be doubted. The Truth should not be confusing or hard to understand. Deception and duplicity ooze from these words. We should look to another than Istanbul for leadership on true unity. How many times in the OCA scandal have we been encouraged to do things "decently in order" by the wrongdoers? Such exhortations were simply a smokescreen for wrongdoing.
The longer and more flowery these Patriarchal pronouncements, the more their sincerity should be doubted. The Truth should not be confusing or hard to understand. Deception and duplicity ooze from these words. We should look to another than Istanbul for leadership on true unity. How many times in the OCA scandal have we been encouraged to do things "decently in order" by the wrongdoers? Such exhortations were simply a smokescreen for wrongdoing.
#23
Anon.
on
2009-11-01 21:03
"...The Bishop of Eastern Pennsylvania, his Grace, Bishop Tikhon, will no longer function in a hierarchical capacity but as a primary adviser to the Abbot and community and will remain a very important part of the Monastery Brotherhood."
I was curious if anyone knows if this means that Bp Tikhon is a member of the monastic brotherhood of St. Tikhon's in some official way, or whether it means he is more of a 'friend' of the monastic brotherhood. That is, is he a member of the Monastery in the same way that Met. Kallistos Ware is a monk of the Monastery of St. John on Patmos?
Congratulations to St. Tikhon's Monastery becoming, again, a truly stavropegial monastery under an onsite, monastic abbot!
I was curious if anyone knows if this means that Bp Tikhon is a member of the monastic brotherhood of St. Tikhon's in some official way, or whether it means he is more of a 'friend' of the monastic brotherhood. That is, is he a member of the Monastery in the same way that Met. Kallistos Ware is a monk of the Monastery of St. John on Patmos?
Congratulations to St. Tikhon's Monastery becoming, again, a truly stavropegial monastery under an onsite, monastic abbot!
Re: +Bart, Chambesy & SCOBA.
1) SCOBA has become an arm of +BART. +Philip allowed this to happen during +Spyridon.
2) Chambesy is just setting up North America and the world for "Ecclesiastical Colonialism" with a church very much like the RC's. It would be non-canonical and anti-Apostolic in model & form.
3) If the N.American hierarchs really believe +Bart is going to give them "unity" with no strings attached, I have a bridge to sell them.
4) Considering Orthodox Canon Law condemns foreign bishops from interfering in lands not under their direct authority, NO Mother Churches have any authority in North America.
5) If the North American bishops REALLY want unity, they should announce their independence from foreign bishops and join in an indigenous, autocephalous, canonical Orthodox Church in North America. Join in a synod of bishops already in tact where each rules their own. This church is called the OCA!
6) Remember, King George offered the American Colonists freedom, but ONLY under him paying taxes to him and all authority coming from him. Do you REALLY think +Bart is any different?
1) SCOBA has become an arm of +BART. +Philip allowed this to happen during +Spyridon.
2) Chambesy is just setting up North America and the world for "Ecclesiastical Colonialism" with a church very much like the RC's. It would be non-canonical and anti-Apostolic in model & form.
3) If the N.American hierarchs really believe +Bart is going to give them "unity" with no strings attached, I have a bridge to sell them.
4) Considering Orthodox Canon Law condemns foreign bishops from interfering in lands not under their direct authority, NO Mother Churches have any authority in North America.
5) If the North American bishops REALLY want unity, they should announce their independence from foreign bishops and join in an indigenous, autocephalous, canonical Orthodox Church in North America. Join in a synod of bishops already in tact where each rules their own. This church is called the OCA!
6) Remember, King George offered the American Colonists freedom, but ONLY under him paying taxes to him and all authority coming from him. Do you REALLY think +Bart is any different?
#25
Any moose
on
2009-11-02 09:55
This whole thing has nothing to do with such lofty ideals as being Apostolic or following the canons. Those are all pious sounding smoke screens which are meant to cloud the real issues of money, power, and ego. The Patriarchate is barley larger than an average US shopping mall, and without money from America the EP could suddenly find himself powerless and part of the "diaspora".
I've never had a pope, never needed a pope, never wanted a pope, and I don't plan on submitting to one.
I've never had a pope, never needed a pope, never wanted a pope, and I don't plan on submitting to one.
#26
Sophia Weisheit
on
2009-11-03 07:30
ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS:
I have followed the events surrounding the recent visit of His All-holiness, Bartholomew, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch, with great interest; particularly in the manner in which he has conducted himself.
So far, I am afraid that he is a grave disappointment.
Let's take a look at a few of these events, and how the EP behaved:
25 October 2009:
Patriarch Bartholomew is awarded an honorary doctorate by Fordham University. No surpirse: as the EP has been close to the Jesuits since his graduate studies in Rome, where he earned his doctorate at the Pontifical Oriental Institute (Gregorian Univeristy). Most of us are familiar with the stormy history of the Society of Jesus and the Orthodox Church.
26 October 2009:
Ninth Annual Orthodox Prayer Service and Reception for the United Nations Community. This was held at Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Cathedral in NYC. Patriarch Bartholomew was the Celebrant at the Vespers Service. Archbishop Demetrios of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese offered words of welcome and some brief remarks to His All-holiness. Metropolitan Jonah and other hierarchs of Orthodox Churches here in America were also in attendance. At the conclusion of the Vespers, Patriarch Bartholomew and Archbishop Demetrios scurried off to a private dinner with the Greek Ambassodor to the United Nations. No time to hob-nob with these bishops in America at the "reception" that followed the Service.
27 October 2009:
Patriarch Batholomew met with various Orthodox bishops in NYC, during which he read a statement that basically dismantles SCOBA, and replaces it with his model for "orthodox unity" in America. When he has finished, he leaves the room and allows a certain Metropolitan Emmanuel of France to entertain questions and "enter into brief dialogue" with the bishops of America.
So it appears to me that Patriarch Bartholomew, through his actions, is giving us a clear indication in regard to his priorities.
He has time for the Jesuits at Fordham University, and he has time for dinner with the Greek Ambassodor to the UN.
He has NO TIME for the flock he believes should be under his omophorion, here in America.
Rather, he made his appearance at a Pan-Orthodox Divine Service, only to leave thereafter. He gathered hierarchs serving here in America in order to talk down to them with proclamations and pronouncements; only to leave the room at its conclusion, delegating some other bishop to answer any questions.
So ...
Is this REALLY the kind of "pastorship" those of us here in America can expect from Patriarch Bartholomew????
Sounds like a real "dog-and-pony show" to me.
If such is the case, count me out.
May God have mercy on us!
Archpriest Daniel Degyansky
I have followed the events surrounding the recent visit of His All-holiness, Bartholomew, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch, with great interest; particularly in the manner in which he has conducted himself.
So far, I am afraid that he is a grave disappointment.
Let's take a look at a few of these events, and how the EP behaved:
25 October 2009:
Patriarch Bartholomew is awarded an honorary doctorate by Fordham University. No surpirse: as the EP has been close to the Jesuits since his graduate studies in Rome, where he earned his doctorate at the Pontifical Oriental Institute (Gregorian Univeristy). Most of us are familiar with the stormy history of the Society of Jesus and the Orthodox Church.
26 October 2009:
Ninth Annual Orthodox Prayer Service and Reception for the United Nations Community. This was held at Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Cathedral in NYC. Patriarch Bartholomew was the Celebrant at the Vespers Service. Archbishop Demetrios of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese offered words of welcome and some brief remarks to His All-holiness. Metropolitan Jonah and other hierarchs of Orthodox Churches here in America were also in attendance. At the conclusion of the Vespers, Patriarch Bartholomew and Archbishop Demetrios scurried off to a private dinner with the Greek Ambassodor to the United Nations. No time to hob-nob with these bishops in America at the "reception" that followed the Service.
27 October 2009:
Patriarch Batholomew met with various Orthodox bishops in NYC, during which he read a statement that basically dismantles SCOBA, and replaces it with his model for "orthodox unity" in America. When he has finished, he leaves the room and allows a certain Metropolitan Emmanuel of France to entertain questions and "enter into brief dialogue" with the bishops of America.
So it appears to me that Patriarch Bartholomew, through his actions, is giving us a clear indication in regard to his priorities.
He has time for the Jesuits at Fordham University, and he has time for dinner with the Greek Ambassodor to the UN.
He has NO TIME for the flock he believes should be under his omophorion, here in America.
Rather, he made his appearance at a Pan-Orthodox Divine Service, only to leave thereafter. He gathered hierarchs serving here in America in order to talk down to them with proclamations and pronouncements; only to leave the room at its conclusion, delegating some other bishop to answer any questions.
So ...
Is this REALLY the kind of "pastorship" those of us here in America can expect from Patriarch Bartholomew????
Sounds like a real "dog-and-pony show" to me.
If such is the case, count me out.
May God have mercy on us!
Archpriest Daniel Degyansky
#27
V Rev Daniel Degyansky
on
2009-11-03 08:38
Interesting to hear (mostly white) folks complain about colonialism; doesn't feel too good, does it?
#28
Moses
on
2009-11-03 13:03
I think us white folks starting talking about colonialism since 1776. What's your point Moses? More importantly, what is your solution?
#29
Anonymous
on
2009-11-04 07:03
The EP is only interested in his own power which he gets from the West (acknowledgment that he is the Pope of the Eastern Church--RC's position). Why do I say this, because this is the position that the Western Church has told its flock--my relatives--in-laws are Roman Catholic. And as many times as I tried to explain that we Orthodox have bishops that are equal and not one bishop is head of the Church like in the West, they still do not understand or believe it-- I'm an Eastern Orthodox Christian (OCA) and they still call me a Greek Orthodox, as I belong to the Greek Orthodox Church, according to them. Trying to explain that the Orthodox Churches are united in doctrine, tradition, etc and each bishop is equal to another, they still do not get it. The recent news story that was published on this website shows that the American journalist also does not "get it." The Greeks want to be in charge and head over everyone here in the US. They will never recognize the OCA autocephaly. Metropolitan Jonah is not helping the OCA in this cause of unity. Metrtopolitan Jonah should be concerned with bulding the best autocephalous church here in the US and leave it at that. The Ukraininans (priests) when they concelebrate with the Greeks are treated as second class citizens. Why in the world would the OCA give up its autocephaly? Today there is not a good reason to do so. The Greeks, Antiochians, Serbs, etc have to clean up their own acts. The people of Greece do not go to Church, for the most part-- their hierarchy is corrupt and they know it. The Greeks in America are prosperous and their churches reflect more of their Greek American culture than their faith. People across America know them for their wonderful food, and cultural bazaars, but do they know them for their rich religious beliefs, the answer is a resounding no. I would rather belong to a tiny mission parish that is struggling and does good works than to be joined to the Greeks.
(Editor's note: While several hierarchs in Greece have been convicted of crimes, it is not the case that the "hierarchy" of Greece is corrupt, anymore than the fact that several OCA hierarchs were corrupt makes the OCA hierarchy corrupt. And that is most certainly not the case. It is wrong to generalize in such ways, for it leads, for example, you to suggest that the "Greeks" do no good works. That too is not accurate. In America one has choices, and you have made yours. Others may argue that Orthodox in America should not have those choices. But the fact is we do - and let us not use this ability to choose to denigrate our neighbor, but to exhibit our own values. )
(Editor's note: While several hierarchs in Greece have been convicted of crimes, it is not the case that the "hierarchy" of Greece is corrupt, anymore than the fact that several OCA hierarchs were corrupt makes the OCA hierarchy corrupt. And that is most certainly not the case. It is wrong to generalize in such ways, for it leads, for example, you to suggest that the "Greeks" do no good works. That too is not accurate. In America one has choices, and you have made yours. Others may argue that Orthodox in America should not have those choices. But the fact is we do - and let us not use this ability to choose to denigrate our neighbor, but to exhibit our own values. )
#30
anonymous
on
2009-11-04 11:04
That was not colonialism; that was colonists of largely British ancestry (adolescent children) rebelling against thier Daddy...sorry, that Yankee Doodle stuff doesn't resonate with me at all, I wake up and go to sleep under a Settler-State Colony that waves the same flag that those people in 1776 did...we lost our freedom in 1867. I don't have a solution for you, pilgrim, sorry...
#31
Moses
on
2009-11-04 12:57
I see. So now you can define colonialism. But I will take you point. However using your logic, you were not free under the Russians either. So get over it and get on with it. Who cares in the end who one is "under" we are all under the headship of God and it matters not what system of government we are under, we are free in Christ.
(Editor's note: I doubt your argument would go far with the Russian Orthodox Church in the last 80 years: or Czechs, Bulgarians, Poles, etc., or the Ethoipians, or ... The system of government we are under does matter, no matter our freedom in Christ. )
(Editor's note: I doubt your argument would go far with the Russian Orthodox Church in the last 80 years: or Czechs, Bulgarians, Poles, etc., or the Ethoipians, or ... The system of government we are under does matter, no matter our freedom in Christ. )
#32
Anonymous
on
2009-11-05 07:37
The idea of "Green" Patriarch is a smart way to make the rest of the world pay attention to your persona. Here in the US one of the biggest issues is health and healthcare. Our bodies are gift of God, His image. Why doesn't OCA consider making +Johah a "Health" Metropolitan? OCA will double in size in a few years.....
#33
Anonymous
on
2009-11-06 07:27
I am the writer of #16 and this is in response to the editor's comments on my point of view.
#1 I did not state that the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in the US and its parishes had "no good works", I stated that the American populace who attend Greek festivals know more about Greek food and dance than the spiritual life of the parishes. I have attended Greek festivals and enjoy the food and stayed for the knowledgeable laity (many are converts) who give a tour of the church and a brief overview of the theology. The IOCC does a lot of wonderful charity and our family contributes to this worthy cause.
#2 Regarding the corruption of the Greek hierarchy in Greece, this is the opinion of at least two American citizens (who also are Greek citizens). It is their view of their church in Greece and their opinions about the non-attendance of Greeks at litugical services. One person is no longer a Greek Orthodox, but has converted to another denomination in the US. Both people are bitter toward the Greek hierarchy and do not have much good to say about it. Also another American citizen who is a former citizen of a country in the Middle East, his/her opinion is that the Greek hierarchy wants to be in control of the Church (where this person resided the Greek Archdiocese and not the Arab clergy were in control of these churches) and there is bitter resent there as well.
Unity on the North American Continent of the Orthodox Churches with true conciliarity would be wonderful. However, I believe each of the dioceses/jurisdictions have to clean up its own act, and be willing to come to the table and leave its own adgenda aside. A joint hierarchy would have many benefits: large group plan of pension, health benefits for employees, one bishop for each locality (smaller diocese, and canoncial), better use of resources (financial, real estate, personnel, charity/outreach, programs--spiritual, etc.) Personally, I still believe that Metropolitan Jonah would better serve our church by concentrating on things here at home first. Dialogue is important, but real dialogue where one is not treated as a non-important bishop of a non-canonical church. I don't think the OCA should compromise its autocephaly (give it up for the EP, Moscow, Greeks or to any other patriarch.
(editor's note: As to your last line - Amen, brother. Amen.)
#1 I did not state that the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in the US and its parishes had "no good works", I stated that the American populace who attend Greek festivals know more about Greek food and dance than the spiritual life of the parishes. I have attended Greek festivals and enjoy the food and stayed for the knowledgeable laity (many are converts) who give a tour of the church and a brief overview of the theology. The IOCC does a lot of wonderful charity and our family contributes to this worthy cause.
#2 Regarding the corruption of the Greek hierarchy in Greece, this is the opinion of at least two American citizens (who also are Greek citizens). It is their view of their church in Greece and their opinions about the non-attendance of Greeks at litugical services. One person is no longer a Greek Orthodox, but has converted to another denomination in the US. Both people are bitter toward the Greek hierarchy and do not have much good to say about it. Also another American citizen who is a former citizen of a country in the Middle East, his/her opinion is that the Greek hierarchy wants to be in control of the Church (where this person resided the Greek Archdiocese and not the Arab clergy were in control of these churches) and there is bitter resent there as well.
Unity on the North American Continent of the Orthodox Churches with true conciliarity would be wonderful. However, I believe each of the dioceses/jurisdictions have to clean up its own act, and be willing to come to the table and leave its own adgenda aside. A joint hierarchy would have many benefits: large group plan of pension, health benefits for employees, one bishop for each locality (smaller diocese, and canoncial), better use of resources (financial, real estate, personnel, charity/outreach, programs--spiritual, etc.) Personally, I still believe that Metropolitan Jonah would better serve our church by concentrating on things here at home first. Dialogue is important, but real dialogue where one is not treated as a non-important bishop of a non-canonical church. I don't think the OCA should compromise its autocephaly (give it up for the EP, Moscow, Greeks or to any other patriarch.
(editor's note: As to your last line - Amen, brother. Amen.)
#34
anonymous
on
2009-11-06 10:00
Actually, the Tlingit were quite free when the Russians were here, they needed us for many things, and knew it (they were also outnumbered), so they largely left us alone (except in 1802-4, but that was limited to the Sitka area). Your argument is weak, your history flawed; Uber-patriots are always easy marks...
(Editor's note: LOL. Your statement " they largely left us alone ( except for the war)" reminds me of the old Tom Lehrer song: "We beat the Germans in 1914, and they've hardly bothered us since then..."
(Editor's note: LOL. Your statement " they largely left us alone ( except for the war)" reminds me of the old Tom Lehrer song: "We beat the Germans in 1914, and they've hardly bothered us since then..."
#35
Moses
on
2009-11-06 10:30
Mark
I, know, I know...but compared to what happened after 1867, the Russia Era was very different (for the Tlingit, anyway)...the Ethnic Cleansing began full speed when the Americans came.
(Editor's note: Won't argue you with you there. All we can do is what the Church teaches: admit our mistake, repent, and do better in the future.
I, know, I know...but compared to what happened after 1867, the Russia Era was very different (for the Tlingit, anyway)...the Ethnic Cleansing began full speed when the Americans came.
(Editor's note: Won't argue you with you there. All we can do is what the Church teaches: admit our mistake, repent, and do better in the future.
#36
Moses
on
2009-11-06 15:07
The author does not allow comments to this entry
Calendar
|
June '13 | |||||
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |