Moscow: No Episcopal ‘Monopoly’
June 15, 2009 by John Couretas ·
More on the episcopal assemblies announced at the pre-conciliar meeting last week in Switzerland:
“Anti-monopoly” proposals of the Moscow Patriarchate are taken into account in Chambesy
Moscow, June 15, Interfax – The Fourth Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conference in Chambesy (Switzerland) has agreed in its final decision to the need of equal management of the Orthodox Diaspora which was highlighted by the representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate before the meeting.
The Conference decided to create new bishop assemblies within the regions of Diaspora (Orthodox communities living outside of the area of local Orthodox churches) to include all canonical Orthodox bishops governing the communities of such regions.
“The decisions by such bishop assemblies will be made in conformance with the consensus of the Churches represented therein. The powers of Episcopal assemblies neither allow the interference into the eparchial jurisdiction of each bishop, nor limit the rights of his Church,” the official website of the Moscow Patriarchate reports of the decisions of the Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conference.
Before the Conference meetings, the Moscow Patriarchate Diocese of Korsun and Movement for Local Orthodoxy in Western Europe (OLTR) expressed their concern with the work of the Assembly of Orthodox Bishops in France (AEOF) officially headed by the Metropolitan of the Constantinople Church.
According to the Korsun Diocese and OLTR, the work of AEOF “inevitably raises tension and discontent”, as its head is “more concerned with interests of the Church which he represents”. Therefore, his election “by the total assembly of AEOF bishops would provide him more legitimacy.”
Loading ...
It has been said that there are some on the Holy Synod in Damascus have been
receiving money from the gravy train. There may be some wisdom over there but there is also corruption. It is a compromised, poor church living in a land controlled by muslims. No patriarchate or jurisdiction will ever be blameless. And there have been many examples of corruption in other patriarchates so this example is not unheard of. But at least if we have a local autocephalous church, there will be more control by all the members of that church to root out the evil as we have seen happening in the OCA. It is not clear how the AOCA mess will be addressed.
[Translate]
re: post no. 50: ? Is this the one that was anonymous?
Tamara, if the above posting is the one on ocanews.org, then my points regarding autocephaly remain valid. No one –me included–ever said that an autoecaphalous church would be scandal-free. That’s impossible as long as men and women are in the Church. But –and this point is unassailable–only an autocephalous church can identify and root out corruption. It may take years (as it did in the OCA, again kudos to Mark Stokoe), but as long as one has to go hat-in-hand to the Old World, it’ll never be done.
The reason is because the cult of secrecy/lack of transperancy is even more pronounced in the Old World.
One more thing about the above post, its logic is flawed in this respect: it states that by staying with Antioch, which is “rooted,” then this would have a salutary effect on the AOCA. In reality, no such thing happened. +Philip’s directive of Feb 24th is clearly uncanonical. Damascus should have picked this up immediately. (Is it possible that they didn’t know about it?)
[Translate]
Yes, it was. Actually, some of the analysis was good. The personal allegations however, were unsubstantiated. We don’t allow unsubstantiated allegations on AOI.
[Translate]
Respectfully, Father, you don’t allow unsibstantiated allegations unless they are about the EP of Fr. Elpidophoros or EP and GOA hierarchs.
[Translate]
There have been no allegations of malfeasance made against the Ecumenical Patriarch, Fr. Elpidophoros, or any EP or GOA hierarchs on this blog.
Criticisms of their positions and statements have been made, but that is fair game because the statements, once made, become part of the public discussion. That’s what happens when you discuss global warming, human rights, politics, history, and any other issue in the public square.
I take your allegation seriously Tom, because it speaks to the editorial credibility of AOI. Do you have some examples?
[Translate]
Father,
The allegations of malfeasance could have easily been edited out of the article. Is it only unsubstantiated allegations of malfeasance which are unacceptable? I understand why these types of articles would never be published as a feature on this site. I know how things are and can accept that, however as an opinion piece, edited of its allegations of malfeasance, it should have been left.
I would like to edit out the allgations of financial malfeasanceand post the article. Will I be allowed to do so?
[Translate]
In the interests of fairness, criticisms of Metropolitans +Jonah and +Philip have been made on this site as well, however none alleging malfeasance. Therefore, I agree with Fr, this standard should be maintained.
As to Tom’s point however (and if we’re talking about the post on Stokoe’s site), I for one would like to see it posted on this website shorn of the more egregious allegations and ad hominem attacks.
If I may interject my own opinion here, I wish it signed. I don’t like anonymous postings, it makes me doubt their overall credibility. As such, arguing about an anonymous piece’s merits proves to be nothing but a distraction. But that’s my opinion. Perhaps they do serve a purpose.
[Translate]
George,
For once you said something with which I can agree. I believe in signing my name to my thoughts. I do not like anonymous postings or articles either, but sometimes they are still right on target, as i believe the vast majority of this one is.
Tom K
PS: Perhaps the “For once…” is a bit of an exaggeration.
[Translate]
Tom, George, no, AOI policy is not to edit articles already posted elsewhere.
I agree with your opinion on anonymous postings however, something we have not enforced because the comments have not been particularly egregious. This is something we may have to tighten up.
[Translate]
Fr, understood. I’m actually torn between critiquing it and letting it go. I’m not sure that it’s not a deliberate “put-up job” by some provocateur for the express purpose of diverting attention from more important things.
And no Tom, the “vast majority” of this hit piece is quite incredible.
[Translate]
So Tom, are you still saying there are unsubstantiated allegations against any hierarch on this blog?
[Translate]
Goor Morning Father,
Not regarding financial malfeasance, but certainly about other things.
According to George, the criticisms of Met. Philip (and I can presume by his past postings the same would apply to Met. Jonah) and his well known administrative style, are “ad hominim attacks”. While, of course, criticism of the EP and GOA bishops, clergy, lay leadership etc are presumed to be accurate whether or not they are substantiated by facts. BTW George, the characterization of Met. Philip’s tenure is quite on the mark according to many I know in the AOCA and priests who were formerly in the AOCA. Not to mention, the fact that they are common knowledge, though I am quite sure you are well aware of this.
So in answer to your question Father, yes there are many unsubstantiated allegations against individuals in the EP/GOA both named and unnamed. You may call them interpretation of their actions or words, but they are, nonetheless, as unsubstantiated as the criticisms the article points out about Met. Philip. After all, aside from the allegations of financial malfeasance which have swirled around Met. Philip for years, aren’t all the rest of the points merely interpretation of his words and actions?
It is quite clear that the policy is hands off the AOCA (and the for the most part the OCA as well) here. I can understand the reason, but it is certainly not fair and balanced.
Tom K
[Translate]
What are some examples of the unsubstantiated attacks? I don’t think there are any.
[Translate]
Goof morning Father,
I don’t think I used the term unsubstantiated attacks, but perhaps some fit into that category as well.
Many postings on this site are riddled with unsubstantiated allegations and accusations about the EP/GOA. Too numerous to count. As I said in my previous post, “You may call them interpretation of their actions or words, but they are, nonetheless, as unsubstantiated as the criticisms the article points out about Met. Philip.”
[Translate]
Tom, I don’t think there are any unsubstantiated allegations or accusations either about the EP or GOA on this site. None. It goes to the credibility of the site. That’s why I am asking for examples.
[Translate]
Father,
I respectfully disagree and I don’t know how to explain it in any simpler terms than I did in my last post.
Every time you or anyone else makes an accusation/assumption/interpretation of the motives etc of the words or actions of the EP/GOA you are making an unsubstantiated allegation. It is an opinion. It is not fact. The same holds true every time I make a statement in which I interpret a statement or action of Met. Philip or Met. Jonah, or anyone else. Do you really believe otherwise?
What questions the credibility of this site (or at least the blog portion which is inherently subjective) is not that there are unsubstantiated allegations posted here, but rather the claim that there are NOT unsubstantiated allegations/attacks/accusations.
Father, I understand WHY the rule here is hands off the AOCA and especially Met. Philip. I have been around and I know how things work better than most. Furthermore, this is your site and you make the rules. If I choose to come here, I need to live by those rules even if they are biased.
But to state that well known and routinely accepted criticisms of Met. Philip are “unsubstantiated allegations” while the same types of statements about the EP/GOA are not categorized the same way is disingenuous at best.
[Translate]
The problem is not the men themselves, allegations or not, it is the ecclesiology they seem to support, i.e, the bishop is the Church, I am the bishop, do what I say or else. Met. Philip is and always has been that way. As a friend of mine, a life-long Antiochian remarked to me, “I don’t think Met. Philip is genetically able to change.”
It is the idea of the monarchial episcopate that is the problem. We need to find a way that we can maintain hierarchy without tryanny and abuse. The Holy Synod of Antioch made it clear that bishops should be accountable to synods. I pray that the Holy Spirit will also empower the laity to a more active and on-going involvement.
We need to identify and stop the Dhimmi practices and attitudes in order to move on. We need to become more pastorally concerned in ways that engage the problems of people in our society by bringing the healing power of the Church to people. That will take a lot of flexibility and understanding. We need to take the Pauline approach that proclaimed the absolute standards and prinicpals of God, BUT directed us to go boldly before the throne of grace when we are unable to adhere to those principals.
Right now, I’m not sure any of our bishops in any jurisdiction are thinking that way. It seems to me, Met. Jonah perhaps as an exception, that the high profile bishops simply want to be left alone to rule. They may not be as open about it as Met. Philip, but the attitude is still there. Of course, in some of this I am surely seeing my own arrogance, but nevertheless, we must find a more healthy, productive and Spirit-filled method of ordering the Church than, “My way or the highway”. We have to find the way to an understanding when we can trust and value our bishops supporting them in their humanly impossible task rather than being at odds with them so often.
[Translate]
Tom:
You keep saying this, I ask for examples, and you offer none.
You offer none because there aren’t any. Attacks like the kind made against Met. Philip in the post I took down are not tolerated against any person, not just hierarchs.
Again, your assertion goes against the credibility of the site. If unsubstantiated allegations of malfeasance have been made against anyone on this site, point them out to me so they can be removed. If you can’t find any, let this dispute drop.
[Translate]
It is the idea of the monarchial episcopate that is the problem.
Careful, St. Ignatius supported the monarchical episcopate, and this is an essential, central aspect to traditional Christian ecclesiology.
The problem is whether we interpret ‘monarchical’ through the lens of worldly monarchs a la Louis XIV, autocratic Tsars, Byzantine despots and Turkish sultans, or through the lens of the Kingdom of Heaven and its monarch.
The key is remembering the ‘the first shall be last and the last shall be first’ is a more important canon than those spelling out the powers, rights and prerogatives of the bishops. These latter must be understood in light of the former. The other key is the title ascribed to St. Gregory the Great, ‘servant of the servants of God’.
The same is true of marriage and the headship of the husband. A husband is to be the head of his family in the same way that Christ is head of the Church – he is to lay down his life for her, he is to be meek, longsuffering, willing to suffer unjustly, etc. However, such sentiments are usually understood through worldly ideas of ‘headship’ and ‘authority’ – ideas foreign to the Kingdom not of this world.
I would kindly suggest that the monasticism of the bishops should not be gamely sidestepped. It became the universal tradition of the Church because holiness is more important, and more influential than is managerial skill and power. As Dostoevsky pointed out in ‘The Grand Inquisitor’, we like to think we need to fix Jesus’ mistaken ideas – this is lack of faith, nothing less. We are suffering from our episcopal leaders because we all have allowed the Church to become the plaything of worldly interests – Emperors, Tsars, commissars, sultans, parties, merchants, ethnarchs, ethnic, national and political movements – thinking them more important than holiness, humility and the fruits of the Spirit tried in a monastery.
I think it no mistake that a monastic like Jonah has brought a breath of fresh air to the stale episcopate in America.
[Translate]
Orrologion, although I have no beef against a married episcopate, I see the wisdom of what you’re saying. I have often said that we need more monks so we can have more bishops. I think we could have more bishops throughout North America if we had monasteries which could sustain them. That is to say, provide them with shelter, etc. As monks take vows of poverty, there is no reason that this could not happen.
Such bishops would be immune from the blandishments of worldly laymen. (I’ve often wondered how much bishops in the US presently get paid. I’ve heard in some jurisdictions it’s in the six figures. If true, this is unconscionable.)
How then would such a monk/bishop be an archpastor? It’s not difficult. I’ve never been one to state that monasteries must be necessarily secluded from cities. The Studion in C’pole wasn’t. Nor have I bought into the fallacy that people could not go visit their bishop while he’s in the monastery. I’ve seen way too many people of all ages –and both sexes–travel to monasteries for spiritual comfort.
[Translate]
Father,
Please. First of all you have pulled a George by changing the subject back to malfeasance when you already know I have agreed that I have seen no allegations of malfeasance. It is the abundance of other unsubstantiated allegations/accusations/criticisms about which I was speaking. But, resectfully, I believe you know this.
Unless you are saying that every criticism/interpretation of motive/accusation you or George or anyone else makes of the EP/GOA is 100% substantiated by objective facts.
As I stated, you make the rules. And I understand, as the old saying goes, one does not perform a certain bodily function where one eats.
[Translate]
Tom, since you insist on engaging in ad hominem attacks against me, I will no longer respond personally to any of your posts. Instead, I will address any arguments you make that are deemed reasonable and/or arguable to the general audience. In the interests of my own salvation, I will refrain from making disparaging remarks about certain hierarchs, even if they continue to make fools of themselves.
p.s. As to why I’ve refrained from going after +Philip, the reasons are as follows: (1) I am quite ignorant of the inner workings of the AOCA (although becoming less so by the day) and (2) because I have a soft spot in my heart for him for this reason and this reason only: when the OCA and the Phanar (notice I criticized the OCA as well as the GOA/Phanar) slammed the door in the face of the Evangelicals, he took them into the Church. I can’t help but believe that on the Day of Judgment, this one act may override his recent buffooneries. In the meantime, I hope you enjoy the upcoming riverboat extravaganza that the Knights of St Andrew are planning for a certain ecclesiarch. Please give my regards to the beautiful people who will attend.
[Translate]
George,
“I am quite ignorant of the inner workings of the AOCA (although becoming less so by the day)”
Well I got news for ya Geo. You are, aparently, quite ignorant of the inner workings of the EP/GOA as well.
Among other things, this is evidenced by the fact that the riverboat extravaganca you have your undies all in a knot about is not planned by the Order of St. Andrew, but is rather another in a series of ecological symposia sponsored by the EP over the past decade or so, always held on water(Black Sea, Arctic, Mediterranean etc.) Whether or not the “beautiful people” will be there or not, I will not know as I am not going to be ther as I am not an academic nor do I go much for the ecology stuff (other than taking care of God’s creation).
I find the following humorous, though not surprising:
“In the interests of my own salvation, I will refrain from making disparaging remarks about certain hierarchs, even if they continue to make fools of themselves.”
“I can’t help but believe that on the Day of Judgment, this one act may override his recent buffooneries.”
You just can’t help yourself.
[Translate]
to all, it appears that I was mistaken about the upcoming extravaganza and its sponsors. I thank a certain correspondent for correcting me. I can’t help but wonder though from which body the funds will flow from to finance said event. Perhaps it will flow as manna from heaven, or more likely, some NGOs that are committed to questionable science and/or Gaia worship. (I wonder if Oscar Hammerstein’s libretto of “Ole Man River” can be put to a capella chant?)
[Translate]
Note 71. Tom, I missed that you said there were no allegations of malfeasance. My apologies.
[Translate]
To all,
Will someone please tell a certain someone that another certain someone does not know where the money is coming from but the first certain someone can look at GOA financials which are more readily available than financials from the OCA or AOCA and see if it is coming from there.
Does anyone know where the money came from for the recent trip of Met. Jonah to Russia? Perhaps the information is in their financial statements, though they do not seem to be published anywhere. Perhaps it came as manna from heaven as well.
Maybe certain individuals should find out what is on the agenda before they make statements about what is “likely” or not. That way they would not be making an “unsubstantiated accusation” which, of course do not exist on this site.
What’s next, putting tape down the middle of this site and saying, “You stay on your side and I’ll stay on my side”.
[Translate]
I know this isn’t about the EP or thge GOA but I thought it interesting in any case. I am surprised it isn’t posted her. I suggested that it be posted but my suggestion was ignored. Perhaps it contains too many “unsubstantiated accusations”. We know those are not allowed here, unless they are about the EP or the GOA. We wouldn’t want to call the integrity of this site into question. It is taken from OCAnews.com
+PHILIP REFUSES TO ACKNOWLEDGE OFFICIAL SYNODAL DECISION
Rather than calm the turbulent waters, the publication from Damascus on the patriarchal website of the official June 17th decision of the Synod of Antioch, in both Arabic and English, concerning the status of dioceses and bishops, has led to even more profound trouble in the shaken American Archdiocese. The Synod’s official re-affirmation of the diocesan status of the Antiochian Bishops in America has led the Antiochian Archbishop in America to just one step away from open rebellion.
The Current Posting on http://www.Antiochian.org
Late this afternoon there appeared the following statement posted on the official Archdiocesan website, http://www.Antiochian.org:
“Important Statement Concerning the Resolutions of the Holy Synod of Antioch
It has been the tradition of the Holy Synod of Antioch that all official resolutions that have been duly adopted at a meeting of the Holy Synod are published with the signatures of the Patriarch, as well as all of the Metropolitans who were present at the meeting. In this way, the will of the Holy Synod is expressed in a most powerful way by the presence of all of the signatures of the attending hierarchs. The most recent example of this was the communication of the decision of February 24th, 2009, which was distributed with all of the signatures of the hierarchs who were in attendance (the Arabic version may be viewed here by way of example.
The Holy Synod of Antioch met from June 16 through 18, 2009, to consider the status of bishops across the See of Antioch and other matters. However, the Archdiocese has not received any document that contains the signatures of all of the hierarchs who were in attendance at that meeting. When we do receive such a document, we will publish it as the official decision of the Holy Synod of Antioch.”
The Metropolitan has not actually refused to obey the decision – he just refuses to acknowledge the decision as authentic, that is, until his conditions for doing so are met.
Does the Metropolitan Have A Point?
It is difficult to see how Metropolitan Philip can credibly defend this position. He refuses to publish the document released by the Patriarchate bearing only the Patriarchal signature, but was more than willing to publish three documents of unknown provenance, all of which bore only the Patriarchal signature, yesterday? (In fact, all three, of the documents, two of which the Patriarch himself has ordered “not to be considered” are still available on the Archdiocesan website under the heading “Synodal Resolutions”. Absurdly, one of them is the very document +Philip now refuses to acknowledge or publish today. )
In short, +Philip recognized the decision yesterday, but not today, after the Patriarch himself publicly affirmed it.
It might be suggested the Metropolitan is now acting out of an abundance of caution, having been “duped” by a spurious decision and its translation. But if he feels he was “duped”, why then, 18 hours after being rejected by Antioch, do both falsifications still appear on the Archdiocesan website? According to sources close to Englewood, +Philip received an official hardcopy of the decision, in Arabic, on Patriarchal letterhead, signed and sealed by the Patriarch by international courier from Damascus, early this week. The decision not to acknowledge the decision, therefore, is not because he is awaiting an original copy from Damascus out of caution. He has had one for days. One can only infer that he knew, and knows, the decision posted today on the Patriarchal website is authentic – he just refuses, for his own reasons, to acknowledge it as such.
Delay, Delay, Delay
The Metropolitan, having suffered a public defeat in his attempt to reduce his fellow Bishops in America to Auxiliaries by the unexpected and singular publication of the decision on the Patriarchal website (which has lain dormant for years), appears to be playing for time.
But time is running against him. Cries for a real Local Synod, for full audits of Archdiocesan accounts and open elections for the Board of Trustees are growing louder on the internet as the July convention in Palm Desert approaches. With this afternoon’s posting +Philip has sought to buy time – claiming a standard so as to ignore this Synod decision that would give his fellow bishops a greater presence and voice in their own diocesan, and Archdiocesan affairs. +Philip is arguing that the decisions of the Synod, as opposed to the Minutes of Synod, must now be signed by all Bishops in attendance to be recognized as an “official decision of the Holy Synod of Antioch” – a standard he was willing to ignore just yesterday when the documents he published favored him.
What +Philip expects to gain from this delaying tactic, however, is unclear. Time for what? Lacking signatures, does he hope to force another Synod meeting where he can attempt once again to reverse the current unfavorable outcome? It is difficult to imagine the Patriarchate will hold another Synod meeting soon. For if it does, the Archdiocese would have to question whether any decisions of Damascus have genuine pastoral authority – or just represent Middle Eastern court politics.
Or is +Philip just seeking to buy time to maintain all authority until the Convention, so as to preclude questioning of his actions during his tenure as Archbishop? If that seemed unlikely before, it seems even less likely now given this most recent controversial posting.
Or is this just the case of a man accustomed to power, struggling to maintain it, at any cost?
Whatever Metropolitan Philip’s current goal, the hope of a resolution to the crisis that dawned this morning is gone in Antiochian America tonight. The Patriarch has spoken; the Synod has spoken; the Bishops have spoken, and now the Archbishop has spoken. In the cacophony of voices, it is now, perhaps, time for the clergy and laity of the Self-Ruled Archdiocese to speak – not as to who shall lead them, but whom they intend t- to follow.
– Mark Stokoe
[Translate]
Tom, I too read this by Stokoe. It does not cover Holy Orthodoxy in glory. I understand your point regarding how it seems a majority of us bash the Phanar/GOA. It isn’t fair.
I cannot defend Philip’s recent actions. Why then is there more goodwill (albeit residual and dwindling fast) to Philip than to the GOA? Because of one reason and one reason only: Philip for all his faults wanted a united American Church. Since 1996, the GOA/Phanar (i.e. post-Iakovos) has done everything in its power to derail unity (and I don’t view subjugation as “unity”.)
It’s not fair. Let us pray. Lord have mercy. We all need to repent.
[Translate]
George,
Let’s look at this objectively. Does Met. Philip really want unity? Have his ACTIONS shown any real move towards that unity? I know that he has SPOKEN some about unity but his actions have been almost non-existent. I call it grandstanding.
Met. Jonah, in his speech posted here a few days ago, suggested that the OCA and the AOCA could perhaps merge and then (implied) slowly other jurisdictions may decide to join in.
THAT is a concrete suggestion and I applaud it. However, I guarantee that nothing will come of it as long as Met. Philip is alive. This is what very few in the AOCA are willing to say. It is quite clear that Met. Philip is no more willing to break his ties with Antioch than the GOA is willing to break ties with Constantinople. Antioch is no more willing to lose its Archdiocese in the US than is Constantinople.
The reason that people here and on similar sights blame the GOA for this lack of unity is for one and only one reason. The GOA is the only entity big enough and organized enough to pull it off. Period. The same reason many places in the world hate the US. We are the biggest kid on the block and the others don’t always like the way we lead.
What you do not understand is that large portions of the faithful, perhaps a majority, in both the GOA and the AOCA are not ready to make a break with the Mother Churches. Some of us in the GOA do not ever wish to see a break from Constantinople. The GOA and AOCA leadership both know this fact. Met. Philip, though, chooses to take the easy way out and talk the talk because he does not have to walk the walk.
As I have stated before, I think the best solution would be for the EP to set up a center in the Fourth Rome (Washington), divide its time between Constantinople and Washington, and start organizing the Church in the US. I know many of you shudder at that thought, but only because of the years of EP/GOA bashing that you have heard and the misinterpretation that you all choose to apply to their actions.
As I read a few of the foolish posts attacking the EP for the Mississippi River Symposium, I was struck by the level of ignorance and hatred spewn by many. They go on without knowing the facts. All because environmentalism is a liberal cause (in their eyes). I wonder if they realize how stupid they sound.
The OCA is barely recovered from a decade long (perhaps longer) scandal involving the theft of millions of dollars, misbehavior of numerous hierarchs, the remaining hierarchs basically trying to shut down the one hierarch who had the courage to speak honestly throughout the whole mess, the list could go on. And many in the OCA know that the whole mess is not cleaned up yet.
The AOCA is in the midst of its own crisis in leadership, they have had to deal with their own misbehaving hierarchs, many of their parishes are far more ethnic that GOA parishes, their finances are essentially secret, they have had to deal with a whole host of problems resulting from the rush to ordain evangelical clergy who in some cases, were not ready, and this list could go on.
Yet people on this site from those two jurisdictions, instead of looking inward at the problems in their own jurisdictions, would rather pick pick pick at the EP and now jump all over this environmental thing because it does not agree with their political ideology. I find that pathetic and childish.
You know, the more I think of it, the status quo is looking better and better. I think the EP should focus on strengthening the groups under its Omophorion in the US and let the rest do as they please.
The next step would be to have the GOA parishes be more open to outreach and evangelism and let the chips fall where they may. The GOA parishes, which do not do this, will probably be gone in the next 50 years, those that do, will be stronger and will continue to spread the Gospel.
In the meantime, all those who are so hate filled and hypercritical of the EP and the GOA can do their own thing. I think that Dean Calvert is fond of using a phrase that fits here. They can go pound sand.
[Translate]
Tom, you realize of course that this stand contradicts the Orthodoxy-Hellenism apologetic coming out of Constantinople and New York. You are implicitly arguing against the position that the EP should have jurisdiction over all the Orthodox in the “diaspora.”
Upstream however you wrote:
Which is it?
Regarding the Mississippi trip, it would be irresponsible not to think critically about the statements coming from Constantinople and New York concerning the environment given that they implicitly assert economic and social activism (here scroll to note #8; and here scroll to note #4). Presumably the ideas informing them will be fleshed out in due course. When they are, those ideas will be examined.
If the thinking is shoddy, like this claim:
…it will be pointed out. (I am still waiting for at least one example of a civilization that has befallen this fate.) This kind of statement by the way, is an example of a moralistic imperative (note the dash of apocalyptic fervor) that is used to lend moral gravity to ideas that remain unexamined.
Solid thinking will be pointed out too.
No one however, gets a pass when moralistic imperatives substitute for the clear explication of ideas. Finger-wagging doesn’t get very far here.
[Translate]
Fr Hans, the EP/Phanar axis is fundamentally schizoid. They can’t decide whether they’re a church or a social club. Therefore they try to split the difference between the Gospel and social activism (which of course fails each and every time its tried). Caesar will always win out over Christ in such a scheme because Caesar is of the world.
If anybody honestly thinks that the present trajectory of the GOA is conducive to growth, have at it. If they want a division in American Orthodoxy, fine. Even Lambrianides saw that the status quo is untenable, that’s why he correctly stated that the present system is uncanonical. His way out of it though was unpalatable (subjugation to Istanbul’s premier eparchy).
The majority of Orthodox in America however are not going to subjugate themselves to such an ecclesial body. However, if any wish to follow the present socialist/secularist path of the Phanar, they are more than welcome to do so. They shouldn’t delude themselves into thinking that the Phanar is going to provide the way out by setting the EP up here in Washington.
I make a prediction: in this economic climate, the vast majority of Americans who are even aware of the upcoming riverboat extravaganza, are not going to look kindly upon it. Why? Who is this foreigner coming to our land telling us how to run our river? And why are there no Christian stalwarts with him, just NGO types? Who’s paying for this? Soros? And by the way, what’s so bad about the Mississippi? Has anybody ever seen the Amazon, the Nile, or the Ganges? The word “hell-hole” comes to mind.
[Translate]
George:
Let me expand this using the proper categories. The EP/Phanar cannot decide whether it is ekklesia or synagogue. The Orthodoxy-Hellenism apologetic raises ethnic/race self-identity to prominence by substituting the universality of the Gospel with the universality of Hellenic ideals. In this case the assembly becomes synagogue which also renders the term “diaspora” sensible.
If the assembly is defined by the universality of the Gospel however, it becomes ekklesia, or the assembly called out of the world by the Gospel. In this case, the term “diaspora” has no meaning since there is “…no Jew, no Greek…”
You raise a very interesting point as well. The self-understanding will determine the focus of the Mississippi River trip. It will either be a public relations gambit, or (at least it should be) a pastoral visit. It cannot be both without major contradictions emerging.
[Translate]
As someone with only a shallow awareness of the history and dynamics at work, it appears that the Phanar is leveraging and solidifying the constituencies that form it’s political “base.” While there is nothing wrong with an organization doing that – especially given their dire circumstances – it does appear to be distracting the focus from the gospel. The first concern ANY spiritual leader should have is the formation of the flock under his charge (especially for us barbarians who would – as stated in Boston – need it all the more).
Environmental policies do, as George notes, seem to be driven more by political than scientific considerations. Setting aside the particulars of the debate, however, what value is there if we clean up the whole world but lose our soul?
My concern is what this says about priorities and focus.
Regarding priorities: ceding the imperative priority of salvation and theosis to a political agenda – however popular – is trading the pearl of great price for a mess of pottage. If the published agenda really does represent what he believes is the most important message to convey, this is not promising.
Regarding focus: temptation comes in many forms – persecution as well as plenty can turn us to focus on God or turn us to focus on our own plight. Whether in comfort or distress, if we become focused on our own lives rather than the Gospel, we lose our Life. Likewise, if we are willing to lose this life then surely we will gain our Life and everything else besides. Even the world recognizes that the power of spiritual integrity and conviction transcends even the greatest political advantages.
[Translate]
Fr. Hans,
Perhaps you are correct, however, if the bitter, angry, pseudo intellectual arguments and attacks put forth on this site are an indication of the attitudes found in large numbers in the OCA and AOCA then I think we would be better off avoiding them. We have enough issues to deal with without adding to them.
“Tell the “tree hugging” hierarch and the NCC heretics to keep out of the South. And stop pandering to the “Left.” I’ve had it with their “agenda.” Is this the kind of stupidity with which you want to be associated? I have no use for the left or for the NCC either, but don’t you think this comment is a little…out there?
As far as the “which is it” comment, I think the words “You know, the more I think of it…” answer that question.
“Tell the “tree hugging” hierarch and the NCC heretics to keep out of the South. And stop pandering to the “Left.” I’ve had it with their “agenda.” A
The only finger waving that gets very far here is the finger waving directed at the EP/GOA, for obvious reasons. The same reasons that it is hands off the AOCA on this site. Your whole argument about the integrity of the site is just a bunch of BS. It is really too bad.
[Translate]
If people on this site were not so ignorant and willing to make accusations about things which they have no clue, they would know that the EP has had these types of ecological symposia in many other areas (Mediteranean, Black sea, Arctic, Amazon etc.) before. Even if he is some damn ferinner.
Try to look beyond your own ignorance and hatred.
[Translate]
Hi Tom,
Re: “If people on this site were not so ignorant and willing to make accusations about things which they have no clue”
When I read the above, I thought, “Boy, that’s extreme even for Tom.”
Chill my brother…the folks on this site are among the brightest anywhere, you and I excluded…LOL I think they let us in for entertainment…
I sincerely hope business is picking up for you.
Best Regards,
dean
[Translate]
Hi Dean,
Keep in mind that ignorance is not neccesarily indicate a lack of intelligence. One can be bright and still ignorant on any give topic. Yes many of the people on this site are indeed quite bright. That is not in conflict with the fact that they are also ignorantabout many of the things on which they comment, or perhaps they do not care about the truth but are willing to say anything to advance their agenda.
Their is not right and they are not good for the Church. You may think my comments are extreme “even for Tom”
but I do mean them.
And thank you for your thoughts about business, with some change in direction, things seem to be getting slightly better. Though the problems we are heading for as a result of Obama’s policies and ideology will make this bump short lived and perhaps the last one for a LONG time.
Best Regards,
Tom K
[Translate]
This is true about obams’s speech. He foregotten that Islam conquered parts of the Perisan Empire and the Byzantine Empire that gave it an advantage over Westen Europe. Egypt which had been the breadbasket of the Byzantine Empire fell to Islam in the 7th century and also Syria, wealthly province of the Empire. We know that the Byzantines past on the Roman Law Code system to Western Europe by Justinian’s update of a 1,300 years of Roman laws. In fact, it was in the late 1000′s in a law school in Italy that received a first copy of it, and it influence law in Western Europe and Latin America in particular even today. Valens Aqueduct, Hagia Sophia and so forth were built by the Byzantines. In fact, John Philponius influence by Islamic philosophers in the Middle ages and Conservative Protestants on an agrument on the existence of God.
[Translate]