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
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
Try to look beyond your own ignorance and hatred.
]]>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.
]]>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.
]]>Fr Hans, the EP/Phanar axis is fundamentally schizoid. They can’t decide whether they’re a church or a social club.
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.
]]>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.
]]>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.
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:
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.
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:
Unfortunately, however, human history is filled with numerous examples of misuse of these privileges, where the use and preservation of natural resources has been transformed into irrational abuse and, often, complete destruction, leading occasionally to the downfall of great civilizations.
…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.
]]>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.
]]>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.
]]>+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
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”.
]]>