Not his existence Olivia, his crimes. Arguing that the convictions were unjust and part of a greater service to God is a particularly heinous lie because it draws in the vulnerable, the people most often victimized by sexual abusers.
]]>If your read his very confusing website you’ll find statements saying that sexual misconduct on the part of the clergy will not be tolerated yet the statements go on to comment about false accusations and and the Seal of the Confessional. Is he, in a round about way, saying that the accusations against him and the subsequent convictions are false and that to properly defend himself it would have been necessary to reveal things told to him by a penitent during confession and that he is a “fool for Christ” (a term he often uses to describe himself)? Perhaps in his strange world of “ecclesio-psychos” this sort of logic justifies his existence.
]]>Thank you Olivia.
]]>Pete brings up a good point, Rhonda. With the jurisdictional divisions in America, men can claim to be legitimate clergy without much threat of being discovered. The Assembly of Bishops will be able to provide the means to separate the wheat from the chaff. (Frankly, if it wasn’t for POKROV, many of us would not know who they were.)
Repentance can be real of course. But men with these problems should not serve in any ordained capacity or have any responsibility. How to handle this? An association with a healthy monastery rather than a parish would probably be best.
]]>That’s a loaded question. Firstly, it seems he was never a part of any canonical Orthodox jurisdiction to begin with, so we have no need to or control over defrocking him. The Assembly of Bishops does have one purpose, however, in letting America know who the “real Orthodox” are in this country–the real bishops, parishes, priests, &c. For someone outside the Church who is trying to act as an Orthodox bishop, such would be sufficient in most cases. So there isn’t exactly a formal public statement against someone like Met. Arch. Joeseph Thaddeus per se.
Does the Church allow people to excommunicate themselves? Sure, those in communion can personally decide to not go to receive the Eucharist on their own (whether or not this is a good idea is a different story). If you mean, can someone kick themselves out of the Church? I’m sure they would use different words to describe their personal choice to exit, but yes, that happens.
As for repentence, there’s always a chance to be brought into or back into the flock, right up to our death. It could look like a baptism (water or blood), a chrismation (a first or second, &c.), a profession of faith, or some other means. Or at least, that’s what I think would be the case.
]]>Now the comment the fake archbishop made makes sense.
It seemed… out of order… out of the blue; almost a literal non sequitur?: “…an abrupt, illogical, unexpected or absurd turn of plot or dialogue not normally associated with or appropriate to that preceding it…
“A non sequitur joke has no explanation, but it reflects the idiosyncrasies, mental frames and alternative world of the particular comic persona….”
🙂
:[
…except that it’s not funny.
:[
]]>Thank you…
I guess my question is… does someone like this experience something from the Church — has he been defrocked by anyone? Is that the right word? Is there a formal, public statement of some kind, or does the Church just allow people to excommunicate themSELVES, if you will?
And what would happen should this man truly repent? What would that look like?
]]>A bit off topic, but I just wanted to note that when you wrote “kalimafi”, I felt as though it had been misspelled. Turns out that καλυμαύχι and καμιλαύκιον are both words for the same thing. Something learned everyday.
]]>Father Johannes,
Here is a link to a website for his “church” (American Orthodox Church). In the list detailing his “Apostolic Succession” you find the names Michael Itkin and George Hyde, two notorious homosexual activists of the 1960’s posing as Orthodox bishops, http://www.apostle1.org/index.html.
These guys do their time, buy a kalimafi somewhere, and then go on pretending they are this or that bishop of some organization they made up.
]]>As you can probably tell from his comment, Ronda, he is not an Archbishop of any canonical jurisdiction. Click the link on his name and I’m sure you’ll find plenty of information about the group of which he is “Metropolitan Archbishop”, to be precise.
The canonical bichops that are a part of the Assembly here are found at this page:
]]>So… ignoramus that I am… I have to ask: Is this man — Joseph Thaddeus Stanford — still an Archbishop?
]]>Olivia, thank you for bring this to our attention.
]]>Joseph Thaddeus Stanford is a registered homosexual sex offender, beware,http://www.pokrov.org/display.asp?ds=Convicted&id=41.
]]>Here is a web reference to the incident however: http://michael-streich.suite101.com/woodrow-wilson-and-the-19th-amendment-a192861
]]>