I too hope that this will be the final word on this subject as I have intention of antagonizing you or anybody in the priesthood. As I’ve already said, you guys are on the front lines, often caught between secular parish councils and worldly bishops who are not above accepting bribes to silence those priests who “make trouble.”

On another note, I believe I have just spurred on the publication of your piece. Whatever you’ve said and however you’ve treated me is the way it is. I have no plans on responding. I really only hope you argue based on the history and don’t make up arguments and attribute them to me again, and I hope you read my essays more closely this time, but even if none of that happens, I am moving on.

As I’ve said, I will be turning to more serious publications I have to work on. One book (on St. Sarapion) is coming out later this year and the dissertation on conversions to Tradition needs to get to a publisher and under contract. Then, it’s on to the 9th century filioque dispute and work on future chapters for the book that Joe and perhaps others would like to see on early disunity in America. There are a couple other projects after that on the back burners, but that’s largely where they’ll remain for now.

This is my last comment on this blog, so I bid you farewell.

Christ is risen!

If you would permit me to be so bold, the logic of your line of reasoning escapes me: if there had been collusion, then I would not have tipped you off to the fact that it was going to be posted in the first place. Please understand Fr, I’m not looking for any “gotchas!” I have way to much respect for the priesthood and the fine work that y’all do. As far as I’m concerned, you guys are on the front lines.

I look forward to your essay. The fact that you have a forthcoming rebuttal explains why ocl did not post my rebuttal but skipped over it as they posted other ocanews.org material. They were waiting for you to make sure you had “the last word.” You are at no disadvantage.

With regard to there not being a “book,” there is history. You are as free to research as I. Again, no disadvantage, unless you choose to place yourself at one by not researching.

I will have a friend with an ocl account send me the piece when it is posted. I am interested in reading it and providing me one of your “favorites” has wetted my appetite 🙂 I would encourage you, however, to get into the historical facts themselves in this rebuttal. Avoid the temptation of making up an argument, attributing the made up argument to me, and then arguing against the argument you made up. Your rebuttal will be stronger if you avoid this temptation and would, therefore, help the conversations and reflections proceed.

Whatever you choose to do and write, I am sure your latest rebuttal will speak for itself.

I have turned the bulk of my attention toward more serious publication endeavors. If I do not respond to your latest OCL listing, take neither offense nor capitulation from that. My main reason for jumping on here at AOI was simply to note what my forthcoming book on American Orthodoxy covers: intra-Christian conversion, not early disunity, but St. Alexis Toth does receive serious attention. My other forthcoming book is on the fourth century bishop, St. Sarapion of Thmuis. I know no one will mistake that for American history 😀 Future research and papers will include early American Orthodox history, amongst other things (such as the 9th c. filioque debate).

Again, I look forward to reading your ocl piece.

Christ is risen! You have me at a disadvantage, the likes of which Fr Hans aptly demonstrates; i.e. there is no book out upon which to make a judgement. I have taken the time to respond your original assessment and you did the courtesy of rebutting my arguments. Since then, I have taken a more careful look at your original essay, my response, and your rebuttal. If all goes well, my re-rebuttal (excuse the neologism) will posted soon on the OCL website.

Please understand that I’m not one to take “last stands,” but try to look at the historical record to the extent that I have access to records. I also have a very skeptical nature and I try to look at events in such a light; sometimes I get rather obtuse when I try to get to the point.

One of my favorites is your’s and Mr Namee’s contention that Bishop Raphael viewed himself as a bishop loyal to two different sees (i.e. Moscow and Antioch). I don’t doubt that for one minute. However in the world we live in such a neither-fish-nor-fowl identity is not realistic. St Raphael was consecrated as a suffragan bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church. I dare say that this is no different than the m.o. that most priests operate under: that is loyal to one bishop most all priests are loyal to one bishop in one jurisdiction. I could go on, but my latest rebuttal will speak for itself.

I think there is prudence in waiting to see the finished product. In the interim, I have posted a couple of essays on ocanews, none of which has been contradicted with evidence, though perhaps that is what Mr. Michalopulos is in the process of doing–searching for evidence. If so, that is good. Census records are easily searchable as one method to address the issue of numbers, which is what I think was mentioned above. In the mean time, unless and until someone can actually refute the historical record I posted on ocanews, Joe is within his epistemic rights to demythologize the myth of unity. Both of your positions seem warranted to me–one of waiting, one of noting what the evidence thus far indicates. As I also noted, Matthew Namee will be giving a relevant paper at SVS in June. That should also further the discussion. In the interim, I, myself, would be curious to learn what causes you to pause, other than your friendship with Mr. Michalopulos (a reason I find natural, by the way, I am not ridiculing you).

Seems to me that Joe is simply able to read evidence when he sees it and formulate conclusions and opinions therefrom and made the further step to post them on a blog. I think you should be kinder to those who do disagree with you and Mr. Michalopulos.

Actually no evidence was posted on the blog. That was my point. As I mentioned then, I don’t mind the early promotion for the book, but promotion and evidence are two different things. There is, then, no disagreement, just a clarification of terms. You can see the response in note #9 above.

Keep in mind, having not read your book I am in no position to talk about it. For the same reason I am in no position to judge whether or not Joe’s or your assertions are true. I am however, fully supportive of the historical record where ever it leads and await the publication of your book. Until then though, there’s not much more I can say about it.

My forthcoming book examines intra-Orthodox converts and conversion. I referenced it in one of the OCANews essays only with respect to St. Alexis Toth’s conversion.

I also want to note that everything I wrote in the essays on OCANews is credible and can be referenced. Interestingly, Mark removed my footnotes, for whatever reason, perhaps to make things more readable, but it’s all referenced and defensible from the primary sources. To contradict those points, one has to contradict those points, not state an argument I did not make and then argue against the argument I did not make. For those interested in reading more on this topic, Matthew Namee will be giving a paper at SVS in June on this and he and I have begun discussing collaboration on a book that would concentrate on early American Orthodoxy, mostly beyond Alaska, which one can get from Fr. Michael Oleksa and Sergei Kan. We have no contract or manuscript at this time, however, and so it will be several years in the making. So, the kind of book Joe would like to see will happen, but it will take time. As Joe correctly suggests, it will make significant use of historical sources, not just select secondary sources.

Finally, for the record, Fr. Hans, Joe is no one for me to reign in. I don’t think I know him and I hadn’t even known of his postings until a friend said my essays had come up again. Seems to me that Joe is simply able to read evidence when he sees it and formulate conclusions and opinions therefrom and made the further step to post them on a blog. I think you should be kinder to those who do disagree with you and Mr. Michalopulos. Joe is right. Mr. Michalopulos has taken a last stand. This issue is well beyond me pulling strings with some friends to get them to post on blogs.

Anyway, happy blogging you all. You may now ignore me or lob more grenades! 😀

geo

God forgives. I forgive.

To George and the rest of the AOI community, please forgive my mean spiritedness and indiscretion…also my bad grammar and poor spelling.

Thank you for being such kind and patient hosts. It’s been fun!

In Christ,
Joe

The ROCOR is going to “re-visit” the creation my…, I mean the OCA’s creative accounting of its origins and autocephaly from the perspective of a historical and extant Russian Orthodox Church in America.

I’m more looking forward to the findings of the ROCOR commission than to Fr. Oliver’s work!

What will happen if the ROCOR legitimately claims to be the true successors and continuation of the original Russian Orthodox mission of 1794, thus undermining the OCA’s claim to be the exclusive heir to said Russian Orthodox mission?

ROCOR said, OCA said. Uh oh, we have a jurisdictional dispute among two canonical Orthodox Christian bodies in America. To whom should these bodies appeal for judgement? The Ecumenical Patriarch? The Moscow Patriarchate?

What would the Ecumenical Patriarch say? Which “daughter church” would the Moscow Church favor?

Interesting developments on the ROCOR-Metropolia front…

A regular session of the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia was held on May 5-7, 2009, in New York, in the presence of the Kursk-Root Icon of the Mother of God, presided over by His Eminence Metropolitan Hilarion.

During this session:

“It was also decided to form a commission to study the relationship with the Orthodox Church in America and to hold joint meetings to discuss the sources of the division between the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia and the American Metropoliate. Included in this commission are Bishop George, President; Archimandrite Luke (Murianka); Protopriest Alexander Lebedeff, Secretary; Protopriest David Moser and Priest Peter Jackson. The commission is to study and present findings on the reasons for the division and to evaluate the mutual accusations, and propose methods of healing the separation.”

Full Story Here:http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/eng2009/5ensynodmeeting.html