Brother Nathaniel

[Iconodule]

I agree with the comments other posters have made here, and Br. Nathaniel's status is confusing. On one hand, he is Orthodox, belongs to a canonical diocese, and is a Novice monk. He has the approval of two hierarchs, including the primate and that of his home diocese, for his campaign.

On the other hand, he is living in a diocese whose hierarch, the chancellor, officially opposes his campaign. Plus, he over-dresses for a monk, considering the white kobluk, which a Novice would not wear. His dress is showy, and Novices are not supposed to be.

He cannot be in weekly communion in his home diocese for distance reasons. Even if he is living as a hermit and has approval for that, can he still be said to be in regular communion with his home parish as he claims?

Obviously he is Orthodox, but he is not following the normal rules in the Church.

This thread is a bad penny, which keeps resurfacing.

What part of this statement issued in July 2013 from the Chauncey of the Holy Synod of ROCOR is confusing?

"The Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia has recently received repeated complaints about the activities of and statements made by a certain Nathanael (Kapner), who lives on the territory of the Western American Diocese, but has no relation to it.
The clergymen and laity of the Russian Church Abroad are hereby informed that the actions of Nathanael (Kapner) do not have the blessing of the Synod of Bishops.
Profoundly saddened by the state of his soul, we call upon Nathanael (Kapner) to refrain from posting on the Internet, to a life of repentance of peace in Christ, “where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all” (Colossians 3:11).
+KYRILL,
Archbishop of Western America and San Francisco
Secretary of the Synod of Bishops."
http://www.pravmir.com/statement-from-the-chancery-of-the-rocor-synod-of-bishops/

The Synod does not indicate that Nathaniel (Kepner) has  any status in the ROCOR. Bishop Kyrill signed the document as Synodal Secretary speaking for, and on behalf of his Synod -not just as a Diocesan Bishop.

Nathaniel (Kepner's) actions, or "campaign" clearly do NOT have the current blessings of the ROCOR based on the plain, unambiguous wording of the Synod.

As to his status as an Orthodox Christian, I can not speculate, but we should pray that he need the advice offered him by the Synod.

Thanks for this.

 

[Marc1152]

I agree with the comments other posters have made here, and Br. Nathaniel's status is confusing. On one hand, he is Orthodox, belongs to a canonical diocese, and is a Novice monk. He has the approval of two hierarchs, including the primate and that of his home diocese, for his campaign.

On the other hand, he is living in a diocese whose hierarch, the chancellor, officially opposes his campaign. Plus, he over-dresses for a monk, considering the white kobluk, which a Novice would not wear. His dress is showy, and Novices are not supposed to be.

He cannot be in weekly communion in his home diocese for distance reasons. Even if he is living as a hermit and has approval for that, can he still be said to be in regular communion with his home parish as he claims?

Obviously he is Orthodox, but he is not following the normal rules in the Church.

He has the approval of two hierarchs, including the primate and that of his home diocese, for his campaign.


Excuse me ? Source please

The clergymen and laity of the Russian Church Abroad are hereby informed that the actions of Nathanael (Kapner) do not have the blessing of the Synod of Bishops.

Is English not your first language?

 

[Shanghaiski]

Br Nathaniel is our modern day Don Quixote.

Dostoevsky considered Don Quixote to be one of the few good attempts at a truly beautiful and Christlike character in fiction. Is Br. Nathaniel then a Christlike person to be emulated? And/or perhaps a modern day fool for Christ? Is that where you are going with this?  8)

No. Dostoyevsky was simply on drugs at the time he made such comments, if he made such a comment. I remember it being someone else.

 

[Shanghaiski]

I agree with the comments other posters have made here, and Br. Nathaniel's status is confusing. On one hand, he is Orthodox, belongs to a canonical diocese, and is a Novice monk. He has the approval of two hierarchs, including the primate and that of his home diocese, for his campaign.

On the other hand, he is living in a diocese whose hierarch, the chancellor, officially opposes his campaign. Plus, he over-dresses for a monk, considering the white kobluk, which a Novice would not wear. His dress is showy, and Novices are not supposed to be.

He cannot be in weekly communion in his home diocese for distance reasons. Even if he is living as a hermit and has approval for that, can he still be said to be in regular communion with his home parish as he claims?

Obviously he is Orthodox, but he is not following the normal rules in the Church.

He has the approval of two hierarchs, including the primate and that of his home diocese, for his campaign.


Excuse me ? Source please

The clergymen and laity of the Russian Church Abroad are hereby informed that the actions of Nathanael (Kapner) do not have the blessing of the Synod of Bishops.

Is English not your first language?

Perhaps non-ROCOR hierarchs?

 

[Opus118]

I agree with the comments other posters have made here, and Br. Nathaniel's status is confusing. On one hand, he is Orthodox, belongs to a canonical diocese, and is a Novice monk. He has the approval of two hierarchs, including the primate and that of his home diocese, for his campaign.

On the other hand, he is living in a diocese whose hierarch, the chancellor, officially opposes his campaign. Plus, he over-dresses for a monk, considering the white kobluk, which a Novice would not wear. His dress is showy, and Novices are not supposed to be.

He cannot be in weekly communion in his home diocese for distance reasons. Even if he is living as a hermit and has approval for that, can he still be said to be in regular communion with his home parish as he claims?

Obviously he is Orthodox, but he is not following the normal rules in the Church.

He has the approval of two hierarchs, including the primate and that of his home diocese, for his campaign.


Excuse me ? Source please

The clergymen and laity of the Russian Church Abroad are hereby informed that the actions of Nathanael (Kapner) do not have the blessing of the Synod of Bishops.

Is English not your first language?

I think he adequately addressed this above.

If  you disagree pm me.

 

[Asteriktos]

Br Nathaniel is our modern day Don Quixote.

Dostoevsky considered Don Quixote to be one of the few good attempts at a truly beautiful and Christlike character in fiction. Is Br. Nathaniel then a Christlike person to be emulated? And/or perhaps a modern day fool for Christ? Is that where you are going with this?  8)

No. Dostoyevsky was simply on drugs at the time he made such comments, if he made such a comment. I remember it being someone else.

Looking back at the letter again I have, perhaps, read my own interpretation into what he said. Or perhaps I am thinking of the interpretation of someone else and just don't remember who. Or perhaps I have understood his meaning. Regardless, here is what I was thinking of when I wrote that:

The idea of the novel is an old and favorite one of mine, but so difficult that for a long time I dared not tackle it, and if I have tackled it now, it was definitely only because my situation was almost desperate. The main idea of the novel [The Idiot] is to present a positively beautiful human being... There is only one positively beautiful character in the world--Christ, so that the appearance of this boundlessly, infinitely beautiful person is of course an infinite miracle in itself (the entire Gospel of St. John is [written] in this sense; he finds the whole miracle in the incarnation alone, the manifestation of the beautiful). But I have run on too far. I will only mention that of beautiful characters in Christian literature the most finished is Don Quixote. But he is beautiful only because he is at the same time ridiculous. Dicken's Pickwick (an infinitely weaker conception than Don Quixote but nevertheless immense) is also ridiculous, and succeeds because of this. There is compassion for the beautiful that is mocked and does not know its own value--and consequently there is sympathy in the reader. The awakening of compassion is the secret of humor. Jean Valjean is also a powerful attempt--but he awakens sympathy by his terrible unhappiness and the injustice of society towards him...

-- Fyodor Dostoevsky, Letter 106: To S.A. Ivanova (Geneva, 1/13 January 1868)
- Quoted in: Jessie Coulson, Dostoevsky: A Self-Portrait, (Oxford University Press, 1962), p. 169

 

[Iconodule]

Where is the evidence that Met. Hilarion or Bishop Jerome supported Nathanael's antics?

 

[rakovsky]

Where is the evidence that Met. Hilarion or Bishop Jerome supported Nathanael's antics?

N. Kapner claimed their approval on his website and elsewhere. It's not a baseless claim either, because he was making his public campaign for years while dressed in Orthodox-style regalia and a member of ROCOR, and those hierarchs did not deny his open announcement of their approval. Granted, none of those things are conclusive that they did, and it wouldn't have amounted to active support.

In any case, there are enough problems with his campaign based on Church standards, since doesn't "we" in the Chancellor's letter mean "we the Synod", not just "we, the chancellor's office"? He is not dressed to form and the hierarch where he lives opposes his campaign. So it's not something I care to argue at this point, Iconodule.

 

[podkarpatska]

Where is the evidence that Met. Hilarion or Bishop Jerome supported Nathanael's antics?

N. Kapner claimed it on his website and elsewhere, although that does not mean they did. It's not a baseless claim either, because he was making his public campaign for years while dressed in Orthodox-style regalia and a member of ROCOR, and those hierarchs did not deny his open announcement of their approval. Granted, neither of those things are conclusive.

In any case, there are enough problems with his campaign based on Church standards, since doesn't "we" in the Chancellor's letter mean "we the Synod", not just "we, the chancellor's office"? He is not dressed to form either. So it's not something I care to argue at this point, Iconodule.

The original letter is on the Synod's letterhead, not that of the chancellor per se nor the Bishop who signed it in his diocesan capacity. He apparently signed the document as Secretary for the Synod in his legal capacity as the same.

Speaking with my lawyer hat on, rusty as it may be, the letter speaks for itself and were it authenticated in a court of law, it would stand as clear and convincing evidence of the intent of the Synod.

Case closed.

 

[rakovsky]

The original letter is on the Synod's letterhead, not that of the chancellor per se nor the Bishop who signed it in his diocesan capacity. He apparently signed the document as Secretary for the Synod in his legal capacity as the same.

Speaking with my lawyer hat on, rusty as it may be, the letter speaks for itself and were it authenticated in a court of law, it would stand as clear and convincing evidence of the intent of the Synod.

Case closed.

It's pointless to argue. He's like a showman from his hippie musician days. It's a costume.

 

[Marc1152]

Where is the evidence that Met. Hilarion or Bishop Jerome supported Nathanael's antics?

I have spoken to both the Met and Bishop Jerome personally, eye to eye about this. They are indeed very charitable towards him. They are only concerned about his salvation and have nothing what ever to do with his political antics. Their main problem is getting so many complaints about him, hence the official letter we have now all seen.

Bishop Jerome is on facebook.

 

[Marc1152]

The original letter is on the Synod's letterhead, not that of the chancellor per se nor the Bishop who signed it in his diocesan capacity. He apparently signed the document as Secretary for the Synod in his legal capacity as the same.

Speaking with my lawyer hat on, rusty as it may be, the letter speaks for itself and were it authenticated in a court of law, it would stand as clear and convincing evidence of the intent of the Synod.

Case closed.

It's pointless to argue. He's like a showman from his hippie musician days. It's a costume.

 

[yeshuaisiam]

I like what he has to say most of the time.  His videos are good.

Issues such as "where he belongs, who he is with" has NOTHING to do with what he is saying.  That's just playing the control paradigm to see who "ranks" him... That way it would be easier to manipulate one's agenda against him if a person does not like what he is saying.

Obviously his abbot approves.

Despite anything else said, he certainly lives in a beautiful area of the country.

 

[rakovsky]

I have spoken to both the Met and Bishop Jerome personally, eye to eye about this.

Their main problem is getting so many complaints about him

Bishop Jerome is on facebook.

 

[yeshuaisiam]

I have spoken to both the Met and Bishop Jerome personally, eye to eye about this.

Their main problem is getting so many complaints about him

Bishop Jerome is on facebook.

Look at these people.... Going to somebody's bishop to complain.  That's weak and tattle-tale ish.  Why not make your own videos disproving what he is saying (if you can)?  Fight him with intellect rather than going to his "mommy" and telling.  Just seems so cowardly.  If he's wrong, make a video showing how his is wrong.    If you don't like his anti-zionist stances, fight him on his own platform.  You are more than free to make youtube videos.  Going and telling his bishop is childish.

 

[Shanghaiski]

I like what he has to say most of the time.  His videos are good.

Issues such as "where he belongs, who he is with" has NOTHING to do with what he is saying.   That's just playing the control paradigm to see who "ranks" him... That way it would be easier to manipulate one's agenda against him if a person does not like what he is saying.

Obviously his abbot approves.

Despite anything else said, he certainly lives in a beautiful area of the country.

He has no abbot.

 

[Shanghaiski]

I have spoken to both the Met and Bishop Jerome personally, eye to eye about this.

Their main problem is getting so many complaints about him

Bishop Jerome is on facebook.

Look at these people.... Going to somebody's bishop to complain.  That's weak and tattle-tale ish.  Why not make your own videos disproving what he is saying (if you can)?  Fight him with intellect rather than going to his "mommy" and telling.  Just seems so cowardly.  If he's wrong, make a video showing how his is wrong.    If you don't like his anti-zionist stances, fight him on his own platform.  You are more than free to make youtube videos.  Going and telling his bishop is childish.

Who is his bishop?

Actually going to the bishop is about good order, lest we have a free-for-all mob and confusion continue.

 

[yeshuaisiam]

So this is how EO control works:

Brother Nathaniel makes youtube videos against Jewish Zionism
Many people like it, and he gets many views.
Some people don't like it.
Some EO despise it.
Many EO like it.

Those that despise say "Put that monk in his place".

Information:
Who is he - what jurisdiction?
Does abbot know - "can I tell the abbot to shut him up?"
Does bishop know - "can I tell the bishop to shut him up?"

Action:
I'm telling!  (yes like a 2 year old)
Person complains to the monastery abbot.  Abbot knows and allows.
Not good enough, mission not accomplished.
I'm telling again (like a 4 year old, knows to go to higher powers) so now to the bishop.  But the bishop knows.
Didn't work.

Manipulation:
Complain, over and over again to the bishop in hopes that he'll bend.

Dissonance:
Bishop does not bend.  Allows brother Nathaniel to keep making videos.  
EO Christian can't take this because they can't control a bishop.
EO Christian then looks into the bishop.

Start over:  Information
Who is the bishop?  Ah-HA! not part of world Orthodoxy
What did the bishop do? He's in HOCNA - Heretic
What is HOCNA - NEVER part of ROCOR, but they stage it at such!
(spontaneous bishop - probably spontaneous succession too right? LOL)
Invalidate bishop as heretic
Feel better

This is weak weak weak manipulation folks.  Seen it all way too many times.  You don't like what brother Nathaniel has to say, get off your natural seat, do some research, make some videos, stick them on youtube, and disprove what he is saying.   Don't be cowardly and manipulative through church hierarchy trying to feed your own need for control over another human being.  The funniest part is when that control need doesn't get fed, people then discredit the bishop and argue if he is real Orthodox or not, bringing "issues" to the table to distance them from Orthodoxy to further discredit.  (dissonance = Try to use the bishop to shut him up by recognizing the bishop's authority.  When agenda does not work, distance the bishop from Orthodoxy and YOUR TRUE church)

This is grammar school tattle-tale tactics, and honestly, childish.     A person who disagrees with him can simply show how he is wrong by making their own videos and showing it.

 

[yeshuaisiam]

I have spoken to both the Met and Bishop Jerome personally, eye to eye about this.

Their main problem is getting so many complaints about him

Bishop Jerome is on facebook.

Look at these people.... Going to somebody's bishop to complain.  That's weak and tattle-tale ish.  Why not make your own videos disproving what he is saying (if you can)?  Fight him with intellect rather than going to his "mommy" and telling.  Just seems so cowardly.  If he's wrong, make a video showing how his is wrong.    If you don't like his anti-zionist stances, fight him on his own platform.  You are more than free to make youtube videos.  Going and telling his bishop is childish.

Who is his bishop?

Actually going to the bishop is about good order, lest we have a free-for-all mob and confusion continue.

NO it's not.  It's childish.  You don't like what he says, make some videos, post them, show how he is wrong.  ^read post above.

 

[yeshuaisiam]

I like what he has to say most of the time.  His videos are good.

Issues such as "where he belongs, who he is with" has NOTHING to do with what he is saying.   That's just playing the control paradigm to see who "ranks" him... That way it would be easier to manipulate one's agenda against him if a person does not like what he is saying.

Obviously his abbot approves.

Despite anything else said, he certainly lives in a beautiful area of the country.

He has no abbot.

Does not matter same childish tactics apply with or without abbot.

 

[Mor Ephrem]

Look at these people.... Going to somebody's bishop to complain.  That's weak and tattle-tale ish.  Why not make your own videos disproving what he is saying (if you can)?  Fight him with intellect rather than going to his "mommy" and telling.  Just seems so cowardly.  If he's wrong, make a video showing how his is wrong.    If you don't like his anti-zionist stances, fight him on his own platform.  You are more than free to make youtube videos.  Going and telling his bishop is childish.

It's not childish, it's Orthodox.  What is the point of an "overseer" if you can't bring to his attention things that may require his oversight? 

What you advocate is Protestantism.  Yeah, that's worked out well. 

 

[TheTrisagion]

'Nuff said.

 

[Mor Ephrem]

I never understood how "so many EO" (according to YiM) could look past the clownish appearance and demeanour of this fellow in order to watch his videos and become groupies.  Surely your Church doesn't really attract as many stupid people as the internet would lead us to believe? 

 

[TheTrisagion]

I never understood how "so many EO" (according to YiM) could look past the clownish appearance and demeanour of this fellow in order to watch his videos and become groupies.  Surely your Church doesn't really attract as many stupid people as the internet would lead us to believe?   

I'm sure there are plenty of wackjob EOs out there who think he is great, but I'm not so sure YiM's perspective of Eastern Orthodoxy is exactly accurate.  I don't think there is any groundswell of support for "Brother" Nathanael.

 

[mike]

Those that despise say "Put that monk in his place".

He is not a monk.

It's not childish, it's Orthodox.  What is the point of an "overseer" if you can't bring to his attention things that may require his oversight?  

What you advocate is Protestantism.  Yeah, that's worked out well.  

Because yeshuaisiam IS a Protestant.

 

[Mor Ephrem]

But Trisagion, even two "wackjob EOs" is three too many.  This should never have required a synodal clarification.  All that should've been necessary in any reasonably normal human society was to take one look at the photo you posted and just say "no".  

 

[Shanghaiski]

I never understood how "so many EO" (according to YiM) could look past the clownish appearance and demeanour of this fellow in order to watch his videos and become groupies.  Surely your Church doesn't really attract as many stupid people as the internet would lead us to believe?   

I think most of his groupies were not Orthodox.

 

[Shanghaiski]

But Trisagion, even two "wackjob EOs" is three too many.  This should never have required a synodal clarification.  All that should've been necessary in any reasonably normal human society was to take one look at the photo you posted and just say "no".  

I think, before everything went online, that no synod would have dealt with the matter at all. But the Internet has a way of blowing things out of proportion. And one has to be concerned for the brand name.

 

[Mor Ephrem]

I think, before everything went online, that no synod would have dealt with the matter at all. But the Internet has a way of blowing things out of proportion. And one has to be concerned for the brand name.

Then he should've been made into a meme.   

 

[Iconodule]

Where is the evidence that Met. Hilarion or Bishop Jerome supported Nathanael's antics?

N. Kapner claimed their approval on his website and elsewhere. It's not a baseless claim either, because he was making his public campaign for years while dressed in Orthodox-style regalia and a member of ROCOR, and those hierarchs did not deny his open announcement of their approval. Granted, none of those things are conclusive that they did, and it wouldn't have amounted to active support.

I think a very simple and plausible explanation is that these have too much real stuff on their plate. And now we have Nathaniel's word versus a very official and public statement from the synod. Yes, case closed. Orthodox Christianity and white nationalism are not compatible... though we all knew that already.

 

[TheTrisagion]

But Trisagion, even two "wackjob EOs" is three too many.  This should never have required a synodal clarification.  All that should've been necessary in any reasonably normal human society was to take one look at the photo you posted and just say "no".  

Theoretically, I agree with you, but after having spent far more time than I ought online, I have come to the realization that a good 50% of the online population are just stark raving mad lunatics.  Heck, there are people on here that I wonder how they were smart enough to descend the birth canal, yet here they are, spouting nonsense on a daily basis.  :-\

 

[podkarpatska]

Look at these people.... Going to somebody's bishop to complain.  That's weak and tattle-tale ish.  Why not make your own videos disproving what he is saying (if you can)?  Fight him with intellect rather than going to his "mommy" and telling.  Just seems so cowardly.  If he's wrong, make a video showing how his is wrong.    If you don't like his anti-zionist stances, fight him on his own platform.  You are more than free to make youtube videos.  Going and telling his bishop is childish.

It's not childish, it's Orthodox.  What is the point of an "overseer" if you can't bring to his attention things that may require his oversight? 

What you advocate is Protestantism.  Yeah, that's worked out well. 

Exactly, and if Mr. Kepner wishes to be a Protestant or anything else, just like Yeshuasisiasm , that's his business. But he holds himself out as somehow operating with the blessing of some  Orthodox authority and if he is not truthful in that regard with respect to the ROCOR, well the Synod acted appropriately as Orthodoxy is a hierarchical organization.

Those of you who take issue with the hierarchical nature of Orthodoxy, please leave the house  - figuratively - you are not Orthodox if you reject the structure of the Church. Be honest and be a modern day Bespopovtsy.

Yeshuaisiasm is honest about where he stands and I respect that, even though I have few points of agreement with him.

 

[podkarpatska]

But Trisagion, even two "wackjob EOs" is three too many.  This should never have required a synodal clarification.  All that should've been necessary in any reasonably normal human society was to take one look at the photo you posted and just say "no".  

Amen.

 

[rakovsky]

Why does he have a white glove and a black glove, or gloves at all?

 

[Shanghaiski]

Why does he have a white glove and a black glove, or gloves at all?

Symbolism. It's all about symbolism.

Or Michael Jackson, who was also all about symbolism.

 

[Mor Ephrem]

Maybe he finds inspiration in the King of Pop.  It don't matter if you're

or

 

[Mor Ephrem]

Or Michael Jackson, who was also all about symbolism.

You beat me to it!

 

[Gunnarr]

Many fools for christ were naked, are we supposed to say "no" to them??

I dont think nathaniel is a fool for christ, I dont like his opinions very much he sounds like a nut job

but just saying "no" because of an image does not make much sense, "DONT JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER" - St. Anonymous

 

[Ebor]

I like what he has to say most of the time.  His videos are good.

His videos have much in the way of innuendo and suggestions without basis or real fact. He makes claims without supporting evidence. He puts pictures together with his words that may together create an impression of something that is not true.  The last I checked his site he had things on the loathsome "Protocols" which document is a forgery and a lie.  In the past he had a site with vile calumny against various EO hierarchs.  He was a novice at the monastery in Colorado which was at one time ROAC (Metropolitan Valentine of Suzdal) until the then head separated from that body and is now  Archbishop Gregory "of Denver and Colorado".  Mr. Kapner's leaving that place involved accusations and the local sheriff's department among other things.  Several persons here were also at the Euphrosynos Cafe in 2005 when information on this was posted by Mr. Kapner himself.  

Because one happens to like what someone else says does not make the statements true.  

Obviously his abbot approves.

How is it "obvious" please?  Particularly since as far as others who are EO have posted, Mr. Kapner does not have an abbot.

<edited to put the correct law enforcement unit in the sentence.  After nearly 8 years I had to check the E-cafe postings for the precise information>

 

[Mor Ephrem]

Many fools for christ were naked, are we supposed to say "no" to them??

I've never met any fools for Christ, but I've known quite a few fools.  Definitely, just say no to those.  

I dont think nathaniel is a fool for christ, I dont like his opinions very much he sounds like a nut job

but just saying "no" because of an image does not make much sense, "DONT JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER" - St. Anonymous

But a book's cover doesn't necessarily tell you anything about the quality of the book, which is why we have that saying.  A monastic novice, on the other hand, does not dress like "Brother" "Nathanael".  So if the latter presents himself the way he does, I'd say yes, in fact we can and should "judge" him.  Habitus non facit monachum, but it's a pretty good indicator.