Has anyone heard anything about Met.Jonah resigning? / Met Jonah Resigns / Holy Synod Releases Official Statement about Met. Jonah's Resignation

88Devin12

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
5,182
Reaction score
0
Points
0
New Metropolitan of the OCA..............



Archbishop Tikhon of Philadelphia!

http://ancientfaith.com/announcements/oca_metropolitan_elected_the_most_reverend_tikhon_archbishop_of_philadelphi
 

Second Chance

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 13, 2009
Messages
8,017
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
74
Location
South Carolina
podkarpatska said:
88Devin12 said:
First Ballot Results are in: http://ancientfaith.com/specials/aac_17/first_ballot_results

Apparently the top 3 so far are Bishop Michael, Archbishop Tikhon and Bishop Melchizedek (1st, 2nd & 3rd respectively). Finishing the top 5 would be Archbishop Nathaniel and Archbishop Benjamin (4th & 5th respectively).

As said in the audio, they are going to a second ballot since none of the 24 candidates received sufficient votes to be nominated.
I feel like I was really snookered and I should have known better, in the sense that like many here I thought that the pro-+Jonah folks who post feverishly over on Monomakhos represented some sort of significant bloc. They were going to force a vote to reinstall +Jonah - 17 votes; they were going to 'get' Metropolitan Hilarion from ROCOR - 3 votes - and so on. There were five hundred ninety seven votes counted and the three top vote getters received over 400+ of total votes cast. I apologize to all of my OCA friends for doubting.
On the second vote, +Jonah's share of the total vote went down from 2.88% to 1.93%. The only top candidate whose share of the total went up was Archbishop Tikhon (from 20% to 27.82%), while Bishop Michael's share declined slightly (from 34.75% to 31.14%). To put this into context, at the last primatial election, the second place +Jonah's share of the votes went up from 36% to 37%. In any case, it looks like the Holy Synod once again chose the second nominee (not that I am complaining; the only time that I had felt unhappy was when Archbishop of Dimitri of blessed memory was passed over in favor of +Theodosius).

Axios to Metropolitan-elect Archbishop Tikhon!
 

88Devin12

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
5,182
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
podkarpatska said:
88Devin12 said:
First Ballot Results are in: http://ancientfaith.com/specials/aac_17/first_ballot_results

Apparently the top 3 so far are Bishop Michael, Archbishop Tikhon and Bishop Melchizedek (1st, 2nd & 3rd respectively). Finishing the top 5 would be Archbishop Nathaniel and Archbishop Benjamin (4th & 5th respectively).

As said in the audio, they are going to a second ballot since none of the 24 candidates received sufficient votes to be nominated.
I feel like I was really snookered and I should have known better, in the sense that like many here I thought that the pro-+Jonah folks who post feverishly over on Monomakhos represented some sort of significant bloc. They were going to force a vote to reinstall +Jonah - 17 votes; they were going to 'get' Metropolitan Hilarion from ROCOR - 3 votes - and so on. There were five hundred ninety seven votes counted and the three top vote getters received over 400+ of total votes cast. I apologize to all of my OCA friends for doubting.
On the second vote, +Jonah's share of the total vote went down from 2.88% to 1.93%. The only top candidate whose share of the total went up was Archbishop Tikhon (from 20% to 27.82%), while Bishop Michael's share declined slightly (from 34.75% to 31.14%). To put this into context, at the last primatial election, the second place +Jonah's share of the votes went up from 36% to 37%. In any case, it looks like the Holy Synod once again chose the second nominee (not that I am complaining; the only time that I had felt unhappy was when Archbishop of Dimitri of blessed memory was passed over in favor of +Theodesius).

Axios to Metropolitan-elect Archbishop Tikhon!
Metropolitan Herman and Metropolitan Theodosius shouldn't have ever been considered. It was a crime that they were even appointed.

I'm hoping this turns out much better. I don't know much about his grace Metropolitan Tikhon.

Also, I bet Monomakhos is raging right now...
 

FatherHLL

Archon
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
2,680
Reaction score
0
Points
0
podkarpatska said:
88Devin12 said:
First Ballot Results are in: http://ancientfaith.com/specials/aac_17/first_ballot_results

Apparently the top 3 so far are Bishop Michael, Archbishop Tikhon and Bishop Melchizedek (1st, 2nd & 3rd respectively). Finishing the top 5 would be Archbishop Nathaniel and Archbishop Benjamin (4th & 5th respectively).

As said in the audio, they are going to a second ballot since none of the 24 candidates received sufficient votes to be nominated.
I feel like I was really snookered and I should have known better, in the sense that like many here I thought that the pro-+Jonah folks who post feverishly over on Monomakhos represented some sort of significant bloc. They were going to force a vote to reinstall +Jonah - 17 votes; they were going to 'get' Metropolitan Hilarion from ROCOR - 3 votes - and so on. There were five hundred ninety seven votes counted and the three top vote getters received over 400+ of total votes cast. I apologize to all of my OCA friends for doubting.
Don't blame yourself.  Their "vote" for Met. Jonah restoration did not tell you that one person had voted 600 times.  ;)
 

88Devin12

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
5,182
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Father H said:
podkarpatska said:
88Devin12 said:
First Ballot Results are in: http://ancientfaith.com/specials/aac_17/first_ballot_results

Apparently the top 3 so far are Bishop Michael, Archbishop Tikhon and Bishop Melchizedek (1st, 2nd & 3rd respectively). Finishing the top 5 would be Archbishop Nathaniel and Archbishop Benjamin (4th & 5th respectively).

As said in the audio, they are going to a second ballot since none of the 24 candidates received sufficient votes to be nominated.
I feel like I was really snookered and I should have known better, in the sense that like many here I thought that the pro-+Jonah folks who post feverishly over on Monomakhos represented some sort of significant bloc. They were going to force a vote to reinstall +Jonah - 17 votes; they were going to 'get' Metropolitan Hilarion from ROCOR - 3 votes - and so on. There were five hundred ninety seven votes counted and the three top vote getters received over 400+ of total votes cast. I apologize to all of my OCA friends for doubting.
Don't blame yourself.  Their "vote" for Met. Jonah restoration did not tell you that one person had voted 600 times.   ;)
I've known people who have actually gone to websites and ask the communities there to vote a certain way on a certain poll. This was done by someone in several university polls, and where the votes were swayed his way because he got a whole bunch of people outside the university to vote his way. Then the university started requiring that you enter your email/id.

Also, there are a lot of minorities which make themselves seem very large just by the noise they make. Look at Reddit Atheists, Atheism is a tiny minority of the United States, but by going to Reddit, you'd think that half (or more than half) of the entire country was atheistic. In fact, not to bring politics into this, but you'd have thought the election would have been completely one-sided, when it was pretty close.
 

FatherHLL

Archon
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
2,680
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
podkarpatska said:
88Devin12 said:
First Ballot Results are in: http://ancientfaith.com/specials/aac_17/first_ballot_results

Apparently the top 3 so far are Bishop Michael, Archbishop Tikhon and Bishop Melchizedek (1st, 2nd & 3rd respectively). Finishing the top 5 would be Archbishop Nathaniel and Archbishop Benjamin (4th & 5th respectively).

As said in the audio, they are going to a second ballot since none of the 24 candidates received sufficient votes to be nominated.
I feel like I was really snookered and I should have known better, in the sense that like many here I thought that the pro-+Jonah folks who post feverishly over on Monomakhos represented some sort of significant bloc. They were going to force a vote to reinstall +Jonah - 17 votes; they were going to 'get' Metropolitan Hilarion from ROCOR - 3 votes - and so on. There were five hundred ninety seven votes counted and the three top vote getters received over 400+ of total votes cast. I apologize to all of my OCA friends for doubting.
On the second vote, +Jonah's share of the total vote went down from 2.88% to 1.93%. The only top candidate whose share of the total went up was Archbishop Tikhon (from 20% to 27.82%), while Bishop Michael's share declined slightly (from 34.75% to 31.14%). To put this into context, at the last primatial election, the second place +Jonah's share of the votes went up from 36% to 37%. In any case, it looks like the Holy Synod once again chose the second nominee (not that I am complaining; the only time that I had felt unhappy was when Archbishop of Dimitri of blessed memory was passed over in favor of +Theodosius).

Axios to Metropolitan-elect Archbishop Tikhon!
Carl, your observations are appreciated.  It is odd that the continuing trend seems to be a synodal election of the "second vote-getter," but so be it.  I think that if this happened in the UOC they would overturn consistory building (and knowing my bad timing, I would be in it at the time lol).  
 

FatherHLL

Archon
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
2,680
Reaction score
0
Points
0
88Devin12 said:
Father H said:
podkarpatska said:
88Devin12 said:
First Ballot Results are in: http://ancientfaith.com/specials/aac_17/first_ballot_results

Apparently the top 3 so far are Bishop Michael, Archbishop Tikhon and Bishop Melchizedek (1st, 2nd & 3rd respectively). Finishing the top 5 would be Archbishop Nathaniel and Archbishop Benjamin (4th & 5th respectively).

As said in the audio, they are going to a second ballot since none of the 24 candidates received sufficient votes to be nominated.
I feel like I was really snookered and I should have known better, in the sense that like many here I thought that the pro-+Jonah folks who post feverishly over on Monomakhos represented some sort of significant bloc. They were going to force a vote to reinstall +Jonah - 17 votes; they were going to 'get' Metropolitan Hilarion from ROCOR - 3 votes - and so on. There were five hundred ninety seven votes counted and the three top vote getters received over 400+ of total votes cast. I apologize to all of my OCA friends for doubting.
Don't blame yourself.  Their "vote" for Met. Jonah restoration did not tell you that one person had voted 600 times.   ;)
I've known people who have actually gone to websites and ask the communities there to vote a certain way on a certain poll. This was done by someone in several university polls, and where the votes were swayed his way because he got a whole bunch of people outside the university to vote his way. Then the university started requiring that you enter your email/id.

Also, there are a lot of minorities which make themselves seem very large just by the noise they make. Look at Reddit Atheists, Atheism is a tiny minority of the United States, but by going to Reddit, you'd think that half (or more than half) of the entire country was atheistic. In fact, not to bring politics into this, but you'd have thought the election would have been completely one-sided, when it was pretty close.
Its true.  Unfortunately, this involves people lopsiding reality to fool themselves. 
 

FatherHLL

Archon
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
2,680
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Schultz said:
I can't believe he's only 46 years old!
Unfortunately, he'll look like he's 64 after a couple of years.  We love to dress our metropolitans and bishops up as the infant of prague on Sundays and then throw stones at them the rest of the week. 
 

mike

Protostrator
Joined
Sep 14, 2008
Messages
24,873
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
29
Location
Białystok / Warsaw
Schultz said:
I can just hear the exchange behind the altar:

Bp. Michael: I don't want it.  Tikhon, you take it.

Bp. Tikhon:  No no no, Michael.  I've been a bishop longer and I reserve the right of refusal.

Bp. Michael:  Well, I've only been a bishop for 2 years.  You have seniority, I insist.

Bp. Tikhon:  Nice try, but I respectfully decline and nominate my good brother Michael to the Metropolitan throne.

One of the other bishops:  I want to know what joker voted for Bp. Seraphim...
Metropolitans Philip or Hilarion seem more odd to me.

And not to forget:
 

podkarpatska

Merarches
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
9,732
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Northeast United States
Website
www.acrod.org
Father H said:
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) said:
podkarpatska said:
88Devin12 said:
First Ballot Results are in: http://ancientfaith.com/specials/aac_17/first_ballot_results

Apparently the top 3 so far are Bishop Michael, Archbishop Tikhon and Bishop Melchizedek (1st, 2nd & 3rd respectively). Finishing the top 5 would be Archbishop Nathaniel and Archbishop Benjamin (4th & 5th respectively).

As said in the audio, they are going to a second ballot since none of the 24 candidates received sufficient votes to be nominated.
I feel like I was really snookered and I should have known better, in the sense that like many here I thought that the pro-+Jonah folks who post feverishly over on Monomakhos represented some sort of significant bloc. They were going to force a vote to reinstall +Jonah - 17 votes; they were going to 'get' Metropolitan Hilarion from ROCOR - 3 votes - and so on. There were five hundred ninety seven votes counted and the three top vote getters received over 400+ of total votes cast. I apologize to all of my OCA friends for doubting.
On the second vote, +Jonah's share of the total vote went down from 2.88% to 1.93%. The only top candidate whose share of the total went up was Archbishop Tikhon (from 20% to 27.82%), while Bishop Michael's share declined slightly (from 34.75% to 31.14%). To put this into context, at the last primatial election, the second place +Jonah's share of the votes went up from 36% to 37%. In any case, it looks like the Holy Synod once again chose the second nominee (not that I am complaining; the only time that I had felt unhappy was when Archbishop of Dimitri of blessed memory was passed over in favor of +Theodosius).

Axios to Metropolitan-elect Archbishop Tikhon!
Carl, your observations are appreciated.  It is odd that the continuing trend seems to be a synodal election of the "second vote-getter," but so be it.  I think that if this happened in the UOC they would overturn consistory building (and knowing my bad timing, I would be in it at the time lol).  
Ditto with ACROD, although we only had one candidate this time. For those of you who wouldn't know this little bit of Orthodox trivia, Bishop Michael finished second by two or three votes in the ACROD election back in 1984 when he was a young parish priest following the death of Bishop John (Martin.) The late Metropolitan Nicholas (Smisko) finished first, at that time he was a Bishop in the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, having left ACROD the previous year.
 

Matrona

High Elder
Joined
Dec 20, 2003
Messages
999
Reaction score
0
Points
0
podkarpatska said:
I feel like I was really snookered and I should have known better, in the sense that like many here I thought that the pro-+Jonah folks who post feverishly over on Monomakhos represented some sort of significant bloc. They were going to force a vote to reinstall +Jonah - 17 votes; they were going to 'get' Metropolitan Hilarion from ROCOR - 3 votes - and so on. There were five hundred ninety seven votes counted and the three top vote getters received over 400+ of total votes cast. I apologize to all of my OCA friends for doubting.
There was actually significantly more pro-Metr. Jonah delegates than 17 there... the vote was not an accident.
 

Marc1152

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
14,838
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
67
Location
Maryland
I think Met Jonah will now be released to go to Rocor within the month.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Marc1152 said:
I think Met Jonah will now be released to go to Rocor within the month.
I was never quite sure how Met. Jonah ended up in the OCA in the first place.  He converted at a Patriarchal parish (no room for an American bishop there), entered the monastery in Russia, consecrated after the Act of Canonical Communion.

In any case, ROCOR if not the OCA, or even Antioch (highly unlikely, though).

If he learned Georgian, he could be its exarch.

Ah, I now am reminded of him spending time at St. Tikhon's and St. Vladimir Seminary in the 1990's.
 

PrincessMommy

High Elder
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
734
Reaction score
0
Points
0
podkarpatska said:
88Devin12 said:
First Ballot Results are in: http://ancientfaith.com/specials/aac_17/first_ballot_results

Apparently the top 3 so far are Bishop Michael, Archbishop Tikhon and Bishop Melchizedek (1st, 2nd & 3rd respectively). Finishing the top 5 would be Archbishop Nathaniel and Archbishop Benjamin (4th & 5th respectively).

As said in the audio, they are going to a second ballot since none of the 24 candidates received sufficient votes to be nominated.
I feel like I was really snookered and I should have known better, in the sense that like many here I thought that the pro-+Jonah folks who post feverishly over on Monomakhos represented some sort of significant bloc. They were going to force a vote to reinstall +Jonah - 17 votes; they were going to 'get' Metropolitan Hilarion from ROCOR - 3 votes - and so on. There were five hundred ninety seven votes counted and the three top vote getters received over 400+ of total votes cast. I apologize to all of my OCA friends for doubting.
There are several things at play with that. 

1. I don't think I ever saw a single commenter at Monomkhos say they were a delegate - so many may have WISHED for it, but had no vote

2. There are those who want +Jonah to be treated fairly by the Synod and those who wanted him re-instated.  These two groups do not necessarily include the same people.  I think the group who wanted to re-instate +Jonah is much, much smaller than the 1st group.  Both are being labeled "Pro-Jonah".
 

Matrona

High Elder
Joined
Dec 20, 2003
Messages
999
Reaction score
0
Points
0
PrincessMommy said:
podkarpatska said:
88Devin12 said:
First Ballot Results are in: http://ancientfaith.com/specials/aac_17/first_ballot_results

Apparently the top 3 so far are Bishop Michael, Archbishop Tikhon and Bishop Melchizedek (1st, 2nd & 3rd respectively). Finishing the top 5 would be Archbishop Nathaniel and Archbishop Benjamin (4th & 5th respectively).

As said in the audio, they are going to a second ballot since none of the 24 candidates received sufficient votes to be nominated.
I feel like I was really snookered and I should have known better, in the sense that like many here I thought that the pro-+Jonah folks who post feverishly over on Monomakhos represented some sort of significant bloc. They were going to force a vote to reinstall +Jonah - 17 votes; they were going to 'get' Metropolitan Hilarion from ROCOR - 3 votes - and so on. There were five hundred ninety seven votes counted and the three top vote getters received over 400+ of total votes cast. I apologize to all of my OCA friends for doubting.
There are several things at play with that. 

1. I don't think I ever saw a single commenter at Monomkhos say they were a delegate - so many may have WISHED for it, but had no vote
Not only that, but some delegates/alternates, like Joel Kalvesmaki, were prevented from serving because of pro-Jonah views.

2. There are those who want +Jonah to be treated fairly by the Synod and those who wanted him re-instated.  These two groups do not necessarily include the same people.  I think the group who wanted to re-instate +Jonah is much, much smaller than the 1st group.  Both are being labeled "Pro-Jonah".
There was also the knowledge that the Synod ultimately elects the Metropolitan, and that they would not elect Metropolitan Jonah, no matter how many delegates voted for him.

Like I said, the vote was no accident.  The nomination vote was not an accident.  Nor was the Synod's choice.
 

Schultz

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2002
Messages
6,691
Reaction score
2
Points
36
Age
45
Location
BaltiCORE, MD
Website
www.theidlegossip.com
Orual said:
PrincessMommy said:
podkarpatska said:
88Devin12 said:
First Ballot Results are in: http://ancientfaith.com/specials/aac_17/first_ballot_results

Apparently the top 3 so far are Bishop Michael, Archbishop Tikhon and Bishop Melchizedek (1st, 2nd & 3rd respectively). Finishing the top 5 would be Archbishop Nathaniel and Archbishop Benjamin (4th & 5th respectively).

As said in the audio, they are going to a second ballot since none of the 24 candidates received sufficient votes to be nominated.
I feel like I was really snookered and I should have known better, in the sense that like many here I thought that the pro-+Jonah folks who post feverishly over on Monomakhos represented some sort of significant bloc. They were going to force a vote to reinstall +Jonah - 17 votes; they were going to 'get' Metropolitan Hilarion from ROCOR - 3 votes - and so on. There were five hundred ninety seven votes counted and the three top vote getters received over 400+ of total votes cast. I apologize to all of my OCA friends for doubting.
There are several things at play with that. 

1. I don't think I ever saw a single commenter at Monomkhos say they were a delegate - so many may have WISHED for it, but had no vote
Not only that, but some delegates/alternates, like Joel Kalvesmaki, were prevented from serving because of pro-Jonah views.

2. There are those who want +Jonah to be treated fairly by the Synod and those who wanted him re-instated.  These two groups do not necessarily include the same people.  I think the group who wanted to re-instate +Jonah is much, much smaller than the 1st group.  Both are being labeled "Pro-Jonah".
There was also the knowledge that the Synod ultimately elects the Metropolitan, and that they would not elect Metropolitan Jonah, no matter how many delegates voted for him.

Like I said, the vote was no accident.  The nomination vote was not an accident.  Nor was the Synod's choice.
I think most elections of this type are not accidents.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.  Any cursory look at church history reveals that all sorts of "behind the scenes" negotiations and whatnot has been going on for centuries.  Most of the time it pans out well.  Sometimes it doesn't.  For some reason, the OCA has fallen into the latter in recent decades. 
 

88Devin12

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
5,182
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Orual said:
PrincessMommy said:
podkarpatska said:
88Devin12 said:
First Ballot Results are in: http://ancientfaith.com/specials/aac_17/first_ballot_results

Apparently the top 3 so far are Bishop Michael, Archbishop Tikhon and Bishop Melchizedek (1st, 2nd & 3rd respectively). Finishing the top 5 would be Archbishop Nathaniel and Archbishop Benjamin (4th & 5th respectively).

As said in the audio, they are going to a second ballot since none of the 24 candidates received sufficient votes to be nominated.
I feel like I was really snookered and I should have known better, in the sense that like many here I thought that the pro-+Jonah folks who post feverishly over on Monomakhos represented some sort of significant bloc. They were going to force a vote to reinstall +Jonah - 17 votes; they were going to 'get' Metropolitan Hilarion from ROCOR - 3 votes - and so on. There were five hundred ninety seven votes counted and the three top vote getters received over 400+ of total votes cast. I apologize to all of my OCA friends for doubting.
There are several things at play with that. 

1. I don't think I ever saw a single commenter at Monomkhos say they were a delegate - so many may have WISHED for it, but had no vote
Not only that, but some delegates/alternates, like Joel Kalvesmaki, were prevented from serving because of pro-Jonah views.

2. There are those who want +Jonah to be treated fairly by the Synod and those who wanted him re-instated.  These two groups do not necessarily include the same people.  I think the group who wanted to re-instate +Jonah is much, much smaller than the 1st group.  Both are being labeled "Pro-Jonah".
There was also the knowledge that the Synod ultimately elects the Metropolitan, and that they would not elect Metropolitan Jonah, no matter how many delegates voted for him.

Like I said, the vote was no accident.  The nomination vote was not an accident.  Nor was the Synod's choice.
Continuing to believe in your useless conspiracy theories even after you lose?

Joel Kalvesmaki, someone without any importance and someone who isn't even an Orthodox Priest would not be allowed to serve at the AAC in the first place.

You're acting like the vote was faked, or that the Synod pulled a +Herman or + Theodosius? When will you Monomakhos nuts learn that not all Bishops are corrupt and not everything is a conspiracy?

There are just some people out there who slander and defame the episcopacy because they have some sort of penis envy when it comes to power and episcopal positions. Or maybe they simply have an inbred hatred for hierarchy because of abuse they've suffered under Rome or England. It's so weird and certainly it is un-Orthodox.

This AAC was not some sort of "robber council" and wasn't a "sham". In fact, this was the very opposite of a robber council, and to suggest that it was a robber council would be absolute idiocy and displays a profound ignorance of actual history of our church and how robber councils worked. The Monomakhos idiots are a minority, and they are not a significant group out there.

I'm willing to bet that nearly 100% of OCA Priests were there. There were something like 663 attendees with 590 of them being voting members. We only have about a dozen bishops, and we have somewhere over 500 Priests.
 

Schultz

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2002
Messages
6,691
Reaction score
2
Points
36
Age
45
Location
BaltiCORE, MD
Website
www.theidlegossip.com
88Devin12 said:
Orual said:
PrincessMommy said:
podkarpatska said:
88Devin12 said:
First Ballot Results are in: http://ancientfaith.com/specials/aac_17/first_ballot_results

Apparently the top 3 so far are Bishop Michael, Archbishop Tikhon and Bishop Melchizedek (1st, 2nd & 3rd respectively). Finishing the top 5 would be Archbishop Nathaniel and Archbishop Benjamin (4th & 5th respectively).

As said in the audio, they are going to a second ballot since none of the 24 candidates received sufficient votes to be nominated.
I feel like I was really snookered and I should have known better, in the sense that like many here I thought that the pro-+Jonah folks who post feverishly over on Monomakhos represented some sort of significant bloc. They were going to force a vote to reinstall +Jonah - 17 votes; they were going to 'get' Metropolitan Hilarion from ROCOR - 3 votes - and so on. There were five hundred ninety seven votes counted and the three top vote getters received over 400+ of total votes cast. I apologize to all of my OCA friends for doubting.
There are several things at play with that. 

1. I don't think I ever saw a single commenter at Monomkhos say they were a delegate - so many may have WISHED for it, but had no vote
Not only that, but some delegates/alternates, like Joel Kalvesmaki, were prevented from serving because of pro-Jonah views.

2. There are those who want +Jonah to be treated fairly by the Synod and those who wanted him re-instated.  These two groups do not necessarily include the same people.  I think the group who wanted to re-instate +Jonah is much, much smaller than the 1st group.  Both are being labeled "Pro-Jonah".
There was also the knowledge that the Synod ultimately elects the Metropolitan, and that they would not elect Metropolitan Jonah, no matter how many delegates voted for him.

Like I said, the vote was no accident.  The nomination vote was not an accident.  Nor was the Synod's choice.
Continuing to believe in your useless conspiracy theories even after you lose?

Joel Kalvesmaki, someone without any importance and someone who isn't even an Orthodox Priest would not be allowed to serve at the AAC in the first place.
There were plenty of non-priests voting in the election.  Not sure what you mean by this.
 

88Devin12

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
5,182
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Schultz said:
Orual said:
PrincessMommy said:
podkarpatska said:
88Devin12 said:
First Ballot Results are in: http://ancientfaith.com/specials/aac_17/first_ballot_results

Apparently the top 3 so far are Bishop Michael, Archbishop Tikhon and Bishop Melchizedek (1st, 2nd & 3rd respectively). Finishing the top 5 would be Archbishop Nathaniel and Archbishop Benjamin (4th & 5th respectively).

As said in the audio, they are going to a second ballot since none of the 24 candidates received sufficient votes to be nominated.
I feel like I was really snookered and I should have known better, in the sense that like many here I thought that the pro-+Jonah folks who post feverishly over on Monomakhos represented some sort of significant bloc. They were going to force a vote to reinstall +Jonah - 17 votes; they were going to 'get' Metropolitan Hilarion from ROCOR - 3 votes - and so on. There were five hundred ninety seven votes counted and the three top vote getters received over 400+ of total votes cast. I apologize to all of my OCA friends for doubting.
There are several things at play with that. 

1. I don't think I ever saw a single commenter at Monomkhos say they were a delegate - so many may have WISHED for it, but had no vote
Not only that, but some delegates/alternates, like Joel Kalvesmaki, were prevented from serving because of pro-Jonah views.

2. There are those who want +Jonah to be treated fairly by the Synod and those who wanted him re-instated.  These two groups do not necessarily include the same people.  I think the group who wanted to re-instate +Jonah is much, much smaller than the 1st group.  Both are being labeled "Pro-Jonah".
There was also the knowledge that the Synod ultimately elects the Metropolitan, and that they would not elect Metropolitan Jonah, no matter how many delegates voted for him.

Like I said, the vote was no accident.  The nomination vote was not an accident.  Nor was the Synod's choice.
I think most elections of this type are not accidents.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.  Any cursory look at church history reveals that all sorts of "behind the scenes" negotiations and whatnot has been going on for centuries.  Most of the time it pans out well.  Sometimes it doesn't.  For some reason, the OCA has fallen into the latter in recent decades. 
Hmm, well Bishops Tikhon and Michael received the most votes, and that is unquestionable. As for which one received the nomination, that is up to the decision of the Synod, not us. They didn't pull the same stunt they did with Metropolitan Herman or Metropolitan Theodosius. They didn't pick the one with the most votes, but they did pick the person who got the 2nd most, not the 3rd or 4th.

Like I said, I think some people like you, Orual and others just hate Bishops and hate the authority they represent and the power that they hold. This isn't the Anglican Church and this isn't the Roman Catholic Church. No matter what has happened to anyone in the past with Bishops, they should forget it.

Even if an Orthodox Bishop has done something to you or offended you in some way, that doesn't give you any excuse to hold a grudge against every other Bishop as well. I know people in real life who are this way, and who dislike every Bishop no matter who it is because of something a Bishop did to their family long ago. People like that need to get over it and get rid of their episcophobia.
 

88Devin12

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
5,182
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Schultz said:
88Devin12 said:
Orual said:
PrincessMommy said:
podkarpatska said:
88Devin12 said:
First Ballot Results are in: http://ancientfaith.com/specials/aac_17/first_ballot_results

Apparently the top 3 so far are Bishop Michael, Archbishop Tikhon and Bishop Melchizedek (1st, 2nd & 3rd respectively). Finishing the top 5 would be Archbishop Nathaniel and Archbishop Benjamin (4th & 5th respectively).

As said in the audio, they are going to a second ballot since none of the 24 candidates received sufficient votes to be nominated.
I feel like I was really snookered and I should have known better, in the sense that like many here I thought that the pro-+Jonah folks who post feverishly over on Monomakhos represented some sort of significant bloc. They were going to force a vote to reinstall +Jonah - 17 votes; they were going to 'get' Metropolitan Hilarion from ROCOR - 3 votes - and so on. There were five hundred ninety seven votes counted and the three top vote getters received over 400+ of total votes cast. I apologize to all of my OCA friends for doubting.
There are several things at play with that.  

1. I don't think I ever saw a single commenter at Monomkhos say they were a delegate - so many may have WISHED for it, but had no vote
Not only that, but some delegates/alternates, like Joel Kalvesmaki, were prevented from serving because of pro-Jonah views.

2. There are those who want +Jonah to be treated fairly by the Synod and those who wanted him re-instated.  These two groups do not necessarily include the same people.  I think the group who wanted to re-instate +Jonah is much, much smaller than the 1st group.  Both are being labeled "Pro-Jonah".
There was also the knowledge that the Synod ultimately elects the Metropolitan, and that they would not elect Metropolitan Jonah, no matter how many delegates voted for him.

Like I said, the vote was no accident.  The nomination vote was not an accident.  Nor was the Synod's choice.
Continuing to believe in your useless conspiracy theories even after you lose?

Joel Kalvesmaki, someone without any importance and someone who isn't even an Orthodox Priest would not be allowed to serve at the AAC in the first place.
There were plenty of non-priests voting in the election.  Not sure what you mean by this.
He used the term "serve", not "vote". A layperson cannot serve unless it is as an altar server, and in order to serve beyond that they must be tonsured or ordained to an order.

If he said that that guy couldn't vote, then that would make more sense. Either way, who cares if that one obscure guy couldn't vote? This isn't a democracy, so he and all you others should get over it and accept the ecclesiology of your own Church.
 

Schultz

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2002
Messages
6,691
Reaction score
2
Points
36
Age
45
Location
BaltiCORE, MD
Website
www.theidlegossip.com
88Devin12 said:
Schultz said:
Orual said:
PrincessMommy said:
podkarpatska said:
88Devin12 said:
First Ballot Results are in: http://ancientfaith.com/specials/aac_17/first_ballot_results

Apparently the top 3 so far are Bishop Michael, Archbishop Tikhon and Bishop Melchizedek (1st, 2nd & 3rd respectively). Finishing the top 5 would be Archbishop Nathaniel and Archbishop Benjamin (4th & 5th respectively).

As said in the audio, they are going to a second ballot since none of the 24 candidates received sufficient votes to be nominated.
I feel like I was really snookered and I should have known better, in the sense that like many here I thought that the pro-+Jonah folks who post feverishly over on Monomakhos represented some sort of significant bloc. They were going to force a vote to reinstall +Jonah - 17 votes; they were going to 'get' Metropolitan Hilarion from ROCOR - 3 votes - and so on. There were five hundred ninety seven votes counted and the three top vote getters received over 400+ of total votes cast. I apologize to all of my OCA friends for doubting.
There are several things at play with that.  

1. I don't think I ever saw a single commenter at Monomkhos say they were a delegate - so many may have WISHED for it, but had no vote
Not only that, but some delegates/alternates, like Joel Kalvesmaki, were prevented from serving because of pro-Jonah views.

2. There are those who want +Jonah to be treated fairly by the Synod and those who wanted him re-instated.  These two groups do not necessarily include the same people.  I think the group who wanted to re-instate +Jonah is much, much smaller than the 1st group.  Both are being labeled "Pro-Jonah".
There was also the knowledge that the Synod ultimately elects the Metropolitan, and that they would not elect Metropolitan Jonah, no matter how many delegates voted for him.

Like I said, the vote was no accident.  The nomination vote was not an accident.  Nor was the Synod's choice.
I think most elections of this type are not accidents.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.  Any cursory look at church history reveals that all sorts of "behind the scenes" negotiations and whatnot has been going on for centuries.  Most of the time it pans out well.  Sometimes it doesn't.  For some reason, the OCA has fallen into the latter in recent decades.  
Hmm, well Bishops Tikhon and Michael received the most votes, and that is unquestionable. As for which one received the nomination, that is up to the decision of the Synod, not us. They didn't pull the same stunt they did with Metropolitan Herman or Metropolitan Theodosius. They didn't pick the one with the most votes, but they did pick the person who got the 2nd most, not the 3rd or 4th.

Like I said, I think some people like you, Orual and others just hate Bishops and hate the authority they represent and the power that they hold. This isn't the Anglican Church and this isn't the Roman Catholic Church. No matter what has happened to anyone in the past with Bishops, they should forget it.

Even if an Orthodox Bishop has done something to you or offended you in some way, that doesn't give you any excuse to hold a grudge against every other Bishop as well. I know people in real life who are this way, and who dislike every Bishop no matter who it is because of something a Bishop did to their family long ago. People like that need to get over it and get rid of their episcophobia.
First off, you need to calm down again.  I am not one of the monomakhos crowd looking for conspiracies left and right.  I do not hate bishops and the authority they represent and have no idea why you characterize me, as such.  I defy you to find one post to substantiate this claim.  Otherwise, please take it back.

Secondly, I am merely being a realist regarding the CHOICE BEHIND THE ICONOSTASIS.  Do you really not think that they talk about these things before an election and come to some sort of agreement beforehand, that they don't know who the front runners will be?  People talk and blab all the time.  They have for centuries.  I'm not saying there's some grand conspiracy, but it's certainly not some innocent, totally secret election.  There is campaigning and polling and everything that we see associated with secular politics.  It just happens to be more secretive and, thankfully, not as dirty.  But it still happens.

 

Schultz

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2002
Messages
6,691
Reaction score
2
Points
36
Age
45
Location
BaltiCORE, MD
Website
www.theidlegossip.com
88Devin12 said:
Schultz said:
88Devin12 said:
Orual said:
PrincessMommy said:
podkarpatska said:
88Devin12 said:
First Ballot Results are in: http://ancientfaith.com/specials/aac_17/first_ballot_results

Apparently the top 3 so far are Bishop Michael, Archbishop Tikhon and Bishop Melchizedek (1st, 2nd & 3rd respectively). Finishing the top 5 would be Archbishop Nathaniel and Archbishop Benjamin (4th & 5th respectively).

As said in the audio, they are going to a second ballot since none of the 24 candidates received sufficient votes to be nominated.
I feel like I was really snookered and I should have known better, in the sense that like many here I thought that the pro-+Jonah folks who post feverishly over on Monomakhos represented some sort of significant bloc. They were going to force a vote to reinstall +Jonah - 17 votes; they were going to 'get' Metropolitan Hilarion from ROCOR - 3 votes - and so on. There were five hundred ninety seven votes counted and the three top vote getters received over 400+ of total votes cast. I apologize to all of my OCA friends for doubting.
There are several things at play with that.  

1. I don't think I ever saw a single commenter at Monomkhos say they were a delegate - so many may have WISHED for it, but had no vote
Not only that, but some delegates/alternates, like Joel Kalvesmaki, were prevented from serving because of pro-Jonah views.

2. There are those who want +Jonah to be treated fairly by the Synod and those who wanted him re-instated.  These two groups do not necessarily include the same people.  I think the group who wanted to re-instate +Jonah is much, much smaller than the 1st group.  Both are being labeled "Pro-Jonah".
There was also the knowledge that the Synod ultimately elects the Metropolitan, and that they would not elect Metropolitan Jonah, no matter how many delegates voted for him.

Like I said, the vote was no accident.  The nomination vote was not an accident.  Nor was the Synod's choice.
Continuing to believe in your useless conspiracy theories even after you lose?

Joel Kalvesmaki, someone without any importance and someone who isn't even an Orthodox Priest would not be allowed to serve at the AAC in the first place.
There were plenty of non-priests voting in the election.  Not sure what you mean by this.
He used the term "serve", not "vote". A layperson cannot serve unless it is as an altar server, and in order to serve beyond that they must be tonsured or ordained to an order.

If he said that that guy couldn't vote, then that would make more sense. Either way, who cares if that one obscure guy couldn't vote? This isn't a democracy, so he and all you others should get over it and accept the ecclesiology of your own Church.
Fair enough.  I think he meant "serve" in the sense of serving the Church by going and having a say, if not a vote, as is his right under the charter of the OCA.  The OCA idoes have a pseudo-democratic way of choosing its Metropolitans and there's nothing to get over. 

FWIW, I have no problem with what +Alexander did re: Mr. Kalvesmaki.
 

podkarpatska

Merarches
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
9,732
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Northeast United States
Website
www.acrod.org
88Devin12 said:
Orual said:
PrincessMommy said:
podkarpatska said:
88Devin12 said:
First Ballot Results are in: http://ancientfaith.com/specials/aac_17/first_ballot_results

Apparently the top 3 so far are Bishop Michael, Archbishop Tikhon and Bishop Melchizedek (1st, 2nd & 3rd respectively). Finishing the top 5 would be Archbishop Nathaniel and Archbishop Benjamin (4th & 5th respectively).

As said in the audio, they are going to a second ballot since none of the 24 candidates received sufficient votes to be nominated.
I feel like I was really snookered and I should have known better, in the sense that like many here I thought that the pro-+Jonah folks who post feverishly over on Monomakhos represented some sort of significant bloc. They were going to force a vote to reinstall +Jonah - 17 votes; they were going to 'get' Metropolitan Hilarion from ROCOR - 3 votes - and so on. There were five hundred ninety seven votes counted and the three top vote getters received over 400+ of total votes cast. I apologize to all of my OCA friends for doubting.
There are several things at play with that. 

1. I don't think I ever saw a single commenter at Monomkhos say they were a delegate - so many may have WISHED for it, but had no vote
Not only that, but some delegates/alternates, like Joel Kalvesmaki, were prevented from serving because of pro-Jonah views.

2. There are those who want +Jonah to be treated fairly by the Synod and those who wanted him re-instated.  These two groups do not necessarily include the same people.  I think the group who wanted to re-instate +Jonah is much, much smaller than the 1st group.  Both are being labeled "Pro-Jonah".
There was also the knowledge that the Synod ultimately elects the Metropolitan, and that they would not elect Metropolitan Jonah, no matter how many delegates voted for him.

Like I said, the vote was no accident.  The nomination vote was not an accident.  Nor was the Synod's choice.
Continuing to believe in your useless conspiracy theories even after you lose?

Joel Kalvesmaki, someone without any importance and someone who isn't even an Orthodox Priest would not be allowed to serve at the AAC in the first place.

You're acting like the vote was faked, or that the Synod pulled a +Herman or + Theodosius? When will you Monomakhos nuts learn that not all Bishops are corrupt and not everything is a conspiracy?

There are just some people out there who slander and defame the episcopacy because they have some sort of penis envy when it comes to power and episcopal positions. Or maybe they simply have an inbred hatred for hierarchy because of abuse they've suffered under Rome or England. It's so weird and certainly it is un-Orthodox.

This AAC was not some sort of "robber council" and wasn't a "sham". In fact, this was the very opposite of a robber council, and to suggest that it was a robber council would be absolute idiocy and displays a profound ignorance of actual history of our church and how robber councils worked. The Monomakhos idiots are a minority, and they are not a significant group out there.

I'm willing to bet that nearly 100% of OCA Priests were there. There were something like 663 attendees with 590 of them being voting members. We only have about a dozen bishops, and we have somewhere over 500 Priests.
Thank you Devin for putting these things into perspective. I do think you hit the nail on the head though, regarding the source of anti-clerical behavior and suspicion of the hierarchy which has a long standing history within at least the OCA and ACROD. Initially in these two jurisdictions that hostility came from the treatment of the men and women who ultimately left the Greek Catholic faith and turned to Orthodoxy by both the hierarchy of the Roman church and later by their own Greek Catholic bishops. Over the better part of a century, those feelings began to abate due to the passage of time and due to the positive relationships later Bishops had with their clergy and people. Never the less, a 'never forget' mentality did persist even in the good times as memories of those long ago disputes took on the form of 'urban legend' in many families and parishes. In the OCA there was an influx of converts over the past two decades or so, particularly in the west and in the south -with many of them suffering from a similar disaffection with Bishops and church leaders - either Roman or Protestant - who let them down over a number of issues - sex scandals, liberalization and abandonment of traditional Christian teachings and so on.

Two cultures came to clash - the 'old way' of doing things - not necessarily 'by the books' (certainly financially) and operationally within the OCA and the more transparent 'American' way of running a business. When you add irregularities which could not be explained to anyone's satisfaction (I realize I am taking liberties here and simplifying history - I am just outlining a general hypothesis here...) involving Church finances, operations and discipline. Stir in a mix of Bishops and clergy with strong personalities running things by the 'old school' manner of administration and you have a problem. A paternalistic - 'we know what's best for you' - mindset is tough to overcome and is inherently present in any patriarchal hierarchy. (Not limited to Church patriarchs by the way....)

Now it does seem to me that the 'outrage' which some claimed as  being widespread regarding Metropolitan Jonah's departure was probably felt more by those who really had dealings with him on a pastoral level - and not across the OCA as a whole. He wasn't there long enough nor was he really known by most of the clergy and laity to point where they formed a deeply held opinion of him. To most he was at best a cipher - he came out of 'nowhere' at the last AAC - spoke truth to power (or at least what the majority of the delegates perceived to be the truth at that time) and he rose the wave to the Klobuk. But like I posted back in the summer, unlike Hollywood movie scripts, Mr. Smith doesn't always carry the day, the hero isn't always what he appears to be at first blush.

If people had taken His Eminence's letter to the Synod at face value and if the Synod did not try to justify the chain of events with their attempt to 'spin' things with their letter in response - had they simply remained silent for a few more weeks and let things play out and calm down - I think most of the angst and drama could have been avoided.

The Orthodox Church within the United States is a work in progress - slow to be sure - but a work in progress. The EA format is moving ahead and good things are coming out of the efforts of our Bishops of all jurisdictions and informed clergy and laity to learn from the mistakes of the past century made by all of us.

Enough said, good luck to the new Metropolitan. Our prayers should be with our brothers and sisters in the OCA and all of us should pray without ceasing for peace and unity within the Church - if we fail at that task we leave the door open for the works of the evil one.  To the new Metropolitan  - AXIOS! To the Bishops and faithful of the OCA - Many Years!
 

Orest

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jun 14, 2007
Messages
1,563
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Marc1152 said:
I think Met Jonah will now be released to go to Rocor within the month.
But why?  Do you really think the ROCOR would actually accept him?  And as what: a monk to spend out his days praying in Holy Trinity in Jordonville?  The ROCOR has not had the scandals of the OCA so I can't see them wanting anything to do with Metr. Jonah.
 

88Devin12

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
5,182
Reaction score
0
Points
0
schultz, I apologize, I may not have reflected how you feel on the subject. I understand now that you meant the choice behind the iconostasis. I had thought you were referring to the overall vote and that it may have been skewed somehow.

Yes, the OCA has a pseudo-democratic way of electing, but it still isn't a democracy when it comes down to it. The votes go to the Synod and they aren't obligated to choose the person that got first, though they should at least choose first or second.
 

88Devin12

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
5,182
Reaction score
0
Points
0
As for the Assembly of Bishops, I really want them to find a good resolution relatively "soon" and I hope the Pan-Orthodox Council is called relatively "soon" as well. I don't care if we are Autonomous or Autocephalous, we need to be united, and that is priority #1.

I'd like to see the episcophobe crowd whine and complain when there are over 50 Bishops together and who form a single Synod. Let's see them justify a conspiracy.
 

Schultz

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2002
Messages
6,691
Reaction score
2
Points
36
Age
45
Location
BaltiCORE, MD
Website
www.theidlegossip.com
88Devin12 said:
schultz, I apologize, I may not have reflected how you feel on the subject. I understand now that you meant the choice behind the iconostasis. I had thought you were referring to the overall vote and that it may have been skewed somehow.

Yes, the OCA has a pseudo-democratic way of electing, but it still isn't a democracy when it comes down to it. The votes go to the Synod and they aren't obligated to choose the person that got first, though they should at least choose first or second.
Thank you.

If a candidate receives 2/3 majority on the first ballot, only his name (and no others) goes to the Holy Synod and if they do not accept him, they must say why (article IV, section 4 of the OCA Statutes).  While there certainly is a check on the power of the vote by the Holy Synod, they would have to have a pretty good reason for not accepting someone who manages to get at least 2/3 of the vote.  

In the end, I agree with you that the Church is not a democracy in the political sense, but the OCA, at least, certainly has a very strong democratic undercurrent in its Statutes that must be respected.  In the end, however, it is the Holy Synod who chooses.  It's kind of like a popular vote/electoral college thing.  Kind of.  Maybe.  I don't know.

Regardless, I hope Metropolitan-elect Tikhon can right the ship that is the OCA and let us forget we have bishops in the first place except for the (hopefully) once a year visits.  I think the Church works best when we forget we have bishops because that means a) we're not being persecuted, b) everyone's teaching Orthodoxy and c) they're leading by example and not diktat.
 

88Devin12

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
5,182
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Schultz said:
88Devin12 said:
schultz, I apologize, I may not have reflected how you feel on the subject. I understand now that you meant the choice behind the iconostasis. I had thought you were referring to the overall vote and that it may have been skewed somehow.

Yes, the OCA has a pseudo-democratic way of electing, but it still isn't a democracy when it comes down to it. The votes go to the Synod and they aren't obligated to choose the person that got first, though they should at least choose first or second.
Thank you.

If a candidate receives 2/3 majority on the first ballot, only his name (and no others) goes to the Holy Synod and if they do not accept him, they must say why (article IV, section 4 of the OCA Statutes).  While there certainly is a check on the power of the vote by the Holy Synod, they would have to have a pretty good reason for not accepting someone who manages to get at least 2/3 of the vote.  

In the end, I agree with you that the Church is not a democracy in the political sense, but the OCA, at least, certainly has a very strong democratic undercurrent in its Statutes that must be respected.  In the end, however, it is the Holy Synod who chooses.  It's kind of like a popular vote/electoral college thing.  Kind of.  Maybe.  I don't know.

Regardless, I hope Metropolitan-elect Tikhon can right the ship that is the OCA and let us forget we have bishops in the first place except for the (hopefully) once a year visits.  I think the Church works best when we forget we have bishops because that means a) we're not being persecuted, b) everyone's teaching Orthodoxy and c) they're leading by example and not diktat.
Actually I'm cool (in my diocese) of not having the Bishop come. He (our Bishop) may be a nice guy, but he shouldn't be Bishop.

I really wish that our local OCA parishes could just transfer over to Bishop Basil.
 

podkarpatska

Merarches
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
9,732
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Northeast United States
Website
www.acrod.org
Schultz said:
88Devin12 said:
Schultz said:
Orual said:
PrincessMommy said:
podkarpatska said:
88Devin12 said:
First Ballot Results are in: http://ancientfaith.com/specials/aac_17/first_ballot_results

Apparently the top 3 so far are Bishop Michael, Archbishop Tikhon and Bishop Melchizedek (1st, 2nd & 3rd respectively). Finishing the top 5 would be Archbishop Nathaniel and Archbishop Benjamin (4th & 5th respectively).

As said in the audio, they are going to a second ballot since none of the 24 candidates received sufficient votes to be nominated.
I feel like I was really snookered and I should have known better, in the sense that like many here I thought that the pro-+Jonah folks who post feverishly over on Monomakhos represented some sort of significant bloc. They were going to force a vote to reinstall +Jonah - 17 votes; they were going to 'get' Metropolitan Hilarion from ROCOR - 3 votes - and so on. There were five hundred ninety seven votes counted and the three top vote getters received over 400+ of total votes cast. I apologize to all of my OCA friends for doubting.
There are several things at play with that.  

1. I don't think I ever saw a single commenter at Monomkhos say they were a delegate - so many may have WISHED for it, but had no vote
Not only that, but some delegates/alternates, like Joel Kalvesmaki, were prevented from serving because of pro-Jonah views.

2. There are those who want +Jonah to be treated fairly by the Synod and those who wanted him re-instated.  These two groups do not necessarily include the same people.  I think the group who wanted to re-instate +Jonah is much, much smaller than the 1st group.  Both are being labeled "Pro-Jonah".
There was also the knowledge that the Synod ultimately elects the Metropolitan, and that they would not elect Metropolitan Jonah, no matter how many delegates voted for him.

Like I said, the vote was no accident.  The nomination vote was not an accident.  Nor was the Synod's choice.
I think most elections of this type are not accidents.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.  Any cursory look at church history reveals that all sorts of "behind the scenes" negotiations and whatnot has been going on for centuries.  Most of the time it pans out well.  Sometimes it doesn't.  For some reason, the OCA has fallen into the latter in recent decades.  
Hmm, well Bishops Tikhon and Michael received the most votes, and that is unquestionable. As for which one received the nomination, that is up to the decision of the Synod, not us. They didn't pull the same stunt they did with Metropolitan Herman or Metropolitan Theodosius. They didn't pick the one with the most votes, but they did pick the person who got the 2nd most, not the 3rd or 4th.

Like I said, I think some people like you, Orual and others just hate Bishops and hate the authority they represent and the power that they hold. This isn't the Anglican Church and this isn't the Roman Catholic Church. No matter what has happened to anyone in the past with Bishops, they should forget it.

Even if an Orthodox Bishop has done something to you or offended you in some way, that doesn't give you any excuse to hold a grudge against every other Bishop as well. I know people in real life who are this way, and who dislike every Bishop no matter who it is because of something a Bishop did to their family long ago. People like that need to get over it and get rid of their episcophobia.
First off, you need to calm down again.  I am not one of the monomakhos crowd looking for conspiracies left and right.  I do not hate bishops and the authority they represent and have no idea why you characterize me, as such.  I defy you to find one post to substantiate this claim.  Otherwise, please take it back.

Secondly, I am merely being a realist regarding the CHOICE BEHIND THE ICONOSTASIS.  Do you really not think that they talk about these things before an election and come to some sort of agreement beforehand, that they don't know who the front runners will be?  People talk and blab all the time.  They have for centuries.  I'm not saying there's some grand conspiracy, but it's certainly not some innocent, totally secret election.  There is campaigning and polling and everything that we see associated with secular politics.  It just happens to be more secretive and, thankfully, not as dirty.  But it still happens.
Schultz is most certainly NOT within the crowd urging rebellion. Quite the contrary.

I have been aware of church politics for all of my sensient life as a the son of a priest who was active in his jurisdiction and part of the Chancery operations for many years as a member of the Bishop's consistory. Nothing surprises me, and because of that I am perhaps cynical about these things - but really - little disappoints me as well. Clergy put on their pants one leg at a time. Extraordinary pastors and superb Bishops would have succeeded in whatever field they would have entered from education to the military to business to government. Human-run institutions all share the same qualities - both good and bad - the Church is no exception.

The late Bishop John (Martin) was a convert from the Greek Catholic world. He was a high ranking member of the Eparchy of Pittsburgh and was most likely destined to be named its Bishop before his falling out with his Bishop, +Nicholas Elko in the early 1960's. Shortly after he left that church to pursue his doctorate at Stanford, Bishop Nicholas himself was removed by Rome and sent into exile in Rome. The reason I mention this background is that Bishop John was one of the most driven, dynamic men I ever met. Raised the son of family of steelworkers in Pittsburgh he likely would have risen to the pinnacle of power in that industry or the financial services industry as he was a driven man. As Bishop he was more often feared than beloved but he had vision and drive. He envisioned the building of a youth camp in the late 1960's and by the end of the next decade Camp Nazareth in Mercer, PA was a reality. Built by the small donations of hundreds of faithful the camp has been an exemplar of how Orthodox camping facilities should be operated and the benefits which have come from three generations of young people passing through its gates are incalculable.

He died a dramatic death at a young age, passing away after giving a glowing address at a Diocesan banquet in front of hundreds.

He was followed by the late Metropolitan Nicholas - different as night from day in personality from his predecessor. He was beloved but never feared. A monk, trained at Halki and for many years a beloved parish priest in New York's lower East side he brought a different type of leadership. He continued the work of his predecessor, the Diocese grew and expanded into regions where the faithful relocated and became far less ethnic than ever - even though the late Metropolitan loved his Carpatho-Rusyn heritage, loved its music and culture and honored the traditions of the past except when those traditions were at odds with those of the Church. He would often say that we were all converts in a sense - no one was in the Church by force in modern America - we all were there by choice. For some the choice was easier to make - it came from family, comfort and tradition - but in the end it was a choice. For others, that choice came at the price of great personal sacrifice - but we all were equal in the presence of God.

Frankly those who loved one usually tolerated the other at best. But how is that any different than your workplace or school or even your family dynamic?

Both however, were acutely aware of one maxim - while the church bears similarities to secular organizations in terms of operation, personality issues and even finances in the end one thing remained true - The Orthodox Church is not a democracy.

One more thought - yes lay people DO serve the church - men and women alike. Their service is not behind the altar, but without their heartfelt service to God and His Church our clergy and Bishops would be little more than players on a stage and our parishes would resemble more the Potemkin villages of Tsarist Russia than the living house of our Lord.
 

88Devin12

Protokentarchos
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
5,182
Reaction score
0
Points
0
podkarpatska said:
Schultz said:
88Devin12 said:
Schultz said:
Orual said:
PrincessMommy said:
podkarpatska said:
88Devin12 said:
First Ballot Results are in: http://ancientfaith.com/specials/aac_17/first_ballot_results

Apparently the top 3 so far are Bishop Michael, Archbishop Tikhon and Bishop Melchizedek (1st, 2nd & 3rd respectively). Finishing the top 5 would be Archbishop Nathaniel and Archbishop Benjamin (4th & 5th respectively).

As said in the audio, they are going to a second ballot since none of the 24 candidates received sufficient votes to be nominated.
I feel like I was really snookered and I should have known better, in the sense that like many here I thought that the pro-+Jonah folks who post feverishly over on Monomakhos represented some sort of significant bloc. They were going to force a vote to reinstall +Jonah - 17 votes; they were going to 'get' Metropolitan Hilarion from ROCOR - 3 votes - and so on. There were five hundred ninety seven votes counted and the three top vote getters received over 400+ of total votes cast. I apologize to all of my OCA friends for doubting.
There are several things at play with that.  

1. I don't think I ever saw a single commenter at Monomkhos say they were a delegate - so many may have WISHED for it, but had no vote
Not only that, but some delegates/alternates, like Joel Kalvesmaki, were prevented from serving because of pro-Jonah views.

2. There are those who want +Jonah to be treated fairly by the Synod and those who wanted him re-instated.  These two groups do not necessarily include the same people.  I think the group who wanted to re-instate +Jonah is much, much smaller than the 1st group.  Both are being labeled "Pro-Jonah".
There was also the knowledge that the Synod ultimately elects the Metropolitan, and that they would not elect Metropolitan Jonah, no matter how many delegates voted for him.

Like I said, the vote was no accident.  The nomination vote was not an accident.  Nor was the Synod's choice.
I think most elections of this type are not accidents.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.  Any cursory look at church history reveals that all sorts of "behind the scenes" negotiations and whatnot has been going on for centuries.  Most of the time it pans out well.  Sometimes it doesn't.  For some reason, the OCA has fallen into the latter in recent decades.  
Hmm, well Bishops Tikhon and Michael received the most votes, and that is unquestionable. As for which one received the nomination, that is up to the decision of the Synod, not us. They didn't pull the same stunt they did with Metropolitan Herman or Metropolitan Theodosius. They didn't pick the one with the most votes, but they did pick the person who got the 2nd most, not the 3rd or 4th.

Like I said, I think some people like you, Orual and others just hate Bishops and hate the authority they represent and the power that they hold. This isn't the Anglican Church and this isn't the Roman Catholic Church. No matter what has happened to anyone in the past with Bishops, they should forget it.

Even if an Orthodox Bishop has done something to you or offended you in some way, that doesn't give you any excuse to hold a grudge against every other Bishop as well. I know people in real life who are this way, and who dislike every Bishop no matter who it is because of something a Bishop did to their family long ago. People like that need to get over it and get rid of their episcophobia.
First off, you need to calm down again.  I am not one of the monomakhos crowd looking for conspiracies left and right.  I do not hate bishops and the authority they represent and have no idea why you characterize me, as such.  I defy you to find one post to substantiate this claim.  Otherwise, please take it back.

Secondly, I am merely being a realist regarding the CHOICE BEHIND THE ICONOSTASIS.  Do you really not think that they talk about these things before an election and come to some sort of agreement beforehand, that they don't know who the front runners will be?  People talk and blab all the time.  They have for centuries.  I'm not saying there's some grand conspiracy, but it's certainly not some innocent, totally secret election.  There is campaigning and polling and everything that we see associated with secular politics.  It just happens to be more secretive and, thankfully, not as dirty.  But it still happens.
Schultz is most certainly NOT within the crowd urging rebellion. Quite the contrary.

I have been aware of church politics for all of my sensient life as a the son of a priest who was active in his jurisdiction and part of the Chancery operations for many years as a member of the Bishop's consistory. Nothing surprises me, and because of that I am perhaps cynical about these things - but really - little disappoints me as well. Clergy put on their pants one leg at a time. Extraordinary pastors and superb Bishops would have succeeded in whatever field they would have entered from education to the military to business to government. Human-run institutions all share the same qualities - both good and bad - the Church is no exception.

The late Bishop John (Martin) was a convert from the Greek Catholic world. He was a high ranking member of the Eparchy of Pittsburgh and was most likely destined to be named its Bishop before his falling out with his Bishop, +Nicholas Elko in the early 1960's. Shortly after he left that church to pursue his doctorate at Stanford, Bishop Nicholas himself was removed by Rome and sent into exile in Rome. The reason I mention this background is that Bishop John was one of the most driven, dynamic men I ever met. Raised the son of family of steelworkers in Pittsburgh he likely would have risen to the pinnacle of power in that industry or the financial services industry as he was a driven man. As Bishop he was more often feared than beloved but he had vision and drive. He envisioned the building of a youth camp in the late 1960's and by the end of the next decade Camp Nazareth in Mercer, PA was a reality. Built by the small donations of hundreds of faithful the camp has been an exemplar of how Orthodox camping facilities should be operated and the benefits which have come from three generations of young people passing through its gates are incalculable.

He died a dramatic death at a young age, passing away after giving a glowing address at a Diocesan banquet in front of hundreds.

He was followed by the late Metropolitan Nicholas - different as night from day in personality from his predecessor. He was beloved but never feared. A monk, trained at Halki and for many years a beloved parish priest in New York's lower East side he brought a different type of leadership. He continued the work of his predecessor, the Diocese grew and expanded into regions where the faithful relocated and became far less ethnic than ever - even though the late Metropolitan loved his Carpatho-Rusyn heritage, loved its music and culture and honored the traditions of the past except when those traditions were at odds with those of the Church. He would often say that we were all converts in a sense - no one was in the Church by force in modern America - we all were there by choice. For some the choice was easier to make - it came from family, comfort and tradition - but in the end it was a choice. For others, that choice came at the price of great personal sacrifice - but we all were equal in the presence of God.

Frankly those who loved one usually tolerated the other at best. But how is that any different than your workplace or school or even your family dynamic?

Both however, were acutely aware of one maxim - while the church bears similarities to secular organizations in terms of operation, personality issues and even finances in the end one thing remained true - The Orthodox Church is not a democracy.

One more thought - yes lay people DO serve the church - men and women alike. Their service is not behind the altar, but without their heartfelt service to God and His Church our clergy and Bishops would be little more than players on a stage and our parishes would resemble more the Potemkin villages of Tsarist Russia than the living house of our Lord.
Thank you for those stories.

I think for many people, Metropolitan Jonah's removal was hard, because I think his grace is a good man, and would make a good pastor, a good abbot. However, he just wasn't really the kind of material to be Metropolitan. He made a mistake that cannot be made on the level of the Bishops. I don't know much about the situation, but it almost seemed like he tried to deal with the issue almost like a pastor rather than the head of the church. When scandals or problems reach the level of the Bishop (or more especially the Metropolitan), that means pastoring and the actions at the lower levels haven't worked, and that it is extremely serious and should be dealt with ASAP and brought to the attention of the entire synod.

I know someone who was directly affected by Bishops because a member of their family was refused a funeral because they had taken their own life. This person, ever since, has remained in our Church and attends every Liturgy, but still harbors some pretty harsh feelings seemingly towards all Bishops. I cannot identify or even comprehend the grief that they felt and still feel.

I may be entirely wrong about this person, but it seems that every time the name of a Bishop comes up or discussion about our Bishops (even good discussion) brings out some harsh words by this person, who, I'm sure, is still grieving and hurt in many ways.

I could understand even harboring some hard feelings towards a particular Bishop due to a decision, but to then expand that to all Bishops, and to even harbor great suspicion and resentment towards our hierarchs because of abuse by some just isn't appropriate.
 

podkarpatska

Merarches
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
9,732
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Northeast United States
Website
www.acrod.org
^ Devin's comments are quite insightful. Bishops are not pastors - they do need the ability to see things from a pastoral/micro level, but like any COO (not a CEO) they must manage things from a diocesan/Synodal/macro perspective. This is a very tough thing to do and it has surely humbled more than a few Bishops who don't get the 'macro' view and by more than a few priests who think it is their place to manage more than their charge!

The suicide issue is also a tough one for a Bishop to manage - I don't want to split the thread, but some Bishops will apply a greater dose of 'pastoring' through a generous economia while others appear heartless. Not knowing the specifics of the situation you referenced, I won't posit any opinion about your friend's issues or the circumstances of that decision other than to note that some Bishops, like some men, only view things in absolute terms.This is something the EA and a united Church will have to address. I have first hand knowledge of a tough situation in a non-OCA canonical parish where the diocesan bishop refused a dispensation for a Church divorce and remarriage of a couple previously married in the Church and whose ex-spouses remained in the parish community. The would be married couple moved to another state, joined an OCA parish and were granted a church divorce by that Diocesan OCA bishop. Needless to say, there was a lot of 'splaining to do when they moved home and reentered their original parish. Since they had been married by a canonical priest in a canonical Church with a canonical release they returned. The other families were unhappy and to the present day they can not accept how one Orthodox Bishop could take one point of view and another Orthodox Bishop could take an opposite point of view from the same set of facts. This continues to cause internal parish issues for the pastor. (By the way, the couple are wonderful people, have a great family and are very involved in the Church.)

Hence, I know how much these issues tear at the hearts of not only our laity, but also our pastors. I know how often my father would either agree with or dispute his bishop's determinations - but he would be bound by them either way. To the end of his long life he took to heart the ordination oath he made to the Diocesan bishop who ordained him and to his lawful successors over the decades. But that more of our priests, regardless of jurisdiction , took such things as seriously. Going from one jurisdiction to another, actively seeking releases from one diocese to another for purposes of advancement and so on dilute peoples' respect for the Church and her institutions.
 

ilyazhito

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 2, 2011
Messages
1,046
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
26
Location
Bethesda,MD
Marc1152 said:
I think Met Jonah will now be released to go to Rocor within the month.
If that is true, thank God for this. His Beatitude Jonah should have been restored,but I'll accept Metropolitan Tikhon for now, until the OCA implodes or I choose to move to ROCOR.
 

ilyazhito

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 2, 2011
Messages
1,046
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Age
26
Location
Bethesda,MD
Orest said:
Marc1152 said:
I think Met Jonah will now be released to go to Rocor within the month.
But why?  Do you really think the ROCOR would actually accept him?  And as what: a monk to spend out his days praying in Holy Trinity in Jordonville?  The ROCOR has not had the scandals of the OCA so I can't see them wanting anything to do with Metr. Jonah.
Orest, Jonah and ROCOR have had good relations when Metropolitan Jonah headed the OCA, and ROCOR invited him for services even afterwards. Who wouldn't want to help a brother bishop who is on hard times? This would actually be a good thing, because HB Jonah would have no salary starting January 2013, and no way to care for his ailing sister Laura or his mother.
 
Top