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

Opus118

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
3,970
Reaction score
4
Points
38
Age
69
Location
Oceanside, California
PeterTheAleut said:
rakovsky said:
FatherGiryus said:
Fr Constantine called and expressed willingness to lend him a hand to get him through a difficult period in his life.

Some unfortunate things happened with him and the DC Cathedral community and OCA, which make it impossible for me to accept him canonically. He has been greatly slandered.

Kalo Pascha!

With love in Christ,

+Jonah
Archbishop of Washington
Metropolitan of All America and Canada
PO Box 675, Syosset, NY 11791-0675
(516)922-0550 Fax (516)922-0954
Fr. Giryius,

From your summation of what you guess, and from this letter it doesnt necessarily sound that what Met.Jonah thought he was doing was so bad. Perhaps when he took those missteps toward receiving the priest he did not know what the real situation was. Perhaps the priest made an appeal to him and he thought the charges were exaggerated.

In such a case, even if it's true the priest was bad, it would not mean Met. Jonah was. Besides this possible issue, it seems more likely that there is some other issue, like the Met.'s treatment in the clinic, that may be playing a much larger role.

The other major thing, like the expensive move to D.C. from New York seems bad, but also seems like it would not be enough. And things like the "culture wars" claims or other things from the newspaper seem not so important here.
My advice, rakovsky: Quit speculating; you're only tying your brain up in knots.
I concur, but for a different reason. I believe you are a special asset to this forum and you should not be involved in speculative issues of this sort. I would prefer that you not think about issues beyond your control, but in the end it is your choice.
 

kevlev

Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 11, 2012
Messages
117
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Location
Tabayamamura, Japan
Seraphim98 said:
Does anyone know how other Orthodox jurisdictions are reacting to this news of the metropolitan's forced resignation? I've seen no statements of any of them on the matter…I would think the MP at least might have some sort of comment…even if it is "we are evaluating the situation" politicspeak.
Anyone?
 

BTRAKAS

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
3,159
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
67
Location
North Royalton, Ohio
No, I haven't seen anything, well, I saw one from someone who"thought" something that isn't worth repeating because there was no basis for the "thought."
 

Hermogenes

Elder
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
493
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Seraphim98 said:
Does anyone know how other Orthodox jurisdictions are reacting to this news of the metropolitan's forced resignation? I've seen no statements of any of them on the matter…I would think the MP at least might have some sort of comment…even if it is "we are evaluating the situation" politicspeak.
Would everybody please stop with the "forced resignation" stuff? Unless you have some new documentation, HB's departure seems to be what the synod said it was. Enough made-up conspiracies, PLEASE.
 

FatherGiryus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
4,195
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I don't think anyone involved is 'bad.'  I think there are some problems.

For example, there is a question as to why the priest in question was not enrolled in the clergy of the OCA.  Apparently, the Holy Synod of the OCA had objections to this clergyman in particular which prevented his enrollment.  Obviously, His Beatitude had every intention of enrolling him, given his request to the originating metropolitan, and so only the Holy Synod could stop him.

I have heard one theory, and it is only a theory, was the concern that the priest in question along with the 'DC Nuns' are 'Dionysians' as opposed to 'Athonite.'  In the world of Byzantine monasticism, there appear to be at least two parties as described, and they do not get along for whatever reason. I don't know much about the tensions between the two parties, but they are there and may have played a role in what is going on.

However, I don't know for sure if this played a role, but I think as an alternative explanation may help in diffusing any speculation that this situation is solely about the accusations of impropriety as being the sole factor in all of this.  There may be plenty of sub-plots here that will make things more complicated than we imagined.

These complications do not necessitate 'good' or 'bad' labels, and I think we should avoid such terminology until all the facts come out.


rakovsky said:
FatherGiryus said:
Fr Constantine called and expressed willingness to lend him a hand to get him through a difficult period in his life.

Some unfortunate things happened with him and the DC Cathedral community and OCA, which make it impossible for me to accept him canonically. He has been greatly slandered.

Kalo Pascha!

With love in Christ,

+Jonah
Archbishop of Washington
Metropolitan of All America and Canada
PO Box 675, Syosset, NY 11791-0675
(516)922-0550 Fax (516)922-0954
Fr. Giryius,

From your summation of what you guess, and from this letter it doesnt necessarily sound that what Met.Jonah thought he was doing was so bad. Perhaps when he took those missteps toward receiving the priest he did not know what the real situation was. Perhaps the priest made an appeal to him and he thought the charges were exaggerated.

In such a case, even if it's true the priest was bad, it would not mean Met. Jonah was. Besides this possible issue, it seems more likely that there is some other issue, like the Met.'s treatment in the clinic, that may be playing a much larger role.

The other major thing, like the expensive move to D.C. from New York seems bad, but also seems like it would not be enough. And things like the "culture wars" claims or other things from the newspaper seem not so important here.
 

BTRAKAS

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
3,159
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
67
Location
North Royalton, Ohio
Possibly related to this, I never understood what was so wrong with the "D.C. Nuns," why were they so controversial?  I know that many believed that they had not been canonically released from their bishop in Greece, but I don't understand why so many opposed their admission to the OCA.  Is it this matter of them not being Athonite?  Does anyone know why they were so controversial while Metropolitan Jonah was trying to have them admitted? 
 

jah777

Archon
Joined
May 29, 2008
Messages
2,153
Reaction score
0
Points
0
FatherGiryus said:
Obviously, His Beatitude had every intention of enrolling him, given his request to the originating metropolitan,
Father, this is just further speculation.  What we know is that the priest’s bishop released him to Met Jonah in response to a request from Met Jonah.  What is not clear is the exact nature of Met Jonah’s request and the basis of that request.  In other words, was the release of this priest to Met Jonah in response to Met Jonah’s request for “a priest-monk” to help in establishing monasteries, or did Met Jonah request this priest by name?  If Met Jonah did in fact request this priest by name (which hasn’t been demonstrated), why did he request this particular priest?  Did he know this priest very well before making the request, or was the request made based on (bad) information from others? 

I have heard from some who attend St. Nicholas Cathedral in D.C., where this priest spent some time, that Met Jonah did not think well of the accused priest.  It could be that Met Jonah made the request to the priest’s bishop in Greece with every intention of receiving this priest into the OCA, but when the priest arrived and Met Jonah got to know him better, Met Jonah changed his mind and had every intention of not receiving him into the OCA.  It could be that after Met Jonah invited him, Bp Melchizedek (who probably knew this priest from the time he spent in Greece) raised a number of concerns to Met Jonah that also dissuaded him from receiving this priest.  So, while the priest was released to Met Jonah, I have seen no evidence that would suggest that this priest was ever formally received by Met Jonah or enlisted in the OCA.  I also have seen no evidence to suggest that Met Jonah still intended on receiving him after he got to know him better following the priest’s arrival. 

At this point, the whole situation seems very cloudy.  Everyone has read the Synod’s version of events.  I have reason to believe the godmother’s version of events relating to the accused priest.  Beyond that, there seems to be a thousand questions that have not been addressed and a hundred people on the Internet who have developed pet theories without any access to actual inside information.  We can pray for Met Jonah and the Synod, and hope that all will be resolved that should be resolved, but beyond that I think most of the speculation around these events is unproductive, futile, and even dangerous.
 

FatherGiryus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
4,195
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The criticism I heard was that there was plenty of monastic foundation in the OCA already, and it was seen as unnecessary and confusing to add not only a new 'foreign' element, but one from the Byzantine tradition rather than Slavic or Romanian, which are already well-established in the US under the OCA.  However, I must emphasize that I am not sure the Metopolitan's vision regarding their role was ever completely explained in a public manner.  If I missed it, I would appreciate someone pointing out where such a vision was released for general review.

Basil 320 said:
Possibly related to this, I never understood what was so wrong with the "D.C. Nuns," why were they so controversial?  I know that many believed that they had not been canonically released from their bishop in Greece, but I don't understand why so many opposed their admission to the OCA.  Is it this matter of them not being Athonite?  Does anyone know why they were so controversial while Metropolitan Jonah was trying to have them admitted? 
 

Iconodule

Hoplitarches
Joined
Jan 2, 2010
Messages
16,485
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
38
Location
PA, USA
FatherGiryus said:
I have heard one theory, and it is only a theory, was the concern that the priest in question along with the 'DC Nuns' are 'Dionysians' as opposed to 'Athonite.'  In the world of Byzantine monasticism, there appear to be at least two parties as described, and they do not get along for whatever reason. I don't know much about the tensions between the two parties, but they are there and may have played a role in what is going on.
Could you possibly point us in a direction where these terms might be defined? I've never heard of "Dionysian" monasticism as a distinct tendency.
 

BTRAKAS

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
3,159
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
67
Location
North Royalton, Ohio
FatherGiryus said:
The criticism I heard was that there was plenty of monastic foundation in the OCA already, and it was seen as unnecessary and confusing to add not only a new 'foreign' element, but one from the Byzantine tradition rather than Slavic or Romanian, which are already well-established in the US under the OCA.  However, I must emphasize that I am not sure the Metopolitan's vision regarding their role was ever completely explained in a public manner.  If I missed it, I would appreciate someone pointing out where such a vision was released for general review.

Basil 320 said:
Possibly related to this, I never understood what was so wrong with the "D.C. Nuns," why were they so controversial?  I know that many believed that they had not been canonically released from their bishop in Greece, but I don't understand why so many opposed their admission to the OCA.  Is it this matter of them not being Athonite?  Does anyone know why they were so controversial while Metropolitan Jonah was trying to have them admitted?  
Ok, thanks Father.  Just to note, although they had been in a Greek monastery, I thought the "D.C. Nuns" were American women.
 

Opus118

Protokentarchos
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
3,970
Reaction score
4
Points
38
Age
69
Location
Oceanside, California
Basil 320 said:
FatherGiryus said:
The criticism I heard was that there was plenty of monastic foundation in the OCA already, and it was seen as unnecessary and confusing to add not only a new 'foreign' element, but one from the Byzantine tradition rather than Slavic or Romanian, which are already well-established in the US under the OCA.  However, I must emphasize that I am not sure the Metopolitan's vision regarding their role was ever completely explained in a public manner.  If I missed it, I would appreciate someone pointing out where such a vision was released for general review.

Basil 320 said:
Possibly related to this, I never understood what was so wrong with the "D.C. Nuns," why were they so controversial?  I know that many believed that they had not been canonically released from their bishop in Greece, but I don't understand why so many opposed their admission to the OCA.  Is it this matter of them not being Athonite?  Does anyone know why they were so controversial while Metropolitan Jonah was trying to have them admitted?  
Ok, thanks Father.  Just to note, although they had been in a Greek monastery, I thought the "D.C. Nuns" were American women.
The Abbess for sure. Abbess Aemiliane is the Sister that got crushed in the Kansas City Hyatt Regency Walkway collapse.
 

pensateomnia

Archon
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Messages
2,360
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Iconodule said:
FatherGiryus said:
I have heard one theory, and it is only a theory, was the concern that the priest in question along with the 'DC Nuns' are 'Dionysians' as opposed to 'Athonite.'  In the world of Byzantine monasticism, there appear to be at least two parties as described, and they do not get along for whatever reason. I don't know much about the tensions between the two parties, but they are there and may have played a role in what is going on.
Could you possibly point us in a direction where these terms might be defined? I've never heard of "Dionysian" monasticism as a distinct tendency.
It's not a tendency. It's a cluster of monasteries/convents, all of which claim a particular man, Elder Dionysios, as their Elder.
 

pensateomnia

Archon
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Messages
2,360
Reaction score
0
Points
0
FatherGiryus said:
The criticism I heard was that there was plenty of monastic foundation in the OCA already, and it was seen as unnecessary and confusing to add not only a new 'foreign' element, but one from the Byzantine tradition rather than Slavic or Romanian, which are already well-established in the US under the OCA.  However, I must emphasize that I am not sure the Metopolitan's vision regarding their role was ever completely explained in a public manner.  If I missed it, I would appreciate someone pointing out where such a vision was released for general review.

Basil 320 said:
Possibly related to this, I never understood what was so wrong with the "D.C. Nuns," why were they so controversial?  I know that many believed that they had not been canonically released from their bishop in Greece, but I don't understand why so many opposed their admission to the OCA.  Is it this matter of them not being Athonite?  Does anyone know why they were so controversial while Metropolitan Jonah was trying to have them admitted?  
Another criticism was simply against the basic idea -- a co-mingling of cathedral/monastery/church headquarters under one inter-related complex -- as a recipe for confusion of (canonical) roles.
 

Hermogenes

Elder
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
493
Reaction score
0
Points
0
pensateomnia said:
FatherGiryus said:
The criticism I heard was that there was plenty of monastic foundation in the OCA already, and it was seen as unnecessary and confusing to add not only a new 'foreign' element, but one from the Byzantine tradition rather than Slavic or Romanian, which are already well-established in the US under the OCA.  However, I must emphasize that I am not sure the Metopolitan's vision regarding their role was ever completely explained in a public manner.  If I missed it, I would appreciate someone pointing out where such a vision was released for general review.

Basil 320 said:
Possibly related to this, I never understood what was so wrong with the "D.C. Nuns," why were they so controversial?  I know that many believed that they had not been canonically released from their bishop in Greece, but I don't understand why so many opposed their admission to the OCA.  Is it this matter of them not being Athonite?  Does anyone know why they were so controversial while Metropolitan Jonah was trying to have them admitted?  
Another criticism was simply against the basic idea -- a co-mingling of cathedral/monastery/church headquarters under one inter-related complex -- as a recipe for confusion of (canonical) roles.
Even though it worked OK for more than a thousand years.
 

Gorazd

Archon
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
2,571
Reaction score
0
Points
0
pensateomnia said:
It's not a tendency. It's a cluster of monasteries/convents, all of which claim a particular man, Elder Dionysios, as their Elder.
Having visited three of his monasteries in Greece (two women's and one men's monastery), I would like to mention that they are quite controversial.

There seems to be quite a personality cult around elder Dionysios, and his style of leadership is very centered on his person. He forbids his monastics from confessing to anyone else in his absence. If he is not near, he hears confession through the phone. One of of his monasteries is next door to a home for mentally disabled children. He has forbidden the nuns from volunteering there. Instead, he has them raise sheep and goats, whose meat he blessed them to eat (!).

He is in conflict with several diocesan bishops in Greece, there even was one case when he blessed one of his abbesses to sue a bishop in a civil court. It is not surprising that they went to the OCA and later ROCOR, since there is no way GOARCH would have let him start a monastery in the US. He is on good terms with the MP though (if I recall correctly, he has met with Pat. Kyrill), and the Greek bishops seem to be unhappy with his entertaining such relations behing the back of the Greek bishops.

By the way, many (most?) of his monks and nuns are not Greek, and amongs those who are Greek, several have grown up aborad. There are many converts - Americans, Germans, former Russian Jews who have become Orthodox, also some Orthodox from countries other than Greece, especially the former USSR.


I cannot really say what all this means for the current situation in the OCA, but (and this is just my personal opinion), two things see to be possible:
1) Someone from the Greeks complained about the presence of the Dionysians in the OCA and/or
2) the Dionysians were seen as (and quite possibly, rightly so, but I cannot know for sure) as an alternative power structure, with the potential to weaken the positin of the local bishops and the OCA's Holy Synod.
 

pensateomnia

Archon
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Messages
2,360
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Hermogenes said:
pensateomnia said:
FatherGiryus said:
The criticism I heard was that there was plenty of monastic foundation in the OCA already, and it was seen as unnecessary and confusing to add not only a new 'foreign' element, but one from the Byzantine tradition rather than Slavic or Romanian, which are already well-established in the US under the OCA.  However, I must emphasize that I am not sure the Metopolitan's vision regarding their role was ever completely explained in a public manner.  If I missed it, I would appreciate someone pointing out where such a vision was released for general review.

Basil 320 said:
Possibly related to this, I never understood what was so wrong with the "D.C. Nuns," why were they so controversial?  I know that many believed that they had not been canonically released from their bishop in Greece, but I don't understand why so many opposed their admission to the OCA.  Is it this matter of them not being Athonite?  Does anyone know why they were so controversial while Metropolitan Jonah was trying to have them admitted?  
Another criticism was simply against the basic idea -- a co-mingling of cathedral/monastery/church headquarters under one inter-related complex -- as a recipe for confusion of (canonical) roles.
Even though it worked OK for more than a thousand years.
Certainly not. A monk involved in cathedral life or church administration is no monk at all. At least not in the Orthodox tradition.
 

Hermogenes

Elder
Joined
Nov 22, 2010
Messages
493
Reaction score
0
Points
0
pensateomnia said:
Hermogenes said:
pensateomnia said:
FatherGiryus said:
The criticism I heard was that there was plenty of monastic foundation in the OCA already, and it was seen as unnecessary and confusing to add not only a new 'foreign' element, but one from the Byzantine tradition rather than Slavic or Romanian, which are already well-established in the US under the OCA.  However, I must emphasize that I am not sure the Metopolitan's vision regarding their role was ever completely explained in a public manner.  If I missed it, I would appreciate someone pointing out where such a vision was released for general review.

Basil 320 said:
Possibly related to this, I never understood what was so wrong with the "D.C. Nuns," why were they so controversial?  I know that many believed that they had not been canonically released from their bishop in Greece, but I don't understand why so many opposed their admission to the OCA.  Is it this matter of them not being Athonite?  Does anyone know why they were so controversial while Metropolitan Jonah was trying to have them admitted?  
Another criticism was simply against the basic idea -- a co-mingling of cathedral/monastery/church headquarters under one inter-related complex -- as a recipe for confusion of (canonical) roles.
Even though it worked OK for more than a thousand years.
Certainly not. A monk involved in cathedral life or church administration is no monk at all. At least not in the Orthodox tradition.
Are you a monk?
 

JamesR

Taxiarches
Joined
Nov 4, 2011
Messages
6,924
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
24
Location
The Underground
I'm a little late here. I read the Synod's statement about Met. Jonah's resignation a few weeks ago. Has anyone discovered any new writings or sources about this to look at? What do we know about the Priest who raped that woman? Are there any other sources stating what happened? Perhaps from a different perspective?
 

FatherHLL

Archon
Joined
Sep 18, 2008
Messages
2,680
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Michał Kalina said:
Are you sure? ^
Well, "at all" seems a little strong.  But still, as His Beatitude Metropolitan Constantine of blessed memory once told me, "because a monk lives in his house does not make it a monastery." 
 

jewish voice

High Elder
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
905
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
USA
Being that I'm not Orthodox I have a question on this. Can (Met) Jonah change out of the OCA if he wished to like go over to the Greek or Rocor ? If so could he still keep his higher office? I'm an outsider looking in but to me it seams that OCA kinda throw him under the bus so to speak by airing lots of dirty stuff on him when I have yet to see anything that Jonah has wrote on his own bad about the OCA.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Portland, Oregon
jewish voice said:
Being that I'm not Orthodox I have a question on this. Can (Met) Jonah change out of the OCA if he wished to like go over to the Greek or Rocor ?
He would need to go through a formal transfer process where he receives the blessing of both the synod of the OCA and the synod of the jurisdiction to which he wishes to transfer.

jewish voice said:
If so could he still keep his higher office?
I suppose he could be received into his new jurisdiction as a bishop, but certainly not as the leading bishop of his new synod.

jewish voice said:
I'm an outsider looking in but to me it seams that OCA kinda throw him under the bus so to speak by airing lots of dirty stuff on him when I have yet to see anything that Jonah has wrote on his own bad about the OCA.
One who stands outside the Church should not judge so quickly that which goes on inside the Church. For one, you're likely getting much less information than we are, and we're not getting all that much ourselves.
 

BTRAKAS

Archon
Site Supporter
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
3,159
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
67
Location
North Royalton, Ohio
jewish voice said:
Being that I'm not Orthodox I have a question on this. Can (Met) Jonah change out of the OCA if he wished to like go over to the Greek or Rocor ? If so could he still keep his higher office? I'm an outsider looking in but to me it seams that OCA kinda throw him under the bus so to speak by airing lots of dirty stuff on him when I have yet to see anything that Jonah has wrote on his own bad about the OCA.
Technically, yes, the OCA would have to agree to release him and another jurisdiction would determine if they wished for him to be transferred into their church, but an Orthodox Church would have to respect the office to which another Orthodox Church had ordained him.  But, as he is a metropolitan without ruling authority, he could be accepted by another jurisdiction as a metropolitan, without assigning him to rule a diocese, though if they wished to assign him to a ruling see of their church, do so.  Is ROCOR's Australian diocese vacant?
 

katherineofdixie

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
3,719
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
the South, thanks be to God
Our priest, who loves Metropolitan Jonah and who has actually had him stay in his house, reported on Sunday that he was satisfied by the Chancellor's explanation and talk with the priests at the recent Diocese of the South conference.
 

pensateomnia

Archon
Joined
Mar 25, 2005
Messages
2,360
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Michał Kalina said:
Are you sure? ^
Quite. It's in the canons, canonical commentators (through the 18th century), spiritual literature, hagiographies, monastic typika, imperial foundation documents, etc. Monasteries are a place cut off from the world and ecclesiastical affairs, a place of repentance, obedience, and penance -- not teaching or pastoral authority.

As the Fathers at Hagia Sophia 879 put it, echoing pious custom and law since Chalcedon:

Although beforehand some bishops, having descended to the habit of monks, have been forced nevertheless to remain in the height of the prelacy, they have been overlooked when they did so. But, with this in mind, this holy and ecumenical council, with a view to regulating this oversight, and readjusting this irregular practice to the ecclesiastical statutes, has decreed that if any bishop or anyone else with a prelatical office is desirous of descending to monastic life and of replenishing the region of penitence and of penance, let him no longer cherish any claim to prelatical dignity. For the monks' conditions of subordination represent the relationship of pupilship, and not of teachership or presidency; nor do they undertake to pastor others, but are to be content with being pastored. Wherefore, in accordance with what was said previously, we decree that none of those who are on the prelatical list and are enrolled pastors shall lower themselves to the level of the pastored and repentant. If anyone should dare to do so, after the delivery and discrimination of the decision hereby being pronounced, he having deprived himself of his prelatical rank, shall no longer have the right to return to his former status, which by actual deeds he has vitiated.
That's why Emperors sent troublesome bishops to a monastery: it was the ecclesiastical equivalent of gouging out a nephew's eyes, invalidating the person for higher office. It's also why, in those few cases where a monk did rise to the episcopacy, he put off his habit and assumed the authority of a pastor.

Things get more complicated with the rise of the Studios, but, even then, the reality stayed the same. Your average bishop in 19th century Russia may have been tonsured, but he weren't no monk.
 

nstanosheck

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
1,837
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
47
Location
Dallas, TX, United States of America
Website
nstanosheck.blogspot.com
jewish voice said:
Being that I'm not Orthodox I have a question on this. Can (Met) Jonah change out of the OCA if he wished to like go over to the Greek or Rocor ? If so could he still keep his higher office? I'm an outsider looking in but to me it seams that OCA kinda throw him under the bus so to speak by airing lots of dirty stuff on him when I have yet to see anything that Jonah has wrote on his own bad about the OCA.
Yes, but if he went to the Greek Church a Metropolitan is lower than Archbishop by Greek ranking, so he would not be among the highest ranks int he Grrek church. :)
 

podkarpatska

Merarches
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
9,732
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Northeast United States
Website
www.acrod.org
pensateomnia said:
Michał Kalina said:
Are you sure? ^
Quite. It's in the canons, canonical commentators (through the 18th century), spiritual literature, hagiographies, monastic typika, imperial foundation documents, etc. Monasteries are a place cut off from the world and ecclesiastical affairs, a place of repentance, obedience, and penance -- not teaching or pastoral authority.

As the Fathers at Hagia Sophia 879 put it, echoing pious custom and law since Chalcedon:

Although beforehand some bishops, having descended to the habit of monks, have been forced nevertheless to remain in the height of the prelacy, they have been overlooked when they did so. But, with this in mind, this holy and ecumenical council, with a view to regulating this oversight, and readjusting this irregular practice to the ecclesiastical statutes, has decreed that if any bishop or anyone else with a prelatical office is desirous of descending to monastic life and of replenishing the region of penitence and of penance, let him no longer cherish any claim to prelatical dignity. For the monks' conditions of subordination represent the relationship of pupilship, and not of teachership or presidency; nor do they undertake to pastor others, but are to be content with being pastored. Wherefore, in accordance with what was said previously, we decree that none of those who are on the prelatical list and are enrolled pastors shall lower themselves to the level of the pastored and repentant. If anyone should dare to do so, after the delivery and discrimination of the decision hereby being pronounced, he having deprived himself of his prelatical rank, shall no longer have the right to return to his former status, which by actual deeds he has vitiated.
That's why Emperors sent troublesome bishops to a monastery: it was the ecclesiastical equivalent of gouging out a nephew's eyes, invalidating the person for higher office. It's also why, in those few cases where a monk did rise to the episcopacy, he put off his habit and assumed the authority of a pastor.

Things get more complicated with the rise of the Studios, but, even then, the reality stayed the same. Your average bishop in 19th century Russia may have been tonsured, but he weren't no monk.
Shipping troublesome folks, including royalty, off to a monastery wasn't limited to the east. Remember Prince Hamlet's statement to Ophelia: 'Get thee to a nunnery.'  Obviously familiar to Elizabethians.
 

Maria

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 8, 2003
Messages
14,023
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
USA
Website
www.euphrosynoscafe.com
podkarpatska said:
pensateomnia said:
Michał Kalina said:
Are you sure? ^
Quite. It's in the canons, canonical commentators (through the 18th century), spiritual literature, hagiographies, monastic typika, imperial foundation documents, etc. Monasteries are a place cut off from the world and ecclesiastical affairs, a place of repentance, obedience, and penance -- not teaching or pastoral authority.

As the Fathers at Hagia Sophia 879 put it, echoing pious custom and law since Chalcedon:

Although beforehand some bishops, having descended to the habit of monks, have been forced nevertheless to remain in the height of the prelacy, they have been overlooked when they did so. But, with this in mind, this holy and ecumenical council, with a view to regulating this oversight, and readjusting this irregular practice to the ecclesiastical statutes, has decreed that if any bishop or anyone else with a prelatical office is desirous of descending to monastic life and of replenishing the region of penitence and of penance, let him no longer cherish any claim to prelatical dignity. For the monks' conditions of subordination represent the relationship of pupilship, and not of teachership or presidency; nor do they undertake to pastor others, but are to be content with being pastored. Wherefore, in accordance with what was said previously, we decree that none of those who are on the prelatical list and are enrolled pastors shall lower themselves to the level of the pastored and repentant. If anyone should dare to do so, after the delivery and discrimination of the decision hereby being pronounced, he having deprived himself of his prelatical rank, shall no longer have the right to return to his former status, which by actual deeds he has vitiated.
That's why Emperors sent troublesome bishops to a monastery: it was the ecclesiastical equivalent of gouging out a nephew's eyes, invalidating the person for higher office. It's also why, in those few cases where a monk did rise to the episcopacy, he put off his habit and assumed the authority of a pastor.

Things get more complicated with the rise of the Studios, but, even then, the reality stayed the same. Your average bishop in 19th century Russia may have been tonsured, but he weren't no monk.
Shipping troublesome folks, including royalty, off to a monastery wasn't limited to the east. Remember Prince Hamlet's statement to Ophelia: 'Get thee to a nunnery.'  Obviously familiar to Elizabethians.
All the commentaries I have read, which commentaries my professors agreed, said that "Get thee to a nunnery" actually meant, "Get thee to a whorehouse."

However, when I was studying the history of Mexico and its literature, mention was made in several texts that wealthy maidens were often sent to a convent. This was done supposedly so that the eldest son could get most of the wealth.
 

Gunnarr

Archon
Joined
Jun 19, 2011
Messages
2,113
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
27
pensateomnia said:
Hermogenes said:
pensateomnia said:
FatherGiryus said:
The criticism I heard was that there was plenty of monastic foundation in the OCA already, and it was seen as unnecessary and confusing to add not only a new 'foreign' element, but one from the Byzantine tradition rather than Slavic or Romanian, which are already well-established in the US under the OCA.  However, I must emphasize that I am not sure the Metopolitan's vision regarding their role was ever completely explained in a public manner.  If I missed it, I would appreciate someone pointing out where such a vision was released for general review.

Basil 320 said:
Possibly related to this, I never understood what was so wrong with the "D.C. Nuns," why were they so controversial?  I know that many believed that they had not been canonically released from their bishop in Greece, but I don't understand why so many opposed their admission to the OCA.  Is it this matter of them not being Athonite?  Does anyone know why they were so controversial while Metropolitan Jonah was trying to have them admitted?  
Another criticism was simply against the basic idea -- a co-mingling of cathedral/monastery/church headquarters under one inter-related complex -- as a recipe for confusion of (canonical) roles.
Even though it worked OK for more than a thousand years.
Certainly not. A monk involved in cathedral life or church administration is no monk at all. At least not in the Orthodox tradition.
That is against the teaching of various Church Fathers and Saints such as Saint Basil the Great, Saint John Chrysostom, Saint Gregory Palamas, and Saint Gregory the Dialogist to name a few.

Saint Basil taught that monks should not be delegated to the role of the ascetic only, but instead advocated that monks should also live in the cities of the time to help them with spiritual AND earthly needs (which certainly fits right into so called "cathedral life" and "church administration")

Saint John, Saint Gregory the Dialogist, and Saint Gregory Palamas support all Bishops being selected from the monastics, and also that priests should at times be selected from the monastics. (Certainly also fits into "cathedral life" and "church administration")

Saint Palamas also teaches that the monastic life is many times more fruitful compared to any kind of "seminary" education.



 

podkarpatska

Merarches
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
9,732
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Northeast United States
Website
www.acrod.org
Gunnarr said:
pensateomnia said:
Hermogenes said:
pensateomnia said:
FatherGiryus said:
The criticism I heard was that there was plenty of monastic foundation in the OCA already, and it was seen as unnecessary and confusing to add not only a new 'foreign' element, but one from the Byzantine tradition rather than Slavic or Romanian, which are already well-established in the US under the OCA.  However, I must emphasize that I am not sure the Metopolitan's vision regarding their role was ever completely explained in a public manner.  If I missed it, I would appreciate someone pointing out where such a vision was released for general review.

Basil 320 said:
Possibly related to this, I never understood what was so wrong with the "D.C. Nuns," why were they so controversial?  I know that many believed that they had not been canonically released from their bishop in Greece, but I don't understand why so many opposed their admission to the OCA.  Is it this matter of them not being Athonite?  Does anyone know why they were so controversial while Metropolitan Jonah was trying to have them admitted?  
Another criticism was simply against the basic idea -- a co-mingling of cathedral/monastery/church headquarters under one inter-related complex -- as a recipe for confusion of (canonical) roles.
Even though it worked OK for more than a thousand years.
Certainly not. A monk involved in cathedral life or church administration is no monk at all. At least not in the Orthodox tradition.
That is against the teaching of various Church Fathers and Saints such as Saint Basil the Great, Saint John Chrysostom, Saint Gregory Palamas, and Saint Gregory the Dialogist to name a few.

Saint Basil taught that monks should not be delegated to the role of the ascetic only, but instead advocated that monks should also live in the cities of the time to help them with spiritual AND earthly needs (which certainly fits right into so called "cathedral life" and "church administration")

Saint John, Saint Gregory the Dialogist, and Saint Gregory Palamas support all Bishops being selected from the monastics, and also that priests should at times be selected from the monastics. (Certainly also fits into "cathedral life" and "church administration")

Saint Palamas also teaches that the monastic life is many times more fruitful compared to any kind of "seminary" education.
I would suggest that you rethink putting the word seminary in apostrophes as it implies a certain disregard or even disdain for the educational process (and through it the graduates of said schools) which produces most of our Orthodox priests across the world who faithfully serve us in the Vineyard of our parishes.
 

Schultz

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2002
Messages
6,691
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
45
Location
BaltiCORE, MD
Website
www.theidlegossip.com
Nigula Qian Zishi said:
jewish voice said:
Being that I'm not Orthodox I have a question on this. Can (Met) Jonah change out of the OCA if he wished to like go over to the Greek or Rocor ? If so could he still keep his higher office? I'm an outsider looking in but to me it seams that OCA kinda throw him under the bus so to speak by airing lots of dirty stuff on him when I have yet to see anything that Jonah has wrote on his own bad about the OCA.
Yes, but if he went to the Greek Church a Metropolitan is lower than Archbishop by Greek ranking, so he would not be among the highest ranks int he Grrek church. :)
But the Met. of the OCA is also the Archbishop of Washington (at present).
 

Marc1152

Hoplitarches
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
14,838
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
67
Location
Maryland
Schultz said:
Nigula Qian Zishi said:
jewish voice said:
Being that I'm not Orthodox I have a question on this. Can (Met) Jonah change out of the OCA if he wished to like go over to the Greek or Rocor ? If so could he still keep his higher office? I'm an outsider looking in but to me it seams that OCA kinda throw him under the bus so to speak by airing lots of dirty stuff on him when I have yet to see anything that Jonah has wrote on his own bad about the OCA.
Yes, but if he went to the Greek Church a Metropolitan is lower than Archbishop by Greek ranking, so he would not be among the highest ranks int he Grrek church. :)
But the Met. of the OCA is also the Archbishop of Washington (at present).
I dont think he is still Bishop of Washington either.
 

PrincessMommy

High Elder
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
734
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Marc1152 said:
Schultz said:
Nigula Qian Zishi said:
jewish voice said:
Being that I'm not Orthodox I have a question on this. Can (Met) Jonah change out of the OCA if he wished to like go over to the Greek or Rocor ? If so could he still keep his higher office? I'm an outsider looking in but to me it seams that OCA kinda throw him under the bus so to speak by airing lots of dirty stuff on him when I have yet to see anything that Jonah has wrote on his own bad about the OCA.
Yes, but if he went to the Greek Church a Metropolitan is lower than Archbishop by Greek ranking, so he would not be among the highest ranks int he Grrek church. :)
But the Met. of the OCA is also the Archbishop of Washington (at present).
I dont think he is still Bishop of Washington either.
no, he isn't. It's Bishop Alexander.  I met him a couple of weeks ago at our VCS.
 

Schultz

Taxiarches
Joined
Oct 17, 2002
Messages
6,691
Reaction score
2
Points
38
Age
45
Location
BaltiCORE, MD
Website
www.theidlegossip.com
Marc1152 said:
Schultz said:
Nigula Qian Zishi said:
jewish voice said:
Being that I'm not Orthodox I have a question on this. Can (Met) Jonah change out of the OCA if he wished to like go over to the Greek or Rocor ? If so could he still keep his higher office? I'm an outsider looking in but to me it seams that OCA kinda throw him under the bus so to speak by airing lots of dirty stuff on him when I have yet to see anything that Jonah has wrote on his own bad about the OCA.
Yes, but if he went to the Greek Church a Metropolitan is lower than Archbishop by Greek ranking, so he would not be among the highest ranks int he Grrek church. :)
But the Met. of the OCA is also the Archbishop of Washington (at present).
I dont think he is still Bishop of Washington either.
I just meant in general, the Metropolitan of the OCA is also Archbishop of Washington.
 

Gunnarr

Archon
Joined
Jun 19, 2011
Messages
2,113
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
27
podkarpatska said:
Gunnarr said:
pensateomnia said:
Hermogenes said:
pensateomnia said:
FatherGiryus said:
The criticism I heard was that there was plenty of monastic foundation in the OCA already, and it was seen as unnecessary and confusing to add not only a new 'foreign' element, but one from the Byzantine tradition rather than Slavic or Romanian, which are already well-established in the US under the OCA.  However, I must emphasize that I am not sure the Metopolitan's vision regarding their role was ever completely explained in a public manner.  If I missed it, I would appreciate someone pointing out where such a vision was released for general review.

Basil 320 said:
Possibly related to this, I never understood what was so wrong with the "D.C. Nuns," why were they so controversial?  I know that many believed that they had not been canonically released from their bishop in Greece, but I don't understand why so many opposed their admission to the OCA.  Is it this matter of them not being Athonite?  Does anyone know why they were so controversial while Metropolitan Jonah was trying to have them admitted?  
Another criticism was simply against the basic idea -- a co-mingling of cathedral/monastery/church headquarters under one inter-related complex -- as a recipe for confusion of (canonical) roles.
Even though it worked OK for more than a thousand years.
Certainly not. A monk involved in cathedral life or church administration is no monk at all. At least not in the Orthodox tradition.
That is against the teaching of various Church Fathers and Saints such as Saint Basil the Great, Saint John Chrysostom, Saint Gregory Palamas, and Saint Gregory the Dialogist to name a few.

Saint Basil taught that monks should not be delegated to the role of the ascetic only, but instead advocated that monks should also live in the cities of the time to help them with spiritual AND earthly needs (which certainly fits right into so called "cathedral life" and "church administration")

Saint John, Saint Gregory the Dialogist, and Saint Gregory Palamas support all Bishops being selected from the monastics, and also that priests should at times be selected from the monastics. (Certainly also fits into "cathedral life" and "church administration")

Saint Palamas also teaches that the monastic life is many times more fruitful compared to any kind of "seminary" education.
I would suggest that you rethink putting the word seminary in apostrophes as it implies a certain disregard or even disdain for the educational process (and through it the graduates of said schools) which produces most of our Orthodox priests across the world who faithfully serve us in the Vineyard of our parishes.
Only quoting Saint Palamas
 

podkarpatska

Merarches
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
9,732
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Northeast United States
Website
www.acrod.org
Gunnarr said:
podkarpatska said:
Gunnarr said:
pensateomnia said:
Hermogenes said:
pensateomnia said:
FatherGiryus said:
The criticism I heard was that there was plenty of monastic foundation in the OCA already, and it was seen as unnecessary and confusing to add not only a new 'foreign' element, but one from the Byzantine tradition rather than Slavic or Romanian, which are already well-established in the US under the OCA.  However, I must emphasize that I am not sure the Metopolitan's vision regarding their role was ever completely explained in a public manner.  If I missed it, I would appreciate someone pointing out where such a vision was released for general review.

Basil 320 said:
Possibly related to this, I never understood what was so wrong with the "D.C. Nuns," why were they so controversial?  I know that many believed that they had not been canonically released from their bishop in Greece, but I don't understand why so many opposed their admission to the OCA.  Is it this matter of them not being Athonite?  Does anyone know why they were so controversial while Metropolitan Jonah was trying to have them admitted?  
Another criticism was simply against the basic idea -- a co-mingling of cathedral/monastery/church headquarters under one inter-related complex -- as a recipe for confusion of (canonical) roles.
Even though it worked OK for more than a thousand years.
Certainly not. A monk involved in cathedral life or church administration is no monk at all. At least not in the Orthodox tradition.
That is against the teaching of various Church Fathers and Saints such as Saint Basil the Great, Saint John Chrysostom, Saint Gregory Palamas, and Saint Gregory the Dialogist to name a few.

Saint Basil taught that monks should not be delegated to the role of the ascetic only, but instead advocated that monks should also live in the cities of the time to help them with spiritual AND earthly needs (which certainly fits right into so called "cathedral life" and "church administration")

Saint John, Saint Gregory the Dialogist, and Saint Gregory Palamas support all Bishops being selected from the monastics, and also that priests should at times be selected from the monastics. (Certainly also fits into "cathedral life" and "church administration")

Saint Palamas also teaches that the monastic life is many times more fruitful compared to any kind of "seminary" education.
I would suggest that you rethink putting the word seminary in apostrophes as it implies a certain disregard or even disdain for the educational process (and through it the graduates of said schools) which produces most of our Orthodox priests across the world who faithfully serve us in the Vineyard of our parishes.
Only quoting Saint Palamas
He is not infallible and you took him out of context in making your 'point.' (And if you are quoting someone, you should provide a citation or reference to your assertion.)
 

FatherGiryus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
4,195
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I am not aware that His Beatitude ever entirely explained his vision of integrating the "DC Nuns" into the administration of the OCA.

pensateomnia said:
Certainly not. A monk involved in cathedral life or church administration is no monk at all. At least not in the Orthodox tradition.
 

PrincessMommy

High Elder
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Messages
734
Reaction score
0
Points
0
This was posted either today or yesterday.

An Open Letter to the Orthodox Church in America: by Christine Fevronia

http://www.christinefevronia.blogspot.com/  (sorry I don't know how to hyperlink)

This is the story as I have pieced it together, taken from various news sources and first-hand accounts from witnesses.  What I have learned in my research is contained within the following pages.
It is well documented and quite long... but also very helpful for those of us trying to sort through all this.
 

PeterTheAleut

Hypatos
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
37,280
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Portland, Oregon
PrincessMommy said:
This was posted either today or yesterday.

An Open Letter to the Orthodox Church in America: by Christine Fevronia

http://www.christinefevronia.blogspot.com/  (sorry I don't know how to hyperlink)

This is the story as I have pieced it together, taken from various news sources and first-hand accounts from witnesses.  What I have learned in my research is contained within the following pages.
It is well documented and quite long... but also very helpful for those of us trying to sort through all this.
Why should we embrace the conclusions of one Christine Fevronia over all the other conclusions being floated around both on this forum and outside it?
 

FatherGiryus

Protokentarchos
Joined
Jun 24, 2009
Messages
4,195
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Whoever she is, she doesn't have a very tight grasp of the facts.  For example, she states:

Fr. Jonah was enthroned as Metropolitan of the Orthodox Church of America in November 2008, the third such Metropolitan of the autocephalous Orthodox Church of America (OCA), preceded by Metropolitan Theodosius Lazor (served 1977-2002), and Metropolitan Herman Swaiko (served 2002-2008).i

This is wrong: Metropolitan Ireney (Bekish) was the first primate of the OCA (c.f. http://oca.org/holy-synod/past-primates/ireney-bekish).

She also wrote:
Prior to his elevation as Metropolitan of the OCA, Metropolitan Jonah received two Master’s degrees (Master’s of Divinity, 1985; Master’s of Theology, 1988), joined Valaam Monastery in Russia, was tonsured a Hieromonk in 1994. He founded and served as Abbot of St. John’s Monastery for 12 years.

Whereas Metropolitan Jonah's official biography says:

He was ordained to the diaconate and priesthood in 1994 and in 1995 was tonsured to monastic rank at St. Tikhon’s Monastery, South Canaan, PA, having received the name Jonah.

Her letter has a number of other errors, which I don't have time to delve into in detail (weekends are busy).  Needless to say, having invoked her emotions, I doubt it would help much to try to correct it.


PeterTheAleut said:
PrincessMommy said:
This was posted either today or yesterday.

An Open Letter to the Orthodox Church in America: by Christine Fevronia

http://www.christinefevronia.blogspot.com/  (sorry I don't know how to hyperlink)

This is the story as I have pieced it together, taken from various news sources and first-hand accounts from witnesses.  What I have learned in my research is contained within the following pages.
It is well documented and quite long... but also very helpful for those of us trying to sort through all this.
Why should we embrace the conclusions of one Christine Fevronia over all the other conclusions being floated around both on this forum and outside it?
 
Top