All the fuss over Metropolitan Philip

[aserb]

I am thoroughly enjoying this whole fuss over Metropolitan Philip's latest move to, in my opinion, consolidate power under him.  I am enjoying seeing all the converts (and some cradles) squirm and have hissy fits. No doubt some are already seeking out other jurisdictions to worship in or are hatching schemes to have their parish break away and seek shelter in another  jurisdiction. This is so Protestant as I have witnessed that every time a Protestant church experiences flux it splits to form yet a new "non-denominational parish." AAH, but can't do that here my convert friends.

Those of us who grew up under Orthodoxy understand the nature of dictatorial politics. Our forebearers have come from cultures with a long history of pashas, kings, sultans, czars and czarinas and princes who, at times, ruled with the iron fist. At best we had benevolent dictators. The Orthodox church grew up, lived, strived and survived in these cultures for thousands of years. America is what 200 odd years of age. A mere toddler on the world stage in comparison to Russian, Serbian, Greek and middle-eastern cultures.

What we are witnessing here is a clash of cultures. Met. Philip is an old world ruler in the new world. Oh, don't get me wrong, I am not happy with his latest move and pray that he see the folly of it. He has done a lot heretofore to expand not only the Antiochian Arcdiocese, but Orthodoxy in general in America.

So my convert friends, what did you think you were getting into when you came to Orthodoxy? I know this trial is testing your mettle. Are you staying? Some of you no doubt will not, but I pray you stay. We need you. Orthodox polity will change, but it will take time, patience and love.

I hope that I have not offended anyone.

[ialmisry]

I am thoroughly enjoying this whole fuss over Metropolitan Philip's latest move to, in my opinion, consolidate power under him.  I am enjoying seeing all the converts (and some cradles) squirm and have hissy fits. No doubt some are already seeking out other jurisdictions to worship in or are hatching schemes to have their parish break away and seek shelter in another  jurisdiction. This is so Protestant as I have witnessed that every time a Protestant church experiences flux it splits to form yet a new "non-denominational parish." AAH, but can't do that here my convert friends.

Cut the crap:

Challenges of Orthodoxy in America And the Role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate
by Very Reverend Archimandrite Dr. Elpidophoros Lambriniadis
Chief Secretary of the Holy and Sacred Synod

The first and main challenge that American Orthodoxy faces is that it has been developed in a region which, from an administrative and technical point, is that of diaspora. By the term “diaspora” we indicate that region  whose ecclesiastical jurisdiction is been unfortunately claimed by a variety of “Mother” Churches, which wish to maintain their pastoral care over their respective flocks, comprised by the people who, over the years, immigrated to the superpower called USA.

            In this way, the Orthodox faithful in America became organized according to their national origin and not according to the canon law of the Orthodox Church—that is, they organized themselves not in accordance with the principles of Orthodox ecclesiology which dictates that neither national origin, nor the history of a group’s appearance in a particular region but rather the canonical taxis and the perennial praxis of the Church, as codified by the Ecumenical Councils, has the ultimate authority.

            According to such ecclesiological principles, in any given region there can be one and only one bishop who shepherds the Orthodox faithful, regardless of any nationalistic distinction. It was, however, the very opposite scenario that took place in America and today one observes the challenging deplorable condition where a number of bishops claim pastoral responsibility for the same geographic region.

The third challenge of Orthodoxy in America concerns the manner of its ecclesiastical organization. The Orthodox faithful organized themselves in communities of lay people, who, in turn, became identified with the ecclesiastical community in the manner of the traditional organization of Christian communities. Thus, the parish (κοινότητα) being now governed by lay elected members, builds its own Church, school and other such institutions, and provides the priest’s salary. Such communal organization improves, as it is right and desirable, the role of laity in Church administration, and increases the sense of responsibility and participation in the life of the Church, offering thus the change to the Church to profit of its talented and able parishioners. On the other hand, however, four very concrete dangers lurk behind such a communal organization of the local Church:

a)   That the priest might become alienated from his administrative duties, and from being the spiritual leader of the parish would become a clerk of the parish council,

b)   That the parishioners would find it difficult to comprehend the rules according to which the Church is governed and instead they would follow their own secular reasoning,

c)   That the structures of the parish would become influenced by the prevalent Protestant models and thus they would replicate and imitate practices that are foreign to the Spirit of Orthodoxy, and

d)   That the parishes would degenerate into nothing more than membership clubs, invested with some ecclesiastical resemblance.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20260.0.html
and on cradle Orthodox congregationalism:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Uh4VnseTNZkC&pg=PA187&lpg=PA187&dq=Orthodoxy+American+congregationalism&source=bl&ots=wamdDVC7Yk&sig=C3hiqG8rsbwY-g7MwKGrdcEm3EQ&hl=en&ei=FVtDSsHHAZWCNOzYrLAC&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4

This is not a cradle vs. convert issue.

Those of us who grew up under Orthodoxy understand the nature of dictatorial politics. Our forebearers have come from cultures with a long history of pashas, kings, sultans, czars and czarinas and princes who, at times, ruled with the iron fist. At best we had benevolent dictators. The Orthodox church grew up, lived, strived and survived in these cultures for thousands of years. America is what 200 odd years of age. A mere toddler on the world stage in comparison to Russian, Serbian, Greek and middle-eastern cultures.

Your point?  That not only should Russians and the millets not leave behind Peter I's Oberprokurator and the Ottoman's tethered millet-pasha and other aberrations of Orthodox ecclesiology, but the converts embrace it as well?

It took the Old World a couple generations after 1776 to solve their dictator problems, but there finally got there (though some might dispute me on Russia).

What we are witnessing here is a clash of cultures. Met. Philip is an old world ruler in the new world. Oh, don't get me wrong, I am not happy with his latest move and pray that he see the folly of it. He has done a lot heretofore to expand not only the Antiochian Arcdiocese, but Orthodoxy in general in America.

I am praying he moves soon to salvage his legacy.

So my convert friends, what did you think you were getting into when you came to Orthodoxy? I know this trial is testing your mettle. Are you staying? Some of you no doubt will not, but I pray you stay. We need you. Orthodox polity will change, but it will take time, patience and love.

I hope that I have not offended anyone.

I don't know how the "cradles" who have no stomach of the latest nonsense would react.

[Αριστοκλής]

You certainly have not offended this cradle.

The bishop is the bishop.

[ialmisry]

You certainly have not offended this cradle.

The bishop is the bishop.

LOL.  Except when he is an auxialliary and the Holy Synod doesn't all sign the statement that "the Episcopacy is one."

[aserb]

My friend Iam---. Lighten up.

Thank you Asterikos. My point exactly. The Bishop is the Bishop and right or wrong, for my salvation, i submit to his decision.

[ialmisry]

My friend Iam---. Lighten up.

Thank you Asterikos. My point exactly. The Bishop is the Bishop and right or wrong, for my salvation, i submit to his decision.

When he is disobeying his synod and his patriarch?

[aserb]

Squirm away Iam.

[ialmisry]

Squirm away Iam.

LOL.  I'm not going anywhere, staying firmly put.  Don't think Met. Philip is going to soon be able to do the same.

[recent convert]

There has been an extensive Orthodox presence in America for over 100 years & what oppression (outside of Alaska) has existed? Why are the statistics of congregants so unreliable? Statements like "best kept secret" personally make me shudder. Why criticise those who observe wrongdoing? "The Church will be swamped with simple people. The Church will be overwhelmed by their problems. The Church must descend to their level." (St. Maria Skobtsova, martyred in a Nazi camp).

[SDMPNS]

I am cradle Orthodox and I am extremely embarrassed by Met.Phillip.
A group of people left the local Greek Orthodox parish and wanted to start a new parish. They refused to consider the OCA because of the issues..this was several years ago and started an Antiochian parish.
They are aghast at what is happening with Met.Phillip.He needs to retire and go away.
There is a long history of clergy and laity standing against their Bishops when the Bishops abuse the faith...the iconoclastic movement and the Council of Florence come to mind.Met.Phillip may be a bishop but he made vows to defend the faith not feather his nest.
Why isn't Fr.Peter Gillquist and Fredericka Matthews-Green speaking out about this?
Father John Morris was posting up a storm on the TheAntiochian.Com site but since events of the last day have transpired he has not posted..
Not judging...just observing

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

I am cradle. I do not believe that a bishop must be obeyed unconditionally. At least to me, this comes very close to idolatry, to cultist thinking, to the possibility that an errant bishop may get one to drink the cool aid of schism, sin, corruption and heresy. I believe that as a lay person I have some responsibility (not as much as the clergy but some) for the welfare of the Body. I forgot who said it but "I did not check out my brain at the door."

Forgive me if I offended.

[aserb]

IAm.. I am glad your staying, we need people like you to raise the bar and yes I agree Met. Philip days are probably numbered.

[aserb]

Second Changce, I agree. Yet let me make a comparison. I do like everything that President Obama is doing; yet, he is my President right or wrong.Now in the case of the government I know we have a means of redress. I am respecting the office of Bishop, while I may not respect the Bishop, personally. I trust that matters will be resolved. Orthodox Christianity has survived two thousand years of corrupt bishops, idolaters, heretics and outside persecutions of unspeakable proportions. Yet -  She still lives and will continue to live! Bishops come and go (hopefully) but the Church lives on!

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

Second Changce, I agree. Yet let me make a comparison. I do like everything that President Obama is doing; yet, he is my President right or wrong.Now in the case of the government I know we have a means of redress. I am respecting the office of Bishop, while I may not respect the Bishop, personally. I trust that matters will be resolved. Orthodox Christianity has survived two thousand years of corrupt bishops, idolaters, heretics and outside persecutions of unspeakable proportions. Yet -  She still lives and will continue to live! Bishops come and go (hopefully) but the Church lives on!

I think we are of the same mind except for one small thing. When you say "bishops come and go," I think the people may have a role in hastening the "go" part, if it is appropriate. To me that means we should not rush to judgment, be forgiving, and patient...but not forever. There is a tipping point somewhere in that continuum.

[aserb]

Second Chance: I agree

[NorthernPines]

I am thoroughly enjoying this whole fuss over Metropolitan Philip's latest move to, in my opinion, consolidate power under him.

I find it strange you find the Church tearing itself asunder amusing.

I do not even know where to begin. As a "convert", I must say, I find your post a tad offensive. (As for "convert" vs "cradle"...actually I am simply a "non ethnic/cradle" Orthodox. As you are ALSO a convert, you just happened to convert at a very young age and were raised in the Church. No one is born Orthodox, we are ALL converts, and should convert to Christ on a daily basis. This whole "cradle vs convert" crap is rediculous. We're all converts.

  I am enjoying seeing all the converts (and some cradles) squirm and have hissy fits. No doubt some are already seeking out other jurisdictions to worship in or are hatching schemes to have their parish break away and seek shelter in another  jurisdiction. This is so Protestant as I have witnessed that every time a Protestant church experiences flux it splits to form yet a new "non-denominational parish." AAH, but can't do that here my convert friends.

No, it's not "Protestant" to point out the corruption in the Church. Is this not what St. John Chrysostom did? Is that not what St. Kassiani did in her secular poetry? Is this not what the the Iconodules did? St. John of Damascus? The list of saints who spoke out against either corruption of false theology is extensive. it's not Protestant, and if it is, well, then maybe you should realize that not all things "Protestant" are wrong. They did get some things right, they just took it too far.

Those of us who grew up under Orthodoxy understand the nature of dictatorial politics. Our forebearers have come from cultures with a long history of pashas, kings, sultans, czars and czarinas and princes who, at times, ruled with the iron fist. At best we had benevolent dictators. The Orthodox church grew up, lived, strived and survived in these cultures for thousands of years. America is what 200 odd years of age. A mere toddler on the world stage in comparison to Russian, Serbian, Greek and middle-eastern cultures.

So, you feel the Old World is superior because it's older? So I suppose with that reasoning, you're willing to give the Alaskan Church a cultural pre-eminence because it's culture dates back the end of the last ice age? Something that not even the Jewish culture can claim, except by a loose cultural decent. What about the Church in China or India? Both those cultures are far older than Greek and middle eastern culture? Should we adopt the Chinese culture instead? There are Orthodox Churches in Africa that have adapted to tribal African culture, which I'm sure predates Greece and the Middle East? Maybe we should all become "African" in culture.

This is EXACTLY the problem we are witnessing. EVERYONE thinks their culture is "the best"!

 The Old World is superior to no one, no culture is superior to any other culture. I'm sorry, this is the same crap certain Americans spew out about how we need to turn the rest of the world into "good Americans" because their cultures aren't as good as ours...our's is "the best"....well maybe it's just the best for us, but not everyone else. When the Church figures out that being Greek, Russian, or whatever is what's best for them but not everyone, then these problems will end. Until then, you're going to have people speaking out about it and against it. We're tired of being told either outright, or by actions, that we're not "quite as Orthodox" as everyone who was born into the Church. I'm tired of being told by my Patriarch that I'm a barbarian, that I'm the reason the Church has so many problems, that I have to learn modern Greek (I'm more than happy to learn Liturgical Greek, chant in it, worship in it, etc, but of course this isn't enough, because I'm only "pretending to be Greek").

What we are witnessing here is a clash of cultures. Met. Philip is an old world ruler in the new world. Oh, don't get me wrong, I am not happy with his latest move and pray that he see the folly of it. He has done a lot heretofore to expand not only the Antiochian Arcdiocese, but Orthodoxy in general in America.

So my convert friends, what did you think you were getting into when you came to Orthodoxy?

Christ's Holy Church, which is taught to spread the GOSPEL to the ends of the earth, not Hellenism, Russian culture, Arabic, Serbian or any other culture.  The Church that is big enough for all cultures, and ethnic groups, the same Church that told Greeks they could keep their culture, the same Church that chastised certain Jewish Christians for demanding everyone else accept Jewish culture before becoming a Christian. The Church that is alive with the Holy Spirit. That's what I thought. Yes, I knew about the corruption, the brutal theocracies the Church was in bed with for centuries, (which of course very few spoke out against, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have) but just because I knew about it doesn't mean I think we should just take it all as is. The Church that accepts scandal and corruption because "it's always been that way, and it really ain't so bad" is the Church that has lost it's way. It's still the Church, just as the Church was still the Church when it was 90% Arian, but the Church CAN and does lose it's way. If everyone had accepted your position we'd all be Arians, or Iconoclasts, or be under Rome...the Church doesn't just "work everything out in time" like magic, because WE are the Church. And so WE have to do out part.

So yes, many "converts" are angry, but you know what, so are many "cradles", including priests and Bishops. Some who love their culture, language and heritage deeply, and yet, they realize what is happening is not right. And so they speak out against it. The concept that we're "way down here" and the Bishops are "way up there" and they are "in charge" is a fallacy. We are all the Royal priesthood of Christ. We are ONE body, ONE Church, with yes, different roles and functions, and the Bishops are the shepherds, but not our dictators. If you've accepted the Bishop as your dictator, that's you're decision......but I don't think most people are going to accept such an idea any longer. That includes cradle priests I know, who's families have been Orthodox for centuries. So it's not a cradle vs convert issue, it's a right and wrong issue. The Bishops do not have supreme authority on all matters, and can not just willy nilly refuse to accept the decisions of the Church Synods. I'm simply shocked that any Orthodox, whether raised in the Church or not, wouldn't be outraged by the higher ups forging documents, mistranslating texts all for who knows what reason. Has this sort of thing become so common place in the Church that people just expect it to be that way, and to say, "that's how it's always been?". Even if it has always been that way, that doesn't mean it's "correct"...or proper. The Bishops are not there to lord it over us, but to shepherd us in love. The thing is I'm not feeling the love from the majority of the hierarchy within the Church at this present time.

As they saying goes, when they came for the Jews, I didn't speak up, when they came for the Hindus, I didn't speak up, when they came for the gays I didn't speak up, and finally when they came for me, no one was left to speak up. We cannot wait until there is no one left to speak out against this corruption....St. Athanasius didn't wait for someone else to speak up...and who knows, you or your Bishop just might be the next St. Athanasius. But if you don't speak up, I guarantee you, you won't be.

[aserb]

Northern Pines you are missing the wole point and you are a squirmer! Bottom Line: This "muddle" or "wrongdoing" is nothing new. Those of us with the history know it. We also know and are reassured by the fact that the church will continue. Should we tell the emporer he has no clothes. Well, yes, but find a way to tell him in humility, patience and love. This means finding a culturally appropriate way, he (Met. Philip) comes from a different culture. You can't just put canons in his face and expect change. Should it happen - sure. Is it going to happen - no. Oh and if you think anyone of non-Arab decent is going to head the AOC, that ain't happening either.

[aserb]

P.S. I do not find what is going on in the AOC amusing.

I find peoples' reaction to it amusing

[aserb]

Why isn't Fr.Peter Gillquist and Fredericka Matthews-Green speaking out about this?

Because they know where their bread is buttered.

[recent convert]

So if abuse happens within the old world culture it is understood I guess. When our parish was still largely a Syrian immigrant church in the 1940s,  a quarrel over the parish priest (Fr Anthony Sakey) split the congregation. From what I know the father did no wrong but some did not like him. My grandfather was treasurer on the council and my uncle told me that the father came to our family's home upset and bewildered. I was told that my grandfather & supporters of the father consulted Metr. Antony Bashir who (by inaction) allowed the priest to be ousted from the parish (I believe he later did relocate). In 1942 my grandfather was given 2 icons by the father for his service to the church; 2 years later he, the priest, & the congregation were split and many ceased being Orthodox (although thankfully my grandmother returned to the church). This happened among "cradles" and many apparently experienced similar exasperation apparently like some of us "Protestant" converts today.

[NorthernPines]

Northern Pines you are missing the wole point and you are a squirmer! Bottom Line: This "muddle" or "wrongdoing" is nothing new. Those of us with the history know it.

Glad to know you're culture freely accepts corruption as if it was just another part of life.

We also know and are reassured by the fact that the church will continue.

It's a good thing St. Athanasius didn't take that stance, or else the Church would NOT have continued.

Should we tell the emporer he has no clothes. Well, yes, but find a way to tell him in humility, patience and love. This means finding a culturally appropriate way, he (Met. Philip) comes from a different culture. You can't just put canons in his face and expect change.

But shouldn't the PATRIARCH expect that from him? Apparently not.

Should it happen - sure. Is it going to happen - no. Oh and if you think anyone of non-Arab decent is going to head the AOC, that ain't happening either.

So in other words, you're taking the very American approach that "you can't fight city hall"......how ironic!

[NorthernPines]

So if abuse happens within the old world culture it is understood I guess. When our parish was still largely a Syrian immigrant church in the 1940s,  a quarrel over the parish priest (Fr Anthony Sakey) split the congregation. From what I know the father did no wrong but some did not like him. My grandfather was treasurer on the council and my uncle told me that the father came to our family's home upset and bewildered. I was told that my grandfather & supporters of the father consulted Metr. Antony Bashir who (by inaction) allowed the priest to be ousted from the parish (I believe he later did relocate). In 1942 my grandfather was given 2 icons by the father for his service to the church; 2 years later he, the priest, & the congregation were split and many ceased being Orthodox (although thankfully my grandmother returned to the church). This happened among "cradles" and many apparently experienced similar exasperation apparently like some of us "Protestant" converts today.

This is what confounds me. You mentioned that many ceased being Orthodox altogether...and that is what is going to happen now as well. And it is of no consequence to some within the Church, including the hierarchy. They'll just sum it up to "they had weak faith" or "they converted for the wrong reasons".....never at all does it cross their minds that Jesus said, that " it would be better that a millstone be tied around his neck and cast into the sea, than to cause one of these little ones to stumble"...

Some of us "converts" might be "little ones" or weak in faith, indeed I certainly am, but aren't the strong supposed to bear the burdens of the weak? Instead the "strong in faith" watch people fall upon the wayside and continue on in their "culture" as if nothing happened.

If we were to judge the Church by it's fruits, would we see Christ's Church in Orthodoxy? I really do not know anymore.....

[recent convert]

So if abuse happens within the old world culture it is understood I guess. When our parish was still largely a Syrian immigrant church in the 1940s,  a quarrel over the parish priest (Fr Anthony Sakey) split the congregation. From what I know the father did no wrong but some did not like him. My grandfather was treasurer on the council and my uncle told me that the father came to our family's home upset and bewildered. I was told that my grandfather & supporters of the father consulted Metr. Antony Bashir who (by inaction) allowed the priest to be ousted from the parish (I believe he later did relocate). In 1942 my grandfather was given 2 icons by the father for his service to the church; 2 years later he, the priest, & the congregation were split and many ceased being Orthodox (although thankfully my grandmother returned to the church). This happened among "cradles" and many apparently experienced similar exasperation apparently like some of us "Protestant" converts today.

This is what confounds me. You mentioned that many ceased being Orthodox altogether...and that is what is going to happen now as well. And it is of no consequence to some within the Church, including the hierarchy. They'll just sum it up to "they had weak faith" or "they converted for the wrong reasons".....never at all does it cross their minds that Jesus said, that " it would be better that a millstone be tied around his neck and cast into the sea, than to cause one of these little ones to stumble"...

Some of us "converts" might be "little ones" or weak in faith, indeed I certainly am, but aren't the strong supposed to bear the burdens of the weak? Instead the "strong in faith" watch people fall upon the wayside and continue on in their "culture" as if nothing happened.

If we were to judge the Church by it's fruits, would we see Christ's Church in Orthodoxy? I really do not know anymore.....

Brother, I did not mean to sound defeatist and forgive me if that was my impression. It is being Orthodox that has helped me to escape the overanalytical western mindset that clouds much of its Christianity and helping me to see other Christians in a less divisive & yet more discerning sense & indeed greater understanding in the possibilties of salvation for many & keeping a proper fear of the Lord at the same time (to avoid delusion). Surely, other Christians have this but I could not acquire such understanding without the worship of our Lord in the DL, the Eucharist, & confession etc. God bless and keep you.

[aserb]

NP: SO you thinking of ditching Orthodoxy for what Methodism? I am a realist. Nothing is new under the sun. People have split and fallen away for centuries. Take courage - I'll say it again - The church, orthodox will still stand - ergo, it's difficult, stay on the ship, don't bail, work this through, don't be surprised of what's goning on.

Also, my parent's church also split in the 1950's with the recalcitrants starting their own diocese apart from the SOC. They have since reconciled. The same thing occurred in the AOC.

Also, the Patriarch isn't going to speak against the Metropolitan. Why - the Patriarchy of Antioch will be bankrupt if we in America did not keep it alive. he is not going to bite the hand that feeds him.

[aserb]

Recent Convert gets it! Unforetunatly, the western over analytical mindset has invaded Orthodoxy in America. I to receive tremendous comfort in the DL and the mysteries of the church.

[FatherGiryus]

Well, not all natives to the Church are the same.  As a priest with a mixed community, I see the whole gambit.  Their are native-born Orthodox who could care less, and others who are very concerned.

Not all converts are the same, either.  I converted from a 'pagan' household.  I was not raised in any tradition, and had only a cursory experience of Christianity prior to being received into the Church (my parents had me Baptized, I think, mostly to hedge their bets!).  While I am considered a 'convert,' I tend not to have as much in common with other convert clergy raised in other traditions as convert clergy raised in other brands of 'Christianity' tend to have.  To be honest, I often feel more inclined towards the native clergy.  You can't paint all of us with the same brush.

I have not spoken to any clergy who agreed with the decision, though I must admit I have only a small but diverse circle of friends.  One of my friends characterized the divide as between the personal friends of the Metropolitan and everyone else.  To be honest, I see lots of squirming, aserb, on both sides.

The only people who are not squirming are those who are ambivalent about the Church in general.  They come and go as they please, and could care less about the work necessary to keep the parish afloat.  You have these in every religious group, though they are not represented amongst our 'converts' because a convert has to work for the change of conversion, something the ambivalent isn't interested in doing.

So, the bright side of this is the sense of unity that has arisen amongst the clergy without regard to 'cradle' versus 'convert.'  No matter how the situation is resolved, both groups seem to be finding reason to respect one another.

The real test will come with the selection of a new Metropolitan or, perhaps as some are theorizing after the Patriarchate's cryptic statement, the reorganization of the Archdiocese into several new Archdioceses.  The Patriarchate might have found a clever way to help frustrated Antiochians blow off steam prior to the reorganization of the Archdiocese.  Right now they have succeeded in winning a lot of support and loyalty, which they will certainly bank on in the future (no, that's not a money reference).

I have stopped guessing as to what will happen next.  After all, I never could have imagined all of this taking place.

[SDMPNS]

[

quote][ he (Met. Philip) comes from a different culture. You can't just put canons in his face and expect change. Should it happen - sure. Is it going to happen - no. Oh and if you think anyone of non-Arab decent is going to head the AOC, that ain't happening either.

So why is he the Metropolitan of a Church in a country which is not of his culture? You just made a perfect argument for getting rid of foreign Bishops and for the Church in America to really become a "self ruled" Church

[SDMPNS]

Why isn't Fr.Peter Gillquist and Fredericka Matthews-Green speaking out about this?

Because they know where their bread is buttered.

You are absolutely correct. Metropolitan Phillip controls the speaking engagement s for the Archdiocese so if they make him angry he will cut off the pipeline .
The corruption is deeper than I thought!

[aserb]

FR G:  Father Bless. Father thank you for your insightful, courageous and thoughtful reply. I think you are right, it's the Met'n's friends and non-friends. Also, I think that I and all of the posters on this site have one thing in common, we may disagree, but I think we all "care" about our parishes and dioceses (not all posters are AOC.) I care about this outcome for the benefit of the diocese and the witness of Orthodoxy in general in the Americas.

Also, I do think we need an American born patriarch, but I am not hopeful, at minimum he will be Arab-American.

[username!]

People are making a bigger deal out of this than they should.  Let the bishops and the synod deal with this; that is their job.  It doesn't effect the lay person in the pew other than give people giving themselves angina over something they can't control in the first place.  Go to church, pray, support your parish in a positive manner and don't get into this episcopal gossip mode and create unnecessary strife and confusion for yourselves and those around you.  The church has survived 2000 years so far and it will continue to do so. 

[NorthernPines]

So if abuse happens within the old world culture it is understood I guess. When our parish was still largely a Syrian immigrant church in the 1940s,  a quarrel over the parish priest (Fr Anthony Sakey) split the congregation. From what I know the father did no wrong but some did not like him. My grandfather was treasurer on the council and my uncle told me that the father came to our family's home upset and bewildered. I was told that my grandfather & supporters of the father consulted Metr. Antony Bashir who (by inaction) allowed the priest to be ousted from the parish (I believe he later did relocate). In 1942 my grandfather was given 2 icons by the father for his service to the church; 2 years later he, the priest, & the congregation were split and many ceased being Orthodox (although thankfully my grandmother returned to the church). This happened among "cradles" and many apparently experienced similar exasperation apparently like some of us "Protestant" converts today.

This is what confounds me. You mentioned that many ceased being Orthodox altogether...and that is what is going to happen now as well. And it is of no consequence to some within the Church, including the hierarchy. They'll just sum it up to "they had weak faith" or "they converted for the wrong reasons".....never at all does it cross their minds that Jesus said, that " it would be better that a millstone be tied around his neck and cast into the sea, than to cause one of these little ones to stumble"...

Some of us "converts" might be "little ones" or weak in faith, indeed I certainly am, but aren't the strong supposed to bear the burdens of the weak? Instead the "strong in faith" watch people fall upon the wayside and continue on in their "culture" as if nothing happened.

If we were to judge the Church by it's fruits, would we see Christ's Church in Orthodoxy? I really do not know anymore.....

Brother, I did not mean to sound defeatist and forgive me if that was my impression. It is being Orthodox that has helped me to escape the overanalytical western mindset that clouds much of its Christianity and helping me to see other Christians in a less divisive & yet more discerning sense & indeed greater understanding in the possibilties of salvation for many & keeping a proper fear of the Lord at the same time (to avoid delusion). Surely, other Christians have this but I could not acquire such understanding without the worship of our Lord in the DL, the Eucharist, & confession etc. God bless and keep you.

No, it is I who apologize....most of my post wasn't specifically directed at you or your thoughts, I just kind of blended a response to you, in with all my thoughts about the Church, and "converts" and the rest. I was actually, or I meant to agree with you, but my post sort of went off on a side tangent, which wasn't a response to you, but rather were general thoughts about the situation at large. My words about weak Christians and such were NOT aimed at your words, but just general thoughts. Sorry for not being clearer....

Now for general thoughts, just at the topic at large, i think its become evident that the whole situation is not good because we are all either misunderstanding each other, or pitting ourselves against each other in factions. We are one Church, and One body, and yet we've been made to feel like we aren't. And that is what is most disheartening about the whole state of affairs I think. I hope and pray this is all mended and we can realize we are one not many Churches.

thank you for bearing with a sinful brother...

[SDMPNS]

This painful time could be the "refiners fire" that American Orthodoxy needs to become a United Church..
The convention in July could be interesting...VERY interesting.
I still think we need a independent open audit of the books. Its the money...follow the money as Deep Throat said.

[aserb]

^ Amen &

It's true

[scamandrius]

I would personally be amazed if a lot of people left the AOCNA if Metropolitan PHILIP were to remain.  I mean this is the reason Protestants form as many congregations as they do, because they don't like, personally or professionally, the guy in charge.

At the same time, I am grieved that people would leave over this one man.  The faithful did not break away from the Church when Nestorius was Patriarch.  Granted, he was deposed and that helped.  I am grieved even more that people would leave because of one man and not because of other issues that really should be addressed and corrected which can tear at the faith much more than ever one man could.

[BrotherAidan]

I think what is especially galling to many converts is to see a bishop/metropolitan behave in an autocratic and arbitrary manner much like a TV preacher. Do things one way for a while and then do a complete turn-about and decide to do it another way. The only thing missing is the explanation "the Lord told me to .... (in this case to, ah, let's see, demote all my bishops?). People may legitimately ask themselves, "Whoa! Didn't I just leave this sort of thing? What's going on here?"

If it pushes them back out of Orthodoxy or makes them "protestant" church-hoppers (in this case, jurisdiction-hoppers) shame on those shepherds who rattled and startled the sheep, rather than shelter and comfort them.

And how convenient that we are so accommodatingly protestant in Orthodox North America with different Orthodox denominations -- er, ah, I mean jurisdictions, really I did! The "D" word just slipped out  -- for such hopping.

[Alveus Lacuna]

And how convenient that we are so accommodatingly protestant in Orthodox North America with a different Orthodox denomination -- er, ah, I mean jurisdiction, really I did! The "D" word just slipped out  -- for such hopping.

Yeah, it's the ultimate cop-out.  You can find another "denomination" of World Orthodoxy that's doing things just the way you like it, and that's somehow different than the Protestant splinter groups.     This country needs a unified Orthodox voice!

Monasteries switch bishops whenever their denomination becomes too "worldly" or whatever.  It's idiotic.

[FatherGiryus]

Again, not that I know everything, but I really have not heard of any 'exoduses' (is that the plural?).  I think most converts are well-aware that this situation is temporary even under the worst of circumstances.  After all, good or bad, no one lives forever.

Overall, the Archdiocese is in pretty good shape.  Coming into this controversy, there was nothing but hope for the future.  My sense is this is partly a natural conflict in anticipation of the changes that will come with the eventual retirement/repose/removal/relocation/resomething of Metropolitan Philip.  There simply are no more bishops of his generation who are in line for the throne (place your bets on Bps. Joseph, Basil or Alexander), and the obvious candidates will most assuredly make significant changes.  The younger generation of clergy and faithful are far more conservative and traditional than the 'assimilationists' of the previous generation.  Of course, we have to be careful that the Archdiocese does not swing from from the stereotype of 'bingo and haflis' to 'Official Chaplaincy of the SCA.'

There needs to be a serious re-commitment to evangelism, and not just to evangelizing wealthy WASPs (no offense to you WASOs).  There are lots of communities outside the white suburbs that need the Gospel.  Once there is a 'changing of the guard,' you will see more open discussion of our goals and methods.  Right now, a lot of careers are winding down at the same time (the AEOM leadership are mostly retiring or are retired), and so I would not expect lots of new ideas until the leadership changes have all been made.  Right now, status quo is the name of the game.  In some respects, that might have been the impetus for all this commotion.

[scamandrius]

^Do you really think that once Metropolitan PHILIP retires/reposes/resomethings that we will get a new presiding hierarch that is from this country?  I would imagine that the HOly Synod would still put one of its own from overseas in this position which would really cause the archdiocese here to regress.  However, one of the Metropolitans, the Metropolitan of Tripoli (can't remember his name) is often regarded as a very forward thinking, pragmatic and still traditional bishop that could do a lot of good here.  As much as I would like to see Bishop BASIL as the new Metropolitan, I still think that the AOCNA will still be ruled by hierarchs from overseas.

[aserb]

^ I agree

[Αριστοκλής]

You certainly have not offended this cradle.

The bishop is the bishop.

LOL.  Except when he is an auxialliary and the Holy Synod doesn't all sign the statement that "the Episcopacy is one."

You miss the point entirely.

[ag_vn]

However, one of the Metropolitans, the Metropolitan of Tripoli (can't remember his name) is often regarded as a very forward thinking, pragmatic and still traditional bishop that could do a lot of good here.  As much as I would like to see Bishop BASIL as the new Metropolitan, I still think that the AOCNA will still be ruled by hierarchs from overseas.

I'm not sure but I think there is age limit in the Antiochian Patriarchate for the election of metropolitans, Sayidna Elias of Tripoli seems to be over this age... And is it canonical to elect a metropolitan of one archdiocese as metropolitan of another?

AFAIK metropolitans in the Church of Antioch must speak Arabic, so those bishops from the Archdiocese of North America who don't speak it seem to be ineligible.

[FatherGiryus]

^Do you really think that once Metropolitan PHILIP retires/reposes/resomethings that we will get a new presiding hierarch that is from this country?  I would imagine that the HOly Synod would still put one of its own from overseas in this position which would really cause the archdiocese here to regress.  However, one of the Metropolitans, the Metropolitan of Tripoli (can't remember his name) is often regarded as a very forward thinking, pragmatic and still traditional bishop that could do a lot of good here.  As much as I would like to see Bishop BASIL as the new Metropolitan, I still think that the AOCNA will still be ruled by hierarchs from overseas.

I'm not entirely sure that I would want to rest all my hopes in someone from 'this country.'  Do you mean the US or Canada?  After all, we cover both with the 'North American Archdiocese.'  To be honest, I think there are enough cultural differences between the two to merit two distinct Archdioceses.  But, that's just my opinion.

You might also want to define what you mean by 'regress.'  Many Americans are demanding some 'regression' from present Antiochian Archdiocese practices.  They want to end many of the compromises with modern American culture that were made in the last century (i.e. shortened services, clergy apparel, organs, etc.).  A growing number of Americans want a more traditional approach to Archdiocesan administration, which has fed the conflict between the Metropolitan and a large portion of the clergy.  One must also remember that most of those decisions about 'fitting in' with Americans came from overseas-born hierarchs, namely Metropolitans Antony and Philip.  Of the local American-born bishops, any one of them is likely to be 'regressive' in the eyes of Metropolitan Philip, who has made a career of being 'progressive.'

I believe a rather significant number of Antiochians would consider no changes at all to be 'regressive,' since there is an overwhelming demand for change right now.  People are dissatisfied with the system as much as with anything else.  Our present organization has the difficulty of being rather monolithic and inflexible, while at the same time trying to administer over a very diverse flock.  What has happened is that the 'outlying areas' of the Archdiocese were allowed to grow fallow and develop independent practices.  The Diocesan Bishops have been working on fixing that, but it is impossible to entirely integrate them without some compromises while the establishment of a more precise 'canon' of Traditional 'essentials.'  Right now, many are confused as to what accounts for essential versus non-essential.

I also believe that there are enough examples of American-born hierarchs who were totally inept that such a 'job requirement' is no guarantee of success.  I would much prefer a spiritually-attuned bishop from anywhere as opposed to a local who is controlled only by his passions.

As an Antiochian, 'being ruled from overseas' has meant a rather 'hands-off' approach.  Damascus has been very, very lenient with our local practices, good or bad, and been very hesitant about interfering.  Please remember that it was us over here who asked for interference, both in requesting the 'Self-Rule' change and, some would say, in its reversal.  Not that I have evidence of the latter, but it is widely speculated.  My point is that we have done rather well under Antioch, and we could still benefit from a close relationship with the Holy Synod if it chooses to help us through our present and immediate future issues.

Borrowing from pre-marital counseling, I usually don't advise a marriage as being the cure for personal problems, as some have suggested that now is the time for a union between the OCA and the Archdiocese.  I would also not advise a merger with the OCA given that they are only recently emerging from their difficulties and we are still in the midst of ours.  While having an 'American-born' bishop may be a good thing in many respects, what we need most of all is a healer.  Right now, we are acquiring a great number of wounds.  Once the Archdiocesan Throne is vacant, there will be a reckoning for all of those who will find themselves on the losing side of the present power struggle [hint: that's why even 'theantiochian.com' largely anonymous/pseudonymous].

If the present organizational system continues, then we will certainly need a new Metropolitan who is capable of maintaining close relationships with the members of the Holy Synod, and that will require fluency in Arabic.  On the other hand, if there is a reorganization of the Archdiocese continuing along the lines as it has been moving over the past ten years, then more local administration will inevitably lead to a less essential role for the Metropolitan in general, as more of the present responsibilities of the Metropolotian would shift to the Local/Eparchial Synod and the constituting hierarchs.  I think most Antiochians would be happy with having an overseas connection as it has been in the past, but stronger local administration, which accounts for much of the outcry over the attempted-demotion of the Diocesan Hierarchs.

So, Scamandrius, I would say it is far more complicated than, 'get an American bishop in here.'  Not to say that you do not have a noble purpose, but it is no guarantee.

[scamandrius]

^Thanks for your response.  First, let me point out that when I used the word "regress", I was referring specifically to even further barriers coming up towards North American University.  I know Metropolitan PHILIP has worked assiduously for this administrative unity and as long as the hierarchs of the various jurisdictions are appointed by their respective synods overseas and there may be only one American-born hierarch, such a dream is continuously going to be far from realized.

Now, I agree with regression towards the customs and the faith of our Fathers.  I think that if there is any reason to leave the AOCNA, it should not be because of one man, but because of the great number of innovations in tradition and praxis that have come up, which, I am sure have come up  to assimilate with American culture, but has produced water down results. 

You are right that the HOly Synod has governed with a light hand and has left us to do pretty much as we please.  But, I don't foresee an American-born bishop taking the role of Metropolitan after Metropolitan PHILIP has left, especially if it is sooner than later.

[FatherGiryus]

^Thanks for your response.  First, let me point out that when I used the word "regress", I was referring specifically to even further barriers coming up towards North American University.  I know Metropolitan PHILIP has worked assiduously for this administrative unity and as long as the hierarchs of the various jurisdictions are appointed by their respective synods overseas and there may be only one American-born hierarch, such a dream is continuously going to be far from realized.

Now, I agree with regression towards the customs and the faith of our Fathers.  I think that if there is any reason to leave the AOCNA, it should not be because of one man, but because of the great number of innovations in tradition and praxis that have come up, which, I am sure have come up  to assimilate with American culture, but has produced water down results. 

You are right that the HOly Synod has governed with a light hand and has left us to do pretty much as we please.  But, I don't foresee an American-born bishop taking the role of Metropolitan after Metropolitan PHILIP has left, especially if it is sooner than later.

You are welcome, and I must say it is nice to have civil discourse about such an emotion-charged topic.  My hats off to the Forum membership for keeping it Christian!

However, I am not a big fan of pushing unity, mostly because it is based on what I personally consider to be several false premises, the first of all the term 'North American.'  This really makes me feel ill, since no one from either Canada of the US has any inclination of feeling 'North American.'  It is a foreign concept, perhaps bred by the publication of the modern Rand-McNally globe that labels continents.  It may work for geography, but it is hardly descriptive of the social constructs that reside in the US, Canad and, let's not forget, poor Mexico, which usually gets lumped in with South America even though they are 'up here' with the rest of us.  They should have picked English as their primary language, then perhaps we would pay more attention to them.

Canada is a separate society and ought to have the honor of being something other than an ecclesiastical appendage to an American church.  By the way, I'm not Canadian, but I think it will be easier for a Synod to make decisions when it is, in fact, less diverse.  Rather than squeezing them out, I think they ought to be granted their own Synod.

Second, I think that even an 'American Church' is still far too culturally diverse to handle our present expectations of 'unity' when we have a hard enough time managing our present mini-slices of the Orthodox pie.  I think we can only effectively manage a united church when the immigrant populations are well below the 10% mark, so that there is no significant block of non- or semi-assimilated faithful that would require moderation of policies.  There's also the Cortez Factor.  So long as you have somewhere to run, you'll run.  Just look at the Antiochian Self-Rule situation.

We must remember that cultural accommodation tends to mean which part of the Gospel are too difficult for us to do as a social group.  For example, 'Americans' tend not towards obedience or patient suffering.  Our system will have to take into account some of these peculiarities.

There are a few other factors that I don't want to discuss publicly because they are too divisive and I'm not as certain of them as I ought to be before launching them into Cyberia.

As to your final point, I think the model of Metropolitan Philip will not be repeated by anyone, from either side of the Atlantic.  It is a model for a different time with totally different conditions.  Some would argue that it isn't even working well for him given the present circumstances.  Nonetheless, I think only a fool (regardless of the fool being Arab, Arab-American or American... we all have our share!) would try to repeat it, which is why we need to have a frank discussion about our future.

[SDMPNS]

What will happen if an open transparent audit of the books of the Antiochian Archdiocese reveals financial foolishness on the part of Met.Phillip as with Met.Herman and the OCA?
I think that is the elephant in the room no one wants to talk about.
He has had pretty much absolute power and absolute power corrupts.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics > Topic: All the fuss over Metropolitan Philip