Officially, it's probably unfortunate that the Holy Synod issued the statement today, but now that I've read it, thank God the Synod took the action they took. It's a sad situation. Their action seemed to be taken reluctantly and they do not seem to rejoice in it. Wow was I wrong in doubting the Synod last week, although I thought the reasoning that was being discussed on these internet forums seemed highly unlikely. The Synod did what it had to do, and I think still tried to maintain some decorum the best they could given the circumstances.
What do others think about this? Given the "misfeasance, malfeasance, and nonfeasance" enabled for 19 years by the two primates who preceeded Metropolitan Jonah, as set forth in the SIC (Special Investigative Committee) Report ('08), the administrative problems associated with Metropolitan Jonah's primatial service, including his resignation, the manner in which it came about, and the reasons for it, I think the Synod should work toward reestablishing credibility among the priests, deacons, and laity, and take their time electing the new primate (although I think I've seen that the statute calls for an election within 90 days or so). I imagine there would be a great deal of cynicism--lots of eye rolling ("Oh no, now what?), that would greet a new metropolitan. Also, because of the distrust, the new metropolitan will have quite a task promoting new initiatives; a qualified hierarch's initial challenges could work against the possibility of the success of his long term primatial service. Should the Synod secure the concurrence of the Metropolitan Council to delay the election for a year? Of course, another approach would be, as a new parish priest may often act, for the new primate to preach the message of the Gospels, the salvic message of the church, and avoid any new administrative initiatives to restore credibility. Your thoughts?