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

[PrincessMommy]

Thank you Fr. Giryus

I do feel that we should give the transcript the same critical thought that we should give the letter from the godmother.  How clear is it that it is authentic?

[Nigula Qian Zishi]

This was published on the Yahoo Orthodox Forum:

From: metjonah@oca.org
To: BPBasil@aol.com
Sent: 4/23/2011 7:25:59 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Fwd: documents (1 of 2)

Dear Saidna Basil,

Wishing you a joyous Pascha! I look forward to greeting you at the Episcopal Assembly if not before.

Attached are the documents for [the priest].

He applied to the OCA, but we have declined to accept him. Fr Constantine Nassar in Oklahoma City was inquiring about him, so I thought to send you the documents. 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.

You are in my thoughts and prayers. For me this has been a very difficult Lent, as you may have heard. Please keep me in your prayers.

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

Notice, not once did His Beatitude say that this priest was in the OCA! He was not received, nor accepted, unilaterally or otherwise.

Taken from http://www.monomakhos.com/well-that-was-easy/

[FatherGiryus]

This is contrary to the understanding of the releasing metropolitan: His Beatitude requested the priest.  There simply is no way to request, then receive, then say that he was not received.  Look at the document from the originating metropolitan... the priest did not apply to the OCA, he was requested.  Very different.

So, the question remains, what really happened?  It appears there are documents telling two different stories.

My inclination is to think that something along these lines happened (this is just a theory based on what's come out so far):

1. Metropolitan Jonah, either in conjunction with the nuns or directly with the priest in question, thought that it would be a good idea for the priest to come to the US with the nuns and serve in DC.

2. His Beatitude initiated a formal request.

3. The originating monastery agreed, and the release letter to Metropolitan Jonah was sent by the originating metropolitan.

4. The OCA Holy Synod found out and resisted the arrangement at some point, either prior to the issuing of the letter or shortly afterwards.

5. Metropolitan Jonah did not want a fight with the Holy Synod, so he received the clergyman but did not enroll him formally into the OCA clergy rolls (hence, no listing on oca.org, etc.).  Hence, we have 'receiving without receiving.'

6. Accusations and rumors reached His Beatitude.

7. His Beatitude prevented the priest from serving, then began entertaining possible opportunities for the priest to go elsewhere.

8. Eventually, some type of deal was reached with ROCOR, though it is unclear whether the priest was represented as having been officially received into the OCA or merely 'on loan.'

That's as far as I can take this.  Obviously, the bishops of ROCOR have not released the actual letter they received from Metropolitan Jonah.  I think it would clear up a great deal, but I would not hold my breath for anything anytime soon.  I believe they run a pretty tight ship and leaks seem improbably.

This was published on the Yahoo Orthodox Forum:

From: metjonah@oca.org
To: BPBasil@aol.com
Sent: 4/23/2011 7:25:59 P.M. Central Daylight Time
Subj: Fwd: documents (1 of 2)

Dear Saidna Basil,

Wishing you a joyous Pascha! I look forward to greeting you at the Episcopal Assembly if not before.

Attached are the documents for [the priest].

He applied to the OCA, but we have declined to accept him. Fr Constantine Nassar in Oklahoma City was inquiring about him, so I thought to send you the documents. 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.

You are in my thoughts and prayers. For me this has been a very difficult Lent, as you may have heard. Please keep me in your prayers.

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

Notice, not once did His Beatitude say that this priest was in the OCA! He was not received, nor accepted, unilaterally or otherwise.

Taken from http://www.monomakhos.com/well-that-was-easy/

[FatherGiryus]

So far, no one has questioned its authenticity.

Thank you Fr. Giryus

I do feel that we should give the transcript the same critical thought that we should give the letter from the godmother.  How clear is it that it is authentic?

[Seraphim98]

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.

[FatherGiryus]

The smart money is on keeping silent until all the implosions die down.  

Very clearly, there are conflicting narratives.

The problem is that most of important documents are either in the custody of Metropolitan Jonah (i.e. the exact letter of transfer sent from overseas, copy of the letters to ROCOR, etc.) or in the custody of the various hierarchs involved with a number of the issues in question.  My guess is that the latter category find it distasteful to post the letters and thereby aggravating a situation outside their respective jurisdictions.

Meanwhile, everyone is praying someone else's 'gift of repentance.'

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.

[rakovsky]

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.

[PeterTheAleut]

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.

[podkarpatska]

The smart money is on keeping silent until all the implosions die down.  

Very clearly, there are conflicting narratives.

The problem is that most of important documents are either in the custody of Metropolitan Jonah (i.e. the exact letter of transfer sent from overseas, copy of the letters to ROCOR, etc.) or in the custody of the various hierarchs involved with a number of the issues in question.  My guess is that the latter category find it distasteful to post the letters and thereby aggravating a situation outside their respective jurisdictions.

Meanwhile, everyone is praying someone else's 'gift of repentance.'

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.

There is an OpEd  piece in this morning's Washington Post dealing with the lack of trust in institutions and in documents which is prevalent among Americans these days. Although the piece is written in the context of the current presidential political campaign, the premise of the author is equally applicable to the OCA's predicament with respect to Metropolitan Jonah and the validity of documents. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/romneys-tax-returns-obamas-birth-certificate-and-the-end-of-trust/2012/07/20/gJQA2eZbyW_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop

The author notes:  "The more Americans mistrust politics, the news media, business and virtually every other major institution, the more demand there is for the documents, the proof, the evidence we need to get to the “real truth.” " Document battles — whether trumped-up election-season kerfuffles or genuine quests for important information — have been a mainstay of every national campaign since 2000. That should tell us that the hunger for proof stems from something much deeper than our search for the immaculate candidate. It’s part of our larger national neurosis, the corrosion of the sense that whatever our political leanings, we all share a common fact base. The fraying of that consensus has led increasingly to an entrenched popular skepticism, a stance toward politicians and institutions of all kinds that’s not just an arched-eyebrow “Show me,” but an obstinate and insistent “I don’t believe you.” "

Anyway, it is worth the read and says much about the dilemma the Church faces in attempting to convince a skeptical body of the faithful.

[rakovsky]

My advice, rakovsky: Quit speculating; you're only tying your brain up in knots.

Basically I will get Alzheimer's?

Tangles of dying nerve cells may form in your brain, and these knots are made of twisted protein. Tangles occur in cell transport systems when a protein called tau decreases and tangles occur in the strands.
Read more: Brain Knots and Seizures | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/about_6293356_brain-knots-seizures.html#ixzz21PoJDWrB

[Opus118]

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]

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?

[Basil 320]

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]

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]

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.

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.

[Basil 320]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

[Basil 320]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

[mike]

Are you sure? ^

[Hermogenes]

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.

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]

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?

[Father H]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

[Basil 320]

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]

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]

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.

[Nigula Qian Zishi]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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