Bishop Matthias "retired" by the OCA

<< < (12/12)

serb1389:
Quote from: Orthodox11 on April 16, 2013, 06:34:41 PM

Quote from: podkarpatska on April 16, 2013, 12:29:22 PM

This is gonna sound so unkind, but all I could think of was enduring a liturgy once with an ESL priest and deacon who really zipped through and mangled the Queen's English. (ESL means "English as a second language".) They made me pine for the "good old days" of Church Slavonic.


I've been to plenty of services where I understood far more of the Greek or Slavonic bits than I did of those supposedly done in English.


Sometimes even I say...what the heck did I just say?!

kijabeboy03:
Oh dear, I just had a similar experience up in Alberta :-). The priest - a lovely man, and apparently well loved by his parish - had a nice voice when he was serving in Slavonic, but it went higher and more nasally as soon as he switched to English, which was a lot since the parish seemed to be about half English-speaking old timers and half newly arrived Russians/Ukrainians. So unfortunate...

Quote from: podkarpatska on April 16, 2013, 12:29:22 PM

Quote from: FatherGiryus on April 16, 2013, 11:41:00 AM

Yep, English is weird...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt4Dfa4fOEY

Quote from: podkarpatska on April 16, 2013, 11:33:24 AM

English is a weird language. At least that was the general opinion of my grandfathers generation. They were always thrown off by nuance, pronunciation, and colloquialisms. There were plenty of humorous malapropisms at church events back then and serious misunderstandings as well.



This is gonna sound so unkind, but all I could think of was enduring a liturgy once with an ESL priest and deacon who really zipped through and mangled the Queen's English. (ESL means "English as a second language".) They made me pine for the "good old days" of Church Slavonic.

kijabeboy03:
Vis-a-vis the ratio: Indeed :-(. Though I for one am extremely grateful the ranks of the retired include the likes of the last three metropolitans of the OCA and the former Bishop of San Francisco :-).


Quote from: ICXCNIKA on April 14, 2013, 07:50:40 PM

Quote from: MichaƂ Kalina on April 14, 2013, 02:43:16 PM

OCA - the only one Church with retired vs. active bishops 1:1 ratio.


I am not sure that is a bad thing.

kijabeboy03:
It's been a while since I looked closely and how many parishes the various areas of the USA have, but are there really enough in Missouri alone to support one diocese, much less two? Just briefly checking the directories of the OCA and the Antiochian and Greek Orthodox Archdioceses only comes up with 14 communities under those jurisdictions in the whole state. I'm all for missionary dioceses, but setting up two regular dioceses for such a parish desert (as it were) seems a touch silly...

Quote from: 88Devin12 on April 15, 2013, 09:46:48 AM

Quote from: Putnik Namernik on April 14, 2013, 07:21:43 PM

It would be ideal to have at least one bishop per state-province (USA and Canada), but it would be difficult since they would need at least 63 bishops (50 for USA and 13 for Canada)...


It wouldn't be a problem at all. Also, each state doesn't need it's own Bishop, while certain cities do.

For example, North & South Dakota, Wyoming & Montana don't need a Bishop for each state. Whereas Chicago should have at least 1 just for the Metropolitan Area. Same for NYC & LA.

Here in Missouri, we should technically have 2, one in St. Louis and the other in Kansas City with the state being divided down the middle & the Kansas City diocese including Northeastern Kansas, with the St. Louis including far southern Illinois. Kansas should have it's own in Wichita, with the northeastern part going to KC. Arkansas could also get it's own in Little Rock, with parts of northeastern Arkansas going to a Bishop in Memphis. Oklahoma could also have it's own with one Bishop in OKC. Nebraska & Iowa could either have their own Bishops (one in Omaha & another in Des Moines) or be combined into one.

As Michal pointed out, we have 65 bishops for the US & Canada currently. But that does not mean that we could not have more Bishops and Auxiliary Bishops ordained. That could very easily be done. Some Bishops could stay where they are, others would only have to move a few miles, and others may have to move a long way. Bishop Basil in Wichita could stay there, while new Bishops could be ordained for KC & St. Louis.

Think about the early days of the Christian Church, and don't think about the way Orthodox nations are now. Back in the early days, Bishop's diocese were not very large in size or in number of churches, yet they eventually grew and did have to subdivide. That will have to be the exact same here. We shouldn't expect to jump from missionary status up to Patriarchate status or size in a short time.

A temporary fix would be, in a unified Church, to give Nebraska, Iowa, Missouri & Kansas to Bishop Basil in Wichita. Then, after a while of adjustment and growth, more Bishops could be appointed and the diocese could be subdivided into additional diocese (and not subdiocese with auxiliaries).

mike:
22 parishes, 2 monasteries in Missouri.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page