Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [orthodox-rocor] What's the big deal about Mass Ordinations

Expand Messages
  • Fr. John Whiteford
    Gabriel Sanchez wrote: This is true, but the problem with Fr. John s explanation -- which is probably fully consistent with contemporary Orthodox sacramental
    Message 1 of 17 , Jul 18, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Gabriel Sanchez wrote:

      "This is true, but the problem with Fr. John's explanation -- which is probably fully consistent with contemporary Orthodox sacramental understanding -- is that it does lean toward the magical whereby intramundane authority, supplied by one's local ruling hierarch(s), creates or erases the validity of a sacrament despite the fact the sacrament in question has -- to use some Western lingo that has been adopted by the Orthodox before -- the right matter, form, and intention."

      Me: Let me see what you are disagreeing with here. Do you believe that a clergyman does have an inherent magical power to impart sacramental grace, no matter how innovative or contrary to tradition he might choose to perform that sacrament, or do you agree that a clergyman only has the power to impart sacramental grace when he performs the services in the way that the Church has authorized him to perform them?

      Also, one question is whether ordaining multiple priests via a ordination service that has not been authorized by the Church constitutes right "matter" and "form".

      GS: "It is to conflate the conventional -- which the canons are -- with the sacraments universally instituted by Jesus Christ. And because mass ordinations have occurred in the Orthodox Church before (rarely, but they have occurred), no reasonable argument can be made that the practice per se invalidates the sacrament of ordination."

      Me: St. Symeon of Thessalonica, St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, and Patriarch Chrysanthus of Jerusalem seem to be making that very argument. Aside from the Antiochians in the last few decades, are you aware of any examples of multiple ordinations taking place?

      Aside from that, Metropolitan Philip is at least a ruling bishop, and he was at least dealing with an unusual circumstance (the reception of a large group of converts, with actual functioning parishes), and so one could at least make a case for economia... though it should be noted that many local Churches denounced his action, and the Jerusalem Patriarchate declared those ordinations invalid, and actually ordained some of those clergy themselves. The Patriarch of Antioch also ordained a group of bishops on two occasions, but the need cited was his age and the difficulty for him of serving three hierarchical liturgies over three days. Again, may criticized his action, but in that case a local Church made the decision to apply economia. In the case of the mass ordinations on or about June 28th, there was no pastoral need... many of the clergy in question have no functioning parishes. They have also all been in the pipeline for months, and could have
      easily been ordained properly, but apparently there was a desire to do a mass ordination, because this is "the western practice."


      GS: "It is necessary, I think, to draw a distinction between validity and licitness. The ordinations performed by Bishop Jerome were, by the lights of the ROCOR Synod and the canon(s) they abide by, illicit. That is, they were an illegal violation of the canons and therefore constituted a sinful act. That does not mean, however, that they were invalid. Those men are, in all likelihood, priests unless there was something more substantially defective in the ordination rite performed than simply the presence of multiple candidates."

      Me: Our bishops have declared that they are not priests, and that the ordinations were invalid. If they were valid, ordaining them properly, in the future, would violate the very canon that St. Nicodemus was commenting on when he denounced mass ordinations.


      GS: "As understandable as it is that ROCOR's Synod would want to uphold the canons and apply them in a consistent manner (which they have every right to do, regardless of whether or not the pre-Schism Western practice witnesses to perfectly legitimate practices such as mass ordination, unleavened bread in the Eucharist, etc.), I believe they are walking a dangerous path by elevating canonicity in this instance to the highest levels of sacramental theological importance. The canon on mass ordination, once again, has been ignored. It is not an essential element of ordination. It does not affect validity. Its willful violation is, of course, a sin, but it is a sin of disobedience rather than, say, the sin of blasphemously performing a false and empty sacrament."

      Me: The fact that an abuse has occurred in the past is not an argument for accepting such abuses. If a bishop ordains a woman, then someone else can later say "It has been done before", but that would not make it valid, no matter how many times it had been done before.


       
      Presbyter John Whiteford
      St. Jonah Orthodox Church
      Parish Home Page: http://www.saintjonah.org/
      ROCOR Discussion Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orthodox-rocor/
      Parish News: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/saintjonah/
      Blog: http://fatherjohn.blogspot.com/
      Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/frjohnwhiteford

      "This is the cause of all evils: the ignorance of the Scriptures. We go into battle without arms, and how ought we to come off safe?" -St. John Chrysostom, Homily IX on Colossians.
    • Fr. Aidan
      Gabriel, I must respond to your post. The various categories you mention, pertaining to sacramental theology (validity vs. liceity, and matter, form, and
      Message 2 of 17 , Jul 18, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Gabriel, I must respond to your post. The various categories you mention, pertaining to sacramental theology (validity vs. liceity, and matter, form, and intention, etc.), don't have quite the same importance and/or bearing in the Orthodox Church. They are borrowed from Roman Catholic principles, some of which we share, some of which we don't.
         
        The important thing is, there is no canon against mass ordinations. But, that said, there is a canon against serious innovations which overturn unwritten ancient traditions, and there is a canon against anything being done without the Metropolitan's blessing. Since the Metropolitan had specifically instructed that there be no mass ordinations, the performance of a mass ordination was an uncanonical act in contravening his instructions, but also, potentially or possibly, as a violation of the other canon which forbids overturning established traditions. The Synod could nullify those ordinations on either of those two bases. Of course, I just speak as an individual who (pretty much) knows the canons. I don't know how the Synod deliberated, nor am I trying to guess at it, really. Mainly I'm trying to clarify concepts and facts.  
         
        Fr. Aidan+
        sinner

        From: Gabriel Sanchez <gabriel.s.sanchez@...>
        To: orthodox-rocor@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:19 AM
        Subject: Re: [orthodox-rocor] What's the big deal about Mass Ordinations
         
        Fr. John closes his analysis with the following:

        "No clergyman has inherent “magical” powers to perform sacraments. The power comes from their ordination, and their serving with the authority of the Church, and that authority is to do the services in the manner that the Church has authorized them to be done… not as they might personally wish them to be done."

        This is true, but the problem with Fr. John's explanation -- which is probably fully consistent with contemporary Orthodox sacramental understanding -- is that it does lean toward the magical whereby intramundane authority, supplied by one's local ruling hierarch(s), creates or erases the validity of a sacrament despite the fact the sacrament in question has -- to use some Western lingo that has been adopted by the Orthodox before -- the right matter, form, and intention. It is to conflate the conventional -- which the canons are -- with the sacraments...
      • Gabriel Sanchez
        Fr. John, Do you believe that a clergyman does have an inherent magical power to impart sacramental grace, no matter how innovative or contrary to tradition
        Message 3 of 17 , Jul 18, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Fr. John,

          "Do you believe that a clergyman does have an inherent magical power to impart sacramental grace, no matter how innovative or contrary to tradition he might choose to perform that sacrament, or do you agree that a clergyman only has the power to impart sacramental grace when he performs the services in the way that the Church has authorized him to perform them?"

          This is a false dichotomy and a misstatement of what I was arguing. A clergyman has no "magical powers," but he has been consecrated a priest; as a consecrated priest he can perform the sacraments of the Church so long as he does not violate the manner in which they were instituted by Christ. (I have used the Western formulation of matter, form, and intention only to help clarify conceptually what was, at least at one time, a shared understanding of how the sacraments "worked"; I have no idea if the the Russian Church has since distanced itself from it.) Given the diversity of rituals which have existed in the history of the Church, it is clear that when it comes to the Eucharist, Ordination, etc. that there is variance in the manner in which they are performed so long as the execution does not violate, like I said, sacramental integrity. So, for instance, you cannot have a valid Eucharist -- a true Eucharist -- with tortilla chips and soda no matter how ornate, ancient, etc. the ritual which surrounds that (false) consecration may be.

          Moreover, Bishop Jerome wasn't being "innovative" here, or at least not anywhere close to the degree in which you seem to be claiming. Again, you have acknowledged that a hierarch of the Orthodox Church (in this instance Met. Philip) can dispense with the canon on mass ordinations. The practice has occurred throughout the history of the Orthodox Church (a point that will be discussed by Adam DeVille in an article in the forthcoming Oxford University Press Handbook of Sacramental Theology), and so it is a hard sell indeed to argue that this canon is so integral to the Sacrament of Ordination that it cannot be dispensed with and any violation of it invalidates the sacrament.

          If I have any criticism -- and it's not really a criticism so much as perplexity -- it's that you, and perhaps the ROCOR Synod (I am not sure; no final word has been issued, I think), are making a canon which can be dispensed with and has been dispensed with in the past integral to the Sacrament of ordination in the way water is integral to Baptism or Bread and Wine are integral to the Eucharist or a man is integral to priestly ordination. If that is true, then where does the sacramental authority come from? God or the attitudes of the local ruling bishops? Appealing to the canons alone doesn't get anybody very far when the canons of the Orthodox Church float in and out of use with the centuries. Moreover, if one hierarch can dispense with one canon while another upholds it, then it's clearly not integral in the way, say, a Trinitarian Baptism is.

          Best,

          Gabriel


          On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Fr. Aidan <hieromonachusaidanus@...> wrote:
           

          Gabriel, I must respond to your post. The various categories you mention, pertaining to sacramental theology (validity vs. liceity, and matter, form, and intention, etc.), don't have quite the same importance and/or bearing in the Orthodox Church. They are borrowed from Roman Catholic principles, some of which we share, some of which we don't.
           
          The important thing is, there is no canon against mass ordinations. But, that said, there is a canon against serious innovations which overturn unwritten ancient traditions, and there is a canon against anything being done without the Metropolitan's blessing. Since the Metropolitan had specifically instructed that there be no mass ordinations, the performance of a mass ordination was an uncanonical act in contravening his instructions, but also, potentially or possibly, as a violation of the other canon which forbids overturning established traditions. The Synod could nullify those ordinations on either of those two bases. Of course, I just speak as an individual who (pretty much) knows the canons. I don't know how the Synod deliberated, nor am I trying to guess at it, really. Mainly I'm trying to clarify concepts and facts.  
           
          Fr. Aidan+
          sinner

          From: Gabriel Sanchez <gabriel.s.sanchez@...>
          To: orthodox-rocor@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:19 AM
          Subject: Re: [orthodox-rocor] What's the big deal about Mass Ordinations
           
          Fr. John closes his analysis with the following:

          "No clergyman has inherent “magical” powers to perform sacraments. The power comes from their ordination, and their serving with the authority of the Church, and that authority is to do the services in the manner that the Church has authorized them to be done… not as they might personally wish them to be done."

          This is true, but the problem with Fr. John's explanation -- which is probably fully consistent with contemporary Orthodox sacramental understanding -- is that it does lean toward the magical whereby intramundane authority, supplied by one's local ruling hierarch(s), creates or erases the validity of a sacrament despite the fact the sacrament in question has -- to use some Western lingo that has been adopted by the Orthodox before -- the right matter, form, and intention. It is to conflate the conventional -- which the canons are -- with the sacraments...


        • Gabriel Sanchez
          Fr. Aidan, I see your point, but one might argue that it is a hard sell to claim that mass ordinations, while innovative in the East (but not unheard of, cf.
          Message 4 of 17 , Jul 18, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Fr. Aidan,

            I see your point, but one might argue that it is a hard sell to claim that mass ordinations, while innovative in the East (but not unheard of, cf. Antiochian Archdiocese; emerging historical research), are a "serious innovation." It would be something else altogether if Bishop Jerome had, say, composed a new rite of ordination and decided to use it. At the very least there you would have serious doubts about the validity of the ordination. (And I am using "valid" here to mean a "true" or "real" ordination.)

            As for your second canon, are you saying that if a priest or clergyman goes over the head of the ruling hierarch to perform a sacrament, that sacrament is invalid? Wouldn't that mean that every Orthodox "resistance" group out there (Old Calendarists, for instance) have invalid sacraments? What about the controversial groups out there like the Estonians and Macedonians? And wouldn't that have meant, perhaps, that ROCOR had invalid sacraments when they were condemned by other local Orthodox churches? (By the way, I am not arguing that ROCOR's condemnation was ever right or just, but I think you can see where I am going.) This would create a great deal of confusion over who does or does not have valid sacraments given the sticky canonical issues at play here.

            Thank you.

            Best,

            Gabriel


            On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Fr. Aidan <hieromonachusaidanus@...> wrote:
             

            Gabriel, I must respond to your post. The various categories you mention, pertaining to sacramental theology (validity vs. liceity, and matter, form, and intention, etc.), don't have quite the same importance and/or bearing in the Orthodox Church. They are borrowed from Roman Catholic principles, some of which we share, some of which we don't.
             
            The important thing is, there is no canon against mass ordinations. But, that said, there is a canon against serious innovations which overturn unwritten ancient traditions, and there is a canon against anything being done without the Metropolitan's blessing. Since the Metropolitan had specifically instructed that there be no mass ordinations, the performance of a mass ordination was an uncanonical act in contravening his instructions, but also, potentially or possibly, as a violation of the other canon which forbids overturning established traditions. The Synod could nullify those ordinations on either of those two bases. Of course, I just speak as an individual who (pretty much) knows the canons. I don't know how the Synod deliberated, nor am I trying to guess at it, really. Mainly I'm trying to clarify concepts and facts.  
             
            Fr. Aidan+
            sinner

            From: Gabriel Sanchez <gabriel.s.sanchez@...>
            To: orthodox-rocor@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 11:19 AM
            Subject: Re: [orthodox-rocor] What's the big deal about Mass Ordinations
             
            Fr. John closes his analysis with the following:

            "No clergyman has inherent “magical” powers to perform sacraments. The power comes from their ordination, and their serving with the authority of the Church, and that authority is to do the services in the manner that the Church has authorized them to be done… not as they might personally wish them to be done."

            This is true, but the problem with Fr. John's explanation -- which is probably fully consistent with contemporary Orthodox sacramental understanding -- is that it does lean toward the magical whereby intramundane authority, supplied by one's local ruling hierarch(s), creates or erases the validity of a sacrament despite the fact the sacrament in question has -- to use some Western lingo that has been adopted by the Orthodox before -- the right matter, form, and intention. It is to conflate the conventional -- which the canons are -- with the sacraments...


          • Fr. Aidan
            Gabriel, you keep speaking as if there exists a canon about mass ordinations.   There is no such canon in existence.   Fr. Aidan+ sinner
            Message 5 of 17 , Jul 18, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Gabriel, you keep speaking as if there exists a canon about mass ordinations.
               
              There is no such canon in existence.
               
              Fr. Aidan+
              sinner

              From: Gabriel Sanchez <gabriel.s.sanchez@...>
              Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 3:16 PM
              Subject: Re: [orthodox-rocor] What's the big deal about Mass Ordinations
               
              > ... Again, you have acknowledged that a hierarch of the Orthodox Church (in this instance Met. Philip) can dispense with the canon on mass ordinations...
            • ambrois@xtra.co.nz
              From: Gabriel Sanchez ... The ordinations performed by Bishop Jerome were, by the lights of the ROCOR Synod and the canon(s) they abide by, illicit. That is,
              Message 6 of 17 , Jul 18, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                 
                 
                From: Gabriel Sanchez
                 
                           
                >It is necessary, I think, to draw a distinction between validity and
                licitness.
                            The ordinations performed by Bishop Jerome were, by the lights of the ROCOR
                            Synod and the canon(s) they abide by, illicit. That is, they were an illegal
                            violation of the canons and therefore constituted a sinful act. That does not
                            mean, however, that they were invalid. <<<<
                 
                Easterners don't really entertain the notions of validity and liceity.  Catholics, however, make much of them.  If you start an argument with "It is necessary, I think, to draw a distinction between validity and licitness” you have already lost the attention of your Orthodox audience.
                 
                Fr Ambrose
                 
                -oOo-
              • Gabriel Sanchez
                Fr. Aidan, Fr. John says otherwise. Perhaps he can clarify. Sent from my iPad
                Message 7 of 17 , Jul 18, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Fr. Aidan,

                  Fr. John says otherwise. Perhaps he can clarify. 

                  Sent from my iPad

                  On Jul 18, 2013, at 4:24 PM, "Fr. Aidan" <hieromonachusaidanus@...> wrote:

                   

                  Gabriel, you keep speaking as if there exists a canon about mass ordinations.
                   
                  There is no such canon in existence.
                   
                  Fr. Aidan+
                  sinner

                  From: Gabriel Sanchez <gabriel.s.sanchez@...>
                  Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 3:16 PM
                  Subject: Re: [orthodox-rocor] What's the big deal about Mass Ordinations
                   
                  > ... Again, you have acknowledged that a hierarch of the Orthodox Church (in this instance Met. Philip) can dispense with the canon on mass ordinations...

                • Gabriel Sanchez
                  Fr. Ambrose, The Russian theological tradition would beg to disagree. Like it or not, it adopted Catholic sacramental theology from the time of St. Peter
                  Message 8 of 17 , Jul 18, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Fr. Ambrose,

                    The Russian theological tradition would beg to disagree. Like it or not, it adopted Catholic sacramental theology from the time of St. Peter Moghila on. Moreover, if the Orthodox want to discard these concepts, then which would you propose they use? 

                    Sent from my iPad

                    On Jul 18, 2013, at 6:29 PM, <ambrois@...> wrote:

                     

                     
                     
                    From: Gabriel Sanchez
                     
                                >It is necessary, I think, to draw a distinction between validity and licitness.
                                The ordinations performed by Bishop Jerome were, by the lights of the ROCOR
                                Synod and the canon(s) they abide by, illicit. That is, they were an illegal
                                violation of the canons and therefore constituted a sinful act. That does not
                                mean, however, that they were invalid. <<<<
                     
                    Easterners don't really entertain the notions of validity and liceity.  Catholics, however, make much of them.  If you start an argument with "It is necessary, I think, to draw a distinction between validity and licitness” you have already lost the attention of your Orthodox audience.
                     
                    Fr Ambrose
                     
                    -oOo-

                  • Fr. John Whiteford
                    Gabriel Sanchez wrote: This is a false dichotomy and a misstatement of what I was arguing. A clergyman has no magical powers, but he has been consecrated a
                    Message 9 of 17 , Jul 18, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Gabriel Sanchez wrote:

                      "This is a false dichotomy and a misstatement of what I was arguing. A clergyman has no "magical powers," but he has been consecrated a priest; as a consecrated priest he can perform the sacraments of the Church so long as he does not violate the manner in which they were instituted by Christ."

                      Me: Since there is no book of "Sacraments instituted by Christ" in the New Testament, the only way we can know how those sacraments instituted by Christ are to be performed is by the Tradition which we have received. And the Tradition which we have received says that we must "perform all liturgical services or prayers according to the rules of the Church” and “promise to be obedient to the ecclesiastical authorities and act according to the Canons of the Holy Apostles, of the Ecumenical and Local Councils and the teachings of the Holy Fathers.” The Holy Fathers, and our long standing Tradition say that the act of ordaining more than one clergyman of the same order in a single service is to act "outside of the Church". Furthermore, as Fr. Aidan correctly pointed out, this is especially true of a vicar bishop who was told not do such a thing by his ruling bishop.

                      GS: "Moreover, Bishop Jerome wasn't being "innovative" here, or at least not anywhere close to the degree in which you seem to be claiming."

                      Me: It is contrary to the Tradition of the Church to which he belongs, therefore to introduce it without the approval of at least the synod of ROCOR (and more properly the Synod of the Russian Church as a whole) was an innovation.

                      GS: "Again, you have acknowledged that a hierarch of the Orthodox Church (in this instance Met. Philip) can dispense with the canon on mass ordinations."

                      Me: No, I did not. I said that there is a better argument to be made in the case of Metropolitan Philip. The Jerusalem Patriarchate refused to recognize those ordinations. At best, I think he unnecessarily put those clergy in a bad position... because they have no doubt frequently had to confront the questions about the validity of their ordination. Was it worth saving the time? But he at least was a ruling bishop, and he at least did have a real pressing pastoral problem to deal with. And what may be acceptable in very extreme circumstances would still be unacceptable under normal circumstances. I remember reading about one of the new martyrs who, I believe was in the Solovki prison, and celebrated the Liturgy on his own chest, because he did not have an antimens. In Solovki, this was not an abuse. If you had a contemporary bishop living in peace who did this, it would be completely unacceptable.

                      GS: "The practice has occurred throughout the history of the Orthodox Church (a point that will be discussed by Adam DeVille in an article in the forthcoming Oxford University Press Handbook of Sacramental Theology), and so it is a hard sell indeed to argue that this canon is so integral to the Sacrament of Ordination that it cannot be dispensed with and any violation of it invalidates the sacrament."

                      Me: Any canon that has ever been written that banned a practice was written because that practice had been done at least once. The fact that something has been done before does not make it acceptable.

                      GS: "If I have any criticism -- and it's not really a criticism so much as perplexity -- it's that you, and perhaps the ROCOR Synod (I am not sure; no final word has been issued, I think), are making a canon which can be dispensed with and has been dispensed with in the past integral to the Sacrament of ordination in the way water is integral to Baptism or Bread and Wine are integral to the Eucharist or a man is integral to priestly ordination. If that is true, then where does the sacramental authority come from? God or the attitudes of the local ruling bishops? Appealing to the canons alone doesn't get anybody very far when the canons of the Orthodox Church float in and out of use with the centuries. Moreover, if one hierarch can dispense with one canon while another upholds it, then it's clearly not integral in the way, say, a Trinitarian Baptism is."

                      Me: The authority comes from the Church's power to bind and to loose. The 7th Ecumenical Council anathematized anyone who disregarded any Tradition, whether written or unwritten. Obviously, a practice that every Orthodox bishop is fully aware of, and has been universally observed with only a few controversial exceptions would clearly fall into that category of Tradition. And though one may argue that it was not always universal, it certain became the universal practice -- and you could say the same thing about how we celebrate Pascha... it was not always universally observed on Sunday, but it would be an innovation to celebrate it on the Jewish Passover on a weekday at this point in Church history.

                      GS: "I see your point, but one might argue that it is a hard sell to claim that mass ordinations, while innovative in the East (but not unheard of, cf. Antiochian Archdiocese; emerging historical research), are a "serious innovation." It would be something else altogether if Bishop Jerome had, say, composed a new rite of ordination and decided to use it. At the very least there you would have serious doubts about the validity of the ordination. (And I am using "valid" here to mean a "true" or "real" ordination.)"

                      Me: I am not sure what order of service Bishop Jerome used, but I know he defended the practice of ordaining clergy outside of a liturgy, and I know that one of the clergy who was among those ordained en masse said he was ordained on June 28th n.s., which happened to be Bishop Jerome's names day, which he celebrated with a liturgy earlier that same day at Synod. So if he celebrated a second liturgy, that would be an innovation. If he ordained clergy outside of a liturgy, that would also be an innovation. And that he ordained 15 clergy in one service was clearly an innovation as far as the Russian Orthodox Church is concerned.

                      GS: "And wouldn't that have meant, perhaps, that ROCOR had invalid sacraments when they were condemned by other local Orthodox churches? (By the way, I am not arguing that ROCOR's condemnation was ever right or just, but I think you can see where I am going.) This would create a great deal of confusion over who does or does not have valid sacraments given the sticky canonical issues at play here."

                      Me: I am not aware of any local Church condemning ROCOR. I remember the occasional clergyman or bishop making disparaging comments, but not a local Church.

                      GS: "Fr. John says otherwise [i.e. contrary to "There is no such canon in existence"]. Perhaps he can clarify."

                      Me: I never said that there was a canon. I quoted from commentary on a canon that addressed this issue. However, if we did not have a canon already in place that said that you had to use pure flour and pure wine for the Eucharist, that would not mean that if someone used kool aid and Betty Crocker's Marble Fudge mix to back a loaf, that this would be a valid Eucharist until a canon was formally pronounced. To take that kind of view is what is truly legalistic.

                      The bottom line here is that our Bishops have the power to bind and to loose, and they have said that they do not recognize these ordinations, and that those candidates will be thoroughly examined, and may or may not at some point be properly ordained. That's how things work in the Orthodox Church.
                       
                      Presbyter John Whiteford
                      St. Jonah Orthodox Church
                      Parish Home Page: http://www.saintjonah.org/
                      ROCOR Discussion Group: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orthodox-rocor/
                      Parish News: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/saintjonah/
                      Blog: http://fatherjohn.blogspot.com/
                      Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/frjohnwhiteford

                      "This is the cause of all evils: the ignorance of the Scriptures. We go into battle without arms, and how ought we to come off safe?" -St. John Chrysostom, Homily IX on Colossians.


                    • Mark Karahalis
                      what God gives is not magic, it is the Holy Spirit. ( in this case) Mark
                      Message 10 of 17 , Jul 18, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment

                        what God gives is not magic, it is the Holy Spirit. ( in this case)

                        Mark

                      • ambrois@xtra.co.nz
                        From: Fr. John Whiteford ... this is especially true of a vicar bishop who was told not do such a thing by his ruling bishop.
                        Message 11 of 17 , Jul 18, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                           
                           
                                 
                          > Furthermore, as Fr. Aidan correctly pointed out,
                                  this is especially true of a vicar bishop who was
                                  told not do such a thing by his ruling bishop.<<<<<
                           
                          On what information does Fr Aldan make this claim?  From the Metropolitan?  From Bishop Jerome?  I have not seen it before.  It is a significant new factor you have introduced.
                           
                          Fr Ambrose
                           
                           
                        • ambrois@xtra.co.nz
                          I ask again, in order to protect a good man’s reputation from slander. On what basis does Father Aidan accuse the Bishop of disobeying an instruction from
                          Message 12 of 17 , Jul 19, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I ask again, in order to protect a good man’s reputation from slander.  On what basis does Father Aidan accuse the Bishop of disobeying an instruction from the Metropolitan?  With all the sorrows resting on Bishop Jerome’s shoulders why should he be slandered as well?
                            Fr Ambrose
                             
                             
                             
                                   
                            > Furthermore, as Fr. Aidan correctly pointed out,
                                    this is especially true of a vicar bishop who was
                                    told not do such a thing by his ruling bishop.<<<<<
                             
                            On what information does Fr Aldan make this claim?  From the Metropolitan?  From Bishop Jerome?  I have not seen it before.  It is a significant new factor you have introduced.
                             
                            Fr Ambrose
                             
                             
                          • frjohnwhiteford
                            For one, your bishop says this is what happened. And then there is the Ukaz of the Synod of Bishops, which says in part: 2) To censure Bishop Jerome for his
                            Message 13 of 17 , Jul 19, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment
                              For one, your bishop says this is what happened.

                              And then there is the Ukaz of the Synod of Bishops, which says in part:

                              "2) To censure Bishop Jerome for his willfulness in administering the parishes adhering to the Western Rite, and in performing various ecclesial services not approved by the Synod of Bishops, and for criticizing his brethren in letters to clergy and laity.

                              3) To deny recognition of the ordination of a group of individuals by Bishop Jerome during a single divine service, and to regularize them following a thorough examination of the candidates.

                              4) To release Bishop Jerome from all duties, including those of Vicar of the President in administering Western Rite parishes, designating him as retired without the right to serve in the Synodal Cathedral "of the Sign" in New York, or to perform ordinations or award clergymen, and designating his place of residence at St Vladimir Memorial Church of the 1000th Anniversary of the Baptism of Russia in Jackson, NJ."

                              http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/eng2013/20130712_ensynodmeeting.html

                              -Fr. John Whiteford



                              --- In orthodox-rocor@yahoogroups.com, <ambrois@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > I ask again, in order to protect a good man’s reputation from slander. On what basis does Father Aidan accuse the Bishop of disobeying an instruction from the Metropolitan? With all the sorrows resting on Bishop Jerome’s shoulders why should he be slandered as well?
                              > Fr Ambrose
                              >
                              > From: Fr. John Whiteford
                              >
                              >
                              > > Furthermore, as Fr. Aidan correctly pointed out,
                              > this is especially true of a vicar bishop who was
                              > told not do such a thing by his ruling bishop.<<<<<
                              >
                              > On what information does Fr Aldan make this claim? From the Metropolitan? From Bishop Jerome? I have not seen it before. It is a significant new factor you have introduced.
                              >
                              > Fr Ambrose
                              >
                            • Fr. Anthony Nelson
                              It would be good if Fr. Abrose would stop what appears to be simply fomenting discord and argumentation. Vladyka Metropolitan stated clearly that no mass
                              Message 14 of 17 , Jul 19, 2013
                              • 0 Attachment
                                It would be good if Fr. Abrose would stop what appears to be simply fomenting discord and argumentation. Vladyka Metropolitan stated clearly that no mass ordination could occur. Bishop Jerome disobeyed that direct instruction. He also fell into other abuses of canonical order. The Ukaze did make those things public, and no matter how many times Fr. Ambrose asks the same questions in any form, that will not be changed. The Synod has dealt with it and it is *done*. The *deliberations* of the Synod are *not* published. That's the way it is.

                                Bishop Jerome has not been slandered by anyone here, certainly not Fr. John. Accusing a Priest of slander is not acceptable on this list - note the Group Description here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orthodox-rocor/

                                At 02:03 AM 7/19/2013, Fr. Ambrose wrote:

                                I ask again, in order to protect a good man's reputation from slander.  On what basis does Father Aidan accuse the Bishop of disobeying an instruction from the Metropolitan?  With all the sorrows resting on Bishop Jerome's shoulders why should he be slandered as well?
                                Fr Ambrose

                                * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
                                V. Rev. Protopriest Anthony Nelson                     
                                St. Benedict Russian Orthodox Church    
                                Oklahoma City, OK USA 405-672-1441      
                                http://stbenedict.orthodox.org

                                * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
                                "Why leave the world if one wants
                                constantly to engage it?"

                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.