Mysterious OCA Metropolitan Enthroned

[Sean]

Met. Jonah recently said some very strong words to Constantinople. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/4812572/12841013

[mikejalex]

This man is simply re-iterating the position of his mentors in the neo-Soviet republic of Russia. Tobbaco money buys freedom of speach. Do not believe them even when they say the sun rises in the East

[Pravoslavnik]

Yes, I noticed that the new OCA Metropolitan carefully refrained from any criticism of the MP in his negative comments about foreign hierarchs involved in "American" Orthodoxy. He seems to be calling for the creation of a "self-determining North American Orthodox Church" which is entirely independent of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in particular. If Jonah is truly Moscow's pawn, (or bishop as it were) as some have theorized, he may be making an initial move here as part of a grander Kremlin strategy to unite the fragmented Orthodox Churches of North America under the omophorion of the Sergianist hierarchy. It is ironic that the Metropolia/OCA itself played such a crucial role in breaking the unity of the Orthodox Church in America after 1920. Now the Orthodox people remaining in the OCA and the MP-ROCOR are left with the joyous prospect of a "false" re-union under a "false" Patriarchate. I can see the TASS headlines already-- "American Orthodox Churches Finally Reunited After 85 Years of Division Caused by White Russian Schismatics!"

[Catherine5]

Yes Met Jonah is Moscow's pawn.
Besides, who else is anti-Bartholomew? The EP's rivals of course, the MP would-be chief Patriarchate. Looks suspicious...
Notice too that he had every opportunity in this policy review, but declined, I think - I did not read through the entire text - to extend an olive branch to Rocor-MP, OCA's traditional competitors. Yet he claims to be the great visionary ideologue of North American unity.
As a new leader, with the OCA too relieved at averting full implosion to care, he could get it behind just about anything he did at this early stage of his tenure, no matter how controversial. He could easily have included Rocor as a senior partner in the uniting endeavor and gotten away with it.
This tells me that his face is turned in one direction only.
Met Jonah's subservient attachment to the Moscow hierarchs may be unveiled by reading the eulogy he composed for patriarch aleksy II. Printed in the OCA's quarterly bulletin, The Orthodox Church, Jonah ended by saying how grieved he was that he would now be no longer able to receive the wise counsel to which he had looked forward to receiving from aleksy 2 as "a young primate". From the tone of it, the reader can hear Jonah blubbering at the prospect of his loss of that invaluable... guidance? Or was that a Euphemism for taking orders from the patriarch of Russia?
I did not read the Rocor hierarch's message for that event, but I wonder just for fun, whether Met Hilarion wrote like this.

[joasia]

Do the Episcapals baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity with immersion? If he was baptized that way, then Chrismation is acceptable in order to bring to life that which was a dead faith. The man himself is another issue. I have a friend who is with the OCA and her parish and priest are not happy with how he's handling things. There could be parishes that will break away since Jonah is getting out of hand.

[Kosmas]

Q: Do the Episcapals baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity with immersion?

Most Episcopal "baptisms" are done by affusion/aspersion or pouring/sprinkling of water.

But really it is not important if they used immersion or not because their "baptisms" are not baptisms at all.
Heretics twice removed from the Orthodox Faith can not provide any Mystery of the Faith. They are devoid of a Holy Priesthood so there can be no Holy Baptism by their hands. AKRIBIA or exactitude is the primary form on receiving the heterodox and EKONOMIA is only used as last resort. I do not think Jonah received exactitude which compels me to ask why not

Have a Holy Pascha Joasia.

[Catherine5]

Well you didn't ask me, but I'll put in my tentative conclusion.
As far as I have found out, there may have been little or nothing done to "receive" James - at the time - into the Orthodox Church, if one could call the MP that especially at that era. The year was 1983. However: no date has ever been given by Jonah himself to my knowledge for his chrismation. Isn't that a little strange? Why would that be so rushed over by all the official announcements by the OCA? Perhaps it signifies THEY don't care how - or if - he was received.
He described in detail on a tape recounting his life in Orthodoxy that there was a "Native Mexican" [Jonah's confusing term] priest and 25 parishioners at the MP cathedral at that time. So why did he pass over without any comment, and neglecting to recount some experience - profound or amusing - this landmark event of chrismation?
I question whether even that actually happened. Perhaps the MP priest prayed over him informally and said, "Now you are a member of our glorious Orthodox Church". Whatever it was, it was extremely low-key.
He stayed at the MP parish for one year.
He transferred to UC Santa Cruz and got a few Protestant young men involved in Orthodoxy. In fairness, when one of the very first couple of Jonah's spiritual sons was questioned about this, he asserted that Jonah was chrismated. However, this hieromonk could not give any details either, even by hearsay, as no one attended the purported ceremony.

There is much more to raise eyebrows about this Metropolitan Jonah.