mmcxristidis wrote:Joe Suaiden,
Oh, that's lovely. 3 months with your new royally-pathological crew, and this is what you've become. You know, this is really shameful.
May as well address these charges, yet again.
How can any Orthodox Christian respect you or the synod who ordained you a deacon.
You mean Bishop who ordained me a deacon. Synods ordain Bishops. Bishops ordain deacons.
Last time I checked it was against the canons to ordain a divorced man with children, who was married while a member of the Gregory of Colorado cult ( one of the many jurisdictions, including World Orthodoxy you were a member of in the last 12 yrs. or so since converting )and may I add you were already baptized "Orthodox" by the HOCNA before that.
Since I don't really count World Orthodoxy as the Church, I've been in a total of three jurisdictions. I was baptized in HOCNA. I was a member of ROAC both before and after Gregory of Colorado. I've been in the Milan Synod almost five years (since mid-2006).
Now, on to the charges. While I was with HOCNA, I unfortunately "fell through the administrative cracks", and was baptized with my son, but my ex-wife (in a legal, but never a Church marriage) was never baptized. So I was never married. Though she formally accepted baptism when we were received into ROAC (she has, as far as I understand it, since reverted to Roman Catholicism) Gregory of Colorado wanted to baptize her two short months later when he realized she was never catechized. That said, I was never married in ROAC, despite my repeated protests that it needed to be done.
While I was in World Orthodoxy, one clergyman I dealt with simply brushed the issue under the table. Another said he would never do it, as he would be accountable for the results. Within a few months, the ex left as she decided she'd rather live in another state. Thus, when I was received back into ROAC, I was received alone. In fact, it was when I returned that a few clergy decided to make up a myth of a Church marriage. However, in fact I was never married in any church, let alone the Orthodox Church. My 1997 "wedding" consisted of the purchase of a license. Nothing more.
Then you went to Russia for a couple years after that, paid for by some mysterious benefactor ( very suspicious someone would pay your way and support you while there, and for what reason ? ).
Without handing over my resume, this is just a lie. I not only bought the ticket to Russia, but worked as a language tutor and teacher while I was there. I did borrow money at the outset, but In fact, by the end I was rather well paid because I worked a heavy schedule. It was one of the reasons I considered staying there: I had a better life economically there than most of my lifetime in the US, and frankly, St Petersburg was a wonderful city.
Now you are remarried with a new set of kids and made a deacon in Milan Synod. No self respecting, canon following bishop would dare ordain your likes a clergy.
Considering you are not a self-respecting, canon-following Bishop, I am not really sure how qualified you are to make such a judgment, but my marriage is considered my first marriage. And my relations with my children from my previous concubinage (which, technically, is what it was) are, well, none of your business.
even the graceless OCA would not dare do such a thing as you can see from this taken from their website
I wouldn't be so sure that you are right about that. After all, World Orthodoxy has at times even allowed widowed priests to remarry. Certainly they justify such actions. For canonical reasons it seems none of my detractors have figured out, my Bishop made an exception that he is perfectly capable and willing to defend himself. All of our clergy, save an exception or two (including myself) have followed the canonical procedures concerning marriage and ordinations. In fact, members of our Synod who had a problem with me personally have even appealed for my deposition on the "correct" canonical grounds (they'd also be mistaken by the way). Since the Bishop judged this in my individual case to be acceptable for tonsure and ordination, it no longer stands as a valid ground to discuss.
And now you say the OCA is graceless. How convenient. The royally pathological clique of three you have joined up with are very inconsistent with their thinking on the issue of grace. It seems to be when no one else notices the other True Orthodox in the room, "World Orthodoxy is graceless. But if one of those confounded 'super-correct' are in the room, WE SHALL SAY THAT WE ARE ON THE ROYAL PATH. WE RECOGNIZE THE GRACE OF WORLD ORTHODOXY; YOU ARE THE SUPER-CORRECT, WHEREAS WE ARE THE HALF-CORRECT. LEAVE US ALONE!" The truth is that I don't find ANY of what you three (and I am truly sorry I have to include you, but you sound like one of them now) say worthy of belief; you represent no one but yourselves. You three have relied on subterfuge and dishonest methods to try to control the information coming out of the ROCOR-A and Her Sister Churches to poison them against dialogue with other traditionalists.
Such goals are truly evil. And you should be ashamed of yourselves.
By the way, you should listen to NFTU radio. We talked a little bit about Father Anastasios' youth conference. You know, the one you falsely accused him of using to train youth to anonymously attack people on your slander site, "Of mice and moles" (" Is this is how they teach the Goc youth - that it is proper for Orthodox Christians to use Technology and social media to attack and insult bishops and other jurisdictions anonymously?"). It was at that point I realized you were far gone not just from what we do at NFTU, but from just basic reality. You have bought into this royally pathological world, and it is not the royal path, not the path of the ROCOR, the Synod in Resistance, or any other True Orthodox jurisdiction. It is just your own imaginations, and all three of you owe it to yourselves to get a real good confession. (UPDATE: I'm on "OF MICE AND MOLES"! YES! I've wanted to be now for like weeks. A couple of those people that are on the site are real nice folks, like Nicholas Gubbenet, and Fr Anastasios, and yes, finally, I am in "Posts Pending". AWESOME.)
Perhaps this was done as a payment for writing a favorable history of the Milan Synod
I believe I was already either a Reader or a Subdeacon by the time I wrote it, so such a theory is stupid.
and leaving out all those pesky embarrassing parts of their history.
I left in the largest "embarrassing parts". I was publicly forced to do so through myriad accusations. Looking back I am glad I had to. It's probably the most balanced history of a Synod written by one of its own members. I could have just ignored the slogging, but I am proud that my book "Lux Veritatis" stands as one of the most honest TOC histories, and one that even our most vocal enemies find virtually unassailable.
In any case I know no self-respecting jurisdiction would ever consider you clergy. Deacon Joseph, what a bad joke you and your synod are.
Oh, I think that's not a very smart thing to say, Minas. You should never judge another's ecclesiastical circumstances, especially another whole Synod's circumstances. It's extremely dangerous, and leads down a very dangerous path. A very good Bishop with whom you claim to be in communion once told me that. Attack me if you wish, but it's silly to attack a Synod of Bishops you've never met.
