I commented on this on the Facebook page — in hindsight, I guess it’s not proper Internet etiquette to respond to message board comments in a different venue. However, my interest (as you note) was sparked by the similarity between those comments, and criticisms which would have been common in Irvine’s own day. In any event, my apologies to any and all who may have been offended.

While, on the whole, the reactions I’ve seen to Irvine thus far have been positive, there have been a handful of people who have taken issue with one or more things that he said. I find that to be perfectly appropriate — in his lifetime, Irvine was a polarizing figure who was, typically, either loved or hated. With Irvine, it was hard to have no opinion.

What intrigues me more, are the concerns raised by Fr. Timothy. Father, I am not sure what is gained by shifting from one issue to another. Matthew’s comments, from what I can tell, were directed to Aftimios’ behavior and not the behavior of contemporary hierarchs. Whether some current bishops ought to be bishops is certainly a question worth engaging, though probably better done over at OCANews.org than here. The question of Aftimios, however, is relevant to this site and I am curious as to who the “many” are who support him. Aftimios’ marriage to a lady so much younger than himself occurred under very suspicious circumstances. He and Miriam had decided to have the plan ready to go. When did he decide to act on it? When Fr. Boris Burden called Aftimios asking for help because parishioners were running Fr. Boris out of a parish for alleged sexual misconduct with young men in the parish. Fr. Boris had his struggles, so it is possible he was guilty in that case, but what is important for the discussion here is Aftimios’ response. When Fr. Boris is being accused of such actions, Aftimios goes and marries a young lady in a secular ceremony. From what was Aftimios running? Was he trying to prove something so as not to be implicated himself? Even if you believe he was running from nothing, why marry in this way? Rather than have a marriage as a backup plan for a rainy day, why not be more respectful about it? Why not ask to be laicized and still marry, live a faithful life, and have an Orthodox burial? If one wants a married episcopate, then why not ordain a married priest to be a bishop for HEOCACNA? To my knowledge, he did not want an Orthodox burial and so did not have one. I think when a bishop marries a girl in a secular ceremony according to a prearranged plan and refuses an Orthodox burial, a commentator is within reason to claim that bishop was not fit for office. Have I misunderstood your critique? If so, please let me know.

Matthew, I would caution against using a comment from another thread as the basis for a posting. I can tell what you meant (the criticism is intriguing because that’s what was said in the past, too), but would caution against it lest we unintentionally cause undue offense. I think if someone comments on our facebook page or here, it is different. Likewise, any one of us could jump on the other thread if a member of that other group. I hope I’m not coming across too strongly here.

Hapgood’s whole approach to Orthodoxy was different than Irvine’s, or most any other Orthodox Christian’s. As you say, she was an Episcopalian, and like many of her fellow Episcopalians, she wanted to promote unity with the Orthodox. A show choir, which would create goodwill towards Orthodoxy among rich Americans, was a step in that direction (in her view). It would demonstrate to Americans that Orthodoxy wasn’t weird and backward and superstitious (as many thought), but refined and trendy. I doubt Hapgood ever set foot in one of those “little new parishes,” full of lower-class immigrants. Her dealings were with the hierarchy and the people at the Cathedral in New York City. Irvine, even as an Episcopalian, had been a mission priest in various unglamorous places. Hapgood’s experience of Christianity was much more upscale, I think.

I probably shouldn’t say “unworthy of the episcopacy” without backing it up. Sorry about that. We’ll get into Ofiesh in the future (with all the different interpretations, I promise), but I have a little trouble defending a bishop who decides to marry a 20-year-old girl. He also basically left the Orthodox Church in his later years, and even went so far as to prescribe that no religious service of any kind be held upon his death. Maybe “unfit for the episcopacy” would have been better than “unworthy,” but perhaps it would be better if I just said that I think he was not a very good bishop who did not do his job in defending the Orthodox faith. Which isn’t to say that there aren’t plenty more like him (and worse); I just think Irvine was right in viewing him as a person who should not be a bishop.

On the issue of music, I think that Fr. Irving was emphasizing music as an expression of piety, i.e. a faithful choir singing off key is better than a perfect choir which is less faithful away from the music stand. Hapgood’s approach dangerously comes to the brink of the Church honoring those who perhaps have made large donations or gained success in the secular world, but who have strayed from the Church’s teachings (we know what I am talking about). Favoring a show choir over 20 small but real Orthodox parishes is rather disturbing. Of course, perhaps, the fact that Hapgood never embraced Orthodoxy might be telling.