Our Metropolitan has succeeded admirably in evangelizing American astray in the Western heretical confessions and rescuing many from Western confessions which took the step from heresy to outright apostacy.
He is old. When he passes, every voice I know will be for our own Bishop BASIL to take the helm of the Archdiocese. I do not know personally any of our new bishops, but in the next round of consecrations (for Eagle River and Pacific Northwest and the other vacant see (is it Pittsburgh?)) every indication is that Archimandite Daniel, who serves our mission and (primarily) its mother parish, will be consecrated to the episcopate.
Both are very traditional (as is, for instance, Bishop TIKHON of the OCA's Diocese of the West).
The trend in the Antiochian Archdiocese is for tradition to reassert itself,
and that despite the impediement to the growth of monasticism posed by Metropolitan PHILIP's insistence that the first men's monastery be near the Antiochian Village facility in Western PA--if he'd give his blessing, we'd have a men's monastery here in Kansas already. By contrast, The Greek Archdiocese is blessed with a large number of monastic foundations from which to draw American men, fully formed in traditional Orthodoxy to lead her.
The wanting to fit in and be American is an immigrant-mentality thing. The sooner the Greek Archdiocese starts acting like the Church in America rather than a service organization for Greek immigrants, the sooner it will get over it. Constantinople has a vested interest in keeping the Greek Archdiocese in its current state, since its claim to authority in North America is based on the fallacy that the Greek faithful here are a 'diaspora' in 'barbarian lands'.
Perhaps paradoxially, Met. PHILIP's 'modernism' has served to break that mentality in our Archdiocese by bringing an influx of refugees from Western confession who, even if they don't all manage to check all their baggage before boarding the Ark of Salvation, still come, ferevently wanting Holy Tradition and wanting to live as Orthodox Christians.
While these monasteries have had some good influences in terms of certain traditional practices, in general, these positive factors are more than outweighed by the unhealthy aspects of these monasteries. Their overall effect within the GOA has been negative, in my opinion. Traditional Orthodox Christianity is making a strong comeback in the GOA, but the heart of it is happening at the grassroots parish level, usually in spite of the fact that the local monasteries are either sucking off parish members, telling them not to go back to their home parishes, or turning people off to traditional Orthodoxy because they make such a harshly legalistic thing of it. (And this is coming from a guy who has spent over half of the last 15 years in the ROCOR and the Serbian Archdiocese -- no slouches at being strictly traditional). 'Nuff said.
It is hard to have a healthy monasticism in America, which isn't a reason not to try. There is no monastery in the US that is in the same ballpark as the average monastery in the old countries, which shouldn't surprise us. We need to continue to try.
If Bp. Basil is chosen as Metropolitan, it will mean that the "independence" granted by the Antiochian Patriarchate is real -- since he's not "one of them." I hope that he is the one chosen, too.
I do not believe that any of Metr. Philip's "modernisms" were done for the sake of gaining or keeping converts. As a convert, you know that we are generally the last people to agitate for having things the way we had them in our former churches. Do you seriously believe that converts were agitating for Metr. Philip to lay down a decree that priests would be summarily defrocked for baptizing converts? Do you believe that converts were agitating for Met. Philip to ban his clergy from wearing the riassa? Was it converts who wanted Metr. Philip to abolish the ancient tradition of praying the prayers of churching women 40 days after childbirth? Do you think that any of these things were done to gain more converts and to "save the lost?" Please. The man is playing to a crowd, alright, but it ain't converts.
Even the experiences of the EO's, who "benefited" the most from Metr. Philip's cowboy ways, are mixed. The original group got to come in en masse, with the leaders keeping their perks and high salaries, control over their fiefdoms, etc... But there were a lot of sad stories about people who were in for a real shock when they realized that they weren't really ready for the real Orthodox world. I recall chatting with some Antiochian friends years ago, and they shared their recollection of a newly minted EO deacon coming through town, having just been brought in as part of the mass ordinations. He was invited to serve Vespers. He declined, because not only did he not know how to serve Vespers, he had never BEEN TO a vespers. He admitted to having been ordained "just in case" -- since once they were in, all prospective clergy would actually have to meet some standards. What a three-ring circus. And that was one of Metr. Philips moments of glory.
A number of EO parishes ended up leaving the Antiochians and going off into hyper-traditionalist schismatic groups, in no small part because of the lack of trust that this "fast and loose" approach created. Had Metr. Phlip done his job, and taken the time to catechize and examine, rather than treat it like a corporate acquisition, these things wouldn't have happened.
I agree with you (as I said in an earlier post) that there are strong trends in the traditional direction in the Antiochian Archdiocese. May they continue in spite of Met. Philip, and flourish in the post-Philip era... I pray for the man every day. I figure he needs it.
I'm not meaning to pick on one man. If someone posts an article about something goofy done or said by hierarchs of other jurisdictions, I'll add my thoughts and stories on them, too! I emphasize again that all of this proves how much we need each other. Metr. Philip has strong points and good ideas, but he really has no-one to balance him out and rein him in. The same goes for any other hierarch who just does his own thing without adequate consideration for the repercussions and implications of his words and actions. He certainly ain't consulting with Bp. Basil!
"By contrast, The Greek Archdiocese is blessed with a large number of monastic foundations from which to draw American men, fully formed in traditional Orthodoxy to lead her."
Be real careful here. In great measure what you are talking about is not monasticism, it is the cult of the "Elder" Ephraim, "Ephraimism". He is without a doubt in my mind, the absolute worst thing to happen to monasticism in North America. Just a few years ago the Eparcial Synod had to crack down on him and with a new Metropolitan in the diocese where the main Ephraimite hive is located, on can hope that the crackdown will intensify. We absolutely need monasticism, but not what this jurisdiction jumping cult leader peddles.
"The sooner the Greek Archdiocese starts acting like the Church in America rather than a service organization for Greek immigrants, the sooner it will get over it. Constantinople has a vested interest in keeping the Greek Archdiocese in its current state, since its claim to authority in North America is based on the fallacy that the Greek faithful here are a 'diaspora' in 'barbarian lands'."
Agreed; and the sooner +Philip is gone, perhaps along with his EO buddies, the better for all of us! But neither of these much to be desired events means that the Church in America should be autocephalous, for all the reasons some of us have stated before.