OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Free-For-All => Religious Topics => Topic started by: serb1389 on April 06, 2009, 09:13:24 PM

Title: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: serb1389 on April 06, 2009, 09:13:24 PM
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/04/metropolitan-jonah-ecumenical.html

Monday April 6, 2009
Categories: Orthodoxy
For Orthodox Christian readers, I have a big international news story to report from Dallas. You might have read the red-hot shots a representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew took at the OCA Metropolitan Jonah recently, as part of the EP's plan for all American Orthodox Christians to submit to the headship of the EP, who is based in a compound in Istanbul.

Well. Last night at Pan-Orthodox Vespers here at St. Seraphim Cathedral here in Dallas, Metropolitan Jonah of the OCA responded. Watch his sermon here. It's a bombshell that will rock the Orthodox world. Concluding line: "We might affirm to our bishops that they might tell the churches of the Old World: 'There is an American Orthodox Church. Leave it alone.'"

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/4812572/12841013
Title: Metropolitan Jonah and American Unity
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 06, 2009, 09:14:16 PM

Below is a link to a video of the sermon of Metropolitan Jonah last evening at the Pan-Orthodox Vespers at St. Seraphim Orthodox Cathedral in Dallas. It's about 23 minutes long and offers both a response to the proposal to unite the Orthodox jurisdictions in North America under the Patriarch of Constantinople and a vision for Orthodox unity in North America.

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

(This has been mentioned on one or two Orthodox boards.  I have not seen it;  my computer is too slow,  Would be interested to hear people's thoughts.)
 

Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 06, 2009, 09:18:04 PM
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/04/metropolitan-jonah-ecumenical.html

Monday April 6, 2009
Categories: Orthodoxy
For Orthodox Christian readers, I have a big international news story to report from Dallas. You might have read the red-hot shots a representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew took at the OCA Metropolitan Jonah recently, as part of the EP's plan for all American Orthodox Christians to submit to the headship of the EP, who is based in a compound in Istanbul.

Well. Last night at Pan-Orthodox Vespers here at St. Seraphim Cathedral here in Dallas, Metropolitan Jonah of the OCA responded. Watch his sermon here. It's a bombshell that will rock the Orthodox world. Concluding line: "We might affirm to our bishops that they might tell the churches of the Old World: 'There is an American Orthodox Church. Leave it alone.'"

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

An ecclesiastical Monroe Doctrine it seems.

I like that he explicitely mentioned the WRO as Orthodox (the OCA doesn't at present have WRO).

I like that he underlined the Amerindian Orthodox.

Also that he said that it was not just "joining the OCA," but a new reorganization.

His point on Kosovo shows the need for a strong united voice.

I like the respect he showed to the Holy Fathers, as he says.

He didn't pull any punches.  Any EP people in attendance?

Any reason why that meeting will be in Cyprus, not Constantinople?

Ironic that, as his beatitude points out, those few parishes that did not recognize the American bishops from Russia, a thing the Chief Secretary condemns, are the very foundation on which the EP's claims rest.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: SolEX01 on April 06, 2009, 09:18:45 PM
 ::) Time for the Elder Ephraim Monastics to pay a visit to Syosset and set the record straight from one monastic to another (e.g. Met Jonah).   ::)
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: serb1389 on April 06, 2009, 09:26:49 PM
::) Time for the Elder Ephraim Monastics to pay a visit to Syosset and set the record straight from one monastic to another (e.g. Met Jonah).   ::)

I don't think that Elder Ephraim wants to corrupt his monasticism and holiness.   ;) :) :)
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 06, 2009, 09:45:30 PM
::) Time for the Elder Ephraim Monastics to pay a visit to Syosset and set the record straight from one monastic to another (e.g. Met Jonah).   ::)

Oh, what record would that be?

Given the "praise" that the Chief Secretary heaped on him, maybe the gerontas should go to Brookline first, monastitc to archimandirite.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: SolEX01 on April 06, 2009, 09:52:13 PM
::) Time for the Elder Ephraim Monastics to pay a visit to Syosset and set the record straight from one monastic to another (e.g. Met Jonah).   ::)

Oh, what record would that be?

I surrounded that line with the sarcastic smilies since the EP placed the Elder Ephraim Monasteries in the USA and the monastics (future Bishops of GOA and other entities, BTW) could teach Met. Jonah a thing or two about respect.  Again, the comment was pure sarcasm; I agree with everything Met. Jonah said even though I didn't see the video.   :)

Given the "praise" that the Chief Secretary heaped on him, maybe the gerontas should go to Worchester first, monastitc to archimandirite.

What's in Worcester?   ???
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: SolEX01 on April 06, 2009, 09:53:51 PM
::) Time for the Elder Ephraim Monastics to pay a visit to Syosset and set the record straight from one monastic to another (e.g. Met Jonah).   ::)

I don't think that Elder Ephraim wants to corrupt his monasticism and holiness.   ;) :) :)

Except if He's feeling threatened from a former monastic now Hierarch.  After all, what if the buses stopped showing up to the Monasteries?
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: serb1389 on April 06, 2009, 09:55:45 PM
::) Time for the Elder Ephraim Monastics to pay a visit to Syosset and set the record straight from one monastic to another (e.g. Met Jonah).   ::)

I don't think that Elder Ephraim wants to corrupt his monasticism and holiness.   ;) :) :)

Except if He's feeling threatened from a former monastic now Hierarch.  After all, what if the buses stopped showing up to the Monasteries?

Yah like THAT's gona happen.  Did you know that they come by the busloads from Canada?  Didn't u know that Canada is still in the 40's...? ;) ;D ;D
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: serb1389 on April 06, 2009, 09:59:23 PM
::) Time for the Elder Ephraim Monastics to pay a visit to Syosset and set the record straight from one monastic to another (e.g. Met Jonah).   ::)

Oh, what record would that be?

Given the "praise" that the Chief Secretary heaped on him, maybe the gerontas should go to Worchester first, monastitc to archimandirite.

Yah I lost you here...
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 06, 2009, 09:59:42 PM
::) Time for the Elder Ephraim Monastics to pay a visit to Syosset and set the record straight from one monastic to another (e.g. Met Jonah).   ::)

Oh, what record would that be?

I surrounded that line with the sarcastic smilies since the EP placed the Elder Ephraim Monasteries in the USA and the monastics (future Bishops of GOA and other entities, BTW) could teach Met. Jonah a thing or two about respect.  Again, the comment was pure sarcasm; I agree with everything Met. Jonah said even though I didn't see the video.   :)

I just wanted to fill in between the lines for the benefit of our viewers.

Given the "praise" that the Chief Secretary heaped on him, maybe the gerontas should go to Worchester first, monastitc to archimandirite.

What's in Worcester?   ???

My bad.  Brookline.  Holy Cross College.  And I guess, at least, what, a month ago, the EP's Chief Secretary.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: serb1389 on April 06, 2009, 10:05:31 PM
::) Time for the Elder Ephraim Monastics to pay a visit to Syosset and set the record straight from one monastic to another (e.g. Met Jonah).   ::)

Oh, what record would that be?

I surrounded that line with the sarcastic smilies since the EP placed the Elder Ephraim Monasteries in the USA and the monastics (future Bishops of GOA and other entities, BTW) could teach Met. Jonah a thing or two about respect.  Again, the comment was pure sarcasm; I agree with everything Met. Jonah said even though I didn't see the video.   :)

I just wanted to fill in between the lines for the benefit of our viewers.

Given the "praise" that the Chief Secretary heaped on him, maybe the gerontas should go to Worchester first, monastitc to archimandirite.

What's in Worcester?   ???

My bad.  Brookline.  Holy Cross College.  And I guess, at least, what, a month ago, the EP's Chief Secretary.

Sorry still didn't understand your first point. 

As for your second point, Fr. Elpidoforos was at the school only for a week.  He then returned to Constantinople.  If Fr. Ephraim wants to visit there, or if Met. Jonah wants to visit there, they are more than welcome to.   

I was actually wondering if Met. Jonah would even be invited to the pan orthodox meeting in June anyway, since he is not recognized by the orthodox in the world as autocephalous.  interesting stuff. 
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on April 06, 2009, 10:09:00 PM
Well, the gloves are off. Point and counterpoint have been made. I pray that any discussion on this forum will not degenerate into antagonisms. It is a given that some folks will disagree: I hope we will stay civil.

That said, I agree with Metropolitan Jonah. I also like that he made a point of conciliarity where the voices of the lower clergy and laity will not be suppressed or ignored (I am paraphrasing).
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: serb1389 on April 06, 2009, 10:15:37 PM
Well, the gloves are off. Point and counterpoint have been made. I pray that any discussion on this forum will not degenerate into antagonisms. It is a given that some folks will disagree: I hope we will stay civil.

That said, I agree with Metropolitan Jonah. I also like that he made a point of conciliarity where the voices of the lower clergy and laity will not be suppressed or ignored (I am paraphrasing).

You know...I really don't think it's gona happen.  Until about now I was gona respond very angrily to what you had just said.  But you know what...it is better for us to have fruitful dialogue than angry dialogue. 

I think there are a lot of problems in this speach.  Many holes and improper statements.  If he really means what he is saying, then he is just begging the patriarchates to say..."you know what, you're on your own"..."form your own church"..."be like HOCNA" or other schismatics, etc.  They could say these things and very easily b/c now he has put them in a corner.  It's us vs. them.  Not what I would say is a good move by an "orthodox" hierarch.  He himself made excuses for himself, saying that he had never been in this position before.  Then how can you sit up there and pontificate. He said that we don't have a pope and we don't need a pope under islamic rule...well...how about one from american liberalist democracy?    Anyway...maybe it's not the right time for this.  Did he think of that?  Did he just go out there and do what he wanted?  A lot of questions my friend...a lot of questions. 

Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Starlight on April 06, 2009, 10:33:37 PM
 

I think there are a lot of problems in this speach.  Many holes and improper statements.  If he really means what he is saying, then he is just begging the patriarchates to say..."you know what, you're on your own"..."form your own church"..."be like HOCNA" or other schismatics, etc.  They could say these things and very easily b/c now he has put them in a corner.  It's us vs. them.  Not what I would say is a good move by an "orthodox" hierarch.  He himself made excuses for himself, saying that he had never been in this position before.  Then how can you sit up there and pontificate. He said that we don't have a pope and we don't need a pope under islamic rule...well...how about one from american liberalist democracy?    Anyway...maybe it's not the right time for this.  Did he think of that?  Did he just go out there and do what he wanted?  A lot of questions my friend...a lot of questions. 



Agree.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 06, 2009, 10:38:46 PM
It makes me glad we're under Constantinople and I hope things stay that way.  The good news is that's what I've heard from the clergy.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on April 06, 2009, 10:53:12 PM
Serb my friend,

Thanks for your kind reply. I do wonder whether we can ever look at this from outside in. It seems to me that there are two diametrically opposed views and if one adheres to one, the other would be improper and wrong. This is a momentous time as, for the first time in many centuries, an argument of great ecclesiological import has started. I hope that the argument is an honest one and I hope it is conducted in a slightly higher plane than the tone and tenor of the Chief Secretary's point ("the so-called OCA") and Metropolitan Jonah's counterpoint (the Pope comment).

It may be useful to catalog the chief issues in this argument. I'll give a shot at starting one:

- Is North America a place of diaspora alone or a nation/country/province as the Early fathers had conceived where there are folks from other nations? Is the concept of diaspora applicable in today's flat earth (to use Tom Friedman's concept)?

- What does Canon 28 mean? Sub-topics:

(1) since the place of honor was ostensibly decided on the basis of political importance, how do the changed circumstances affect the order of honor?

(2) What is the correct interpretation of the last part of the canon? "And it is arranged so that only the Metropolitans of the Pontic, Asian, and Thracian dioceses shall be ordained by the most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople aforesaid, and likewise the Bishops of the aforesaid dioceses which are situated in barbarian lands; that is to say, that each Metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the Bishops of the province, shall ordain the Bishops of the province, just as is prescribed by the divine Canons. But the Metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been said, are to be ordained by the Archbishop of Constantinople, after the elections have first been conducted in accordance with custom, and have been reported to him."

- What is autocephaly? Once given, can and should it be taken away?

- What is the proper Orthodox form of governance? Monarchical or conciliar? And, which form is sounder from a theological point of view?

- What is meant by "first among equals"?

Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 06, 2009, 11:00:03 PM
::) Time for the Elder Ephraim Monastics to pay a visit to Syosset and set the record straight from one monastic to another (e.g. Met Jonah).   ::)

Oh, what record would that be?

I surrounded that line with the sarcastic smilies since the EP placed the Elder Ephraim Monasteries in the USA and the monastics (future Bishops of GOA and other entities, BTW) could teach Met. Jonah a thing or two about respect.  Again, the comment was pure sarcasm; I agree with everything Met. Jonah said even though I didn't see the video.   :)

I just wanted to fill in between the lines for the benefit of our viewers.

Given the "praise" that the Chief Secretary heaped on him, maybe the gerontas should go to Worchester first, monastitc to archimandirite.

What's in Worcester?   ???

My bad.  Brookline.  Holy Cross College.  And I guess, at least, what, a month ago, the EP's Chief Secretary.

Sorry still didn't understand your first point.

The Chief Secretary's speech was kinder to the Gerontas than to Met. Jonah or Met. Philip, only in that he didn't attact him by name.  At least he quoted the Metropolitan's, he only characterized, or caracturized, the Gerontas.


Quote
As for your second point, Fr. Elpidoforos was at the school only for a week.  He then returned to Constantinople.


Intereting. ::)

Was he in town just to lob grenades, or was there something useful on his agenda?

Quote
If Fr. Ephraim wants to visit there, or if Met. Jonah wants to visit there, they are more than welcome to.   

I was actually wondering if Met. Jonah would even be invited to the pan orthodox meeting in June anyway,

I doubt that his invitation got lost in the mail.  All that nonsense from the Chief Secretary over the EP's "concession" over autonmous Churches like Estonia indicates that.



Quote
since he is not recognized by the orthodox in the world as autocephalous. 

Actually, the majority of the Orthodox in the world recognize him as autocephalous.  And since NO ONE buys the EP's interpretation on canon 28 of Chalcedon, even those in his own patriarchate, Met. Jonah a bit up on him on that.

Quote
interesting stuff. 
Indeed.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 06, 2009, 11:11:10 PM
Well, the gloves are off. Point and counterpoint have been made. I pray that any discussion on this forum will not degenerate into antagonisms. It is a given that some folks will disagree: I hope we will stay civil.

That said, I agree with Metropolitan Jonah. I also like that he made a point of conciliarity where the voices of the lower clergy and laity will not be suppressed or ignored (I am paraphrasing).

You know...I really don't think it's gona happen.  Until about now I was gona respond very angrily to what you had just said.  But you know what...it is better for us to have fruitful dialogue than angry dialogue. 

I think there are a lot of problems in this speach.  Many holes and improper statements. 
Name one.
Quote
If he really means what he is saying, then he is just begging the patriarchates to say..."you know what, you're on your own"..."form your own church"..."be like HOCNA" or other schismatics, etc. 

You forget, as someone posted a while ago, Met. Jonah was given words of encouragement from the big enchilada himself, Pat. Kyrill.
His Holiness Patriarch Kirill refers to the "demons of feeble impertinence" - taken to be an understated and oblique reference to the speech at Holy Cross of the Chief Secretary of the Sacred Synod.

Quote
They could say these things and very easily b/c now he has put them in a corner.  It's us vs. them.  Not what I would say is a good move by an "orthodox" hierarch.  He himself made excuses for himself, saying that he had never been in this position before.  Then how can you sit up there and pontificate.
Because someone else thinks he is supreme pontiff, and it's not the hierarch in Old Rome (we know him).  As Met. Jonah said, if we wanted Ultramontanism, we should take it straight (paraphrased).

Quote
He said that we don't have a pope and we don't need a pope under islamic rule...well...how about one from american liberalist democracy? 

Oh, please.  Been to Athens lately?  The GOA owes its existence to Bp. Arbp. EP Pope Meletius acting as chaplain for "liberal democracy."

Quote
  Anyway...maybe it's not the right time for this.  Did he think of that?  Did he just go out there and do what he wanted?  A lot of questions my friend...a lot of questions. 

All answered: the Orthodox Church in America is a FACT.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 06, 2009, 11:16:58 PM
Serb my friend,

Thanks for your kind reply. I do wonder whether we can ever look at this from outside in. It seems to me that there are two diametrically opposed views and if one adheres to one, the other would be improper and wrong. This is a momentous time as, for the first time in many centuries, an argument of great ecclesiological import has started. I hope that the argument is an honest one and I hope it is conducted in a slightly higher plane than the tone and tenor of the Chief Secretary's point ("the so-called OCA") and Metropolitan Jonah's counterpoint (the Pope comment).

It may be useful to catalog the chief issues in this argument. I'll give a shot at starting one:

- Is North America a place of diaspora alone or a nation/country/province as the Early fathers had conceived where there are folks from other nations? Is the concept of diaspora applicable in today's flat earth (to use Tom Friedman's concept)?
I'm intrigued.  What is that concept?

I'd love to show where the idea of "diaspora" shows up in the Fathers.  I think they would find it an alien concept.

Quote

- What does Canon 28 mean? Sub-topics:

(1) since the place of honor was ostensibly decided on the basis of political importance, how do the changed circumstances affect the order of honor?

(2) What is the correct interpretation of the last part of the canon? "And it is arranged so that only the Metropolitans of the Pontic, Asian, and Thracian dioceses shall be ordained by the most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople aforesaid, and likewise the Bishops of the aforesaid dioceses which are situated in barbarian lands; that is to say, that each Metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the Bishops of the province, shall ordain the Bishops of the province, just as is prescribed by the divine Canons. But the Metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been said, are to be ordained by the Archbishop of Constantinople, after the elections have first been conducted in accordance with custom, and have been reported to him."

- What is autocephaly? Once given, can and should it be taken away?

- What is the proper Orthodox form of governance? Monarchical or conciliar? And, which form is sounder from a theological point of view?

- What is meant by "first among equals"?

Can someone provide a single example of the EP's understanding of canon 28 from before the 20th century?
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: 88Devin12 on April 06, 2009, 11:33:37 PM
I think the OCA has a "plurality of popular vote" of support in the world, even if it doesn't have the "plurality of electoral votes"

I think other countries also have to learn a lot more about American history and culture. Our country was born out of a desire to be self-ruled and not ruled by a King that is over 3,000 miles across the Atlantic.

How can they expect Americans (nat born and immigrants) to desire to be ruled by a non-American authority that isn't just 3,000 miles away, but over 5,000 miles away and under Turkish/Islamic domination. (or even under Russia for that matter)

Also, having the main head of the church that far away, and under another country's rule would not let us start to be a voice in America, especially in politics.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on April 06, 2009, 11:43:49 PM
Regarding my comment on "flat earth," Thomas Friedman has written a book "The World Is Flat: A Brief History of The Twenty-first Century (2005; expanded edition 2006; revised edition 2007)" that says that the world of nations as we knew it (sometimes separated by oceans, great distances, and languages) has evolved to one that, at least in the economic sphere, has become one entity: Global language (English), global currency (the US dollar), lightning fast communications, and no national boundaries. Of course, the current economic situation belies this somewhat and the world may go back to the way it was should things get worse.

BTW, I have the feeling that the concept of diaspora (scattering of seeds) must have some purpose behind it beyond describing a phenomenon. At the very least, I think that it includes the expectation that the scattered seeds will remain true to type, that those in diaspora would remain strangers in a strange land, forever yearning to return to their roots. In contrast, as a naturalized citizen, I knew that my oath of allegiance to the United States forever made me different than my original ethnic/national affiliation.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on April 06, 2009, 11:53:13 PM
This is the oath that I took when I became a citizen:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: John of the North on April 06, 2009, 11:55:28 PM
I think the OCA has a "plurality of popular vote" of support in the world, even if it doesn't have the "plurality of electoral votes"

Doubt it.

Quote
I think other countries also have to learn a lot more about American history and culture. Our country was born out of a desire to be self-ruled and not ruled by a King that is over 3,000 miles across the Atlantic.

We know more than we ever wanted to, thanks for the offer though.

Quote
How can they expect Americans (nat born and immigrants) to desire to be ruled by a non-American authority that isn't just 3,000 miles away, but over 5,000 miles away and under Turkish/Islamic domination. (or even under Russia for that matter)

We are not Roman Catholic. We are not ruled by any bishops on foreign lands. The ruling bishop is the bishop of your local Diocese.

Quote
Also, having the main head of the church that far away, and under another country's rule would not let us start to be a voice in America, especially in politics.

You have Greek money and Arab money. If the Ukrainians weren't so cheap, you would have their money too. Money is all you need in politics.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on April 07, 2009, 12:21:12 AM
Being new to the game here (Orthodoxy in general), I don't have a real stake in either side.  All I know of Orthodoxy is what I have encountered in Missouri.  There are only something to the effect of 13 actual Orthodox churches in Missouri.  In the metro area of Kansas City, which extends into Kansas, there are six churches.  I have visited all of them this Lent, as every Sunday night we all meet for Pan-Orthodox vespers at a different church.

Everyone I have met has been wonderful, and almost all churches are of different jurisdictions.  We all share a bond of faith, and it does not seem divided at all.  Whatever the outcome of all of this is, we will still have the Body and Blood of Christ and the liturgy that unites us all!  I just pray for peace and a jurisdictional unity here in North America (Canada and Mexico included, of course!), and I pray that God would calm people's hearts and lead them to a decision that is best for all of the Church, in the New and Old World.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Starlight on April 07, 2009, 12:24:49 AM
This is the oath that I took when I became a citizen:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

I am happy to say that I took the same oath, my friend.

However, as for the administration in the Orthodox Church:
We are not Roman Catholic. We are not ruled by any bishops on foreign lands. The ruling bishop is the bishop of your local Diocese.


Also, many Americans, both born here and naturalized, work in USA for the companies with headquarters located overseas. Such variants do not violate loyalty to USA either.


and I pray that God would calm people's hearts and lead them to a decision that is best for all of the Church, in the New and Old World.

Thank you for doing so.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: John of the North on April 07, 2009, 12:31:47 AM
This is the oath that I took when I became a citizen:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

I, Ukiemeister, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors. So help me God.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: SolEX01 on April 07, 2009, 12:50:46 AM
I, Ukiemeister, do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors. So help me God.

God Save the Queen!!!
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ozgeorge on April 07, 2009, 01:46:17 AM
"'There is an American Orthodox Church. Leave it alone.'"
Okie Dokie.
You're on your own.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 07, 2009, 01:55:52 AM
Actually, the majority of the Orthodox in the world recognize him as autocephalous.  And since NO ONE buys the EP's interpretation on canon 28 of Chalcedon, even those in his own patriarchate, Met. Jonah a bit up on him on that.
The majority of Orthodox WHOM?  If you go by majority of Orthodox faithful, then you MIGHT have a valid point, since the Russian Orthodox Church appears to have more communicants than any other Orthodox jurisdiction in the world.  However, the Orthodox faithful really don't have much say in this matter.  However, if you go by majority of Orthodox primates, the heads of national/regional churches who actually have a say, then I think you're dead wrong.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Basil 320 on April 07, 2009, 02:53:53 AM
Met. Jonah reveals that the pre-conciliar commission on unified administration in the diaspora, i.e. North America, intends to agree to placing North America under the Ecumenical Partiarchate, while he asks the Old World Patriarchates, to leave North America alone.  These extreem positions will get us nowhere, a very small group of jurisdictions within the American malaise, who are thought of by their fellow countrymen as ethnic clubs, if that.  Compromise, transitional models have to be examined by moderate level headed, Christ-like hierarchs.  Perhaps a transitional committee of hierarchs from the affected Churches, Constantinople, Russia, Antioch, Romania, Serbia, Bulgaria and Albania, could receive proposals for North American administration from a representative group of American ruling hierarchs, priests and devout laity.  A transitional synod could be established for Noth America, under a plan for eventual self-rule.  Compromises must be exchaged.  The Old World Patriarchates are not going to let go, nor will they give their jurisdictions to the Ecumenical Patriarchate.  The process much be conciliar.  Existing parish practices must be retained.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: mike on April 07, 2009, 03:35:13 AM
However, if you go by majority of Orthodox primates, the heads of national/regional churches who actually have a say, then I think you're dead wrong.

Recognise: Russia, Poland, Czech Lands ans Slovakia, Bulgaria
Opposed: Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Greece, Cyprus

The rest don't have any official statements. The numbers are equal.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: serb1389 on April 07, 2009, 07:12:03 AM
Serb my friend,

Thanks for your kind reply. I do wonder whether we can ever look at this from outside in. It seems to me that there are two diametrically opposed views and if one adheres to one, the other would be improper and wrong. This is a momentous time as, for the first time in many centuries, an argument of great ecclesiological import has started. I hope that the argument is an honest one and I hope it is conducted in a slightly higher plane than the tone and tenor of the Chief Secretary's point ("the so-called OCA") and Metropolitan Jonah's counterpoint (the Pope comment).

It may be useful to catalog the chief issues in this argument. I'll give a shot at starting one:

- Is North America a place of diaspora alone or a nation/country/province as the Early fathers had conceived where there are folks from other nations? Is the concept of diaspora applicable in today's flat earth (to use Tom Friedman's concept)?

- What does Canon 28 mean? Sub-topics:

(1) since the place of honor was ostensibly decided on the basis of political importance, how do the changed circumstances affect the order of honor?

(2) What is the correct interpretation of the last part of the canon? "And it is arranged so that only the Metropolitans of the Pontic, Asian, and Thracian dioceses shall be ordained by the most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople aforesaid, and likewise the Bishops of the aforesaid dioceses which are situated in barbarian lands; that is to say, that each Metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the Bishops of the province, shall ordain the Bishops of the province, just as is prescribed by the divine Canons. But the Metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been said, are to be ordained by the Archbishop of Constantinople, after the elections have first been conducted in accordance with custom, and have been reported to him."

- What is autocephaly? Once given, can and should it be taken away?

- What is the proper Orthodox form of governance? Monarchical or conciliar? And, which form is sounder from a theological point of view?

- What is meant by "first among equals"?



Sorry brother but I don't think i'm going to get any time to really answer any of these questions.  I think more than half of them are being answered by other threads anyway, so you might want to do some searching and attack these things one by one.  Unfortunately I don't think i'm going to approach them here.  Sorry.   :(
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: serb1389 on April 07, 2009, 07:23:07 AM
::) Time for the Elder Ephraim Monastics to pay a visit to Syosset and set the record straight from one monastic to another (e.g. Met Jonah).   ::)

Oh, what record would that be?

I surrounded that line with the sarcastic smilies since the EP placed the Elder Ephraim Monasteries in the USA and the monastics (future Bishops of GOA and other entities, BTW) could teach Met. Jonah a thing or two about respect.  Again, the comment was pure sarcasm; I agree with everything Met. Jonah said even though I didn't see the video.   :)

I just wanted to fill in between the lines for the benefit of our viewers.

Given the "praise" that the Chief Secretary heaped on him, maybe the gerontas should go to Worchester first, monastitc to archimandirite.

What's in Worcester?   ???

My bad.  Brookline.  Holy Cross College.  And I guess, at least, what, a month ago, the EP's Chief Secretary.

Sorry still didn't understand your first point.

The Chief Secretary's speech was kinder to the Gerontas than to Met. Jonah or Met. Philip, only in that he didn't attact him by name.  At least he quoted the Metropolitan's, he only characterized, or caracturized, the Gerontas.

I gotcha.  Don't know if i'd characterize it that way, but definitely see where your coming from. 

Quote
Quote
As for your second point, Fr. Elpidoforos was at the school only for a week.  He then returned to Constantinople.


Intereting. ::)

Was he in town just to lob grenades, or was there something useful on his agenda? 

Actually he was there to give the Inaugural Ecumenical Patriarchate Lecture to the Archons of the Order of St. Andrew, who were on campus for the weekend retreat.  He then gave the same retreat to the local clergy syndesmos and sat in on classes the whole week, to continue the conversation he had started that week.  He made himself available to every person on campus, for whatever amount of time he wanted. 

Quote
Quote
If Fr. Ephraim wants to visit there, or if Met. Jonah wants to visit there, they are more than welcome to.   

I was actually wondering if Met. Jonah would even be invited to the pan orthodox meeting in June anyway,

I doubt that his invitation got lost in the mail.  All that nonsense from the Chief Secretary over the EP's "concession" over autonmous Churches like Estonia indicates that.

Well firstly I don't think he was even sent an invitation, because he is not recognized as an autocephalous church in the dyptichs and etc. 

Secondly, the concession was for the Moscow Patriarchate, not for the OCA, so not sure how that supports your statement here...

Quote
Quote
since he is not recognized by the orthodox in the world as autocephalous.

Actually, the majority of the Orthodox in the world recognize him as autocephalous.  And since NO ONE buys the EP's interpretation on canon 28 of Chalcedon, even those in his own patriarchate, Met. Jonah a bit up on him on that. 

I was always under the impression that only a handful (at best) of the churches accepted the autocephaly.  I'm not sure where that information would be, but it would be good if we got an official ruling on that one, since we've been throwing it around a lot. 

Actually if no one bought the interpretation why is everyone allowing him to utilize the interpretation?  Seems to be a mistake in logic here...


Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: serb1389 on April 07, 2009, 07:32:27 AM
Well, the gloves are off. Point and counterpoint have been made. I pray that any discussion on this forum will not degenerate into antagonisms. It is a given that some folks will disagree: I hope we will stay civil.

That said, I agree with Metropolitan Jonah. I also like that he made a point of conciliarity where the voices of the lower clergy and laity will not be suppressed or ignored (I am paraphrasing).

You know...I really don't think it's gona happen.  Until about now I was gona respond very angrily to what you had just said.  But you know what...it is better for us to have fruitful dialogue than angry dialogue. 

I think there are a lot of problems in this speach.  Many holes and improper statements. 
Name one.

Quote
"There are those there who say there was no canonical Orthodox Church in North America until 1924" until the Ecumenical Patriarchate established the Greek Orthodox Archidocese here, Jonah said.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/04/metropolitan-jonah-ecumenical.html

Who has said this?  I would call this an improper statement.  There are many other things that I saw as "back and forth" contradicting himself, etc.  I plan on listening to the whole thing again and writing it all out. 




Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: serb1389 on April 07, 2009, 07:40:49 AM


You forget, as someone posted a while ago, Met. Jonah was given words of encouragement from the big enchilada himself, Pat. Kyrill.
His Holiness Patriarch Kirill refers to the "demons of feeble impertinence" - taken to be an understated and oblique reference to the speech at Holy Cross of the Chief Secretary of the Sacred Synod.

I didn't forget anything.  I just hadn't read it.  Also, my first question is "who is taking it to be an understated and oblique reference to the speech"?  Are you making that inference?  Is Fr. Ambrose?  I'd be interested in knowing how we can infer such things without speaking to the Patriarch (Kyril) directly. 

Quote
Quote
They could say these things and very easily b/c now he has put them in a corner.  It's us vs. them.  Not what I would say is a good move by an "orthodox" hierarch.  He himself made excuses for himself, saying that he had never been in this position before.  Then how can you sit up there and pontificate.
Because someone else thinks he is supreme pontiff, and it's not the hierarch in Old Rome (we know him).  As Met. Jonah said, if we wanted Ultramontanism, we should take it straight (paraphrased).

Care to substantiate that?  When has Patriarch Bartholomew said that he is the supreme pontif? 

Quote
Quote
He said that we don't have a pope and we don't need a pope under islamic rule...well...how about one from american liberalist democracy? 

Oh, please.  Been to Athens lately?  The GOA owes its existence to Bp. Arbp. EP Pope Meletius acting as chaplain for "liberal democracy."

I've actually lived in athens.  How much time have you spent there? 

I wouldn't call him a pope unless that was his actual title.  Otherwise that's just plain old slander.  And in terms of him being a chaplain of liberal democracy...well if you don't like it when he did it (which i'm not saying is true, but for the sake of the argument), then you'll hate it when Met. Jonah does it.  Doesn't seem like that's happening... ;)

Quote
Quote
  Anyway...maybe it's not the right time for this.  Did he think of that?  Did he just go out there and do what he wanted?  A lot of questions my friend...a lot of questions. 

All answered: the Orthodox Church in America is a FACT.
[/quote]

And the orthodox church in america can do nothing by itself, as is proven by this rash and brazen speech which burns bridges with those who brought orthodoxy to america in the first place.  If this is what the Orthodox Church in America wants as its MO...I certianly hope all the other churches break communion.  What do you think this will accomplish?  Wasn't Met. Jonah going to be the great healer?  This is not healing, this is pouring salt on the wound. 



Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Fr. George on April 07, 2009, 07:41:11 AM
However, if you go by majority of Orthodox primates, the heads of national/regional churches who actually have a say, then I think you're dead wrong.

Recognise: Russia, Poland, Czech Lands ans Slovakia, Bulgaria
Opposed: Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Greece, Cyprus

The rest don't have any official statements. The numbers are equal.

Based on talking with clergy in each one, I'd say Romania, Serbia, and Antioch do not recognize.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: serb1389 on April 07, 2009, 07:43:10 AM
However, if you go by majority of Orthodox primates, the heads of national/regional churches who actually have a say, then I think you're dead wrong.

Recognise: Russia, Poland, Czech Lands ans Slovakia, Bulgaria
Opposed: Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Greece, Cyprus

The rest don't have any official statements. The numbers are equal.

Based on talking with clergy in each one, I'd say Romania, Serbia, and Antioch do not recognize.

I was pretty sure that Serbia agreed and then rescinded their agreement based on the uncanonical solutions that came out of it = aka = none. 
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Fr. George on April 07, 2009, 07:43:54 AM
Care to substantiate that?  When has Patriarch Bartholomew said that he is the supreme pontif? 

Never has, nor has anyone else made the claim for him.

I've actually lived in athens.  How much time have you spent there? 

I wouldn't call him a pope unless that was his actual title.  Otherwise that's just plain old slander.  And in terms of him being a chaplain of liberal democracy...well if you don't like it when he did it (which i'm not saying is true, but for the sake of the argument), then you'll hate it when Met. Jonah does it.  Doesn't seem like that's happening... ;)

I think he's referring to Meletios' final stop as Patriarch of Alexandria, a position that historically has carried the term Pope longer than Rome's bishopric.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Αριστοκλής on April 07, 2009, 08:06:13 AM
The metropolitan said this in a sermon? Astounding. And sad.

He wants a schism? He'll get one.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 07, 2009, 08:09:57 AM
Listening to it again - the number of unproven assumptions, the inaccurate information, and just some of the stereotypes;I just find amazing that this actually came from a ruling metropolitan.  The chorus of angry voices backing his speech in the blog link is not surprising either.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: 88Devin12 on April 07, 2009, 08:10:41 AM
The Russian Orthodox Church has over 190 MILLION members. How many members do all the other jurisdictions have that do not support the OCA? All the jurisdictions that do not support us amount to about 5 million members. Unless you include Serbia and others into that non-supportive group, then it would be about 35 million.

Still though, 190 million vs. 35 million. That is 84% of Orthodox Christians in the world.

Of course, we cannot say that 100% of the Russian Orthodox Christians support the OCA, but still, the amount of support from the Russian Orthodox Church probably does not go as low as only 60% (which if you removed 40% of support from Russian Orthodox Church, support would be split 50/50 in the Orthodox world)

_______________________

Quote
Recognise: Russia, Poland, Czech Lands ans Slovakia, Bulgaria
Opposed: Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Greece, Cyprus

The rest don't have any official statements. The numbers are equal.

As I said before, if you take the actual members of those Churches, then support for the OCA clearly rests in the majority. Does conciliarity mean that it is just the Patriarchs that make up the Orthodox Church, and that their opinions are really all that matters, or is it rather the 200 and some million members that really make up the Orthodox Church and what we practice/believe?

_______________________

Also, it seems there are opinions here that if the OCA doesn't submit, then we might as well schism... But there is absolutely NO canon that states, that we must submit to a foreign Patriarch if we have our own Metropolitan. Does any other Autocephalous Church answer to any Patriarch of another jurisdiction? Does Ukraine answer to the Moscow Patriarch? Does Romania answer to the Ecumenical Patriarch? No, they don't...
The OCA is an autocephalous church whether anyone likes it or not, and we have majority support in the Orthodox world. Accept it, don't try to force us under the authority of any foreign power.

If any of us desires the schism of another, does that not make us the schismatic? We must watch ourselves and make sure we are not desiring or asking for the schism of another Orthodox Christian because we don't agree with them. That is Satan and his demons working to divide the Church, pray that none of us fall under that temptation. (yes, I recognize this goes for me too)

Do not desire the schism of another because you disagree with them, but pray for more Orthodox unity, and leave it to the Lord's will. God will do what he wills, and man will choose whether or not to do his will, but just because you hold an opinion, that doesn't mean it is de facto God's will. Just because a Patriarch says something, doesn't mean it is always God's will.

___________________________

Lastly, the Ecumenical Patriarch will NOT say to the OCA: "You want to be left alone, then be alone, form your own church" Because, he will then have to answer to the Moscow Patriarch. I'm sorry, but the EP is only really symbolic now, with only really and influence over a very small number (relatively) of Orthodox Christians around the world. The MP has influence in a jurisdiction of over 190 million Orthodox Christians. (out of about 225 million) The EP would probably not go so far to say that an independent child of the MP might as well not be Orthodox and should schism.

I am not angry, and I am not in despair either. I personally am leaving this up to God and I'm going to let the hierarchs of our Church fight it out. But I want people to recognize that America is a vastly different culture and nation, and it is unlikely that native-born Americans will want to submit to a culture and ethnic background that is utterly separate and different from our own. While those cultures and ethnic backgrounds are very rich and wonderful, they aren't American. We are a melting pot, not dominated by one culture/ethnicity over another. We celebrate Russian, Greek and all other cultures/ethnic backgrounds.
Do not forget where you came from, but remember, you are American and part of a larger picture. Your brothers and sisters in America may be Russian, but they may also be Chinese, Aleut, Mexican, French, African, Dutch, Italian etc... Everyone can celebrate everyone's heritage, but we are all one, united by a common language while celebrating the diversity of languages that exist.

I am not against any other ethnicities or cultures. I even enjoy singing or even sometimes saying prayers in other languages, and am making an attempt to slowly learn Russian and Greek. But that doesn't mean I want to live my life dominated by a foreign culture that I don't really have any connection to.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 07, 2009, 08:12:48 AM

His Holiness Patriarch Kirill refers to the "demons of feeble impertinence" - taken to be an understated and oblique reference to the speech at Holy Cross of the Chief Secretary of the Sacred Synod.

I didn't forget anything.  I just hadn't read it.  Also, my first question is "who is taking it to be an understated and oblique reference to the speech"?  Are you making that inference?  Is Fr. Ambrose?  I'd be interested in knowing how we can infer such things without speaking to the Patriarch (Kyril) directly. 

It was the understanding of the phrase on such lists as orthodox-forum.  When I checked Russian e-groups and forums the Russian priests and faithful see it that way too.  In fact I do not remember if there were any other understanding by the Russians.   Russian bishops don't write on these groups so we have not seen anything episcopal.  It could be totally a wrong understanding but you would think that if so, there would have been some diplomatic demurral from the Patriarchate since it has the potential to cause a lot of damage with Moscow-Constantinople relationships, at a time when both are determined to be amicable for the sake of arranging the upcoming Great and Holy Council.

Quote
Care to substantiate that?  When has Patriarch Bartholomew said that he is the supreme pontif? 

His representatives at the 2007 Ravenna Meeting, and especially Metropolitan Zizioulas, were very determinedly consolidating a theory of the Ecumenical Patriarch as the "global Primus" for the Orthodox Churches.   I imagine that when Constantinople and Rome achieve union the EP will have to pull back from that claimed position in the Church and allow it to be assumed globally by the Pope of Rome.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Fr. George on April 07, 2009, 08:14:21 AM
Devin,

I'm not going to continue the usual merry-go-round by responding to what you've brought up; I've done it before, as have others, and it has gotten us nowhere.  However this:

I am not against any other ethnicities or cultures. I even enjoy singing or even sometimes saying prayers in other languages, and am making an attempt to slowly learn Russian and Greek. But that doesn't mean I want to live my life dominated by a foreign culture that I don't really have any connection to.

is like saying "I don't hate Arabs - I love eating falafel!"  (i.e. It doesn't prove that you are not biased against what you're claiming you're not biased against.)
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 07, 2009, 08:15:42 AM
Some of my best friends are...
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: 88Devin12 on April 07, 2009, 08:22:43 AM
I'm only against being ruled by a power in a foreign country. I'm not against the country or the people itself. I recognize that we all have our own rich cultures and ethnicities. However, I also recognize that America is a union of all of them, and is a celebration of all of them while recognizing that in America, we are all one, and ruled by a (well, it's supposed to be) President that represents us all.
We are NOT ruled by any foreign leader that lives thousands of miles away in a country and culture vastly different from ours who doesn't understand the fundamentals and the essence of being American.

Why did America fight for it's independence in the first place? Because the British King was trying to impose his will upon the colonists here in America. They didn't want to be ruled by a guy that was several thousand miles away across an ocean. They had to fight long and hard for our independence, but they got it, an eventally, all peoples of America... Whether you were from Spain, Britain, France, Netherlands etc... eventually they all became American with independence and ruled by Congress and the President in Washington. With immigrants and natural borns, we all recognize that we are united as Americans. That is what our soldiers die for. That is what our citizens live for... That is the very core of being American... We gained our independence from these other countries, and (at least in the opinion of many) god-forbid if we are going to be ruled by them again.

But also... Remember, that although we fought for our independence over 200 years ago... We also fought to keep ourselves UNITED during our horrible Civil War... Both self rule and unity mean a lot to us... This goes for the Church to... It would be wonderful to be autocephalous, but we will also fight to stay unified with the whole Orthodox world.

Although I be willing to fight to stay self-ruled... I would have to confess that I would be willing to die for Christ and his whole Church. (not just the OCA)
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 07, 2009, 08:24:13 AM
My God, are you really being serious?
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Veniamin on April 07, 2009, 08:32:39 AM
I'm only against being ruled by a power in a foreign country. I'm not against the country or the people itself. I recognize that we all have our own rich cultures and ethnicities. However, I also recognize that America is a union of all of them, and is a celebration of all of them while recognizing that in America, we are all one, and ruled by a (well, it's supposed to be) President that represents us all.
We are NOT ruled by any foreign leader that lives thousands of miles away in a country and culture vastly different from ours who doesn't understand the fundamentals and the essence of being American.

Why did America fight for it's independence in the first place? Because the British King was trying to impose his will upon the colonists here in America. They didn't want to be ruled by a guy that was several thousand miles away across an ocean. They had to fight long and hard for our independence, but they got it, an eventally, all peoples of America... Whether you were from Spain, Britain, France, Netherlands etc... eventually they all became American with independence and ruled by Congress and the President in Washington. With immigrants and natural borns, we all recognize that we are united as Americans. That is what our soldiers die for. That is what our citizens live for... That is the very core of being American... We gained our independence from these other countries, and (at least in the opinion of many) god-forbid if we are going to be ruled by them again.

But also... Remember, that although we fought for our independence over 200 years ago... We also fought to keep ourselves UNITED during our horrible Civil War... Both self rule and unity mean a lot to us... This goes for the Church to... It would be wonderful to be autocephalous, but we will also fight to stay unified with the whole Orthodox world.

Although I be willing to fight to stay self-ruled... I would have to confess that I would be willing to die for Christ and his whole Church. (not just the OCA)

What does that have to do with anything?
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: 88Devin12 on April 07, 2009, 08:36:40 AM
It has to due with the idea of being ruled by a guy thousands of miles away, whether it's the EP, the MP or any other foreign Patriarch. We were given our autocephaly from the MP... We are now self-ruled why should we just submit ourselves to a Patriarch who really doesn't have his own independence and is still under house-arrest by Muslims?

Seriously... If we went under the EP or any other Patriarch, what are the chances of that Patriarch going before Congress or to the President regularly during a time where we need to be a strong united voice? (like during Kosovo)
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Fr. George on April 07, 2009, 08:37:09 AM
I'm only against being ruled by a power in a foreign country. I'm not against the country or the people itself. I recognize that we all have our own rich cultures and ethnicities. However, I also recognize that America is a union of all of them, and is a celebration of all of them while recognizing that in America, we are all one, and ruled by a (well, it's supposed to be) President that represents us all.
We are NOT ruled by any foreign leader that lives thousands of miles away in a country and culture vastly different from ours who doesn't understand the fundamentals and the essence of being American.

Why did America fight for it's independence in the first place? Because the British King was trying to impose his will upon the colonists here in America. They didn't want to be ruled by a guy that was several thousand miles away across an ocean. They had to fight long and hard for our independence, but they got it, an eventally, all peoples of America... Whether you were from Spain, Britain, France, Netherlands etc... eventually they all became American with independence and ruled by Congress and the President in Washington. With immigrants and natural borns, we all recognize that we are united as Americans. That is what our soldiers die for. That is what our citizens live for... That is the very core of being American... We gained our independence from these other countries, and (at least in the opinion of many) god-forbid if we are going to be ruled by them again.

But also... Remember, that although we fought for our independence over 200 years ago... We also fought to keep ourselves UNITED during our horrible Civil War... Both self rule and unity mean a lot to us... This goes for the Church to... It would be wonderful to be autocephalous, but we will also fight to stay unified with the whole Orthodox world.

*Sigh*
- We're not being ruled over by a foreign monarch.  The only "foreign" monarch is Christ.  The leadership of a Patriarch over his Church is hardly synonymous with even the meager level of control a constitutional monarch has over their own Church - a Patriarch on their own has no authority outside of their own diocese, besides being president of a Synod.  While the synod itself holds real power (and, for most of us who are not OCA, at least one of our American hierarchs sits on the Synod), it rarely exercises it.  99% of day-to-day decisions, problems, etc. are caused by people right here, for better or worse.

- Yes, one can and should point out that the 1% includes things like the reorganization of the AOA or the imposition of an unqualified bishop or something like that, as if (a) we wouldn't make mistakes on our own, (b) the mistakes separate us from Christ, or (c) the mistakes aren't reversible.  But we do make mistakes on our own (and in some cases, repeatedly, before we get it right), we have not been separated from Christ, and if a mistake has been made, it is always reversible.

- Freedom is not an Orthodox principle, virtue, etc.  Orthodoxy exists and thrives where it wills to, under persecution, etc.  The only time when the Church has encouraged freedom is when the people were enslaved in their own countries!  And even in a few instances, local Churches have supported war erroneously, or in a short-sighted manner.  The American desire for freedom is frequently a desire for no oversight but self-oversight - a desire that contradicts a host of Christian principles and teachings, such as obedience, humility, spiritual guidance, collective correction & oversight, etc.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 07, 2009, 08:40:14 AM
"'There is an American Orthodox Church. Leave it alone.'"
Okie Dokie.
You're on your own.

No, he's not.
His Holiness Patriarch Kirill refers to the "demons of feeble impertinence" - taken to be an understated and oblique reference to the speech at Holy Cross of the Chief Secretary of the Sacred Synod.
Your Beatitude!

I sincerely welcome your visit to the St. Nicholas Cathedral of the Moscow Patriarchate in the city of New York, this memorable and holy place connected with the life and service of St. Tikhon.

Your first visit as head of the Orthodox Church in America to the Representation of the Moscow Patriarchate in the USA and to a parish of the Russian Orthodox Church comes during the week of the Cross, when the Honorable Cross stands before us for reverential worship and adoration. May the *invincible and inscrutable power of the honorable and life-giving Cross* strengthen the love between our Churches and overcome the *demons of feeble impertinence.*

Having passed over the course of Great Lent in peace, I wish you a joyous Pascha. I await the upcoming visit of Your Beatitude in Moscow.

With love in the Lord,
Kyrill
Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia  

[*Emphasis in original.]


Actually, the majority of the Orthodox in the world recognize him as autocephalous.  And since NO ONE buys the EP's interpretation on canon 28 of Chalcedon, even those in his own patriarchate, Met. Jonah a bit up on him on that.
The majority of Orthodox WHOM?  If you go by majority of Orthodox faithful, then you MIGHT have a valid point, since the Russian Orthodox Church appears to have more communicants than any other Orthodox jurisdiction in the world.  However, the Orthodox faithful really don't have much say in this matter.  However, if you go by majority of Orthodox primates, the heads of national/regional churches who actually have a say, then I think you're dead wrong.
The majority of communicants commemorate through their hiearchs Met. Jonah as autocephalous.

A plurality (6) of primates recognize Met. Jonah as autocephalous. 4 primates are "neutral," 5 against.  Those 9, however, don't have a consistent story amongst themselves: the four "neutrals" and 3 of the cons have/have had their own jurisdictions in the "barbarian lands" that the EP claims.  How much independent say 3 of the cons have is another question.

However, if you go by majority of Orthodox primates, the heads of national/regional churches who actually have a say, then I think you're dead wrong.

Recognise: Russia, Poland, Czech Lands ans Slovakia, Bulgaria
Opposed: Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Greece, Cyprus

The rest don't have any official statements. The numbers are equal.

Georgia is on the pro list.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: 88Devin12 on April 07, 2009, 08:44:12 AM
Either way, I'm done arguing, I've wasted an hour and a half of my time this morning fighting a fight that isn't mine to fight... It needs to be left to the hierarchs to fight this out. I need to focus on living my own life...
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ozgeorge on April 07, 2009, 08:45:17 AM
Spiffing.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Fr. George on April 07, 2009, 08:46:59 AM
Either way, I'm done arguing, I've wasted an hour and a half of my time this morning fighting a fight that isn't mine to fight... It needs to be left to the hierarchs to fight this out.

That, unfortunately, is possibly what we've all done here in these constant discussions on MP/EP/OCA/AOA/AP/GOC/TOC/etc..

I need to focus on living my own life...

And, thankfully, we all have the freedom to do that.  I hope the rest of Lent and Holy Week is a blessed one for you!
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ozgeorge on April 07, 2009, 08:49:31 AM
^Amen!
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 07, 2009, 09:10:35 AM
I was actually wondering if Met. Jonah would even be invited to the pan orthodox meeting in June anyway,

I doubt that his invitation got lost in the mail.  All that nonsense from the Chief Secretary over the EP's "concession" over autonmous Churches like Estonia indicates that.

Well firstly I don't think he was even sent an invitation, because he is not recognized as an autocephalous church in the dyptichs and etc.

In other words, the EP was stacking the deck with "foregone" conclusions.

Quote
Secondly, the concession was for the Moscow Patriarchate, not for the OCA, so not sure how that supports your statement here...
It's not a secret that the talk in Moscow was to bring the OCA: at the very least it is an autonomous part of the Russian Church, and if the EP insited that "Autonomous Churches will be invited," the OCA was going to be crashing the party.
 
since he is not recognized by the orthodox in the world as autocephalous.

Actually, the majority of the Orthodox in the world recognize him as autocephalous.  And since NO ONE buys the EP's interpretation on canon 28 of Chalcedon, even those in his own patriarchate, Met. Jonah a bit up on him on that. 

I was always under the impression that only a handful (at best) of the churches accepted the autocephaly.

Six.  That's one short of half.  And it represents about 3/4s of the Orthodox communicants in the world.

I'm not sure where that information would be, but it would be good if we got an official ruling on that one, since we've been throwing it around a lot. 

Actually if no one bought the interpretation why is everyone allowing him to utilize the interpretation?  Seems to be a mistake in logic here...

LOL.  Who let him utilize it?  Who, of the 4 who have taken no position against, and have jurisdictions in the New World, have sought recognition from the EP?  Especially that 3 (the 4th Romania, I am not sure of) it is admitted, got their start by breaking off from the Russian jurisdiction, which they acknowledged aforeto?  What of the 3 against, who set up their own parishes without approval from the EP?

Take the debate between Old and New Rome from the Second Ecumenical Council onwards.  Change Constantinople to "North America,"  change Constantinople to "Old Rome," change primacy/honor to "autocephaly."  Compare and laugh at how the EP's arguments against the OCA resemble the Ultramontanist arguments for the supremacy of the Pope of Old Rome.  Like the Met. said, if we wanted a "pope," we know where we could get the "real" one.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ozgeorge on April 07, 2009, 09:14:14 AM
That, unfortunately, is possibly what we've all done here in these constant discussions on MP/EP/OCA/AOA/AP/GOC/TOC/etc..

I wonder if Christ ever says this to the Theotokos in Heaven?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCvg5dMBqDE
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 07, 2009, 09:14:54 AM
Obviously the thought of a peaceful time of fasting is an alien concept to the hierarchy.

During this Fast we have had

1.  Antioch adopt a major and controversial change in Orthodox ecclesiology - trhe abolition of the diocesan episcopate.

2.  Constantinople throw a major challenge at the entire diaspora and insult the Primates of the OCA and the AOAA

3.  The OCA issue its own counter statement, itself massively controversial.

So, if you're experiencing an unsettled Lent because of these things, ask yourself who inflicted them on the Church at this holy time of the year.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Veniamin on April 07, 2009, 09:20:17 AM
Purple demons, of course.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 07, 2009, 09:27:30 AM
Purple demons, of course.

I've never been much for the "the Devil made me do it" affirmative defense.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Veniamin on April 07, 2009, 09:28:51 AM
Purple demons, of course.

I've never been much for the "the Devil made me do it" affirmative defense.

Better than the circular firing squad Irish Hermit was apparently trying to round up.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ozgeorge on April 07, 2009, 09:33:08 AM
Purple demons, of course.

I've never been much for the "the Devil made me do it" affirmative defense.

Don't let the demons fool you. The anger which should be directed at them they deflect towards people.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 07, 2009, 09:39:03 AM
Better than the circular firing squad Irish Hermit was apparently trying to round up.

If only!  ;D   During the course of this Fast the poor American Orthodox have had three major rockets fired at them.  That must be awfully unsettling for the Church in America.   This nobody Irish Hermit offers his prayers.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ozgeorge on April 07, 2009, 09:44:22 AM
Purple demons, of course.

Yup.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 07, 2009, 10:14:03 AM
Well, the gloves are off. Point and counterpoint have been made. I pray that any discussion on this forum will not degenerate into antagonisms. It is a given that some folks will disagree: I hope we will stay civil.

That said, I agree with Metropolitan Jonah. I also like that he made a point of conciliarity where the voices of the lower clergy and laity will not be suppressed or ignored (I am paraphrasing).

You know...I really don't think it's gona happen.  Until about now I was gona respond very angrily to what you had just said.  But you know what...it is better for us to have fruitful dialogue than angry dialogue. 

I think there are a lot of problems in this speach.  Many holes and improper statements. 
Name one.

Quote
"There are those there who say there was no canonical Orthodox Church in North America until 1924" until the Ecumenical Patriarchate established the Greek Orthodox Archidocese here, Jonah said.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/04/metropolitan-jonah-ecumenical.html

Who has said this?  I would call this an improper statement.

Who? Plenty.

It seems the GOA site is down, but I recollect that no mention of the Russian Synod appears in the "Our Faith/history" section.  Just the New Smyrna colony (not mentioning its priest was under orders from the Vatican) and the parish in New Orleans (not mentioning that its priest was a Ukrainian renegade expelled monk who quickly ran off to SF to harrass the Russian bishop, and picked up a wife).

Now, it's up but irratic.  I got this:
Quote
Our Church is called the "Greek Church" because Greek was the first language of the ancient Christian Church from which our Faith was transmitted. The New Testament was written in Greek and the early writings of Christ's followers were in the Greek language. The word "Greek" is not used to describe just the Orthodox Christian peoples of Greece and other Greek speaking people. Rather, it is used to describe the Christians who originated from the Greek speaking early Christian Church and which used Greek thought to find appropriate expressions of the Orthodox Faith.  "Orthodox" is also used to describe our Church. The word "Orthodox" is derived from two short Greek words, orthos, meaning correct, and doxa, meaning belief or glory. Thus, we used the word "Orthodox'' to indicate our conviction that we believe and worship God correctly. We emphasize Apostolic tradition, continuity and conservatism over a 2,000 year history....

....Before the establishment of an Archdiocese in the Western Hemisphere there were numerous communities of Greek Orthodox Christians. The first Greek Orthodox community in the Americas was founded in 1864 in New Orleans, LA by a small colony of Greek merchants. History also records that on June 26, 1768 the first Greek colonists landed at St.Augustine, FL, the oldest city in America. Today, the "Avero House" where these colonists worshipped has been fully restored and houses the St. Photios National Shrine, dedicated to all our ancestors who came to these shores as immigrants. It was not until just before the turn of the century that the first permanent community was founded in New York City in 1892, today's Archdiocesan Cathedral of the Holy Trinity and See of the Archbishop of America.

The establishment of Greek Orthodoxy in America began in the beginning of this century, coinciding with the acceleration of immigration from Greece.The pioneering of Greek Orthodoxy in America continued at an intensified rate throughout the first decades of the 20th Century,and by 1920 sixty percent of the present-day communities and their houses of worship were firmly founded.

The first Greek Orthodox parishes in North America were under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople which had over the centuries assumed responsibility for the diaspora communities and assigned to them their priests. In 1908, however, this jurisdiction was temporarily transferred to the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece. This arrangement was maintained until 1918, and during this period the communities remained without the necessary organization and without a responsible and authorized religious leader they so greatly needed.
http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8086

And then, of course, our dear Chief Secretary:
Quote
The same change can be of course observed in the case of Orthodoxy, whose appearance and development in America was influenced by certain indeterminable factors.

            The first and main challenge that American Orthodoxy faces is that it has been developed in a region which, from an administrative and technical point, is that of diaspora. By the term “diaspora” we indicate that region  whose ecclesiastical jurisdiction is been unfortunately claimed by a variety of “Mother” Churches, which wish to maintain their pastoral care over their respective flocks, comprised by the people who, over the years, immigrated to the superpower called USA.

            In this way, the Orthodox faithful in America became organized according to their national origin and not according to the canon law of the Orthodox Church—that is, they organized themselves not in accordance with the principles of Orthodox ecclesiology which dictates that neither national origin, nor the history of a group’s appearance in a particular region but rather the canonical taxis and the perennial praxis of the Church, as codified by the Ecumenical Councils, has the ultimate authority.

            According to such ecclesiological principles, in any given region there can be one and only one bishop who shepherds the Orthodox faithful, regardless of any nationalistic distinction. It was, however, the very opposite scenario that took place in America and today one observes the challenging deplorable condition where a number of bishops claim pastoral responsibility for the same geographic region.

The Holy Archdiocese of America under the Ecumenical Patriarchate is the most organized, well-structured and successful presence of Orthodoxy today. This is not accidental. This success was not achieved by foregoing its cultural identity. It was not achieved by ignoring the sacred canons and the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. It was not achieved by succumbing to the temptation of secularism. It was not achieved by imprisoning itself in the darkness of the extreme fundamentalism, nationalism and sterile denial.

            Precisely because the Holy Archdiocese of America occupies such an esteemed position in this country we are obliged to offer a self-criticism but also to defend ourselves against the unjust accusations that target this jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

First of all, allow me to remind you that the term “diaspora” is a technical term denoting those regions that lie beyond the borders of the local autocephalous Churches. It does not mean that the Orthodox people who dwell in these regions live there temporally, as misleadingly it was argued by His Eminence Phillip in a recent article (“The Word”). According to the 28th Canon of the 4th Ecumenical Council one of the prerogatives of the Ecumenical Patriarch is precisely His jurisdiction exactly over these regions, which lie beyond the predescribed borders of the local Churches. The canon in question uses the technical term “barbaric” in order to denote these lands, since it was precisely referring to the unknown lands beyond the orbit of the Roman Empire.

            On account of this canon, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has suffered the unfair and unjust criticism of two American Orthodox Hierarchs: Metropolitan Phillip and the newly elected Metropolitan Jonas.

            It is my duty to refute the injustice directed against the Mother Church of Constantinople for the sake of historical truth and for the sake of moral conscience.

Metropolitan Jonas, while he was still an abbot, in one of his speeches presented what he called “a monastic perspective” on the subject “Episcopacy, Primacy and the Mother Churches”. In the chapter on autocephaly and primacy he claims that “there is no effective overarching primacy in the Orthodox Church.” He seems to be in opposition to the institution of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, because he considers that such an institution “is based on primacy over an empire-wide synod” and that this “has long become unrealistic.” What surprised me the most in this “monastic perspective” of His Eminence Jonas was the claim that allegedly “now only the Greek ethnic Churches and few others recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate to be what it claims to be.” It is indeed saddening the ignorance of this Hierarch not only on account of History and canonical order but even on account of the current state of affairs. How is it possible that he ignores that there is no Church that does not recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate? Perhaps he is carried away by the fact that the ecclesial schema over which he presides and which has been claimed as “autocephalous” in rampant violation of every sense of canonicity, is not recognized but by few Churches and it is not included in the diptychs of the Church.

Let me add that the refusal to recognize primacy within the Orthodox Church, a primacy that necessarily cannot but be embodied by a primus (that is by a bishop who has the prerogative of being the first among his fellow bishops) constitutes nothing less than heresy. It cannot be accepted, as often it is said, that the unity among the Orthodox Churches is safeguarded by either a common norm of faith and worship or by the Ecumenical Council as an institution. Both of these factors are impersonal while in our Orthodox theology the principle of unity is always a person. Indeed, in the level of the Holy Trinity the principle of unity is not the divine essence but the Person of the Father (“Monarchy” of the Father), at the ecclesiological level of the local Church the principle of unity is not the presbyterium or the common worship of the Christians but the person of the Bishop, so to [sic] in the Pan-Orthodox level the principle of unity cannot be an idea nor an institution but it needs to be, if we are to be consistent with our theology, a person.

Based on the above distinction, and although he accepts that canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical Council is not “dead” (since there is so much debate about it), he affirms that indeed it gives certain prerogatives to the Ecumenical Patriarch, on the other hand, however, he claims that this happened for secular and political reasons that have nothing to do with today’s state of affairs. Implicitly and yet all too clearly, Metropolitan Phillip implies that the prerogatives of the Ecumenical Patriarch can be doubted. The question then is: does His Eminence know of any Church whose status (Patriarchal or Autocephalous) were not decided according to the historical conditions that they were current at the time? Or, does His Eminence know of any Church that has received its status on the basis of theological reasons exclusively? Every administrative decision of an Ecumenical Council is equally respected to perpetuity together with its dogmatic decisions. Imagine the consequences for the Orthodox Church if we begin to re-evalutate the status of each local Church!

            The correct interpretation of canon 28 is considered by His Eminence as “novelty”, by invoking only sources of the 20th century, while it has been scientifically established already by the late Metropolitan of Sardeis Maximos the uninterrupted application of the canon in question during the history of the Church of Constantinople.

The question, my brothers and sisters, is rather simple:

            If Constantinople was not given that prerogative by canon 28, how was she able to grant autocephalies and patriarchal dignities to the Churches of Russia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Czech Lands and Slovakia, Poland and Albania? Under the provision of which canon did Constantinople give the right of jurisdiction over the remaining of Africa to the Patriarchate of Alexandria in 2002?

3.   The submission of the diaspora to the Ecumenical Patriarchate does not mean either Hellenization or violation of the canonical order, because it is only in this way that both the letter and the spirit of the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils is respected. The Mother Church knows, however, that such a submission is difficult to be accomplished under the present historical conditions. For this reason, and by employing the principle of economy, it was suggested and it has now become accepted in Pan-Orthodox level, that there will be local Pan-Orthodox Episcopal Assemblies in the diaspora (like SCOBA in the US). The principle of presidency is followed, namely the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate presides over these Episcopal Assemblies in order to preserve the necessary element of canonicity.

4.   With regards to the United States, the submission to the First Throne of the Church, that is, to the Ecumenical Patriarchate is not only fitting with the American society and mentality but also it opens up the horizons of possibilities for this much-promising region, which is capable of becoming an example of Pan-Orthodox unity and witness.

The Mother Church of Constantinople safeguards for the Orthodox Church in America those provisions that are needed for further  progress and maturity in Christ.

  

Please allow me to conclude with the phrase of His Beatitude Ignatios Patriarch of Antioch during last October’s Synaxis of the Primates at the Phanar: “In the Orthodox Church we have one primus and he is the Patriarch of Constantinople.”


Reported on OrthodoxNews

Holy Cross Seminary has been in an uproar for the last few days. Below is a link to a speech given there on Monday:

Challenges of Orthodoxy in America And the Role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate
by Very Reverend Archimandrite Dr. Elpidophoros Lambriniadis
Chief Secretary of the Holy and Sacred Synod

Just scroll past the Greek and you will see the speech.
http://www.greekamericannewsagency.com/gana/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4771&Itemid=83



Although the magic date of 1924 doesn't appear, his beatitude's expression is more concise than going over 1768, 1864, 1892, 1908, 1918 (when Meletios first came, the first Greek bishop in North America) etc.

Quote
There are many other things that I saw as "back and forth" contradicting himself, etc.  I plan on listening to the whole thing again and writing it all out. 
Looking forward.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Fr. George on April 07, 2009, 10:21:58 AM
Better than the circular firing squad Irish Hermit was apparently trying to round up.

If only!  ;D   During the course of this Fast the poor American Orthodox have had three major rockets fired at them.  That must be awfully unsettling for the Church in America.   This nobody Irish Hermit offers his prayers.

Not rockets, Father, just flares.  We are free to ignore them and continue with our prayer, or we can fixate on them and neglect what is truly needed now.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 07, 2009, 10:27:20 AM

Not rockets, Father, just flares.  We are free to ignore them and continue with our prayer,

One hopes the prayers ar even more strong at this time of the year.

Ignoring these things, in particular the speech by the Secretary of the Sacred Synod and the Vespers homily by Metropolitan Jonah, may be an act of disobedience to the hierarchs.   Obviously both men want their message to get out to the faithful.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Orthodox11 on April 07, 2009, 10:31:03 AM
I'm only against being ruled by a power in a foreign country. I'm not against the country or the people itself. I recognize that we all have our own rich cultures and ethnicities. However, I also recognize that America is a union of all of them, and is a celebration of all of them while recognizing that in America, we are all one, and ruled by a (well, it's supposed to be) President that represents us all.
We are NOT ruled by any foreign leader that lives thousands of miles away in a country and culture vastly different from ours who doesn't understand the fundamentals and the essence of being American.

Why did America fight for it's independence in the first place? Because the British King was trying to impose his will upon the colonists here in America. They didn't want to be ruled by a guy that was several thousand miles away across an ocean. They had to fight long and hard for our independence, but they got it, an eventally, all peoples of America... Whether you were from Spain, Britain, France, Netherlands etc... eventually they all became American with independence and ruled by Congress and the President in Washington. With immigrants and natural borns, we all recognize that we are united as Americans. That is what our soldiers die for. That is what our citizens live for... That is the very core of being American... We gained our independence from these other countries, and (at least in the opinion of many) god-forbid if we are going to be ruled by them again.

But also... Remember, that although we fought for our independence over 200 years ago... We also fought to keep ourselves UNITED during our horrible Civil War... Both self rule and unity mean a lot to us... This goes for the Church to... It would be wonderful to be autocephalous, but we will also fight to stay unified with the whole Orthodox world.

Although I be willing to fight to stay self-ruled... I would have to confess that I would be willing to die for Christ and his whole Church. (not just the OCA)

This kind of phyletism is precisely what has caused such havoc all across the Orthodox world. The Church is beyond ethnicities and nation states.

I can understand the worries people might have about Hellenic, Slavic or Arab nationalism. It is a real problem. But to replace it with American, British, etc. nationalism is worse, not better.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ms.hoorah on April 07, 2009, 10:49:14 AM
HELP!  THE CHURCH BOAT IS SINKING!   
Please stop the entire "uncannonical church debate".   The secular humanists, pagans, and the spiritually lazy are dramatically
changing the USA. In the NE region of the USA, we are watching our beautiful Orthodox churches/cathedrals close at an alarming
rate while members are having the "uncannonical" debate.  We must combining the ethnic jurisdictions in the USA to preserve our ability to
find an OPEN Orthodox church where we can worship!  We MUST look at this situation as SURVIVAL!  Has anyone else counted the many
duplicated departments of our uncombined ethnic jurisdictions?  Let's combine resources and stay afloat!   
PRAY ABOUT KEEPING ORTHODOX CHURCHES OPEN!
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: 88Devin12 on April 07, 2009, 10:50:10 AM
I'm posting not as an argument atm, but simply as an explanation of where I come from...

I feel like because of the VAST differences between America and Europe, that it would be really hard for a European person to be able to relate to us and make good informed decisions about us. (and vice versa) Especially when that European person is under house arrest in an Islamic country.

My fears:
I fear that some want to Hellenize us, or make us more of a Byzantine/Greek culture.
I fear that the EP is doing this for monetary/political influence or gain.
I fear that if we go under the EP, that we will simply remain another "denomination" in America, and that we will have no real voice to raise.
I fear that it will seem to Americans that when the EP speaks, it's like the Pope speaking, and no one but Orthodox listen to him. If we had our own spiritual leader that can stand up and shout where we stand, I feel like it would be more likely for people here to listen.
I fear that the EP would be inaccessible to us and wouldn't be very active in the Orthodox Church as it exists in America.
I fear that the various other Orthodox traditions here would feel alienated because they would be forced to adopt traditions that aren't theirs.
I fear a loss of Slavic and Western Rite traditions in favor of Byzantine traditions (because all are wonderful and rich, not one should dominate) because we would suddenly be under the EP.
I fear that we would be associated too much with the Roman Catholic Church as the relations between the EP and the Pope continue to go on. (absolutely no RC-EO unity unless the RC reject everything that is unOrthodox)
I fear that we would become too foreign and too ethnic. Americans won't join a foreign or ethnic church.
I fear that ethnic emphasis will be encouraged and churches will become or remain as ethnically based as they are. (NO Ethnic Churches should exist)
I fear that we won't be able to combat the negative aspects of American culture as well as we would be able to with leaders that are not just cradles, but also converts, and those that have lived in the United States for most of their lives.
I fear that if a financial scandle or other heretical controversy occurs in the leadership, that the American Orthodox would lack the ability to stand up and say no, and be able to revolt/stand up against those who heretically misrepresent the Holy Church.
I fear that the churches of North America will cease to receive monetary support in the amount that they could receive with autocephaly, especially since we live in a country where there is no state religion and no monetary support from the gov't.

Those are simply my fears, and are not an argument against the EP, or even for it. I simply want to show WHY I feel as I do, and why I fear the OCA losing Autocephaly.

Are some of those fears valid? Or am I completely missing the mark? Are they accurate/innacurate? Am I simply misunderstanding the EP and the whole situation?
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 07, 2009, 11:15:21 AM


You forget, as someone posted a while ago, Met. Jonah was given words of encouragement from the big enchilada himself, Pat. Kyrill.
His Holiness Patriarch Kirill refers to the "demons of feeble impertinence" - taken to be an understated and oblique reference to the speech at Holy Cross of the Chief Secretary of the Sacred Synod.

I didn't forget anything.  I just hadn't read it.  Also, my first question is "who is taking it to be an understated and oblique reference to the speech"?  Are you making that inference?  Is Fr. Ambrose?  I'd be interested in knowing how we can infer such things without speaking to the Patriarch (Kyril) directly. 
Father has already answered this.  I'll just add that I have had it interpreted to me the same way from other sources.

They could say these things and very easily b/c now he has put them in a corner.  It's us vs. them.  Not what I would say is a good move by an "orthodox" hierarch.  He himself made excuses for himself, saying that he had never been in this position before.  Then how can you sit up there and pontificate.
Because someone else thinks he is supreme pontiff, and it's not the hierarch in Old Rome (we know him).  As Met. Jonah said, if we wanted Ultramontanism, we should take it straight (paraphrased).

Care to substantiate that?  When has Patriarch Bartholomew said that he is the supreme pontif?

Look at the statements above by his Chief Secretary, repeating the references to "protos," "famous 28th canon," and "First Throne" that we are all familiar with.

He said that we don't have a pope and we don't need a pope under islamic rule...well...how about one from american liberalist democracy? 

Oh, please.  Been to Athens lately?  The GOA owes its existence to Bp. Arbp. EP Pope Meletius acting as chaplain for "liberal democracy."

I've actually lived in athens.  How much time have you spent there?

About a couple weeks, I usually get out as soon as possible.  Just so much pornography, socialists, secular progressives and neo-paganism I can take.  I prefer Thessalonika.

Quote
I wouldn't call him a pope unless that was his actual title.  Otherwise that's just plain old slander.


Walks like a duck.....

Likes Pope St. Gregory's uproar over the title "Ecumenical Patriarch."  Btw, EP Bartheomew has stated several times with the battle with the Turks that the title EP is of ecclesiastical/religious origin.  It's not.  Ecumenical was the Emperor's term for "imperial."

Quote
And in terms of him being a chaplain of liberal democracy...well if you don't like it when he did it (which i'm not saying is true,

It is quite true: Bishop Meletios had been expelled from the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, and became Archbishop of Athens to support his uncle, Venizelos and his agenda.  When Venizelos was expelled from Greece, Arch Meletios fled to the U.S., where he continued the support for Venizelos:

Quote
Let us tell you a little bit about the history of the Annunciation Cathedral community. St. Sophia, precursor to the Annunciation Cathedral, came into being June 1921, when the parishioners of the Holy Trinity Church, sympathetic to Greek Prime Minister Eleftherios Venizelos, established a second Greek Orthodox community in San Francisco. Land was acquired at Hayes and Pierce streets, all of the lots facing Pierce street from Hayes to Fell streets, for the purpose of building a Cathedral and an adjoining school and orphanage. Ground was broken June 1921, with a ceremony where His Eminence Metropolitan Meletios Metaxakis, Archbishop of Athens, laid the cornerstone of the cathedral.
http://www.annunciation.org/history.html

At that time, SF had a cathedral founded over six decades earlier, which had served as the Primate's See for North America for three decades.

Quote
but for the sake of the argument), then you'll hate it when Met. Jonah does it.  Doesn't seem like that's happening... ;)

The main thrust of the Metropolitan's speech stems from the canonical order the Russians established in North America, and its progress.  And that it was NOT founded in "diaspora,"  did NOT develop in "diaspora," and was groomed for autocephaly NOT in "diaspora."


Quote
Anyway...maybe it's not the right time for this.

That's like saying it's not the time to have a kid when he is already born.


Quote
Did he think of that?  Did he just go out there and do what he wanted?

He was attacted by name and quote in the context of a speech that referenced the EP's convening of that great council, which the EP seems to expect to act as his rubber stamp, to decided the fate of the "Diaspora."  Spin of such speech tried to make the exclusion of the OCA, whose canonical territory in on the chopping block, as a "concession" by the EP.

 

 
A lot of questions my friend...a lot of questions. 

All answered: the Orthodox Church in America is a FACT.

And the orthodox church in america can do nothing by itself, as is proven by this rash and brazen speech which burns bridges with those who brought orthodoxy to america in the first place.

To quote his beatitude, "excuse me?"

Met. Jonah stands in the direct line of those who brought Orthodoxy to America as their successor.  Not EP Bartholomew.

Quote
If this is what the Orthodox Church in America wants as its MO

You mean canonical Orthodoxy in North America?  You bet.

Quote
...I certianly hope all the other churches break communion.


As Met. Jonah pointed out, only "only the Greek ethnic Churches and few others recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate['s....] claims."

That would be unfortunate.  The EP tried that when Autocephaly was given.  Arb. Iakovos of blessed memory refused to enforce it.  As we all know, the EP made sure that wouldn't be repeated.

Quote
What do you think this will accomplish?


I don't know.  You are the one suggesting it.

Quote
Wasn't Met. Jonah going to be the great healer?  This is not healing, this is pouring salt on the wound.  


No, it is balm for the bites of the Chief Secretary.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 07, 2009, 11:21:40 AM

Not rockets, Father, just flares.  We are free to ignore them and continue with our prayer,

One hopes the prayers ar even more strong at this time of the year.

Ignoring these things, in particular the speech by the Secretary of the Sacred Synod and the Vespers homily by Metropolitan Jonah, may be an act of disobedience to the hierarchs.   Obviously both men want their message to get out to the faithful.

Not only that, but since Antioch has decided to have its talk during bright week and the EP his on the heels of Pentacost, the clock is ticking.

Some would like us to look the other way as deals are struck....
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Seraphim98 on April 07, 2009, 11:26:29 AM
I don't post much on this forum...just read mostly. But I must admit I find some of the more negative reactions to Metropolitan Jonah's remarks both intriguing and puzzling.  To me it was an iconic moment like the raising of the flag on Iwo Jima.  A battle has been raging, but suddenly a sign of determination and hope heaved up for all to see.

My reaction, and the reaction of OCA members and clergy that I know have been very enthusiastic.  This is what that sermon meant to me. For many years long before I even knew about Orthodoxy the Orthodox Church in American, regardless of jurisidiction has had troubles, overseas manipulations, the chaos that arose in the aftermath of communism, and apparently in the OCA weak/corrupt leadership from her leading heirarchs.  And given those troubles and this history the OCA has not gotten the recognition or respect from other Orthodox bodies that otherwise likely would have been given sooner or later.  The OCA was struggling, and in some was still is, but now we struggle with hope. There's light at the end of tunnel, and we can take courage to build and to grow. God took pity on us and gave us a new Metropolitan who was not willing to play footsy with corruption and fiscal irresponsibility, and who for once was willing to speak plainly, directly without a gordian knot of byzantine circumlocutions and verbal slight of hand. Frankly, it is a trait to which Americans...at least this American responds well.

So we have our Metropolitan whom we regard quite literally in pretty much every sense of the word as a God send, the Holy Spirit's unequivocably clear choice for us as our leader out of this past morrase. Then comes all the recent trouble in the Antiochian Archdiocese, and many many OCA and AOCA parishes and priests have very close friendships and seeing the pain and confusion they are suffering now because of recent decisions here and abroad arouse our sympathies, remind us of our own recent difficulties from which we are just now trying to emerge. On top of that the Ecumenical Patriarch sends a representative who seems intent on insulting our Jurisdiction, our Metropolitian, the work of Elder Ephraim who is himself Greek, converts, the Antiochian work here, and a with them a huge part, the liveliest part of American Orthodoxy and enough was enough. The Metropolitan of the OCA stood up for us, not just the OCA, but for all Orthodox in America and said "Enough!" to all those in the Old World who think they can still play the same old games with the faithful here.

Nor do I think he stands alone. As noted, Metropolitan Kyrill has given Metropolitan Jonah encouragement, and I would suspect some counsel as well  in how to deal with challenges being made by Constantinople. There was just something in the tone of the sermon in light of Metropolitan's Jonah's relationship with Valaam and with the spiritual father of his own spiritual father Meteropolitan Kyrill that suggests when he told Old World leaders to leave the American Church alone he wasn't speaking about the MP. Indeed I rather think Metropolitan Kyrill is his ally in this. I certainly hope so.

Perhaps, his sermon could have been a little less blunt...but I'm not sad that it wasn't. It spoke directly to all the pain, all the frustrations that so many North American Orthodox have known, some more pointedly so in recent weeks, and it spoke with hope and determination in the midst of that pain and frustration felt by those in and outside the OCA.

To put it in school yard terms he comes across like the kid who steps up out of nowhere to stand between a bully and his victim. Maybe other see the current situation differently, respond to it differently, but that's them.

As for me...and pardon me if I speak a little Greek, the word that keeps tumbling about in my heart with respect to Metropolitan Jonah is Axios, Axios, Axios.

May all the Saints of North American, pray for us and for our hierarchs, people, and monastics that our irregularities, divisions, and sorrows may be healed. And may it please God that our parishes, monasteries, clergy, and their witness flourish and shine like a city set on a hill.

Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 07, 2009, 11:38:55 AM
Quote
fear a loss of Slavic and Western Rite traditions in favor of Byzantine traditions (because all are wonderful and rich, not one should dominate) because we would suddenly be under the EP.

The Slavic churches in this country under the care of the EP have had their traditions protected, ironically as it so happens from the Metropolia/OCA.  I feel like my diocese has been incredibly fiscally responsible and open, again ironically unlike the OCA.

I'm glad Metropolitan Jonah has woken up to the problem of uncanonical situations, foreign domination and the need for local language.  Hopefully that is a message he will take back to Moscow vis-a-vis Ukraine.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: 88Devin12 on April 07, 2009, 11:41:56 AM
AMM, the Metropolia is dead...
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 07, 2009, 11:47:43 AM
Yes, the comments reflect what was the Metropolia that later became the OCA.  Constantinople protected us from what would have happened through absorption in to it.  Whether that would have been Russification, the calender or the recent financial issues.

Thank God for the protection of Constantinople.  That is something we pray about.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: 88Devin12 on April 07, 2009, 11:49:53 AM
Quit trying to drag me into an argument again...
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 07, 2009, 12:21:02 PM
I don't post much on this forum...just read mostly. But I must admit I find some of the more negative reactions to Metropolitan Jonah's remarks both intriguing and puzzling.  To me it was an iconic moment like the raising of the flag on Iwo Jima.  

Raised by an CarpathoRussian American, btw:Michael Strank


Quote
A battle has been raging, but suddenly a sign of determination and hope heaved up for all to see.

My reaction, and the reaction of OCA members and clergy that I know have been very enthusiastic.  This is what that sermon meant to me. For many years long before I even knew about Orthodoxy the Orthodox Church in American, regardless of jurisidiction has had troubles, overseas manipulations, the chaos that arose in the aftermath of communism, and apparently in the OCA weak/corrupt leadership from her leading heirarchs.  And given those troubles and this history the OCA has not gotten the recognition or respect from other Orthodox bodies that otherwise likely would have been given sooner or later.  The OCA was struggling, and in some was still is, but now we struggle with hope. There's light at the end of tunnel, and we can take courage to build and to grow. God took pity on us and gave us a new Metropolitan who was not willing to play footsy with corruption and fiscal irresponsibility, and who for once was willing to speak plainly, directly without a gordian knot of byzantine circumlocutions and verbal slight of hand. Frankly, it is a trait to which Americans...at least this American responds well.

Yes, there is a new kid in town.  A worthy successor to SS. Met. Innoncent and Pat. Tikhon of Moscow on North America's throne. Axios!

As was told to St. Tikhon, on arrival to America, can be said to his worthy successor Met. Jonah:
Quote
You have now put your episcopal hand on the rudder ... O Master! There are many wild branches in the vineyard which the Lord has made your lot: childish whims and the stubborness of human hearts -- and the whims of children who lack their father's kindness ... Fatithlessness preys on the people's hearts here; our brothers, secluded by the heterodox milieu and oppressed by need, have fallen here, members of the holy Church. The Uniate hosts are blinded and scorn truth and veracity; for them, Orthodoxy is hateful! ... And in Alaska, there are the fervent tears of the unfairly-treated Orthodox sons of our Church! ... A difficult and sorrowful path, but is it not with such that the battle you will get your satisfaction? The Lord, who cares for all will not leave your zeal, love, cares in vain, but will allow us to see the moment when your flock will, in retun, for the care you show it, call your name blessed. Then the Lord who cares for all will accept their prayers, and, in return for the moments and spiritual difficulties and physical ills, will crown you with a heavenly reward ... where the labors are great, the crown is great too! May the Lord give you strength in this new apostolic labor!
http://www.antiochian.org/Bishops/tikhon.htm

To paraphrase Pres. Ford, our long ecclesiastical nightmare is over.

Quote
So we have our Metropolitan whom we regard quite literally in pretty much every sense of the word as a God send, the Holy Spirit's unequivocably clear choice for us as our leader out of this past morrase. Then comes all the recent trouble in the Antiochian Archdiocese, and many many OCA and AOCA parishes and priests have very close friendships and seeing the pain and confusion they are suffering now because of recent decisions here and abroad arouse our sympathies, remind us of our own recent difficulties from which we are just now trying to emerge. On top of that the Ecumenical Patriarch sends a representative who seems intent on insulting our Jurisdiction, our Metropolitian, the work of Elder Ephraim who is himself Greek, converts, the Antiochian work here, and a with them a huge part, the liveliest part of American Orthodoxy and enough was enough. The Metropolitan of the OCA stood up for us, not just the OCA, but for all Orthodox in America and said "Enough!" to all those in the Old World who think they can still play the same old games with the faithful here.


Apt summary.

Quote
Nor do I think he stands alone. As noted, Metropolitan Kyrill has given Metropolitan Jonah encouragement, and I would suspect some counsel as well  in how to deal with challenges being made by Constantinople. There was just something in the tone of the sermon in light of Metropolitan's Jonah's relationship with Valaam and with the spiritual father of his own spiritual father Meteropolitan Kyrill that suggests when he told Old World leaders to leave the American Church alone he wasn't speaking about the MP. Indeed I rather think Metropolitan Kyrill is his ally in this. I certainly hope so.

Perhaps, his sermon could have been a little less blunt...but I'm not sad that it wasn't. It spoke directly to all the pain, all the frustrations that so many North American Orthodox have known, some more pointedly so in recent weeks, and it spoke with hope and determination in the midst of that pain and frustration felt by those in and outside the OCA.


Ligonier is not dead.

Quote
To put it in school yard terms he comes across like the kid who steps up out of nowhere to stand between a bully and his victim. Maybe other see the current situation differently, respond to it differently, but that's them.

As for me...and pardon me if I speak a little Greek, the word that keeps tumbling about in my heart with respect to Metropolitan Jonah is Axios, Axios, Axios.

May all the Saints of North American, pray for us and for our hierarchs, people, and monastics that our irregularities, divisions, and sorrows may be healed. And may it please God that our parishes, monasteries, clergy, and their witness flourish and shine like a city set on a hill.

How Reaganesque.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 07, 2009, 12:39:12 PM
Yes, the comments reflect what was the Metropolia that later became the OCA.  Constantinople protected us from what would have happened through absorption in to it.  Whether that would have been Russification, the calender or the recent financial issues.

Thank God for the protection of Constantinople.  That is something we pray about.

Let no one be deceived: if ACROD wasn't the stick in the eye of the Metropolia, the Slavs would have been Hellenized and put on the New Calendar, just as the EP did with the Slavs in Northern Greece.

And we aren't suggesting that GOA hasn't had financial issues, are we? ::)
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on April 07, 2009, 12:39:23 PM
OK, after reading this thread I need something clarified.  I have always had trouble understanding all of the conflict over this issue, because I assumed that even if all the jurisdictions did unite under the Oecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, then at some point after the churches became fully integrated he and the rest of the Orthodox Churches would grant us our own autocephany.

Is this not the case?  Does his all holiness wish to consolidate us beneath his wing, and then keep us there forever; permanently?  So the Orthodox churches of America would always commemorate his all holiness without hope of having their own Patriarch someday?

If this is the case, I can see why this is so controversial.  If his all holiness intends to permanently be the presiding Patriarch of all the world outside of the old world jurisdictions, well I do not even know what to make of that...
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Fr. George on April 07, 2009, 12:44:21 PM
OK, after reading this thread I need something clarified.  I have always had trouble understanding all of the conflict over this issue, because I assumed that even if all the jurisdictions did unite under the Oecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, then at some point after the churches became fully integrated he and the rest of the Orthodox Churches would grant us our own autocephany.

This has been the pattern.

Is this not the case?  Does his all holiness wish to consolidate us beneath his wing, and then keep us there forever; permanently?  So the Orthodox churches of America would always commemorate his all holiness without hope of having their own Patriarch someday?

There is no foundation to this fear. If it were to happen as people fear, though, would that make us any less Christ's church?

If this is the case, I can see why this is so controversial.  If his all holiness intends to permanently be the presiding Patriarch of all the world outside of the old world jurisdictions, well I do not even know what to make of that...

This is what gets us into trouble: baseless speculation.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 07, 2009, 12:45:06 PM
OK, after reading this thread I need something clarified.  I have always had trouble understanding all of the conflict over this issue, because I assumed that even if all the jurisdictions did unite under the Oecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, then at some point after the churches became fully integrated he and the rest of the Orthodox Churches would grant us our own autocephany.

Is this not the case?  Does his all holiness wish to consolidate us beneath his wing, and then keep us there forever; permanently?  So the Orthodox churches of America would always commemorate his all holiness without hope of having their own Patriarch someday?

If this is the case, I can see why this is so controversial.  If his all holiness intends to permanently be the presiding Patriarch of all the world outside of the old world jurisdictions, well I do not even know what to make of that...

Yes, you do:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/Emblem_of_the_Papacy_SE.svg/180px-Emblem_of_the_Papacy_SE.svg.png)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/Emblem_of_the_Papacy_SE.svg/180px-Emblem_of_the_Papacy_SE.svg.png
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Fr. George on April 07, 2009, 12:47:02 PM
Yes, you do:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/81/Emblem_of_the_Papacy_SE.svg/180px-Emblem_of_the_Papacy_SE.svg.png)

Sometimes you make great posts.  Sometimes you go trolling.  You should let us know which Isa we're going to experience at the beginning of the day, by PM or something, so we know whether or not we should read 'em.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 07, 2009, 12:57:42 PM
OK, after reading this thread I need something clarified.  I have always had trouble understanding all of the conflict over this issue, because I assumed that even if all the jurisdictions did unite under the Oecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, then at some point after the churches became fully integrated he and the rest of the Orthodox Churches would grant us our own autocephany.

This has been the pattern.

Actually, no.  The pattern has been events necessitate autocephaly, it is proclaimed, and the EP gets around eventually, kicking and screaming, to recognize it.

Is this not the case?  Does his all holiness wish to consolidate us beneath his wing, and then keep us there forever; permanently?  So the Orthodox churches of America would always commemorate his all holiness without hope of having their own Patriarch someday?

There is no foundation to this fear.
Oh?
(http://www.spyridon.org/spyridon.jpg)
http://www.spyridon.org/

There isn't a hint of autocephaly in the Chief Secretary's speech.  Ever.

Quote
If it were to happen as people fear, though, would that make us any less Christ's church?

Since it would make us imitation Ultramontanists, yes.

If this is the case, I can see why this is so controversial.  If his all holiness intends to permanently be the presiding Patriarch of all the world outside of the old world jurisdictions, well I do not even know what to make of that...

Quote
This is what gets us into trouble: baseless speculation.
Ligonier, '94
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligonier_Meeting
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Fr. George on April 07, 2009, 01:09:44 PM
Actually, no.  The pattern has been events necessitate autocephaly, it is proclaimed, and the EP gets around eventually, kicking and screaming, to recognize it.

Uh-huh.. kicking and screaming... in a constructed fantasy-world.

Oh?
(http://www.spyridon.org/spyridon.jpg)
http://www.spyridon.org/

Non-sequitur, unless you've got some beef to add to that diet-argument.

There isn't a hint of autocephaly in the Chief Secretary's speech.  Ever.

It wasn't the subject of the speech.

Since it would make us imitation Ultramontanists, yes.

Trolling doesn't become you.  You're much better than that.

Ligonier, '94
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligonier_Meeting

Oh, yeah, because we were so mature in 1994 that if he hadn't objected things would have been fine... Forget that the OCA was at the time still on its first of 2 consecutive corrupt Metropolitans, and Metropolitan PHILIP, despite the rhetoric, has apparently shown a desire to consolidate power, which would have still been present in an American Church in which he would have been the second senior hierarch (after +IAKOVOS).  In hindsight, the delay in implementing Ligionier has been a God-sent blessing.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: serb1389 on April 07, 2009, 01:11:40 PM
I finished my transposition of the speech onto "paper".  I hope you all find it accurate.  I'm sorry if this is not allowed by the forum.  I'm always a little hazy on attachments and such...
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 07, 2009, 01:12:42 PM
The Russian Orthodox Church has over 190 MILLION members. How many members do all the other jurisdictions have that do not support the OCA? All the jurisdictions that do not support us amount to about 5 million members. Unless you include Serbia and others into that non-supportive group, then it would be about 35 million.

Still though, 190 million vs. 35 million. That is 84% of Orthodox Christians in the world.

Of course, we cannot say that 100% of the Russian Orthodox Christians support the OCA, but still, the amount of support from the Russian Orthodox Church probably does not go as low as only 60% (which if you removed 40% of support from Russian Orthodox Church, support would be split 50/50 in the Orthodox world)


The majority of communicants commemorate through their hiearchs Met. Jonah as autocephalous.

You two do realize that the Church is not a democracy, that she is therefore not governed by majority rule?  So you two seem to think that just because the "majority" of the Orthodox world recognizes our autocephaly, the churches that don't are wrong?  Sorry, bubs, but it just doesn't work that way.  Yes, I'm disappointed that a large number of the ancient patriarchates don't recognize the autocephaly of my church, but their refusal to recognize us is a serious issue that needs to be respected and resolved canonically.  Maybe these ancient patriarchates are right, and we need to take their concerns seriously.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 07, 2009, 01:14:40 PM
Better than the circular firing squad Irish Hermit was apparently trying to round up.

If only!  ;D   During the course of this Fast the poor American Orthodox have had three major rockets fired at them.  That must be awfully unsettling for the Church in America.   This nobody Irish Hermit offers his prayers.
Do you know what water does when it hits a duck's back?
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Fr. George on April 07, 2009, 01:21:05 PM
I finished my transposition of the speech onto "paper".  I hope you all find it accurate.  I'm sorry if this is not allowed by the forum.  I'm always a little hazy on attachments and such...

Is this a theological presentation, or a pub speech in 1770's Boston?  He could have made a more convincing argument to support his point, but he blew it, and with it, IMO, a bit of his credibility.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Starlight on April 07, 2009, 01:23:01 PM
As it has been already pointed out, all this attack happened as a sermon. Very sad!

It is also very sad and unfortunate that during the recent election, eloquence of Metropolitan Jonah dominated over many years of dedicated service, proven missionary outreach and excellent administrative experience of His Eminence Archbishop Job (Osacky) or, actually any other Hierarch of OCA.

If Archbishop Job were the Metropolitan of OCA now, the process of Orthodox unity in USA would speed up without any controversial issues on its way.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: username! on April 07, 2009, 01:25:39 PM
Quit trying to drag me into an argument again...

If you can't stand the heat then don't get in the debate... or rather focus on being a catechumen and preparing to become a member of the church instead.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 07, 2009, 01:28:23 PM
As it has been already pointed out, all this attack happened as a sermon. Very sad!

It is also very sad and unfortunate that during the recent election, eloquence of Metropolitan Jonah dominated over many years of dedicated service, proven missionary outreach and excellent administrative experience of His Eminence Archbishop Job (Osacky) or, actually any other Hierarch of OCA.

If Archbishop Job were the Metropolitan of OCA now, the process of Orthodox unity in USA would speed up without any controversial issues on its way.
Archbishop Job had already announced his intent to retire in the near future, so I doubt he would have accepted the office if he was elected.

Besides, how do you know that the process of Orthodox unity in USA would proceed without any speed bumps with Archbishop Job at the helm of the OCA?  We can talk about "what if this had happened instead of that," but this doesn't address the reality we now face:  His Beatitude Jonah is now our Metropolitan.

Are you not also aware that even the perfect person for the job is still not immune to making mistakes that my set his vision back a few years?  (not to imply that Met. Jonah has actually done this)
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Schultz on April 07, 2009, 01:33:32 PM
As it has been already pointed out, all this attack happened as a sermon. Very sad!

It is also very sad and unfortunate that during the recent election, eloquence of Metropolitan Jonah dominated over many years of dedicated service, proven missionary outreach and excellent administrative experience of His Eminence Archbishop Job (Osacky) or, actually any other Hierarch of OCA.

If Archbishop Job were the Metropolitan of OCA now, the process of Orthodox unity in USA would speed up without any controversial issues on its way.

IIRC, Bishop Job repeatedly said he didn't want the job. 
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 07, 2009, 01:34:05 PM
The Russian Orthodox Church has over 190 MILLION members. How many members do all the other jurisdictions have that do not support the OCA? All the jurisdictions that do not support us amount to about 5 million members. Unless you include Serbia and others into that non-supportive group, then it would be about 35 million.

Still though, 190 million vs. 35 million. That is 84% of Orthodox Christians in the world.

Of course, we cannot say that 100% of the Russian Orthodox Christians support the OCA, but still, the amount of support from the Russian Orthodox Church probably does not go as low as only 60% (which if you removed 40% of support from Russian Orthodox Church, support would be split 50/50 in the Orthodox world)


The majority of communicants commemorate through their hiearchs Met. Jonah as autocephalous.

You two do realize that the Church is not a democracy,

No, she is an absolute monarchy.  The EP, however, is not said monarch.

Quote
that she is therefore not governed by majority rule?

I've never been one for popular sovereignty.  Just ask Greeki.

Quote
 So you two seem to think that just because the "majority" of the Orthodox world recognizes our autocephaly, the churches that don't are wrong?
No, they are wrong because their arguments don't hold water.

Quote
 Sorry, bubs, but it just doesn't work that way.  
Indeed, it doesn't.

Maybe the Chief Secretary should know that:
Quote
Perhaps he [Met. Jonah, excuse Jonas ::)]  is carried away by the fact that the ecclesial schema over which he presides and which has been claimed as “autocephalous” in rampant violation of every sense of canonicity, is not recognized but by few [/b] Churches

Quote
Yes, I'm disappointed that a large number of the ancient patriarchates don't recognize the autocephaly of my church, but their refusal to recognize us is a serious issue that needs to be respected and resolved canonically.  Maybe these ancient patriarchates are right, and we need to take their concerns seriously.

Actually, no.  Do as I say, not as I do, is not an argument worthy of respect.

The Patriarchates of the Balkans know their own history, and the similarity of their own problems with the Phanar to those of Met. Jonah.  The Chief Secretary seems to be ignorant of these matters.

Alexandria seems to have had its jurisdiction problems solved by the same man who created America's.  Her history in "All of Africa" resembles that of Russia in America, and hence the OCA.  Alexandria has also, in contradiction to the EP's claims, founded parishes in the Americas, especially amongst Afro-Americans.

Antioch fully admits that her jurisidction in the Americas was fully under that of Moscows.  The Antiochians broke off of the Russian North American Diocese (same for the Serbs, Albanians, etc.).

Jerusalem, seeing what she is doing to her own Faithful....in addition to setting up her own organization in the New World, again....

Georgia already recognizes the OCA.

That leaves Cyprus.  And maybe Sinai.

As for New Rome, how she can make her arguments with a straight face, given her arguments to Old Rome, I cannot fathom.

As it has been already pointed out, all this attack happened as a sermon. Very sad!

It is also very sad and unfortunate that during the recent election, eloquence of Metropolitan Jonah dominated over many years of dedicated service, proven missionary outreach and excellent administrative experience of His Eminence Archbishop Job (Osacky) or, actually any other Hierarch of OCA.

If Archbishop Job were the Metropolitan of OCA now, the process of Orthodox unity in USA would speed up without any controversial issues on its way.

IIRC, Bishop Job repeatedly said he didn't want the job. 



I happen to know his grace personally, having converted in the same parish as he (btw, VERY CarpatoRussian, as is his grace), and many of his circle.  He was adament he did not want the job, that he needed retirement (his health is not excellent).  He did want to make sure that beforehand the ship of Church got back on course.  She has.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 07, 2009, 01:39:03 PM
I finished my transposition of the speech onto "paper".  I hope you all find it accurate.  I'm sorry if this is not allowed by the forum.  I'm always a little hazy on attachments and such...

Is this a theological presentation, or a pub speech in 1770's Boston? 
Btw, the Declaration of Independence was written in a pub.  What do you have against pubs?

Quote
He could have made a more convincing argument to support his point, but he blew it, and with it, IMO, a bit of his credibility.

Then perhaps you can take advantage of Serb's hard labor, down load the text, and show us where it is "wanting."


Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 07, 2009, 01:43:05 PM
Quit trying to drag me into an argument again...

If you can't stand the heat then don't get in the debate... or rather focus on being a catechumen and preparing to become a member of the church instead.

LOL.  After all, see what you have to look forward to?
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 07, 2009, 01:43:32 PM
Quote
 So you two seem to think that just because the "majority" of the Orthodox world recognizes our autocephaly, the churches that don't are wrong?
No, they are wrong because their arguments don't hold water.
Sorry, bud, but that wasn't part of the appeal to majority that you and Devin originally advanced as an argument for why the non-recognizing patriarchates are wrong.  My assertion is not that the EP and those who take his side are right; rather, I'm asserting that your appeal to the majority does not work in proving your point.  You two need to therefore scrap that argument.

IOW, your argument from the majority doesn't hold water.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 07, 2009, 01:45:28 PM
Is this a theological presentation, or a pub speech in 1770's Boston? 
Btw, the Declaration of Independence was written in a pub.  What do you have against pubs?
But the Declaration of Independence was not meant to be a theological presentation, nor does it have any real bearing on our understanding of the Church.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on April 07, 2009, 01:54:30 PM
I don't care how we are unified, as long as we gave our own American Church that is self-governing.  I don't care about the arguments about who "got here first", who's authority is the "mostest canonical", and whatever else.  Everybody needs to grow up and work out something that will bring us all together in a way that will give us a unified voice in America.  Nobody in this country is going to take us seriously until we are visibly and governmentally unified, not only "mystically" unified.  Americans will actually take note of us if we have an American Orthodox Church.

Actually, I'm not even a part of the church yet, so my opinions do not count!  Give me six more months and then I'll start contributing opinions!  ;D
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Tamara on April 07, 2009, 02:03:39 PM
Axios, Mustahek, he is worthy!

It is almost spine tingling to watch the will of God at work. First, God cleans up the OCA and removes all the unworthy hierarchs. Then, out of no where, He presents Abbot Jonah, to the OCA. He is elected and immediately begins to go to work.
Then the Antiochian Archdiocese finds itself in turmoil due to the patriarchate's decree. This event gives pause to all the Antiochians here to see how easily the church in Damascus can have direct control over our local church here.
Somehow, these events will hopefully lead to the Antiochians joining the OCA but how that will happen is yet to be seen.

+ St. Tikhon and St. Raphael, pray for us your children of North America! Show us the way! +
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 07, 2009, 02:05:28 PM
Americans will actually take note of us if we have an American Orthodox Church.
The cynic in me says, "NAH!  We'll still be far too small a percentage of the American population for anyone to take note of us."  For Americans to notice us, our Church (all jurisdictions combined) needs to grow to much larger size than it is now.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Fr. George on April 07, 2009, 02:06:21 PM
Is this a theological presentation, or a pub speech in 1770's Boston? 
Btw, the Declaration of Independence was written in a pub.  What do you have against pubs?
But the Declaration of Independence was not meant to be a theological presentation, nor does it have any real bearing on our understanding of the Church.

You beat me to it.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: orthodoxlurker on April 07, 2009, 02:09:08 PM
AXIOS!

Many years!
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 07, 2009, 02:15:45 PM
Let no one be deceived: if ACROD wasn't the stick in the eye of the Metropolia, the Slavs would have been Hellenized and put on the New Calendar, just as the EP did with the Slavs in Northern Greece.

And if they were in the OCA, Russified and put on the New Calendar?  Let no one be deceived on that account.

The UOC-USA and ACROD have had their traditions protected by being under the Omophorion of Constantinople.

Quote
And we aren't suggesting that GOA hasn't had financial issues, are we? ::)

No, I said nothing of the sort.  I said we haven't had the troubles that we would have if we were in the OCA.  That is a simple statement of fact.  The OCA has had financial issues and it isn't under Constantinople, maybe the GOA has and they are.  The common denominator there isn't Constantinople.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Fr. George on April 07, 2009, 02:21:31 PM
As it has been already pointed out, all this attack happened as a sermon. Very sad!

It is also very sad and unfortunate that during the recent election, eloquence of Metropolitan Jonah dominated over many years of dedicated service, proven missionary outreach and excellent administrative experience of His Eminence Archbishop Job (Osacky) or, actually any other Hierarch of OCA.

If Archbishop Job were the Metropolitan of OCA now, the process of Orthodox unity in USA would speed up without any controversial issues on its way.

IIRC, Bishop Job repeatedly said he didn't want the job.  

That's the impression I got, too.  That and, as PetertheAleut mentioned, +JOB's retirement was a well-known factor at the time of the election.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 07, 2009, 02:21:50 PM
Quote
 So you two seem to think that just because the "majority" of the Orthodox world recognizes our autocephaly, the churches that don't are wrong?
No, they are wrong because their arguments don't hold water.
Sorry, bud, but that wasn't part of the appeal to majority that you and Devin originally advanced as an argument for why the non-recognizing patriarchates are wrong.  My assertion is not that the EP and those who take his side are right; rather, I'm asserting that your appeal to the majority does not work in proving your point.  You two need to therefore scrap that argument.

It wasn't to make an argument it was to scrap one.
As for your second point, Fr. Elpidoforos was at the school only for a week.  He then returned to Constantinople.  If Fr. Ephraim wants to visit there, or if Met. Jonah wants to visit there, they are more than welcome to.  

I was actually wondering if Met. Jonah would even be invited to the pan orthodox meeting in June anyway, since he is not recognized by the orthodox in the world as autocephalous.  interesting stuff.  

Which came from my quotes from the Chief Secretary:
Quote
Metropolitan Jonas, while he was still an abbot, in one of his speeches presented what he called “a monastic perspective” on the subject “Episcopacy, Primacy and the Mother Churches”. In the chapter on autocephaly and primacy he claims that “there is no effective overarching primacy in the Orthodox Church.” He seems to be in opposition to the institution of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, because he considers that such an institution “is based on primacy over an empire-wide synod” and that this “has long become unrealistic.” What surprised me the most in this “monastic perspective” of His Eminence Jonas was the claim that allegedly “now only the Greek ethnic Churches and few others recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate to be what it claims to be.” It is indeed saddening the ignorance of this Hierarch not only on account of History and canonical order but even on account of the current state of affairs. How is it possible that he ignores that there is no Church that does not recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate? Perhaps he is carried away by the fact that the ecclesial schema over which he presides and which has been claimed as “autocephalous” in rampant violation of every sense of canonicity, is not recognized but by few Churches and it is not included in the diptychs of the Church.

Please allow me, by way of illustration, to sample a few other points of the same article that should not remain unanswered.

The most provocative of his claims is that which asserts that with the formation of the so-called OCA “the presence of any other jurisdiction on American territory becomes uncanonical, and membership in the Synod of the Orthodox Church in America becomes the criterion of canonicity of all bishops in America.” It is perhaps a sign of our times that he who violated the holy canons par excellence, the most uncanonically claimed as allegedly autocephalous, makes now himself the criterion of canonicity and vitiates the canonical hierarchs as uncanonical. O tempora, o mores!

            Instead of acknowledging the mercifulness of the other Patriarchates which, in spite the uncanonical status of the so-called OCA, accept it in communion, its representatives choose to subject them to such an unfair treatment that contributes nothing to the common cause of Orthodox unity. I would be interested to hear an explanation from His Eminence in response to the question “How will the so-called OCA contribute to our common Orthodox witness in diaspora by electing bishops holding titles which already exist for the same city”. Especially our Ecumenical Patriarchate not only is it not “unable to lead” as most unfortunately Metropolitan Jonas claims, but already since last October (in order to limit myself to the most recent example) has launched under the presidency of His All Holiness the process for the convocation of the Holy and Great Synod. I am not sure whether His Eminence, upon his ordination to the episcopacy, refused to put on the vestments of a bishop, which he, in the same article, and while he was still an abbot, had called as unfitting to the real nature of the arch-pastorship (p. 11).

If Constantinople was not given that prerogative by canon 28, how was she able to grant autocephalies and patriarchal dignities to the Churches of Russia , Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Czech Lands and Slovakia, Poland and Albania? Under the provision of which canon did Constantinople give the right of jurisdiction over the remaining of Africa to the Patriarchate of Alexandria in 2002?

            And if the Ecumenical Patriarchate has not granted the Patriarchate of Moscow the privilege to bestow autocephaly as it pleases it, then what gives it the right to do so on the expense of the Orthodox unity?

            Summarizing my lecture, I wish to call your attention to the following points:

3.   The submission of the diaspora to the Ecumenical Patriarchate does not mean either Hellenization or violation of the canonical order, because it is only in this way that both the letter and the spirit of the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils is respected. The Mother Church knows, however, that such a submission is difficult to be accomplished under the present historical conditions. For this reason, and by employing the principle of economy, it was suggested and it has now become accepted in Pan-Orthodox level, that there will be local Pan-Orthodox Episcopal Assemblies in the diaspora (like SCOBA in the US). The principle of presidency is followed, namely the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate presides over these Episcopal Assemblies in order to preserve the necessary element of canonicity.

As you surely know, last October the Ecumenical Patriarchate summoned in Constantinople a Synaxis of the Primates of the Orthodox Churches. The Primates accepted the proposal of Patriarch Bartholomew to move ahead with the Pan-Orthodox preparatory meetings, within 2009, so that the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church take place as soon as possible. For the record, please note that this decision was reached thanks to the concession on behalf of the Ecumenical Patriarchate which accepted that the Autonomous Churches will no longer be invited as to avoid the thorny problem of the Church of Estonia in the relations between Constantinople and Moscow.

Quote
IOW, your argument from the majority doesn't hold water.
God and you make a majority.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 07, 2009, 02:23:42 PM
Is this a theological presentation, or a pub speech in 1770's Boston? 
Btw, the Declaration of Independence was written in a pub.  What do you have against pubs?
But the Declaration of Independence was not meant to be a theological presentation, nor does it have any real bearing on our understanding of the Church.
And how does the Metropolitan's sermon make you think of a pub, and the 1770's?
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Fr. George on April 07, 2009, 02:27:09 PM
Is this a theological presentation, or a pub speech in 1770's Boston? 
Btw, the Declaration of Independence was written in a pub.  What do you have against pubs?
But the Declaration of Independence was not meant to be a theological presentation, nor does it have any real bearing on our understanding of the Church.
And how does the Metropolitan's sermon make you think of a pub, and the 1770's?

It sounded like a stump speech for American political independence from the Crown, not a sound ecclesiological, historical, or theological argument to the point.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: username! on April 07, 2009, 02:27:59 PM
Remembering sermons/speeches made post All-American Council, and search www.oca.org for the speech, Constantinople wasn't commenting unprovoked.  That tidbit is forgotten in this thread....
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 07, 2009, 02:29:02 PM
I don't care how we are unified, as long as we gave our own American Church that is self-governing.  I don't care about the arguments about who "got here first", who's authority is the "mostest canonical", and whatever else.  Everybody needs to grow up and work out something that will bring us all together in a way that will give us a unified voice in America.  Nobody in this country is going to take us seriously until we are visibly and governmentally unified, not only "mystically" unified.  Americans will actually take note of us if we have an American Orthodox Church.

Actually, I'm not even a part of the church yet, so my opinions do not count!  Give me six more months and then I'll start contributing opinions!  ;D

Quote
Christ appears to St. Martin.
ACCORDINGLY, at a certain period, when he had nothing except his arms and his simple military dress, in the middle of winter, a winter which had shown itself more severe than ordinary, so that the extreme cold was proving fatal to many, he happened to meet at the gate of the city of Amiens a poor man destitute of clothing. He was entreating those that passed by to have compassion upon him, but all passed the wretched man without notice, when Martin, that man full of God, recognized that a being to whom others showed no pity, was, in that respect, left to him. Yet, what should he do? He had nothing except the cloak in which he was clad, for he had already parted with the rest of his garments for similar purposes. Taking, therefore, his sword with which he was girt, he divided his cloak into two equal parts, and gave one part to the poor man, while he again clothed himself with the remainder. Upon this, some of the by-standers laughed, because he was now an unsightly object, and stood out as but partly dressed. Many, however, who were of sounder understanding, groaned deeply because they themselves had done nothing similar. They especially felt this, because, being possessed of more than Martin, they could have clothed the poor man without reducing themselves to nakedness. In the following night, when Martin had resigned himself to sleep, he had a vision of Christ arrayed in that part of his cloak with which he had clothed the poor man. He contemplated the Lord with the greatest attention, and was told to own as his the robe which he had given. Ere long, he heard Jesus saying with a clear voice to the multitude of angels standing round -- "Martin, who is still but a catechumen, clothed me with this robe."
http://www.users.csbsju.edu/~eknuth/npnf2-11/sulpitiu/lifeofst.html#tp
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 07, 2009, 02:30:43 PM
Americans will actually take note of us if we have an American Orthodox Church.
The cynic in me says, "NAH!  We'll still be far too small a percentage of the American population for anyone to take note of us."  For Americans to notice us, our Church (all jurisdictions combined) needs to grow to much larger size than it is now.

It will, however, deprive the Ultramontanists of one of their more appealing arguments, that we cannot get our act together.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 07, 2009, 02:34:32 PM
Is this a theological presentation, or a pub speech in 1770's Boston? 
Btw, the Declaration of Independence was written in a pub.  What do you have against pubs?
But the Declaration of Independence was not meant to be a theological presentation, nor does it have any real bearing on our understanding of the Church.
And how does the Metropolitan's sermon make you think of a pub, and the 1770's?

It sounded like a stump speech for American political independence from the Crown, not a sound ecclesiological, historical, or theological argument to the point.
Although having that American tinge to it, it was quite focused on the principles of eccesiology, history and theology. I can't access Serb's transcription from this computer: I'll have to do that later.

I'll just sum it up: the OCA was not designed for "Diaspora," was not founded in "Diaspora," did not develop in "Diaspora," was groomed for Autocephaly NOT in "Diaspora."

Remembering sermons/speeches made post All-American Council, and search www.oca.org for the speech, Constantinople wasn't commenting unprovoked.  That tidbit is forgotten in this thread....

Any hints to what we should be looking for?

The Chief Secretary's speech itself makes it clear he is reacting.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: username! on April 07, 2009, 02:41:28 PM
Check through the news on www.oca.org.  I'll try to find it later if no one finds it first.  Right now I have a glorious headache and a dr. appointment, so I obviously don't have the time to do the searching.  But alas, I hope to get to the bottom of it. 
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: serb1389 on April 07, 2009, 03:12:06 PM
I finished my transposition of the speech onto "paper".  I hope you all find it accurate.  I'm sorry if this is not allowed by the forum.  I'm always a little hazy on attachments and such...

Is this a theological presentation, or a pub speech in 1770's Boston?  He could have made a more convincing argument to support his point, but he blew it, and with it, IMO, a bit of his credibility.

I just think he burned a lot of bridges, unnecessarily.  He could have turned the whole situation on its head and brought a unique compromise that no one has thought of.  Instead he said some rather unfair things, and at the same time characterizing a fellow bishop and christian.  It's just too bad. 
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on April 07, 2009, 03:24:28 PM
Christ appears to St. Martin.
ACCORDINGLY, at a certain period, when he had nothing except his arms and his simple military dress, in the middle of winter, a winter which had shown itself more severe than ordinary, so that the extreme cold was proving fatal to many, he happened to meet at the gate of the city of Amiens a poor man destitute of clothing. He was entreating those that passed by to have compassion upon him, but all passed the wretched man without notice, when Martin, that man full of God, recognized that a being to whom others showed no pity, was, in that respect, left to him. Yet, what should he do? He had nothing except the cloak in which he was clad, for he had already parted with the rest of his garments for similar purposes. Taking, therefore, his sword with which he was girt, he divided his cloak into two equal parts, and gave one part to the poor man, while he again clothed himself with the remainder. Upon this, some of the by-standers laughed, because he was now an unsightly object, and stood out as but partly dressed. Many, however, who were of sounder understanding, groaned deeply because they themselves had done nothing similar. They especially felt this, because, being possessed of more than Martin, they could have clothed the poor man without reducing themselves to nakedness. In the following night, when Martin had resigned himself to sleep, he had a vision of Christ arrayed in that part of his cloak with which he had clothed the poor man. He contemplated the Lord with the greatest attention, and was told to own as his the robe which he had given. Ere long, he heard Jesus saying with a clear voice to the multitude of angels standing round -- "Martin, who is still but a catechumen, clothed me with this robe."

That was very moving.  You got me a little misty with that one.  Is this St. Martin of Tours?
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 07, 2009, 03:28:19 PM
I just think he burned a lot of bridges, unnecessarily.  He could have turned the whole situation on its head and brought a unique compromise that no one has thought of.  Instead he said some rather unfair things, and at the same time characterizing a fellow bishop and christian.  It's just too bad. 

It was noted in another thread that Metropolitan Phillip has had the curious habit of calling for unity and insulting those who he calls to unity at the same time.  Lessons unlearned I suppose.

The untruths and misrepresentations in the speech are sad and intended to engender fear and conflict.  It amazes me that people are lauding a hierarch for defaming another hierarch from the pulpit during Lent.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Schultz on April 07, 2009, 03:44:48 PM
The untruths and misrepresentations in the speech are sad and intended to engender fear and conflict.  It amazes me that people are lauding a hierarch for defaming another hierarch from the pulpit during Lent.

This is not the first time this has been noted in this thread.
 
I am curious to the substance of these "untruths and misrepresentations".

I am looking primarily for facts rather than interpretations of facts/situations, either by His Beatitude or members on this forum.  All I've seen are either implications that Metropolitan Jonah has lied or merely differing opinions on situations.

His Beatitude is most certainly not the first nor the only person to question the motives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in calling this Synod in Cyprus nor is he the first hierarch to question the concept of "diaspora" as it relates to American Orthodox Christians.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: serb1389 on April 07, 2009, 03:48:04 PM
The untruths and misrepresentations in the speech are sad and intended to engender fear and conflict.  It amazes me that people are lauding a hierarch for defaming another hierarch from the pulpit during Lent.

This is not the first time this has been noted in this thread.
 
I am curious to the substance of these "untruths and misrepresentations".

I am looking primarily for facts rather than interpretations of facts/situations, either by His Beatitude or members on this forum.  All I've seen are either implications that Metropolitan Jonah has lied or merely differing opinions on situations.

His Beatitude is most certainly not the first nor the only person to question the motives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in calling this Synod in Cyprus nor is he the first hierarch to question the concept of "diaspora" as it relates to American Orthodox Christians.

Thank you.

Ok.   Riddle me this: 

Quote
We can’t allow our church to be controlled by people who have no appreciation of our culture, and have to bow to the Turkish Islamic authorities. 

And then three sentences later: 
Quote
We have to come together. 

Does this make any sense to you?  I'm having a hard time understanding it. 

Also it makes it more fun if you add in this (which came before the other two quotes by a couple paragraphs)
Quote
We have to come together as one, united, orthodox church in North America.  In order to truly show people that the orthodox church IS the one holy catholic church, in order to show that we are truly the church constituting of the disciples of Jesus Christ, and there’s only one way to show that:  It’s not by self-righteous proclamations of our orthodoxy, it’s not by self-righteous condemnations of  non-orthodox christians. 

plus this: 
Quote
There are those, there, in the old world who devalue this, who say that they are the only criterion of orthodoxy.  Who are ignorant of our saints.  Who refuse to recognize the sacrifice of so many of those who have come before us in Christ to establish the gospel here.

Yet he also says:

Quote
So that we can continue our relationship with our mother churches, a relationship of love and support, firm in our own identity as Orthodox Christians, and making our witness to protect them against whatever evils confront them, whether it be an aggressive Islam, or whether it be communists who now call themselves democrats.

[edited to add a few quotes]





Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Schultz on April 07, 2009, 03:53:15 PM
The untruths and misrepresentations in the speech are sad and intended to engender fear and conflict.  It amazes me that people are lauding a hierarch for defaming another hierarch from the pulpit during Lent.

This is not the first time this has been noted in this thread.
 
I am curious to the substance of these "untruths and misrepresentations".

I am looking primarily for facts rather than interpretations of facts/situations, either by His Beatitude or members on this forum.  All I've seen are either implications that Metropolitan Jonah has lied or merely differing opinions on situations.

His Beatitude is most certainly not the first nor the only person to question the motives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in calling this Synod in Cyprus nor is he the first hierarch to question the concept of "diaspora" as it relates to American Orthodox Christians.

Thank you.

Ok.   Riddle me this: 

Quote
We can’t allow our church to be controlled by people who have no appreciation of our culture, and have to bow to the Turkish Islamic authorities. 

And then three sentences later: 
Quote
We have to come together. 

Does this make any sense to you?  I'm having a hard time understanding it. 

Also it makes it more fun if you add in this (which came before the other two quotes by a couple paragraphs)
Quote
We have to come together as one, united, orthodox church in North America.  In order to truly show people that the orthodox church IS the one holy catholic church, in order to show that we are truly the church constituting of the disciples of Jesus Christ, and there’s only one way to show that:  It’s not by self-righteous proclamations of our orthodoxy, it’s not by self-righteous condemnations of  non-orthodox christians. 


I'm failing to see the problem in reconciling these two statements.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Veniamin on April 07, 2009, 03:56:33 PM
The untruths and misrepresentations in the speech are sad and intended to engender fear and conflict.  It amazes me that people are lauding a hierarch for defaming another hierarch from the pulpit during Lent.

This is not the first time this has been noted in this thread.
 
I am curious to the substance of these "untruths and misrepresentations".

I am looking primarily for facts rather than interpretations of facts/situations, either by His Beatitude or members on this forum.  All I've seen are either implications that Metropolitan Jonah has lied or merely differing opinions on situations.

His Beatitude is most certainly not the first nor the only person to question the motives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in calling this Synod in Cyprus nor is he the first hierarch to question the concept of "diaspora" as it relates to American Orthodox Christians.

Thank you.

Ok.   Riddle me this: 

Quote
We can’t allow our church to be controlled by people who have no appreciation of our culture, and have to bow to the Turkish Islamic authorities. 

And then three sentences later: 
Quote
We have to come together. 

Does this make any sense to you?  I'm having a hard time understanding it. 

Also it makes it more fun if you add in this (which came before the other two quotes by a couple paragraphs)
Quote
We have to come together as one, united, orthodox church in North America.  In order to truly show people that the orthodox church IS the one holy catholic church, in order to show that we are truly the church constituting of the disciples of Jesus Christ, and there’s only one way to show that:  It’s not by self-righteous proclamations of our orthodoxy, it’s not by self-righteous condemnations of  non-orthodox christians. 

plus this: 
Quote
There are those, there, in the old world who devalue this, who say that they are the only criterion of orthodoxy.  Who are ignorant of our saints.  Who refuse to recognize the sacrifice of so many of those who have come before us in Christ to establish the gospel here.

Yet he also says:

Quote
So that we can continue our relationship with our mother churches, a relationship of love and support, firm in our own identity as Orthodox Christians, and making our witness to protect them against whatever evils confront them, whether it be an aggressive Islam, or whether it be communists who now call themselves democrats.

[edited to add a few quotes]

And your point is...?
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: serb1389 on April 07, 2009, 04:13:01 PM
The untruths and misrepresentations in the speech are sad and intended to engender fear and conflict.  It amazes me that people are lauding a hierarch for defaming another hierarch from the pulpit during Lent.

This is not the first time this has been noted in this thread.
 
I am curious to the substance of these "untruths and misrepresentations".

I am looking primarily for facts rather than interpretations of facts/situations, either by His Beatitude or members on this forum.  All I've seen are either implications that Metropolitan Jonah has lied or merely differing opinions on situations.

His Beatitude is most certainly not the first nor the only person to question the motives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in calling this Synod in Cyprus nor is he the first hierarch to question the concept of "diaspora" as it relates to American Orthodox Christians.

Thank you.

Ok.   Riddle me this: 

Quote
We can’t allow our church to be controlled by people who have no appreciation of our culture, and have to bow to the Turkish Islamic authorities. 

And then three sentences later: 
Quote
We have to come together. 

Does this make any sense to you?  I'm having a hard time understanding it. 

Also it makes it more fun if you add in this (which came before the other two quotes by a couple paragraphs)
Quote
We have to come together as one, united, orthodox church in North America.  In order to truly show people that the orthodox church IS the one holy catholic church, in order to show that we are truly the church constituting of the disciples of Jesus Christ, and there’s only one way to show that:  It’s not by self-righteous proclamations of our orthodoxy, it’s not by self-righteous condemnations of  non-orthodox christians. 

plus this: 
Quote
There are those, there, in the old world who devalue this, who say that they are the only criterion of orthodoxy.  Who are ignorant of our saints.  Who refuse to recognize the sacrifice of so many of those who have come before us in Christ to establish the gospel here.

Yet he also says:

Quote
So that we can continue our relationship with our mother churches, a relationship of love and support, firm in our own identity as Orthodox Christians, and making our witness to protect them against whatever evils confront them, whether it be an aggressive Islam, or whether it be communists who now call themselves democrats.

[edited to add a few quotes]

And your point is...?

You can't say that you want to continue relationships with the mother churches, and then say that one of the mother churches is controlled by Turkish Islamists. That's being disingenuous. 
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 07, 2009, 04:15:59 PM
I am curious to the substance of these "untruths and misrepresentations".

Sure, I'll pick out a few.  First off the assertion that unity under Constantinople is being under a "Pope".  He says that's one model of unity.  That's not how churches under the Omophorion of Constantinople operate though.  That is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts.

How about the assertion that the Old World hierarchs simply "don't understand there are Americans who are Orthodox".  Really, none of them do?

How about this whole section (taken from serb1389's helpful word doc)

Quote
I don’t think the Holy Fathers in the Phanar understand that we are a church, albeit, with separate administrations, but that has a common value of determining our own destiny.  A church that is dedicated to the conciliar process which does not ignore the voice of the laity, which does not ignore the voice of the priests.  A church which is united in its common commitment. Because, we are orthodox not simply by birth, we are orthodox not simply by our ethnic heritage, we are orthodox because we have chosen to be orthodox.  We are orthodox because we have committed our entire life to Jesus Christ and the Gospel.  

I guess being under Constantinople means the voice of the laity is ignored, the priests are ignored, the is no common commitment to anything and the conciliar process is ignored.  Being under Constantinople means nobody could possibly imagine that one could be Orthodox and not be of some ethnicity.  I guess all of that is just true because it's "common knowledge".  "Common knowledge" like ethnic Orthodox are interested in politics and money and converts understand the Gospel.  Right?  Everyone knows that.

Quote
Not to some kind of alien ideology, not to some nationalist or imperialist ideology from some forgotten empire.  Not the imposition of foreign customs, and the submission to foreign despots – but to a united church in this country.

Part of this is debatable, part is not even clear what he means, and part is slander.

Quote
but you have to give us the freedom to take care of our own church and our own country and our own culture, and not to be controlled by people who have never heard a word of English, much less would allow a word of English to be spoken in the Liturgy.”  

Fear mongering and patently untrue, especially the last part.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Schultz on April 07, 2009, 04:20:19 PM

You can't say that you want to continue relationships with the mother churches, and then say that one of the mother churches is controlled by Turkish Islamists. That's being disingenuous. 

Do or do not the Turkish Islamic authorities have a veritable stranglehold on the activities of the Phanar?

FWIW, I really have no dog in this hunt.  Yes, I am a member (catechumen) of the OCA but, being a former Catholic, I'm used to being "ruled over by a foreign monarch", so to speak.  

However, I fail to see how His Beatitude is a liar, which is what he is explicitly being called.  By all means, disagree with his interpretations of the facts, but do not call him a liar unless you can prove it.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: witega on April 07, 2009, 04:20:41 PM
He could have turned the whole situation on its head and brought a unique compromise that no one has thought of. 

Uh, you're criticizing him for not coming up with something that no one else has thought of either?  :o
seems a tad unrealistic.

Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Veniamin on April 07, 2009, 04:25:34 PM
You can't say that you want to continue relationships with the mother churches, and then say that one of the mother churches is controlled by Turkish Islamists. That's being disingenuous. 

How so?  Those are not mutually exclusive statements.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: serb1389 on April 07, 2009, 04:26:12 PM

You can't say that you want to continue relationships with the mother churches, and then say that one of the mother churches is controlled by Turkish Islamists. That's being disingenuous. 

Do or do not the Turkish Islamic authorities have a veritable stranglehold on the activities of the Phanar?

FWIW, I really have no dog in this hunt.  Yes, I am a member (catechumen) of the OCA but, being a former Catholic, I'm used to being "ruled over by a foreign monarch", so to speak.  

However, I fail to see how His Beatitude is a liar, which is what he is explicitly being called.  By all means, disagree with his interpretations of the facts, but do not call him a liar unless you can prove it.

I called it disingenuous, not being a lier.  Those are two very different things.  

Secondly, when we went to Constantinople last summer we were given a variable shopping list of things that Pat. Bartholomew has been able to do with the turkish gov't that no patriarch before him could have IMAGINED.  So stranglehold?  Not quite.  Is it comfortable for him?  Definitely not.  

Also, if I tell you "Schultz I want to be your best friend, to watch out for you, take care of your kids when you're gone, and support you financially for the rest of your life" and then go and say "Schultz, you're controlled by the liberalist jerks in america and that makes you easily controlled, so i'm not gona listen to you about how to take care of your kids"....how would you feel?  
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: serb1389 on April 07, 2009, 04:26:43 PM
You can't say that you want to continue relationships with the mother churches, and then say that one of the mother churches is controlled by Turkish Islamists. That's being disingenuous. 

How so?  Those are not mutually exclusive statements.

Just explained above.  Let me know if it doesn't make sense still...
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 07, 2009, 04:30:08 PM
I finished my transposition of the speech onto "paper".  I hope you all find it accurate.  I'm sorry if this is not allowed by the forum.  I'm always a little hazy on attachments and such...

I'm grateful to you, especially because my dial-up at the end of the world is too slow to view the video.

Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: serb1389 on April 07, 2009, 04:31:14 PM
I finished my transposition of the speech onto "paper".  I hope you all find it accurate.  I'm sorry if this is not allowed by the forum.  I'm always a little hazy on attachments and such...

I'm grateful to you, especially because my dial-up at the end of the world is too slow to view the video.



I cut a back-room deal with ialmisry so you can thank him.  lol.   :D ;D
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Veniamin on April 07, 2009, 04:36:02 PM
You can't say that you want to continue relationships with the mother churches, and then say that one of the mother churches is controlled by Turkish Islamists. That's being disingenuous. 

How so?  Those are not mutually exclusive statements.

Just explained above.  Let me know if it doesn't make sense still...

You still haven't shown how it's "lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity" (which is what disingenous means).  So no, it still doesn't make sense because you still haven't shown how those two statements, taken together, are somehow lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: serb1389 on April 07, 2009, 04:37:55 PM
You can't say that you want to continue relationships with the mother churches, and then say that one of the mother churches is controlled by Turkish Islamists. That's being disingenuous. 

How so?  Those are not mutually exclusive statements.

Just explained above.  Let me know if it doesn't make sense still...

You still haven't shown how it's "lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity" (which is what disingenous means).  So no, it still doesn't make sense because you still haven't shown how those two statements, taken together, are somehow lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity.

I was thinking more of sincerity than the other two.  You can't tell someone you want to love them and then accuse them of being subject to someone who you think is evil or corrupt.  I don't know how I can be more clear.  I can't tell you that I love you and then accuse you of being ruled by your evil step-mother.  That is not love.  I'm not sure in what other way I can say it. 
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Veniamin on April 07, 2009, 04:41:16 PM
I was thinking more of sincerity than the other two.  You can't tell someone you want to love them and then accuse them of being subject to someone who you think is evil or corrupt.  I don't know how I can be more clear.  I can't tell you that I love you and then accuse you of being ruled by your evil step-mother.  That is not love.  I'm not sure in what other way I can say it. 

That is my point.  You are taking it for granted that those two statements are mutually exclusive.  I am asking you to show how they are.  Under your reasoning here, anything that is critical is not loving per se; that it can be one, but if it is, it is impossible to be the other.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Schultz on April 07, 2009, 04:42:28 PM
I am curious to the substance of these "untruths and misrepresentations".


All of these are interpretations of facts and situations and not blatant falsehoods.

Quote
Sure, I'll pick out a few.  First off the assertion that unity under Constantinople is being under a "Pope".  He says that's one model of unity.  That's not how churches under the Omophorion of Constantinople operate though.  That is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts.

I'm sure any number of our Old Calendarist brethren would agree with the assertion that the EP often acts dangerously close to the episcopal model present in the Roman Catholic Church.  Again, we can argue that His Beatitude's interpretation is wrong, but he most certainly is not outright lying.  One has to know that a fact is wrong in order to misrepresent it.

Quote
How about the assertion that the Old World hierarchs simply "don't understand there are Americans who are Orthodox".  Really, none of them do?

I believe that Metropolitan Jonah wasn't speaking of each of them individually but, as a group in the most general terms.  Do you honestly believe that each and every Old World hierarch knows what it means to be an American and, more importantly, an American Orthodox Christian?

Quote
How about this whole section (taken from serb1389's helpful word doc)

Quote
I don’t think the Holy Fathers in the Phanar understand that we are a church, albeit, with separate administrations, but that has a common value of determining our own destiny.  A church that is dedicated to the conciliar process which does not ignore the voice of the laity, which does not ignore the voice of the priests.  A church which is united in its common commitment. Because, we are orthodox not simply by birth, we are orthodox not simply by our ethnic heritage, we are orthodox because we have chosen to be orthodox.  We are orthodox because we have committed our entire life to Jesus Christ and the Gospel.  

I guess being under Constantinople means the voice of the laity is ignored, the priests are ignored, the is no common commitment to anything and the conciliar process is ignored.  Being under Constantinople means nobody could possibly imagine that one could be Orthodox and not be of some ethnicity.  I guess all of that is just true because it's "common knowledge".  "Common knowledge" like ethnic Orthodox are interested in politics and money and converts understand the Gospel.  Right?  Everyone knows that.

Considering each and every Orthodox jurisdiction under the EP (and others!) in this country has an ethnic identifier before the word "Orthodox" in its name, both officially (eg legal status) and colloquially, it's not a jump to believe that the Old World hierarchs have little interest in establishing an American Orthodox Church instead of just catering to a "diaspora".  Ask your average man on the street.  Chances are that if he has even heard of Orthodoxy, he'll only think of it as either Greek or Russian.

I am not nor have I ever been a part of any "diaspora". 

Quote
Quote
Not to some kind of alien ideology, not to some nationalist or imperialist ideology from some forgotten empire.  Not the imposition of foreign customs, and the submission to foreign despots – but to a united church in this country.

Part of this is debatable, part is not even clear what he means, and part is slander.

I'll admit that the wording is strange, but I see nothing objectionable.

Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: serb1389 on April 07, 2009, 04:44:19 PM
I was thinking more of sincerity than the other two.  You can't tell someone you want to love them and then accuse them of being subject to someone who you think is evil or corrupt.  I don't know how I can be more clear.  I can't tell you that I love you and then accuse you of being ruled by your evil step-mother.  That is not love.  I'm not sure in what other way I can say it. 

That is my point.  You are taking it for granted that those two statements are mutually exclusive.  I am asking you to show how they are.  Under your reasoning here, anything that is critical is not loving per se; that it can be one, but if it is, it is impossible to be the other.

I see your point.  Maybe i'm not using my terms correctly.  If he thinks that approaching the ecumenical patriarchate in this way is LOVE, then what Fr. Elpidoforos did was in love.  So why this kind of reaction by us?  I'm not sure, maybe because none of us really believe that it is from love.  But hey, it very well could be.  Like you said, just b/c it's critical doesn't mean it's not loving.  If that is the case then, all this is, is just an expression of their love for each other, and we should all not be so scandalized.  I'm cool with thinking about it that way.   :)
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: 88Devin12 on April 07, 2009, 04:47:42 PM
Ok... Is anyone noticing a pattern here? The only ones really arguing against the OCA are those that are members of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese or otherwise under the Ecumenical Patriarch... The only ones really arguing for it so far are OCA...
What do other Orthodox say? (and you cannot answer for others)
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Schultz on April 07, 2009, 04:49:31 PM

You can't say that you want to continue relationships with the mother churches, and then say that one of the mother churches is controlled by Turkish Islamists. That's being disingenuous. 

Do or do not the Turkish Islamic authorities have a veritable stranglehold on the activities of the Phanar?

FWIW, I really have no dog in this hunt.  Yes, I am a member (catechumen) of the OCA but, being a former Catholic, I'm used to being "ruled over by a foreign monarch", so to speak.  

However, I fail to see how His Beatitude is a liar, which is what he is explicitly being called.  By all means, disagree with his interpretations of the facts, but do not call him a liar unless you can prove it.

I called it disingenuous, not being a lier.  Those are two very different things.  



You certainly did characterize it as disingenuos.  While I disagree with your assessment, you did not call him a liar.  I was referring mainly to AMM's statement.

Quote
Secondly, when we went to Constantinople last summer we were given a variable shopping list of things that Pat. Bartholomew has been able to do with the turkish gov't that no patriarch before him could have IMAGINED.  So stranglehold?  Not quite.  Is it comfortable for him?  Definitely not.  

I personally consider the inability to have a running seminary in one's own local diocese due to the explicit order of the ruling secular government (note, that part is italicized for a reason because I know full well not every diocese has its own seminary) and the fact that the ruling secular authority made it so within two generations or so there will probably be no acceptable candidate for Patriarch of Constantinople a "stranglehold", yes.  

Quote
Also, if I tell you "Schultz I want to be your best friend, to watch out for you, take care of your kids when you're gone, and support you financially for the rest of your life" and then go and say "Schultz, you're controlled by the liberalist jerks in america and that makes you easily controlled, so i'm not gona listen to you about how to take care of your kids"....how would you feel?  

We're not talking about my personal feelings, we're talking about the well being of a church that is not a diaspora.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: serb1389 on April 07, 2009, 04:55:11 PM

You can't say that you want to continue relationships with the mother churches, and then say that one of the mother churches is controlled by Turkish Islamists. That's being disingenuous. 

Do or do not the Turkish Islamic authorities have a veritable stranglehold on the activities of the Phanar?

FWIW, I really have no dog in this hunt.  Yes, I am a member (catechumen) of the OCA but, being a former Catholic, I'm used to being "ruled over by a foreign monarch", so to speak.  

However, I fail to see how His Beatitude is a liar, which is what he is explicitly being called.  By all means, disagree with his interpretations of the facts, but do not call him a liar unless you can prove it.

I called it disingenuous, not being a lier.  Those are two very different things.  



You certainly did characterize it as disingenuos.  While I disagree with your assessment, you did not call him a liar.  I was referring mainly to AMM's statement.

Sorry about the confusion there.  thanks for the clear-up. 

Quote
Quote
Secondly, when we went to Constantinople last summer we were given a variable shopping list of things that Pat. Bartholomew has been able to do with the turkish gov't that no patriarch before him could have IMAGINED.  So stranglehold?  Not quite.  Is it comfortable for him?  Definitely not. 

I personally consider the inability to have a running seminary in one's own local diocese due to the explicit order of the ruling secular government (note, that part is italicized for a reason because I know full well not every diocese has its own seminary) and the fact that the ruling secular authority made it so within two generations or so there will probably be no acceptable candidate for Patriarch of Constantinople a "stranglehold", yes. 

I really do think that it is more balanced.  I agree with your point, but it's hard for me to put that up against the EP being the ONLY church allowed to use turkish in their services.  that's hard to beat. 

Quote
Quote
Also, if I tell you "Schultz I want to be your best friend, to watch out for you, take care of your kids when you're gone, and support you financially for the rest of your life" and then go and say "Schultz, you're controlled by the liberalist jerks in america and that makes you easily controlled, so i'm not gona listen to you about how to take care of your kids"....how would you feel? 

We're not talking about my personal feelings, we're talking about the well being of a church that is not a diaspora.

I think there may be a misunderstanding here.  I used the analogy of children completely erroneously.  After I wrote it I realized that it can have other connotations.  I didn't mean to be obtuse, it was an honest mistake. 

I think we can honestly say that it was not right to put the EP in a box like Met. Jonah did.  He could be right until the day he dies, but it was disrespectful (IMO).  That's just how I feel about it.  If you feel he was totally on and etc. I respect your opinion and i'm glad that we are having this conversation.  That's all I got for right now...

[edited to fix quote tags]
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Fr. George on April 07, 2009, 04:59:36 PM
Do or do not the Turkish Islamic authorities have a veritable stranglehold on the activities of the Phanar?

They do not; the Patriarch's caution is mostly to prevent attacks by citizen groups rather than the Government, who in the past has sanctioned the Patriarchate (by not allowing the EP or other hierarchs to return to the country), but who of late has been reluctant to do so (part of the EU quest).  "Veritable stranglehold" isn't quite right; now, yes, the government does have a number of restrictions on the Patriarchate (they can't remove, for example, many of the manuscripts from the country, as they are considered historical items of the Turkish state), and since they don't recognize the Patriarchate as an entity property ownership is restricted.  But the EP's actions as Patriarch are not so severely limited - they do not interfere with the synod's selection of hierarchs (save the EP himself), nor with the internal operation of the Patriarchate (save the election of the EP himself), nor with the operation of the Patriarchate with regards to the rest of the Orthodox world (save the election of the EP himself).
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 07, 2009, 04:59:42 PM
Quote
All of these are interpretations of facts and situations and not blatant falsehoods.

The statement that English would not be allowed is a blatant falsehood.  It is to scare people.  It is not true.  It is a you-know-what.

Quote
Considering each and every Orthodox jurisdiction under the EP (and others!) in this country has an ethnic identifier before the word "Orthodox" in its name, both officially (eg legal status) and colloquially, it's not a jump to believe that the Old World hierarchs have little interest in establishing an American Orthodox Church instead of just catering to a "diaspora".  Ask your average man on the street.  Chances are that if he has even heard of Orthodoxy, he'll only think of it as either Greek or Russian.

None of that actually addresses the point of whether or not churches under the Omophorion of Constantinople are run poorly or not, or canonically or not.

Quote
I'll admit that the wording is strange, but I see nothing objectionable.

Okay.  Do you refer to hierarchs in the OCA as American Despots?  Would it be okay if other hierarchs did?
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 07, 2009, 05:10:24 PM
Ok... Is anyone noticing a pattern here? The only ones really arguing against the OCA are those that are members of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese or otherwise under the Ecumenical Patriarch... The only ones really arguing for it so far are OCA...
What do other Orthodox say? (and you cannot answer for others)

The holy Greek elders of the 20th century have prophesied that Russia will conquer Constantinople.   As the Greeks feel in their bones that the inspired words of their own holy monks and priests are coming to pass they are filled with apprehension and an unarticulated anxiety.   Quite understandable that this is throwing up a lot of confused attitudes to the Slavs.   Our Greek brothers wish for the liberation of Constantinople but they tremble because of the race whom God has chosen to accomplish it. 

Do not expect such discussions to be entirely rational.   They touch on ancient and subliminal anxieties.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Fr. George on April 07, 2009, 05:15:05 PM
I personally consider the inability to have a running seminary in one's own local diocese due to the explicit order of the ruling secular government (note, that part is italicized for a reason because I know full well not every diocese has its own seminary) and the fact that the ruling secular authority made it so within two generations or so there will probably be no acceptable candidate for Patriarch of Constantinople a "stranglehold", yes.  

Not exactly true.  The government didn't specifically shut down Halki - they made all religious schools of minority religions illegal.  But you're right at least in spirit on that point.  However, there are actually many who are/would be qualified candidates: bilingual Orthodox Christians with Turkish citizenship who live both in Turkey and in Greece (the latter group aren't usually included in "the numbers," which I'm skeptical of to begin with, but who could easily qualify).

I don't think there will be any extinction of the Patriarchate due to lack of qualified candidates for the EP office, because I think within the next generation the political climate will change, either for the better and the school will reopen and there will be more tolerance, or for the worse and the Patriarchate will move to northern Greece.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 07, 2009, 05:22:49 PM
or for the worse and the Patriarchate will move to northern Greece.


Let the Patriarchate live and survive where it is.Shifting it elsewhere will bring about its extermination.

Source ::
http://voxstefani.blogspot.com/2007/07/further-constantinopolitan-thoughts.html

 After news like those reported in my previous post surface, it generally
doesn't take too long for someone (usually in North America) to ask why
won't the Ecumenical Patriarchate just move out of Constantinople. After all
(so the reasoning goes) the Patriarchate of Antioch is now exiled in
Damascus; why couldn't the Patriarchate of Constantinople exile itself to,
say, Patmos or Thessalonica, both of which are under its jurisdiction,
finally putting behind itself this tedious, multisecular ordeal?


Well, grasshopper, this is because the Patriarch of Constantinople is, above
all, the real Bishop of a real flock in a real city. And while this flock,
through relentless repression and brutal ethnic cleansing, has dwindled in
less than a century from a flourishing 250,000 to a mere 5,000 cornered in a
single quarter of the once glorious Queen of Cities, they should on no
account be deprived of their Bishop. If the Patriarch chose to exile
himself, the godless Turkish government would never recognize his canonical
jurisdiction over his Constantinopolitan flock (seeing how they consider him
to be the head of the Greek community strictly in Turkey); and since no
other Bishop could be named to the See, the diocese would effectively be
orphaned. Also, given the Turkish modus operandi, one can imagine that
commemorating at the Divine Services the rightful (but exiled) Patriarch
would come to be considered a criminal act on Turkish soil, and so the stage
would be set for the final extermination of the last remaining pocket of the
native Greek population of Asia Minor. May God deliver us from that day!


Now, let us add a drop of utter delusion to an otherwise sensible (if, as we
have seen, enormously misguided) thought, courtesy of the Militant
Americanist OrthodoxTM (who are to be distinguished, of course, from normal
Orthodox Americans): why doesn't the Ecumenical Patriarch (again, like the
Patriarch of Antioch) exile himself, but by moving to the US instead? "That
way," say they, "we get undisputed autocephaly, and even a patriarch of our
own." (I can't tell if the author of this particular comment was serious, or
seriously thought he was offering the solution to end all solutions, or
what, but I have certainly heard that thought seriously expressed more than
once.)

Well, for a start, because the New World is not a part of the historic
canonical territory of the Ecumenical Patriarchate the way Damascus is part
of that of the Patriarchate of Antioch, so the situation would not really be
analogous (as it would be, for instance, if the Ecumenical Patriarchate
moved to Patmos). But further, for Patriarch Bartholomew to be the Primate
of an Autocephalous Orthodox Church in the Americas, he would have to be the
Bishop of a local diocese in the New World, even as he now is Archbishop of
Constantinople, and thus Primate of the Autocephalous Church of
Constantinople. Now, even if there suddenly came to be a single
Autocephalous Church in the Americas, and if Patriarch Bartholomew moved to
the US and became "Archbishop of Washington and Patriarch of the New World"
or some such, this new Church would be the last in the precedence of honor
among the world's Autocephalous Orthodox Churches, and its Primate (even if
he himself had been Ecumenical Patriarch before) would be the very last to
be commemorated in the diptychs by each of the Primates of the other
Churches. Which is to say that the Primate of an Autocephalous American
Orthodox Church would not be the new primus inter pares of the Orthodox
episcopacy; pride of place would go then to the Patriarch of Alexandria. So,
is that clear enough?

Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Fr. George on April 07, 2009, 05:34:11 PM
or for the worse and the Patriarchate will move to northern Greece.


Let the Patriarchate live and survive where it is.Shifting it elsewhere will bring about its extermination.

Hardly.  The only way he would move, based on comments and discussions I had with him and with the deacons at the Patriarchate, is if they were on the brink of extinction anyway, such as if

the political climate will change <snip> for the worse and the Patriarchate will move to northern Greece.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Ian Lazarus on April 07, 2009, 05:37:10 PM
"You can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs"

Forgive me.  I have been sitting on the fence reading these threads for far to long without saying a word.  The past few weeks have seen so much bad blood fly between people that are supposed to be brothers, and it saddens me when people are calling eachother imperialists and schismatics in a time when we are supposed to be looking inward at our own failures.  

This is a time of trial for us all.  The crudstorm that has been released in the past few weeks is heartrending, but not totally unpredictable.  Eventually, it comes to this:  how do we define liberty and unity in the Orthodox Church?  

Some have defined it as a link to the old Patriarchs, particulalrly Constantinople, is what makes us Orthodox.

Some have defined it as the jurisdisction of the local Bishop as what does.

Some have defined it as strict adhearance to the cannons.  

Some have defined it as the voice of the people.


I cannot speak for any of you, but I have believed since I converted and still believe that ALL are important...and then again, that none are.

Yes, the ties to the ancient sees and BROTHERHOOD with them, not subserviance to them, makes us Orthodox.

Yes, the local Bishop is a representative of Christ to his jurisdiction, along with the clergy and laity, within the tradition, makes us Orthodox.

Yes, understanding of the cannons and their practice is venerable and WITHIN the Holy Spirits call, and with the united understanding that some cannons are for some ages, and some are eternal, makes us Orthodox.

Yes, the people, under the Guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Sacred Scripture, and the Sacred Tradition, speaking in a united voice make us Orthodox.

But what truly make us Orthodox is FOLLOWING AND LIVING IN JESUS CHRIST AND GUIDENCE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, as the apostles taught us, wherein Saints are made, Martyrs Glorified, and new generations come to the alter to recieve Christ Jesus' Body and Blood that we migh perfect our imperfect selves.  

Mayhaps the solution I propose is one that will be unpopular, or seem oversimplistic.  I am not a great orator or analyst.  At this point, in many senses, I simply grow tired of the rehasing of old wars, as this new upheaval seems to bring on.  There have been moments when my faith in the Church has been shaken, and anger and sorrow filled my heart.  There may be yet days when this happens.  But I will be nowhere else because I believe in Jesus Christ, and I know that this is the way to worship him in the fullest.  Thats why Im here.  To better serve, and Pray.


And so, my proposal is simple.  We pray.  It may be a far stretch, but mayhaps what is needed is to ask God His opinion in His own Church, that he migh clear out imperfect minds and do what we humans are oft unwilling to: Listen.  Accept.  Be Obedient.  Love one another.  And forgive.  

In this land (US), we are Americans.  But we are all still learning what that means after all these years.  We know it means to be free, but that there is a price for freedom: Vigilance.  Elsewise, we fall back into slavery.  It is not culture, though we have our own, but common beliefs that hold us as a nation.  We hold common beliefs in Orthodoxy too.  God will conquer all with Love.  God loves us all.  We attempt to give purselves to Him fully and without reservation in our worship.  If we fall into sin, and do not get back up, we fall into slavery as well.  We must turn to Him to made, redeemed and sustains us to make things right.  For He knows everything about us.

Maybe its time for our bishops, ALL our bishops, to get together, pray, talk, and ask for forgiveness, of God and of eachother.  We've seen too many wars over jurisdictionalism.  Whatever the solition, we cannot remain as we are.  But above all, it must be God-pleasing.  Change is comeing.  And with it, a whirlwind of consequences.  Let us pray for perfect guidence from He who is Perfect.


Of course, thats just my opinion.


Forgive me, a sinner.  



        
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Fr. George on April 07, 2009, 06:30:09 PM
^ Ian Lazarus,
FYI: Someone's nominated you for Post of the Month for this post.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: serb1389 on April 07, 2009, 06:32:56 PM
^ Ian Lazarus,
FYI: Someone's nominated you for Post of the Month for this post.

I'd like to second that. 
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on April 07, 2009, 06:51:56 PM

Sometimes you make great posts.  Sometimes you go trolling.  You should let us know which Isa we're going to experience at the beginning of the day, by PM or something, so we know whether or not we should read 'em.

Come on now: Is it necessary to resort to ad hominem attacks?
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on April 07, 2009, 06:56:41 PM
Quit trying to drag me into an argument again...

If you can't stand the heat then don't get in the debate... or rather focus on being a catechumen and preparing to become a member of the church instead.

I don't get it. Why is it necessary to pull rank like this? What possesses folks to tell others to sit down and shut up?
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 07, 2009, 07:02:39 PM
Christ appears to St. Martin.
ACCORDINGLY, at a certain period, when he had nothing except his arms and his simple military dress, in the middle of winter, a winter which had shown itself more severe than ordinary, so that the extreme cold was proving fatal to many, he happened to meet at the gate of the city of Amiens a poor man destitute of clothing. He was entreating those that passed by to have compassion upon him, but all passed the wretched man without notice, when Martin, that man full of God, recognized that a being to whom others showed no pity, was, in that respect, left to him. Yet, what should he do? He had nothing except the cloak in which he was clad, for he had already parted with the rest of his garments for similar purposes. Taking, therefore, his sword with which he was girt, he divided his cloak into two equal parts, and gave one part to the poor man, while he again clothed himself with the remainder. Upon this, some of the by-standers laughed, because he was now an unsightly object, and stood out as but partly dressed. Many, however, who were of sounder understanding, groaned deeply because they themselves had done nothing similar. They especially felt this, because, being possessed of more than Martin, they could have clothed the poor man without reducing themselves to nakedness. In the following night, when Martin had resigned himself to sleep, he had a vision of Christ arrayed in that part of his cloak with which he had clothed the poor man. He contemplated the Lord with the greatest attention, and was told to own as his the robe which he had given. Ere long, he heard Jesus saying with a clear voice to the multitude of angels standing round -- "Martin, who is still but a catechumen, clothed me with this robe."

That was very moving.  You got me a little misty with that one.  Is this St. Martin of Tours?
Yes.  A little reminder that the Western Orthodox have their superstars too.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Seraphim98 on April 07, 2009, 07:03:56 PM
Actually I the original comment was meant as lighthearted banter that perhaps got taken a little more seriously than it was intended. I could be wrong.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 07, 2009, 07:09:31 PM
I finished my transposition of the speech onto "paper".  I hope you all find it accurate.  I'm sorry if this is not allowed by the forum.  I'm always a little hazy on attachments and such...

I'm grateful to you, especially because my dial-up at the end of the world is too slow to view the video.



I cut a back-room deal with ialmisry so you can thank him.  lol.   :D ;D
Well, I am raised in Chicago. LOL. ;D
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 07, 2009, 07:13:47 PM
Ok... Is anyone noticing a pattern here? The only ones really arguing against the OCA are those that are members of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese or otherwise under the Ecumenical Patriarch... The only ones really arguing for it so far are OCA...
What do other Orthodox say? (and you cannot answer for others)
Do I count for "other."  After all, I may have been received by the OCA, but I've never considered myself "American Orthodox."  And I haven't been in the OCA for nearly a decade, and both my children were baptized by Antiochian priests.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Veniamin on April 07, 2009, 07:18:29 PM
Ok... Is anyone noticing a pattern here? The only ones really arguing against the OCA are those that are members of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese or otherwise under the Ecumenical Patriarch... The only ones really arguing for it so far are OCA...
What do other Orthodox say? (and you cannot answer for others)
Do I count for "other."  After all, I may have been received by the OCA, but I've never considered myself "American Orthodox."  And I haven't been in the OCA for nearly a decade, and both my children were baptized by Antiochian priests.

We'll count you as Isadox. :D
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 07, 2009, 07:19:16 PM
Do or do not the Turkish Islamic authorities have a veritable stranglehold on the activities of the Phanar?

They do not; the Patriarch's caution is mostly to prevent attacks by citizen groups rather than the Government, who in the past has sanctioned the Patriarchate (by not allowing the EP or other hierarchs to return to the country), but who of late has been reluctant to do so (part of the EU quest).  "Veritable stranglehold" isn't quite right; now, yes, the government does have a number of restrictions on the Patriarchate (they can't remove, for example, many of the manuscripts from the country, as they are considered historical items of the Turkish state), and since they don't recognize the Patriarchate as an entity property ownership is restricted.  But the EP's actions as Patriarch are not so severely limited - they do not interfere with the synod's selection of hierarchs (save the EP himself), nor with the internal operation of the Patriarchate (save the election of the EP himself), nor with the operation of the Patriarchate with regards to the rest of the Orthodox world (save the election of the EP himself).

Ecumenical Patriarch?

Don't you mean the (local) Greek Patriarch of the Fener, Fener Rum Patriği?
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 07, 2009, 07:23:32 PM
^ Ian Lazarus,
FYI: Someone's nominated you for Post of the Month for this post.

I'd like to second that. 
3rd
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on April 07, 2009, 07:29:13 PM

- Freedom is not an Orthodox principle, virtue, etc.  Orthodoxy exists and thrives where it wills to, under persecution, etc.  The only time when the Church has encouraged freedom is when the people were enslaved in their own countries!  And even in a few instances, local Churches have supported war erroneously, or in a short-sighted manner.  The American desire for freedom is frequently a desire for no oversight but self-oversight - a desire that contradicts a host of Christian principles and teachings, such as obedience, humility, spiritual guidance, collective correction & oversight, etc.

I believe that you are describing a historical pattern and not a doctrinal position. What do you make of the following:

"Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage." Galatians 5:1

"31 Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. 32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” 33 They answered Him, “We are Abraham’s descendants, and have never been in bondage to anyone. How can You say, ‘You will be made free’?” 34 Jesus answered them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, whoever commits sin is a slave of sin. 35 And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. 36 Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed." John 8:31-36

"20 Let each one remain in the same calling in which he was called. 21 Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it; but if you can be made free, rather use it." 1 Corinthians 7:20-21

My point is that, while the status of our souls is infinitely more important, our civic status is not unimportant. You know the ancient Greeks introduced the idea of democracy, albeit in a limited fashion. United States of America went one better and over the years has become the ideal for the entire world. Even the Bolsheviks and the Maoists were compelled to emulate the American foundational documents. I happen to believe in American exceptionalism for various reasons that have no place in this thread. Suffice it to say that American ideals can complement Orthodox doctrine and piety. Indeed, I believe that Orthodoxy will become better when it becomes less old world and more American. As for "obedience, humility, spiritual guidance, collective correction & oversight," all of these traits were present and quite common at this nations founding. It is indeed ironic and tragic that the heterodox had them in as good measure as the Orthodox, with one significant difference: while the Heterodox Christians were free men and women in the late 18th century, almost all of Orthodox Christians were slaves or serfs.

Cleveland, you are a very good lemonade maker and you are skilled at dealing with all kinds of lemons thrown your way. At some point, I hope you will decide to move on to better things.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: username! on April 07, 2009, 07:33:33 PM
Quit trying to drag me into an argument again...

If you can't stand the heat then don't get in the debate... or rather focus on being a catechumen and preparing to become a member of the church instead.

I don't get it. Why is it necessary to pull rank like this? What possesses folks to tell others to sit down and shut up?
Maybe you need to re-read my post and see that no one said "sit down and shut up." Pull rank?  A catechumen is not a member of the church, rather one studying to become a part of the church.  There is so much to learn that getting wrapped up in politics and things that take away from learning the vast amount of knowledge it takes to be ready to be received as a member of the church that sometimes it is best for catechumens to just stay out of things that could take them off that path.  Catechumen-time is a period to learn and discern the faith.  Most disheartening to any new comer is politics (ie, this thread type stuff, parish council politics, etc..) and we like to see people stay in the church.  I've seen people leave because they were new to the faith, either as catechumens, inquirers or newly illumined because they, being young in the faith were shaken by the things that distract us from the true focus of the church, Christ.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: orthodoxlurker on April 07, 2009, 07:50:37 PM
I finished my transposition of the speech onto "paper".  I hope you all find it accurate.  I'm sorry if this is not allowed by the forum.  I'm always a little hazy on attachments and such...

From the transcript (why didn't you post it outright?)

Quote
But we also have to appreciate the English and the Spanish and the French just as we have to appreciate the Klingot and the Aleut and the Upik and the Athabasken who are the true indigenous orthodox christians of our land. 

It's not Klingot, it's Tlingit.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: orthodoxlurker on April 07, 2009, 07:50:37 PM
The untruths and misrepresentations in the speech are sad and intended to engender fear and conflict.  It amazes me that people are lauding a hierarch for defaming another hierarch from the pulpit during Lent.

This is not the first time this has been noted in this thread.
 
I am curious to the substance of these "untruths and misrepresentations".

Me too.

I found the speech kind, polite, mild and well-tempered.

Quote
...the motives of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in calling this Synod in Cyprus

AFAIK, what is called isn't Synod, where every Orthodox bishop will be entitled to participate, than some unknown body that existed never before in Orthodoxy (but is imagined by some to pass binding decisions, as if it was possible for such a non-existent body).
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 07, 2009, 07:52:05 PM
Well, I read through the transcript, and I don't find anything inaccurate or misleading. Emphasized, for sure.  Singled out, yes.  But exaggerated, not really, let alone "lying."
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: 88Devin12 on April 07, 2009, 08:10:07 PM
I understand that catechumens ought to not focus on Church politics (as most Orthodox shouldn't), but it isn't going to shake my faith. I've been interested in Orthodoxy for over two years, and have been attending church for over one and a half years. I'm pretty set on joining, and Church politics doesn't discourage me in the least.

(Just as a note, I wasn't giving those time periods as a boast, but rather to show I've been studying and learning for a long time, and that I am really set on joining, that I would even be willing to die for Christ and his Church. Gritty and depressing politics won't change that)
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: SDMPNS on April 07, 2009, 08:16:52 PM
It looks as if Met. Jonah is going to lead the American Church concerning unity. Met. Phillip has obviously dropped the ball. If anyone had told me this time last year that the OCA would be leading the Church i'd have laughed my head off. God is good !
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 07, 2009, 08:17:46 PM
Okay.  Do you refer to hierarchs in the OCA as American Despots?  Would it be okay if other hierarchs did?

Don't know about your region but in this part of the world we refer to our local Greek bishop as "Thespoti" and when speaking to him fact to face we address him that way too.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Νεκτάριος on April 07, 2009, 08:23:02 PM
A round of applause for Metropolitan Jonah!  He found a great way to distract everyone from the still real and very serious problems within the OCA. 
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 07, 2009, 08:31:52 PM
Americans, rejoice!   

Your fate as a Church could well be decided on Cyprus in 3 months time.   

I suppose it will effect me too, even in far away New Zealand.   One good thing.  Our NZ Thespoti is a very good bishop.  On the down side, I see that  Constantinople wants to impose the New Calendar on us.   I expect many of us will be lining up to join Fr Anastasios.

Orthodox synod due in June and December

Invitation letters have gone out to Orthodox churches to convene a grand Pan-Orthodox Synod in Istanbul. This would be the first since 1901.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
By NAT da Polis
   
With the sending of letters of invitation to all the heads of the Orthodox Churches for the two preparatory meetings for the grand pan-Orthodox synod, scheduled for June and December of this year, Bartholomew has set in motion the decisions made at the recent pan-Orthodox meeting in October, held in Constantinople, and attended by deceased patriarch of Moscow Alexy as his last act in life.

Bartholomew has stepped up the pace for the convening of the grand synod, which has the objective of responding to all of the problems that have built up over the course of centuries, and continue to plague relations among the Orthodox Churches, with extensive repercussions for the dialogue between Orthodox and Catholics as well. The schism of 1054, with all of its grave consequences for the universal Church, also deprived the Orthodox Church of the necessary impetus and ability to be constantly present in the course of history.

In the recent past, a first initiative for the convening of a pan-Orthodox synod was undertaken by Patriarch Ioakim III in 1901. He wanted to smooth over the tensions among the autocephalous Orthodox Churches, in the conviction that only an Orthodox Church engaged in a constant and constructive inner dialogue could face the challenges of the contemporary world and act with one voice and one heart. This initiative did not succeed, in part because the Orthodox Churches, which had recently emerged from Ottoman rule, were seeking their identity in an exaggerated identification with the nation, and the full breadth of the Christian message was not instilled in their clergy.

After various mishaps, in 1961 a pan-Orthodox conference was convened in Rhodes, with significant pressure from patriarch Athenagoras, for the purpose of preparing an Orthodox synod. This conference was also followed by numerous obstacles, because as theologian Giorgos Tetsetis observes, the local Churches did not have a clear idea of what they wanted from the Synod.

Now, the letters sent for the two preparatory meetings to be held in June, in Cyprus, and in December, in a place to be determined, present the following topics:

1. The Orthodox diaspora, where the jurisdiction over the Orthodox flock beyond national borders will be defined. According to the canons now in effect, before the growth in the phenomenon of emigration the faithful outside of their home country belong to the ecumenical patriarchate.

2. The manner of recognizing the status of autocephalous Church.

3. The manner of recognizing the status of Church autonomy.

4. Dypticha, meaning the rules of mutual canonical recognition among the Orthodox Churches.

5. Establishing a common calendar for feasts. For example, some Churches celebrate the Nativity on December 25, others 10 days later.

6. Impediments and canonicity of the sacrament of matrimony.

7. The question of fasting in the contemporary world. 8. Relationships with the other Christian confessions.

9. The ecumenical movement.

10. The contribution of the Orthodox in affirming the Christian ideals of peace, fraternity, and freedom.

Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 07, 2009, 08:37:25 PM
Okay.  Do you refer to hierarchs in the OCA as American Despots?  Would it be okay if other hierarchs did?

Don't know about your region but in this part of the world we refer to our local Greek bishop as "Thespoti" and when speaking to him fact to face we address him that way too.

LOL. O Father, such a naughty Irishman.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 07, 2009, 08:45:49 PM
Invitation letters have gone out to Orthodox churches to convene a grand Pan-Orthodox Synod in Istanbul. This would be the first since 1901.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
By NAT da PolisNow, the letters sent for the two preparatory meetings to be held in June, in Cyprus, and in December, in a place to be determined, present the following topics:

1. The Orthodox diaspora, where the jurisdiction over the Orthodox flock beyond national borders will be defined. According to the canons now in effect, before the growth in the phenomenon of emigration the faithful outside of their home country belong to the ecumenical patriarchate.

Funny that this is the only topic the source feels the need to explain at length, and wrongly on top of that.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 07, 2009, 08:55:09 PM
On the down side, I see that  Constantinople wants to impose the New Calendar on us.

You can be of good cheer you're not in the OCA then, where it would be imposed on you as well such as happened at the Cathedral in Mayfield.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/St._John_the_Baptist_Cathedral_(Mayfield,_Pennsylvania) (http://orthodoxwiki.org/St._John_the_Baptist_Cathedral_(Mayfield,_Pennsylvania))
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 07, 2009, 08:57:06 PM
Suffice it to say that American ideals can complement Orthodox doctrine and piety. Indeed, I believe that Orthodoxy will become better when it becomes less old world and more American.

Probably so, the Russian Church especially.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: username! on April 07, 2009, 08:57:50 PM
On the down side, I see that  Constantinople wants to impose the New Calendar on us.

You can be of good cheer you're not in the OCA then, where it would be imposed on you as well such as happened at the Cathedral in Mayfield.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/St._John_the_Baptist_Cathedral_(Mayfield,_Pennsylvania)

the link doesn't explain anything, just what are you talking about? please enlighten us!
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 07, 2009, 09:12:16 PM
Sorry, fixed the link.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on April 07, 2009, 09:29:17 PM
This was recently published at the Orthodox Christians for Accountability. It may help our understanding of what is meant by conciliarity from an OCA perspective.

A Hundred Years Of A Conciliar Church

by Fr. Michael Plekon, New York NY


"We live in an extremely difficult time.If one wished to indict our ecclesial life there would be no chance for an acquittal. Indeed everyone is guilty. History knows the periods when the disorganization of ecclesial life was no worse than in our time. There was struggle, disunity, mutual accusations, slander and violence, but nevertheless there is a difference between the situation then and what we have now. Beneath that disorganization there was struggle over dogma. But in our time sheer human passion exposes itself in broad daylight without the protection of dogmatic debate. Our ecclesial life has reached a dead end, for the principles which penetrated it in the distant past have become obsolete and only continue to distort it."

("The Church of the Holy Spirit", 7)

So does Nicholas Afanasiev, the priest and theologian who recovered the “eucharistic ecclesiology” of the early church conclude the forward to his major work, The Church of the Holy Spirit. He first presented this study for the doctorate in 1950 and spent the next decade and a half, till his death in 1966, revising and enlarging it, completing as well, much of what would be a companion volume, The Limits of the Church. The Church of the Holy Spirit was only finally published posthumously, in Russian in 1971, in French in 1975 and in English in 2007. (UND Press)

Fr. Afanasiev’s vision of the church came from the many recoveries by theologians of the Paris Russian immigration, most of whom taught at St. Sergius Institute there. Of them all, he was the most insistent on the necessity of taking the history of the church seriously, given the dogma of the Incarnation and the human as well as divine aspects of the church’s existence.

In what follows I offer a response to his Beatitude Metropolitan Jonah’s thoughts about the OCA,

“A Time of Crisis and Opportunity,” with the understanding that this document was presented by him as the beginning of discussion on the future of the OCA, in particular its statute and ecclesiological shape. Afanasiev’s classic ecclesiological study was not only a serious scholarly investigation of elements lost or discarded over time from the early church. As with all of his work in the canons, in church history, liturgy, the scriptures, Afanasiev was aware of an important connection to the state of the church in his time. Those who fled the revolution and come to the west saw the church fragmented and divided into at least three jurisdictions, one of which eventually would deny churchly status to the others and to any church bodies outside its borders—thus the lively interest among so many émigré writers about the “limits” of the church.

One of the most important recoveries on Afanasiev’s part is the priesthood of all the baptized, the sense that the church is the whole people of God, that bishops, the clergy and the laity all celebrate the liturgy, do the work of Christ in the world—in short that the church is a community bound by love in the Spirit, not by law or status. Afanasiev painfully sketches the movement away from this early situation, one influenced by the development of both law and stratification within the community, principally into the ordained and the laity. It is widely recognized that in the first half of the 20th century one of the principal theological rediscoveries was that of the church as the community, the gathering or assembly of the whole of the people of God. For us in the OCA the recovery of this “conciliar” sense and shape of the church goes back earlier than Afanasiev’s work as we shall see. There is over a century of churchly experience and deliberation that is our legacy.

This reflection is offered to “put the best construction” on all things as a manifestation of Christian hope, and in the words of the American song, to “accentuate the positive.” We need this constructive outlook precisely in this time of crisis, with many issues not yet resolved. Yet it is also a time of searching for renewal, reform and possibilities, a time of hope for the future. My principal theme comes from St.Paul—namely to “hold fast to what is good…”, to stay with the OCA’s conciliar ecclesiology, which took a century to be recovered from the past and which has been pushed aside in recent decades by the OCA central administration and the synod. (I Thess. 5: 21)

The focus here is on the historical path that brought about the recovery of a conciliar vision of the church. As Fr. Schmemann noted, the church is hierarchical as well as conciliar. (Church, World, Mission, Crestwood: SVS Press, 1979) The church can be looked at in many other ways: liturgical, diaconal, pastoral, missionary, among others.

The conciliar vision of the church


This conciliar ecclesiology is an understanding of and a model for church life. It seeks to include the bishops, clergy and laity in the work and decisions of the church, respecting the different vocations of all, but also reflecting “that all were together” not only in celebrating the Eucharist but in the rest of their life and action, in the view of Acts 2: 44, as Fr.Afanasiev has observed. This conciliar way of being the church is no recent creation, but the experience and practice of the early church, as Afanasiev documents, found throughout the NT letters, the Acts of the Apostles and in the writings of early church teachers such as Ignatius of Antioch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Irenaeus of Lyons, and Cyprian of Carthage.

It is possible to debate the shape and culture, the trends and urgencies of various historical periods—those of OCA autocephaly and the statute, those of the years of the metropolia before 1970, even the years of the missionary work of Sts Tikhon of America, Raphael of Brooklyn, Innocent, Herman, Yakov and Juvenaly of Alaska. Recently I heard two leaders of the OCA & GOA disagree and publicly and deeply about the origins of the Orthodox church in America in the first years of the 20th century. The historical realities of those early years are not interpreted in the same way by the OCA and the GOA. The OCA sees there a model of one church united, with respect for ethnic belonging but not consumed with this. The other point of view is that it was necessary for Greek Orthodox Christian to have their own church.

There are numerous other strong disagreements. It is no secret that the accomplishments of a Fr. Alexander Schmemann, being remembered in various conferences in this 25th year since his falling asleep, are acclaimed by some and still strongly rejected by others.

Conciliar sources

The Moscow council of 1917-18


Many of us do not know of the bishops, clergy & laity whose deliberations at the Moscow council of 1917-18 worked out the conciliar church model as a reform for the Russian church. Because of the Revolution, this model was not put into practice in Russia, but it had already been the model in the American metropolia since St. Tikhon’s days. Later it would be adopted also in the Paris exarchate under Metropolitan Evlogy, as well as in the Sourozh diocese under Metropolitan Anthony, in the churches of Finland and Japan as well.

Soon to appear in translation, Hyacinthe Destivelle’s masterful study of the Moscow council traces the decades of work and preparation that led up to the council’s convocation. His study also presents the vision of the church—the very same conciliar model we have in the OCA statute and many other proposals for a healthier church life.(Le concile de Moscou 1917-1918, Paris: Cerf, 2006)

St. Tikhon and the church of the American metropolia
The pastoral experience of St. Tikhon in the North American missionary archdiocese brought much to the work of this council. For it was St. Tikhon who asked that the all-church council in Mayfield PA in 1907 include clergy and lay members as well as the bishops. This pattern was retained in the North American metropolia thereafter, both because it was effective but also because it reflected the fullness of the church. Moreover, the same conciliar pattern that incorporated all members of the church—the bishops, clergy and laity—was reflected in the makeup of the Moscow council and found further implementation in the acts of that council—this was the result of the urging of the Russian bishops themselves, along with clergy and lay leaders and scholars. Thus it was not the conditions of a small missionary archdiocese that required the conciliar pattern, rather it was agreed to as the form for the entire Russian church by this council of 1917-18. While there was disagreement about the details of how this conciliar way of being the church should work, in the end the Moscow council arrived at a form which retained the authority of the chief pastors while also engaging the rest of the church—the clergy and laity—in the church’s work.

Given the revelations in the past three years of decades of failed church leadership, abuse, threats and cover-ups, now more than ever we need to hold on to this example of truly “living tradition” that we in the OCA have inherited from a number of important sources, a conciliar form of being the church. As noted these include Sts Tikhon and Raphael and Alexis Toth but also from their era Fr. Sebastian Dabovich, Bishop Innocent (Pustynsky), Fr. Leonid (later Metr. Leonty) Turkevich, and Frs now Sts John Kochurov and Alexander Hotovitsky.

To be continued...
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 07, 2009, 09:30:38 PM
On the down side, I see that  Constantinople wants to impose the New Calendar on us.

You can be of good cheer you're not in the OCA then, where it would be imposed on you as well such as happened at the Cathedral in Mayfield.

http://orthodoxwiki.org/St._John_the_Baptist_Cathedral_(Mayfield,_Pennsylvania) (http://orthodoxwiki.org/St._John_the_Baptist_Cathedral_(Mayfield,_Pennsylvania))

Actually, you link should make Father wish he was in PA's court jurisdiction.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: 88Devin12 on April 07, 2009, 09:38:37 PM
Actually the New Calendar isn't imposed in the OCA, there are parishes that don't use it.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: serb1389 on April 07, 2009, 09:45:56 PM
I finished my transposition of the speech onto "paper".  I hope you all find it accurate.  I'm sorry if this is not allowed by the forum.  I'm always a little hazy on attachments and such...

From the transcript (why didn't you post it outright?)

Because it was 4 pages.  I hate reading huge posts like that, so I though "talk the talk, walk the walk"

Quote
Quote
But we also have to appreciate the English and the Spanish and the French just as we have to appreciate the Klingot and the Aleut and the Upik and the Athabasken who are the true indigenous orthodox christians of our land. 

It's not Klingot, it's Tlingit.

sorry!  didn't hear it that well.  thanks for the correction.  I made it on the original.  Do you need to repost it? 
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on April 07, 2009, 10:06:04 PM
Continuing Father Plekon's article on cociliarity from the OCA perspective:

Teachers of the St. Sergius Institute and the Paris Exarchate


Another often over looked source of this conciliar ecclesiology came to us from the experience of the exarchate based in Paris, eventually under the ecumenical patriarchate, and led by Metropolitan Evlogy, himself one of the leading participants in the movement leading up to and culminating in the Moscow council. Metr. Evlogy implemented the council reforms into the operation of the exarchate, creating a diocesan assembly as well as council with the bishops, clergy and laity all included. The St. Sergius Institute, the first Orthodox theological school in the west, was established with his blessing and the financial assistance of many outside the church most notably the America YMCA. Many of the professors at the Institute contributed to a renaissance of patristic scholarship, (Fr. Georges Florovsky) but also in liturgy and ecclesiology and dogmatic theology. The work of Frs Bulgakov, Afanasiev, Bishop Cassian (Bezobrazov), Cyprian Kern, Basil Zenkovsky, professors Kartashev, Zander, Fedotov, Zernov and philosopher Nicholas Berdiaev would shape generations of laity and clergy after them, would contribute greatly to the international liturgical and ecumenical movements, even to Vatican II, particularly to the dogmatic constitutions on the church-- Lumen gentium and Gaudium et spes.

As those studying the Paris exarchate and St. Sergius theologians—Antoine Arjakovsky, Brandon Gallaher, Rowan Williams, Hilarion Alfayev and myself-- point out, this local church effected nothing less than a rediscovery of the tradition’s dynamic nature. Whether in their articles in the journal Put’[The Way], or in their own books, and anthologies such as Zhivoe predanie [living Tradition]of 1937, they recovered the sobornost’, the “catholicity” or “conciliarity” of the church. This conciliar identity is rooted in Baptism and in the Eucharist which define the church, which incorporate all members—bishops, clergy, laity— for all are priests, prophets, kings by Baptism. (I Peter 2: 4-10) One cannot be ordained a bishop or priest without first having been consecrated to the universal priesthood in Baptism. One is a bishop, priest, deacon or layperson because there is the rest of the community to serve. The rationale for the conciliar shape is neither balance of powers or democratic representation and procedure. The rationale is first and foremost our baptismal and eucharistic identity as the people of God.

Teachers of St. Vladimir’s Seminary

Finally, students of these St. Sergius teachers, principally Fathers Alexander Schmemann and John Meyendorff, also Professor Alexander Bogolepov, among others, continued their work at St. Vladimir’s Seminary and were the primary craftsmen of the statute of the OCA, formally accepted at the 1971 all-American council. (A. Bogolepov, Church Reforms in Russia 1905-1918, Metropolitan Council, 1966)

So, this conciliar ecclesiology, enshrined in the OCA statute, was the result of over a century of ecclesial experience and work, beginning with the statute developed at the Mayfield council in 1907, then the deliberation and actions of a major church council, that in Moscow in 1917-18, and followed by the deliberate implementation of that council’s conciliar ecclesiology by the American metropolia in the councils at Detroit in 1924 and New York in 1955, culminating in the OCA statute accepted at the 1971 council in South Canaan PA.

The metropolia, at the time of autocephaly, despite its being essentially an archdiocese, was actually larger in numbers than the OCA of today. For decades, this conciliar model of being the church and acting as the church produced much: mission growth, liturgical and monastic renewal, scholarly excellence and research and publications—the publications of St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press stand in witness. Perhaps more than any others stand the legacy of Frs Schmemann and Meyendorff. Confident in the conciliar shape and church heritage of the OCA statute, their writings and teaching sought to offer this not only to the other Orthodox churches but to all other Christian churches and the culture in which they lived. We have not seen any truly apostolic witness like theirs since.

The conciliar vision discarded

But this conciliar ecclesiology has not always succeeded. When set aside, as it was both on the national church and diocesan levels in the past two decades, chaos, abuse, malfeasance, denial and cover-ups ensued. In the lines that followed Afanasiev’s forward quoted at the outset:

"The Church is [then] viewed as an organization subject to human legislation and, being an organization, it exists merely to serve human needs. Human will reigns within and externally human will strives to turn God’s church into a means of attaining its goals. Perhaps never before have the faithful themselves profaned the “bride of Christ” to such a degree." (The Church of the Holy Spirit, 7)

If not the clairvoyance then the timeliness of Afanasiev is indeed striking. We have seen the crisis not only at the national level but in the dioceses. As a member of a diocese in which the two past hierarchs rejected the statute’s conciliarity in favor of domination, deceit and coercion, it was possible to see, at this more local level, what happens when the clergy and lay members of the church could not freely speak, raise questions or challenge procedures. When funds disappeared, delegates heard the diocesan bishop say there would be “no audits, no investigation…you’ll never find where the money went.” (Metropolitan Herman) Clergy and lay delegates at the diocesan assemblies of the former NY/NJ and later DC/NY archdiocese were told that no assembly or council was needed, (Archbishop Peter) that “the bishop was the church,” that he owned and controlled everything, down to “olive trees, sheep, vineyards, domestic animals,” as a canon stated. We were told there would be no questions, audits and that we should simply “get on with it for the good of the church.” The specific activities and failed leadership later identified by the SIC were originally denied by our ruling bishops, the entire matter deemed to be the “work of Satan,” and of vengeful former church employees. And if the “truth” of it all were told, our diocesan treasurer claimed, it would “destroy the church.”

So much for episcopal leadership and mutual accountability at the level of the local church. And with the conciliarity of our statute put aside, only courageous clergy and laity were willing to speak out. There was no redress, no way for the local church to consider this terrible situation openly, honestly, fully.

No guarantees for conciliarity

All of us want to see the wrongs of the past admitted and resolved. We look forward to doing the work of the Gospel in the future. We look forward to a unified church here, also to its being a witness, the yeast in the loaf, the seed planted in the field, the lamp burning so all can see its light.

There is no guarantee of conciliarity in the church. Bishop Hilarion Alfayev echoes this point, repeatedly made by Afanasiev, in a recent conference paper. There is no emperor to call councils or control out of control bishops, clergy or laity. Equally, within the church, threats of punishment are sometimes made by the very leaders who should have been accountable, trustworthy, to those they thought should be obedient to them. (This sadly happened many times over the years in the OCA, rather publicly in the last three with the revelation of the abuses.) Recent experience indicates more breaches of accountability, love and trust. A bishop can explicitly say there is no obligation to answer the questions of his flock. He can also walk away from them and the microphone, as at the recent AAC. Even the church leaders named as failing to listen or to act were allowed simply to retire or were retired or given letters of reprimand.

Either from without or from within there is no power that can make us act like a fellowship, a koinonia. As Paul Evdokimov stressed, citing the Letter to Diognetus (7: 4) from the early church, there can never be compulsion between God and his creatures, among brothers and sisters in Christ. Yet, from the very shape of the eucharistic assembly, as Fr. Afanasiev showed, we recognize it is only mutual love that has primacy (vlast’ lyubvi), not law or rank. (The Church of the Holy Spirit, 255-276) Just as at the last judgment, it is only on our love that we are judged, only to love that we are called. We see that sharing in the one Bread and Cup is the work of our common baptism, making us those sent out to work “for the life of the world.” If we are truly brothers and sisters in Christ in the church, regardless of rank, then why should we reject a statute which consistently envisions that we meet and pray, talk and decide and act together, all of us: bishops, priest, deacons, monastics, lay women and men? Rather, we should “hold fast to what is good.”


(Fr. Michael Plekon is  the associate priest at St. Gregory the Theologian Church, Wappingers Falls NY, and a Professor of Sociology/Anthropology in the Program in Religion and Culture, Baruch College of the City University of New York.)
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: username! on April 07, 2009, 10:10:19 PM
Actually the New Calendar isn't imposed in the OCA, there are parishes that don't use it.

Ok, outside of alaska, what parishes in in the OCA don't use the Revised Julian Calender?  Give me a list.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Fr. George on April 07, 2009, 10:26:33 PM
Okay.  Do you refer to hierarchs in the OCA as American Despots?  Would it be okay if other hierarchs did?

Don't know about your region but in this part of the world we refer to our local Greek bishop as "Thespoti" and when speaking to him fact to face we address him that way too.

Tsk tsk.  Not using the correct title for him? Theofilestate for a bishop (auxiliary or ruling), Sevasmiotate for an Archbishop or Metropolitan who is not the head of an autocephalous Church, Makariotate for the head of an autocephalous Church, and Panagiotate for the Ecumenical Patriarch.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Fr. George on April 07, 2009, 10:27:21 PM
Americans, rejoice!  

Your fate as a Church could well be decided on Cyprus in 3 months time.  

I suppose it will effect me too, even in far away New Zealand.   One good thing.  Our NZ Thespoti is a very good bishop.  On the down side, I see that  Constantinople wants to impose the New Calendar on us.   I expect many of us will be lining up to join Fr Anastasios.

From what you quoted, it looks like the calendar will be up for a vote, not "imposed."  Nice try, though.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: 88Devin12 on April 07, 2009, 10:38:51 PM
username!, there are parishes outside of Alaska in the OCA that don't use the Revised Julian, i'm not going to waste my time looking for them.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: username! on April 07, 2009, 11:02:48 PM
username!, there are parishes outside of Alaska in the OCA that don't use the Revised Julian, i'm not going to waste my time looking for them.

Just because you say there are doesn't mean there are.  If you knew the history many parishes went through trying to maintain the Julian Calender (one parish's history was linked right here in this thread) you'd understand it isn't as simple as the parish council voting to stay on the Julian Calender in the OCA.  If there are any, and I know only ONE off hand that is OCA that uses the Julian Calender, they are the exception not the rule. 
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 07, 2009, 11:35:30 PM
I finished my transposition of the speech onto "paper".  I hope you all find it accurate.  I'm sorry if this is not allowed by the forum.  I'm always a little hazy on attachments and such...

From the transcript (why didn't you post it outright?)

Because it was 4 pages.  I hate reading huge posts like that, so I though "talk the talk, walk the walk"

Quote
Quote
But we also have to appreciate the English and the Spanish and the French just as we have to appreciate the Klingot and the Aleut and the Upik and the Athabasken who are the true indigenous orthodox christians of our land. 

It's not Klingot, it's Tlingit.

sorry!  didn't hear it that well.  thanks for the correction.  I made it on the original.  Do you need to repost it? 

Interesting thing about the Tlingit (or Thlingit in earlier writings): the Russian mission put a lot of effort, including Ss Innocent and Jacob Netsvetov, but had little to show for it.  Only a few dozen Tlingit converted.  The Tlingit converted as a nation a couple decades AFTER the Russian government pulled out and the military dictatorship of the American Presbyterians came in.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on April 07, 2009, 11:37:48 PM
Just because you say there are doesn't mean there are.  If you knew the history many parishes went through trying to maintain the Julian Calender (one parish's history was linked right here in this thread) you'd understand it isn't as simple as the parish council voting to stay on the Julian Calender in the OCA.  If there are any, and I know only ONE off hand that is OCA that uses the Julian Calender, they are the exception not the rule.

This mission parish does:

http://www.oca.org/DIRlisting.asp?SID=9&KEY=OCA-MW-ASGTUJ
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: serb1389 on April 08, 2009, 07:15:51 AM
I finished my transposition of the speech onto "paper".  I hope you all find it accurate.  I'm sorry if this is not allowed by the forum.  I'm always a little hazy on attachments and such...

From the transcript (why didn't you post it outright?)

Because it was 4 pages.  I hate reading huge posts like that, so I though "talk the talk, walk the walk"

Quote
Quote
But we also have to appreciate the English and the Spanish and the French just as we have to appreciate the Klingot and the Aleut and the Upik and the Athabasken who are the true indigenous orthodox christians of our land. 

It's not Klingot, it's Tlingit.

sorry!  didn't hear it that well.  thanks for the correction.  I made it on the original.  Do you need to repost it? 

Interesting thing about the Tlingit (or Thlingit in earlier writings): the Russian mission put a lot of effort, including Ss Innocent and Jacob Netsvetov, but had little to show for it.  Only a few dozen Tlingit converted.  The Tlingit converted as a nation a couple decades AFTER the Russian government pulled out and the military dictatorship of the American Presbyterians came in.

I've done some pretty heavy research about St. Innocent, and I never came across this.  Happen to remember where you saw that little tid-bit?
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 08, 2009, 08:17:05 AM
I finished my transposition of the speech onto "paper".  I hope you all find it accurate.  I'm sorry if this is not allowed by the forum.  I'm always a little hazy on attachments and such...

From the transcript (why didn't you post it outright?)

Because it was 4 pages.  I hate reading huge posts like that, so I though "talk the talk, walk the walk"

Quote
Quote
But we also have to appreciate the English and the Spanish and the French just as we have to appreciate the Klingot and the Aleut and the Upik and the Athabasken who are the true indigenous orthodox christians of our land. 

It's not Klingot, it's Tlingit.

sorry!  didn't hear it that well.  thanks for the correction.  I made it on the original.  Do you need to repost it? 

Interesting thing about the Tlingit (or Thlingit in earlier writings): the Russian mission put a lot of effort, including Ss Innocent and Jacob Netsvetov, but had little to show for it.  Only a few dozen Tlingit converted.  The Tlingit converted as a nation a couple decades AFTER the Russian government pulled out and the military dictatorship of the American Presbyterians came in.

I've done some pretty heavy research about St. Innocent, and I never came across this.  Happen to remember where you saw that little tid-bit?

Couple of places, but here's a good place to start:
http://books.google.com/books?id=E0-Aj0dOSuUC
Quote
In Memory Eternal, Sergei Kan combines anthropology and history, anecdote and theory to portray the encounter between the Tlingit Indians and the Russian Orthodox Church in Alaska in the late 1700s and to analyze the indigenous Orthodoxy that developed over the next 200 years. As a native speaker of Russian with 18 years of fieldwork experience among the Tlingit, Kan is uniquely qualified to relate little-known material from the archives of the Russian church in Alaska to Tlingit oral history and his own observations. By weighing the one body of evidence against the other, he has reevaluated this history, arriving at a persuasive new concept of "converged agendas" -- the view that the Tlingit and the Russians tended to act in mutually beneficial ways but for entirely different reasons throughout the period of their contact with one another.
Memory Eternal shows the colonial encounter to be both a power struggle and a dialogue between different systems of meaning. It portrays Native Alaskans notas helpless victims but as historical agents who adjusted to the changing reality of their social world without abandoning fundamental principals of their precolonial sociocultural order or their strong sense of self-respect.



More details
Memory eternal: Tlingit culture and Russian Orthodox Christianity through two centuries
By Sergei Kan
Edition: illustrated
Published by University of Washington Press, 1999
ISBN 0295978066, 9780295978062
665 pages

In the interests of full disclosure, Kan is also a product of the U of C.


He mentions that Innocent's work on the Tlingit have barely been scratched, and still is mostly in MSS and in Russian.  His (St. Innocent's) "Observations about the Tlingit and Kodiak (Alutiiq) Languages" is online here:
http://www.asna.ca/alaska/research/zamechaniya.pdf#page=29

My favorite part is that the Tlingit, although not Orthodox at the time of the sale, were literate thanks to the missionaries and hence were promised full U.S. citizenship with the sale (which they didn't get, as most Russians didn't).  When they converted, the leaders identified themselves as the "Orthodox Chiefs of the Tlingit"
Quote
PETITION FROM THE TLINGIT ORTHODOX CHIEFS TO

THE U.S. PRESIDENT, 1897

In part: The reason for this (petition) is following; because here we cannot get any satisfaction to our just and lawful demands. We know that the Russian Government at the time of the transfer of Alaska to the U.S. did not sell us as slaves to America, but left us some rights and privileges which were later made lawful and firm by the U.S. Congress. "The Organic Act, providing a civil Government for Alaska" in section 8 provides that the Indians or other persons in said district shall not be disturbed in the possession of any lands actually in their use or occupation or nor claimed by them...
http://www.alaskool.org/projects/native_gov/recollections/peratrovich/Elizabeth_1.htm
The bishop of the Diocese similarly petitioned to Washington, D.C., and the Tlingit actually approached the Imperial ambassador there for the Czar to send an observer to check the implimentation of the Treaty.  As I posted above, St. Alexander Hotovitsky refered to these matters when St. Tikhon arrived in the U.S. in New York, and St. Tikhon went on to Alaska himself.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: serb1389 on April 08, 2009, 08:30:50 AM
I finished my transposition of the speech onto "paper".  I hope you all find it accurate.  I'm sorry if this is not allowed by the forum.  I'm always a little hazy on attachments and such...

From the transcript (why didn't you post it outright?)

Because it was 4 pages.  I hate reading huge posts like that, so I though "talk the talk, walk the walk"

Quote
Quote
But we also have to appreciate the English and the Spanish and the French just as we have to appreciate the Klingot and the Aleut and the Upik and the Athabasken who are the true indigenous orthodox christians of our land. 

It's not Klingot, it's Tlingit.

sorry!  didn't hear it that well.  thanks for the correction.  I made it on the original.  Do you need to repost it? 

Interesting thing about the Tlingit (or Thlingit in earlier writings): the Russian mission put a lot of effort, including Ss Innocent and Jacob Netsvetov, but had little to show for it.  Only a few dozen Tlingit converted.  The Tlingit converted as a nation a couple decades AFTER the Russian government pulled out and the military dictatorship of the American Presbyterians came in.

I've done some pretty heavy research about St. Innocent, and I never came across this.  Happen to remember where you saw that little tid-bit?

Couple of places, but here's a good place to start:
http://books.google.com/books?id=E0-Aj0dOSuUC
Quote
In Memory Eternal, Sergei Kan combines anthropology and history, anecdote and theory to portray the encounter between the Tlingit Indians and the Russian Orthodox Church in Alaska in the late 1700s and to analyze the indigenous Orthodoxy that developed over the next 200 years. As a native speaker of Russian with 18 years of fieldwork experience among the Tlingit, Kan is uniquely qualified to relate little-known material from the archives of the Russian church in Alaska to Tlingit oral history and his own observations. By weighing the one body of evidence against the other, he has reevaluated this history, arriving at a persuasive new concept of "converged agendas" -- the view that the Tlingit and the Russians tended to act in mutually beneficial ways but for entirely different reasons throughout the period of their contact with one another.
Memory Eternal shows the colonial encounter to be both a power struggle and a dialogue between different systems of meaning. It portrays Native Alaskans notas helpless victims but as historical agents who adjusted to the changing reality of their social world without abandoning fundamental principals of their precolonial sociocultural order or their strong sense of self-respect.



More details
Memory eternal: Tlingit culture and Russian Orthodox Christianity through two centuries
By Sergei Kan
Edition: illustrated
Published by University of Washington Press, 1999
ISBN 0295978066, 9780295978062
665 pages

In the interests of full disclosure, Kan is also a product of the U of C.


He mentions that Innocent's work on the Tlingit have barely been scratched, and still is mostly in MSS and in Russian.  His (St. Innocent's) "Observations about the Tlingit and Kodiak (Alutiiq) Languages" is online here:
http://www.asna.ca/alaska/research/zamechaniya.pdf#page=29

My favorite part is that the Tlingit, although not Orthodox at the time of the sale, were literate thanks to the missionaries and hence were promised full U.S. citizenship with the sale (which they didn't get, as most Russians didn't).  When they converted, the leaders identified themselves as the "Orthodox Chiefs of the Tlingit"
Quote
PETITION FROM THE TLINGIT ORTHODOX CHIEFS TO

THE U.S. PRESIDENT, 1897

In part: The reason for this (petition) is following; because here we cannot get any satisfaction to our just and lawful demands. We know that the Russian Government at the time of the transfer of Alaska to the U.S. did not sell us as slaves to America, but left us some rights and privileges which were later made lawful and firm by the U.S. Congress. "The Organic Act, providing a civil Government for Alaska" in section 8 provides that the Indians or other persons in said district shall not be disturbed in the possession of any lands actually in their use or occupation or nor claimed by them...
http://www.alaskool.org/projects/native_gov/recollections/peratrovich/Elizabeth_1.htm
The bishop of the Diocese similarly petitioned to Washington, D.C., and the Tlingit actually approached the Imperial ambassador there for the Czar to send an observer to check the implimentation of the Treaty.  As I posted above, St. Alexander Hotovitsky refered to these matters when St. Tikhon arrived in the U.S. in New York, and St. Tikhon went on to Alaska himself.

Huh.  I never thought of approaching it from a language standpoint.  Very interesting indeed.  Thanks for opening a lot of doors for me! 
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 08, 2009, 09:04:49 AM
This was recently published at the Orthodox Christians for Accountability. It may help our understanding of what is meant by conciliarity from an OCA perspective.

This is interesting for a few reasons.  One is that it seems to validate the views of the Parish school on the nature of the church, at least in regards to the vision of the OCA.  Hopefully both the ROCOR and the MP in North America will come around on that front.  It would be good to see some additional details about what this new form of conciliarity would mean in the context of Orthodoxy.  This paper:

http://www.aoiusa.org/main/page.php?page_id=127

Mentions lay nomination and election of bishops, which I think would be unique in Orthodoxy worldwide and would only happen in North America if put in place.  I could be wrong though.

I also gather the OCL are strong backers of Metropolitan Jonah (and of course they have been long standing opponents of the presence of the EP in North America).  It would be good if with the changes coming about in lay representation and conciliarity the following were also put in place

Quote
Women's Roles. From ancient times, the life of the Church has been enriched by the dedication, work, love and courage of the faithful women of the Church. However, women have often faced obstacles to their participation and spiritual growth in the Church. OCL strongly supports the elimination of all such barriers to the full participation of women in the life of the Church.

Accordingly, OCL recommends that:

1. A Commission should be established composed of hierarchs, priests, lay women and men to organize and oversee a long-range plan of investigation and discussion of all aspects of Orthodox women's roles and status in the Church, including the re-establishment of the female diaconate.

2. The Church must show greater sensitivity in the use of language. The use of inclusive rather than exclusive language in traditional liturgical phrases would help reduce the marginalization of Orthodox women while at the same time give due recognition to the historic role of women in the Church.

3. The diaconate of women should be re-instituted in our Church, according to the ancient, New Testament model.

4. Women should be welcomed to participate in the Liturgy as members of the choir, as chanters and readers. Women should be tonsured for these roles in the same manner as are men.

5. Tonsured women should be welcomed to serve in the Sanctuary as are men.

6. Both male and female infants should be Churched in the same way, within the Sanctuary.

7. The Church must make it clear that natural bodily functions should in no way bar anyone from participation in the sacraments.

http://www.ocl.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=AboutUs.OCLRecommendations&CFID=154442116&CFTOKEN=41846760

I would hope the OCA would also act to get the status normalized of other churches such as the Macedonian Orthodox.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 08, 2009, 09:25:59 AM
It looks as if Met. Jonah is going to lead the American Church concerning unity. Met. Phillip has obviously dropped the ball. If anyone had told me this time last year that the OCA would be leading the Church i'd have laughed my head off. God is good !

I think we all know what Constantinople is saying/doing is actually meaningless.  Nobody can actually force anybody to do anything.  The war of words between the OCA and the GOA, the cancellation of joint services in Boston this year for the Orthodoxy of Sunday, etc. is unseemly; but really doesn't amount to much.  Were I Metropolitan Jonah, I would actually just ignore what Constantinople is saying.

The Orthodox trait which most matches the American religious spirit is probably anti-authoritarianism.  That's why we are split and why just about every conceivable Orthodox splinter group sets up shop here.  It's the perfect environment for all of that.  Unity is a pipe dream not because the GOA and OCA don't get along, but because lack of respect for authority is built in to our very consciousness.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 08, 2009, 10:02:29 AM
An interesting summary on the speech here (about half way down):

http://ochlophobist.blogspot.com/2009/04/road-from-damascus-continued.html
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Seraphim98 on April 08, 2009, 10:07:55 AM
As a side note addressing the OCL quote above, most of the items in it I find distrubing that any Orthodox Christian would even entertain,  much less seriously consider them. Most of it is just way too much of a slippery slope, too much a consession to the tender egoism of our age:

Quote
2. The Church must show greater sensitivity in the use of language. The use of inclusive rather than exclusive language in traditional liturgical phrases would help reduce the marginalization of Orthodox women while at the same time give due recognition to the historic role of women in the Church.

Nonsense. I'm not calling God "She" just to massage someone's ego. "Causes" like inclusive language have no place that I can see in the Church. Our traditional liturgical phrases should of course be translated into a high standard of English that is beautiful to hear, in English generic forms of the femenine are included in the masculine, and that has nothing to do with being "insensative". That is simply the language.

Quote
3. The diaconate of women should be re-instituted in our Church, according to the ancient, New Testament model.
I don't know that I would be eager to see this happen willy nilly but if the time is right and there is a need for it to be reinstituted then this is worthy of consideration. If I'm not mistaken St. Nectarios tonsured two women into the women's diaconate.  That said it seems most functions of this tonsure have been subsumed by women monastics...I think.  

Quote
4. Women should be welcomed to participate in the Liturgy as members of the choir, as chanters and readers. Women should be tonsured for these roles in the same manner as are men.
I was not aware tonsure was required of anyone to sing in the choir. To my knowledge anyone can read if asked/blessed by the priest without tonsure if a tonsured reader is not available. Traditionally speaking male choirs might be preferable but not normally possible at the parish level. This is a decision for Bishops and priests. Tonsuring female readers strikes me as very problematic if it lacks any serious traditional precident. The service for tonsure of a reader is that of a taper bearer and would suggest a right/duty to serve in the altar. This is not right. Even an Abbess who has the right to be in the altar and receive communion there cannot do this so far as I know. One thing is for sure, the door should not be open to female altar servers.

Quote
5. Tonsured women should be welcomed to serve in the Sanctuary as are men.
No they shouldn't unless there is ample precident in the Tradition. I do not like this creeping anti-male feminist gender homogenizing.

Quote
6. Both male and female infants should be Churched in the same way, within the Sanctuary.
No they shouldn't. That is not the tradition, and so far as I know never has been.

Quote
7. The Church must make it clear that natural bodily functions should in no way bar anyone from participation in the sacraments.
 This is utter nonsense. Absolutely not. These bars are on everyone not just women. If a man has an open bleeding wound/sore he should not commune any more than a women in her monthly time. Nor should either if they've had relations the night before.  Such an idea is just unthinkable. For goodness sake, this has nothing to do with sexual discrimination even a little. If a Orthodox person communes within 24 hours of their repose, if they are desanguinated, then that blood has to be saved and buried with them. It's about respect for the Holy Mysteries, not egos.

This is for the most part just modernist ego driven crazy talk so far as I can see, a complete disregard for the Tradition when it becomes "insensative" by modern "standards".  

This probably is way off topic in this thread, but I sincerely hope our beloved Metropolitan will steer far clear of such destructive innovations.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 08, 2009, 10:22:17 AM
Quote
This probably is way off topic in this thread, but I sincerely hope our beloved Metropolitan will steer far clear of such destructive innovations.

I would actually say it's very much related.  I know people from the OCL have been e-mailing out the speech lauding it.  They certainly support the overall vision of the OCA.  Metropolitan Jonah certainly will at least have to listen to them.

I think the point is really more of what the vision of American Orthodoxy is per Metropolitan Jonah, the OCL and the AOI.  If we're really moving to a model of lay nomination and election of bishops, then the bishops will represent what the will of the people is.  Clearly there are a number of people out there who support the view of the OCL, for instance in regards to the place of women in the church.  In my parish, their suggestions listed above would probably have a lot of acceptance.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Seraphim98 on April 08, 2009, 10:33:07 AM
Well insofar as I know it, I do support Metropolitan Jonah's vision for the OCA and his hopes for Orthodoxy in North America. And I certainly regard the idea of greater lay participation and responsibility very favorably...but not in any way that would congregationalize/protestantize our expression of the faith.

The faithful nominating those from its ranks for ordination has ample precident in both OT and NT. But the final decision among the nominees is up to those hierarchs God has appointed. It is conciliar, not democratic. Similarly no hierarch should be elevated to the episcopacy or receive pastoral authority over a diocese unless he has the "Axios" of the people. If they give it, then they are bound to obey him. If they don't then it is evident that this is either not God's time for this nominee, or not God's choice at all.

That type of laity participation seems in keeping with the Holy Tradition. Laity participation that means putting everything to the vote does not.

And yes, I know there are supporters of such ideas out there. A little extra instruction on the whys of some of our Tradition might be in order.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 08, 2009, 10:55:47 AM
Well insofar as I know it, I do support Metropolitan Jonah's vision for the OCA and his hopes for Orthodoxy in North America. And I certainly regard the idea of greater lay participation and responsibility very favorably...but not in any way that would congregationalize/protestantize our expression of the faith.

That's already happened at the parish level though, except for the few jurisdictions who won't allow it such as the ROCOR who maintain the very traditional top down model.  A priest has even written a book about this.

http://www.gorgiaspress.com/bookshop/pc-55595-109-ferencz-nicholas-american-orthodoxy-and-parish-congregationalism.aspx

The Catholics of course stamped out trusteeism, but it continues in American Orthodoxy.  In many ways the separation of spiritual and temporal duties that occurs in this model mirrors what Luther viewed as the role of bishops:

http://books.google.com/books?id=8ccAl9sUYycC&pg=PA179&lpg=PA179&dq=luther+%2B+bishops&source=bl&ots=4LwA9YmfuY&sig=l5UClrh-g7Z9dfB5TXwCpXlcm5g#PPA180,M1 (http://books.google.com/books?id=8ccAl9sUYycC&pg=PA179&lpg=PA179&dq=luther+%2B+bishops&source=bl&ots=4LwA9YmfuY&sig=l5UClrh-g7Z9dfB5TXwCpXlcm5g#PPA180,M1)

Quote
The faithful nominating those from its ranks for ordination has ample precident in both OT and NT.

I agree, I don't think it's currently practiced anywhere though.

Quote
But the final decision among the nominees is up to those hierarchs God has appointed. It is conciliar, not democratic. Similarly no hierarch should be elevated to the episcopacy or receive pastoral authority over a diocese unless he has the "Axios" of the people. If they give it, then they are bound to obey him. If they don't then it is evident that this is either not God's time for this nominee, or not God's choice at all.

That sounds a little like if someone sinks, we know they're a witch.

I think it is a step to real democratization because who is going to get nominated other than who the people desire.  What could very likely happen though is paralysis, like real political democracy because nobody can agree on anything.

Quote
That type of laity participation seems in keeping with the Holy Tradition. Laity participation that means putting everything to the vote does not.

Right or wrong, I think it's safe to say it's a new tradition, and some would argue (like the ROCOR & the MP) that it isn't really traditional at all.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Eugenio on April 08, 2009, 11:37:07 AM
Regarding OCA parishes on the "Old Calendar"

St. John of Kronsdadt Orthodox Church in Lincoln, NE. also does:

http://kronstadtchurch.org/

In talking with the priest there, Fr. James, he said that the Americans in the church decided to use this calendar in part out of a feeling of kinship toward the Russians who attend church there (though their liturgy is almost entirely in English). Their bishop, Archbishop JOB of Chicago, agreed and gave them a dispensation (the correct term?) to do so. Thus as I understand, the choice of which calendar a parish chooses to follow lies entirely in the hands of their God-appointed bishop.

Moderator: If folks want to break off into a discussion about OCA churches using the Old Calendar, that might be an appropriate side-topic from this thread.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 08, 2009, 11:37:32 AM
As a side note addressing the OCL quote above, most of the items in it I find distrubing that any Orthodox Christian would even entertain,  much less seriously consider them. Most of it is just way too much of a slippery slope, too much a consession to the tender egoism of our age:

Quote
2. The Church must show greater sensitivity in the use of language. The use of inclusive rather than exclusive language in traditional liturgical phrases would help reduce the marginalization of Orthodox women while at the same time give due recognition to the historic role of women in the Church.

Nonsense. I'm not calling God "She" just to massage someone's ego. "Causes" like inclusive language have no place that I can see in the Church. Our traditional liturgical phrases should of course be translated into a high standard of English that is beautiful to hear, in English generic forms of the femenine are included in the masculine, and that has nothing to do with being "insensative". That is simply the language.

I have to agree with you here: for one thing, ALL the Traditional Liturgical languages (except perhaps Georgian and Albanian, which I don't know, and Finnish) distinguish gender, as do Spanish and French (yes, Americans, there are other languages on the Continent that the Orthodox Church contains).  I can't speak for Amerindian languages.

Quote
3. The diaconate of women should be re-instituted in our Church, according to the ancient, New Testament model.
I don't know that I would be eager to see this happen willy nilly but if the time is right and there is a need for it to be reinstituted then this is worthy of consideration. If I'm not mistaken St. Nectarios tonsured two women into the women's diaconate.  That said it seems most functions of this tonsure have been subsumed by women monastics...I think.

We are agreed here too.  The CoG have restored it.  I thought Romania would have been a better place, but oh well.

Quote
4. Women should be welcomed to participate in the Liturgy as members of the choir, as chanters and readers. Women should be tonsured for these roles in the same manner as are men.
I was not aware tonsure was required of anyone to sing in the choir. To my knowledge anyone can read if asked/blessed by the priest without tonsure if a tonsured reader is not available. Traditionally speaking male choirs might be preferable but not normally possible at the parish level. This is a decision for Bishops and priests. Tonsuring female readers strikes me as very problematic if it lacks any serious traditional precident. The service for tonsure of a reader is that of a taper bearer and would suggest a right/duty to serve in the altar. This is not right. Even an Abbess who has the right to be in the altar and receive communion there cannot do this so far as I know. One thing is for sure, the door should not be open to female altar servers.

Agreed again.

Quote
5. Tonsured women should be welcomed to serve in the Sanctuary as are men.
No they shouldn't unless there is ample precident in the Tradition. I do not like this creeping anti-male feminist gender homogenizing.

Agreed again.  It would be advisable, however, to reiterate that men without a reason to be in the Sanctuary shouldn't be there.

Quote
6. Both male and female infants should be Churched in the same way, within the Sanctuary.
No they shouldn't. That is not the tradition, and so far as I know never has been.

Antioch has directed that either both boys and girls are Churched within the Sanctuary, or neither are.  It would be fair to demand a reason why there should be a difference.

Quote
7. The Church must make it clear that natural bodily functions should in no way bar anyone from participation in the sacraments.
 This is utter nonsense. Absolutely not. These bars are on everyone not just women. If a man has an open bleeding wound/sore he should not commune any more than a women in her monthly time. Nor should either if they've had relations the night before.  Such an idea is just unthinkable. For goodness sake, this has nothing to do with sexual discrimination even a little. If a Orthodox person communes within 24 hours of their repose, if they are desanguinated, then that blood has to be saved and buried with them. It's about respect for the Holy Mysteries, not egos.
What you say is true.  What the point says is that there is a serious lack of teaching on the matter.

Quote
This is for the most part just modernist ego driven crazy talk so far as I can see, a complete disregard for the Tradition when it becomes "insensative" by modern "standards".
 

Yes, but we have to not leave it at that.  There is serious need of education, to make sure conjecture, ever prone to be influenced  by ego, fill in the vacuum.

Quote
This probably is way off topic in this thread, but I sincerely hope our beloved Metropolitan will steer far clear of such destructive innovations.

No, I think it is on point.  Do the hierarchs overseas see these issues and know how to deal with them?
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 08, 2009, 11:42:16 AM
Well insofar as I know it, I do support Metropolitan Jonah's vision for the OCA and his hopes for Orthodoxy in North America. And I certainly regard the idea of greater lay participation and responsibility very favorably...but not in any way that would congregationalize/protestantize our expression of the faith.

That's already happened at the parish level though, except for the few jurisdictions who won't allow it such as the ROCOR who maintain the very traditional top down model.  A priest has even written a book about this.

http://www.gorgiaspress.com/bookshop/pc-55595-109-ferencz-nicholas-american-orthodoxy-and-parish-congregationalism.aspx

The Catholics of course stamped out trusteeism, but it continues in American Orthodoxy.  In many ways the separation of spiritual and temporal duties that occurs in this model mirrors what Luther viewed as the role of bishops:

http://books.google.com/books?id=8ccAl9sUYycC&pg=PA179&lpg=PA179&dq=luther+%2B+bishops&source=bl&ots=4LwA9YmfuY&sig=l5UClrh-g7Z9dfB5TXwCpXlcm5g#PPA180,M1 (http://books.google.com/books?id=8ccAl9sUYycC&pg=PA179&lpg=PA179&dq=luther+%2B+bishops&source=bl&ots=4LwA9YmfuY&sig=l5UClrh-g7Z9dfB5TXwCpXlcm5g#PPA180,M1)

Quote
The faithful nominating those from its ranks for ordination has ample precident in both OT and NT.

I agree, I don't think it's currently practiced anywhere though.

Quote
But the final decision among the nominees is up to those hierarchs God has appointed. It is conciliar, not democratic. Similarly no hierarch should be elevated to the episcopacy or receive pastoral authority over a diocese unless he has the "Axios" of the people. If they give it, then they are bound to obey him. If they don't then it is evident that this is either not God's time for this nominee, or not God's choice at all.

That sounds a little like if someone sinks, we know they're a witch.

I think it is a step to real democratization because who is going to get nominated other than who the people desire.  What could very likely happen though is paralysis, like real political democracy because nobody can agree on anything.

Quote
That type of laity participation seems in keeping with the Holy Tradition. Laity participation that means putting everything to the vote does not.

Right or wrong, I think it's safe to say it's a new tradition, and some would argue (like the ROCOR & the MP) that it isn't really traditional at all.

Actually, neither ROCOR nor the MP can complain, as Pat. Tikhon tried it in the U.S., as it was being discussed in Russia at the time, and was implemented in the Sobor of 1917-8.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: GreekChef on April 08, 2009, 11:43:06 AM
Moderators, could we please split off the topic of the OCL's recommendations?  I'd like to respond, but I don't want to derail the thread any further.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Tamara on April 08, 2009, 11:45:22 AM
 ???
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: recent convert on April 08, 2009, 11:45:49 AM
I am trying to follow thread as best as possible. Someone said that the OCL are backers of Metropolitan Jonah but does anyone know of any opinions he may have of the OCL?
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Seraphim98 on April 08, 2009, 11:48:19 AM
I'm taking my cue from the Book of Acts. When the deaconate was created the people were instructed to pick out a certain number among them who were worthy to serve. The people did, but the consecration and the choice to consecrate remained with the Apostles.

With respect to the Axios, if it is meaninless, if it never had meaning or consequence, what is the point of it existing at all. If I am not mistaken it reflects the conciliar dyanamics of the Jerusalem Council where the decision was published and was received with great joy restoring peace to the Church.  The principle seems that Godly decisions by the Episcopate will be met by the faithful over time with joy and such decisions will bring peace. Deep calls to deep. The Spirit of God guiding the episcopacy and the Spirit of God entempled in the Body speak as one, or should. If there is little or no joy and no peace in some reasonable amount of time, then I think it safe to say, something is seriously amiss and needs to be revisited. Hence the "Axios" or more rarely the "Anaxios" must have once had actual meaning and consequence as an expression of the priesthood of the laity, and not just some vestigial rubber stamp.

And I do think there is a serious role for the laity in keeping our heirarchs honest and accountable, but that cannot ever be so construed as to make our heirarchs beholden.  The Church is not nor should be a democracy. Authority does flow top down starting from God, but it cannot/should not be so construed as to overstep its natural bounds so as to usurp the rights/responsibilities/and powers that are properly alotted invested in other places within the body. At least that is how I've come to understand the matter.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 08, 2009, 11:48:50 AM
Actually, neither ROCOR nor the MP can complain, as Pat. Tikhon tried it in the U.S., as it was being discussed in Russia at the time, and was implemented in the Sobor of 1917-8.

Why in the ROCOR by-laws then do they even forbid lay presidency at the parish level?

Quote
B. THE CHURCH PARISH COUNCIL.

28. The Church Parish Council shall be composed of:
(a) the Pastor of the parish who by virtue of his office shall be the President of the Church Parish Council; (b) the Church Warden; (c) the President or the Sister Superior of the Sisterhood organized in conjunction with the parish and functioning under the supervision of the pastor pursuant to the Statute on Sisterhoods ratified by the diocesan authorities; (d) the Treasurer; (e) the Secretary; (f) Staff members of the clergy; (g) from two to five lay members of the parish.

http://www.synod.com/english/pages/regulations/parishlaws.html
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 08, 2009, 11:52:12 AM
Met. Jonah will never go for the innovations that a few (mostly Greek-American academic feminists) want. Those women are very few in number and aging rapidly. They are not active in the OCL anymore. I, for one, would never support what those academic women are wishing for and at this time, the OCL is run mostly by conservative Greek-American men, some of whom support the EP (Peter Petkas, the president of OCL wrote a very supportive letter to the Ecumenical Patriarchate and received a reply from the Patriarch.) I just want to emphasize the point, as someone who has organized women's retreats for Orthodox women of various jurisdictions, I have seen absolutely no interest among Orthodox woman (both cradle and convert) in the agenda of a few older, feminist, Orthodox academics. Their day is over.

What if people start nominating and electing bishops who do support such views?

It's odd that if those people are not active in the OCL, their views are still posted there.

Everyone's experience is different.  I can say in my experience among the rank and file (i.e. the non online Orthodox), you would find a lot of acceptance the views of women's roles posted on the OCL site.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Seraphim98 on April 08, 2009, 12:07:15 PM
Quote
What if people start nominating and electing bishops who do support such views?

That would be unfortunate. But nominated is not the same thing as tonsured and ordained. In this case fellow bishops in the synod would have the responsibility to say no...pick somebody else, this one is not a proper choice at this time.

Quote
Antioch has directed that either both boys and girls are Churched within the Sanctuary, or neither are.  It would be fair to demand a reason why there should be a difference.

As I was taught, the reason is fairly simple. A male child is a potentially priest  and this is his first introduction to that possible responsibility. Priesthood of this sort is not possible to women, hence they are churched differently. It has nothing to do with privilege or mean spirited discrimination. There is a difference between men and women and there are responsibilities that men can be called to that are exclusive to them. In some ways I think it has parallels to the woman's role as mother. Bringing forth life into the world is something given by God exclusively to women. Without a woman no man can exist...except perhaps the very first one. Not even God Himself entered this world except by a woman. But the direction of spiritual life within the parish and the initiation into the spiritual life and mysteries of the Church God has given to men. Without men there is no sacramental life. Churching male infants differently than female points to this division of graces as it were.

Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 08, 2009, 12:10:25 PM
Met. Jonah will never go for the innovations that a few (mostly Greek-American academic feminists) want. Those women are very few in number and aging rapidly. They are not active in the OCL anymore. I, for one, would never support what those academic women are wishing for and at this time, the OCL is run mostly by conservative Greek-American men, some of whom support the EP (Peter Petkas, the president of OCL wrote a very supportive letter to the Ecumenical Patriarchate and received a reply from the Patriarch.) I just want to emphasize the point, as someone who has organized women's retreats for Orthodox women of various jurisdictions, I have seen absolutely no interest among Orthodox woman (both cradle and convert) in the agenda of a few older, feminist, Orthodox academics. Their day is over.

What if people start nominating and electing bishops who do support such views?

It's odd that if those people are not active in the OCL, their views are still posted there.

Everyone's experience is different.  I can say in my experience among the rank and file (i.e. the non online Orthodox), you would find a lot of acceptance the views of women's roles posted on the OCL site.

I've found just the opposite.

Actually, neither ROCOR nor the MP can complain, as Pat. Tikhon tried it in the U.S., as it was being discussed in Russia at the time, and was implemented in the Sobor of 1917-8.

Why in the ROCOR by-laws then do they even forbid lay presidency at the parish level?

Quote
B. THE CHURCH PARISH COUNCIL.

28. The Church Parish Council shall be composed of:
(a) the Pastor of the parish who by virtue of his office shall be the President of the Church Parish Council; (b) the Church Warden; (c) the President or the Sister Superior of the Sisterhood organized in conjunction with the parish and functioning under the supervision of the pastor pursuant to the Statute on Sisterhoods ratified by the diocesan authorities; (d) the Treasurer; (e) the Secretary; (f) Staff members of the clergy; (g) from two to five lay members of the parish.

http://www.synod.com/english/pages/regulations/parishlaws.html

You'd have to ask someone for ROCOR, but otherwise, I was more pointing to the Faithful participation in Sobors and the election of bishops.  No, the point you touch on is a difference between us and Congregationalists.

And as to bishops elected to pander to the special interest groups, the Synod should refuse to ordain them, and the Faithful faithful to the Church should give a loud "anaxios!"
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 08, 2009, 12:10:29 PM
That would be unfortunate. But nominated is not the same thing as tonsured and ordained. In this case fellow bishops in the synod would have the responsibility to say no...pick somebody else, this one is not a proper choice at this time.

Then why couldn't the laity seek the removal of the other bishops (who would have actually have to have been nominated and elected at some point themselves) if they were defying the will of the people?

Quote
I've found just the opposite.

Everyone's experience, as noted, will vary.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: NorthernPines on April 08, 2009, 12:15:55 PM
.

Quote
And we aren't suggesting that GOA hasn't had financial issues, are we? ::)

No, I said nothing of the sort.  I said we haven't had the troubles that we would have if we were in the OCA.  That is a simple statement of fact.  The OCA has had financial issues and it isn't under Constantinople, maybe the GOA has and they are.  The common denominator there isn't Constantinople.

People living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. And I say that as someone who is in love with the Greek Liturgical tradition and wouldn't choose to be anywhere else.....however......well I'll just say again, those of us living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Back to my typical lurker status......




Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 08, 2009, 12:23:20 PM
Quote
What if people start nominating and electing bishops who do support such views?

That would be unfortunate. But nominated is not the same thing as tonsured and ordained. In this case fellow bishops in the synod would have the responsibility to say no...pick somebody else, this one is not a proper choice at this time.

Quote
Antioch has directed that either both boys and girls are Churched within the Sanctuary, or neither are.  It would be fair to demand a reason why there should be a difference.

As I was taught, the reason is fairly simple. A male child is a potentially priest  and this is his first introduction to that possible responsibility. Priesthood of this sort is not possible to women, hence they are churched differently. It has nothing to do with privilege or mean spirited discrimination.

Not so simple, as the fact the vast majority of those males brought into the sanctuary will NOT be ordained.  That simple fact proves inconvenient, as the distinction in churching gives rise to an idea that possession of a y chromosome is somehow a partial ordination.  Particularly inconvenient if Abesses and deaconesses commune in the sanctuary.

The maleness of the priesthood might be included into the distinction at churching, but there is going to have to be a lot more of context for it.

Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Seraphim98 on April 08, 2009, 12:24:08 PM
Quote
Then why couldn't the laity seek the removal of the other bishops (who would have actually have to have been nominated and elected at some point themselves) if they were defying the will of the people?

Technically I suppose they could seek such a thing. The laity has driven away bad bishops before...not sure what the formal canonical process for riding out of town on a rail might be though.  That said, if the bishop is not preaching heresy, and if he is still supported by his fellow bishops, then the crowd might want to reconsider. Once he is their bishop they can't just 'get tired' of him for supercilious reasons.

It is possible the mob could turn on a good bishop...and I think that possibly has happened too on occasion. And that would also be unfortunate.

In general though, unless there is some extraordinary good reason, the people are bound to obey their bishops like him or not at a personal level. Heretics they can ignore and kick out.  Those living losely or robbing the Church, other synodal bishops should deal with. Those losing their faculites due to age or illness other synodal bishops should deal with. If people think their bishops are abusing them or neglecting their duties then the matter sould be brought before the Metropolitan/Patriarch and his synod.

Again, at least that is how I see it...but I'm not expert or authority on these things.

Quote
Not so simple, as the fact the vast majority of those males brought into the sanctuary will NOT be ordained.  That simple fact proves inconvenient, as the distinction in churching gives rise to an idea that possession of a y chromosome is somehow a partial ordination.

Ah well, I was taught what I was taught...what I said is the gist of what the priest who baptized me told me. At any rate, I said male children were potential priests, not that many or most would be so ordained.  The "y" chromosome is not an ordination partial or otherwise...but without it entry into priestly ordination is not allowed.

And all that said, this really beginning to diverge from the central thesis of this tread and either needs to be woven back in or redirected elsewhere.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Fr. George on April 08, 2009, 12:36:09 PM
Ah well, I was taught what I was taught...what I said is the gist of what the priest who baptized me told me. At any rate, I said male children were potential priests, not that many or most would be so ordained.  The "y" chromosome is not an ordination partial or otherwise...but without it entry into priestly ordination is not allowed.

And all that said, this really beginning to diverge from the central thesis of this tread and either needs to be woven back in or redirected elsewhere.

Don't continue the tangent here... Here is a thread that discusses Churching of children, and at the bottom there is a tag that links to even more such threads.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13029.html

(I do make my position clear in one of those posts, however: )
Of course, I also don't believe that the infants of either gender should be taken into the Altar.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: GreekChef on April 08, 2009, 12:57:59 PM
It's interesting to note how many people are all reading this thread at the same time.  It's obviously an important topic about which we all care a great deal.  I, too, have been reading, and reading, and reading it over the past couple days, but, as I was reading it on my phone and not the computer, I was unable to read/watch His Beatitude +JONAH's speech.  I was expecting to be inspired and uplifted by wise words that would call all to unity under a compromise that would allow us all to continue to worship in the ways we are comfortable, while uniting our voice.  I was sorely disappointed...

I'll start by saying that, while I agreed with the Chief Secretary's speech at HCHC for the most part, I was also sorely disappointed with his delivery.  I felt there was a loving way to handle the situation and he did not choose it.

I feel the same way about His Beatitude's speech.  In fact, to be honest, the phrase that came to mind was "fear mongering."  And it made me angry.

BTW, I'm going to use the GOA as an example a lot, because it is the EP's jurisdiction in the US, and the most obvious example of how the EP does and would administrate a church in the US.

There were, indeed, exaggerations and falsehoods that were utilized to make his point.  The most blatant and obvious (not to mention UTTERLY ABSURD), as AMM pointed out earlier, being (from Serb1389's transcription):

Quote
but you have to give us the freedom to take care of our own church and our own country and our own culture, and not to be controlled by people who have never heard a word of English, much less would allow a word of English to be spoken in the Liturgy

Since His Beatitude has only been Metropolitan of the OCA for like five minutes, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and saying maybe he has never been to services in the GOA.  Otherwise, he would know that of course we do English in the services.  At HCHC (and many on this forum have either attended the school or at least been to services there) alone, which one would hope to be an example, since it is the archdiocesan seminary, the services are done AT LEAST 50/50 Greek-English.  Many, many parishes in the GOA have all but eliminated the Greek entirely.  So... either he's utilizing a falsehood to incite fear and anger, or he's ignorant of GOA practices.  I'm going to go with the latter, since I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt, as I too have been inspired by his election and hopeful, and don't want to think badly of him.

The falsehoods/exaggerations are also made by implication.  In other words, he implies things that are false or exaggerated.  Here's an example:
Quote
A church that is dedicated to the conciliar process which does not ignore the voice of the laity, which does not ignore the voice of the priests.
The implication here is that the Phanar and His All Holiness ignore the voices of the laity and priests.  If this is the case, then things would be far different in the GOA.  There would be no English, but the people request English, so there is English.  There would be no Thanksgiving Turkey (and His Beatitude thinks that the EP doesn't understand America?  Do the OCA recognize Thanksgiving? I actually am asking, not being sarcastic, cause I don't know the answer), but the request of the people was heard, and, out of love, the EP made a concession so that we might RECOGNIZE OUR HERITAGE AS AMERICANS AND CELEBRATE IT WITH THANKSGIVING TO GOD.  Hmmmm.... I could write a list of such things that the EP has heard and allowed, but I think my point is made.

And another:
Quote
Because, we are orthodox not simply by birth, we are orthodox not simply by our ethnic heritage, we are orthodox because we have chosen to be orthodox.  We are orthodox because we have committed our entire life to Jesus Christ and the Gospel.  And that it’s that commitment to Jesus Christ and the Gospel, and our commitment to bring our brothers and sisters in our land to that same commitment to Jesus Christ and the Gospel. 
The implication here is that we Greek Orthodox (notice I say we Greek ORTHODOX, not we Greeks) are only Orthodox because of our birth or ethnic heritage.  Tell that to my Chinese brother-in-law and all the other converts we have in the GREEK ORTHODOX church (in other words, the GOA is NOT made up of just Greeks, but converts as well, in case His Beatitude has not visited a GOA church yet).  Furthermore, I AM of Greek heritage, but I am CERTAINLY not Orthodox just because my father is.  For one thing, my mother was Catholic (oh, yeah, she's a convert too).  [ light-hearted but to the point sarcasm] I'm so glad His Beatitude knows the souls of all the Greek Orthodox in America to be able to imply that we are all Orthodox just because our parents were. [/light-hearted but to the point sarcasm]

And another (one of my favorites):
Quote
Not to some kind of alien ideology, not to some nationalist or imperialist ideology from some forgotten empire.  Not the imposition of foreign customs, and the submission to foreign despots – but to a united church in this country. 
Really?  You must be kidding.  He's talking about foreign customs wearing a RUSSIAN style of vestments!  Did I miss something or didn't the OCA come from the Russian tradition?  Certainly looks like it, from the tradition of music, liturgics, and vestments (among other things).  Why does he fault the Greek Orthodox for following the Byzantine tradition of music, liturgics, and vestments?  Isn't that a little backward?  If he is not speaking of liturgical tradition, then what is he speaking of?  Is he implying that the EP is going to force everyone to learn modern Greek, Greek dances, Greek cooking, celebrate Greek holidays, etc?  Surely not.  I think we can all see how absurd that would be.  Unfortunately, yes, many of the GOA churches have Greek school and dance troupes.  And I think most of us (including the clergy and hierarchs) will tell you it is unfortunate, not the place of the church, and that we are trying to weed that stuff out.  To take that further and say that not only would the EP NOT weed those things out, but would force them on other churches, that is just baseless and, I'm sorry, but falsehood.

Further, I too find it insulting to refer to him as a foreign despot.

And another:
Quote
I don’t think they understand, that our church here has this rich diversity, but that we all share a common identity. 
Really?  Nevermind that the GOA hierarchs rotate through the Patriarchal synod.  Nevermind that many of those AT the Phanar are in one way or another connected to the United States (either themselves being from here, schooled here, having family here, having visited or lived here...).  They just don't understand.  Right.

And another:
Quote
.  We all submit, to a foreign patriarchate,  where all decisions will be made there, where we will have no say in the decisions that will be made, we will have no decisions in our own destiny, and we surrender the freedom that we have embraces as American Orthodox Christians, to a Patriarchate still under Islamic domination. 
This one, I think, is the one that gets me the most upset, the one that is the MOST fear mongering.  It is, in my opinion, the most irresponsible thing he said, as I feel sure he knows that it is not true (anyone who knows anything of the workings of the GOA knows it's not true, so surely he must).  But, maybe I should again give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he has never been to a GOA church, knows no GOA hierarchs, knows nothing of how the GOA operates.  Hard to believe, but I'm happy to give him the benefit of the doubt.
It is wrong to imply that the churches in the US, should they come under the omophorion of the EP, would be completely controlled in the way he says... that we would have no decisions, surrender our freedom, etc.  That is just blatant falsehood.  His All Holiness DOES NOT interfere in the workings of the GOA.  He leaves them to the respective bishops.  Why, then, would he turn around and do that to a united church in the US?  It doesn't make any sense.  It is baseless and false. 


Further, I have a question to ask... this conciliar church he is proposing... where all the bishops sit on a synod "or something like that..."  Who sits at the head?  Yes, we are a conciliar church, but we are a HIERARCHAL Church, meaning, there is a hierarchy, with A hierarch at the head.  No, I'm not proposing a pope.  But every Church, every autocephalous church, even, has a synod WITH A HIERARCH (usually known as a Patriarch, Metropolitan, or Archbishop... anyone recognize those terms?  Anyone?) sitting at the head!  He talks about this synod (as though it's a novel idea... anyone remember SCOBA?), but offers no solution as to who sits at the head.  Isn't that really the crux of the problem?  I don't think the EP has a problem with a synod, otherwise SCOBA wouldn't exist (or the GOA wouldn't participate, at least).  The question is who sits at the head, where does that person come from, who do they answer to (if anyone).  It was mentioned earlier in this thread (or in the Challenges of Orthodoxy thread, I can't remember which), that the model has been to grant autocephaly to the church, and this is the most likely thing that would happen, should the American church come under the EP.  Everyone seems to love to ignore that.

By the way, the crack about the pope right at the beginning was just nasty and uncalled for.  I was truly, sincerely, disappointed in that.  It is Lent, after all.  Is that really what we should be doing?  Slandering and name-calling fellow Orthodox brethren (never mind that the one he is going after is a fellow hierarch, one who outranks him, no less)... nice.

Really, I rejoiced along with everyone else when His Beatitude was elected.  I still do.  I think it's great, no, imperative, for the OCA to have a strong leader with a clear vision who can wade through the muck and bring the OCA back from the terrible things that have plagued it for so long.  But I can love him and disagree with him, and I can love him and be disappointed by his words and certain aspects of his leadership.  He is human.  I love and respect him.  I'm disappointed because I love and respect him and had hoped for something healing and loving, not petty and full of fear and falsehoods.  I do say all these things with respect.  If my tone appears disrespectful, I assure you it is NOT because that is how I intended it.  I attempted for the opposite, and if I have offended, then at this most important time of Lent I do ask for your forgiveness.

Forgive me a sinner.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: admiralnick on April 08, 2009, 12:59:15 PM
As it has been already pointed out, all this attack happened as a sermon. Very sad!

It is also very sad and unfortunate that during the recent election, eloquence of Metropolitan Jonah dominated over many years of dedicated service, proven missionary outreach and excellent administrative experience of His Eminence Archbishop Job (Osacky) or, actually any other Hierarch of OCA.

If Archbishop Job were the Metropolitan of OCA now, the process of Orthodox unity in USA would speed up without any controversial issues on its way.

Don't be so sure about that. Archbishop Job is not the great champion of Orthodoxy as Ocanews.org and others in the OCA would like you to believe. Besides, he's retiring in 2 years.

-Nick
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 08, 2009, 01:12:55 PM
Quote
That said, if the bishop is not preaching heresy, and if he is still supported by his fellow bishops, then the crowd might want to reconsider.

In this instance I see a bishop speaking falsehoods and slander from the pulpit, and the crowd is cheering.

Yippeeeee!
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 08, 2009, 01:17:40 PM
I'm taking my cue from the Book of Acts. When the deaconate was created the people were instructed to pick out a certain number among them who were worthy to serve. The people did, but the consecration and the choice to consecrate remained with the Apostles.

The decision of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) is in the name of the "Apostles, Elders and Brethren."  i.e. Bishops, priests, Faithful/laity.

Quote
With respect to the Axios, if it is meaninless, if it never had meaning or consequence, what is the point of it existing at all. If I am not mistaken it reflects the conciliar dyanamics of the Jerusalem Council where the decision was published and was received with great joy restoring peace to the Church.  The principle seems that Godly decisions by the Episcopate will be met by the faithful over time with joy and such decisions will bring peace. Deep calls to deep. The Spirit of God guiding the episcopacy and the Spirit of God entempled in the Body speak as one, or should. If there is little or no joy and no peace in some reasonable amount of time, then I think it safe to say, something is seriously amiss and needs to be revisited. Hence the "Axios" or more rarely the "Anaxios" must have once had actual meaning and consequence as an expression of the priesthood of the laity, and not just some vestigial rubber stamp.

There are numberous examples of "anaxios" stopping an ordination in its tracks all through history, including to the present day.

Quote
And I do think there is a serious role for the laity in keeping our heirarchs honest and accountable, but that cannot ever be so construed as to make our heirarchs beholden.  The Church is not nor should be a democracy. Authority does flow top down starting from God, but it cannot/should not be so construed as to overstep its natural bounds so as to usurp the rights/responsibilities/and powers that are properly alotted invested in other places within the body. At least that is how I've come to understand the matter.
Look how well it worked with nipping Florence in the bud.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 08, 2009, 01:26:42 PM
Look how well it worked with nipping Florence in the bud.

So it is a democracy after all.....
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: serb1389 on April 08, 2009, 01:36:23 PM


Quote
With respect to the Axios, if it is meaninless, if it never had meaning or consequence, what is the point of it existing at all. If I am not mistaken it reflects the conciliar dyanamics of the Jerusalem Council where the decision was published and was received with great joy restoring peace to the Church.  The principle seems that Godly decisions by the Episcopate will be met by the faithful over time with joy and such decisions will bring peace. Deep calls to deep. The Spirit of God guiding the episcopacy and the Spirit of God entempled in the Body speak as one, or should. If there is little or no joy and no peace in some reasonable amount of time, then I think it safe to say, something is seriously amiss and needs to be revisited. Hence the "Axios" or more rarely the "Anaxios" must have once had actual meaning and consequence as an expression of the priesthood of the laity, and not just some vestigial rubber stamp.

There are numberous examples of "anaxios" stopping an ordination in its tracks all through history, including to the present day.

Really?  I've never heard of an example.  In fact our Teleturgics/Liturgics professor made a joke in this regard saying "what...do you think people can just say Anaxios and the HS won't come down?"  It was an interesting point.  I'd be interested in knowing which jurisdiction this happened in.  You don't have to name names (although it would be interesting to know).  But if you can at least tell me what jurisdiction...i'd be curious. 
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: GreekChef on April 08, 2009, 01:41:25 PM
Mod's feel free to move this post, if the OCL recommendations are going to be moved as well.  I just didn't know where to respond, but really wanted to.

As a side note addressing the OCL quote above, most of the items in it I find distrubing that any Orthodox Christian would even entertain,  much less seriously consider them. Most of it is just way too much of a slippery slope, too much a consession to the tender egoism of our age:

Quote
2. The Church must show greater sensitivity in the use of language. The use of inclusive rather than exclusive language in traditional liturgical phrases would help reduce the marginalization of Orthodox women while at the same time give due recognition to the historic role of women in the Church.

Nonsense. I'm not calling God "She" just to massage someone's ego. "Causes" like inclusive language have no place that I can see in the Church. Our traditional liturgical phrases should of course be translated into a high standard of English that is beautiful to hear, in English generic forms of the femenine are included in the masculine, and that has nothing to do with being "insensative". That is simply the language.
I don't think they're referring to calling God "she."  I, too, would be horrified by this!  I think they are referring to saying "people" instead of "men," and stuff like that.  Personally, I don't put much stock in that.  I don't think it's that big a deal.  I don't really care one way or another whether we say "people" or "men."  I'm educated enough to know that "men" is inclusive of women.

Quote
Quote
3. The diaconate of women should be re-instituted in our Church, according to the ancient, New Testament model.
I don't know that I would be eager to see this happen willy nilly but if the time is right and there is a need for it to be reinstituted then this is worthy of consideration. If I'm not mistaken St. Nectarios tonsured two women into the women's diaconate.  That said it seems most functions of this tonsure have been subsumed by women monastics...I think.  
I would not be eager to see it willy nilly either, but as we have many, many women converting (and we do indeed), then I think there is a need.  I had a priest tell me just the other day that he thinks it's totally inappropriate for a priest to be handling an adult woman at a baptism.  I agree with him.  With the climate of the times being what it is, especially (not that our church practices are determined by the climate of the time, but we do need to take extra care sometimes), we need to be especially careful about our priests handling women.  I say this as one who does NOT want to see her husband accused of something because he baptized an adult woman.  That is just one example of the need.  There are others, but I think even the existence of one (very crucial) need like this is enough.

Quote
Quote
4. Women should be welcomed to participate in the Liturgy as members of the choir, as chanters and readers. Women should be tonsured for these roles in the same manner as are men.
I was not aware tonsure was required of anyone to sing in the choir. To my knowledge anyone can read if asked/blessed by the priest without tonsure if a tonsured reader is not available. Traditionally speaking male choirs might be preferable but not normally possible at the parish level. This is a decision for Bishops and priests. Tonsuring female readers strikes me as very problematic if it lacks any serious traditional precident. The service for tonsure of a reader is that of a taper bearer and would suggest a right/duty to serve in the altar. This is not right. Even an Abbess who has the right to be in the altar and receive communion there cannot do this so far as I know. One thing is for sure, the door should not be open to female altar servers.
Choirs, in the way we have them here in the US, are a Western innovation, and are foreign to the Church.  Why are male choirs preferable?  Are not women included in the commands we see in the Bible to raise our voices to the Lord?  Why should women be excluded from this?
Why not women altar servers?  Just curious what your thinking is here.  In monasteries the women always serve in the altar.  There WAS a female diaconate, where she was ordained in the altar, received communion in the altar as clergy, and served in the altar.  The precedent is there for allowing women to serve in the altar and there is no theological reason she CAN'T, so I'm curious as to what your thinking is.

Quote
Quote
5. Tonsured women should be welcomed to serve in the Sanctuary as are men.
No they shouldn't unless there is ample precident in the Tradition. I do not like this creeping anti-male feminist gender homogenizing.
See above.  In addition, though, just because a woman has a desire to serve does NOT make her anti-male or a feminist, or gender homogenizing.  Did it ever occur to you that it has nothing to do with you?  Or with men?  At all?  But rather a woman's genuine desire to serve?

Quote
Quote
6. Both male and female infants should be Churched in the same way, within the Sanctuary.
No they shouldn't. That is not the tradition, and so far as I know never has been.
I don't personally care whether they're both in the Sanctuary or not.  I don't really even care that they're churched differently.  But I do care that the reason for it does not hold water theologically.

Quote
Quote
7. The Church must make it clear that natural bodily functions should in no way bar anyone from participation in the sacraments.
 This is utter nonsense. Absolutely not. These bars are on everyone not just women. If a man has an open bleeding wound/sore he should not commune any more than a women in her monthly time. Nor should either if they've had relations the night before.  Such an idea is just unthinkable. For goodness sake, this has nothing to do with sexual discrimination even a little. If a Orthodox person communes within 24 hours of their repose, if they are desanguinated, then that blood has to be saved and buried with them. It's about respect for the Holy Mysteries, not egos.
This is ridiculous.  A woman's menstrual blood does not circulate the way the rest of the blood in the body does, otherwise she would die from blood loss on day one of her period.  But they didn't know that when the canon was written.  Either way, this is a stupid argument that has been hashed and rehashed a million times on the forum.  Suffice it to say:  1.  We should NEVER be teaching our children that something their body does is wrong or bad, that God's creation is not good, or is a mistake.  This is the concern with this issue.  2. It's best to leave it up to one's spiritual father, so there's no point in arguing here.

Quote
This is for the most part just modernist ego driven crazy talk so far as I can see, a complete disregard for the Tradition when it becomes "insensative" by modern "standards".  
Look, I'm not in favor of ordaining women to the priesthood, so let's get that out there before going any further.  Because, inevitably, any woman who wants to serve in the church is labeled a "feminist," "anti-male," "modern," etc.  That's a load, and we all know it.  I AM in favor of a female diaconate, should the CHURCH (not you or me) decide that there is a need.  I AM in favor of women being allowed to serve in the altar (as many already do, and with their bishop's blessings) because there is no reason to BAR women from heeding THEIR calling to serve.  At the least, the distinction needs to be made that NO ONE, MALE OR FEMALE, should be in the altar without the priest's/bishop's blessing.  This distinction is always lost. 

It is wrong to say that women are feminists and anti-male for desiring to serve the Lord.  It is unfair.  There are a few women out there, yes, who are a very vocal minority, who have ruined it for the rest of us.  But to ignore these issues and brush them off as "feminist talk" is to ignore and brush off an entire HALF of humanity (whom God ALSO created in His image and likeness), not minister to them, and to set precedents that, no matter the fact that there is NO theological basis for it, women are just lesser than men.  You may say that's stupid, or feminist, or modern or whatever.  I say, I'm tired of hearing men like you brush me off.  I say, it's time to EDUCATE the people and end the mythology.  No, women should not be priests, but let's be clear about the reasons.  I had a Sunday Schooler (a 16 year old) tell me she thinks women shouldn't be priests because Eve ate the apple and women are worse and lesser than men.  This was three weeks ago.  Is this what we should be teaching our children?  No.  We SHOULD be teaching them that the priesthood is not for women.  But we should be teaching them the proper reasons why, and we should be drawing VERY clear lines about what is and isn't proper for women, BASED ON THEOLOGY, NOT ANTIQUATED MISOGYNISTIC MYTHOLOGY.

Now, let the firing squad begin.  I'm sure I'll be crucified for this, so to speak.

Forgive me a sinner.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: serb1389 on April 08, 2009, 01:47:06 PM
Now, let the firing squad begin.  I'm sure I'll be crucified for this, so to speak.

BANG!  LOL.  Just kidding.  You know I love you ;) ;D

I'm gona repost what you wrote on the OTHER thread b/c I think that's more "thread honest"....see you there! 
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Fr. George on April 08, 2009, 01:50:58 PM

Quote
With respect to the Axios, if it is meaninless, if it never had meaning or consequence, what is the point of it existing at all. If I am not mistaken it reflects the conciliar dyanamics of the Jerusalem Council where the decision was published and was received with great joy restoring peace to the Church.  The principle seems that Godly decisions by the Episcopate will be met by the faithful over time with joy and such decisions will bring peace. Deep calls to deep. The Spirit of God guiding the episcopacy and the Spirit of God entempled in the Body speak as one, or should. If there is little or no joy and no peace in some reasonable amount of time, then I think it safe to say, something is seriously amiss and needs to be revisited. Hence the "Axios" or more rarely the "Anaxios" must have once had actual meaning and consequence as an expression of the priesthood of the laity, and not just some vestigial rubber stamp.

There are numberous examples of "anaxios" stopping an ordination in its tracks all through history, including to the present day.

Really?  I've never heard of an example.  In fact our Teleturgics/Liturgics professor made a joke in this regard saying "what...do you think people can just say Anaxios and the HS won't come down?"  It was an interesting point.  I'd be interested in knowing which jurisdiction this happened in.  You don't have to name names (although it would be interesting to know).  But if you can at least tell me what jurisdiction...i'd be curious.   

I don't remember which one of the current Liturgics Professor's predecessors said it (I had 4 different teachers for the various Liturgics & Teleturgics classes) but apparently there was an example from Greece within the last 50 years of an Anaxios being said that stopped the ordination, and the person did not become a bishop (he was already a priest).  After his death it was revealed that the allegation was false.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 08, 2009, 01:58:41 PM
Quote
Now, let the firing squad begin.  I'm sure I'll be crucified for this, so to speak.

Presvytera, I agree with basically all you wrote and I'm glad you also chimed in on what I perceived as the falsehoods in the Metropolitans speech.  You are a balanced voice which I hope people listen to, whereas I tend to be an annoying jerk, so I don't think people take me too seriously.

In that vein, I have found among the rank and file laity in conversations, that they question some of the practices we have in regards to women.  I think there are a bunch of reactionary Protestant converts who have come in to the church with their own baggage who get really upset when they find the topics they had wished to escape or leave behind are very much present among us.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: minasoliman on April 08, 2009, 02:18:38 PM
I've skimmed through most of this thread and see where both sides are coming from.  I'd like to offer a third option from my own personal perspective (as I'm not EO).  I don't think in the areas of diaspora that it is wise to ask for bishops to make a decision on canonical borders and jurisdictions.  In my opinion, I think we should just be patient and let the jurisdictions evolve on their own.  It is from ground up where changes will occur, not from the top down, imho.  Debates on who will take over and what jurisdiction should be under what is superfluous compared to the faith and spirituality of the flock at hand.  It's better that many bishops work together for this than fight over who takes over what jurisdiction.  I certainly believe that the source of this evolving quality from the ground up would be inter-jurisdictional marriages that would force bishops cooperation and future mixing of jurisdictions.

We can't force bishops to be humble enough to submit to one another unfortunately, whether it be because the congregations themselves will react strongly to such behavior or the bishops themselves.

Forgive me if I seemed intrusive on this particular subject as an OO.  As an OO, for the most part, we don't seem to have this problem ourselves in the US, except in particular cases where the problem doesn't stem from the diaspora, but from the mother country itself (like India).
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: witega on April 08, 2009, 02:21:40 PM
I would actually say it's very much related.  I know people from the OCL have been e-mailing out the speech lauding it.  They certainly support the overall vision of the OCA.  Metropolitan Jonah certainly will at least have to listen to them.

To paraphrase recent history, the fact that they support Metropolitan Jonah does not mean the Metropolitan supports them.

I don't know the Metropolitan's view on many of these things. I do know the views of Archbishop Dmitri, who originally chose Metropolitan Jonah to be his auxiliary, and whom the Metropolitan has multiple times in my hearing praised as his episcopal exemplar, both in his person and in his leadership of the Archdiocese for the last 40 years. And I can tell you that the posted innovations wouldn't even be given the time of day in the Diocese of the South.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 08, 2009, 02:25:30 PM
That's a shame, because many of them are quite reasonable.  But maybe the DoS has a large portion of reactionary Protestant converts who envisioned the Orthodox Church as some sort of escape from the modern world and modern issues or something.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 08, 2009, 02:53:03 PM
Quote
That said, if the bishop is not preaching heresy, and if he is still supported by his fellow bishops, then the crowd might want to reconsider.

In this instance I see a bishop speaking falsehoods and slander from the pulpit, and the crowd is cheering.

Yippeeeee!

No,

AXIOS! AXIOS! AXIOS!

It's interesting to note how many people are all reading this thread at the same time.  It's obviously an important topic about which we all care a great deal.  I, too, have been reading, and reading, and reading it over the past couple days, but, as I was reading it on my phone and not the computer, I was unable to read/watch His Beatitude +JONAH's speech.  I was expecting to be inspired and uplifted by wise words that would call all to unity under a compromise that would allow us all to continue to worship in the ways we are comfortable, while uniting our voice.  I was sorely disappointed...

I'll start by saying that, while I agreed with the Chief Secretary's speech at HCHC for the most part, I was also sorely disappointed with his delivery.  I felt there was a loving way to handle the situation and he did not choose it.

I feel the same way about His Beatitude's speech.  In fact, to be honest, the phrase that came to mind was "fear mongering."  And it made me angry.

BTW, I'm going to use the GOA as an example a lot, because it is the EP's jurisdiction in the US, and the most obvious example of how the EP does and would administrate a church in the US.

That is what the Metropolitan is looking at.

Quote
There were, indeed, exaggerations and falsehoods that were utilized to make his point.  The most blatant and obvious (not to mention UTTERLY ABSURD), as AMM pointed out earlier, being (from Serb1389's transcription):

but you have to give us the freedom to take care of our own church and our own country and our own culture, and not to be controlled by people who have never heard a word of English, much less would allow a word of English to be spoken in the Liturgy

Since His Beatitude has only been Metropolitan of the OCA for like five minutes, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and saying maybe he has never been to services in the GOA.  Otherwise, he would know that of course we do English in the services.  At HCHC (and many on this forum have either attended the school or at least been to services there) alone, which one would hope to be an example, since it is the archdiocesan seminary, the services are done AT LEAST 50/50 Greek-English.  Many, many parishes in the GOA have all but eliminated the Greek entirely.  So... either he's utilizing a falsehood to incite fear and anger, or he's ignorant of GOA practices.  I'm going to go with the latter, since I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt, as I too have been inspired by his election and hopeful, and don't want to think badly of him.

Speaking of the Chief Secretary:

Quote
I do not support the opinion that we can today oblige everyone to speak Greek, but I think that we have to offer that possibility to those who so desire, to learn Greek in well organized schools, by talented teachers. I think that we owe our children the possibility of choice. We owe to our culture the obliteration of contempt for a language that expressed the Gospel and became the vehicle for the most subtle meanings in the articulation of the dogma by the founders of our faith and Fathers of Christianity.

            I do not support the opinion that the services here in America should be done exclusively in Greek. Simply I do not understand how it is possible that any priest of the Archdiocese might not be able to serve in both languages. It is not understandable how an institution of higher education cannot manage to teach its students a language, even in the time span of four years!

            My brothers and sisters, I am not one of them who believe that there is a sacred language (lingua sacra) for the Church. I just wonder why in every Theological School in the world the students are expected to learn the Biblical languages, and it is only in our School of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America that such a requirement seems anachronistic, nationalistic or conservative.

            Speaking now of your Theological School, do you think that the Church’s expectation that the graduates of this School know theology, canon law, Byzantine music, be able to celebrate the service of matins, vespers and the sacraments, be able to preach the Word of God and instruct our youth in the catechism is unreasonable or excessive?

I don't know what the last paragraph is supposed to have to do with the preceeding ones.

Evidently, the Chief Secretary is addressing something.  I don't believe he is making up straw men who believe everyone Orthodox (at least!) should speak Greek, that as the lingua sacra services should be done only in it.  I've met such people in the GOA.  I've also met people like yourself in the GOA. The question is, who has the upper hand?

Beyond the U.S., I understand that Canada's GOA is more an embodiment of what you say are "fears."  Can anyone in Canada comment?

The falsehoods/exaggerations are also made by implication.  In other words, he implies things that are false or exaggerated.  Here's an example:
Quote
A church that is dedicated to the conciliar process which does not ignore the voice of the laity, which does not ignore the voice of the priests.
The implication here is that the Phanar and His All Holiness ignore the voices of the laity and priests.  If this is the case, then things would be far different in the GOA.  There would be no English, but the people request English, so there is English.  There would be no Thanksgiving Turkey (and His Beatitude thinks that the EP doesn't understand America?  Do the OCA recognize Thanksgiving? I actually am asking, not being sarcastic, cause I don't know the answer), but the request of the people was heard, and, out of love, the EP made a concession so that we might RECOGNIZE OUR HERITAGE AS AMERICANS AND CELEBRATE IT WITH THANKSGIVING TO GOD.  Hmmmm.... I could write a list of such things that the EP has heard and allowed, but I think my point is made.

My experience with Thanksgiving is that the "dispensation" came about because of the Pan-Orthodox Thanksgiving services that was started in Arb. Iakovos' time.  Speaking of whom, what was done to him by the EP gives many non-Greek pause to even consider the EP running things here.

Btw, this wasn't an issue in the OCA until the 80's, and for many still isn't: they were/are on the Old Calendar.

And another:
Quote
Because, we are orthodox not simply by birth, we are orthodox not simply by our ethnic heritage, we are orthodox because we have chosen to be orthodox.  We are orthodox because we have committed our entire life to Jesus Christ and the Gospel.  And that it’s that commitment to Jesus Christ and the Gospel, and our commitment to bring our brothers and sisters in our land to that same commitment to Jesus Christ and the Gospel. 
The implication here is that we Greek Orthodox (notice I say we Greek ORTHODOX, not we Greeks) are only Orthodox because of our birth or ethnic heritage.  Tell that to my Chinese brother-in-law and all the other converts we have in the GREEK ORTHODOX church (in other words, the GOA is NOT made up of just Greeks, but converts as well, in case His Beatitude has not visited a GOA church yet).  Furthermore, I AM of Greek heritage, but I am CERTAINLY not Orthodox just because my father is.  For one thing, my mother was Catholic (oh, yeah, she's a convert too).  [ light-hearted but to the point sarcasm] I'm so glad His Beatitude knows the souls of all the Greek Orthodox in America to be able to imply that we are all Orthodox just because our parents were. [/light-hearted but to the point sarcasm]

I am sure that his beatitude is well aware of converts in the GOA: Frankie Schaffer I am sure has made sure of that.

I think the Metropolitan was addressing these claims, an indirect attack on his person, perhaps, in addition to the direct one, by the Chief Secretary:
Quote
As you all know, one of the secrets for the success of the American miracle in its financial, political and technological aspects was precisely its desire to detach itself from the traditional models of the old world, its ability to break free from the established norms, its willingness to question whatever was considered as given or beyond any criticism. As it might have been expected, these tendencies soon found an expression within the life of the Church, sometimes in more extreme ways, other times in more temperate ways. Thus, soon Orthodox clergymen became indistinguishable from the clergy of other denominations, choirs in the western style were adopted, the liturgical tradition became more and more impoverished by being limited only to the bare essentials, etc.

            Against that gradual secularization of Orthodoxy in America, a reaction soon made its appearance in the form of a number of rapidly spreading monasteries of an Athonite influence, characterized by ultraconservative tendencies, attached to the letter of the law, and reacting to any form of relationship with other Christian denominations. All of this is nothing but the manifestation of the intense thirst for a lost spirituality and a liturgical richness of which the Orthodox people of America have been for very long now deprived, forced, as they were, to embrace the Church only in the form of a sterile social activism.

Another great number of candidates to the priesthood come from converts, who possess little, if any, familiarity with the Orthodox experience and they are usually characterized by their overzealous behavior and mentality. It is of interest that the converts who become ordained into priesthood represent a disproportionally greater percentage than the converts among the faithful. The result of this disanalogous representation is that, more often than not, convert priest shepherd flocks who are bearers of some cultural tradition, but because their pastors either lack the necessary familiarity with that tradition or even consciously oppose it, they succeed in devaluing and gradually eradicating those cultural elements that have been the expression of the parishes that they serve.

            It is particularly saddening that the crisis in priestly vocation has decreased dramatically the number but also the quality of celibate priests, who one day will be assigned with the responsibility of governing this Church. Lack of spirituality makes the monastic ideal incomprehensible and unattractive especially among the youth (with the exception, of course, of the aforementioned monastic communities with their own peculiarities).

            Having attempted this general evaluation of the American Orthodoxy, allow me to consider briefly the Holy Archdiocese of America, this most important eparchy of the Ecumenical Throne.

I've often found that clergy of such and such ethnicity are often the ones most insistent on obliterating it.

And another (one of my favorites):
Quote
Not to some kind of alien ideology, not to some nationalist or imperialist ideology from some forgotten empire.  Not the imposition of foreign customs, and the submission to foreign despots – but to a united church in this country. 
Really?  You must be kidding.  He's talking about foreign customs wearing a RUSSIAN style of vestments!  Did I miss something or didn't the OCA come from the Russian tradition?  Certainly looks like it, from the tradition of music, liturgics, and vestments (among other things).  Why does he fault the Greek Orthodox for following the Byzantine tradition of music, liturgics, and vestments?  Isn't that a little backward?  If he is not speaking of liturgical tradition, then what is he speaking of?  Is he implying that the EP is going to force everyone to learn modern Greek, Greek dances, Greek cooking, celebrate Greek holidays, etc?  Surely not.  I think we can all see how absurd that would be.  Unfortunately, yes, many of the GOA churches have Greek school and dance troupes.  And I think most of us (including the clergy and hierarchs) will tell you it is unfortunate, not the place of the church, and that we are trying to weed that stuff out.  To take that further and say that not only would the EP NOT weed those things out, but would force them on other churches, that is just baseless and, I'm sorry, but falsehood.

I don't think that Greek dance troups and schools are weeds.  I would venture his beatitude doesn't either, but I can't speak for him.

I think he is speaking of this foreign ideology, expoused by the Chief Secretary:
Quote
The first and main challenge that American Orthodoxy faces is that it has been developed in a region which, from an administrative and technical point, is that of diaspora. By the term “diaspora” we indicate that region  whose ecclesiastical jurisdiction is been unfortunately claimed by a variety of “Mother” Churches, which wish to maintain their pastoral care over their respective flocks, comprised by the people who, over the years, immigrated to the superpower called USA.

            In this way, the Orthodox faithful in America became organized according to their national origin and not according to the canon law of the Orthodox Church—that is, they organized themselves not in accordance with the principles of Orthodox ecclesiology which dictates that neither national origin, nor the history of a group’s appearance in a particular region but rather the canonical taxis and the perennial praxis of the Church, as codified by the Ecumenical Councils, has the ultimate authority

In other words, the foreign ideology that this is, or has been, terra incognita and "diaspora."

Note, that the Chief Secretary names no positive development in Orthodoxy in America, none that he does not damn with faint praise.

Quote
Further, I too find it insulting to refer to him as a foreign despot.

That is a common view as to what the EP did to Arb. Iakovos after Ligonier, the "troika" (not my term) he sent, the dismemberment of the GOANSA, and the sending of Met. Spyridon.  The OCA remembers that the EP ordered that communion be broken in 1970: only Arb. Iakovos stopped it.

And another:
Quote
I don’t think they understand, that our church here has this rich diversity, but that we all share a common identity. 
Really?  Nevermind that the GOA hierarchs rotate through the Patriarchal synod.  Nevermind that many of those AT the Phanar are in one way or another connected to the United States (either themselves being from here, schooled here, having family here, having visited or lived here...).  They just don't understand.  Right.

The EP would have to demonstrate that Met. Spyridon's tenure here was the exception (after "he was born in America...") and not the rule of what the EP has in store.  A rather hard sell, I dare say, made harder now by the Chief Secretary's sales pitch.

And another:
Quote
.  We all submit, to a foreign patriarchate,  where all decisions will be made there, where we will have no say in the decisions that will be made, we will have no decisions in our own destiny, and we surrender the freedom that we have embraces as American Orthodox Christians, to a Patriarchate still under Islamic domination. 
This one, I think, is the one that gets me the most upset, the one that is the MOST fear mongering.  It is, in my opinion, the most irresponsible thing he said, as I feel sure he knows that it is not true (anyone who knows anything of the workings of the GOA knows it's not true, so surely he must).  But, maybe I should again give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he has never been to a GOA church, knows no GOA hierarchs, knows nothing of how the GOA operates.  Hard to believe, but I'm happy to give him the benefit of the doubt.
It is wrong to imply that the churches in the US, should they come under the omophorion of the EP, would be completely controlled in the way he says... that we would have no decisions, surrender our freedom, etc.  That is just blatant falsehood.  His All Holiness DOES NOT interfere in the workings of the GOA.  He leaves them to the respective bishops.  Why, then, would he turn around and do that to a united church in the US?  It doesn't make any sense.  It is baseless and false. 

Given that the EP can, and did, revise the archdiocese by fiat (the law suits prove that), and that the Turk controls the process of election of the EP, it is not that far fetched.


Further, I have a question to ask... this conciliar church he is proposing... where all the bishops sit on a synod "or something like that..."  Who sits at the head?  Yes, we are a conciliar church, but we are a HIERARCHAL Church, meaning, there is a hierarchy, with A hierarch at the head.  No, I'm not proposing a pope.  But every Church, every autocephalous church, even, has a synod WITH A HIERARCH (usually known as a Patriarch, Metropolitan, or Archbishop... anyone recognize those terms?  Anyone?) sitting at the head!  He talks about this synod (as though it's a novel idea... anyone remember SCOBA?),

SCOBA, despite what the Chief Secretary says, has no canonical authority, as its constitution makes clear. SCOBA just spoke of the beginnnings of a Holy Synod of America (which would have canonical authority) at Ligonier, and what happened....?

Quote
but offers no solution as to who sits at the head.  Isn't that really the crux of the problem?  I don't think the EP has a problem with a synod, otherwise SCOBA wouldn't exist (or the GOA wouldn't participate, at least).  The question is who sits at the head, where does that person come from, who do they answer to (if anyone).  It was mentioned earlier in this thread (or in the Challenges of Orthodoxy thread, I can't remember which), that the model has been to grant autocephaly to the church, and this is the most likely thing that would happen, should the American church come under the EP.  Everyone seems to love to ignore that.

There is no indication that autocephaly would come.  In fact, the Chief Secretary's words and others would indicate otherwise.

Unlike the EP, the Metropolitan was not saying: it's my jurisdiction or the highway. I do believe, if SCOBA was converted into a REAL Holy Synod, Met. Jonah would have no problem yielding to another to be the primate of it, IF it were autocephalous.  Btw, the Chief Secretary's words:
Quote
The Mother Church [which for the CS means ONLY Constantinople] knows, however, that such a submission is difficult to be accomplished under the present historical conditions. For this reason, and by employing the principle of economy, it was suggested and it has now become accepted in Pan-Orthodox level, that there will be local Pan-Orthodox Episcopal Assemblies in the diaspora (like SCOBA in the US). The principle of presidency is followed, namely the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate presides over these Episcopal Assemblies in order to preserve the necessary element of canonicity.
is nonsense, as SCOBA's constitution shows.


Quote
By the way, the crack about the pope right at the beginning was just nasty and uncalled for.  I was truly, sincerely, disappointed in that.  It is Lent, after all.  Is that really what we should be doing?  Slandering and name-calling fellow Orthodox brethren (never mind that the one he is going after is a fellow hierarch, one who outranks him, no less)... nice.

I'm sorry, but given Ravenna, and this nonsense:
Quote
First of all, allow me to remind you that the term “diaspora” is a technical term denoting those regions that lie beyond the borders of the local autocephalous Churches. It does not mean that the Orthodox people who dwell in these regions live there temporally, as misleadingly it was argued by His Eminence Phillip in a recent article (“The Word”). According to the 28th Canon of the 4th Ecumenical Council one of the prerogatives of the Ecumenical Patriarch is precisely His jurisdiction exactly over these regions, which lie beyond the predescribed borders of the local Churches. The canon in question uses the technical term “barbaric” in order to denote these lands, since it was precisely referring to the unknown lands beyond the orbit of the Roman Empire.
Metropolitan Jonas, while he was still an abbot, in one of his speeches presented what he called “a monastic perspective” on the subject “Episcopacy, Primacy and the Mother Churches”. In the chapter on autocephaly and primacy he claims that “there is no effective overarching primacy in the Orthodox Church.” He seems to be in opposition to the institution of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, because he considers that such an institution “is based on primacy over an empire-wide synod” and that this “has long become unrealistic.” What surprised me the most in this “monastic perspective” of His Eminence Jonas was the claim that allegedly “now only the Greek ethnic Churches and few others recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate to be what it claims to be.” It is indeed saddening the ignorance of this Hierarch not only on account of History and canonical order but even on account of the current state of affairs. How is it possible that he ignores that there is no Church that does not recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate? Perhaps he is carried away by the fact that the ecclesial schema over which he presides and which has been claimed as “autocephalous” in rampant violation of every sense of canonicity, is not recognized but by few Churches and it is not included in the diptychs of the Church.
Let me add that the refusal to recognize primacy within the Orthodox Church, a primacy that necessarily cannot but be embodied by a primus (that is by a bishop who has the prerogative of being the first among his fellow bishops) constitutes nothing less than heresy. It cannot be accepted, as often it is said, that the unity among the Orthodox Churches is safeguarded by either a common norm of faith and worship or by the Ecumenical Council as an institution. Both of these factors are impersonal while in our Orthodox theology the principle of unity is always a person. Indeed, in the level of the Holy Trinity the principle of unity is not the divine essence but the Person of the Father (“Monarchy” of the Father), at the ecclesiological level of the local Church the principle of unity is not the presbyterium or the common worship of the Christians but the person of the Bishop, so to in the Pan-Orthodox level the principle of unity cannot be an idea nor an institution but it needs to be, if we are to be consistent with our theology, a person.

made it necessary.  New Rome seems hell bent on repeating Old Rome's mistakes.

Quote
Really, I rejoiced along with everyone else when His Beatitude was elected.  I still do.  I think it's great, no, imperative, for the OCA to have a strong leader with a clear vision who can wade through the muck and bring the OCA back from the terrible things that have plagued it for so long.  But I can love him and disagree with him, and I can love him and be disappointed by his words and certain aspects of his leadership.  He is human.  I love and respect him.  I'm disappointed because I love and respect him and had hoped for something healing and loving, not petty and full of fear and falsehoods.  I do say all these things with respect.  If my tone appears disrespectful, I assure you it is NOT because that is how I intended it.  I attempted for the opposite, and if I have offended, then at this most important time of Lent I do ask for your forgiveness.

Forgive me a sinner.


I really would have preferred to have been responding someone else.  I hope I stayed somewhat in bounds.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: si2008 on April 08, 2009, 03:12:44 PM
I don't understand whether people are objecting to His Beatitude's tone or content.  And to the people who feel that either the OCA is uncanonical or that it should be under the EP, why?  Why can't there be a Church in America, united under leadership that's actually IN America?  To the EP we give a primacy of honor, of course, in spiritual matters. 

The EP turned away a bunch of those evangelical converts, too, right?  So why is it now so concerned with maintaining power over a church that is gaining many converts?

I am very saddened by all of this and pray that God will unite His Church in America, and end jurisdictionalism.  As a convert, I feel unwanted by ethnic Orthodox, especially Greeks sometimes.  I can't imagine that Paul's missions would have gotten very far if this spirit prevailed back in the first century.

 :(
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 08, 2009, 03:30:45 PM
Quote
Why can't there be a Church in America, united under leadership that's actually IN America?

There is, and you are in it, assuming you're in the OCA.  You also have SCOBA.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Fr. David on April 08, 2009, 03:35:19 PM
Oh, Lord, have mercy.   :(

My thoughts are HERE (http://ohtasteandsee.blogspot.com/2009/04/purple-demons-are-out-in-force.html).
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 08, 2009, 03:44:43 PM
Oh, Lord, have mercy.   :(

My thoughts are HERE (http://ohtasteandsee.blogspot.com/2009/04/purple-demons-are-out-in-force.html).

I think that's a fairly balanced summary.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 08, 2009, 03:47:13 PM
Given that the Church of Constantinople's claim to take control of the diaspora includes my own country of New Zealand, I wish to contribute something.  This is no more an academic topic for me down under than it is for you in the States and Canada.

I would much prefer to see us united under the the Church of Moscow which has always shown respect and support for young missionary Churches.

This came in from a brother abbot.

"When the Russian Missionary Diocese of America was established, they gave money and liturgical items to the Orthodox people of this land, whereas the present foreign patriarchates seem bent on getting as much money out of American Orthodox as they can. Only Russia Orthodoxy still stands ready to help us, and not plunder.

"The Autonomy of ROCOR, and the Autocephaly of the OCA, was freely granted by the Moscow Patriarchate. Only the MP,  has refrained from attempting  to control the American Orthodox faithful.

"We had Orthodox unity in this country until these other patriarchates took advantage of the stricken Russian Church, following the Communist Revolution, and entered into her canonical territory. What did they bring but division, confusion, disunity, and ethnic ghettoes? They created disunity by introducing the New Calendar, where there had been only the Church Calendar. They invaded the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate by shipping in bishops, and creating ethnic dioceses. They introduced bishops to cities that already had bishops.  

"Some say American Orthodoxy is uncanonical, and they are correct. But the answer to this uncanonical situation is NOT in submitting to Constantinople, but recognizing that the MP still has canonical claim to this "missionary diocese", and has already given her children their freedom.

"It is time Orthodox Americans stood up for the cause of American Orthodoxy, something the Moscow Patriarchate, alone, seems to have recognized and championed."

Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: John of the North on April 08, 2009, 03:51:03 PM
Oh, Lord, have mercy.   :(

My thoughts are HERE (http://ohtasteandsee.blogspot.com/2009/04/purple-demons-are-out-in-force.html).

I think that's a fairly balanced summary.

I concur.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 08, 2009, 03:54:41 PM
Quote
I would much prefer to see us united under the the Church of Moscow which has always shown respect and support for young missionary Churches.

Too bad that respect wasn't extended to minorities within the Russian Empire.

Quote
"It is time Orthodox Americans stood up for the cause of American Orthodoxy, something the Moscow Patriarchate, alone, seems to have recognized and championed."

I agree, and it's high time the MP and ROCOR end their uncanonical presence on the territory of the OCA.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Νεκτάριος on April 08, 2009, 04:01:35 PM
"The Autonomy of ROCOR, and the Autocephaly of the OCA, was freely granted by the Moscow Patriarchate. Only the MP,  has refrained from attempting  to control the American Orthodox faithful.

Are you being facetious or not? 
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 08, 2009, 04:02:21 PM
I agree, and it's high time the MP and ROCOR end their uncanonical presence on the territory of the OCA.

I am not sure if the opinions of the Tikidox should be heeded.  We very generously gave asylum to one of the Tikidox tribes after their island was sweamped by a passing US aircraft carrier.  We did not realise that the Tikidox are still cannibals until the teenagers started disappearing from the neighbourhood.  We even lost a whole football team.

 ;D :o ;D
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 08, 2009, 04:06:08 PM
Are you being facetious or not? 

No.  If these inter-church donnybrooks which the EP is scheduling for June and October are to go ahead,  I think that the Russian option is as valid as any other.  In fact it has *more* merit than any other.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: admiralnick on April 08, 2009, 04:37:14 PM
Quote
Why can't there be a Church in America, united under leadership that's actually IN America?

There is, and you are in it, assuming you're in the OCA.  You also have SCOBA.

SCOBA is not the most "active" group in Orthodoxy.....

-nick
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 08, 2009, 04:38:34 PM
Quote
In fact it has *more* merit than any other.

The only option is that all the hierarchs act responsibly and in accord.  This is not some black and white issue, they all have their share of the blame.  That is not how Orthodoxy works though, it is mostly about factionalism and rivalry; and our leaders as we've seen are not above slandering each other.  That goes for the OCA, the EP, Moscow, etc.

That is the opinion of the Tikidox.  ;D
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on April 08, 2009, 05:37:56 PM
I would like to say two things. First, regarding Presvytera Mari's admirably passionate and eloquent postings. I agree with her on her second post regarding the role of women in the Church--like the Brits say, hear, hear! I do disagree with her on her first post regarding Metropolitan Jonah's address in Dallas primarily because I think the the Metropolitan was making a counterpoint to the address of the Chief Secretary of the Holy Synod of Constantinople. On the other hand, Presvytera Mari is quite right in her rebuttal of the Metropolitan as far as the situation GOA is concerned. Too bad that  Metropolitan Jonah did not make it clearer that he was not talking about the GOA or any of the jurisdictions in North America.

Second, I am amazed and thankful for AMM's thoughtful and moderate input.  Actually, the discussion overall has  been much less heated than I had feared. Thank God (and let's not pass the ammunition).   :D
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: John of the North on April 08, 2009, 05:59:33 PM
Quote
I would much prefer to see us united under the the Church of Moscow which has always shown respect and support for young missionary Churches.

Too bad that respect wasn't extended to minorities within the Russian Empire.

Quote
"It is time Orthodox Americans stood up for the cause of American Orthodoxy, something the Moscow Patriarchate, alone, seems to have recognized and championed."

I agree, and it's high time the MP and ROCOR end their uncanonical presence on the territory of the OCA.

You do realize that the MP parishes in North America commemorate Metropolitan JONAH in the Divine Liturgy, right??
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 08, 2009, 06:23:32 PM
Quote
Why can't there be a Church in America, united under leadership that's actually IN America?

There is, and you are in it, assuming you're in the OCA.
Well, I'm not in the OCA.  Nor are many who have said "Axios!" to Met. Jonah.
Quote
  You also have SCOBA.
A group without canonical authoirty, which the EP claims, through his Chief Secretary, exists only at his good pleasure, and by "necessity" under his presidency.  Amongst other nonsense.  See what happened when SCOBA moved to get canonical authoirty?


I can summarize in two words what this is all about:

AUTOCEPHALY

DIASPORA
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 08, 2009, 06:59:48 PM
Oh, Lord, have mercy.   :(

My thoughts are HERE (http://ohtasteandsee.blogspot.com/2009/04/purple-demons-are-out-in-force.html).

Quote
Our first option would be to "go Balkan," wherein we declare our own autocephaly and union independently of the Mother Patriarchate(s), and said autocephaly is then reluctantly approved hundreds of years down the road as a tacit, de jure nod to a living, de facto Orthodox body.

You are aware that you ARE autocephalous, aren't you?
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Fr. George on April 08, 2009, 07:37:12 PM
Quote
Our first option would be to "go Balkan," wherein we declare our own autocephaly and union independently of the Mother Patriarchate(s), and said autocephaly is then reluctantly approved hundreds of years down the road as a tacit, de jure nod to a living, de facto Orthodox body.

You are aware that you ARE autocephalous, aren't you?

Really, you had to make that comment?  He's talking about us all as a whole - OCA, GOA, AOA, SOC, ROC, etc. - and it's pretty obvious.  Why ask the question?
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 08, 2009, 07:42:23 PM
Quote
Our first option would be to "go Balkan," wherein we declare our own autocephaly and union independently of the Mother Patriarchate(s), and said autocephaly is then reluctantly approved hundreds of years down the road as a tacit, de jure nod to a living, de facto Orthodox body.

You are aware that you ARE autocephalous, aren't you?

Really, you had to make that comment?  He's talking about us all as a whole - OCA, GOA, AOA, SOC, ROC, etc. - and it's pretty obvious.  Why ask the question?

The blog is not clear.  I'd comment further, but we are getting ready for Presanctified.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on April 08, 2009, 08:00:51 PM
Since interpretations of the Holy Canons are part of the discussion. I would like to recommend the following resource: http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7071. This is an article, The Canonical Tradition of the Orthodox Church, by Dr. Lewis J. Patsavos, Ph.D. In any case, I was led to this article from the The Association of Orthodox Christian Attorneys at http://orthodoxattorneys.org/

As a teaser, I would like to quote a sentence or two from the article:

"...it is most important not to confuse the Gospel and the Pedalion (collection of canons), theology and legislation, morality and jurisprudence."

"Unlike the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church, the canon law of the Orthodox Church has not been codified. Neither is it prescriptive in character, anticipating a situation before it actually takes place; instead, it is corrective in nature, responding to a situation once it has occurred. Because of the absence of a universal codification binding upon all autocephalous or self-governing Orthodox Churches, great importance is attached to the local legislation of each of these Churches. Canon 39 of the Quinisext Synod or the Synod of Trullo, held in 691, recognized the right of a local Church to have its own special laws or regulations: "For our God-bearing fathers also declared that the customs of each church should be preserved..." Such laws or regulations, however, must always reflect the spirit of the Church's universal law as found in the holy canons."

"The overriding consideration in the acceptance of a local Church's custom as law is the spiritual well-being of the members of Christ's Mystical Body. What is of importance is how people in any age or place may best serve and worship God. It is obvious that what is well intentioned for the Church as a whole may not be so well suited to some particular local conditions. Similarly, what is good for one age or place may under different conditions constitute a hindrance. Thus it is that the Church's canonical tradition has such regard for local custom. Having evolved within the context of local conditions, it best expresses the mind of the local Church on how the cause of God may be served in her special conditions. Custom is the continuously expressed will of God's people."
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 08, 2009, 08:25:42 PM
Quote
Well, I'm not in the OCA.  Nor are many who have said "Axios!" to Met. Jonah.

Yes, the ranks of the Metropolitan Phillip memorial "join me while I insult you" club seem to be growing.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Tamara on April 08, 2009, 09:12:44 PM
Quote
Well, I'm not in the OCA.  Nor are many who have said "Axios!" to Met. Jonah.

Yes, the ranks of the Metropolitan Phillip memorial "join me while I insult you" club seem to be growing.

Fr. Elpidophoros' speech caused some people who heard it at HC to walk out while he was giving it. Later, many others (including me) who read it were insulted by what he had to say, so your point is?  ::)

I said "Axios!" to Met. Jonah and I am not in the OCA at this point in time.  ;)
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 08, 2009, 09:31:34 PM
Fr. Elpidophoros' speech caused some people who heard it at HC to walk out while he was giving it. Later, many others (including me) who read it were insulted by what he had to say, so your point is?  ::)

Though I agreed with a lot of what Fr. Elpidophoros said, I was saddened to see he needlessly offended the feelings of others.  I'm sure there are others on the board who agreed with a good part of what he said as well, but I don't recall people jumping up and down shouting AXIOS!!! or some blog saying "EP tells OCA to step off!!!!" like the blog that started this whole thread.

Look at the history of the OCA.  Look at the way their leaders antangonized the ROCOR and others.  Look at how Metropolitan Phillip would insult other hierarchs while talking about unity.

Yeah, it's toothless Constantinople that stops unity in this country.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Tamara on April 08, 2009, 10:35:29 PM
Fr. Elpidophoros' speech caused some people who heard it at HC to walk out while he was giving it. Later, many others (including me) who read it were insulted by what he had to say, so your point is?  ::)

Though I agreed with a lot of what Fr. Elpidophoros said, I was saddened to see he needlessly offended the feelings of others.  I'm sure there are others on the board who agreed with a good part of what he said as well, but I don't recall people jumping up and down shouting AXIOS!!! or some blog saying "EP tells OCA to step off!!!!" like the blog that started this whole thread.

Look at the history of the OCA.  Look at the way their leaders antangonized the ROCOR and others.  Look at how Metropolitan Phillip would insult other hierarchs while talking about unity.

Yeah, it's toothless Constantinople that stops unity in this country.

 There were plenty of folks here happy to see what Fr.Elpidophoros had to say whether it was offensive to the rest of us or not. There are no innocent ones in this chaos. And Constantinople is not as toothless as you think at stopping Orthodox unity. Ligonier could have been the beginning but Constantinople forced Archbishop Iakovos to step down in the aftermath.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: SolEX01 on April 08, 2009, 10:42:57 PM
There were plenty of folks here happy to see what Fr.Elpidophoros had to say whether it was offensive to the rest of us or not. There are no innocent ones in this chaos. And Constantinople is not as toothless as you think at stopping Orthodox unity. Ligonier could have been the beginning but Constantinople forced Archbishop Iakovos to step down in the aftermath.

You have Ligonier; The Greeks have Constantinople; When will the madness end?   :o  ???  :o  ???  :o
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: GreekChef on April 08, 2009, 10:55:47 PM
s
It's interesting to note how many people are all reading this thread at the same time.  It's obviously an important topic about which we all care a great deal.  I, too, have been reading, and reading, and reading it over the past couple days, but, as I was reading it on my phone and not the computer, I was unable to read/watch His Beatitude +JONAH's speech.  I was expecting to be inspired and uplifted by wise words that would call all to unity under a compromise that would allow us all to continue to worship in the ways we are comfortable, while uniting our voice.  I was sorely disappointed...

I'll start by saying that, while I agreed with the Chief Secretary's speech at HCHC for the most part, I was also sorely disappointed with his delivery.  I felt there was a loving way to handle the situation and he did not choose it.

I feel the same way about His Beatitude's speech.  In fact, to be honest, the phrase that came to mind was "fear mongering."  And it made me angry.

BTW, I'm going to use the GOA as an example a lot, because it is the EP's jurisdiction in the US, and the most obvious example of how the EP does and would administrate a church in the US.

That is what the Metropolitan is looking at.
I'm not sure what you mean by this.  Would you mind clarifying for me (sorry for my thick head!)?

Quote
Quote
There were, indeed, exaggerations and falsehoods that were utilized to make his point.  The most blatant and obvious (not to mention UTTERLY ABSURD), as AMM pointed out earlier, being (from Serb1389's transcription):

but you have to give us the freedom to take care of our own church and our own country and our own culture, and not to be controlled by people who have never heard a word of English, much less would allow a word of English to be spoken in the Liturgy

Since His Beatitude has only been Metropolitan of the OCA for like five minutes, I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt and saying maybe he has never been to services in the GOA.  Otherwise, he would know that of course we do English in the services.  At HCHC (and many on this forum have either attended the school or at least been to services there) alone, which one would hope to be an example, since it is the archdiocesan seminary, the services are done AT LEAST 50/50 Greek-English.  Many, many parishes in the GOA have all but eliminated the Greek entirely.  So... either he's utilizing a falsehood to incite fear and anger, or he's ignorant of GOA practices.  I'm going to go with the latter, since I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt, as I too have been inspired by his election and hopeful, and don't want to think badly of him.


Speaking of the Chief Secretary:

Quote
I do not support the opinion that we can today oblige everyone to speak Greek, but I think that we have to offer that possibility to those who so desire, to learn Greek in well organized schools, by talented teachers. I think that we owe our children the possibility of choice. We owe to our culture the obliteration of contempt for a language that expressed the Gospel and became the vehicle for the most subtle meanings in the articulation of the dogma by the founders of our faith and Fathers of Christianity.

            I do not support the opinion that the services here in America should be done exclusively in Greek. Simply I do not understand how it is possible that any priest of the Archdiocese might not be able to serve in both languages. It is not understandable how an institution of higher education cannot manage to teach its students a language, even in the time span of four years!

            My brothers and sisters, I am not one of them who believe that there is a sacred language (lingua sacra) for the Church. I just wonder why in every Theological School in the world the students are expected to learn the Biblical languages, and it is only in our School of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America that such a requirement seems anachronistic, nationalistic or conservative.

            Speaking now of your Theological School, do you think that the Church’s expectation that the graduates of this School know theology, canon law, Byzantine music, be able to celebrate the service of matins, vespers and the sacraments, be able to preach the Word of God and instruct our youth in the catechism is unreasonable or excessive?

I don't know what the last paragraph is supposed to have to do with the preceeding ones.
From what I understand (from friends who were there), the last paragraph was addressing the fact that there are students who complain that the work load is too much, or that they don't need to know certain things (like Byzantine music).  That was more of a private, personal thing addressed to the students specifically, not addressed to the Orthodox world.  Does that make sense?

Quote
Evidently, the Chief Secretary is addressing something.  I don't believe he is making up straw men who believe everyone Orthodox (at least!) should speak Greek, that as the lingua sacra services should be done only in it.  I've met such people in the GOA.  I've also met people like yourself in the GOA. The question is, who has the upper hand?
This is a good and valid question.  For the answer, though, I think it is important to look at what's happening in the GOA parishes currently on the part of the priests and hierarchs.  I think it's important to look at the INCOMING generation of clergy and hierarchs.  Based on the current hierarchs (the ones that are going to be around a while longer, such as +ALEXIOS, +NICHOLAS, +METHODIOS, +GERASIMOS) and younger/incoming clergy, as well as (probably most importantly) Archbishop +DEMETRIOS, I would say that the GOA is firmly moving toward more English and the models I've spoken of previously. 

Quote
Beyond the U.S., I understand that Canada's GOA is more an embodiment of what you say are "fears."  Can anyone in Canada comment?
I haven't the knowledge to comment on this...

Quote
The falsehoods/exaggerations are also made by implication.  In other words, he implies things that are false or exaggerated.  Here's an example:
Quote
A church that is dedicated to the conciliar process which does not ignore the voice of the laity, which does not ignore the voice of the priests.
The implication here is that the Phanar and His All Holiness ignore the voices of the laity and priests.  If this is the case, then things would be far different in the GOA.  There would be no English, but the people request English, so there is English.  There would be no Thanksgiving Turkey (and His Beatitude thinks that the EP doesn't understand America?  Do the OCA recognize Thanksgiving? I actually am asking, not being sarcastic, cause I don't know the answer), but the request of the people was heard, and, out of love, the EP made a concession so that we might RECOGNIZE OUR HERITAGE AS AMERICANS AND CELEBRATE IT WITH THANKSGIVING TO GOD.  Hmmmm.... I could write a list of such things that the EP has heard and allowed, but I think my point is made.

My experience with Thanksgiving is that the "dispensation" came about because of the Pan-Orthodox Thanksgiving services that was started in Arb. Iakovos' time.  Speaking of whom, what was done to him by the EP gives many non-Greek pause to even consider the EP running things here.
I really think that what happened with Archbishop +IAKOVOS is another example of the laity not having the whole story.  I know enough about it from inside sources to know that I DON'T know enough to form an opinion about the EP based on it.  Hope that makes sense.

Quote
Btw, this wasn't an issue in the OCA until the 80's, and for many still isn't: they were/are on the Old Calendar.
I knew that much, but my question was less about fasting and more about whether the OCA recognize Thanksgiving and in what way.  I mean, we don't do any special services for Thanksgiving (some people do a Doxology, but it's not an official part of the calendar... yet), but the dispensation itself is recognition of a holiday that is important to the people in the Church in America (in the way Greek Independence Day is as well).  I think that this recognition is itself a rebuttal to the claim by +JONAH that the Phanar "doesn't understand our common diversity" and all the other things he threw out about the EP's "ignorance" of America. 

So... How does the OCA handle Thanksgiving?

Quote
And another:
Quote
Because, we are orthodox not simply by birth, we are orthodox not simply by our ethnic heritage, we are orthodox because we have chosen to be orthodox.  We are orthodox because we have committed our entire life to Jesus Christ and the Gospel.  And that it’s that commitment to Jesus Christ and the Gospel, and our commitment to bring our brothers and sisters in our land to that same commitment to Jesus Christ and the Gospel. 
The implication here is that we Greek Orthodox (notice I say we Greek ORTHODOX, not we Greeks) are only Orthodox because of our birth or ethnic heritage.  Tell that to my Chinese brother-in-law and all the other converts we have in the GREEK ORTHODOX church (in other words, the GOA is NOT made up of just Greeks, but converts as well, in case His Beatitude has not visited a GOA church yet).  Furthermore, I AM of Greek heritage, but I am CERTAINLY not Orthodox just because my father is.  For one thing, my mother was Catholic (oh, yeah, she's a convert too).  [ light-hearted but to the point sarcasm] I'm so glad His Beatitude knows the souls of all the Greek Orthodox in America to be able to imply that we are all Orthodox just because our parents were. [/light-hearted but to the point sarcasm]

I am sure that his beatitude is well aware of converts in the GOA: Frankie Schaffer I am sure has made sure of that.

I think the Metropolitan was addressing these claims, an indirect attack on his person, perhaps, in addition to the direct one, by the Chief Secretary:
Quote
As you all know, one of the secrets for the success of the American miracle in its financial, political and technological aspects was precisely its desire to detach itself from the traditional models of the old world, its ability to break free from the established norms, its willingness to question whatever was considered as given or beyond any criticism. As it might have been expected, these tendencies soon found an expression within the life of the Church, sometimes in more extreme ways, other times in more temperate ways. Thus, soon Orthodox clergymen became indistinguishable from the clergy of other denominations, choirs in the western style were adopted, the liturgical tradition became more and more impoverished by being limited only to the bare essentials, etc.

            Against that gradual secularization of Orthodoxy in America, a reaction soon made its appearance in the form of a number of rapidly spreading monasteries of an Athonite influence, characterized by ultraconservative tendencies, attached to the letter of the law, and reacting to any form of relationship with other Christian denominations. All of this is nothing but the manifestation of the intense thirst for a lost spirituality and a liturgical richness of which the Orthodox people of America have been for very long now deprived, forced, as they were, to embrace the Church only in the form of a sterile social activism.

Another great number of candidates to the priesthood come from converts, who possess little, if any, familiarity with the Orthodox experience and they are usually characterized by their overzealous behavior and mentality. It is of interest that the converts who become ordained into priesthood represent a disproportionally greater percentage than the converts among the faithful. The result of this disanalogous representation is that, more often than not, convert priest shepherd flocks who are bearers of some cultural tradition, but because their pastors either lack the necessary familiarity with that tradition or even consciously oppose it, they succeed in devaluing and gradually eradicating those cultural elements that have been the expression of the parishes that they serve.

            It is particularly saddening that the crisis in priestly vocation has decreased dramatically the number but also the quality of celibate priests, who one day will be assigned with the responsibility of governing this Church. Lack of spirituality makes the monastic ideal incomprehensible and unattractive especially among the youth (with the exception, of course, of the aforementioned monastic communities with their own peculiarities).

            Having attempted this general evaluation of the American Orthodoxy, allow me to consider briefly the Holy Archdiocese of America, this most important eparchy of the Ecumenical Throne.
I'm not sure where the attack on his person is in this quote.  He was speaking mostly (not all, but mostly) of the GOA parishes with regard to the use of the clerical collar (something Archbishop +IAKOVOS forced on the clergy), the choirs, etc.  The monasteries he speaks of are those of Fr. Ephraim, which have been as controversial as they have been fruitful.  With regard to the convert priests, again, I think he was addressing this to the students of HCHC, some of whom (and I could name which ones, as I do know them personally) oppose not just all things Greek (like having to learn to speak Greek), but all things descending from the Greek tradition (like Byzantine music, liturgical Greek, etc).  Again, I don't think that was aimed at American Orthodoxy outside of the GOA.  We have to keep in mind who his audience was.

Quote
I've often found that clergy of such and such ethnicity are often the ones most insistent on obliterating it.
I'm not sure where you're going with this... would you mind elaborating please?

Quote
Quote
And another (one of my favorites):
Quote
Not to some kind of alien ideology, not to some nationalist or imperialist ideology from some forgotten empire.  Not the imposition of foreign customs, and the submission to foreign despots – but to a united church in this country. 
Really?  You must be kidding.  He's talking about foreign customs wearing a RUSSIAN style of vestments!  Did I miss something or didn't the OCA come from the Russian tradition?  Certainly looks like it, from the tradition of music, liturgics, and vestments (among other things).  Why does he fault the Greek Orthodox for following the Byzantine tradition of music, liturgics, and vestments?  Isn't that a little backward?  If he is not speaking of liturgical tradition, then what is he speaking of?  Is he implying that the EP is going to force everyone to learn modern Greek, Greek dances, Greek cooking, celebrate Greek holidays, etc?  Surely not.  I think we can all see how absurd that would be.  Unfortunately, yes, many of the GOA churches have Greek school and dance troupes.  And I think most of us (including the clergy and hierarchs) will tell you it is unfortunate, not the place of the church, and that we are trying to weed that stuff out.  To take that further and say that not only would the EP NOT weed those things out, but would force them on other churches, that is just baseless and, I'm sorry, but falsehood.

I don't think that Greek dance troups and schools are weeds.  I would venture his beatitude doesn't either, but I can't speak for him.

I think he is speaking of this foreign ideology, expoused by the Chief Secretary:
Quote
The first and main challenge that American Orthodoxy faces is that it has been developed in a region which, from an administrative and technical point, is that of diaspora. By the term “diaspora” we indicate that region  whose ecclesiastical jurisdiction is been unfortunately claimed by a variety of “Mother” Churches, which wish to maintain their pastoral care over their respective flocks, comprised by the people who, over the years, immigrated to the superpower called USA.

            In this way, the Orthodox faithful in America became organized according to their national origin and not according to the canon law of the Orthodox Church—that is, they organized themselves not in accordance with the principles of Orthodox ecclesiology which dictates that neither national origin, nor the history of a group’s appearance in a particular region but rather the canonical taxis and the perennial praxis of the Church, as codified by the Ecumenical Councils, has the ultimate authority

In other words, the foreign ideology that this is, or has been, terra incognita and "diaspora."

Note, that the Chief Secretary names no positive development in Orthodoxy in America, none that he does not damn with faint praise.
Do you disagree with how the Chief Secretary describes the development of Orthodoxy in the US?  Is it not true that the Orthodox in America organized themselves according to their national origin and not according to canon law?  It may not NOW be a diaspora, but it most certainly WAS when it developed.  I don't think the Chief Secretary made that distinction clearly, but I do think that this is what he was trying to say. 

Anyway, I don't really think that's what His Beatitude was addressing.  The Chief Secretary's quote doesn't fall under the "foreign customs" that His Beatitude spoke of, or "nationalist and imperialist ideology."  I think it's nice of you to try and protect His Beatitude by asserting that the Chief Secretary's quote was what he was addressing, but I don't think it's correct.  Even if it was, the words "submission to a foreign despot" are still nothing more than slander, fear mongering, and insulting.

Quote
Quote
Further, I too find it insulting to refer to him as a foreign despot.

That is a common view as to what the EP did to Arb. Iakovos after Ligonier, the "troika" (not my term) he sent, the dismemberment of the GOANSA, and the sending of Met. Spyridon.  The OCA remembers that the EP ordered that communion be broken in 1970: only Arb. Iakovos stopped it.
Yes... he did order communion be broken... communion with a church whose "autocephalous" origins were (and still are) dubious, at best.  That was his prerogative, whether we like it or not.  We are a hierarchical church, or at least we were, last time I checked.  The GOA is, after all, under HIS omophorion, thus it was his prerogative to make an unpopular decision.  And when it turned out to be a bad one, he DID INDEED listen to the voice of the clergy and the laity (no matter what +JONAH asserts) and he made the needed change. 

Quote
And another:
Quote
I don’t think they understand, that our church here has this rich diversity, but that we all share a common identity. 
Really?  Nevermind that the GOA hierarchs rotate through the Patriarchal synod.  Nevermind that many of those AT the Phanar are in one way or another connected to the United States (either themselves being from here, schooled here, having family here, having visited or lived here...).  They just don't understand.  Right.

The EP would have to demonstrate that Met. Spyridon's tenure here was the exception (after "he was born in America...") and not the rule of what the EP has in store.  A rather hard sell, I dare say, made harder now by the Chief Secretary's sales pitch.
The exception to what?  Do we expect our hierarchs to do whatever the laity's whims dictate?  If that were the case, we would be commemorating Arius as a saint, not remembering him as a heretic!  The majority of the laity (including Constantine the Great) at the time ascribed to Arius' beliefs.  It was the hierarchs who made the unpopular decision that was contrary to the laity at the time.  But history showed that the hierarchs were correct.  I'm not saying that Met. Spyridon was an example of a hierarchal decision that will prove to be a good one (except in his removal), but what I am saying is that we expect our hierarchs to do the RIGHT thing, not the POPULAR thing.  And often the right thing is unclear to us in the short term but quite clear in the long term.  Make sense?

Quote
And another:
Quote
.  We all submit, to a foreign patriarchate,  where all decisions will be made there, where we will have no say in the decisions that will be made, we will have no decisions in our own destiny, and we surrender the freedom that we have embraces as American Orthodox Christians, to a Patriarchate still under Islamic domination. 
This one, I think, is the one that gets me the most upset, the one that is the MOST fear mongering.  It is, in my opinion, the most irresponsible thing he said, as I feel sure he knows that it is not true (anyone who knows anything of the workings of the GOA knows it's not true, so surely he must).  But, maybe I should again give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he has never been to a GOA church, knows no GOA hierarchs, knows nothing of how the GOA operates.  Hard to believe, but I'm happy to give him the benefit of the doubt.
It is wrong to imply that the churches in the US, should they come under the omophorion of the EP, would be completely controlled in the way he says... that we would have no decisions, surrender our freedom, etc.  That is just blatant falsehood.  His All Holiness DOES NOT interfere in the workings of the GOA.  He leaves them to the respective bishops.  Why, then, would he turn around and do that to a united church in the US?  It doesn't make any sense.  It is baseless and false. 

Given that the EP can, and did, revise the archdiocese by fiat (the law suits prove that), and that the Turk controls the process of election of the EP, it is not that far fetched.
My friend, I think that you have jumped from point A to point F, skipping B, C, D, and E.  Just because he revised the archdiocese and the Turks have some say in his election does NOT mean that the EP controls everything that goes on in the GOA.  He doesn't interfere with the operation of other bishops' metropolises.  Please, if you're going to assert that he does, show me evidence.  Because, besides myself, I know there are several others on this forum who are QUITE close to their GOA hierarchs, and I daresay we all would argue this point fervently.  I don't want to sound like I'm boasting about being personally close to a bishop (so please don't take it that way), that's not it at all, which is why I'm hesitant to say anything on this point.  But I can say with some certainty that the EP does NOT interfere with the workings of our metropolis.  And I know there are others on the forum who are also close to their GOA Metropolitans and intimately familiar with the day to day workings of their metropolis' who would say the same thing.

Please forgive me if I've said too much on this point.  I apologize if I have.  I certainly don't mean it offensively.

Quote
Further, I have a question to ask... this conciliar church he is proposing... where all the bishops sit on a synod "or something like that..."  Who sits at the head?  Yes, we are a conciliar church, but we are a HIERARCHAL Church, meaning, there is a hierarchy, with A hierarch at the head.  No, I'm not proposing a pope.  But every Church, every autocephalous church, even, has a synod WITH A HIERARCH (usually known as a Patriarch, Metropolitan, or Archbishop... anyone recognize those terms?  Anyone?) sitting at the head!  He talks about this synod (as though it's a novel idea... anyone remember SCOBA?),

SCOBA, despite what the Chief Secretary says, has no canonical authority, as its constitution makes clear. SCOBA just spoke of the beginnnings of a Holy Synod of America (which would have canonical authority) at Ligonier, and what happened....?
I wasn't saying that SCOBA has canonical authority, and I don't think the Chief Secretary was either.  I think he was saying that SCOBA is a good model (which is what I was saying).

Quote
Quote
but offers no solution as to who sits at the head.  Isn't that really the crux of the problem?  I don't think the EP has a problem with a synod, otherwise SCOBA wouldn't exist (or the GOA wouldn't participate, at least).  The question is who sits at the head, where does that person come from, who do they answer to (if anyone).  It was mentioned earlier in this thread (or in the Challenges of Orthodoxy thread, I can't remember which), that the model has been to grant autocephaly to the church, and this is the most likely thing that would happen, should the American church come under the EP.  Everyone seems to love to ignore that.

There is no indication that autocephaly would come.  In fact, the Chief Secretary's words and others would indicate otherwise.
Why do you say that?  I feel sure autocephaly would not come immediately.  And for heaven's sake, why should it, when we can't even agree who would sit at the head of a synod?  I think that the Chief Secretary's model of a synod like SCOBA with the representative of the EP (that would be the Archbishop of the GOA, currently +DEMETRIOS) at it's head is perfectly reasonable.  Not because I think everyone needs to be Greek or submit to the EP or anything like that.  I think it's reasonable because, whether anyone wants to admit it or not, the GOA is the largest and most stable of the American jurisdictions.  It is also the one that is universally and politically recognized in the US (it is always the GOA Archbishop who is invited to the White House and other public events as the face of Orthodoxy in the US).  I know people don't like that, but that's the way it is right now.

Quote
Unlike the EP, the Metropolitan was not saying: it's my jurisdiction or the highway. I do believe, if SCOBA was converted into a REAL Holy Synod, Met. Jonah would have no problem yielding to another to be the primate of it, IF it were autocephalous.  Btw, the Chief Secretary's words:
Quote
The Mother Church [which for the CS means ONLY Constantinople] knows, however, that such a submission is difficult to be accomplished under the present historical conditions. For this reason, and by employing the principle of economy, it was suggested and it has now become accepted in Pan-Orthodox level, that there will be local Pan-Orthodox Episcopal Assemblies in the diaspora (like SCOBA in the US). The principle of presidency is followed, namely the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate presides over these Episcopal Assemblies in order to preserve the necessary element of canonicity.
is nonsense, as SCOBA's constitution shows.
I'm not sure I agree with you that +JONAH would yield to another hierarch (though it would be only proper, since he is the newly ordained and his jurisdiction the youngest and of dubious canonicity).  I still don't understand what the problem is with a synod with the EP representative at the head, though.  That's what we have now!  SCOBA may not be canonically binding, but there's no reason that it can't be!  The hierarchs of SCOBA have to agree on everything, +DEMETRIOS never "pulls rank" or anything.  Why would that change?  Really?  I think this fear mongering is ridiculous!

Quote
Quote
By the way, the crack about the pope right at the beginning was just nasty and uncalled for.  I was truly, sincerely, disappointed in that.  It is Lent, after all.  Is that really what we should be doing?  Slandering and name-calling fellow Orthodox brethren (never mind that the one he is going after is a fellow hierarch, one who outranks him, no less)... nice.

I'm sorry, but given Ravenna, and this nonsense:
Quote
First of all, allow me to remind you that the term “diaspora” is a technical term denoting those regions that lie beyond the borders of the local autocephalous Churches. It does not mean that the Orthodox people who dwell in these regions live there temporally, as misleadingly it was argued by His Eminence Phillip in a recent article (“The Word”). According to the 28th Canon of the 4th Ecumenical Council one of the prerogatives of the Ecumenical Patriarch is precisely His jurisdiction exactly over these regions, which lie beyond the predescribed borders of the local Churches. The canon in question uses the technical term “barbaric” in order to denote these lands, since it was precisely referring to the unknown lands beyond the orbit of the Roman Empire.
Metropolitan Jonas, while he was still an abbot, in one of his speeches presented what he called “a monastic perspective” on the subject “Episcopacy, Primacy and the Mother Churches”. In the chapter on autocephaly and primacy he claims that “there is no effective overarching primacy in the Orthodox Church.” He seems to be in opposition to the institution of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, because he considers that such an institution “is based on primacy over an empire-wide synod” and that this “has long become unrealistic.” What surprised me the most in this “monastic perspective” of His Eminence Jonas was the claim that allegedly “now only the Greek ethnic Churches and few others recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate to be what it claims to be.” It is indeed saddening the ignorance of this Hierarch not only on account of History and canonical order but even on account of the current state of affairs. How is it possible that he ignores that there is no Church that does not recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate? Perhaps he is carried away by the fact that the ecclesial schema over which he presides and which has been claimed as “autocephalous” in rampant violation of every sense of canonicity, is not recognized but by few Churches and it is not included in the diptychs of the Church.
Let me add that the refusal to recognize primacy within the Orthodox Church, a primacy that necessarily cannot but be embodied by a primus (that is by a bishop who has the prerogative of being the first among his fellow bishops) constitutes nothing less than heresy. It cannot be accepted, as often it is said, that the unity among the Orthodox Churches is safeguarded by either a common norm of faith and worship or by the Ecumenical Council as an institution. Both of these factors are impersonal while in our Orthodox theology the principle of unity is always a person. Indeed, in the level of the Holy Trinity the principle of unity is not the divine essence but the Person of the Father (“Monarchy” of the Father), at the ecclesiological level of the local Church the principle of unity is not the presbyterium or the common worship of the Christians but the person of the Bishop, so to in the Pan-Orthodox level the principle of unity cannot be an idea nor an institution but it needs to be, if we are to be consistent with our theology, a person.

made it necessary.  New Rome seems hell bent on repeating Old Rome's mistakes.
I'm sorry, but you're going to have to show me how the Chief Secretary's words (and the vague reference to Ravenna) made it okay to slander the EP with such nasty words, even if what you say were true.  I happen to agree with the Chief Secretary on his ecclesiological summary of the EP's position.  I don't see what was wrong with his disagreeing with +JONAH.  It's okay for +JONAH to disagree, but not for the Chief Secretary?  He may not be long on tact, but the Chief Secretary certainly did NOT descend into slanderous name calling!  Besides, as far as I can see (please feel free to offer evidence to the contrary), his interpretation is correct!  Do not all the other Orthodox primates in the entire world commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch first in the diptychs?  Does the Ecumenical Patriarch not stand liturgically first before any other primate in the world, even when in that primate's own jurisdiction?  If there is no bishop, then there is no church!  If the assertion that +JONAH makes is that the EP stands first only symbolically, then I would appreciate seeing some support for this from the canons, the Church traditions, and the Fathers.  If the primacy of a hierarch (any hierarch) is only symbolic and not reality, then that turns the entire ecclesiology of the Church and theology of the priesthood on its head!  I hope I'm making sense here.

Quote
Quote
Really, I rejoiced along with everyone else when His Beatitude was elected.  I still do.  I think it's great, no, imperative, for the OCA to have a strong leader with a clear vision who can wade through the muck and bring the OCA back from the terrible things that have plagued it for so long.  But I can love him and disagree with him, and I can love him and be disappointed by his words and certain aspects of his leadership.  He is human.  I love and respect him.  I'm disappointed because I love and respect him and had hoped for something healing and loving, not petty and full of fear and falsehoods.  I do say all these things with respect.  If my tone appears disrespectful, I assure you it is NOT because that is how I intended it.  I attempted for the opposite, and if I have offended, then at this most important time of Lent I do ask for your forgiveness.

Forgive me a sinner.


I really would have preferred to have been responding someone else.  I hope I stayed somewhat in bounds.
Please don't worry about bounds with me, my friend.  I'm just a lay person, like your good self.  And it takes a lot to offend me.  We can disagree and still love each other.  I have no doubts as to your good intentions and that you speak the truth with love.  No worries, brother.  Please forgive me if I've offended, as it is not my intent.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: GreekChef on April 08, 2009, 11:12:42 PM
Fr. Elpidophoros' speech caused some people who heard it at HC to walk out while he was giving it. Later, many others (including me) who read it were insulted by what he had to say, so your point is?  ::)

Though I agreed with a lot of what Fr. Elpidophoros said, I was saddened to see he needlessly offended the feelings of others.  I'm sure there are others on the board who agreed with a good part of what he said as well, but I don't recall people jumping up and down shouting AXIOS!!! or some blog saying "EP tells OCA to step off!!!!" like the blog that started this whole thread.

Look at the history of the OCA.  Look at the way their leaders antangonized the ROCOR and others.  Look at how Metropolitan Phillip would insult other hierarchs while talking about unity.

Yeah, it's toothless Constantinople that stops unity in this country.

 There were plenty of folks here happy to see what Fr.Elpidophoros had to say whether it was offensive to the rest of us or not. There are no innocent ones in this chaos. And Constantinople is not as toothless as you think at stopping Orthodox unity. Ligonier could have been the beginning but Constantinople forced Archbishop Iakovos to step down in the aftermath.

Yes, there are many of us who were happy to hear a voice (any voice) present a theologically and ecclesiologically clear, concise, and SUPPORTED interpretation of the EP's position and the situation in America.

It strikes me as UTTERLY LUDICROUS almost to the point of hilarity that everyone on this thread CONVENIENTLY FORGETS that Fr. Elpidophoros' speech was A RESPONSE to the accusations and allegations and all around nastiness of +PHILLIP and +JONAH.  I'm not saying two wrongs make a right, but, as AMM pointed out (and far more tactfully than I will), it is completely hypocritical to condemn Fr. Elpidophoros for his RESPONSE and praise +JONAH with cries of "Axios" for his ugly, slanderous, and full-of-exaggerations-and-falsehoods, NOT ecclesiologically supported, NOT theologically supported, bridge-burning speech.  Sorry if that sounds harsh, I really don't mean it to be.  I'm just trying to draw a very clear distinction, which is difficult to do in writing without being totally blunt. 

Even if Fr. Elpidophoros had blown raspberries at +JONAH and +PHILLIP with cries of "you stink, get thee hence, heretical, uncanonical wannabe" (which I DON'T think is how he feels, nor is it how I feel, just for the record), that would STILL not excuse the utilization of falsehoods, slander, and name calling on the part of +JONAH in his speech.

I said "axios" at +JONAH's election with everyone else, and I still do.  I still love and respect him.  I still think he has a vision which could be great for the OCA.  But I'm STILL really disappointed with the uncharitable, bridge-burning behavior.

I don't think anyone is claiming that Constantinople is blameless.  That would just be foolish and untrue.  Everyone has a part in it.  But those of us who support the EP seem to be the only ones admitting when someone on our side of the fence has done something wrong...
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: antiderivative on April 08, 2009, 11:13:47 PM
Quote
So... How does the OCA handle Thanksgiving?

I know my OCA church does a liturgy on Thanksgiving.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: serb1389 on April 08, 2009, 11:29:42 PM
Fr. Elpidophoros' speech caused some people who heard it at HC to walk out while he was giving it. Later, many others (including me) who read it were insulted by what he had to say, so your point is?  ::)

Though I agreed with a lot of what Fr. Elpidophoros said, I was saddened to see he needlessly offended the feelings of others.  I'm sure there are others on the board who agreed with a good part of what he said as well, but I don't recall people jumping up and down shouting AXIOS!!! or some blog saying "EP tells OCA to step off!!!!" like the blog that started this whole thread.

Look at the history of the OCA.  Look at the way their leaders antangonized the ROCOR and others.  Look at how Metropolitan Phillip would insult other hierarchs while talking about unity.

Yeah, it's toothless Constantinople that stops unity in this country.

 There were plenty of folks here happy to see what Fr.Elpidophoros had to say whether it was offensive to the rest of us or not. There are no innocent ones in this chaos. And Constantinople is not as toothless as you think at stopping Orthodox unity. Ligonier could have been the beginning but Constantinople forced Archbishop Iakovos to step down in the aftermath.

I've read this red herring at least a few dozen times.  Archbishop Iakovos wrote a letter of retirement to the Patriarchate.  In fact he had a habit of doing it anytime he didn't get what he wanted.  This time, the Patriarchate took him up on it. 
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: John of the North on April 08, 2009, 11:45:03 PM
Beyond the U.S., I understand that Canada's GOA is more an embodiment of what you say are "fears."  Can anyone in Canada comment?

I'm uncertain what you mean by this statement.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 08, 2009, 11:48:29 PM
Fr. Elpidophoros' speech caused some people who heard it at HC to walk out while he was giving it. Later, many others (including me) who read it were insulted by what he had to say, so your point is?  ::)

Though I agreed with a lot of what Fr. Elpidophoros said, I was saddened to see he needlessly offended the feelings of others.  I'm sure there are others on the board who agreed with a good part of what he said as well, but I don't recall people jumping up and down shouting AXIOS!!! or some blog saying "EP tells OCA to step off!!!!" like the blog that started this whole thread.

Look at the history of the OCA.  Look at the way their leaders antangonized the ROCOR and others.  Look at how Metropolitan Phillip would insult other hierarchs while talking about unity.

Yeah, it's toothless Constantinople that stops unity in this country.

 There were plenty of folks here happy to see what Fr.Elpidophoros had to say whether it was offensive to the rest of us or not. There are no innocent ones in this chaos. And Constantinople is not as toothless as you think at stopping Orthodox unity. Ligonier could have been the beginning but Constantinople forced Archbishop Iakovos to step down in the aftermath.

I've read this red herring at least a few dozen times.  Archbishop Iakovos wrote a letter of retirement to the Patriarchate.  In fact he had a habit of doing it anytime he didn't get what he wanted.  This time, the Patriarchate took him up on it. 

Does that explain what happened afterwards?
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Basil 320 on April 08, 2009, 11:59:37 PM
The extreme positions of the Chief Secretary of Constantinople's Synod and Met. Jonah's position, "we already have an American Orthodox Church, leave us alone" and those who cannot move from these postures, guarantee the continuation of multiple, overlapping jurisdictions in North America.  I pray both factions would open to compromise options so we can facilitate a transition to a unified administration in America.  Otherwise, our mutually declining numbers,* of the last 20 years, will continue.

* The AOCANA's numbers of this period may not be in such a decline, perhaps.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: serb1389 on April 09, 2009, 12:04:20 AM
Fr. Elpidophoros' speech caused some people who heard it at HC to walk out while he was giving it. Later, many others (including me) who read it were insulted by what he had to say, so your point is?  ::)

Though I agreed with a lot of what Fr. Elpidophoros said, I was saddened to see he needlessly offended the feelings of others.  I'm sure there are others on the board who agreed with a good part of what he said as well, but I don't recall people jumping up and down shouting AXIOS!!! or some blog saying "EP tells OCA to step off!!!!" like the blog that started this whole thread.

Look at the history of the OCA.  Look at the way their leaders antangonized the ROCOR and others.  Look at how Metropolitan Phillip would insult other hierarchs while talking about unity.

Yeah, it's toothless Constantinople that stops unity in this country.

 There were plenty of folks here happy to see what Fr.Elpidophoros had to say whether it was offensive to the rest of us or not. There are no innocent ones in this chaos. And Constantinople is not as toothless as you think at stopping Orthodox unity. Ligonier could have been the beginning but Constantinople forced Archbishop Iakovos to step down in the aftermath.

I've read this red herring at least a few dozen times.  Archbishop Iakovos wrote a letter of retirement to the Patriarchate.  In fact he had a habit of doing it anytime he didn't get what he wanted.  This time, the Patriarchate took him up on it. 

Does that explain what happened afterwards?

which part...lol. 
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: iustinos on April 09, 2009, 12:50:00 AM
It struck me tonight that the following quote from St. Justin Popovic isn't that different than some of the points Met. Jonah made:

"The fate of the Church neither is nor can be any longer in the hands of the Byzantine emperor or any other sovereign. It is not the control of a patriarch or any of the mighty of this world, not even in that of the Pentarchy or of the autocephalies (understood in the narrow sense). By the power of God the Church has grown up into a multitude of local Churches with millions of faithful, many of whom in our days have sealed their apostolic succession and faithfulness to the Lamb with their blood. And new local Churches appear to be rising on the horizon, such as the Japanese, the African and the American, and their freedom in the Lord must not be removed by any super-Church of the papal type (cf. Canon 8, Third Ecumenical Council), for this would signify an attack on the very essence of the Church. Without their concurrence the solution of any ecclesiastical question of ecumenical significance is inconceivable, not to mention the solutions to questions that immediately concern them, i.e. the problem of the diaspora. The age-old struggle of Orthodoxy against Roman absolutism was a struggle for just such freedom of the local Church as catholic and conciliar, complete and whole in itself. Are we today to travel the road of the first and fallen Rome, or of some second or third similar to it? Are we to believe that Constantinople, which in the persons of its holy and great hierarchs, its clergy and its people, so boldly opposed for centuries past the Roman protectionism and absolutism, is today preparing to ignore the conciliar traditions of Orthodoxy and to exchange them for the neo-papal surrogate of a second, third or other sort of Rome?"

On the Summoning of a Great Council of the Orthodox Church.  http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/popovich_council.html

St. Justin raises a number of other points that are interesting to consider in light of the debate.
This disagreement over the role of the Patriarch of Constantinople and a solution for the "problem of the diaspora" has been on-going for decades.  I don't think the positions taken by either Met. Jonah or Fr. Elpidophoros are suprising or new, even if the tone has taken on a certain immediacy.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Tamara on April 09, 2009, 01:18:32 AM
Fr. Elpidophoros' speech caused some people who heard it at HC to walk out while he was giving it. Later, many others (including me) who read it were insulted by what he had to say, so your point is?  ::)

Though I agreed with a lot of what Fr. Elpidophoros said, I was saddened to see he needlessly offended the feelings of others.  I'm sure there are others on the board who agreed with a good part of what he said as well, but I don't recall people jumping up and down shouting AXIOS!!! or some blog saying "EP tells OCA to step off!!!!" like the blog that started this whole thread.

Look at the history of the OCA.  Look at the way their leaders antangonized the ROCOR and others.  Look at how Metropolitan Phillip would insult other hierarchs while talking about unity.

Yeah, it's toothless Constantinople that stops unity in this country.

 There were plenty of folks here happy to see what Fr.Elpidophoros had to say whether it was offensive to the rest of us or not. There are no innocent ones in this chaos. And Constantinople is not as toothless as you think at stopping Orthodox unity. Ligonier could have been the beginning but Constantinople forced Archbishop Iakovos to step down in the aftermath.

Yes, there are many of us who were happy to hear a voice (any voice) present a theologically and ecclesiologically clear, concise, and SUPPORTED interpretation of the EP's position and the situation in America.

It strikes me as UTTERLY LUDICROUS almost to the point of hilarity that everyone on this thread CONVENIENTLY FORGETS that Fr. Elpidophoros' speech was A RESPONSE to the accusations and allegations and all around nastiness of +PHILLIP and +JONAH.  I'm not saying two wrongs make a right, but, as AMM pointed out (and far more tactfully than I will), it is completely hypocritical to condemn Fr. Elpidophoros for his RESPONSE and praise +JONAH with cries of "Axios" for his ugly, slanderous, and full-of-exaggerations-and-falsehoods, NOT ecclesiologically supported, NOT theologically supported, bridge-burning speech.  Sorry if that sounds harsh, I really don't mean it to be.  I'm just trying to draw a very clear distinction, which is difficult to do in writing without being totally blunt. 

Even if Fr. Elpidophoros had blown raspberries at +JONAH and +PHILLIP with cries of "you stink, get thee hence, heretical, uncanonical wannabe" (which I DON'T think is how he feels, nor is it how I feel, just for the record), that would STILL not excuse the utilization of falsehoods, slander, and name calling on the part of +JONAH in his speech.

I said "axios" at +JONAH's election with everyone else, and I still do.  I still love and respect him.  I still think he has a vision which could be great for the OCA.  But I'm STILL really disappointed with the uncharitable, bridge-burning behavior.

I don't think anyone is claiming that Constantinople is blameless.  That would just be foolish and untrue.  Everyone has a part in it.  But those of us who support the EP seem to be the only ones admitting when someone on our side of the fence has done something wrong...

Well, there are many of us who feel Fr. Elpidophoros comments were without merit.
Read the response: http://www.aoiusa.org/blog/ocl-responds-to-the-ep-about-holy-cross-talk/

Oh, and just to set the record straight about the ecumenical throne having "granted" autocephalies in the various parts of the world, that statement is in dramatic contrast to the letter below, by which the Russian Church "announced" it's independence to Constantinople:

"We beseech your Sacred Majesty not to think that what we have done we did out of arrogance, nor to blame us for not writing to our Sovereignty beforehand; we did this from dire necessity, not from pride or arrogance. In all things we hold to the ancient Orthodox faith transmitted to us, and so we shall continue to do until the end of time. And our Russian Church, the holy metropolitanate of Russia, requests and seeks the blessing of the holy, oecumenical, catholic, and apostolic church of St. Sophia, the Wisdom of God, and is obedient to her in all things according to the ancient faith; and our father, the Lord Iona, metropolitan of Kiev and all Russia, likewise requests from her all manner of blessing and union, except for the present recently appeared disagreements."

Russia's autocephaly was recognized roughly 140 years later.


Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: SolEX01 on April 09, 2009, 01:22:23 AM
.... The age-old struggle of Orthodoxy against Roman absolutism was a struggle for just such freedom of the local Church as catholic and conciliar, complete and whole in itself. Are we today to travel the road of the first and fallen Rome, or of some second or third similar to it? Are we to believe that Constantinople, which in the persons of its holy and great hierarchs, its clergy and its people, so boldly opposed for centuries past the Roman protectionism and absolutism, is today preparing to ignore the conciliar traditions of Orthodoxy and to exchange them for the neo-papal surrogate of a second, third or other sort of Rome?"

In 1453, no one wanted to kiss the Pope's ring, prefering the Sultan's turban without realizing that the Sultan promoted the Ecumenical Patriarch within 3 years to an ethnarch.  We all know that; That has been beaten to death.

Guess what.  The major Patriarchates are still ethnarchs.  Again, that has been beaten to death.

What are we going to accomplish by continuing to beat this subject to death?  Utilizing a worst case scenario, if the Ecumenical Patriarch gets fed up, excommunicates both the MP & OCA, reunites with Rome and creates unprecedented massive Orthodox schism, let's see then where the chips will fall in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church because that is when the prophesy of Christ will be fulfilled from Matthew 24:23-26

Quote
23 “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it. 24 For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you beforehand.
26 “Therefore if they say to you, ‘Look, He is in the desert!’ do not go out; or ‘Look, He is in the inner rooms!’ do not believe it.

Here's the irony:  The Orthodox Study Bible doesn't bother providing a concordance for the above verses.  Verse 27 only mentions that Christ will come from the East.

So, if anyone told you: Look, here is the Christ in Istanbul or There is the Christ in Rome or Look, here is the Christ in Moscow or There is the Christ in Syosset or Look, here is the Christ in Englewood (I could continue except these are the major players in these debates and discussions), could the day come where any of us will actually profess as to where Christ is because we have fallen for these rhetorical games (aka great signs and wonders) played by Istanbul, Rome, Syosset, Moscow and Englewood.   ;)
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: John of the North on April 09, 2009, 01:33:44 AM
Fr. Elpidophoros' speech caused some people who heard it at HC to walk out while he was giving it. Later, many others (including me) who read it were insulted by what he had to say, so your point is?  ::)

Though I agreed with a lot of what Fr. Elpidophoros said, I was saddened to see he needlessly offended the feelings of others.  I'm sure there are others on the board who agreed with a good part of what he said as well, but I don't recall people jumping up and down shouting AXIOS!!! or some blog saying "EP tells OCA to step off!!!!" like the blog that started this whole thread.

Look at the history of the OCA.  Look at the way their leaders antangonized the ROCOR and others.  Look at how Metropolitan Phillip would insult other hierarchs while talking about unity.

Yeah, it's toothless Constantinople that stops unity in this country.

 There were plenty of folks here happy to see what Fr.Elpidophoros had to say whether it was offensive to the rest of us or not. There are no innocent ones in this chaos. And Constantinople is not as toothless as you think at stopping Orthodox unity. Ligonier could have been the beginning but Constantinople forced Archbishop Iakovos to step down in the aftermath.

Yes, there are many of us who were happy to hear a voice (any voice) present a theologically and ecclesiologically clear, concise, and SUPPORTED interpretation of the EP's position and the situation in America.

It strikes me as UTTERLY LUDICROUS almost to the point of hilarity that everyone on this thread CONVENIENTLY FORGETS that Fr. Elpidophoros' speech was A RESPONSE to the accusations and allegations and all around nastiness of +PHILLIP and +JONAH.  I'm not saying two wrongs make a right, but, as AMM pointed out (and far more tactfully than I will), it is completely hypocritical to condemn Fr. Elpidophoros for his RESPONSE and praise +JONAH with cries of "Axios" for his ugly, slanderous, and full-of-exaggerations-and-falsehoods, NOT ecclesiologically supported, NOT theologically supported, bridge-burning speech.  Sorry if that sounds harsh, I really don't mean it to be.  I'm just trying to draw a very clear distinction, which is difficult to do in writing without being totally blunt. 

Even if Fr. Elpidophoros had blown raspberries at +JONAH and +PHILLIP with cries of "you stink, get thee hence, heretical, uncanonical wannabe" (which I DON'T think is how he feels, nor is it how I feel, just for the record), that would STILL not excuse the utilization of falsehoods, slander, and name calling on the part of +JONAH in his speech.

I said "axios" at +JONAH's election with everyone else, and I still do.  I still love and respect him.  I still think he has a vision which could be great for the OCA.  But I'm STILL really disappointed with the uncharitable, bridge-burning behavior.

I don't think anyone is claiming that Constantinople is blameless.  That would just be foolish and untrue.  Everyone has a part in it.  But those of us who support the EP seem to be the only ones admitting when someone on our side of the fence has done something wrong...

Well, there are many of us who feel Fr. Elpidophoros comments were without merit.
Read the response: http://www.aoiusa.org/blog/ocl-responds-to-the-ep-about-holy-cross-talk/

Oh, and just to set the record straight about the ecumenical throne having "granted" autocephalies in the various parts of the world, that statement is in dramatic contrast to the letter below, by which the Russian Church "announced" it's independence to Constantinople:

"We beseech your Sacred Majesty not to think that what we have done we did out of arrogance, nor to blame us for not writing to our Sovereignty beforehand; we did this from dire necessity, not from pride or arrogance. In all things we hold to the ancient Orthodox faith transmitted to us, and so we shall continue to do until the end of time. And our Russian Church, the holy metropolitanate of Russia, requests and seeks the blessing of the holy, oecumenical, catholic, and apostolic church of St. Sophia, the Wisdom of God, and is obedient to her in all things according to the ancient faith; and our father, the Lord Iona, metropolitan of Kiev and all Russia, likewise requests from her all manner of blessing and union, except for the present recently appeared disagreements."

Russia's autocephaly was recognized roughly 140 years later.




Un/fortunately, the Church is not a democracy.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 09, 2009, 01:39:43 AM
Fr. Elpidophoros' speech caused some people who heard it at HC to walk out while he was giving it. Later, many others (including me) who read it were insulted by what he had to say, so your point is?  ::)

Though I agreed with a lot of what Fr. Elpidophoros said, I was saddened to see he needlessly offended the feelings of others.  I'm sure there are others on the board who agreed with a good part of what he said as well, but I don't recall people jumping up and down shouting AXIOS!!! or some blog saying "EP tells OCA to step off!!!!" like the blog that started this whole thread.

Look at the history of the OCA.  Look at the way their leaders antangonized the ROCOR and others.  Look at how Metropolitan Phillip would insult other hierarchs while talking about unity.

Yeah, it's toothless Constantinople that stops unity in this country.

 There were plenty of folks here happy to see what Fr.Elpidophoros had to say whether it was offensive to the rest of us or not. There are no innocent ones in this chaos. And Constantinople is not as toothless as you think at stopping Orthodox unity. Ligonier could have been the beginning but Constantinople forced Archbishop Iakovos to step down in the aftermath.

Yes, there are many of us who were happy to hear a voice (any voice) present a theologically and ecclesiologically clear, concise, and SUPPORTED interpretation of the EP's position and the situation in America.

It strikes me as UTTERLY LUDICROUS almost to the point of hilarity that everyone on this thread CONVENIENTLY FORGETS that Fr. Elpidophoros' speech was A RESPONSE to the accusations and allegations and all around nastiness of +PHILLIP and +JONAH.  I'm not saying two wrongs make a right, but, as AMM pointed out (and far more tactfully than I will), it is completely hypocritical to condemn Fr. Elpidophoros for his RESPONSE and praise +JONAH with cries of "Axios" for his ugly, slanderous, and full-of-exaggerations-and-falsehoods, NOT ecclesiologically supported, NOT theologically supported, bridge-burning speech.  Sorry if that sounds harsh, I really don't mean it to be.  I'm just trying to draw a very clear distinction, which is difficult to do in writing without being totally blunt. 

Even if Fr. Elpidophoros had blown raspberries at +JONAH and +PHILLIP with cries of "you stink, get thee hence, heretical, uncanonical wannabe" (which I DON'T think is how he feels, nor is it how I feel, just for the record), that would STILL not excuse the utilization of falsehoods, slander, and name calling on the part of +JONAH in his speech.

I said "axios" at +JONAH's election with everyone else, and I still do.  I still love and respect him.  I still think he has a vision which could be great for the OCA.  But I'm STILL really disappointed with the uncharitable, bridge-burning behavior.

I don't think anyone is claiming that Constantinople is blameless.  That would just be foolish and untrue.  Everyone has a part in it.  But those of us who support the EP seem to be the only ones admitting when someone on our side of the fence has done something wrong...

Well, there are many of us who feel Fr. Elpidophoros comments were without merit.
Read the response: http://www.aoiusa.org/blog/ocl-responds-to-the-ep-about-holy-cross-talk/

Oh, and just to set the record straight about the ecumenical throne having "granted" autocephalies in the various parts of the world, that statement is in dramatic contrast to the letter below, by which the Russian Church "announced" it's independence to Constantinople:

"We beseech your Sacred Majesty not to think that what we have done we did out of arrogance, nor to blame us for not writing to our Sovereignty beforehand; we did this from dire necessity, not from pride or arrogance. In all things we hold to the ancient Orthodox faith transmitted to us, and so we shall continue to do until the end of time. And our Russian Church, the holy metropolitanate of Russia, requests and seeks the blessing of the holy, oecumenical, catholic, and apostolic church of St. Sophia, the Wisdom of God, and is obedient to her in all things according to the ancient faith; and our father, the Lord Iona, metropolitan of Kiev and all Russia, likewise requests from her all manner of blessing and union, except for the present recently appeared disagreements."

Russia's autocephaly was recognized roughly 140 years later.




Un/fortunately, the Church is not a democracy.

No, she is an absolute monarchy.

The EP, however, is not said monarch.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: John of the North on April 09, 2009, 01:45:01 AM
Fr. Elpidophoros' speech caused some people who heard it at HC to walk out while he was giving it. Later, many others (including me) who read it were insulted by what he had to say, so your point is?  ::)

Though I agreed with a lot of what Fr. Elpidophoros said, I was saddened to see he needlessly offended the feelings of others.  I'm sure there are others on the board who agreed with a good part of what he said as well, but I don't recall people jumping up and down shouting AXIOS!!! or some blog saying "EP tells OCA to step off!!!!" like the blog that started this whole thread.

Look at the history of the OCA.  Look at the way their leaders antangonized the ROCOR and others.  Look at how Metropolitan Phillip would insult other hierarchs while talking about unity.

Yeah, it's toothless Constantinople that stops unity in this country.

 There were plenty of folks here happy to see what Fr.Elpidophoros had to say whether it was offensive to the rest of us or not. There are no innocent ones in this chaos. And Constantinople is not as toothless as you think at stopping Orthodox unity. Ligonier could have been the beginning but Constantinople forced Archbishop Iakovos to step down in the aftermath.

Yes, there are many of us who were happy to hear a voice (any voice) present a theologically and ecclesiologically clear, concise, and SUPPORTED interpretation of the EP's position and the situation in America.

It strikes me as UTTERLY LUDICROUS almost to the point of hilarity that everyone on this thread CONVENIENTLY FORGETS that Fr. Elpidophoros' speech was A RESPONSE to the accusations and allegations and all around nastiness of +PHILLIP and +JONAH.  I'm not saying two wrongs make a right, but, as AMM pointed out (and far more tactfully than I will), it is completely hypocritical to condemn Fr. Elpidophoros for his RESPONSE and praise +JONAH with cries of "Axios" for his ugly, slanderous, and full-of-exaggerations-and-falsehoods, NOT ecclesiologically supported, NOT theologically supported, bridge-burning speech.  Sorry if that sounds harsh, I really don't mean it to be.  I'm just trying to draw a very clear distinction, which is difficult to do in writing without being totally blunt. 

Even if Fr. Elpidophoros had blown raspberries at +JONAH and +PHILLIP with cries of "you stink, get thee hence, heretical, uncanonical wannabe" (which I DON'T think is how he feels, nor is it how I feel, just for the record), that would STILL not excuse the utilization of falsehoods, slander, and name calling on the part of +JONAH in his speech.

I said "axios" at +JONAH's election with everyone else, and I still do.  I still love and respect him.  I still think he has a vision which could be great for the OCA.  But I'm STILL really disappointed with the uncharitable, bridge-burning behavior.

I don't think anyone is claiming that Constantinople is blameless.  That would just be foolish and untrue.  Everyone has a part in it.  But those of us who support the EP seem to be the only ones admitting when someone on our side of the fence has done something wrong...

Well, there are many of us who feel Fr. Elpidophoros comments were without merit.
Read the response: http://www.aoiusa.org/blog/ocl-responds-to-the-ep-about-holy-cross-talk/

Oh, and just to set the record straight about the ecumenical throne having "granted" autocephalies in the various parts of the world, that statement is in dramatic contrast to the letter below, by which the Russian Church "announced" it's independence to Constantinople:

"We beseech your Sacred Majesty not to think that what we have done we did out of arrogance, nor to blame us for not writing to our Sovereignty beforehand; we did this from dire necessity, not from pride or arrogance. In all things we hold to the ancient Orthodox faith transmitted to us, and so we shall continue to do until the end of time. And our Russian Church, the holy metropolitanate of Russia, requests and seeks the blessing of the holy, oecumenical, catholic, and apostolic church of St. Sophia, the Wisdom of God, and is obedient to her in all things according to the ancient faith; and our father, the Lord Iona, metropolitan of Kiev and all Russia, likewise requests from her all manner of blessing and union, except for the present recently appeared disagreements."

Russia's autocephaly was recognized roughly 140 years later.




Un/fortunately, the Church is not a democracy.

No, she is an absolute monarchy.

The EP, however, is not said monarch.

Precisely.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Tamara on April 09, 2009, 01:50:48 AM
 

Un/fortunately, the Church is not a democracy.

and thus since it isn't, Fr. Elpidophoros' speech is not representative of Church history or what the Church is.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: John of the North on April 09, 2009, 02:02:56 AM
edited
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: John of the North on April 09, 2009, 02:06:43 AM
 

Un/fortunately, the Church is not a democracy.

and thus since it isn't, Fr. Elpidophoros' speech is not representative of Church history or what the Church is.

You are welcome to your opinion. Without the conciliar approval of the Church, the status of the OCA will remain in limbo.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: John of the North on April 09, 2009, 02:07:44 AM
Beyond the U.S., I understand that Canada's GOA is more an embodiment of what you say are "fears."  Can anyone in Canada comment?

Can you clarify this statement for me?
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Tamara on April 09, 2009, 02:11:29 AM
 

Un/fortunately, the Church is not a democracy.

and thus since it isn't, Fr. Elpidophoros' speech is not representative of Church history or what the Church is.

You are welcome to your opinion. Without the conciliar approval of the Church, the status of the OCA will remain in limbo.

It isn't my opinion. One priest's speech cannot represent conciliar approval by world Orthodoxy.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: John of the North on April 09, 2009, 02:18:03 AM
 

Un/fortunately, the Church is not a democracy.

and thus since it isn't, Fr. Elpidophoros' speech is not representative of Church history or what the Church is.

You are welcome to your opinion. Without the conciliar approval of the Church, the status of the OCA will remain in limbo.

It isn't my opinion. One priest's speech cannot represent conciliar approval by world Orthodoxy.

Neither can one Metropolitan's. Needless to say, the issue will be discussed at the upcoming Great Synod.....probably why the Greeks have been warming up with Armenians every Pascha. ;)
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on April 09, 2009, 02:18:45 AM
Everyone has a part in it.  But those of us who support the EP seem to be the only ones admitting when someone on our side of the fence has done something wrong...

I am under the Serbian Patriarch, and I live in Missouri.  This seems silly to me.  When I started attending the services, I still had to look at a globe to find exactly where Serbia is (all I knew was a general "East Europe").  I really do support having our own unified American church, but everyone seems to be so nasty about it.

That being said, despite me liking what the OCA represents, I absolutely hated every minute of this video.  How can a monastic be so rude?  How can someone seem to hold so much contempt for the "old world", which alone has preserved the Orthodox faith.  The whole thing just seemed so ungrateful and all about how great America is.  

Also, there was too much whining about ethnicity.  Religion and culture are inseparable.  Deal with it.  These people have a deep cultural connection with their faith, just as American religious freedom culture equals read the Bible and decide for yourself.  Invent your own religion.  Whatever.  That is our cultural heritage.

But I don't need to hear some silly rally speech.  I want to see Christian love and charity on all sides.  Whenever I hear about Christ amidst all of this squawking, it just makes me want to roll on the floor in laughter.  I think I am really going to need to step away from the Church politics and just pay attention to the liturgy from now on, because this whole realm of Orthodoxy really holds no spiritual value for me.  All that I care about now is getting ready for the day when I can partake of the divine, immortal life-creating mysteries.

+JONAH comes off as totally cocky and in general I found it to be rude.  I do not approve of this message.  Thumbs down.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 09, 2009, 02:27:07 AM
So... How does the OCA handle Thanksgiving?
I can't speak for the whole of the OCA, but I can speak for my OCA parish, which is under the oversight of Bishop Benjamin of San Francisco and the West.  We treat Thanksgiving as if it were another major feast day, with the Akathist Glory to God for All Things on Wednesday evening and the Divine Liturgy on Thursday morning.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 09, 2009, 02:49:43 AM
It struck me tonight that the following quote from St. Justin Popovic isn't that different than some of the points Met. Jonah made:

"The fate of the Church neither is nor can be any longer in the hands of the Byzantine emperor or any other sovereign. It is not the control of a patriarch or any of the mighty of this world, not even in that of the Pentarchy or of the autocephalies (understood in the narrow sense). By the power of God the Church has grown up into a multitude of local Churches with millions of faithful, many of whom in our days have sealed their apostolic succession and faithfulness to the Lamb with their blood. And new local Churches appear to be rising on the horizon, such as the Japanese, the African and the American, and their freedom in the Lord must not be removed by any super-Church of the papal type (cf. Canon 8, Third Ecumenical Council), for this would signify an attack on the very essence of the Church. Without their concurrence the solution of any ecclesiastical question of ecumenical significance is inconceivable, not to mention the solutions to questions that immediately concern them, i.e. the problem of the diaspora. The age-old struggle of Orthodoxy against Roman absolutism was a struggle for just such freedom of the local Church as catholic and conciliar, complete and whole in itself. Are we today to travel the road of the first and fallen Rome, or of some second or third similar to it? Are we to believe that Constantinople, which in the persons of its holy and great hierarchs, its clergy and its people, so boldly opposed for centuries past the Roman protectionism and absolutism, is today preparing to ignore the conciliar traditions of Orthodoxy and to exchange them for the neo-papal surrogate of a second, third or other sort of Rome?" (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/curmudgeons/hey_bud.gif)

On the Summoning of a Great Council of the Orthodox Church.  http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/popovich_council.html


Three times (http://forums.catholic.com/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif) to Father Justin.


Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Νεκτάριος on April 09, 2009, 03:01:37 AM
So... How does the OCA handle Thanksgiving?
I can't speak for the whole of the OCA, but I can speak for my OCA parish, which is under the oversight of Bishop Benjamin of San Francisco and the West.  We treat Thanksgiving as if it were another major feast day, with the Akathist Glory to God for All Things on Wednesday evening and the Divine Liturgy on Thursday morning.

Oh, so like the GOA, which is toiling under the oppressive thumb of our Turkish despot who allows no cultural manifestations of anything non-hellenic  ;)
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 09, 2009, 03:02:05 AM
Would have been a very good sermon on the need for a united American Orthodox Church if not for the straw man pot shots His Beatitude felt he needed to take at the EP and the GOAA.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 09, 2009, 03:07:07 AM
So... How does the OCA handle Thanksgiving?
I can't speak for the whole of the OCA, but I can speak for my OCA parish, which is under the oversight of Bishop Benjamin of San Francisco and the West.  We treat Thanksgiving as if it were another major feast day, with the Akathist Glory to God for All Things on Wednesday evening and the Divine Liturgy on Thursday morning.

Oh, so like the GOA, which is toiling under the oppressive thumb of our Turkish despot who allows no cultural manifestations of anything non-hellenic  ;)
Yeah, there's a very strongly missionary-minded GOA church in my city of residence to prove this claim the straw man it really is. ;)  Imagine a GOAA parish that is thoroughly American and made up predominantly of converts who were attracted to the parish by its simple presentation of the Orthodox Gospel and its strong sense of community.  As a sign of how alive the parish is, they even have a strong and active group of young adults.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 09, 2009, 03:09:44 AM
Everyone has a part in it.  But those of us who support the EP seem to be the only ones admitting when someone on our side of the fence has done something wrong...

I am under the Serbian Patriarch, and I live in Missouri.  This seems silly to me.  When I started attending the services, I still had to look at a globe to find exactly where Serbia is (all I knew was a general "East Europe").  I really do support having our own unified American church, but everyone seems to be so nasty about it.

That being said, despite me liking what the OCA represents, I absolutely hated every minute of this video.  How can a monastic be so rude?  How can someone seem to hold so much contempt for the "old world", which alone has preserved the Orthodox faith.  The whole thing just seemed so ungrateful and all about how great America is.  

Also, there was too much whining about ethnicity.  Religion and culture are inseparable.  Deal with it.  These people have a deep cultural connection with their faith, just as American religious freedom culture equals read the Bible and decide for yourself.  Invent your own religion.  Whatever.  That is our cultural heritage.

But I don't need to hear some silly rally speech.  I want to see Christian love and charity on all sides.  Whenever I hear about Christ amidst all of this squawking, it just makes me want to roll on the floor in laughter.  I think I am really going to need to step away from the Church politics and just pay attention to the liturgy from now on, because this whole realm of Orthodoxy really holds no spiritual value for me.  All that I care about now is getting ready for the day when I can partake of the divine, immortal life-creating mysteries.

+JONAH comes off as totally cocky and in general I found it to be rude.  I do not approve of this message.  Thumbs down.
Just a note to mention that this post was nominated for Post of the Month.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Νεκτάριος on April 09, 2009, 03:13:14 AM
Would have been a very good sermon on the need for a united American Orthodox Church if not for the straw man pot shots His Beatitude felt he needed to take at the EP and the GOAA.

Well obviously the head of the American Metropolia of the Moscow Patriarchate is simply taking orders from the Kremlin.  We all know that. 
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: orthodoxlurker on April 09, 2009, 03:26:42 AM
His Eminence's speech addressed the issues that needed to be addressed.

As we were able to read asianews.it report about the agenda of the gathering scheduled in June on Cyprus (and who doubts asianews.it is a well-informed about it?), I wonder if "joint calendar" means that all will get back to Church Calendar, or someone feel the need to push the majority of us to adopt what already caused schism in Greece? In case of the latter, I think whomever brings such an initiative to the gathering should be anathemized.

Moreover, I wonder if the teachings of Mrt. Zlizious of Pergamon will be debated at the gathering, since it was more than one single voice that labeled his teachings heretical.

Finally, the format of the gathering isn't appropriate to decide about anything and I hope this question of all questions is clarified at these "preparatory meetings".

Every bishop needs to be allowed to attend, raise questions and vote, so we really have a Pan-Orthodox gathering, instead of superficial approval of pre-mediated decisions with the taste of phanariotic kitchen.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: orthodoxlurker on April 09, 2009, 03:26:43 AM
Opinions (that one can read here) that we would have women ordination and other kinds of apostasy in no minute if there were no Phanar to safeguard us are simply wrong.

I hope inquirers don't buy into various inaccurate interpretations and unorthodox opinions of the people that are apparently supporters of current occupant of EP throne and several of his predecessors in what one could describe as decades long misbehavior.

It seems there is a chance we have quite an interesting Orthodox gathering in June on Cyprus.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: orthodoxlurker on April 09, 2009, 03:26:43 AM
If the assertion that +JONAH makes is that the EP stands first only symbolically, then I would appreciate seeing some support for this from the canons, the Church traditions, and the Fathers.  If the primacy of a hierarch (any hierarch) is only symbolic and not reality, then that turns the entire ecclesiology of the Church and theology of the priesthood on its head!  I hope I'm making sense here.


To me, you aren't making sense, but not because you produce the interpretation of your own, than because you are repeating an already known novel stance of EP.

Liturgical primacy is precisely the primacy of honor.

Instead of asking for canons of Fathers to support His Beatitude Jonah' stance, we are still to see the reference in support of EP's stance of her understanding of Canon 28 of the 4th Council (Chalcedon) and her own primacy, with the explicit reference to the following:

1) Granting of autocephalia to the Patriarchate of Georgia by the Patriarchate of Antioch, although Georgia would match definition of C. 28 of the 4th Council as understood at present by EP.

2) Lack of jurisdiction of EP over Germany, near-Baltic countries and Scandinavia after Chalcedon but before 1054/1204 (i.e. the final separation of Rome), although these territories would match definition of C. 28 of the 4th Council as understood at present by EP.

3) The explicit comment of the most authoritative cannonist of the Orthodoxy, Balsamon, of the Canon 28 of the 4th Council, refuting explicitly present interpretation of the same.

4) Explanation why EP needs additional "Pan-Orthodox Gatherings" and her interpretation of the 28th canon of the 4th Council on the agenda of such a gathering if it isn't a novelty.

Many years to Metropolitan Jonah, the voice of Orthodoxy!
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: orthodoxlurker on April 09, 2009, 03:26:44 AM
Everyone has a part in it.  But those of us who support the EP seem to be the only ones admitting when someone on our side of the fence has done something wrong...

I am under the Serbian Patriarch, and I live in Missouri.  This seems silly to me.  When I started attending the services, I still had to look at a globe to find exactly where Serbia is (all I knew was a general "East Europe").  I really do support having our own unified American church, but everyone seems to be so nasty about it.

That being said, despite me liking what the OCA represents, I absolutely hated every minute of this video.  How can a monastic be so rude?  How can someone seem to hold so much contempt for the "old world", which alone has preserved the Orthodox faith.  The whole thing just seemed so ungrateful and all about how great America is.  

Also, there was too much whining about ethnicity.  Religion and culture are inseparable.  Deal with it.  These people have a deep cultural connection with their faith, just as American religious freedom culture equals read the Bible and decide for yourself.  Invent your own religion.  Whatever.  That is our cultural heritage.

But I don't need to hear some silly rally speech.  I want to see Christian love and charity on all sides.  Whenever I hear about Christ amidst all of this squawking, it just makes me want to roll on the floor in laughter.  I think I am really going to need to step away from the Church politics and just pay attention to the liturgy from now on, because this whole realm of Orthodoxy really holds no spiritual value for me.  All that I care about now is getting ready for the day when I can partake of the divine, immortal life-creating mysteries.

+JONAH comes off as totally cocky and in general I found it to be rude.  I do not approve of this message.  Thumbs down.
Just a note to mention that this post was nominated for Post of the Month.

Sure, sure.

No doubt that could be a post of a season in a phanariotic madness magazine.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 09, 2009, 05:45:54 AM

+JONAH comes off as totally cocky and in general I found it to be rude.  I do not approve of this message.  Thumbs down.

Alveus,

Your words are probably a result of the confrontational nature of this thread (understandably) but it is still sad to hear a catechumen speaking in such a way.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 09, 2009, 06:09:44 AM

It seems there is a chance we have quite an interesting Orthodox gathering in June on Cyprus.

Unfortunately yes.

Unfortunately, what we have been been seeing with the Chief Secretary and with Metropolitan Jonah's response are the opening skirmishes to these pan-Orthodox Synods scheduled for June and October. 

Fortunately we may hope that sanity will prevail at the June pan-Orthodox Synod on Cyprus.  Iustinos has given us the voice of sanity already with what he quoted from Blessed Father Justin Popovic.  Iustinos' message here http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20605.msg308898.html#msg308898

We can expect that Serbia will stand in support of Fr Justin's ecclesiology which is nothing other than our authentic ecclesiology.   Several of Serbia's senior hierarchs are Fr Justin's disciples.

Likewise, there will be no question that Russia will support Fr Justin's ecclesiology.

While we have very divergent opinions on these matters, there is no doubt that they have the potential to cause harm to the Church and we need to send up some really sincere prayer that the will of the Lord will become clear and that the Church will be preserved from schism.

Even the preparations for the preparatory pan-Orthodox Synods are proving that the great fears of Fr Justin about the Holy and Great Council are very real fears.

Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 09, 2009, 07:33:19 AM
http://www.oca.org/news/1811

Metropolitan Jonah:
 "The Conciliar Structures of the Orthodox Church in America"

Posted 04/09

SYOSSET, NY [OCA Communications] -- His Beatitude, Metropolitan Jonah has released a follow-up article to "A Time of Crisis and Opportunity," a paper delivered at the opening session of the 2009 Spring meeting of the OCA's Metropolitan Council.

"Titled 'The Conciliar Structures of the Orthodox Church in America,' Metropolitan Jonah's second paper offers a vision for the practical application within the life of the OCA of the ideas on Church structure and governance presented in 'A Time of Crisis and Opportunity,'" said OCA Director of Ministries and Communications, Archpriest Andrew Jarmus.

'The Conciliar Structures of the Orthodox Church in America" by Metropolitan Jonah may be read here:
http://www.oca.org/jonah-2009-0409.html

Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 09, 2009, 07:50:47 AM
I read a report today that said due to the variability of where it was falling in the week, the Feast of the celebration of April's Fool's will be moved to coincide with Forgiveness Vespers.  Everyone agreed.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 09, 2009, 07:55:36 AM
 

Un/fortunately, the Church is not a democracy.

and thus since it isn't, Fr. Elpidophoros' speech is not representative of Church history or what the Church is.

You are welcome to your opinion. Without the conciliar approval of the Church, the status of the OCA will remain in limbo.

Rome refused to approve Constantinople's status for nearly a millenium.  Constantinople survived, I am sure the OCA will too.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 09, 2009, 07:57:04 AM
Beyond the U.S., I understand that Canada's GOA is more an embodiment of what you say are "fears."  Can anyone in Canada comment?

Can you clarify this statement for me?

More Greek/Hellenocentric, more autocratic, more closed off to the society they actually live in, more committed to foreign rule, etc.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 09, 2009, 08:16:31 AM
Would have been a very good sermon on the need for a united American Orthodox Church if not for the straw man pot shots His Beatitude felt he needed to take at the EP and the GOAA.

I think why he felt the need is key here:
Quote
There is one solution, that’s being proposed, in which we all submit, to uh Constantinople.  We all submit, to a foreign patriarchate,  where all decisions will be made there, where we will have no say in the decisions that will be made, we will have no decisions in our own destiny, and we surrender the freedom that we have embraces as American Orthodox Christians, to a Patriarchate still under Islamic domination. 
I think we have a better solution.  That we come, and this is something of the utmost importance, and it is something immanent,  it’s not something that we can wait and say “Oh maybe in my grandchildren’s time we’ll have orthodox unity.”  I’m talking about June.  And if you think I’m kidding, there is a conference being convened at the Phanar in June to discuss exactly this – actually it’s in Cyprus.  To subject the diaspora to the single, singular control – the so called diaspora – well, of the patriarchate of Constantinople, and thereby come into unity.  Well, that’s one model for unity.  I would submit that if we wanted a pope we would be under the real one.  And I don’t think any of us want a pope, otherwise we wouldn’t be here

Since many, for what ever reason, felt the need to compare his beatitude to 1770's Boston and pubs:
Quote
I once felt all that kind of anger, which a man ought to feel, against the mean principles that are held by the Tories: a noted one, who kept a tavern at Amboy, was standing at his door, with as pretty a child in his hand, about eight or nine years old, as I ever saw, and after speaking his mind as freely as he thought was prudent, finished with this unfatherly expression, "Well! give me peace in my day." Not a man lives on the continent but fully believes that a separation must some time or other finally take place, and a generous parent should have said, "If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace;" and this single reflection, well applied, is sufficient to awaken every man to duty. Not a place upon earth might be so happy as America. Her situation is remote from all the wrangling world, and she has nothing to do but to trade with them. A man can distinguish himself between temper and principle, and I am as confident, as I am that God governs the world, that America will never be happy till she gets clear of foreign dominion. Wars, without ceasing, will break out till that period arrives, and the continent must in the end be conqueror; for though the flame of liberty may sometimes cease to shine, the coal can never expire.
http://www.thomaspaine.org/Archives/Crisis-1.html
"The American Crisis," by Thomas Paine (not usually one of my favorites, I admit)
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 09, 2009, 08:45:01 AM
(http://talkingheadtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/canadian-flag1.jpg)
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 09, 2009, 09:09:11 AM
I just came across this:

Quote
Greeting from His Eminence, Leo,
Archbishop of Karelia and All Finland
To His Beatitude, Metropolitan Jonah
on the occasion of his Enthronement


Your Beatitude, Your Eminences, Your Graces, Distinguished Guests, my brothers and sisters in Christ:

A thousand years ago monks from Valaam monastery set out to bring the Gospel to Finland.  Two hundred years ago monks from Valaam monastery set out to bring the Gospel to North America.  Our two Churches, children of the same tradition, now celebrate together as yet another spiritual child of Valaam, His Beatitude, Metropolitan Jonah, begins this same missionary task of bringing the Gospel to North America as the head of the Orthodox Church in America.

And what is this Gospel?  As His Beatitude wrote:  “It is the Good News that the Kingdom of God is present, here and now, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, and you can be baptized into it, commune of its grace, and be filled with new life.  And what does this do for us?  It heals our souls, raises us up from despair, and enables us to deal with any obstacles that comes in our way.”

Two thousand years of tradition in two sentences!  Only an American could do this.  Only an American would want to do this.  The words are simple, direct, pragmatic.  And yet, what hope is in these words – the Hope of the God Who became Man for our sake, the Hope of a suffering world, the hope of old words when spoken by a young, vital speaker.

Hope, too, for the Orthodox Church.  The OCA has a vocation not only to bring hope to the world, and to North America specifically, but to bring hope to the Orthodox world as well.  Hope that things do not always have to be done in the same, old, no-longer productive ways;  Hope that as things change, they can change for the better;  Hope that the future can be as exciting as a glorious past.  Among many Orthodox Churches such notions are almost unthinkable – and certainly not easy to do.  But if the two hundred year history of the OCA shows anything, in its growth from a group of monks from Valaam, through missionary diocese, to diocese, archdiocese, independent Metropolia and finally autocephalous Church – it is that much that is not possible elsewhere is possible in North America.  The Orthodox Church is a State Church – but not in America.  The Orthodox Church is ethnically homogeneous – but not in America.  The Orthodox Church worships in ancient languages few understand – but not in America.  (And not in Finland, either!)

But important as such changes are, it is equally important that the OCA’s vocation has been to keep safe vital Orthodox traditions from the past.  It is in the OCA that the legacy of St. Patriarch Tikhon’s conciliar approach to church life endures – even if he himself could not keep it alive in Russia during the Communist era.  It is in the OCA that Fr. Florovsky and Fr. Meyendoff continued to develop the highest traditions of orthodox theological education – when so much of the Orthodox world was forced into silence.  It was in the OCA that Fr. Schmemann carried out his work – a legacy that is still helping a whole Church recover its Eucharistic identity and a deeper understanding of its liturgical traditions.

Your Beatitude:  Thi

http://www.oca.org/leo-enthronement-greeting.html

I could swear that Archb. Leo used to be on the EP's website, but I can't find him there now, just "Paul of Sweden and All Scandinavia": the site has "Archbishops of the Throne" and "Other Dioceses of the Throne around the world," staring with the "Holy Archdiocese of America," bu nothing on Finland.  The Orthodox Church in Finland's website stil states "The Finnish Orthodox Church is an autonomous Orthodox church that belongs to the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. It has about 60,000 members and is led by Archbishop Leo of Karelia and All Finland."
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on April 09, 2009, 09:45:17 AM
Father Ambrose graciously told us about Metropolitan Jonah's "follow-up article to 'A Time of Crisis and Opportunity,' a paper delivered at the opening session of the 2009 Spring meeting of the OCA's Metropolitan Council. Titled 'The Conciliar Structures of the Orthodox Church in America,' Metropolitan Jonah's second paper offers a vision for the practical application within the life of the OCA of the ideas on Church structure and governance presented in 'A Time of Crisis and Opportunity'." This is how it starts:

"The Calling of the Orthodox Church in America: Go into all the world and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you.

    * Mission/Identity: We are the presence of the fullness of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, incarnate as the Local, Indigenous Territorial Orthodox Church in North America, embracing all Orthodox Christians regardless of any ethnic, linguistic or cultural distinctions. We are essentially a missionary Church, striving to bring the full integrity of the Gospel of Christ to all the people of North America, so that they may come to the unity of the Orthodox Faith and communion of the Holy Spirit, in the One Body of Christ.

    * Core Values:
          o The Gospel of Jesus Christ
          o Missionary
          o Diverse & inclusive
          o Multi-cultural
          o Multi-ethnic
          o Multi-lingual
          o Non-Colonial
          o Non-Diaspora
          o Ascetic
          o Monastic
          o Sanctity"

I like it. Nay, I love it! I will post additional excerpts as we go along.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: minasoliman on April 09, 2009, 10:24:06 AM
(http://talkingheadtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/canadian-flag1.jpg)

I now realize what fears exist in Canadian GOA.  There's a big scary red communist leaf in the flag.  :o
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on April 09, 2009, 11:34:46 AM
More food for thought from Metropolitan Jonah's paper on conciliarity.

"There is a very damaging false notion that the lay people are separate from the clergy, and that the clergy are different from the laity. This is not the case! The clergy are simply those laity invested with a particular scope of responsibility by the whole Church, in a structure of accountability. In particular, the presbyters and deacons are accountable to the bishop for their stewardship of the life of the parishes. However, all members share responsibility for the Body, but have differing levels of accountability. The priests and bishops are accountable for each member of the Body by their ordination. Each member is important. Each member has a voice, and must be heard.

There are two related attitudes that constitute baggage from the past, temptations which have afflicted the Church and distorted its life and indeed, its conciliarity. Both stem from an abrogation of responsibility. Clericalism comes from an abrogation of responsibility by the laity for the affairs of the church, with the clergy taking over all functions; even the loss of the traditional ministerial role of the diaconate and pastoral role of the episcopate, with the concentration of all "ministry" in the presbyters, is a kind of clericalism . Trusteeism comes from a refusal of the clergy to accept their responsibility for the more mundane aspects of the life of the Church, which was then seized upon by lay leaders. This resulted in the priests being responsible for what happens in the altar; the parish council for everything else in the church. Both result from a breakdown of conciliarity, in which the integrity of each area of responsibility in a structure of accountability is critical. Conciliarity can be partially defined as shared responsibility with distinct levels of accountability. In both reductions, authority becomes identified with power; there is tremendous resentment and mistrust of the others by the persons disenfranchised. Both the clergy and laity need to recognize their areas of responsibility, and support one another in the exercise of that authority. The rector of a parish, or the bishop of a diocese, has complete responsibility for every aspect of the life of the community under his care, liturgical, spiritually, financial, legal, and administrative. But he cannot do it alone; it has to be done in cooperation with the laity, who are empowered with responsibility for certain areas by delegation.

The image used by St Paul of the body is very valuable in approaching this: the eye is not the foot, which is not the hand; there are parts more or less presentable, more or less private. Yet it takes all the parts working together, doing what they are supposed to be doing, and all have to be united to the Head, to Jesus Christ, the real Leader of the Church."
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Νεκτάριος on April 09, 2009, 11:46:06 AM

+JONAH comes off as totally cocky and in general I found it to be rude.  I do not approve of this message.  Thumbs down.

Alveus,

Your words are probably a result of the confrontational nature of this thread (understandably) but it is still sad to hear a catechumen speaking in such a way.

But thankfully nothing said in this thread has been beneath the office of an alleged hieromonk.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Marc1152 on April 09, 2009, 11:52:18 AM
Actually the New Calendar isn't imposed in the OCA, there are parishes that don't use it.

Ok, outside of Alaska, what parishes in in the OCA don't use the Revised Julian Calender?  Give me a list.

I cant give you a full list but there are without doubt OCA Church's outside of Alaska who use the Old Calendar. I have a friend who is a Reader in an OCA Church in Linclon Nebraska who use the "Old Calendar".
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: SolEX01 on April 09, 2009, 12:07:01 PM

+JONAH comes off as totally cocky and in general I found it to be rude.  I do not approve of this message.  Thumbs down.

Alveus,

Your words are probably a result of the confrontational nature of this thread (understandably) but it is still sad to hear a catechumen speaking in such a way.

Father, why not given the examples we have seen from ALL the Hierarchs (and Their designated representatives, straw men, et al.) involved?

Have any of these Hierarchs (and their designated representatives, etc.)  really emulated Christ?  Or are they emulating themselves with flowery rhetoric?

Whatever happens in Cyprus could very well become the modern Chalcedon for how long do you think the parties involved can contain their emotions and succumb to the near 2 Centuries of pressure that the anachronistic Hellenism has inflicted on the Ecumenical Patriarchate?
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: GreekChef on April 09, 2009, 12:13:40 PM
If the assertion that +JONAH makes is that the EP stands first only symbolically, then I would appreciate seeing some support for this from the canons, the Church traditions, and the Fathers.  If the primacy of a hierarch (any hierarch) is only symbolic and not reality, then that turns the entire ecclesiology of the Church and theology of the priesthood on its head!  I hope I'm making sense here.


To me, you aren't making sense, but not because you produce the interpretation of your own, than because you are repeating an already known novel stance of EP.

Liturgical primacy is precisely the primacy of honor.

Instead of asking for canons of Fathers to support His Beatitude Jonah' stance, we are still to see the reference in support of EP's stance of her understanding of Canon 28 of the 4th Council (Chalcedon) and her own primacy, with the explicit reference to the following:

1) Granting of autocephalia to the Patriarchate of Georgia by the Patriarchate of Antioch, although Georgia would match definition of C. 28 of the 4th Council as understood at present by EP.

2) Lack of jurisdiction of EP over Germany, near-Baltic countries and Scandinavia after Chalcedon but before 1054/1204 (i.e. the final separation of Rome), although these territories would match definition of C. 28 of the 4th Council as understood at present by EP.

3) The explicit comment of the most authoritative cannonist of the Orthodoxy, Balsamon, of the Canon 28 of the 4th Council, refuting explicitly present interpretation of the same.

4) Explanation why EP needs additional "Pan-Orthodox Gatherings" and her interpretation of the 28th canon of the 4th Council on the agenda of such a gathering if it isn't a novelty.

Many years to Metropolitan Jonah, the voice of Orthodoxy!

Thank you for this, Orthodoxlurker!  I appreciate you being specific and giving specific examples.  They are exactly what I was hoping for.  I don't know enough of these issues, and will have to study more to comment specifically on them.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 09, 2009, 01:03:33 PM
Father Ambrose graciously told us about Metropolitan Jonah's "follow-up article to 'A Time of Crisis and Opportunity,' a paper delivered at the opening session of the 2009 Spring meeting of the OCA's Metropolitan Council. Titled 'The Conciliar Structures of the Orthodox Church in America,' Metropolitan Jonah's second paper offers a vision for the practical application within the life of the OCA of the ideas on Church structure and governance presented in 'A Time of Crisis and Opportunity'." This is how it starts:

"The Calling of the Orthodox Church in America: Go into all the world and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you.

    * Mission/Identity: We are the presence of the fullness of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, incarnate as the Local, Indigenous Territorial Orthodox Church in North America, embracing all Orthodox Christians regardless of any ethnic, linguistic or cultural distinctions. We are essentially a missionary Church, striving to bring the full integrity of the Gospel of Christ to all the people of North America, so that they may come to the unity of the Orthodox Faith and communion of the Holy Spirit, in the One Body of Christ.

    * Core Values:
          o The Gospel of Jesus Christ
          o Missionary
          o Diverse & inclusive
          o Multi-cultural
          o Multi-ethnic
          o Multi-lingual
          o Non-Colonial
          o Non-Diaspora
          o Ascetic
          o Monastic
          o Sanctity"

I like it. Nay, I love it! I will post additional excerpts as we go along.


I hope those in Moscow then are listening to all of this.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 09, 2009, 01:56:06 PM
Father Ambrose graciously told us about Metropolitan Jonah's "follow-up article to 'A Time of Crisis and Opportunity,' a paper delivered at the opening session of the 2009 Spring meeting of the OCA's Metropolitan Council. Titled 'The Conciliar Structures of the Orthodox Church in America,' Metropolitan Jonah's second paper offers a vision for the practical application within the life of the OCA of the ideas on Church structure and governance presented in 'A Time of Crisis and Opportunity'." This is how it starts:

"The Calling of the Orthodox Church in America: Go into all the world and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you.

    * Mission/Identity: We are the presence of the fullness of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, incarnate as the Local, Indigenous Territorial Orthodox Church in North America, embracing all Orthodox Christians regardless of any ethnic, linguistic or cultural distinctions. We are essentially a missionary Church, striving to bring the full integrity of the Gospel of Christ to all the people of North America, so that they may come to the unity of the Orthodox Faith and communion of the Holy Spirit, in the One Body of Christ.

    * Core Values:
          o The Gospel of Jesus Christ
          o Missionary
          o Diverse & inclusive
          o Multi-cultural
          o Multi-ethnic
          o Multi-lingual
          o Non-Colonial
          o Non-Diaspora
          o Ascetic
          o Monastic
          o Sanctity"

I like it. Nay, I love it! I will post additional excerpts as we go along.


I hope those in Moscow then are listening to all of this.

My, my, the Tikis are restless.  Seems someone has a beef with Moscow that perhaps they would like to get off their chest?

I am quite sure that Pat. Kyrill contributed to the stiffness of Met. Jonah's spine.  So yes, I am sure Moscow is aware of all of the above.  Your point?
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 09, 2009, 02:48:09 PM
Quote
Seems someone has a beef with Moscow that perhaps they would like to get off their chest?

If the issues listed are important in North America, they're important everywhere.  Right?  Having an "ethnic" church for instance is not simply a North American issue, it is in fact a bigger problem overseas.

Do I have a beef with Moscow?  I definitely think there are things about the MP that are not good, but hopefully my feeling doesn't approach anything like the pathological hatred for Constantinople displayed by others here and elsewhere.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 09, 2009, 03:35:36 PM
I've come to the conclusion that none of this actually matters at all.  Never mind.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Fr. David on April 09, 2009, 04:26:02 PM
Quote
Our first option would be to "go Balkan," wherein we declare our own autocephaly and union independently of the Mother Patriarchate(s), and said autocephaly is then reluctantly approved hundreds of years down the road as a tacit, de jure nod to a living, de facto Orthodox body.

You are aware that you ARE autocephalous, aren't you?

Really, you had to make that comment?  He's talking about us all as a whole - OCA, GOA, AOA, SOC, ROC, etc. - and it's pretty obvious.  Why ask the question?

The blog is not clear.  I'd comment further, but we are getting ready for Presanctified.

I can see how that might have been clear, but notice that I said "Consequently, we have multiple bishops in a single city, something that is truly ridiculous and a horrid witness.

Our first option would be to "go Balkan," wherein we declare our own autocephaly and union independently of the Mother Patriarchate(s)"

My assumption, I suppose, was that the "we" talk in the first paragraph would make it clear that I was talking about all of SCOBA's people, since the OCA does not have multiple bishops in a single city (may not be true for Bulgarian/Romanian parts of OCA, but in general, you get my drift).  Sorry for the confusion.  Yes, I am aware and do believe that the OCA is autocephalous.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 09, 2009, 04:58:47 PM

+JONAH comes off as totally cocky and in general I found it to be rude.  I do not approve of this message.  Thumbs down.

Alveus,

Your words are probably a result of the confrontational nature of this thread (understandably) but it is still sad to hear a catechumen speaking in such a way.

But thankfully nothing said in this thread has been beneath the office of an alleged hieromonk.

Are there alleged hieromonks running around in this thread?  Hobgoblins reporting to Constantinople? or Moscow? or even the Vatican?

Protosyngellos Amvrosios
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Jetavan on April 09, 2009, 05:04:03 PM

+JONAH comes off as totally cocky and in general I found it to be rude.  I do not approve of this message.  Thumbs down.

Alveus,

Your words are probably a result of the confrontational nature of this thread (understandably) but it is still sad to hear a catechumen speaking in such a way.

But thankfully nothing said in this thread has been beneath the office of an alleged hieromonk.

Are there alleged hieromonks running around in this thread?  Hobgoblins reporting to Constantinople? or Moscow? or even the Vatican?

Shhhhh...don't blow my cover. 8)
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 09, 2009, 05:07:01 PM
...hopefully my feeling doesn't approach anything like the pathological hatred for Constantinople displayed by others here and elsewhere.

I have no pathological hatred for Constantinople.

I agree fully with what Iustinos posted here from Blessed Justin Popovic:

"...Constantinople, which in the persons of its holy and great hierarchs, its clergy and its people, so boldly opposed for centuries past the Roman protectionism and absolutism.."

Constantinople desrves endless praise for its preservation of holy Orthodoxy through many long and often diffficult centuries.

I have a major problem with the present All-Holiness and I found it even prevented me greeting him and taking his blessing when he visited New Zealand but I fear to reveal the basis of my problem for fear of the damage it could cause the "little ones."
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: serb1389 on April 09, 2009, 05:21:26 PM

+JONAH comes off as totally cocky and in general I found it to be rude.  I do not approve of this message.  Thumbs down.

Alveus,

Your words are probably a result of the confrontational nature of this thread (understandably) but it is still sad to hear a catechumen speaking in such a way.

But thankfully nothing said in this thread has been beneath the office of an alleged hieromonk.

Are there alleged hieromonks running around in this thread?  Hobgoblins reporting to Constantinople? or Moscow? or even the Vatican?

Protosyngellos Amvrosios

You might want to be careful with titles you put for yourself father because for some people they mean certain things you might not want them to.  For example, in the GOA "protosyngellos" is the title given ONLY to the chancellor of a diocese/metropolis.  It could be confusing for people. 
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Veniamin on April 09, 2009, 05:33:19 PM

+JONAH comes off as totally cocky and in general I found it to be rude.  I do not approve of this message.  Thumbs down.

Alveus,

Your words are probably a result of the confrontational nature of this thread (understandably) but it is still sad to hear a catechumen speaking in such a way.

But thankfully nothing said in this thread has been beneath the office of an alleged hieromonk.

Are there alleged hieromonks running around in this thread?  Hobgoblins reporting to Constantinople? or Moscow? or even the Vatican?

Protosyngellos Amvrosios

You might want to be careful with titles you put for yourself father because for some people they mean certain things you might not want them to.  For example, in the GOA "protosyngellos" is the title given ONLY to the chancellor of a diocese/metropolis.  It could be confusing for people. 

In that case, would you stop referring to GOA bishops as Metropolitans?  After all, that means a different thing for those of Slavic tradition than those of Greek.  Seriously, we've all gotten along just fine in the past with differing usages for titles in the past, such as Archbishop and Metropolitan, without any insistence that someone of a slightly different tradition not use their title for fear of confusion.  Why now and why the insistence that the GOA usage be the standard?
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 09, 2009, 05:41:37 PM

+JONAH comes off as totally cocky and in general I found it to be rude.  I do not approve of this message.  Thumbs down.

Alveus,

Your words are probably a result of the confrontational nature of this thread (understandably) but it is still sad to hear a catechumen speaking in such a way.

But thankfully nothing said in this thread has been beneath the office of an alleged hieromonk.

Are there alleged hieromonks running around in this thread?  Hobgoblins reporting to Constantinople? or Moscow? or even the Vatican?

Protosyngellos Amvrosios

You might want to be careful with titles you put for yourself father because for some people they mean certain things you might not want them to.  For example, in the GOA "protosyngellos" is the title given ONLY to the chancellor of a diocese/metropolis.  It could be confusing for people. 

Given to me by the Serbian bishop of the Serbian Orthodox Diocese of Australia and New Zealand in recognition of the immigration and refugee work I did in the early 1990s during the time of the various wars in the ex-Yugoslavia, sponsoring several hundred Serbian families and bringing them to a new life in New Zealand.   In the Slavic tradition a protosyngel as a honorific title ranks above an igumen but below an archimandrite.  I must admit that I never use the title.  I am quite content to be a garden variety hieromonk.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 09, 2009, 06:47:54 PM
His Eminence Metropolitan PHILIP Saliba reflects on Canon 28
and its meaning for the Churches in the Disapora.

http://www.aoiusa.org/main/page.php?page_id=120

Canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical Council - Relevant Or Irrelevant Today?
By Met. Philip Saliba

"Of all the canons dealing with Church authority and jurisdiction, there is
probably none more controversial and debated in inter-Orthodox circles today
than Canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, held in the city of
Chalcedon in the year 451. Those of us familiar with Church history know
that the Ecumenical Council was called to put an end to the ongoing
Christological debates of the time. While this was the main focus of the
Council, like other councils before and after, it dealt with other pressing
issues of the day..... "
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: serb1389 on April 09, 2009, 07:11:23 PM

+JONAH comes off as totally cocky and in general I found it to be rude.  I do not approve of this message.  Thumbs down.

Alveus,

Your words are probably a result of the confrontational nature of this thread (understandably) but it is still sad to hear a catechumen speaking in such a way.

But thankfully nothing said in this thread has been beneath the office of an alleged hieromonk.

Are there alleged hieromonks running around in this thread?  Hobgoblins reporting to Constantinople? or Moscow? or even the Vatican?

Protosyngellos Amvrosios

You might want to be careful with titles you put for yourself father because for some people they mean certain things you might not want them to.  For example, in the GOA "protosyngellos" is the title given ONLY to the chancellor of a diocese/metropolis.  It could be confusing for people. 

In that case, would you stop referring to GOA bishops as Metropolitans?  After all, that means a different thing for those of Slavic tradition than those of Greek.  Seriously, we've all gotten along just fine in the past with differing usages for titles in the past, such as Archbishop and Metropolitan, without any insistence that someone of a slightly different tradition not use their title for fear of confusion.  Why now and why the insistence that the GOA usage be the standard?

Good point.  Check and mate my friend.  I was just trying to avoid confusion.  to be honest, I personally as confused, but considering Father Ambrose' explanation (below), I DEFINITELY am not confused anymore and am very sorry I brought it up. 

Sorry, just wanted to clarify what he was talking about...mostly due to my confusion.  I retract my statement. 


+JONAH comes off as totally cocky and in general I found it to be rude.  I do not approve of this message.  Thumbs down.

Alveus,

Your words are probably a result of the confrontational nature of this thread (understandably) but it is still sad to hear a catechumen speaking in such a way.

But thankfully nothing said in this thread has been beneath the office of an alleged hieromonk.

Are there alleged hieromonks running around in this thread?  Hobgoblins reporting to Constantinople? or Moscow? or even the Vatican?

Protosyngellos Amvrosios

You might want to be careful with titles you put for yourself father because for some people they mean certain things you might not want them to.  For example, in the GOA "protosyngellos" is the title given ONLY to the chancellor of a diocese/metropolis.  It could be confusing for people. 

Given to me by the Serbian bishop of the Serbian Orthodox Diocese of Australia and New Zealand in recognition of the immigration and refugee work I did in the early 1990s during the time of the various wars in the ex-Yugoslavia, sponsoring several hundred Serbian families and bringing them to a new life in New Zealand.   In the Slavic tradition a protosyngel as a honorific title ranks above an igumen but below an archimandrite.  I must admit that I never use the title.  I am quite content to be a garden variety hieromonk.

Sorry father, I totally forgot about that title. Not that many people have it.  I hope you forgive me, i really was genuinely confused. 
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 09, 2009, 07:57:48 PM
I have no pathological hatred for Constantinople.

That's good to hear.

Some of my best friends are black.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: minasoliman on April 09, 2009, 08:13:38 PM
I've come to the conclusion that none of this actually matters at all.  Never mind.

Welcome to the "who cares" side.  :P
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 09, 2009, 08:19:17 PM
The Copts look pretty damn good dude.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 09, 2009, 08:27:32 PM
I have no pathological hatred for Constantinople.

That's good to hear.

Some of my best friends are black.

I suppose we are all left dangling now, wondering which of the forum's members you see as suffering from a "pathological hatred" of Constantinople.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 09, 2009, 08:31:20 PM
cleveland, though you have to dig to find it.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: John of the North on April 10, 2009, 02:44:56 AM
Beyond the U.S., I understand that Canada's GOA is more an embodiment of what you say are "fears."  Can anyone in Canada comment?

Can you clarify this statement for me?

More Greek/Hellenocentric, more autocratic, more closed off to the society they actually live in, more committed to foreign rule, etc.

Well keeping in mind I know of little of what transpires in hallowed halls of 1 Patriach Bartholomew Way in Toronto, I can not answer to the allegations of "more autocratic....more committed to foreign rule" I do have some experience with the Greeks in Canada.

I would say in Canada, the Greeks do alot of things that other jurisdictions don't do. The vast majority of Greek clergy are on Facebook (the Ukrainians are a close second in this respect) and at least one actually posts his sermons on Facebook. Based on the common perceptions of (Greek) Orthodox parishes, and the fact that he is a fairly new priest, I am amazed that he has avoided backlash from his parish from things he has said in his homilies--he must have an amazing parish council!

Yes, it is true that the Greeks have thus far in Canada not had the influx of converts that our neighbours to the South have, but at the same time under Metropolitan Sotirios they have  more than tripled in size. They have a significant amount of English in their services, and I have no problem with the local Greek parish at all.

Also I should mention that they have a seminary and are the only Canadian jurisdiction that has a podcast series (the local OCA parish does do a local radio show). They have an active national youth department and also a network for youth workers in their diocese.

All in all I would say that the GOCC is a pretty good diocese. The lack of converts is more due to Canadian culture than the lack of effort by the Metropolitanate.

More on topic....I fail to see how being autocephalous really makes a difference. My jurisdiction is autonomous, and I don't see any interference by Constantinople at all. At our Sobors yes there is an EP hierarch present, but that's it. Our Metropolitan has visited the EP in Constantinople and at that time the EP voiced his wishes to assist our jurisdiction in matters of concern. That's it. My local bishop is my ruling bishop and I love him. Above that is Metropolitan John and then Metropolitan Sotirios and then I would assume the EP himself.

Y'all really think the EP has so much time on his hands that he needs to interfere in the lives of the North American Orthodox community??

You really think that with serious issues amongst ALL the jurisdictions here in North America, it is beneficial to be pushing for unity and autocephaly??
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: minasoliman on April 10, 2009, 02:56:51 AM
The Copts look pretty damn good dude.

Those Tiki gods are starting to look glamorous.  :angel:
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 10, 2009, 03:18:14 AM
cleveland, though you have to dig to find it.

Cleveland !!    :o  Whodda thort it ??

Mind you, if your information is coming from the Tiki gods I'd be a bit sceptical.  Not only are they cannibals but they are not above spreading the odd rumour around..

.... but Cleveland !!   Whodda thort it ??
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 10, 2009, 08:34:35 AM
Mind you, if your information is coming from the Tiki gods I'd be a bit sceptical.

Luckily you can ignore them and just read the thread, or better yet see how things operate in the real world.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 10, 2009, 09:06:10 AM
Mind you, if your information is coming from the Tiki gods I'd be a bit sceptical.

Luckily you can ignore them and just read the thread, or better yet see how things operate in the real world.

It's always been a real regret that in my 30 years as a parish priest I lost contact with the real world.  Life has been devoted only to the aberrant world of unhappy immigrants and disoriented refugees, alcoholics and solvent abusers, those who are inclined to suicide or moral lapses.

If only I could have spent my life dealing with the real world of my youth - where families have two cars in the garage and annual holidays abroad, live in upperclass suburbs with swimming pools and drink $200 bottles of port.  Oh, for a return to the real world....!   :)
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 10, 2009, 10:00:09 AM
Your point is taken, but I mean the real world of Orthodoxy (i.e. not the online world) where faction and rivalry are everywhere from the top down.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: orthodoxlurker on April 10, 2009, 10:14:57 AM

To me, you aren't making sense, but not because you produce the interpretation of your own, than because you are repeating an already known novel stance of EP.


One additional issue needs to be addressed here, with the hope it won't wait for 26 hours for moderation as the previous ones had.

The Very Revered Secretary of His Most All Divine Hollines accused for heresy anyone not recognizing the novel interpretation of EP of the Canon 28 of the 4th council.

Since at least several primates of autocephalias don't subscribe to EP's novel interpretation, he needs to prove his accusations before a competent Council and have them excommunicated, or, if he fails, he would be excommunicated unless he repents BEFORE the trial upon his accusations.

In order to have the competence to conduct trials for heresy, a "Pan-Orthodox Gathering" that should be debated in June and October, should allow every single Orthodox bishop to attend, raise questions and vote. That's the appropriate format of it.

Until that happens, I am free to say that The Very Revered Secretary of His Most All Divine Hollines and myself do not hold the same Faith.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: admiralnick on April 10, 2009, 10:16:04 AM
cleveland, though you have to dig to find it.

Ok, I may not be a moderator, but I want you to provide some substantiation for this claim.

-Nick
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: serb1389 on April 10, 2009, 10:24:58 AM

To me, you aren't making sense, but not because you produce the interpretation of your own, than because you are repeating an already known novel stance of EP.


One additional issue needs to be addressed here, with the hope it won't wait for 26 hours for moderation as the previous ones had.

The Very Revered Secretary of His Most All Divine Hollines accused for heresy anyone not recognizing the novel interpretation of EP of the Canon 28 of the 4th council.

Since at least several primates of autocephalias don't subscribe to EP's novel interpretation, he needs to prove his accusations before a competent Council and have them excommunicated, or, if he fails, he would be excommunicated unless he repents BEFORE the trial upon his accusations.

In order to have the competence to conduct trials for heresy, a "Pan-Orthodox Gathering" that should be debated in June and October, should allow every single Orthodox bishop to attend, raise questions and vote. That's the appropriate format of it.

Until that happens, I am free to say that The Very Revered Secretary of His Most All Divine Hollines and myself do not hold the same Faith.

You might want to be a little more careful here.  What he said was:
Quote
Let me add that the refusal to recognize primacy within the Orthodox Church, a primacy that necessarily cannot but be embodied by a primus (that is by a bishop who has the prerogative of being the first among his fellow bishops) constitutes nothing less than heresy.
   http://www.greekamericannewsagency.com/gana/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4771&Itemid=83

Topic here on OC.Net  =   http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20260.0.html

As far as I read that, the question is refusing primacy and primus, which is a very non-heretical ecclesiastical structure. 

[edited to fix quote and add source]
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 10, 2009, 10:37:00 AM
Beyond the U.S., I understand that Canada's GOA is more an embodiment of what you say are "fears."  Can anyone in Canada comment?

Can you clarify this statement for me?

More Greek/Hellenocentric, more autocratic, more closed off to the society they actually live in, more committed to foreign rule, etc.

Well keeping in mind I know of little of what transpires in hallowed halls of 1 Patriach Bartholomew Way in Toronto, I can not answer to the allegations of "more autocratic....more committed to foreign rule" I do have some experience with the Greeks in Canada.

I would say in Canada, the Greeks do alot of things that other jurisdictions don't do. The vast majority of Greek clergy are on Facebook (the Ukrainians are a close second in this respect) and at least one actually posts his sermons on Facebook. Based on the common perceptions of (Greek) Orthodox parishes, and the fact that he is a fairly new priest, I am amazed that he has avoided backlash from his parish from things he has said in his homilies--he must have an amazing parish council!

Yes, it is true that the Greeks have thus far in Canada not had the influx of converts that our neighbours to the South have, but at the same time under Metropolitan Sotirios they have  more than tripled in size. They have a significant amount of English in their services, and I have no problem with the local Greek parish at all.

Also I should mention that they have a seminary
That actually was one of the things I was told by my source: the take was that HC was too "North American" for Met. Sotirios (who I am told actually tried to go over Arb. Iakovos and enforce the excommunication decree over the OCA by the EP).


Quote
and are the only Canadian jurisdiction that has a podcast series (the local OCA parish does do a local radio show). They have an active national youth department and also a network for youth workers in their diocese.
I have heard the complaint in the OCA that "All America and Canada," the Canada is an afterthought.  I have heard, that change is coming though.

Quote
All in all I would say that the GOCC is a pretty good diocese. The lack of converts is more due to Canadian culture than the lack of effort by the Metropolitanate.

Like I said, I've only been to Canada once (actually twice, but a few hours in Winsor hardly count, and that was with Copts), and mostly in Quebec.  My sources, however, go frequently, especially to Toronto, and are otherwise trustworthy.  We are, however, mostly sympaticos.

Quote
More on topic....I fail to see how being autocephalous really makes a difference. My jurisdiction is autonomous, and I don't see any interference by Constantinople at all. At our Sobors yes there is an EP hierarch present, but that's it. Our Metropolitan has visited the EP in Constantinople and at that time the EP voiced his wishes to assist our jurisdiction in matters of concern. That's it. My local bishop is my ruling bishop and I love him. Above that is Metropolitan John and then Metropolitan Sotirios and then I would assume the EP himself.

You have to excuse me, as I am in the Sole-Ruled Antiochian Archidiocese of North America, where we have just been given a John Kerr lesson on how it really makes a difference.
(I'm not sure, as a Canadian, and the Crown's reserve powers (maybe "King-Byng thing" would ring a bell), if you will get the reference.  You can look
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_constitutional_crisis_of_1975
or ask Ozgeorge, who lived through it.  I've been told, and maybe Fr. Ambrose can confirm, that NZ ammeded its constituion because of it).

The sending of Met. Spyridon was another lesson that fortunately I didn' have to experience first hand.

I dare say, that if Ukraine is granted autocephaly by Moscow (something I am fully for), you will soon see what difference being  under the EP in "diaspora" it makes.

And no offense, but the Ukrainians, Greeks and EP have had a strange relationship ever since Holy Trinity Cathedral, to which your predecessor GOANSA traced its origin, hired the renegade Ukrainian hieromonk Ahapij as its first priest rather than get one from the OCA (to be anachronistic) bishop.  (the fact that an earlier parish in Galveston did get a priest from the OCA bishop might be why it is not mentioned by the EP: it still exists
http://www.orthodox.org/galveston/
now having passed on to the Serbs)

Quote
Y'all really think the EP has so much time on his hands that he needs to interfere in the lives of the North American Orthodox community??

LOL.  No, he's too busy in Estonia for one.  But he has his minions.

Ligonier.  Yes, the EP has time on his hands to interfere in the lives of the North American Orthodox community to block their formation of a fully canonical Holy Synod (the OCA Holy Synod is fully canonical, but, in flagrant violation of canon 8 of the Third Ecumenical Council, is being blocked from exercising her authority in her territory and is being interferred with by uncanonical usurpation and encrochment).

Quote
You really think that with serious issues amongst ALL the jurisdictions here in North America, it is beneficial to be pushing for unity and autocephaly??
Tell me, given the prolems between the Quebecois and the Anglo-Canadians, the border disputes with the United States, the "Aboriginal" nations' claims, the rise of the progressives' social agenda etc. was it right for London to pass the British North America Act of 1867 and change it into the Constition Act in 1982?
(the question is rhetorical, not political).

As Met. Jonah pointed out, it is the EP who is pushing this agenda, as early as June, with the intention of doing so without the imput of those affected: it is not "to avoid the thorny issue of Estonia" that made the EP concede.  It was Moscow's insistence on "thorny issue" of the OCA's autocephaly: even under the "imperialist ideology of a forgotten empire" according to which the EP operates, the OCA would the automonous counterpart in Moscow to the EP's Estonia.  Hence the OCA would be showing up in June, at the PoM's invitation.

North America has an autocephalous Church.  It doesn't have to be pushed for, and the pushing against it has made time run out deferring to a later date.  The EP has set the clock ticking.

Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 10, 2009, 11:13:02 AM

To me, you aren't making sense, but not because you produce the interpretation of your own, than because you are repeating an already known novel stance of EP.


One additional issue needs to be addressed here, with the hope it won't wait for 26 hours for moderation as the previous ones had.

The Very Revered Secretary of His Most All Divine Hollines accused for heresy anyone not recognizing the novel interpretation of EP of the Canon 28 of the 4th council.

Since at least several primates of autocephalias don't subscribe to EP's novel interpretation, he needs to prove his accusations before a competent Council and have them excommunicated, or, if he fails, he would be excommunicated unless he repents BEFORE the trial upon his accusations.

In order to have the competence to conduct trials for heresy, a "Pan-Orthodox Gathering" that should be debated in June and October, should allow every single Orthodox bishop to attend, raise questions and vote. That's the appropriate format of it.

Until that happens, I am free to say that The Very Revered Secretary of His Most All Divine Hollines and myself do not hold the same Faith.

yes, I've been delayed to getting to that part of our program.

No, not several but ALL (with the possible exception of Cyprus and Albania) don't hold to it.

Moscow, Poland, Czech and Slovak, Georgia, and  Bulgaria and the OCA do not hold to it, by simple reason that they recognize the autocephaly of the OCA.

Antioch, Serbia, Romania have remained neutral.  But the fact that they maintian archdioceses in what the EP is claiming  is his terriotory, and in the case of Antioch and Serbia in North America freely admit that their archdioceses originated as arms of the OCA/Metropolia, and that with the Romania merger talks in North America, the issue/non-issue of the OCA's autocephaly didn't come up (correct me if I am wrong), they must be put in the Chief Secretary's heretic camp.

Albania is neutral, but has her own problems now and since the OCA/Metropolia in fact created the Church of Albania (an odd history that would involve Albania, Greece, Alexandria, OCA, Russia, Serbia and the EP, of course as usual, coming last in line while maintaining its "primacy") which continues as the OCA Albanian Diocese as well as the recontructing CoA, it is a borderline case.

Cyprus has her own problems, and doesn't seem to get involved in the Greek Orthodox world, let alone the Orthodox world, in these types of matters, but follows the EP's lead.

That leaves Alexandria, Jerusalem and the CoG.  But since all three have had/have jurisdictions in the "diaspora," heresy according to the EP, and Alexandria didn't wait until "Mother (Church) may I?" before she claimed all of Africa (no, it was LOONG before the 2002 date the Chief Secretary gives, at least in Africa), the wrangling over the "New Lands" in Greece, and giving aid and comfort to the Old Calendarist Greeks (and others), well, they are definitely showing "heretical" tendencies.  It seems their support for the EP's 28th canon dogma extends only against the OCA.  Do as I say, not as I do.

Which leaves the EP, well, alone. La petite eglise.  (Sort of like Old Rome).

You might want to be a little more careful here.  What he said was:
Quote
Let me add that the refusal to recognize primacy within the Orthodox Church, a primacy that necessarily cannot but be embodied by a primus (that is by a bishop who has the prerogative of being the first among his fellow bishops) constitutes nothing less than heresy.
   http://www.greekamericannewsagency.com/gana/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4771&Itemid=83

Topic here on OC.Net  =   http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20260.0.html

As far as I read that, the question is refusing primacy and primus, which is a very non-heretical ecclesiastical structure. 
Not according to the Chief Secretary.  Which was OL's point.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 10, 2009, 11:40:02 AM
cleveland, though you have to dig to find it.

Ok, I may not be a moderator, but I want you to provide some substantiation for this claim.

-Nick

I was not serious.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Veniamin on April 10, 2009, 11:41:50 AM
cleveland, though you have to dig to find it.

Ok, I may not be a moderator, but I want you to provide some substantiation for this claim.

-Nick

I was not serious.

That's what happens when you forget to use your sarcasm tags.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 10, 2009, 02:30:23 PM
The Very Revered Secretary of His Most All Divine Hollines accused for heresy anyone not recognizing the novel interpretation of EP of the Canon 28 of the 4th council.
Actually, this is patently false.  Fr. Elpidophorus made no such statement in his recent speech.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: serb1389 on April 10, 2009, 02:48:03 PM

To me, you aren't making sense, but not because you produce the interpretation of your own, than because you are repeating an already known novel stance of EP.


One additional issue needs to be addressed here, with the hope it won't wait for 26 hours for moderation as the previous ones had.

The Very Revered Secretary of His Most All Divine Hollines accused for heresy anyone not recognizing the novel interpretation of EP of the Canon 28 of the 4th council.

Since at least several primates of autocephalias don't subscribe to EP's novel interpretation, he needs to prove his accusations before a competent Council and have them excommunicated, or, if he fails, he would be excommunicated unless he repents BEFORE the trial upon his accusations.

In order to have the competence to conduct trials for heresy, a "Pan-Orthodox Gathering" that should be debated in June and October, should allow every single Orthodox bishop to attend, raise questions and vote. That's the appropriate format of it.

Until that happens, I am free to say that The Very Revered Secretary of His Most All Divine Hollines and myself do not hold the same Faith.

yes, I've been delayed to getting to that part of our program.

No, not several but ALL (with the possible exception of Cyprus and Albania) don't hold to it.

Moscow, Poland, Czech and Slovak, Georgia, and  Bulgaria and the OCA do not hold to it, by simple reason that they recognize the autocephaly of the OCA.

Antioch, Serbia, Romania have remained neutral.  But the fact that they maintian archdioceses in what the EP is claiming  is his terriotory, and in the case of Antioch and Serbia in North America freely admit that their archdioceses originated as arms of the OCA/Metropolia, and that with the Romania merger talks in North America, the issue/non-issue of the OCA's autocephaly didn't come up (correct me if I am wrong), they must be put in the Chief Secretary's heretic camp.

Albania is neutral, but has her own problems now and since the OCA/Metropolia in fact created the Church of Albania (an odd history that would involve Albania, Greece, Alexandria, OCA, Russia, Serbia and the EP, of course as usual, coming last in line while maintaining its "primacy") which continues as the OCA Albanian Diocese as well as the recontructing CoA, it is a borderline case.

Cyprus has her own problems, and doesn't seem to get involved in the Greek Orthodox world, let alone the Orthodox world, in these types of matters, but follows the EP's lead.

That leaves Alexandria, Jerusalem and the CoG.  But since all three have had/have jurisdictions in the "diaspora," heresy according to the EP, and Alexandria didn't wait until "Mother (Church) may I?" before she claimed all of Africa (no, it was LOONG before the 2002 date the Chief Secretary gives, at least in Africa), the wrangling over the "New Lands" in Greece, and giving aid and comfort to the Old Calendarist Greeks (and others), well, they are definitely showing "heretical" tendencies.  It seems their support for the EP's 28th canon dogma extends only against the OCA.  Do as I say, not as I do.

Which leaves the EP, well, alone. La petite eglise.  (Sort of like Old Rome).

You might want to be a little more careful here.  What he said was:
Quote
Let me add that the refusal to recognize primacy within the Orthodox Church, a primacy that necessarily cannot but be embodied by a primus (that is by a bishop who has the prerogative of being the first among his fellow bishops) constitutes nothing less than heresy.
   http://www.greekamericannewsagency.com/gana/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4771&Itemid=83

Topic here on OC.Net  =   http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20260.0.html

As far as I read that, the question is refusing primacy and primus, which is a very non-heretical ecclesiastical structure. 
Not according to the Chief Secretary.  Which was OL's point.

Sorry I think I lost you here Isa.  Are you saying that OL's point was that Fr. Elpidoforos was INSINUATING that it is a heresy?  Because I quoted him directly (hence the quote box), so in terms of HIM saying that it is a heresy...he didn't.  He said that the issue of primacy is heretical, if not paid attention to.  Sorry brother, I definitely think I lost you somewhere in here. 

Also as a quick side-note, the Serbian church has no archdiocese in america, everyone is underneath the patriarchate in Serbia.  Just thought i'd throw that little nugget out there (by way of correction). 
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 10, 2009, 03:18:42 PM
The Very Revered Secretary of His Most All Divine Hollines accused for heresy anyone not recognizing the novel interpretation of EP of the Canon 28 of the 4th council.
Actually, this is patently false.  Fr. Elpidophorus made no such statement in his recent speech.

Quote
First of all, allow me to remind you that the term “diaspora” is a technical term denoting those regions that lie beyond the borders of the local autocephalous Churches. It does not mean that the Orthodox people who dwell in these regions live there temporally, as misleadingly it was argued by His Eminence Phillip in a recent article (“The Word”). According to the 28th Canon of the 4th Ecumenical Council one of the prerogatives of the Ecumenical Patriarch is precisely His jurisdiction exactly over these regions, which lie beyond the predescribed borders of the local Churches. The canon in question uses the technical term “barbaric” in order to denote these lands, since it was precisely referring to the unknown lands beyond the orbit of the Roman Empire.

Metropolitan Jonas, while he was still an abbot, in one of his speeches presented what he called “a monastic perspective” on the subject “Episcopacy, Primacy and the Mother Churches”. In the chapter on autocephaly and primacy he claims that “there is no effective overarching primacy in the Orthodox Church.” He seems to be in opposition to the institution of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, because he considers that such an institution “is based on primacy over an empire-wide synod” and that this “has long become unrealistic.” What surprised me the most in this “monastic perspective” of His Eminence Jonas was the claim that allegedly “now only the Greek ethnic Churches and few others recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate to be what it claims to be.” It is indeed saddening the ignorance of this Hierarch not only on account of History and canonical order but even on account of the current state of affairs. How is it possible that he ignores that there is no Church that does not recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate? Perhaps he is carried away by the fact that the ecclesial schema over which he presides and which has been claimed as “autocephalous” in rampant violation of every sense of canonicity, is not recognized but by few Churches and it is not included in the diptychs of the Church

Instead of acknowledging the mercifulness of the other Patriarchates which, in spite the uncanonical status of the so-called OCA, accept it in communion, its representatives choose to subject them to such an unfair treatment that contributes nothing to the common cause of Orthodox unity. I would be interested to hear an explanation from His Eminence in response to the question “How will the so-called OCA contribute to our common Orthodox witness in diaspora by electing bishops holding titles which already exist for the same city”.  I am not sure Especially our Ecumenical Patriarchate not only is it not “unable to lead” as most unfortunately Metropolitan Jonas claims, but already since last October (in order to limit myself to the most recent example) has launched under the presidency of His All Holiness the process for the convocation of the Holy and Great Synod. . I am not sure whether His Eminence, upon his ordination to the episcopacy, refused to put on the vestments of a bishop, which he, in the same article, and while he was still an abbot, had called as unfitting to the real nature of the arch-pastorship (p. 11).

Let me add that the refusal to recognize primacy within the Orthodox Church, a primacy that necessarily cannot but be embodied by a primus (that is by a bishop who has the prerogative of being the first among his fellow bishops) constitutes nothing less than heresy. It cannot be accepted, as often it is said, that the unity among the Orthodox Churches is safeguarded by either a common norm of faith and worship or by the Ecumenical Council as an institution. Both of these factors are impersonal while in our Orthodox theology the principle of unity is always a person. Indeed, in the level of the Holy Trinity the principle of unity is not the divine essence but the Person of the Father (“Monarchy” of the Father), at the ecclesiological level of the local Church the principle of unity is not the presbyterium or the common worship of the Christians but the person of the Bishop, so to in the Pan-Orthodox level the principle of unity cannot be an idea nor an institution but it needs to be, if we are to be consistent with our theology, a person.



I would like to know in which of these three categories, following his reasoning, His Eminence would classify the canons of the Ecumenical Councils that demarcate the jurisdictions of the ancient Patriarchates. Are they “contextual”—subject, as it is, to change? Does His Eminence believe that in this way he serves the unity among Orthodox, by subjugating the holy and divine canons under the circumstantial judgment of some bishop?

Based on the above distinction, and although he accepts that canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical Council is not “dead” (since there is so much debate about it), he affirms that indeed it gives certain prerogatives to the Ecumenical Patriarch, on the other hand, however, he claims that this happened for secular and political reasons that have nothing to do with today’s state of affairs. Implicitly and yet all too clearly, Metropolitan Phillip implies that the prerogatives of the Ecumenical Patriarch can be doubted. The question then is: does His Eminence know of any Church whose status (Patriarchal or Autocephalous) were not decided according to the historical conditions that they were current at the time? Or, does His Eminence know of any Church that has received its status on the basis of theological reasons exclusively? Every administrative decision of an Ecumenical Council is equally respected to perpetuity together with its dogmatic decisions. Imagine the consequences for the Orthodox Church if we begin to re-evalutate the status of each local Church!

The correct interpretation of canon 28 is considered by His Eminence as “novelty”, by invoking only sources of the 20th century, while it has been scientifically established already by the late Metropolitan of Sardeis Maximos the uninterrupted application of the canon in question during the history of the Church of Constantinople

If Constantinople was not given that prerogative by canon 28, how was she able to grant autocephalies and patriarchal dignities to the Churches of Russia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Czech Lands and Slovakia, Poland and Albania? Under the provision of which canon did Constantinople give the right of jurisdiction over the remaining of Africa to the Patriarchate of Alexandria in 2002?  And if the Ecumenical Patriarchate has not granted the Patriarchate of Moscow the privilege to bestow autocephaly as it pleases it, then what gives it the right to do so on the expense of the Orthodox unity?

The submission of the diaspora to the Ecumenical Patriarchate does not mean either Hellenization or violation of the canonical order, because it is only in this way that both the letter and the spirit of the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils is respected. The Mother Church knows, however, that such a submission is difficult to be accomplished under the present historical conditions. For this reason, and by employing the principle of economy, it was suggested and it has now become accepted in Pan-Orthodox level, that there will be local Pan-Orthodox Episcopal Assemblies in the diaspora (like SCOBA in the US). The principle of presidency is followed, namely the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate presides over these Episcopal Assemblies in order to preserve the necessary element of canonicity.

Please allow me to conclude with the phrase of His Beatitude Ignatios Patriarch of Antioch during last October’s Synaxis of the Primates at the Phanar: “In the Orthodox Church we have one primus and he is the Patriarch of Constantinople.”

You were saying?

Sorry I think I lost you here Isa.  Are you saying that OL's point was that Fr. Elpidoforos was INSINUATING that it is a heresy?
No.  I think that OL was stating quite plainly that CS (Chief Secretary) was declaring it was heresy.  And OL is right (see above).
Quote
Because I quoted him directly (hence the quote box), so in terms of HIM saying that it is a heresy...he didn't.
OL or CS (Chief Secretary)?

Quote
He said that the issue of primacy is heretical, if not paid attention to.  Sorry brother, I definitely think I lost you somewhere in here. 

No.  He was saying that those who don't submit to the theology of the primos accepted at the council of Ravenna was a heretic.

Quote
Also as a quick side-note, the Serbian church has no archdiocese in america, everyone is underneath the patriarchate in Serbia.  Just thought i'd throw that little nugget out there (by way of correction). 

I see. Thanks.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 10, 2009, 03:25:57 PM
edit
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 10, 2009, 04:44:09 PM
The Very Revered Secretary of His Most All Divine Hollines accused for heresy anyone not recognizing the novel interpretation of EP of the Canon 28 of the 4th council.
Actually, this is patently false.  Fr. Elpidophorus made no such statement in his recent speech.

OMG, false accusations, exaggerations, what will be next!
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ozgeorge on April 10, 2009, 04:46:48 PM
OMG, false accusations, exaggerations, what will be next!
Saints preserve this thread from such!  :D
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 10, 2009, 04:53:54 PM
cleveland, though you have to dig to find it.

Ok, I may not be a moderator, but I want you to provide some substantiation for this claim.

At the moment AMM is in bondage to the Tiki gods so he may not be fully rational.   ;D 
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 10, 2009, 05:00:38 PM
I'm not the one cheering people on who are telling untruths.

Which is not to say I'm rational....
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: John of the North on April 10, 2009, 05:10:00 PM
Beyond the U.S., I understand that Canada's GOA is more an embodiment of what you say are "fears."  Can anyone in Canada comment?

Can you clarify this statement for me?

More Greek/Hellenocentric, more autocratic, more closed off to the society they actually live in, more committed to foreign rule, etc.

Well keeping in mind I know of little of what transpires in hallowed halls of 1 Patriach Bartholomew Way in Toronto, I can not answer to the allegations of "more autocratic....more committed to foreign rule" I do have some experience with the Greeks in Canada.

I would say in Canada, the Greeks do alot of things that other jurisdictions don't do. The vast majority of Greek clergy are on Facebook (the Ukrainians are a close second in this respect) and at least one actually posts his sermons on Facebook. Based on the common perceptions of (Greek) Orthodox parishes, and the fact that he is a fairly new priest, I am amazed that he has avoided backlash from his parish from things he has said in his homilies--he must have an amazing parish council!

Yes, it is true that the Greeks have thus far in Canada not had the influx of converts that our neighbours to the South have, but at the same time under Metropolitan Sotirios they have  more than tripled in size. They have a significant amount of English in their services, and I have no problem with the local Greek parish at all.

Also I should mention that they have a seminary
That actually was one of the things I was told by my source: the take was that HC was too "North American" for Met. Sotirios (who I am told actually tried to go over Arb. Iakovos and enforce the excommunication decree over the OCA by the EP).

I find that funny, because I was actually told that TOTA is actually rather North American in nature. Not sure how much truth lies behind the allegation.


Quote
and are the only Canadian jurisdiction that has a podcast series (the local OCA parish does do a local radio show). They have an active national youth department and also a network for youth workers in their diocese.
I have heard the complaint in the OCA that "All America and Canada," the Canada is an afterthought.  I have heard, that change is coming though.[/quote]

Canada is indeed an afterthought in the OCA....and I don't know how fast the change is coming....

Quote
More on topic....I fail to see how being autocephalous really makes a difference. My jurisdiction is autonomous, and I don't see any interference by Constantinople at all. At our Sobors yes there is an EP hierarch present, but that's it. Our Metropolitan has visited the EP in Constantinople and at that time the EP voiced his wishes to assist our jurisdiction in matters of concern. That's it. My local bishop is my ruling bishop and I love him. Above that is Metropolitan John and then Metropolitan Sotirios and then I would assume the EP himself.
Quote
You have to excuse me, as I am in the Sole-Ruled Antiochian Archidiocese of North America, where we have just been given a John Kerr lesson on how it really makes a difference.
(I'm not sure, as a Canadian, and the Crown's reserve powers (maybe "King-Byng thing" would ring a bell), if you will get the reference.  You can look
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_constitutional_crisis_of_1975
or ask Ozgeorge, who lived through it.  I've been told, and maybe Fr. Ambrose can confirm, that NZ ammeded its constituion because of it).

We could have possibly had a similar situation in late 2008-early 2009 here in Canada. I certainly have no issues with the actions of the GG in the King-Byng affair.

Quote
I dare say, that if Ukraine is granted autocephaly by Moscow (something I am fully for), you will soon see what difference being  under the EP in "diaspora" it makes.

Being autonomous under Kyiv or the Phanar, makes no difference to me.

Quote
You really think that with serious issues amongst ALL the jurisdictions here in North America, it is beneficial to be pushing for unity and autocephaly??

Tell me, given the prolems between the Quebecois and the Anglo-Canadians, the border disputes with the United States, the "Aboriginal" nations' claims, the rise of the progressives' social agenda etc. was it right for London to pass the British North America Act of 1867 and change it into the Constition Act in 1982?
(the question is rhetorical, not political).
[/quote]

The Constitution Act of 1982 clearly was hastily done, and has resulted in almost three decades of stagnation on the issue of constitutional reform. it may very well rip Canada apart.


Quote
As Met. Jonah pointed out, it is the EP who is pushing this agenda, as early as June, with the intention of doing so without the imput of those affected: it is not "to avoid the thorny issue of Estonia" that made the EP concede.  It was Moscow's insistence on "thorny issue" of the OCA's autocephaly: even under the "imperialist ideology of a forgotten empire" according to which the EP operates, the OCA would the automonous counterpart in Moscow to the EP's Estonia.  Hence the OCA would be showing up in June, at the PoM's invitation.

The OCA is pushing their own agenda as well.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 10, 2009, 05:24:15 PM
(I'm not sure, as a Canadian, and the Crown's reserve powers (maybe "King-Byng thing" would ring a bell), if you will get the reference.  You can look
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_constitutional_crisis_of_1975
or ask Ozgeorge, who lived through it.  I've been told, and maybe Fr. Ambrose can confirm, that NZ ammeded its constituion because of it).


Her Majesty holds greaters powers here in New Zealand than she does in Australia.  This is because in 1974 we created the Royal Titles Act which gave her the status Queen and Sovereign of New Zealand.  She is our Head of State.

What we are is a constitutional monarchy with a democratic parliamentary system.

Her status as Queen of New Zealand enables her through her designated Governor-General to dissolve Parliament if there is serious cause such as a hung Parliament which cannot govern effectively but refuses to resign and call new elections.

Is this similar to Canada?
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: serb1389 on April 10, 2009, 06:20:53 PM
Beyond the U.S., I understand that Canada's GOA is more an embodiment of what you say are "fears."  Can anyone in Canada comment?

Can you clarify this statement for me?

More Greek/Hellenocentric, more autocratic, more closed off to the society they actually live in, more committed to foreign rule, etc.

Well keeping in mind I know of little of what transpires in hallowed halls of 1 Patriach Bartholomew Way in Toronto, I can not answer to the allegations of "more autocratic....more committed to foreign rule" I do have some experience with the Greeks in Canada.

I would say in Canada, the Greeks do alot of things that other jurisdictions don't do. The vast majority of Greek clergy are on Facebook (the Ukrainians are a close second in this respect) and at least one actually posts his sermons on Facebook. Based on the common perceptions of (Greek) Orthodox parishes, and the fact that he is a fairly new priest, I am amazed that he has avoided backlash from his parish from things he has said in his homilies--he must have an amazing parish council!

Yes, it is true that the Greeks have thus far in Canada not had the influx of converts that our neighbours to the South have, but at the same time under Metropolitan Sotirios they have  more than tripled in size. They have a significant amount of English in their services, and I have no problem with the local Greek parish at all.

Also I should mention that they have a seminary
That actually was one of the things I was told by my source: the take was that HC was too "North American" for Met. Sotirios (who I am told actually tried to go over Arb. Iakovos and enforce the excommunication decree over the OCA by the EP).

I find that funny, because I was actually told that TOTA is actually rather North American in nature. Not sure how much truth lies behind the allegation.

Actually they are very North American in culture.  In fact when the TOTA guys came down to HC to visit for OISM they bought all of our chant books and service books in english because they needed them for Canada (it was cheaper for them to buy it down south). 
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: serb1389 on April 10, 2009, 06:28:33 PM
The Very Revered Secretary of His Most All Divine Hollines accused for heresy anyone not recognizing the novel interpretation of EP of the Canon 28 of the 4th council.
Actually, this is patently false.  Fr. Elpidophorus made no such statement in his recent speech.

Quote
First of all, allow me to remind you that the term “diaspora” is a technical term denoting those regions that lie beyond the borders of the local autocephalous Churches. It does not mean that the Orthodox people who dwell in these regions live there temporally, as misleadingly it was argued by His Eminence Phillip in a recent article (“The Word”). According to the 28th Canon of the 4th Ecumenical Council one of the prerogatives of the Ecumenical Patriarch is precisely His jurisdiction exactly over these regions, which lie beyond the predescribed borders of the local Churches. The canon in question uses the technical term “barbaric” in order to denote these lands, since it was precisely referring to the unknown lands beyond the orbit of the Roman Empire.

Metropolitan Jonas, while he was still an abbot, in one of his speeches presented what he called “a monastic perspective” on the subject “Episcopacy, Primacy and the Mother Churches”. In the chapter on autocephaly and primacy he claims that “there is no effective overarching primacy in the Orthodox Church.” He seems to be in opposition to the institution of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, because he considers that such an institution “is based on primacy over an empire-wide synod” and that this “has long become unrealistic.” What surprised me the most in this “monastic perspective” of His Eminence Jonas was the claim that allegedly “now only the Greek ethnic Churches and few others recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate to be what it claims to be.” It is indeed saddening the ignorance of this Hierarch not only on account of History and canonical order but even on account of the current state of affairs. How is it possible that he ignores that there is no Church that does not recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate? Perhaps he is carried away by the fact that the ecclesial schema over which he presides and which has been claimed as “autocephalous” in rampant violation of every sense of canonicity, is not recognized but by few Churches and it is not included in the diptychs of the Church

Instead of acknowledging the mercifulness of the other Patriarchates which, in spite the uncanonical status of the so-called OCA, accept it in communion, its representatives choose to subject them to such an unfair treatment that contributes nothing to the common cause of Orthodox unity. I would be interested to hear an explanation from His Eminence in response to the question “How will the so-called OCA contribute to our common Orthodox witness in diaspora by electing bishops holding titles which already exist for the same city”.  I am not sure Especially our Ecumenical Patriarchate not only is it not “unable to lead” as most unfortunately Metropolitan Jonas claims, but already since last October (in order to limit myself to the most recent example) has launched under the presidency of His All Holiness the process for the convocation of the Holy and Great Synod. . I am not sure whether His Eminence, upon his ordination to the episcopacy, refused to put on the vestments of a bishop, which he, in the same article, and while he was still an abbot, had called as unfitting to the real nature of the arch-pastorship (p. 11).

Let me add that the refusal to recognize primacy within the Orthodox Church, a primacy that necessarily cannot but be embodied by a primus (that is by a bishop who has the prerogative of being the first among his fellow bishops) constitutes nothing less than heresy. It cannot be accepted, as often it is said, that the unity among the Orthodox Churches is safeguarded by either a common norm of faith and worship or by the Ecumenical Council as an institution. Both of these factors are impersonal while in our Orthodox theology the principle of unity is always a person. Indeed, in the level of the Holy Trinity the principle of unity is not the divine essence but the Person of the Father (“Monarchy” of the Father), at the ecclesiological level of the local Church the principle of unity is not the presbyterium or the common worship of the Christians but the person of the Bishop, so to in the Pan-Orthodox level the principle of unity cannot be an idea nor an institution but it needs to be, if we are to be consistent with our theology, a person.



I would like to know in which of these three categories, following his reasoning, His Eminence would classify the canons of the Ecumenical Councils that demarcate the jurisdictions of the ancient Patriarchates. Are they “contextual”—subject, as it is, to change? Does His Eminence believe that in this way he serves the unity among Orthodox, by subjugating the holy and divine canons under the circumstantial judgment of some bishop?

Based on the above distinction, and although he accepts that canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical Council is not “dead” (since there is so much debate about it), he affirms that indeed it gives certain prerogatives to the Ecumenical Patriarch, on the other hand, however, he claims that this happened for secular and political reasons that have nothing to do with today’s state of affairs. Implicitly and yet all too clearly, Metropolitan Phillip implies that the prerogatives of the Ecumenical Patriarch can be doubted. The question then is: does His Eminence know of any Church whose status (Patriarchal or Autocephalous) were not decided according to the historical conditions that they were current at the time? Or, does His Eminence know of any Church that has received its status on the basis of theological reasons exclusively? Every administrative decision of an Ecumenical Council is equally respected to perpetuity together with its dogmatic decisions. Imagine the consequences for the Orthodox Church if we begin to re-evalutate the status of each local Church!

The correct interpretation of canon 28 is considered by His Eminence as “novelty”, by invoking only sources of the 20th century, while it has been scientifically established already by the late Metropolitan of Sardeis Maximos the uninterrupted application of the canon in question during the history of the Church of Constantinople

If Constantinople was not given that prerogative by canon 28, how was she able to grant autocephalies and patriarchal dignities to the Churches of Russia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Czech Lands and Slovakia, Poland and Albania? Under the provision of which canon did Constantinople give the right of jurisdiction over the remaining of Africa to the Patriarchate of Alexandria in 2002?  And if the Ecumenical Patriarchate has not granted the Patriarchate of Moscow the privilege to bestow autocephaly as it pleases it, then what gives it the right to do so on the expense of the Orthodox unity?

The submission of the diaspora to the Ecumenical Patriarchate does not mean either Hellenization or violation of the canonical order, because it is only in this way that both the letter and the spirit of the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils is respected. The Mother Church knows, however, that such a submission is difficult to be accomplished under the present historical conditions. For this reason, and by employing the principle of economy, it was suggested and it has now become accepted in Pan-Orthodox level, that there will be local Pan-Orthodox Episcopal Assemblies in the diaspora (like SCOBA in the US). The principle of presidency is followed, namely the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate presides over these Episcopal Assemblies in order to preserve the necessary element of canonicity.

Please allow me to conclude with the phrase of His Beatitude Ignatios Patriarch of Antioch during last October’s Synaxis of the Primates at the Phanar: “In the Orthodox Church we have one primus and he is the Patriarch of Constantinople.”

You were saying?

Quote
Sorry I think I lost you here Isa.  Are you saying that OL's point was that Fr. Elpidoforos was INSINUATING that it is a heresy?
No.  I think that OL was stating quite plainly that CS (Chief Secretary) was declaring it was heresy.  And OL is right (see above).

Yah, im just not making the same connections you are.  For example when you underlined "me" in paragraph:
Quote
Let me add that the refusal to recognize primacy within the Orthodox Church, a primacy that necessarily cannot but be embodied by a primus (that is by a bishop who has the prerogative of being the first among his fellow bishops) constitutes nothing less than heresy.

That's just taking it out of context.  He is using a very common phraseology, and NOT making a concerted point.  He is not DECLARING anything, just adding a point.  See how the connection you make is not necessarily there?  There are others...do you want me to get into it, or should we not hash it out...your call big brother.  :)


Quote
Because I quoted him directly (hence the quote box), so in terms of HIM saying that it is a heresy...he didn't.
OL or CS (Chief Secretary)? [/quote]

CS (I thought I put the link up there...sorry for the confusion)

Quote
Quote
He said that the issue of primacy is heretical, if not paid attention to.  Sorry brother, I definitely think I lost you somewhere in here. 

No.  He was saying that those who don't submit to the theology of the primos accepted at the council of Ravenna was a heretic.

Yah...again, not making that connection.  I think a little bit more linearly than you do so this might get a little complicated.  If he doesn't outright say "this and that is a heresy because of revena and i as CS am making this declaration of heresy" the rest is hearsay. 

Quote
Quote
Also as a quick side-note, the Serbian church has no archdiocese in america, everyone is underneath the patriarchate in Serbia.  Just thought i'd throw that little nugget out there (by way of correction). 

I see. Thanks.

you're welcome!  glad I could be of use  ;) ;D



Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: John of the North on April 10, 2009, 06:36:25 PM
(I'm not sure, as a Canadian, and the Crown's reserve powers (maybe "King-Byng thing" would ring a bell), if you will get the reference.  You can look
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_constitutional_crisis_of_1975
or ask Ozgeorge, who lived through it.  I've been told, and maybe Fr. Ambrose can confirm, that NZ ammeded its constituion because of it).


Her Majesty holds greaters powers here in New Zealand than she does in Australia.  This is because in 1974 we created the Royal Titles Act which gave her the status Queen and Sovereign of New Zealand.  She is our Head of State.

What we are is a constitutional monarchy with a democratic parliamentary system.

Her status as Queen of New Zealand enables her through her designated Governor-General to dissolve Parliament if there is serious cause such as a hung Parliament which cannot govern effectively but refuses to resign and call new elections.

Is this similar to Canada?

Yes, although the GG does not necessarily exercise such powers as required....
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 10, 2009, 06:47:45 PM
The Very Revered Secretary of His Most All Divine Hollines accused for heresy anyone not recognizing the novel interpretation of EP of the Canon 28 of the 4th council.
Actually, this is patently false.  Fr. Elpidophorus made no such statement in his recent speech.

Quote
First of all, allow me to remind you that the term “diaspora” is a technical term denoting those regions that lie beyond the borders of the local autocephalous Churches. It does not mean that the Orthodox people who dwell in these regions live there temporally, as misleadingly it was argued by His Eminence Phillip in a recent article (“The Word”). According to the 28th Canon of the 4th Ecumenical Council one of the prerogatives of the Ecumenical Patriarch is precisely His jurisdiction exactly over these regions, which lie beyond the predescribed borders of the local Churches. The canon in question uses the technical term “barbaric” in order to denote these lands, since it was precisely referring to the unknown lands beyond the orbit of the Roman Empire.

Metropolitan Jonas, while he was still an abbot, in one of his speeches presented what he called “a monastic perspective” on the subject “Episcopacy, Primacy and the Mother Churches”. In the chapter on autocephaly and primacy he claims that “there is no effective overarching primacy in the Orthodox Church.” He seems to be in opposition to the institution of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, because he considers that such an institution “is based on primacy over an empire-wide synod” and that this “has long become unrealistic.” What surprised me the most in this “monastic perspective” of His Eminence Jonas was the claim that allegedly “now only the Greek ethnic Churches and few others recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate to be what it claims to be.” It is indeed saddening the ignorance of this Hierarch not only on account of History and canonical order but even on account of the current state of affairs. How is it possible that he ignores that there is no Church that does not recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate? Perhaps he is carried away by the fact that the ecclesial schema over which he presides and which has been claimed as “autocephalous” in rampant violation of every sense of canonicity, is not recognized but by few Churches and it is not included in the diptychs of the Church

Instead of acknowledging the mercifulness of the other Patriarchates which, in spite the uncanonical status of the so-called OCA, accept it in communion, its representatives choose to subject them to such an unfair treatment that contributes nothing to the common cause of Orthodox unity. I would be interested to hear an explanation from His Eminence in response to the question “How will the so-called OCA contribute to our common Orthodox witness in diaspora by electing bishops holding titles which already exist for the same city”.  I am not sure Especially our Ecumenical Patriarchate not only is it not “unable to lead” as most unfortunately Metropolitan Jonas claims, but already since last October (in order to limit myself to the most recent example) has launched under the presidency of His All Holiness the process for the convocation of the Holy and Great Synod. . I am not sure whether His Eminence, upon his ordination to the episcopacy, refused to put on the vestments of a bishop, which he, in the same article, and while he was still an abbot, had called as unfitting to the real nature of the arch-pastorship (p. 11).

Let me add that the refusal to recognize primacy within the Orthodox Church, a primacy that necessarily cannot but be embodied by a primus (that is by a bishop who has the prerogative of being the first among his fellow bishops) constitutes nothing less than heresy. It cannot be accepted, as often it is said, that the unity among the Orthodox Churches is safeguarded by either a common norm of faith and worship or by the Ecumenical Council as an institution. Both of these factors are impersonal while in our Orthodox theology the principle of unity is always a person. Indeed, in the level of the Holy Trinity the principle of unity is not the divine essence but the Person of the Father (“Monarchy” of the Father), at the ecclesiological level of the local Church the principle of unity is not the presbyterium or the common worship of the Christians but the person of the Bishop, so to in the Pan-Orthodox level the principle of unity cannot be an idea nor an institution but it needs to be, if we are to be consistent with our theology, a person.



I would like to know in which of these three categories, following his reasoning, His Eminence would classify the canons of the Ecumenical Councils that demarcate the jurisdictions of the ancient Patriarchates. Are they “contextual”—subject, as it is, to change? Does His Eminence believe that in this way he serves the unity among Orthodox, by subjugating the holy and divine canons under the circumstantial judgment of some bishop?

Based on the above distinction, and although he accepts that canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical Council is not “dead” (since there is so much debate about it), he affirms that indeed it gives certain prerogatives to the Ecumenical Patriarch, on the other hand, however, he claims that this happened for secular and political reasons that have nothing to do with today’s state of affairs. Implicitly and yet all too clearly, Metropolitan Phillip implies that the prerogatives of the Ecumenical Patriarch can be doubted. The question then is: does His Eminence know of any Church whose status (Patriarchal or Autocephalous) were not decided according to the historical conditions that they were current at the time? Or, does His Eminence know of any Church that has received its status on the basis of theological reasons exclusively? Every administrative decision of an Ecumenical Council is equally respected to perpetuity together with its dogmatic decisions. Imagine the consequences for the Orthodox Church if we begin to re-evalutate the status of each local Church!

The correct interpretation of canon 28 is considered by His Eminence as “novelty”, by invoking only sources of the 20th century, while it has been scientifically established already by the late Metropolitan of Sardeis Maximos the uninterrupted application of the canon in question during the history of the Church of Constantinople

If Constantinople was not given that prerogative by canon 28, how was she able to grant autocephalies and patriarchal dignities to the Churches of Russia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Czech Lands and Slovakia, Poland and Albania? Under the provision of which canon did Constantinople give the right of jurisdiction over the remaining of Africa to the Patriarchate of Alexandria in 2002?  And if the Ecumenical Patriarchate has not granted the Patriarchate of Moscow the privilege to bestow autocephaly as it pleases it, then what gives it the right to do so on the expense of the Orthodox unity?

The submission of the diaspora to the Ecumenical Patriarchate does not mean either Hellenization or violation of the canonical order, because it is only in this way that both the letter and the spirit of the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils is respected. The Mother Church knows, however, that such a submission is difficult to be accomplished under the present historical conditions. For this reason, and by employing the principle of economy, it was suggested and it has now become accepted in Pan-Orthodox level, that there will be local Pan-Orthodox Episcopal Assemblies in the diaspora (like SCOBA in the US). The principle of presidency is followed, namely the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate presides over these Episcopal Assemblies in order to preserve the necessary element of canonicity.

Please allow me to conclude with the phrase of His Beatitude Ignatios Patriarch of Antioch during last October’s Synaxis of the Primates at the Phanar: “In the Orthodox Church we have one primus and he is the Patriarch of Constantinople.”

You were saying?
Thank you, Isa, for showing us all how NOT to interpret the text of a speech.  You can interpret the speech any way you want, I guess, but it still doesn't change the fact that nowhere did Fr. Elpidophorus ever make a single explicit statement that refusal to agree with the EP's interpretation of Canon 28 is a heresy.  Let me say it again, since I'm sure you're going to try to continue arguing connections that no one else sees:  nowhere did Fr. Elpidophorus ever make a single explicit statement that refusal to agree with the EP's interpretation of Canon 28 is a heresy.  Your interpretation of the text is nothing more than that:  your interpretation, and it's very wrong indeed.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 10, 2009, 06:57:46 PM
I'm going to break this down, so as to be able to make manageable posts while giving the answer (i.e. full) that your post desearves.  I'm not going in the order of your OP, but in the order of importance/my time to answer:

And another (one of my favorites):
Quote
Not to some kind of alien ideology, not to some nationalist or imperialist ideology from some forgotten empire.  Not the imposition of foreign customs, and the submission to foreign despots – but to a united church in this country. 
Really?  You must be kidding.  He's talking about foreign customs wearing a RUSSIAN style of vestments!  Did I miss something or didn't the OCA come from the Russian tradition?  Certainly looks like it, from the tradition of music, liturgics, and vestments (among other things).  Why does he fault the Greek Orthodox for following the Byzantine tradition of music, liturgics, and vestments?  Isn't that a little backward?  If he is not speaking of liturgical tradition, then what is he speaking of?  Is he implying that the EP is going to force everyone to learn modern Greek, Greek dances, Greek cooking, celebrate Greek holidays, etc?  Surely not.  I think we can all see how absurd that would be.  Unfortunately, yes, many of the GOA churches have Greek school and dance troupes.  And I think most of us (including the clergy and hierarchs) will tell you it is unfortunate, not the place of the church, and that we are trying to weed that stuff out.  To take that further and say that not only would the EP NOT weed those things out, but would force them on other churches, that is just baseless and, I'm sorry, but falsehood.

I don't think that Greek dance troups and schools are weeds.  I would venture his beatitude doesn't either, but I can't speak for him.


I think he is speaking of this foreign ideology, expoused by the Chief Secretary:
Quote
The first and main challenge that American Orthodoxy faces is that it has been developed in a region which, from an administrative and technical point, is that of diaspora. By the term “diaspora” we indicate that region  whose ecclesiastical jurisdiction is been unfortunately claimed by a variety of “Mother” Churches, which wish to maintain their pastoral care over their respective flocks, comprised by the people who, over the years, immigrated to the superpower called USA.

In this way, the Orthodox faithful in America became organized according to their national origin and not according to the canon law of the Orthodox Church—that is, they organized themselves not in accordance with the principles of Orthodox ecclesiology which dictates that neither national origin, nor the history of a group’s appearance in a particular region but rather the canonical taxis and the perennial praxis of the Church, as codified by the Ecumenical Councils, has the ultimate authority

In other words, the foreign ideology that this is, or has been, terra incognita and "diaspora."

Note, that the Chief Secretary names no positive development in Orthodoxy in America, none that he does not damn with faint praise.

Anyway, I don't really think that's what His Beatitude was addressing.  The Chief Secretary's quote doesn't fall under the "foreign customs" that His Beatitude spoke of, or "nationalist and imperialist ideology."  I think it's nice of you to try and protect His Beatitude by asserting that the Chief Secretary's quote was what he was addressing, but I don't think it's correct.  Even if it was, the words "submission to a foreign despot" are still nothing more than slander, fear mongering, and insulting.

I couldn't go into detail, as the computer I was at couldn't read the transcripts.  Here is the paragraph from which the line we are speaking on is found:
Quote
I don’t think the Holy Fathers in the Phanar understand that we are a church, albeit, with separate administrations, but that has a common value of determining our own destiny.  A church that is dedicated to the conciliar process which does not ignore the voice of the laity, which does not ignore the voice of the priests.  A church which is united in its common commitment. Because, we are orthodox not simply by birth, we are orthodox not simply by our ethnic heritage, we are orthodox because we have chosen to be orthodox.  We are orthodox because we have committed our entire life to Jesus Christ and the Gospel.  And that it’s that commitment to Jesus Christ and the Gospel, and our commitment to bring our brothers and sisters in our land to that same commitment to Jesus Christ and the Gospel.  Not to some kind of alien ideology, not to some nationalist or imperialist ideology from some forgotten empire.  Not the imposition of foreign customs, and the submission to foreign despots – but to a united church in this country.  A church in which we value the diversity – and we value the unity equally.  A church in which we appreciate one another, and listen to the voice of one another, so that no person is devalued.  So that the traditions that our fathers in the faith have brought to this country are valued.  So that the efforts and the labor and the sweat and the blood and the tears of all those who have gone before us to establish the orthodox faith in America for over 200 years now, 215 years to be precise.  To acknowledge their sacrifice, and that it is upon their sacrifice, upon their martyrdoms, upon their sanctity that our church here was built.

To give it the context, which I believe explains what foreign ideology, etc. he was speaking of, I quote the sentence before and the sentence(s) after the above paragraph:
Quote
But we also have to appreciate the English and the Spanish and the French just as we have to appreciate the Tlingit and the Aleut and the Yupik and the Athabasken who are the true indigenous orthodox christians of our land....

.....There are those that would, there are those there that would say that there was no canonical orthodox church in America until 1924 with the establishment of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the Greek Archdiocese.  Excuse me.  The Russian Orthodox Church established their missionary work here in 1794.  

I believe the crux of the whole speech and the whole problem is that the EP cannot, it seem, recognize that that the Church in America has NEVER been a Church in "diaspora."  It was not conceived as one in "diaspora," it did not "develop" in diaspora, it was not groomed for autocephaly in "diaspora."  And this all transpired before the EP set foot on this continent.  

The reference in the paragraph to the Phanar I do not believe, and it would seem, is not accidental.  Constantinople is the See, not Istanbul, her See is in Hagia Sophia, not St. George's.  The Phanar symbolizes all the aberration that the Orthodox Church suffered during the Turcocratia, aberrations which the EP seems not to want to let go.  The Phanar is the district that capitulated to the Ottoman in exchange for safety.  It existed as the arm of the Ottoman state to control the Orthodox subjects. It is the only other arm of the Ottoman state that still exists (the Patriarchate of the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher is another, and another problem).  The Turk cared only that the Orthodox knew their place (i.e. the bottom, or maybe above Jews) and paid their taxes, including in children (baptismal rolls were used). The EP tried to act as the heir of the Roman Emperor, but in reality he was just an administrator, the ethnarch of the Orthodox Millet, the leash that the Sultan kept on his Orthodox subjects, as EP St. Gregory V found out when the Sultan used his slack on that leash to hang him at the beginning of the Greek War of Independence.  To make that administration more centralized as the Sultan liked it, the Caliph abolished all the patriarchates he could get his hand on and ordained his court chaplain the head of all Orthodoxy.

And so Bulgaria and Serbia lost their Churches in the Ottoman Empire, and Romania was prevented from developing hers.  The other members of the Pentarchy seemed harder to abolish, but here was little need, since they had no tax population to speak off, and they were useful: Jerusalem could more effectively milk the pilgrim milch cow, Antioch was full of Arabs who kept an eye on the Maronites, allies of the Crusaders.  Alexandria kept another eye on the province of Egypt, ever capable of rebellion, and countered the Coptic population there.  When the Arabs decided to be rid of both the near by Sultan and EP for the benefits of links to the powerful, and distant, pope of Rome, the EP and the Sultan retaliated by installing Greeks, until the Russians helped stop that at the turn of the last century, in the twilight of that forgotten empire on the Bosphoros.

So the EP got control of all the Orthodox for his master.  The Phanar might be a ghetto in the capital, but it was the metropolis of the Orthodox.  So the grandees there tried to keep up with the nobles of Istanbul, and Orthodoxy became a flock to be sheered for the Sultan, the Phanariots taking their share. A Church of Phanariots, by Phanariots, for Phanariots.  All power and administration in their hands.  The propogandists of dhimmitude, an alien ideology, used to enslave nations to plough under the Turkish yoke to serve the imperial ambitions of the House of Osman.  Not so benevolent despots whose position depended on enforcing subservience to their masters, squashing seperate identity of the Orthodox into a Hellenic monolith to serve as a Christian alter (or sub) ego to the Turkish Muslim body politic.

The Chief Secretary seems to be ignorant, or ignoring this history.  But Arabs, Serbs, Bulgarians, Romanians and Albanians know it.  Bearing grudges? No.  Just my experience has been that when someone says "I never did that," what it means is "if given the opportunity, I will do it again."

So only Russia, having broke off the Mongol yoke and pushed back the Latin Crusaders, escaped this, and pursued her own destiny, finally reaching across Siberia and down into Northern California, where no Church had preached the Gospel before.  And when the Church came there, it was specifically because monks on the opposite end of that empire were told that there were peoples who had not heard the Gospel.  And so the monks went to baptize the natives, give them the alphabet while giving them the scriptures in their languages.  Natives were ordained, and a native Peter the Aleut sealed his Orthodoxy with the blood of martyrdom in San Francisco.  They were not Amerindian Millets, they were Orthodox Christians, with a native Church in their native tongue in their native land, the Russian government securing guarentees for them as such, both as to their citizenshiop and Church, from the U.S. government as terms of sale.  Nations continued to be converted AFTER the Russian government left.  When the U.S. government failed to live up to its promises, the self identifed "Tlingit Orthodox Chiefs" could, and did, demand their rights (with the support of their LOCAL Diocesan Bishop of the Aleutians and Alaska, then resident in San Francisco) from the U.S. President, petitioning in all truth: "We know that the Russian Government at the time of the transfer of Alaska to the U.S. did not sell us as slaves to America, but left us some rights and privileges which were later made lawful and firm by the U.S. Congress. The Organic Act, providing a civil Government for Alaska."  Demands like the Protestant missions stop stealing their children (so they could be put in English only Protestant boarding schools), stop stealing their dead (so they could not be given Orthodox rites), stop stealing their icons so they could be piled in the village square and burnt.  They were not believers in the ideology of dhimmitude.  "With all this we never lost faith in the Government at Washington. This sorrowful reality only made us lose faith in persons sent out here by the government."  Aliens in their own homes, the Chief Secretary spat on each and every one of these confessors for the Orthodox Faith when he refused to acknowledge their existence, because it conflicts with his world view of "diaspora."

Russian involvement brought the US into central CA, and hence into the US.  John Sutter built the nascent Californian State by buying Fort Ross, and when he started the Gold Rush by building his mill to pay off the price, the last Russian governor was there to patent a gold washing machine.  The Russian navy's champlains continued to serve the area.  Other governors of Russian America also settled in San Francisco, including the Imperial Russian consul in SF who picked up where the Russian Fort Ross governors left off, and who, as his beatitude also noted in his speech, with the GREEK consul, founded the first permanent Orthodox parish in SF proper, which was prepared to become the See of North America BEFORE Alaska was sold. This Greek consul, George Fisher, born Serb Đorđe Šagić, helped break the Ottoman (and Phanariot) yoke in the first Serb uprising, and fleeing to the US was a major settler in the South, in Texas (where he was on hand for the Texas revolution) and then, through Panama to Califiornia, ended up a Federal Judge that settled the Land claims of CA (including that the stemed from the sale by Russia to John Sutter). The first Greek Orthodox Church was in Galveston in 1862, and it would send for a priest (and get one) from the bishop in SF.  George Fishre, and many others, did not come "to the superpower called the United States": they created it.  And they bonded to the nation they were creating AND TO THE CANONICAL ORTHODOX CHURCH THERE THAT THEY WERE BUILDING UP.  But that doesn't fit into the Millet mentality of the Chief Secretary. In his speech, Orthodox only benefit, not actually build this nation.

A priest, John Veniaminov, served in a kayak from Kamchatka in Siberia all the way down to the Church at Fort Ross, Sonoma CA, before he was recalled to Russia as her head, Met. St. Innocent of Moscow: as such he translated his works FROM the Amerindian languages into Russia, where they went through edition after edition. St. Innocent, at the helm of the Russian Church put missions at the top of the agenda, along with religious education.  And the revival and reform of the Russian Church, following in the footsteps of his predecessor and friend of St. Filaret (author of the Large Catechism and first Russian translation of the Holy Bible).  Including laity participation and education, and participation in election of bishops with more conciliar governance, you know, like Orthodoxy ecclesiolgoy is supposed to act at least on paper.  One of the fruits of St. Innocent's revival, St. Tikhon came to America.  Becoming a naturalized citizen, and the Czar and the Holy Synod ordering that the DL commorate the President of the United States, he traveled from New York to SF, to Alaska to the south.  He implimented the reforms of the Church in America, convened its first Sobor with the active participation of the clergy and laity, experience he would take back to Russia to the Sobor that elected him to restore the Patriarchate (cut short by the Bolshevik revolution).  He had vicar bishops for the Arab ethnicity (St. Raphael being the first), not its Millet, and prepared for ones for the Serbs, Albanians and others.  The rites were translated into English, WRO approved,  those returning from the Vatican welcomed back, monestaries and seminaries founded.  And all this before either the EP or the CoG set an episcopal foot on this continent.

The Chief Secretary prefers to ignore this history and prefers we be ignorant of it.  Interferes with the idea of all authority flowing from the ethnarch of the Orthodox Millet.

So while the Phanar was busy making itself into a Greek episcopal cartel, the Russian were establishing a new diocese of North America.  While the Greek Phanariots were Hellenizing the Orthodox into subjects of the Sultan, the Russian mission was evangelizing new nations, the monks administrating the oath of allegiance to the Czar to them so as to extend their legal protection, protection that the Czar wrote into treaty obligations on the U.S.  While the EP was excommunicating the Orthodox as they threw off the alien ideology of dhimmitude and allegience to the Turkish despot, taking their destiny into their own hands, the Russian Church was placing the destiny of those in the lands of North America into their own hands, the Czar continuing to give gifts of vestments, Gospels and sacred implements even as he ordered his own replacement in the diptychs in favor of the authorities of THIS country.  Where unity was not a myth, as Met. Jonah points out, but a reality, until Bp/Arch/EP/Pope Meletius, the last hurrah of the Phanariot cartel came and started the tradition of ignoring that reality, a tradition on which the Chief Secretary stomps on our Fathers of these lands, as Met. Jonah points out.

Quote
Do you disagree with how the Chief Secretary describes the development of Orthodoxy in the US?

VEHEMENTLY!

Quote
Is it not true that the Orthodox in America organized themselves according to their national origin and not according to canon law?

No, it is not true: except for the EP's jurisdiction, something the GOA and the Chief Secretary admit.

Quote
It may not NOW be a diaspora, but it most certainly WAS when it developed.

Actually, no it wasn't.  Ever.

And I don't think the Chief Secretary makes your temporal distinction.  His words seem to indicate that he thought he was visiting some Crown Colony.

Quote
I don't think the Chief Secretary made that distinction clearly, but I do think that this is what he was trying to say.
 

I think I know what he wanted to say, as does Met. Jonah, but I don't think it is what you are thinking.

Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 10, 2009, 07:33:53 PM
Thank you, Isa, for showing us all how NOT to interpret the text of a speech.


You mean, take the speaker at his word?

Quote
You can interpret the speech any way you want, I guess, but it still doesn't change the fact that nowhere did Fr. Elpidophorus ever make a single explicit statement that refusal to agree with the EP's interpretation of Canon 28 is a heresy.  Let me say it again, since I'm sure you're going to try to continue arguing connections that no one else sees:  nowhere did Fr. Elpidophorus ever make a single explicit statement that refusal to agree with the EP's interpretation of Canon 28 is a heresy.



"Canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical Council is not “dead”.The correct interpretation of canon 28...[of] uninterrupted application of the canon in question during the history of the Church of Constantinople...gives certain prerogatives to the Ecumenical Patriarch....According to the 28th Canon of the 4th Ecumenical Council one of the prerogatives of the Ecumenical Patriarch is precisely His jurisdiction..if Constantinople was not given that prerogative by canon 28, how was she able to grant autocephalies and patriarchal dignities...Every administrative decision of an Ecumenical Council is equally respected to perpetuity together with its dogmatic decisions......[a] Church that does not recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate... is not included in the diptychs of the Church...In the Orthodox Church we have one primus and he is the Patriarch of Constantinople...[In] ecclesiolog[y] in the Pan-Orthodox level the principle of unity cannot be an idea nor an institution but it needs to be, if we are to be consistent with our theology, a person...the Ecumenical Patriarchate presides over these Episcopal Assemblies in order to preserve the necessary element of canonicity...because it is only in this way that both the letter and the spirit of the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils is respected....Let me add that the refusal to recognize primacy within the Orthodox Church, a primacy that necessarily cannot but be embodied by a primus (that is by a bishop who has the prerogative of being the first among his fellow bishops) constitutes nothing less than heresy"

I put it together so there is no problem of reading between the lines.


 
Quote
Your interpretation of the text is nothing more than that:  your interpretation, and it's very wrong indeed.

I'm glad that the CS seeing your Church as a non-Church, dependent on the good will of the EP rather than the grace of Jesus Christ doesn't bother you.

Don't be posting here in July "WHAT HAPPENED ??? :o ??? :o ????
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Αριστοκλής on April 10, 2009, 08:17:41 PM
Gads, man...I guess if one posts enough milarkey in massive quantities no one would dare try to refute this junk, here in the post above, and in most others of Isa's in this thread. Such bile-filled, barely concealed hatred of the Ecumenical Patriarchate is unseemly, an embarrassment.
If you feel so strongly, Isa, the patriarch will be in the USA in October. See him directly and spare us this vendetta you harbor.
I have not posted my opinion of what I think is happening here (not 'here' as in this thread, but in the circumstances leading up to this brouhaha). I will save those posts for after Holy Week.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: GreekChef on April 10, 2009, 08:21:23 PM
I'm going to break this down, so as to be able to make manageable posts while giving the answer (i.e. full) that your post desearves.  I'm not going in the order of your OP, but in the order of importance/my time to answer:



Well that's one view of history... a unique view...

Isa, my friend, I usually REALLY LOVE conversing with you.   I often find myself cheering at my computer screen when I read your posts. :) 

But, really, did you read what you wrote, just out of curiosity?  Just in case you didn't, I'll pull out a few of the choicest phrases for you to please note:

Quote
The Phanar symbolizes all the aberration that the Orthodox Church suffered during the Turcocratia, aberrations which the EP seems not to want to let go.

and

Quote
It existed as the arm of the Ottoman state to control the Orthodox subjects. It is the only other arm of the Ottoman state that still exists (the Patriarchate of the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulcher is another, and another problem).

and

Quote
The EP tried to act as the heir of the Roman Emperor, but in reality he was just an administrator, the ethnarch of the Orthodox Millet, the leash that the Sultan kept on his Orthodox subjects

and especially this particularly interesting one:

Quote
So the EP got control of all the Orthodox for his master.  The Phanar might be a ghetto in the capital, but it was the metropolis of the Orthodox.  So the grandees there tried to keep up with the nobles of Istanbul, and Orthodoxy became a flock to be sheered for the Sultan, the Phanariots taking their share. A Church of Phanariots, by Phanariots, for Phanariots.  All power and administration in their hands.  The propogandists of dhimmitude, an alien ideology, used to enslave nations to plough under the Turkish yoke to serve the imperial ambitions of the House of Osman.  Not so benevolent despots whose position depended on enforcing subservience to their masters, squashing seperate identity of the Orthodox into a Hellenic monolith to serve as a Christian alter (or sub) ego to the Turkish Muslim body politic.

The Chief Secretary seems to be ignorant, or ignoring this history. 

and this:
Quote
Aliens in their own homes, the Chief Secretary spat on each and every one of these confessors for the Orthodox Faith

as well as this:
Quote
The Chief Secretary prefers to ignore this history and prefers we be ignorant of it.  Interferes with the idea of all authority flowing from the ethnarch of the Orthodox Millet.

and this doosy:
Quote
So while the Phanar was busy making itself into a Greek episcopal cartel... While the Greek Phanariots were Hellenizing the Orthodox into subjects of the Sultan...

and this one:
Quote
While the EP was excommunicating the Orthodox as they threw off the alien ideology of dhimmitude and allegience to the Turkish despot,

and this:
Quote
until Bp/Arch/EP/Pope Meletius, the last hurrah of the Phanariot cartel came and started the tradition of ignoring that reality, a tradition on which the Chief Secretary stomps on our Fathers of these lands

I mean, I took Byzantine History, I've read the books, I'm not ignorant of how the empire rose and fell, and how the patriarch became the ethnarch, and all of that... but the twists and spins!  Wow!!!  You must be great at Twister (one of my personal favorite games)!!!   ;D ;) ;D ;)

But seriously, folks... It is difficult to wade through all of this muck in order to continue the conversation, my friend.  Just please remember that there are many on this forum who personally know and love the people at whom you are aiming such spiteful words (and I'm not just speaking of the words in THIS particular post-- it seems to be a theme in your posts these days).  And those people know that both these men (yes, men, human and imperfect as the rest of us, but Orthodox brethren nonetheless) are quite different from the way you have characterized them (basically as evil, power-hungry, wannabe popes). 

I think we could still continue this conversation and have it bear much fruit.  Are you with me, my friend?  Any chance you could restate your points a little more clearly and absent of the... uh... spiteful and bitter propaganda, so that I can respond?   ;)  I just don't really think I can respond to them the way they are (I've actually tried for like the past half hour now).  I would be grateful if you could.

Forgive me a sinner.
With love and respect in Christ...
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on April 10, 2009, 08:26:09 PM

Thank you, Isa, for showing us all how NOT to interpret the text of a speech.  You can interpret the speech any way you want, I guess, but it still doesn't change the fact that nowhere did Fr. Elpidophorus ever make a single explicit statement that refusal to agree with the EP's interpretation of Canon 28 is a heresy.  Let me say it again, since I'm sure you're going to try to continue arguing connections that no one else sees:  nowhere did Fr. Elpidophorus ever make a single explicit statement that refusal to agree with the EP's interpretation of Canon 28 is a heresy.  Your interpretation of the text is nothing more than that:  your interpretation, and it's very wrong indeed.

You are wrong to imply that the only way to interpret a person's meaning is if the person makes it explicit. That is the gold standard and nobody, who has arisen to the level of a doctorate, archimandrite, and the Chief Secretary of the Holy Synod, will likely blurt it out. However, even if the Chief Secretary had come out said "it is a heresy to disagree with my boss in this matter" and Isa reiterated what he said, there would still be folks saying, well that is YOUR interpretation.

As it so happens, we have deductive and inductive logic models that allow us to arrive at reasonable conclusions or interpretation. One may disagree with Isa, but one does not have the right to restrict his interpretation modality to "monkey see, monkey do."
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on April 10, 2009, 08:39:01 PM
Hi y'all,

Down here in the South, folks have a habit of referring at the American Civil War by other names, such as the War of Northern Aggression or The Recent Unpleasantry.  :laugh:

What I am driving at is that Isa's grim history of the Patriarchate of Constantinople is from a perspective that may not be shared by others (and obviously will not be by some of us). You can look at a glass as half full or half empty but you cannot deny some obvious facts: there is a glass and there is sufficient amount of water so that there is room for interpretation. The main problem here is really not what Isa said; the problem is whether there is some truth to what he said.

Now, he has undeniably been undiplomatic and used a broad brush. Nonetheless, I believe that he believes in the truth of what he has said. I am not going to get into the substance of what he said because I do not want to upset folks even more than they are. I hope and pray that we will all take a deep breath...at least until after Bright Monday.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 10, 2009, 08:47:29 PM
I am sure that most of us, and especially the North Americans, are taking these matters to God in prayer.  There seem to be tectonic forces at work, pushing and shifting in the dark to remake the face of Orthodoxy in America.

It may in the long run have a positive outcome but it would certainly not be a waste of time and it would be a great blessing to spend time in prayer each day to the Saints of North America.  The work which they began as missionaries and which must still be close to their hearts cries out now for their involvement from heaven in the current decision-making.

All Saints of America, pray for us   

(http://www.izograph.com/images_izo/panam.jpg)
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 10, 2009, 09:56:19 PM
I am praying that by Kwanzaa next year, all Orthodox Christians in North America will submit to the Oecumencial Throne and end this rank disobedience.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Jetavan on April 10, 2009, 10:32:03 PM
Hi y'all,

Down here in the South, folks have a habit of referring at the American Civil War by other names, such as the War of Northern Aggression or The Recent Unpleasantry.  :laugh:

What we've got here is, a failure to communicate.

What's so "civil" about war, anyway? :o
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 10, 2009, 11:10:45 PM
I am praying that by Kwanzaa next year, all Orthodox Christians in North America will submit to the Oecumencial Throne and end this rank disobedience.

And the rest of the diasphoria?  Us in New Zealand?   We don't have to submit?
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: John of the North on April 10, 2009, 11:19:18 PM
I am praying that by Kwanzaa next year, all Orthodox Christians in North America will submit to the Oecumencial Throne and end this rank disobedience.

And the rest of the diasphoria?  Us in New Zealand?   We don't have to submit?

You are not in the United States, you don't matter....

[sarcasm] I for one will be campaigning for the autocephaly of the Kenyan Orthodox Church...they are unified, use the same language, are developing their own liturgical style, and are numerous.... [/sarcasm]
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 10, 2009, 11:20:48 PM
I am sure that most of us, and especially the North Americans, are taking these matters to God in prayer.  There seem to be tectonic forces at work, pushing and shifting in the dark to remake the face of Orthodoxy in America.

I just spoke with a bishop who is involved in the midst of all this.  Yes, a clash of titans is in the works.

Quote
It may in the long run have a positive outcome

Of that there is not doubt.  As Fr. Carapi says, why do you worry about the world?  We know how the story ends. :)

I see that while you were posting this Father, I was reading the lection to my sons.  The ending of Genesis, where Joseph points out that what his brother meant for evil, God intended for good.  The problems of the OCA coming to a head, the Romanian jurisdiction talks in the US, the upcoming meeting of the Antiochians and then the meeting in Cyprus, coming on the heels of the reunion of ROCOR with Russia, and in the midst of the legal victory of the EP over the orphanage (not so much over the property, but the precedence it sets for legal personhood of the See of Constantinople: international legal incorporation is the solution of most, if not all, his problems there).  I have no doubt that men are implimenting their agendas and God is executing His designs.  I'm not worried about the outcome, just our responsibility to it.

Quote
but it would certainly not be a waste of time and it would be a great blessing to spend time in prayer each day to the Saints of North America.

My old priest said that when he would go to Russia during the days of communist repression, the old ladies used to ask him "do people pray in the United States?"  When he told them that yes they did, they would weep and thank him for letting them know that their prayers for the Americans weren't wasted: they feared the atheists had got them.  I've had the honor several times in Egypt, in areas where a cross can get you killed, of briniging the good news that yes, people in the U.S. do go to Church.  The Copts were quite worried that the Muslims had seduced the Americans. It is the prayers of such confessors that keeps us the pampered, who can take going to DL for granted, going.

Quote
The work which they began as missionaries and which must still be close to their hearts cries out now for their involvement from heaven in the current decision-making.


Quote
St. Tikhon, Bishop of the Aleutian Islands and North America
Farewell Sermon
Preached on the Sunday of Orthodoxy
at the New York City Cathedral

This Sunday is called “The Sunday of Orthodoxy” or “The Triumph of Orthodoxy,” since on this day the Holy Church solemnly commemorates her victory over Iconoclasm and other heresies.  And this triumph of Orthodoxy took place not just a thousand years ago.  No – for due to the mercy of God, the Church up to this day, now here and now there, gains victory and is triumphant over her enemies – and She has many of them.

It is not a coincidence that the Church is likened to a ship, sailing amidst a ferocious, stormy sea which is ready to drown it in its waves.  And the further the ship sails, the harder the waves slam against it, the fiercer they attack it!  But the harder the waves hit the ship, the further they are thrown away and rejoin the abyss and disappear in it, and the ship continues its triumphant sailing as before.  For “the foundation of God standeth sure” (2 Tim. 2:19), since the Church of Christ is built on an immovable rock, and “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18).  

The Church of Christ is the kingdom not of this world.  It does not possess any of the attractions of the earthly world.  It is persecuted and slandered.  Yet it not only avoids perishing in the world, but grows and defeats the world!  This happens everywhere, and here in our land as well.  “We cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard” (Act 4:20).  

It is true that our Church here cannot boast of the quantity of its members, neither of their erudition.  Just like the “preaching of Christ crucified” (1 Cor. 1:23), for some it seems lowly and contemptible, and for others it seems simple and foolish, but in reality “God’s power and wisdom” [1 Cor. 1:24] are concealed in it.  It is strong and rich with the authenticity of the doctrine which has been preserved unaltered, with full adherence to the guiding regulations of the Church, a deep sense of liturgical service, and a plenitude of grace.  And with all of this it is gradually attracting the hearts of people, and it is growing and getting stronger more and more in this country.  

You brethren have witnessed and seen for yourselves the growth and strengthening of Orthodoxy here.  Just a mere twelve to fifteen years ago, we, aside from faraway Alaska, barely had any churches here.  There were no priests, and the Orthodox people numbered only in a few dozens and maybe a few hundreds.  And even they lived dispersed, far from one another.  

And now?  “The Orthodox are seen this day in this country.”  Our temples appear not only in big cities but in obscure places as well.  We have a multitude of clergy, and tens of thousands of faithful – and not only those who have been Orthodox for a while, but those who have converted from among the Uniates.  Schools are opened, the brotherhoods are established.  Even strangers acknowledge the success of Orthodoxy here.  So how can we ourselves not celebrate “The Triumph of Orthodoxy,” and not thank the Lord who helps His Church!

But it is not enough, brethren, to only celebrate “The Triumph of Orthodoxy.”  It is necessary for us personally to promote and contribute to this triumph.  And for this we must reverently preserve the Orthodox Faith, standing firm in it in spite of the fact that we live in a non-Orthodox country, and not pleading as an excuse for our apostasy that “it is not the old land here but America, a free country, and therefore it is impossible to follow everything that the Church requires.”  As if the word of Christ is only suitable for the old land and not for the entire world!  As if the Church of Christ is not “catholic”!  As if the Orthodox Faith did not “establish the universe”!  

Furthermore, while faithfully preserving the Orthodox Faith, everyone must also take care to spread it among the non-Orthodox.  Christ the Savior said that having lit the candle, men do not put it under a bushel but on a candlestick so that it gives light to all (Matt. 5:15).  The light of the Orthodox Faith has not been lit to shine only for a small circle of people.  No, the Orthodox Church is catholic; she remembers the commandment of her Founder, “Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature and teach all nations” (Mark 16:15, Matt. 28:19).  

We must share our spiritual richness, truth, light, and joy with others who do not have these blessings.  And this duty does not only lay upon the pastors and the missionaries but on the lay persons as well, since the Church of Christ, according to the wise comparison of the Holy Apostle Paul, is the body, and every member takes part in the life of the body.  By means of all sorts of mutually binding bonds which are formed and strengthened through the action of every member according to his capacity, the great Church body receives an increase unto the edifying of itself (Eph. 4:16).  

In the first centuries it was not only the pastors who were tortured, but lay persons as well – men, women, and even children.  And it was lay people likewise who enlightened the heathen and fought heresies.  And now in the same way, the spreading of the Faith should be a matter that is personal, heartfelt, and dear to each one of us.  Every member of the Church must take an active part in it – some by personal podvig spreading the Good News, some by material donations and service to “the needs of the holy persons,” and some by profuse prayer to the Lord that He “keep His Church firm and multiply it” – and concerning those unaware of Christ, that He would “proclaim the word of truth to them, open to them the Gospel of Truth, and join them to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.”  I have told this numerous times to my flock.  And today, upon my departing from this land, I once more command all of you to preserve and act upon this, and especially you brethren of this holy temple.  

You witnessed yourself last Sunday that “The foreknowledge of God drew you closer to the bishop’s cathedra, and that the awareness of this closeness elevates your Christian spirit and edifies the nature of your undertakings, inspiring you for everything good.”  Your temple is a Cathedral.  It is preeminent in the diocese.  And being its parishioners, you brethren must give others an example in everything good that concerns the life of the Church, including caring for the Orthodox Faith.  

Furthermore, your parish is Russian, almost entirely consisting of people who came from Russia.  And to this very day Russia has been famous as a holy Christian land, whose adornment is the Orthodox Faith, the piousness of her people, and her temples of God.  So brethren, uphold here in a foreign land the glory of your motherland.  Manifest yourselves before the non-Orthodox as the Russian Orthodox people.  

I can say with comfort that in these days, with your zealous attendance at our temple, you’ve made a good impression on the local residents.  And you have especially gladdened my heart and expelled the sadness and grief which was felt not only by me in other places at the sight of empty temples during the feastday Church services.  

May the Lord strengthen you to excel in the Orthodox Faith more and more – my last prayer is about this . . . Today I depart from you.  And so, farewell, fathers and brethren of this holy temple, who are close to me not only in spirit but in our joint prayers, labors, and residence!  Farewell to you, the rest of my flock scattered across the wide horizon of this land!  Farewell, all those of you wandering in the deserts, working in the mountains and in the depths of the earth, and those on the islands far out in the sea!

Farewell to you, my Cathedral temple!  You are dear and close to me.  It has been during the time of my service that you were opened, you were adorned during my time as well, and you were made a cathedral during my time.  Perhaps for some who have seen the large, magnificent temples in Russia, you might seem small and modest, and you do not shine with gold and silver and precious gemstones like those temples do.  But for Russian Orthodox people, who suffered here for a long time without a temple, you represent a precious treasure, and they rejoice that they have you – like the Jews who returned from the Babylonian captivity rejoiced at the time of the construction of the second temple, even though it was not as splendid as that of Solomon.  So:

“Oh Lord, the God of Israel!  May Thine eyes be open toward this house night and day, that Thou mayest hearken unto the prayer of Thy people when they shall pray in this place! . . . Moreover, concerning a stranger that is not of Thy people, when he shall come and pray in this house, hear Thou him from Heaven, Thy dwelling place!” (3 Kingdoms 8:26-27, 39-41).

Farewell to you, this country!  For some you are the motherland, the place of birth; for others you gave shelter, work, and well-being.  Some received the freedom to profess the right Faith in your liberal land. God spoke in ancient times through the prophet, “And seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the Lord for it: for in the peace thereof shall you have peace” (Jer. 29:7; Hebrew text).

And so, let us pray to the Lord that He send this country “a plenitude of the earthly fruits, fair weather, timely rain and wind, and preserve it from the cowardly, flood, fire, sword, invasion of foreigners, and civil strife.”

Let God’s blessing be upon this country, this city, and this temple.  And let “the blessing of the Lord, with grace and love for man,” rest upon you all, “now and ever and unto the ages of ages.  Amen.”
http://oca15aac.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/st-tikhon-of-moscow%E2%80%99s-last-sermon/

Quote
All Saints of America, pray for us   

Amen!

Always loved that icon.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 10, 2009, 11:35:30 PM
I am praying that by Kwanzaa next year, all Orthodox Christians in North America will submit to the Oecumencial Throne and end this rank disobedience.

And the rest of the diasphoria?  Us in New Zealand?   We don't have to submit?

You are not in the United States, you don't matter....

[sarcasm] I for one will be campaigning for the autocephaly of the Kenyan Orthodox Church...they are unified, use the same language, are developing their own liturgical style, and are numerous.... [/sarcasm]

Careful, like Seinfeld and the Latvian Orthodox, you will find out that the Kenyan Orthodox exist:
(http://www.conciliarpress.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/5e06319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d/0/0/005855.gif)
http://www.conciliarpress.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/5e06319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d/0/0/005855.gif
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Fr. George on April 10, 2009, 11:43:03 PM
Careful, like Seinfeld and the Latvian Orthodox, you will find out that the Kenyan Orthodox exist:

Heck, I went to theological school with them (one was one of my closest friends there).  Great hearts, great zeal.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: John of the North on April 11, 2009, 12:13:56 AM
I am praying that by Kwanzaa next year, all Orthodox Christians in North America will submit to the Oecumencial Throne and end this rank disobedience.

And the rest of the diasphoria?  Us in New Zealand?   We don't have to submit?

You are not in the United States, you don't matter....

[sarcasm] I for one will be campaigning for the autocephaly of the Kenyan Orthodox Church...they are unified, use the same language, are developing their own liturgical style, and are numerous.... [/sarcasm]

Careful, like Seinfeld and the Latvian Orthodox, you will find out that the Kenyan Orthodox exist:
(http://www.conciliarpress.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/5e06319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d/0/0/005855.gif)
http://www.conciliarpress.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/5e06319eda06f020e43594a9c230972d/0/0/005855.gif

I know they exist. That's why I said it. ;)
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: minasoliman on April 11, 2009, 12:15:02 AM
I am praying that by Kwanzaa next year, all Orthodox Christians in North America will submit to the Oecumencial Throne and end this rank disobedience.

And by Hanukah the Oecumenical Throne will end his rank of disobedience and give Coptic Alexandria the honor!

And then by New Years, we'll party at the Tiki gods' place.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 11, 2009, 03:24:57 PM
Thank you, Isa, for showing us all how NOT to interpret the text of a speech.

You mean, take the speaker at his word?
What word?  The one you gave him?

Quote
You can interpret the speech any way you want, I guess, but it still doesn't change the fact that nowhere did Fr. Elpidophorus ever make a single explicit statement that refusal to agree with the EP's interpretation of Canon 28 is a heresy.  Let me say it again, since I'm sure you're going to try to continue arguing connections that no one else sees:  nowhere did Fr. Elpidophorus ever make a single explicit statement that refusal to agree with the EP's interpretation of Canon 28 is a heresy.



"Canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical Council is not “dead”.The correct interpretation of canon 28...[of] uninterrupted application of the canon in question during the history of the Church of Constantinople...gives certain prerogatives to the Ecumenical Patriarch....According to the 28th Canon of the 4th Ecumenical Council one of the prerogatives of the Ecumenical Patriarch is precisely His jurisdiction..if Constantinople was not given that prerogative by canon 28, how was she able to grant autocephalies and patriarchal dignities...Every administrative decision of an Ecumenical Council is equally respected to perpetuity together with its dogmatic decisions......[a] Church that does not recognize the Ecumenical Patriarchate... is not included in the diptychs of the Church...In the Orthodox Church we have one primus and he is the Patriarch of Constantinople...[In] ecclesiolog[y] in the Pan-Orthodox level the principle of unity cannot be an idea nor an institution but it needs to be, if we are to be consistent with our theology, a person...the Ecumenical Patriarchate presides over these Episcopal Assemblies in order to preserve the necessary element of canonicity...because it is only in this way that both the letter and the spirit of the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils is respected....Let me add that the refusal to recognize primacy within the Orthodox Church, a primacy that necessarily cannot but be embodied by a primus (that is by a bishop who has the prerogative of being the first among his fellow bishops) constitutes nothing less than heresy"

I put it together so there is no problem of reading between the lines.
Yes, I have read the text of this speech and your interpretations of this text three times now.  I am quite capable of reading it correctly without your help.  You see, I don't read between the lines as you do.  That which constitutes nothing less than heresy, according to the speech, is the understanding that primacy need not be embodied in the person of a primus.  NOWHERE in the speech is this term "heresy" applied directly and explicitly to anyone's interpretation of Chalcedon Canon 28.  If you have to read it into the speech, as you very clearly do, then it just ain't there.

Quote
Your interpretation of the text is nothing more than that:  your interpretation, and it's very wrong indeed.

I'm glad that the CS seeing your Church as a non-Church, dependent on the good will of the EP rather than the grace of Jesus Christ doesn't bother you.
non sequitur, since I said no such thing.  Just another piece of evidence that you are just incapable of reading anyone's words according to their literal meaning, that you have to read your own prejudices and conclusions into everything anyone else says.

Don't be posting here in July "WHAT HAPPENED ??? :o ??? :o ????
Who cares?
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 11, 2009, 03:33:15 PM

Thank you, Isa, for showing us all how NOT to interpret the text of a speech.  You can interpret the speech any way you want, I guess, but it still doesn't change the fact that nowhere did Fr. Elpidophorus ever make a single explicit statement that refusal to agree with the EP's interpretation of Canon 28 is a heresy.  Let me say it again, since I'm sure you're going to try to continue arguing connections that no one else sees:  nowhere did Fr. Elpidophorus ever make a single explicit statement that refusal to agree with the EP's interpretation of Canon 28 is a heresy.  Your interpretation of the text is nothing more than that:  your interpretation, and it's very wrong indeed.

You are wrong to imply that the only way to interpret a person's meaning is if the person makes it explicit.
Actually, I never said or even meant to imply this.  Within the context of my debate with Ialmisry, which is how the statement to which you responded is to be understood, I needed to refute his assertion that Fr. Elpidophorus called disagreement with the EP's interpretation of Chalcedon Canon 28 heresy.  Fr. Elpidophorus said no such thing, nor do the words of his speech even imply this.  In this particular case, Ialmisry's interpretation of the text is dead wrong, and I needed to tell him so.

That is the gold standard and nobody, who has arisen to the level of a doctorate, archimandrite, and the Chief Secretary of the Holy Synod, will likely blurt it out. However, even if the Chief Secretary had come out said "it is a heresy to disagree with my boss in this matter" and Isa reiterated what he said, there would still be folks saying, well that is YOUR interpretation.

As it so happens, we have deductive and inductive logic models that allow us to arrive at reasonable conclusions or interpretation. One may disagree with Isa, but one does not have the right to restrict his interpretation modality to "monkey see, monkey do."
Whether I have the right to do so or not is irrelevant.  Ialmisry's interpretation of Fr. Elpidophorus's recent speech is flat out wrong and needs to be corrected.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ozgeorge on April 11, 2009, 03:39:21 PM
(http://www.sffba.net/forum/images/smilies/pop.gif)

Proverbs 1:24-33 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%201:24-33;&version=50;)
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: iustinos on April 11, 2009, 03:42:01 PM
For anyone participating in this debate or interested in these issues, I think it's imperative to listen to Met. Jonah's interview on this subject given this week to Ancient Faith Radio.  I think it gives a slightly broader context to his statements.

http://www.oca.org/news/1815
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: serb1389 on April 11, 2009, 04:05:41 PM
For anyone participating in this debate or interested in these issues, I think it's imperative to listen to Met. Jonah's interview on this subject given this week to Ancient Faith Radio.  I think it gives a slightly broader context to his statements.

http://www.oca.org/news/1815

Too little too late.  He should have given context before he went out and just blurted whatever he felt like.   :-\
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: 88Devin12 on April 11, 2009, 04:56:27 PM
For anyone participating in this debate or interested in these issues, I think it's imperative to listen to Met. Jonah's interview on this subject given this week to Ancient Faith Radio.  I think it gives a slightly broader context to his statements.

http://www.oca.org/news/1815

Too little too late.  He should have given context before he went out and just blurted whatever he felt like.   :-\

That's the American spirit of forgiveness!!!  ::)

Seriously though, just forgive him (if you feel he has reason to be forgiven)...
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: GreekChef on April 11, 2009, 05:41:29 PM
This was the +JONAH I was hoping to hear.  Well thought out, gracious, graceful, articulate, and loving.

I have a couple concerns with his points, but am thrilled to hear him speak in a more loving and respectful manner.

Firstly, his point that the difficulty of uniting the Church in America (and I'm paraphrasing here) is in doing it in a way that alienates no one.  I think this is a key point.  He is very concerned about the laity, obviously, and thank God.  But I think that this has to be applied not only to the laity of the OCA, but that of ALL the jurisdictions (I'm not saying he meant it for only the OCA, I'm just making a general point here).  I'm willing to forgive and forget the manner and tone of his pan-Orthodox sermon, personally (chalk it up to the purple demons of Lent).  But it is more the general issue that concerns me.  I have no problem with seeing the dance troupes, Greek schools, Greek celebrations, etc. put aside (or at least into proper perspective), but I do NOT want to see a loss of the liturgical traditions, be they Greek (from the Byzantine tradition), Antiochian, or Russian (or any other liturgical traditions).  By traditions I don't mean language, I mean the manner and style of serving by the priests, musical traditions, architectural traditions, etc.

Secondly, he puts forth the OCA not as the ACTUAL Church to be adhered to (in other words, you don't have to join the OCA per se), but rather as the MODEL for unity.  I'm glad that he has made a clear distinction that we don't have to all come under the OCA.  I think that would make many uncomfortable.  However, I would prefer to see SCOBA as the administrative model, personally, whether +DEMETRIOS is at the head or not.  I personally like the way SCOBA functions and, considering all the problems the OCA has had in recent years, I think SCOBA is the more practical model.  That's nothing personal toward the OCA at all (I personally love the OCA, as my former father confessor was from the OCA and I felt loved, accepted, and very at home in his parish).

Thirdly, he offers a rather unOrthodox idea of conciliarity... that being one of the hierarchs AS WELL AS clergy and laity.  This concerns me DEEPLY for two reasons.  One, the Tradition of the Church (until the recent developments in the Russian tradition that he points out) has ALWAYS been one of hierarchical conciliarity.  This is one of those times when I think bucking against the tradition of the church that has prevailed for 2000 years could be dangerous.  Two, frankly, I don't trust the laity (myself included).  I think that has too much potential for mob rule, and not the work of the Holy Spirit.  I would have less of a problem with the hierarchs and clergy (absent of the laity).  But I think there's something EXTREMELY important to be said for not only theological education (which all of our hierarchs and clergy have, but a sad few of the laity have), but the GRACE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, WHICH HEALS THAT WHICH IS INFIRM AND FILLS THAT WHICH IS LACKING (to paraphrase the prayer of ordination).  That grace is given ONLY to clergy/hierarchs, not to laity.  And to blur those lines is terribly dangerous. 

Fourthly, along the same lines of conciliarity, he presents, again, this idea of a synod, and throws in the primate as an afterthought.  This concerns me.  I would really like to hear more from him as to what he feels the role of the primate would be.  Would it be ONLY symbolic/liturgical?  Or would it, in fact, also be administrative?  Where is the line drawn?

Fifthly, his general characterization of the EP and the Greek Churches in America (by his implications) still concern me and strike me as fear mongering, to some extent.  This is because, when he was talking about the EP and then moved on to synods, he made it sound as though the EP functions absent of a synod, as though he is a pope.  This is, of course, terribly incorrect and, frankly, misleading.  He said (again paraphrasing-- I took notes, btw), that it is critical for church worldwide to have truly active EP who reflects the true diversity of Orthodoxy worldwide... this can only be done by entire synod...  This is misleading people to think that there is NO Patriarchal synod, or that the Patriarchal synod is not diverse.  On the contrary, there IS a Patriarchal synod, and it is made up of bishops from all over the world, who routinely rotate in and out, so that the diversity is ALWAYS changing (there is always a bishop from the US on the synod, btw). 

I think that's it for now.  I'm going to try to transcribe the entire conversation tonight and post it here, if I have the time following vespers.  I am REALLY eager to hear what everyone else thinks!!!

Though I do wish his last one had been delivered in this manner and not as it was, and though I may disagree with a few of his points, this is one conversation that, for his loving and gentle delivery, I am proud to say AXIOS to His Beatitude +JONAH for!
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 11, 2009, 06:12:14 PM
Too little too late.  He should have given context before he went out and just blurted whatever he felt like.   :-\

I do not believe that a man of his intellectual calibre just "blurted out" his thoughts at a sermon delivered at a pan-Orthodox service where there were dozens of priests in attendance.

Nor do I think that the priests were such kindergarten people that he needed to spend half an hour leading them through the context.

Let's not dumb down either the clergy or the Metropolitan.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: iustinos on April 11, 2009, 06:27:20 PM
This was the +JONAH I was hoping to hear.  Well thought out, gracious, graceful, articulate, and loving.

I have a couple concerns with his points, but am thrilled to hear him speak in a more loving and respectful manner.

Firstly, his point that the difficulty of uniting the Church in America (and I'm paraphrasing here) is in doing it in a way that alienates no one.  I think this is a key point.  He is very concerned about the laity, obviously, and thank God.  But I think that this has to be applied not only to the laity of the OCA, but that of ALL the jurisdictions (I'm not saying he meant it for only the OCA, I'm just making a general point here).  I'm willing to forgive and forget the manner and tone of his pan-Orthodox sermon, personally (chalk it up to the purple demons of Lent).  But it is more the general issue that concerns me.  I have no problem with seeing the dance troupes, Greek schools, Greek celebrations, etc. put aside (or at least into proper perspective), but I do NOT want to see a loss of the liturgical traditions, be they Greek (from the Byzantine tradition), Antiochian, or Russian (or any other liturgical traditions).  By traditions I don't mean language, I mean the manner and style of serving by the priests, musical traditions, architectural traditions, etc.

Presvytera--I think His Beatitude would agree with you, based on prior conversations I've had with him.

Quote
Secondly, he puts forth the OCA not as the ACTUAL Church to be adhered to (in other words, you don't have to join the OCA per se), but rather as the MODEL for unity.  I'm glad that he has made a clear distinction that we don't have to all come under the OCA.  I think that would make many uncomfortable.  However, I would prefer to see SCOBA as the administrative model, personally, whether +DEMETRIOS is at the head or not.  I personally like the way SCOBA functions and, considering all the problems the OCA has had in recent years, I think SCOBA is the more practical model.  That's nothing personal toward the OCA at all (I personally love the OCA, as my former father confessor was from the OCA and I felt loved, accepted, and very at home in his parish).

I don't disagree that it could start with SCOBA.  The problem of course is that SCOBA is not a canonical synod--it's a combination task force and discussion group.  SCOBA would have to change fundamentally and significantly to become an actual synod as envisioned in the canons.  If it can do that successfully and effectively, wonderful.

Quote
  Thirdly, he offers a rather unOrthodox idea of conciliarity... that being one of the hierarchs AS WELL AS clergy and laity.  This concerns me DEEPLY for two reasons.  One, the Tradition of the Church (until the recent developments in the Russian tradition that he points out) has ALWAYS been one of hierarchical conciliarity.  This is one of those times when I think bucking against the tradition of the church that has prevailed for 2000 years could be dangerous.  Two, frankly, I don't trust the laity (myself included).  I think that has too much potential for mob rule, and not the work of the Holy Spirit.  I would have less of a problem with the hierarchs and clergy (absent of the laity).  But I think there's something EXTREMELY important to be said for not only theological education (which all of our hierarchs and clergy have, but a sad few of the laity have), but the GRACE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, WHICH HEALS THAT WHICH IS INFIRM AND FILLS THAT WHICH IS LACKING (to paraphrase the prayer of ordination).  That grace is given ONLY to clergy/hierarchs, not to laity.  And to blur those lines is terribly dangerous. 
I think it's a unfair to describe the model he presents as unorthodox.  If by unorthodox you mean that it does not comport with the model the eventually developed under the Byzantine empire and has continued to today in most synods, you are right.  But I don't think that such a model is necessary under the canons, nor is it the way the Church functioned at other, mainly earlier, times.  I think that before throwing out an allegation such as "unOrthodox", a little more study and consideration is necessary.  See immediately below in that regard.

Quote
Fourthly, along the same lines of conciliarity, he presents, again, this idea of a synod, and throws in the primate as an afterthought.  This concerns me.  I would really like to hear more from him as to what he feels the role of the primate would be.  Would it be ONLY symbolic/liturgical?  Or would it, in fact, also be administrative?  Where is the line drawn?

See his paper presented last June, his recent address to the Metropolitan council, and the paper he posted this week on conciliarity.  I think they give a good sense of his opinion on this.

Quote
Fifthly, his general characterization of the EP and the Greek Churches in America (by his implications) still concern me and strike me as fear mongering, to some extent.  This is because, when he was talking about the EP and then moved on to synods, he made it sound as though the EP functions absent of a synod, as though he is a pope.  This is, of course, terribly incorrect and, frankly, misleading.  He said (again paraphrasing-- I took notes, btw), that it is critical for church worldwide to have truly active EP who reflects the true diversity of Orthodoxy worldwide... this can only be done by entire synod...  This is misleading people to think that there is NO Patriarchal synod, or that the Patriarchal synod is not diverse.  On the contrary, there IS a Patriarchal synod, and it is made up of bishops from all over the world, who routinely rotate in and out, so that the diversity is ALWAYS changing (there is always a bishop from the US on the synod, btw). 

By way of a very limited response, am I not correct that the inclusion at all times of one bishop from the GOAA on the Ecumenical Synod is a recent change?  I seem to recall that this is the case.  Although right now there are three American bishops---Mets. Isaiah, Nikitas, and Paisios (only one of which is in the GOAA).  Also, how many of the bishops on the Synod are not Greek by ethnicity, despite having under the Ecumenical Patriarch Ukrainian, Russian, Carpathos Rusyn, Albanian, and, well, Estonian bishops?  I believe, though I could be wrong, that the answer is zero.  The inclusion of such in the synod on an on-going basis would certainly go a long way toward dispelling the impression many, not just Met. Jonah, have that the Holy Patriarchal Synod is not very reflective of the diversity within the patriarchate, much less all of Orthodoxy.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: serb1389 on April 11, 2009, 07:02:05 PM
For anyone participating in this debate or interested in these issues, I think it's imperative to listen to Met. Jonah's interview on this subject given this week to Ancient Faith Radio.  I think it gives a slightly broader context to his statements.

http://www.oca.org/news/1815

Too little too late.  He should have given context before he went out and just blurted whatever he felt like.   :-\

That's the American spirit of forgiveness!!!  ::)

Seriously though, just forgive him (if you feel he has reason to be forgiven)...

Nothing to forgive, he didn't do anything to me.  Sorry he didn't do anything to me so...
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on April 11, 2009, 07:02:48 PM
This was the +JONAH I was hoping to hear.  Well thought out, gracious, graceful, articulate, and loving. I have a couple concerns with his points, but am thrilled to hear him speak in a more loving and respectful manner.

Firstly, his point that the difficulty of uniting the Church in America (and I'm paraphrasing here) is in doing it in a way that alienates no one.  I think this is a key point.  He is very concerned about the laity, obviously, and thank God.  But I think that this has to be applied not only to the laity of the OCA, but that of ALL the jurisdictions (I'm not saying he meant it for only the OCA, I'm just making a general point here).  I'm willing to forgive and forget the manner and tone of his pan-Orthodox sermon, personally (chalk it up to the purple demons of Lent).  But it is more the general issue that concerns me.  I have no problem with seeing the dance troupes, Greek schools, Greek celebrations, etc. put aside (or at least into proper perspective), but I do NOT want to see a loss of the liturgical traditions, be they Greek (from the Byzantine tradition), Antiochian, or Russian (or any other liturgical traditions).  By traditions I don't mean language, I mean the manner and style of serving by the priests, musical traditions, architectural traditions, etc.

I think that Metropolitan Jonah would agree with you 100%.

Quote
Secondly, he puts forth the OCA not as the ACTUAL Church to be adhered to (in other words, you don't have to join the OCA per se), but rather as the MODEL for unity.  I'm glad that he has made a clear distinction that we don't have to all come under the OCA.  I think that would make many uncomfortable.  However, I would prefer to see SCOBA as the administrative model, personally, whether +DEMETRIOS is at the head or not.  I personally like the way SCOBA functions and, considering all the problems the OCA has had in recent years, I think SCOBA is the more practical model.  That's nothing personal toward the OCA at all (I personally love the OCA, as my former father confessor was from the OCA and I felt loved, accepted, and very at home in his parish).

The ecclesiastical model that +Jonah is advocating is "diocese heavy/national light." He very much likes the prescription of Saint Ignatius of Antioch; his second paper on conciliarity (at the OCA web site) is a must read to understand his thinking in this regard. In this paper and others he has severely criticized top-down management at the national level, particularly at OCA under the previous two primates. I think that the SCOBA-as-it-was-envisioned model may be close to what he is thinking about for the national level. But the real action would remain at the diocesan level.

Quote
Thirdly, he offers a rather unOrthodox idea of conciliarity... that being one of the hierarchs AS WELL AS clergy and laity.  This concerns me DEEPLY for two reasons.  One, the Tradition of the Church (until the recent developments in the Russian tradition that he points out) has ALWAYS been one of hierarchical conciliarity.  This is one of those times when I think bucking against the tradition of the church that has prevailed for 2000 years could be dangerous.  Two, frankly, I don't trust the laity (myself included).  I think that has too much potential for mob rule, and not the work of the Holy Spirit.  I would have less of a problem with the hierarchs and clergy (absent of the laity).  But I think there's something EXTREMELY important to be said for not only theological education (which all of our hierarchs and clergy have, but a sad few of the laity have), but the GRACE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, WHICH HEALS THAT WHICH IS INFIRM AND FILLS THAT WHICH IS LACKING (to paraphrase the prayer of ordination).  That grace is given ONLY to clergy/hierarchs, not to laity.  And to blur those lines is terribly dangerous. 

Here our views must diverge. We do not have an unbroken 2,000 years of monarchical church government, although I would grant you that it has been that way for most of that time. This monarchical regimen was occasioned by the church becoming part of the state infrastructure. The monarchical model actually got worse under the Ottomans when the Patriarch of Constantinople became a vassal of the Sultan and the ethnarch for all Orthodox in the Ottoman Empire (central-western Anatolia and European parts). The best that I can say is that the Holy Spirit stayed with the church in spite of its ecclesiology and leadership.  

Regarding the laity, you make a claim that I had not heard before save when Martin Luther objected to the Roman See's division of the laos into two species: the clergy and the laity. On my part, I have read too many verses that talks about the grace and gifts of the Holy Spirit that is given to everybody to be able to agree with you. Now, it is undeniably true that the gifts of the Holy Spirit are different for different people and functions. It is also true that the clergy receive particular charisma that enables them to fulfill their functions, and that only priests and bishops get special charisma and gifts at their ordination. This distinction does not make the laity into a different and inferior species of believers or untermensch. BTW, it was "mob rule" that saved Orthodoxy in at least two occasions in the distant pass, and most recently in the catacomb church in the Soviet Union.

Quote
Fourthly, along the same lines of conciliarity, he presents, again, this idea of a synod, and throws in the primate as an afterthought.  This concerns me.  I would really like to hear more from him as to what he feels the role of the primate would be.  Would it be ONLY symbolic/liturgical?  Or would it, in fact, also be administrative?  Where is the line drawn?

As I said above, +Jonah means to minimize the role of the primate. If you look at this pragmatically, you could see that unity, not in uniformity but in complementary variety, would be accomplished much easier and better without a strong primacy.

Quote
Fifthly, his general characterization of the EP and the Greek Churches in America (by his implications) still concern me and strike me as fear mongering, to some extent.  This is because, when he was talking about the EP and then moved on to synods, he made it sound as though the EP functions absent of a synod, as though he is a pope.  This is, of course, terribly incorrect and, frankly, misleading.  He said (again paraphrasing-- I took notes, btw), that it is critical for church worldwide to have truly active EP who reflects the true diversity of Orthodoxy worldwide... this can only be done by entire synod...  This is misleading people to think that there is NO Patriarchal synod, or that the Patriarchal synod is not diverse.  On the contrary, there IS a Patriarchal synod, and it is made up of bishops from all over the world, who routinely rotate in and out, so that the diversity is ALWAYS changing (there is always a bishop from the US on the synod, btw).

I think his understanding of the future North American synod he has in mind is different than the Patriarchate of Constantinople, First of all, he does not think much of bishops without flocks. Secondly, his point of reference is the diocese, not the Patriarchate. Thirdly, he envisions a much more diverse synod. On the last point, contrast a possible North American synod that is composed of American, Canadian, Arab, Greek, Bulgarian, Serbia, Russian and Ukrainian diocesan bishops to the Holy Synod in Constantinople where most of the members are much more homogeneous.

On a personal note, I really admire your resiliency and Christian charity, and wish you a blessed Holy Week and Pascha. And, in case we do not communicate in the interim, Christ is risen!
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Schultz on April 11, 2009, 09:03:28 PM
For anyone participating in this debate or interested in these issues, I think it's imperative to listen to Met. Jonah's interview on this subject given this week to Ancient Faith Radio.  I think it gives a slightly broader context to his statements.

http://www.oca.org/news/1815

Too little too late.  He should have given context before he went out and just blurted whatever he felt like.   :-\

I'm glad you're not God. :-\
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: orthodoxlurker on April 11, 2009, 10:17:29 PM
Quote from: serb1389 link=topic=20605.msg309364#msg309364 date=1239373498

You might want to be a little more careful here.  What he said was:
[/quote

Here is what he said, and my comments red[/red] of his beliefs that I reject blue:

Quote
Let me add that the refusal to recognize primacy within the Orthodox Church, a primacy that necessarily cannot but be embodied by a primus (that is by a bishop who has the prerogative of being the first among his fellow bishops) constitutes nothing less than heresy. It cannot be accepted, as often it is said, that the unity among the Orthodox Churches is safeguarded by either a common norm of faith and worship or by the Ecumenical Council as an institution.That's exactly what I believe Both of these factors are impersonal while in our Orthodox theology the principle of unity is always a person.(I'd like to see the sources for this claim, a bit more authoritative than The Very Revered Secretary of His All Divine Most Holiness.) Indeed, in the level of the Holy Trinity the principle of unity is not the divine essence but the Person of the Father (“Monarchy” of the Father),(Since the Holy Trinity is incomprehensible, while the Church is a union of all faithful of all times with Christ as her head, with Christ as Beginning and End, I particularly reject his analogy with the Holy Trinity) at the ecclesiological level of the local Church the principle of unity is not the presbyterium or the common worship of the Christians but the person of the Bishop(Yet another false analogy that I reject - bishop is indeed the point of gathering of the faithful of one place in one time - but we are union of all times) so to in the Pan-Orthodox level the principle of unity cannot be an idea nor an institution but it needs to be, if we are to be consistent with our theology, a person.Here comes to mind a very accurate comment of the Greek Archbishop of Austrialia upon the explanation of one of his colleagues of the same Synod "Does he think we are stupid?"

Definitely, Very Revered Secretary of His Most Divine Holliens and myself do not hold the same Faith.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 11, 2009, 11:09:54 PM
This was the +JONAH I was hoping to hear.  Well thought out, gracious, graceful, articulate, and loving.

I have a couple concerns with his points, but am thrilled to hear him speak in a more loving and respectful manner.

Firstly, his point that the difficulty of uniting the Church in America (and I'm paraphrasing here) is in doing it in a way that alienates no one.  I think this is a key point.  He is very concerned about the laity, obviously, and thank God.  But I think that this has to be applied not only to the laity of the OCA, but that of ALL the jurisdictions (I'm not saying he meant it for only the OCA, I'm just making a general point here).  I'm willing to forgive and forget the manner and tone of his pan-Orthodox sermon, personally (chalk it up to the purple demons of Lent).  But it is more the general issue that concerns me.  I have no problem with seeing the dance troupes, Greek schools, Greek celebrations, etc. put aside (or at least into proper perspective), but I do NOT want to see a loss of the liturgical traditions, be they Greek (from the Byzantine tradition), Antiochian, or Russian (or any other liturgical traditions).  By traditions I don't mean language, I mean the manner and style of serving by the priests, musical traditions, architectural traditions, etc.

You made a point earlier which I hadn't respond to:

And another (one of my favorites):
Quote
Not to some kind of alien ideology, not to some nationalist or imperialist ideology from some forgotten empire.  Not the imposition of foreign customs, and the submission to foreign despots – but to a united church in this country.  
Really?  You must be kidding.  He's talking about foreign customs wearing a RUSSIAN style of vestments!  Did I miss something or didn't the OCA come from the Russian tradition?  Certainly looks like it, from the tradition of music, liturgics, and vestments (among other things).  Why does he fault the Greek Orthodox for following the Byzantine tradition of music, liturgics, and vestments?  Isn't that a little backward?  If he is not speaking of liturgical tradition, then what is he speaking of?  Is he implying that the EP is going to force everyone to learn modern Greek, Greek dances, Greek cooking, celebrate Greek holidays, etc?  Surely not.  I think we can all see how absurd that would be.  Unfortunately, yes, many of the GOA churches have Greek school and dance troupes.  And I think most of us (including the clergy and hierarchs) will tell you it is unfortunate, not the place of the church, and that we are trying to weed that stuff out.  To take that further and say that not only would the EP NOT weed those things out, but would force them on other churches, that is just baseless and, I'm sorry, but falsehood.

and a related question:
s
I've often found that clergy of such and such ethnicity are often the ones most insistent on obliterating it.
I'm not sure where you're going with this... would you mind elaborating please?

I think your point on the "Russianness" of the OCA (or the "Nashness," from the large core of Carpatho-Russians who came in) is valid.  I myself spent a decade in a OCA parish, and then 5 years in the OCA Cathedral of Chicago, Holy Trinity ( blessed in that it was consecrated by St. Tikhon himself, and another saint, St. John Kuchurov the Protomartyr of the Bolsheviks, was the founding priest).  Yes, there are some who think because its in English, its not ethnic, but I have to say, for the vast majority of those I knew/know in the OCA, they are aware of ethnic differences.  I remember one person at the cathedral commenting on some hymn/tone and saying it was "hill billy Russian" (Carpato-Russian/Rusyn) and compared it to another hymn:both were in English (btw, the person also seemed to be unaware that his grace Job was CR).  There were other things we sang in "Greek tone," in English, (but also in Greek too).

His grace instituted a number of practices that were refered to as "Greek": some were brought by Greeks in the parish.  Everyone thought of them as "Greek," although the parish did them year after year.  Btw, the "Greek" was just for identification purposes: I never heard anyone complain of them, and many were enthusiastic about them.

One thing should be remembered: although his beatitude converted, he was received at a Patriarchal Parish, Our Lady of Kazan, number 6 on the Tomos list:
Finally, in addition to the Michigan parishes listed above, all the following still are active Patriarchal parishes:
Quote
6. Our Lady of Kazan Church, San Diego, State of California
He subsequently spent a year in Russia working for the Moscow Patriarchate, entered Valaam Monastery (near Finland, where the original missionaries to America came) and was evidently ordained priest there.  So although a convert born in the USA and ordained a bishop by the OCA, his roots are deeply Russian. So I don't think he has an animus about ethnic culture, far from.  I think he only has a problem when it becomes isolating.  He serves Russian style, because in some ways, he is Russian.  But I don't think he has (and I see no evidence of it: if you have, please quote) anything about "Byzantine" (I prefer "Constantinoplean" or "Greek") style or any other style of liturgics.  I don't think he has a problem with language (again, if I am wrong, please indicate), nor dance troups etc. (as long as in proper place).  I don't think he sees unity in terms of homogenization or "Americanization" in the sense of obliterating ethnicity.  He is just opposed to divisions based on it, or ecclesiology based on it.

As to my comment about the clergy and ethnicity, let me give an example: at the parish I was at, the new priest, who was CR like the parish, once was telling me with glee how he was putting the stake throught the heart of the Slavonic.  He was somewhat stunned when I asked why.  I pointed out that I didn't have a drop of CR, or Slavic for that matter, blood and I didn't mind the Slavonic: they alternated so something in Slavonic this week was English the next. People tried to be able to say "Christ is risen!" to me in Arabic. This was their heretage, they founded this Church (from the Vatican, btw) so it was here for me when I needed it.  My singing in Slavonic was a way of thanks, and no one looked down on me or required the Slavonic of me. "Why can't you leave it alone?" was my concluding remark. Said priest, btw, ended up defrocked when he abandoned his wife and sons and ran off with another priest's wife.

Most convert clergy (which is over half in the OCA and among the Antichians) are quite fine with tolerating the language and culture at least.  The only ones who I've heard talk about killing it have all been those who are of it.

Quote
Secondly, he puts forth the OCA not as the ACTUAL Church to be adhered to (in other words, you don't have to join the OCA per se), but rather as the MODEL for unity.  I'm glad that he has made a clear distinction that we don't have to all come under the OCA.  I think that would make many uncomfortable.  However, I would prefer to see SCOBA as the administrative model, personally, whether +DEMETRIOS is at the head or not.  I personally like the way SCOBA functions and, considering all the problems the OCA has had in recent years, I think SCOBA is the more practical model.  That's nothing personal toward the OCA at all (I personally love the OCA, as my former father confessor was from the OCA and I felt loved, accepted, and very at home in his parish).

When SCOBA is discussed as a eccleasiastical model, I have to confess, I don't know what it means, as it is not an ecclesiastical structure: it is an ad hoc committee.  When it tried to transform itself into a canonical structure at Ligonier, well, the rest is history.  I have no problem, in priniciple, of SCOBA being an "Episcopal Assembly" on its way to becoming a Synod, but 1) the Chief Secretary's comments makes me distrust such a scheme, as his comment:
Quote
The principle of presidency is followed, namely the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate presides over these Episcopal Assemblies in order to preserve the necessary element of canonicity.
is contradicted by SCOBA's constitution

Quote
II. AUTHORITY AND STRUCTURE
(a) Authority.
All authority in the Conference resides in the member hierarchs and is derived from them. All decisions of the Conference shall require two-thirds approval of the member hierarchs present at a regular or special meeting to become binding on the Conference.
No decision of the Conference shall interfere with the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of any of the Canonical Orthodox Churches, or any of the member Hierarchs.
Autocephalous Churches, represented in the Standing Conference, are recognizing each other as equal sister Orthodox Churches with equal canonical rights.
(b) Structure.
Presiding Hierarch. The Office of Presiding Hierarch shall pass in turn annually to the presiding hierarchs of the member jurisdictions in order of their precedence in the Church.

 and 2) there is the problem that it would include an autocephalous Church with representatives of other autocephalous Churches.  The Resident Synod often in Constantinople might be a model, but I would think that would require Met. Jonah, as primate of the Residence, to head it, not to run afoul of Apostolic canon 34 and c. 8 of Ephesus.


Quote
Thirdly, he offers a rather unOrthodox idea of conciliarity... that being one of the hierarchs AS WELL AS clergy and laity.  This concerns me DEEPLY for two reasons.  One, the Tradition of the Church (until the recent developments in the Russian tradition that he points out) has ALWAYS been one of hierarchical conciliarity.  This is one of those times when I think bucking against the tradition of the church that has prevailed for 2000 years could be dangerous.  Two, frankly, I don't trust the laity (myself included).  I think that has too much potential for mob rule, and not the work of the Holy Spirit.  I would have less of a problem with the hierarchs and clergy (absent of the laity).  But I think there's something EXTREMELY important to be said for not only theological education (which all of our hierarchs and clergy have, but a sad few of the laity have), but the GRACE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, WHICH HEALS THAT WHICH IS INFIRM AND FILLS THAT WHICH IS LACKING (to paraphrase the prayer of ordination).  That grace is given ONLY to clergy/hierarchs, not to laity.  And to blur those lines is terribly dangerous.


Not so dangerous as the opposite: just look at Mardukm's posts, and more at CAF, on the reaction of the Faithful to the council of Florence.  The examples could be multiplied: the Faithful's reaction to the deposition of St. John Chrysostom, the Faithful in Alexandria's reactions to the exiles of St. Athanasius, the abolition of the Henotikon, etc.  The laity are not totally devoid of that grace: we receive a portion in chrismation.  And there have been numberous times in the Churches history when we had to use it.

And watch out for education: when I went to a Unitarian "church" once, they made the point that the average seminarian today has more theological training and knowledge than the bishops at the First Ecumenical Council.  "Yes," I said, "that's how they got it right."

Quote
Fourthly, along the same lines of conciliarity, he presents, again, this idea of a synod, and throws in the primate as an afterthought.  This concerns me.  I would really like to hear more from him as to what he feels the role of the primate would be.  Would it be ONLY symbolic/liturgical?  Or would it, in fact, also be administrative?  Where is the line drawn?

As he is dismantling the centralization of the OCA, it would seem to be the former.  But I don't think it's either/or.  Just "what is primary?"

Quote
Fifthly, his general characterization of the EP and the Greek Churches in America (by his implications) still concern me and strike me as fear mongering, to some extent.  This is because, when he was talking about the EP and then moved on to synods, he made it sound as though the EP functions absent of a synod, as though he is a pope.  This is, of course, terribly incorrect and, frankly, misleading.  He said (again paraphrasing-- I took notes, btw), that it is critical for church worldwide to have truly active EP who reflects the true diversity of Orthodoxy worldwide... this can only be done by entire synod...  This is misleading people to think that there is NO Patriarchal synod, or that the Patriarchal synod is not diverse.  On the contrary, there IS a Patriarchal synod, and it is made up of bishops from all over the world, who routinely rotate in and out, so that the diversity is ALWAYS changing (there is always a bishop from the US on the synod, btw).
 

I'll have to rehear it before commenting.

Quote
I think that's it for now.  I'm going to try to transcribe the entire conversation tonight and post it here, if I have the time following vespers.  I am REALLY eager to hear what everyone else thinks!!!

LOL.  Be careful what you ask for.... :o

Quote
Though I do wish his last one had been delivered in this manner and not as it was, and though I may disagree with a few of his points, this is one conversation that, for his loving and gentle delivery, I am proud to say AXIOS to His Beatitude +JONAH for!

Irenic as ever. :)
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 12, 2009, 09:17:27 AM
I am sure that most of us, and especially the North Americans, are taking these matters to God in prayer.  There seem to be tectonic forces at work, pushing and shifting in the dark to remake the face of Orthodoxy in America.

It may in the long run have a positive outcome but it would certainly not be a waste of time and it would be a great blessing to spend time in prayer each day to the Saints of North America.  The work which they began as missionaries and which must still be close to their hearts cries out now for their involvement from heaven in the current decision-making.

I don't know if you are familiar, Father, with Hapgood: it is the standard (just by usage) of All the Orthodox in America (I've yet to see a parish without a copy).  St. Tikhon supported the first edition while in America, and when she revised it for a second edition, under the supervision of St. Alexander Horovitsky, St. Tikhon sent his approval of it in a ukase of Nov. 3, 1921 (i.e. within a year of the ukase No. 362 of 1920, which foresight guided both the OCA and ROCOR, and within months of his arrest and imprisonment and being "deposed").  It's ending may be the last words in this world (I'm sure he says more in the next) of the Englightener of North America to the Orthodox Church in America:

Quote
Our Patriarchal Blessing be upon Our American flock, always so near to Our heart; and upon Our never-to-be-forgotten American friends, and unto you all. Our Patriarchal Blessing and prayerful greeting.
http://www.roca.org/OA/157/157f.htm
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 12, 2009, 09:38:46 AM
I don't know if you are familiar, Father, with Hapgood

The Blessed Isabel is all I have used for all my English life since the 1960s.  Indeed very little else was available at that time apart from Nassar but I always thought the Nassar English was atrocious.  Hapgood introduced me to the Miles Coverdale Psalms (until then I had known only the Douai ones.)    Two decades of using Hapgood for our daily English Vespers, Matins and Hours meant that it is Coverdale's Psalms which are fixed in my memory.  Some of the most beautiful English on earth and well adapted for intoning.


This lecture below is a fine tribute to her.

http://justus.anglican.org/resources/pc/women/hapgood/ledkovsky.pdf


----------------
A Linguistic Bridge to Orthodoxy
In Memoriam : Isabel Florence Hapgood

By Marina Ledkovsky
Professor Emeritus of Slavic Languages and Literatures
Barnard College, Columbia University

A lecture delivered at the Twelfth Annual Russian Orthodox Musicians Conference, 7-11 October 1998, Washington, D.C.

"...EASTERN ORTHODOX Christians in America know Isabel Hapgood by name, but possibly not much about her life and activities. And yet, she merits to be remembered with respect and gratitude, as she was a champion in the awesome task of translating Orthodox liturgical texts from Church Slavonic into English.

"This year is the 70th anniversary of Isabel Hapgood's death and almost the 150th of her birth. Therefore, it is indeed fitting to at least inform ourselves about her personality and her contribution to the Englishspeaking Orthodox communities in the United States......"
 
---
 
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: AMM on April 12, 2009, 05:52:33 PM
Quote
I think your point on the "Russianness" of the OCA (or the "Nashness," from the large core of Carpatho-Russians who came in) is valid.  I myself spent a decade in a OCA parish, and then 5 years in the OCA Cathedral of Chicago, Holy Trinity ( blessed in that it was consecrated by St. Tikhon himself, and another saint, St. John Kuchurov the Protomartyr of the Bolsheviks, was the founding priest).  Yes, there are some who think because its in English, its not ethnic, but I have to say, for the vast majority of those I knew/know in the OCA, they are aware of ethnic differences.  I remember one person at the cathedral commenting on some hymn/tone and saying it was "hill billy Russian" (Carpato-Russian/Rusyn) and compared it to another hymn:both were in English (btw, the person also seemed to be unaware that his grace Job was CR).  There were other things we sang in "Greek tone," in English, (but also in Greek too).

This is a side note, but do you know where there's a parish history of the cathedral?  I attended the Paschal liturgy there in 1991, and assumed it was Great Russian (it was the second Orthodox church I had visited).  I read something recently that said the people who founded it were Rusyn; i.e. the ones who contracted Sullivan to design the building.

The one thing that really stood out to me was one of the Deacon's was African-American.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 12, 2009, 06:13:42 PM
Quote
I think your point on the "Russianness" of the OCA (or the "Nashness," from the large core of Carpatho-Russians who came in) is valid.  I myself spent a decade in a OCA parish, and then 5 years in the OCA Cathedral of Chicago, Holy Trinity ( blessed in that it was consecrated by St. Tikhon himself, and another saint, St. John Kuchurov the Protomartyr of the Bolsheviks, was the founding priest).  Yes, there are some who think because its in English, its not ethnic, but I have to say, for the vast majority of those I knew/know in the OCA, they are aware of ethnic differences.  I remember one person at the cathedral commenting on some hymn/tone and saying it was "hill billy Russian" (Carpato-Russian/Rusyn) and compared it to another hymn:both were in English (btw, the person also seemed to be unaware that his grace Job was CR).  There were other things we sang in "Greek tone," in English, (but also in Greek too).

This is a side note, but do you know where there's a parish history of the cathedral?  I attended the Paschal liturgy there in 1991, and assumed it was Great Russian (it was the second Orthodox church I had visited).  I read something recently that said the people who founded it were Rusyn; i.e. the ones who contracted Sullivan to design the building.

The one thing that really stood out to me was one of the Deacon's was African-American.

Yes, Carl.

Quote
“Go therefore, and make disciples” Matthew, 28-19

In 1895, Fr. John Kochurov, a young and energetic priest from St. Petersburg, Russia, arrived to care for the Chicago parish and began to make plans for a new church and rectory. Funds were granted from Russia’s Holy Synod and Tsar Nicholas gave a personal gift of $4,000 to the building fund. Attracted by a model Orthodox chapel exhibited at the Columbian Exposition in 1893, many wealthy Chicagoans gave additional gifts, and the search for an architect began.


A Chicago Landmark is Born

By the time Louis Henry Sullivan was asked to design the cathedral and parish structures, he had earned a reputation for being one of America’s most renowned architects. In designing this church, Sullivan undoubtedly studied the designs of numerous contemporary Russian churches, however, archival references show that a small wooden church in the village of Tatarskaya in Siberia served as inspiration for his final design.

The cornerstone for the new church was laid on March 31, 1902, and the new structure was consecrated by Bishop Tikhon of the North American mission of the Russian Orthodox Church on March 25, 1903. (Bishop Tikhon upon his return to Russia was elected as patriarch of the Orthodox Church of Russia and later died as a confessor to Christ.) Holy Trinity was designated a cathedral in 1923.
http://holytrinitycathedral.net/history.html
Their may have been Rusyns among them, but the families whose ancestors founded the parish still there were Great Russian. St. Alexis Toth, who was Rusyn and in MN came down to serve when the parish was getting organized in 1892. One of the bishops Arb. John of blessed memory, was the Archb. of Riga and All Latvia: he came to America with the WWII GI's.

There is an anniversary book that gives all its history for a century, but I can't recall the exact title.

Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 12, 2009, 06:21:05 PM
This news item from the Church of Russia has a bearing on this conversation...

Moscow states Opposition to Concept of a Head Bishop for the Global Church (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20712.msg310187/topicseen.html#msg310187)

Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: serb1389 on April 12, 2009, 09:20:45 PM
For anyone participating in this debate or interested in these issues, I think it's imperative to listen to Met. Jonah's interview on this subject given this week to Ancient Faith Radio.  I think it gives a slightly broader context to his statements.

http://www.oca.org/news/1815

Too little too late.  He should have given context before he went out and just blurted whatever he felt like.   :-\

I'm glad you're not God. :-\

LOL!  Me too.   8)
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on April 13, 2009, 08:24:55 AM
This may be germane to our discussion:

"On Thursday afternoon, March 6th, His Holiness Bartholomew I, Patriarch of Constantinople visited Rome’s Pontifical Oriental Institute where he had once studied and completed his doctorate in Canon Law during the 1960’s. The Dean of the Faculty of Eastern Church Studies, Jesuit Fr Edward Farrugia, in an interview said that the visit was indeed significant… “Well of course we are immensely proud to have had the present Ecumenical Patriarch as a past student and he is certainly one of our most famous, if not our most famous alumnus and I think for us it’s a shot in the arm that such an important figure, who is the first primate of the Orthodox East... He certainly has moral authority as a figure who represents something, who represents a big history, a big church. Then I think that it is also significant because it happens at this time, when dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches who recognise themselves in this Constantinopolitan community is moving ahead, so we think that this is very providential. And I must say how moved he was when I brought him the invitation, and for us it cannot but be a blessing”.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: 88Devin12 on April 13, 2009, 12:06:53 PM
Just curious, what is Kallisos Ware's position about American Orthodoxy?  He's frequently spoken in many Orthodox churches here in America, yet is also under the EP.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 13, 2009, 12:11:04 PM
This may be germane to our discussion:

"On Thursday afternoon, March 6th, His Holiness Bartholomew I, Patriarch of Constantinople visited Rome’s Pontifical Oriental Institute where he had once studied and completed his doctorate in Canon Law during the 1960’s. The Dean of the Faculty of Eastern Church Studies, Jesuit Fr Edward Farrugia, in an interview said that the visit was indeed significant… “Well of course we are immensely proud to have had the present Ecumenical Patriarch as a past student and he is certainly one of our most famous, if not our most famous alumnus and I think for us it’s a shot in the arm that such an important figure, who is the first primate of the Orthodox East... He certainly has moral authority as a figure who represents something, who represents a big history, a big church. Then I think that it is also significant because it happens at this time, when dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches who recognise themselves in this Constantinopolitan community is moving ahead, so we think that this is very providential. And I must say how moved he was when I brought him the invitation, and for us it cannot but be a blessing”.

Where's this from?
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 13, 2009, 12:22:50 PM
Just curious, what is Kallisos Ware's position about American Orthodoxy?  He's frequently spoken in many Orthodox churches here in America, yet is also under the EP.

He once was asked about the canonical status of ROCOR (this was before the reunion), and said that it was somewhat a problem of talking about "uncanonical" where there were multiple bishops in one city.  He did relate that he was told when he converted that "of course, you can never be ordained," to which he replied that that didn't matter, he was so glad to be received.  Then when he was ordained, he was told "of course, you can never elevated to a bishop."  He said that the first Orthodox Church he went into was Russian, and he didn't understand a thing of the Slavonic.  He does refer to a monastery in Greece (Patmos?) as  "[his] monastery," so calls some place besides England home.  On the subject of abortion, he discussed the situation in Greece, questioning the propriety of  banning it when there were non-Orthodox in Greece, i.e. didn't discuss the topic from the situation in America (which, however, he may have been far less familiar with). 

On the subject of translation, he was apologetic about his Elizabethan (I) style, saying he would "be that way until the grave," as it was the way he was raised.  But then he went into how that language wasn't understood by immigrants, making an explicit reference to Cypriots.  He didn't speak about those Orthodox raised speaking English.

He also mentioned that when he serves in the U.S., he has to stop him himself from commemorating "Our Sovereing Lady, Queen Elizabeth..."
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ozgeorge on April 13, 2009, 12:30:52 PM
This may be germane to our discussion:

"On Thursday afternoon, March 6th, His Holiness Bartholomew I, Patriarch of Constantinople visited Rome’s Pontifical Oriental Institute where he had once studied and completed his doctorate in Canon Law during the 1960’s. The Dean of the Faculty of Eastern Church Studies, Jesuit Fr Edward Farrugia, in an interview said that the visit was indeed significant… “Well of course we are immensely proud to have had the present Ecumenical Patriarch as a past student and he is certainly one of our most famous, if not our most famous alumnus and I think for us it’s a shot in the arm that such an important figure, who is the first primate of the Orthodox East... He certainly has moral authority as a figure who represents something, who represents a big history, a big church. Then I think that it is also significant because it happens at this time, when dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches who recognise themselves in this Constantinopolitan community is moving ahead, so we think that this is very providential. And I must say how moved he was when I brought him the invitation, and for us it cannot but be a blessing”.

Where's this from?
Well, it can't be this year's news because March 6th was a Friday this year.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 13, 2009, 12:55:25 PM
This may be germane to our discussion:

"On Thursday afternoon, March 6th, His Holiness Bartholomew I, Patriarch of Constantinople visited Rome’s Pontifical Oriental Institute where he had once studied and completed his doctorate in Canon Law during the 1960’s. The Dean of the Faculty of Eastern Church Studies, Jesuit Fr Edward Farrugia, in an interview said that the visit was indeed significant… “Well of course we are immensely proud to have had the present Ecumenical Patriarch as a past student and he is certainly one of our most famous, if not our most famous alumnus and I think for us it’s a shot in the arm that such an important figure, who is the first primate of the Orthodox East... He certainly has moral authority as a figure who represents something, who represents a big history, a big church. Then I think that it is also significant because it happens at this time, when dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches who recognise themselves in this Constantinopolitan community is moving ahead, so we think that this is very providential. And I must say how moved he was when I brought him the invitation, and for us it cannot but be a blessing”.

Where's this from?
Well, it can't be this year's news because March 6th was a Friday this year.

Old Calendar?

It can be found here.  I won't comment on the pictures.
http://www.pontificalorientalinstitute.com/gallery-and-multimedia/picture-gallery/bartolomeo-i-ecumenical-patriarch-of-constantinople-some-pics-of-the-event.html
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ozgeorge on April 13, 2009, 12:58:36 PM
This may be germane to our discussion:

"On Thursday afternoon, March 6th, His Holiness Bartholomew I, Patriarch of Constantinople visited Rome’s Pontifical Oriental Institute where he had once studied and completed his doctorate in Canon Law during the 1960’s. The Dean of the Faculty of Eastern Church Studies, Jesuit Fr Edward Farrugia, in an interview said that the visit was indeed significant… “Well of course we are immensely proud to have had the present Ecumenical Patriarch as a past student and he is certainly one of our most famous, if not our most famous alumnus and I think for us it’s a shot in the arm that such an important figure, who is the first primate of the Orthodox East... He certainly has moral authority as a figure who represents something, who represents a big history, a big church. Then I think that it is also significant because it happens at this time, when dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches who recognise themselves in this Constantinopolitan community is moving ahead, so we think that this is very providential. And I must say how moved he was when I brought him the invitation, and for us it cannot but be a blessing”.

Where's this from?
Well, it can't be this year's news because March 6th was a Friday this year.

Old Calendar?
No. Last years news (check the date).

It can be found here.  I won't comment on the pictures.
http://www.pontificalorientalinstitute.com/gallery-and-multimedia/picture-gallery/bartolomeo-i-ecumenical-patriarch-of-constantinople-some-pics-of-the-event.html
For heaven's sake! What is there to comment about the pictures?
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on April 13, 2009, 07:13:27 PM

For heaven's sake! What is there to comment about the pictures?

I did not see anything out of the ordinary in the pictures either. It appears that the Pontifical Institute gave the Patriarch appropriate honors by the setting and attendance by numerous dignitaries.

BTW, I had not noticed that it was from 2008; the fact that the Patriarch has a doctorate in canon law from the Pontifical Oriental Institute was news to me. Furthermore, I have no idea how it is germane but I thought it might be.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 13, 2009, 07:37:39 PM

For heaven's sake! What is there to comment about the pictures?

I did not see anything out of the ordinary in the pictures either. It appears that the Pontifical Institute gave the Patriarch appropriate honors by the setting and attendance by numerous dignitaries.

BTW, I had not noticed that it was from 2008; the fact that the Patriarch has a doctorate in canon law from the Pontifical Oriental Institute was news to me. Furthermore, I have no idea how it is germane but I thought it might be.

Doctorate in canon law from the Vatican, eh?

It's germane:
Quote
I think we have a better solution.  That we come, and this is something of the utmost importance, and it is something immanent,  it’s not something that we can wait and say “Oh maybe in my grandchildren’s time we’ll have orthodox unity.”  I’m talking about June.  And if you think I’m kidding, there is a conference being convened at the Phanar in June to discuss exactly this – actually it’s in Cyprus.  To subject the diaspora to the single, singular control – the so called diaspora – well, of the patriarchate of Constantinople, and thereby come into unity.  Well, that’s one model for unity.  I would submit that if we wanted a pope we would be under the real one.  And I don’t think any of us want a pope, otherwise we wouldn’t be here.
I don’t think the Holy Fathers in the Phanar understand that we are a church, albeit, with separate administrations, but that has a common value of determining our own destiny...
There are those that would, there are those there that would say that there was no canonical orthodox church in America until 1924 with the establishment of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the Greek Archdiocese.  Excuse me...
There are those, there, in the old world who devalue this, who say that they are the only criterion of orthodoxy.  Who are ignorant of our saints.  Who refuse to recognize the sacrifice of so many of those who have come before us in Christ to establish the gospel here.  I think  we have a different solution....

As compared to:
Quote
First of all, allow me to remind you that the term “diaspora” is a technical term denoting those regions that lie beyond the borders of the local autocephalous Churches. It does not mean that the Orthodox people who dwell in these regions live there temporally, as misleadingly it was argued by His Eminence Phillip in a recent article (“The Word”). According to the 28th Canon of the 4th Ecumenical Council one of the prerogatives of the Ecumenical Patriarch is precisely His jurisdiction exactly over these regions, which lie beyond the predescribed borders of the local Churches. The canon in question uses the technical term “barbaric” in order to denote these lands, since it was precisely referring to the unknown lands beyond the orbit of the Roman Empire.
On account of this canon, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has suffered the unfair and unjust criticism of two American Orthodox Hierarchs: Metropolitan Phillip and the newly elected Metropolitan Jonas
The most provocative of his claims is that which asserts that with the formation of the so-called OCA “the presence of any other jurisdiction on American territory becomes uncanonical, and membership in the Synod of the Orthodox Church in America becomes the criterion of canonicity of all bishops in America.” It is perhaps a sign of our times that he who violated the holy canons par excellence, the most uncanonically claimed as allegedly autocephalous, makes now himself the criterion of canonicity and vitiates the canonical hierarchs as uncanonical. O tempora, o mores!
Based on the above distinction, and although he accepts that canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical Council is not “dead” (since there is so much debate about it), he affirms that indeed it gives certain prerogatives to the Ecumenical Patriarch, on the other hand, however, he claims that this happened for secular and political reasons that have nothing to do with today’s state of affairs. Implicitly and yet all too clearly, Metropolitan Phillip implies that the prerogatives of the Ecumenical Patriarch can be doubted. The question then is: does His Eminence know of any Church whose status (Patriarchal or Autocephalous) were not decided according to the historical conditions that they were current at the time? Or, does His Eminence know of any Church that has received its status on the basis of theological reasons exclusively? Every administrative decision of an Ecumenical Council is equally respected to perpetuity together with its dogmatic decisions. Imagine the consequences for the Orthodox Church if we begin to re-evalutate the status of each local Church!
The correct interpretation of canon 28 is considered by His Eminence as “novelty”, by invoking only sources of the 20th century, while it has been scientifically established already by the late Metropolitan of Sardeis Maximos the uninterrupted application of the canon in question during the history of the Church of Constantinople
If Constantinople was not given that prerogative by canon 28, how was she able to grant autocephalies and patriarchal dignities to the Churches of Russia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Czech Lands and Slovakia, Poland and Albania? Under the provision of which canon did Constantinople give the right of jurisdiction over the remaining of Africa to the Patriarchate of Alexandria in 2002?
The submission of the diaspora to the Ecumenical Patriarchate does not mean either Hellenization or violation of the canonical order, because it is only in this way that both the letter and the spirit of the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils is respected. The Mother Church knows, however, that such a submission is difficult to be accomplished under the present historical conditions. For this reason, and by employing the principle of economy, it was suggested and it has now become accepted in Pan-Orthodox level, that there will be local Pan-Orthodox Episcopal Assemblies in the diaspora (like SCOBA in the US). The principle of presidency is followed, namely the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate presides over these Episcopal Assemblies in order to preserve the necessary element of canonicity.


He seems to have put that canon law degree to good use, because he seems to be flunking ecclesiology and theology.

Quote
Let me add that the refusal to recognize primacy within the Orthodox Church, a primacy that necessarily cannot but be embodied by a primus (that is by a bishop who has the prerogative of being the first among his fellow bishops) constitutes nothing less than heresy. It cannot be accepted, as often it is said, that the unity among the Orthodox Churches is safeguarded by either a common norm of faith and worship or by the Ecumenical Council as an institution. Both of these factors are impersonal while in our Orthodox theology the principle of unity is always a person. Indeed, in the level of the Holy Trinity the principle of unity is not the divine essence but the Person of the Father (“Monarchy” of the Father), at the ecclesiological level of the local Church the principle of unity is not the presbyterium or the common worship of the Christians but the person of the Bishop, so to in the Pan-Orthodox level the principle of unity cannot be an idea nor an institution but it needs to be, if we are to be consistent with our theology, a person.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ozgeorge on April 13, 2009, 08:03:15 PM
He seems to have put that canon law degree to good use, because he seems to be flunking ecclesiology and theology.
Where did you get your degree in Canon Law?
What Synod exists without a Primate?
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 13, 2009, 08:12:28 PM
This may be germane to our discussion:

"On Thursday afternoon, March 6th, His Holiness Bartholomew I, Patriarch of Constantinople visited Rome’s Pontifical Oriental Institute where he had once studied and completed his doctorate in Canon Law during the 1960’s.

There must be theological faculties of equal stature to Rome's at the universities of Athens and Thessaloniki where our clergy could pursue higher studies?

It was the unfortunate need (because of the Ottoman supremacy) which obliged many of our hierarchs to travel to Western Europe and study at Roman Catholic and Lutheran universities.  This brought about the period of what is termed "the Western Captivity" in Orthodox theology. 

Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 13, 2009, 08:16:20 PM
He seems to have put that canon law degree to good use, because he seems to be flunking ecclesiology and theology.
Where did you get your degree in Canon Law?
What Synod exists without a Primate?

The holy Church of Russia was governed by a Synod without a Primate for 200 years, from 1700 to 1917.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) on April 13, 2009, 10:51:54 PM
I don't think that we can prove a cause-and-effect type relationship between the doctorate and the claims regarding Canon 28. At best there seems to be a correlation but it is not terribly strong; the Patriarch could have arrived at his views independently of his education at the Pontifical Oriental Institute. About the only way that we can see stronger relationships would be by comparing his dissertation with the current stance or by his admission that he was influenced by RC teachings. Actually, there is one definitive conclusion that we can make: the Patriarch is not dead set against all things Roman Catholic. And, neither am I.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: ialmisry on April 13, 2009, 11:24:48 PM
He seems to have put that canon law degree to good use, because he seems to be flunking ecclesiology and theology.
Where did you get your degree in Canon Law?

Not from the Vatican.  That I could assure you.

I can also assure you that Cardinal Ignace Moussa I Daoud, Patriarch emeritus of Antioch for Syrians, Prefect emeritus of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, a member of the Commission for the Revision of the Eastern Code of Canon Law and chairman of the commission that translated the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches into Arabic, also knows far more than me in Canon Law.  But that cardinal title and biretta tells me he is wrong too, I assure you.

I can also assure that the Vatican's delegation to the council of Ravenna, individually and collectively, know more than me in canon law.  I can assure you that they are also, individually and collectively, wrong too.

Father Ambrose, didn't the Russian canonists formulate their response to the council of Ravenna?  I am sure that they know far more than me in canon law.  And that they are right.

Quote
What Synod exists without a Primate?

According to some, the Church of Greece.

I know of only one Synod that derives its authority from its primate: the College of Cardinals.
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: Irish Hermit on April 14, 2009, 12:36:07 AM

I can also assure that the Vatican's delegation to the council of Ravenna, individually and collectively, know more than me in canon law.  I can assure you that they are also, individually and collectively, wrong too.

The Vatican agrees with you and has declined to ratify the Ravenna Document, saying that some points of it express an ecclesiology unacceptable to the Catholic Church.

How odd that such a group of learned and scholarly Catholics got it wrong!
Title: Re: Metropolitan Jonah: Ecumenical Patriarch back off!
Post by: PeterTheAleut on April 14, 2009, 12:42:35 AM