OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 29, 2014, 10:40:16 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: OCA Tomos grants rule over all USA Orthodox?  (Read 2529 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« on: December 12, 2007, 01:48:28 PM »

Reading over the OCA Tomos issued from the MP I found this interesting section.  I am wondering how this
stipulation was addressed in terms of what ROCOR and the MP have recently agreed upon.  Seems to me there is a contractual problem:

The Tomos of Autocephaly

 . . . . . . . . 7. The Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America shall have exclusive spiritual and canonical jurisdiction over all bishops, clerics and laymen of the Eastern Orthodox confession in continental North America, excluding Mexico, and including the State of Hawaii who are presently part of the Metropolitanate, or who shall later enter the Metropolitanate; and over all parishes which now belong or later shall be accepted into the Metropolitanate, excepting the entire clergy, possessions and parishes enumerated in Paragraph 3, points a,b,c.
Logged
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #1 on: December 12, 2007, 02:13:48 PM »

Reading over the OCA Tomos issued from the MP I found this interesting section.  I am wondering how this
stipulation was addressed in terms of what ROCOR and the MP have recently agreed upon.  Seems to me there is a contractual problem:

The Tomos of Autocephaly

 . . . . . . . . 7. The Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America shall have exclusive spiritual and canonical jurisdiction over all bishops, clerics and laymen of the Eastern Orthodox confession in continental North America, excluding Mexico, and including the State of Hawaii who are presently part of the Metropolitanate, or who shall later enter the Metropolitanate; and over all parishes which now belong or later shall be accepted into the Metropolitanate, excepting the entire clergy, possessions and parishes enumerated in Paragraph 3, points a,b,c.


Emphasis added.
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
Eugenio
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I love them all
Posts: 460



« Reply #2 on: December 16, 2007, 05:04:08 PM »

Umm...okay.

But the Moscow Patriarchate still has a handful of churches in the U.S.

At least that's what I saw on this site: http://www.3saints.com/patr_parishes.html#3

Here's another site: http://www.russianchurchusa.org/index.php3?mode=1299&ln=en

So how did that occur? How did these churches maintain ties to Moscow while the others left? Anyone know the history?
Logged
Friar Tuck
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 88



« Reply #3 on: December 16, 2007, 05:17:30 PM »

Umm...okay.

But the Moscow Patriarchate still has a handful of churches in the U.S.

At least that's what I saw on this site: http://www.3saints.com/patr_parishes.html#3

Here's another site: http://www.russianchurchusa.org/index.php3?mode=1299&ln=en

So how did that occur? How did these churches maintain ties to Moscow while the others left? Anyone know the history?
Try rereading paragraph 3, points a,b,c.

Friar Tuck
Logged
Eugenio
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I love them all
Posts: 460



« Reply #4 on: December 16, 2007, 05:23:07 PM »

Hmm...here's another link. It looks like these individual churches, for various reasons, decided not to join OCA.

http://www.russianchurchusa.org/index.php3?mode=1299&menu=4768&lib=History+of+the+Patriarchal+parishes+in+the+USA&ln=en
Logged
arimethea
Getting too old for this
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 2,968


Does anyone really care what you think?


« Reply #5 on: December 17, 2007, 01:35:39 AM »

It appears from Article V that unless the parishes asks to join the OCA it remains with Patriarchate.

What is interesting is section 10 "those parishes which shall remain under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate conform to canonical norms governing the Statute of the Metropolia." In theory all the ROCOR parishes need to follow the rules of the OCA.

Also section 9 rules out any theories about ROCOR parishes joining another jurisdiction in America. "The Patriarchate... shall not is¬sue canonical permissions either to clerics or parishes in its jurisdiction to join any Orthodox jurisdiction except the jurisdiction of the Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America."

From http://www.oca.org/DOCautocephaly.asp?SID=12&ID=67

Quote
Article V
Parishes, properties and clergy remaining in the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate
(1) On the territory of North America there are excluded from Autocephaly:

    (a) The St. Nicholas Cathedral, together with all its property located at 15 East 97th Street in the City of New York, as the Delegation (representation) of the Moscow Patriarchate, and the residence annexed thereto, and the real property located at Pine Bush, New York, together with the buildings and improvements thereon.

    (b) The Parishes and clergy in the United States of America which are now affiliated with the Exarchate of the Patriarchate and which wish to remain canonically affiliated with the Patriarchate.

    (c) The Parishes and clergy in Canada which are now affiliated with the Diocese of Edmonton and Canada of the Moscow Patriarchate and which wish to remain affiliated with the Patriarchate.

(2) The St. Nicholas Cathedral together with its property and the residence attached thereto and the real property in Pine Bush, New York, shall be administered by His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow by means of a person in the priestly rank representing the Patriarch.

(3) The Parishes and clergy presently remaining affiliated with the Patriarchate in the United States of America shall be administered by His Holiness, the Patriarch of Moscow, by means of one of his vicar bishops (not having the title of the local American Church) especially appointed to this office and until such time as these parishes will officially express their wish to join the Autocephalous Church in America, in the manner hereinafter provided.

(4) The parishes and clergy constituting presently the Diocese of Edmonton and Canada of the Moscow Patriarchate and presently remaining affiliated with the Patriarchate shall be administered by His Holiness, the Patriarch of Moscow, by means of one of his vicar bishops (not having the title of the local church) espe¬cially appointed to this office until such time as these parishes will officially express their wish to join the Autocephalous Church in America in the manner hereinafter provided.

(5) The Patriarchate agrees that it shall use its efforts to effect the affiliation with the Autocephalous Church in America of the clergy and the faithful of the faith who are now affiliated with the Patriarchal Exarchate and agrees not to counselor assist the affiliation of such clergy, faithful and parishes with any church of the Eastern Orthodox faith in continental North America and Hawaii except the Autocephalous Church in America.

(6) After the proclamation of the autocephaly of the Metropolia the change of jurisdiction by the parishes now canonically affiliated with the Moscow Patriarchate shall be performed by the initiative of such parishes and after a bilateral agreement in each particular case between the Patriarchate and the Autocephalous Church in America.

(7) The Metropolia agrees to accept into its jurisdiction upon the receipt of applications for admis¬sion, the faithful and parishes presently affiliated with the Exarchate in the manner explained in paragraph (6) of this Article provided, however, that, in the case of clerics, they are in good standing and there is no canoni¬cal bar to their admission.

(Cool The Metropolia further agrees to consider the admission into the Metropolia of those bishops presently under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchal Exarchate, but the decision concerning the admission of those bishops shall be at the discretion of the Metropolia.

(9) The Patriarchate shall not accept into its jurisdiction in North America either clerics without ca¬nonical releases, or parishes, except parishes from uncanonical ecclesiastical bodies in Canada, and shall not is¬sue canonical permissions either to clerics or parishes in its jurisdiction to join any Orthodox jurisdiction except the jurisdiction of the Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America.

(10) The Patriarchate agrees to see to it that the provisions of its Statute concerning those parishes which shall remain under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate conform to canonical norms governing the Statute of the Metropolia.

(11) The Patriarchate assures the parishes who wish to stay under its authority of its readiness to de¬fend their status as parishes of the Patriarchate and also to defend those parishes from attempts to change their present status without their own free decision and without a written consent of the Patriarchate.

(12) Each of the Churches – the Moscow Patriarchate and the Orthodox Church in America – pledge not to undertake any actions or efforts directed at an intervention into the internal affairs of the other church or its parishes and each also pledges not to make any efforts to change the jurisdictional status of parishes under the authority of the other agreeing party. Clergy and parishes of each of the agreeing parties shall abide in peace and concord with one another.
Logged

Joseph
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #6 on: December 17, 2007, 07:08:40 AM »

Reading over the OCA Tomos issued from the MP I found this interesting section.  I am wondering how this
stipulation was addressed in terms of what ROCOR and the MP have recently agreed upon.  Seems to me there is a contractual problem:

The Tomos of Autocephaly

 . . . . . . . . 7. The Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America shall have exclusive spiritual and canonical jurisdiction over all bishops, clerics and laymen of the Eastern Orthodox confession in continental North America, excluding Mexico, and including the State of Hawaii who are presently part of the Metropolitanate, or who shall later enter the Metropolitanate; and over all parishes which now belong or later shall be accepted into the Metropolitanate, excepting the entire clergy, possessions and parishes enumerated in Paragraph 3, points a,b,c.

*
You mention a "contractual problem."  Would not the Tomos be invalid since there was no consultation with the majority of the Orthodox on the American territory?  The Greeks and the Antiochians and other Orthodox in America were not involved, and were not invited to be involved, in the creation of this "autocephaly" for a minority group.

It was a unilateral declaration by a minority Church group in America and its validity is questionable.

As you may know ROCA has just formed a commission to study its historical relationship with the Metropolia/OCA.  An OCA clergyman submitted these thoughts today in an Orthodox news group:
___________________________
'Actually, I think -- just a hunch -- that the ROCOR people are preparing to brace themselves for an influx of ex-OCAers, and they need to articulate a clear stance toward us and our occasionally shared history.
 
'I've long believed that if our current confusion isn't resolved PDQ, our more 'traditional' types will gravitate to the ROCOR, and our more 'progressive' types to the AOCA.
___________________________
Logged
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #7 on: May 04, 2009, 07:31:52 PM »

Reading over the OCA Tomos issued from the MP I found this interesting section.  I am wondering how this
stipulation was addressed in terms of what ROCOR and the MP have recently agreed upon.  Seems to me there is a contractual problem:

The Tomos of Autocephaly

 . . . . . . . . 7. The Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America shall have exclusive spiritual and canonical jurisdiction over all bishops, clerics and laymen of the Eastern Orthodox confession in continental North America, excluding Mexico, and including the State of Hawaii who are presently part of the Metropolitanate, or who shall later enter the Metropolitanate; and over all parishes which now belong or later shall be accepted into the Metropolitanate, excepting the entire clergy, possessions and parishes enumerated in Paragraph 3, points a,b,c.


Emphasis added.

Please excuse me for picking this up so late in the game.  Veniamin, seeing that you are in the OCA I thank you for pointing this out.  Others do not read do not have the same read on this as you do.   
Logged
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #8 on: May 04, 2009, 07:33:01 PM »

Reading over the OCA Tomos issued from the MP I found this interesting section.  I am wondering how this
stipulation was addressed in terms of what ROCOR and the MP have recently agreed upon.  Seems to me there is a contractual problem:

The Tomos of Autocephaly

 . . . . . . . . 7. The Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America shall have exclusive spiritual and canonical jurisdiction over all bishops, clerics and laymen of the Eastern Orthodox confession in continental North America, excluding Mexico, and including the State of Hawaii who are presently part of the Metropolitanate, or who shall later enter the Metropolitanate; and over all parishes which now belong or later shall be accepted into the Metropolitanate, excepting the entire clergy, possessions and parishes enumerated in Paragraph 3, points a,b,c.

*
You mention a "contractual problem."  Would not the Tomos be invalid since there was no consultation with the majority of the Orthodox on the American territory?  The Greeks and the Antiochians and other Orthodox in America were not involved, and were not invited to be involved, in the creation of this "autocephaly" for a minority group.

It was a unilateral declaration by a minority Church group in America and its validity is questionable.

As you may know ROCA has just formed a commission to study its historical relationship with the Metropolia/OCA.  An OCA clergyman submitted these thoughts today in an Orthodox news group:
___________________________
'Actually, I think -- just a hunch -- that the ROCOR people are preparing to brace themselves for an influx of ex-OCAers, and they need to articulate a clear stance toward us and our occasionally shared history.
 
'I've long believed that if our current confusion isn't resolved PDQ, our more 'traditional' types will gravitate to the ROCOR, and our more 'progressive' types to the AOCA.
___________________________


Fr. Ambrose, you raise some points which are also echoed by our officials and hierarchs. 
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #9 on: May 04, 2009, 10:24:39 PM »

Reading over the OCA Tomos issued from the MP I found this interesting section.  I am wondering how this
stipulation was addressed in terms of what ROCOR and the MP have recently agreed upon.  Seems to me there is a contractual problem:

The Tomos of Autocephaly

 . . . . . . . . 7. The Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America shall have exclusive spiritual and canonical jurisdiction over all bishops, clerics and laymen of the Eastern Orthodox confession in continental North America, excluding Mexico, and including the State of Hawaii who are presently part of the Metropolitanate, or who shall later enter the Metropolitanate; and over all parishes which now belong or later shall be accepted into the Metropolitanate, excepting the entire clergy, possessions and parishes enumerated in Paragraph 3, points a,b,c.

*
You mention a "contractual problem."  Would not the Tomos be invalid since there was no consultation with the majority of the Orthodox on the American territory?  The Greeks and the Antiochians and other Orthodox in America were not involved, and were not invited to be involved, in the creation of this "autocephaly" for a minority group.

It was a unilateral declaration by a minority Church group in America and its validity is questionable.

As you may know ROCA has just formed a commission to study its historical relationship with the Metropolia/OCA.  An OCA clergyman submitted these thoughts today in an Orthodox news group:
___________________________
'Actually, I think -- just a hunch -- that the ROCOR people are preparing to brace themselves for an influx of ex-OCAers, and they need to articulate a clear stance toward us and our occasionally shared history.
 
'I've long believed that if our current confusion isn't resolved PDQ, our more 'traditional' types will gravitate to the ROCOR, and our more 'progressive' types to the AOCA.
___________________________


Fr. Ambrose, you raise some points which are also echoed by our officials and hierarchs. 

However, there is a difference in that the Russian Church Abroad, its Metropolitan and Synod, are in submission to the Patriarchate of Moscow and cannot contradict its Acts.

The Churches of Constantinople, Antioch, etc, are not in obedience to Moscw and have a right to deny Moscow's decisions if they wish.

If the Russian Church Abroad achieves autocephaly it too will have the right to challenge a decision of Moscow but at the moment it has no such right since the Patriarch of Moscow and the Holy Synod are its supreme authority.

The only manner whereby ROCA could possibly challenge a decision of Moscow is by an appeal to Constantinople, such as was done by Bishop Basil Osborne recently in the UK.   In this instance Constantinople would gladly confirm the lack of the OCA's autocephaly but such an appeal to Constantinople would be fraught with hazards for the Russian Church Abroad.  It would probably be disowned by Moscow and find itself in the canonical wasteland.
Logged
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #10 on: May 05, 2009, 07:52:08 AM »

Reading over the OCA Tomos issued from the MP I found this interesting section.  I am wondering how this
stipulation was addressed in terms of what ROCOR and the MP have recently agreed upon.  Seems to me there is a contractual problem:

The Tomos of Autocephaly

 . . . . . . . . 7. The Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America shall have exclusive spiritual and canonical jurisdiction over all bishops, clerics and laymen of the Eastern Orthodox confession in continental North America, excluding Mexico, and including the State of Hawaii who are presently part of the Metropolitanate, or who shall later enter the Metropolitanate; and over all parishes which now belong or later shall be accepted into the Metropolitanate, excepting the entire clergy, possessions and parishes enumerated in Paragraph 3, points a,b,c.

*
You mention a "contractual problem."  Would not the Tomos be invalid since there was no consultation with the majority of the Orthodox on the American territory?  The Greeks and the Antiochians and other Orthodox in America were not involved, and were not invited to be involved, in the creation of this "autocephaly" for a minority group.

It was a unilateral declaration by a minority Church group in America and its validity is questionable.

As you may know ROCA has just formed a commission to study its historical relationship with the Metropolia/OCA.  An OCA clergyman submitted these thoughts today in an Orthodox news group:
___________________________
'Actually, I think -- just a hunch -- that the ROCOR people are preparing to brace themselves for an influx of ex-OCAers, and they need to articulate a clear stance toward us and our occasionally shared history.
 
'I've long believed that if our current confusion isn't resolved PDQ, our more 'traditional' types will gravitate to the ROCOR, and our more 'progressive' types to the AOCA.
___________________________


Fr. Ambrose, you raise some points which are also echoed by our officials and hierarchs. 

However, there is a difference in that the Russian Church Abroad, its Metropolitan and Synod, are in submission to the Patriarchate of Moscow and cannot contradict its Acts.

Fr. Ambrose, I don't understand how you are coming to your constant assertion that ROCOR is "in submission" to the MP when it contradicts the official statement made by our hierarchs. 

Below is what Met. Laurus (of Blessed Memory); Archbishop Mark of Berlin and Germany; Kyrill, Archbishop of San Francisco and Western America; Michael, Bishop of Geneva and Western Europe; Gabriel, Bishop of Manhattan; Peter, Bishop of Cleveland said concerning ROCOR's status with the MP:

"The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, in her fullness, thus preserves her existence and self-governing status. She will continue to have her own First Hierarch, her own Council of Bishops, her own Synod of Bishops, her own Regulations, and will govern herself with complete independence.

http://www.synod.com/synod/eng2006/9enaktexplanantion.html

You never did explain this contradiction between your position and that of our hierarchs when I posted it to you the first or second time!

Could you please address this?
Logged
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,020



« Reply #11 on: May 05, 2009, 09:19:30 AM »

I don't have it in front of me, but I know the Tomos requires the OCA to respect the existing Orthodox (canonical) jurisdictions in America.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #12 on: May 05, 2009, 09:32:25 AM »

"The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, in her fullness, thus preserves her existence and self-governing status. She will continue to have her own First Hierarch, her own Council of Bishops, her own Synod of Bishops, her own Regulations, and will govern herself with complete independence.

http://www.synod.com/synod/eng2006/9enaktexplanantion.html

You never did explain this contradiction between your position and that of our hierarchs when I posted it to you the first or second time!

Could you please address this?

Yes, certainly.  The statement to which you have referred was issued at the end of 2006 about 7 months prior to the Act of Canonical Communion.

There is a possibility that the bishops of ROCA had the hope that the forthcoming union would grant them complete independence.  In other words they may have hoped that Russia would confer autocephaly on the Russian Church Abroad since only an autocephalous Church may govern itself with complete independence.

However, such a hope makes no sense to me.  How would Russia create two autocephalous Churches on the territory of the United States and Canada?

In the end, the Act of Canonical Communion did not confer "complete independence" on the Russian Church Abroad.  We were accorded neither autocephalous nor autonomous status but the lesser status of self-governing.


We do not have complete independence to choose our bishops.  They must be approved by Moscow before consecration.  Bishop Jerome (Shaw) and Bishop John (Berzins) were consecrated only after Moscow had said they could be.

Likewise the Russian Church Abroad does not have complete independence to settle its internal problems.  Appeals may be made to Moscow which can either confirm or overturn a decision of the Synod of the Church Abroad.

Likewise, the Church Abroad may not create or liquidate dioceses.  That can be done only by Moscow.

This is simply not "complete independence" unless we adopt some Orwellian understanding of "complete."

The Act of Canonical Communion May 2007
http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/engdocuments/enmat_akt.html
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/070517113937.htm
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,458



« Reply #13 on: May 05, 2009, 11:49:17 AM »

I don't have it in front of me, but I know the Tomos requires the OCA to respect the existing Orthodox (canonical) jurisdictions in America.

Not quite:
Quote
For a number of years, the Russian Orthodox Church has observed with maternal love and concern the development of the Orthodox Church which she planted on the American continent. In the last few decades she has sorrowfully witnessed the unfortunate appearance there of a pluralism of ecclesiastical jurisdictions, a temporary phenomenon, and by no means a permanent norm of the canonical organization of the Orthodox Church in America, since it is contrary to the nature of Orthodox canonical ecclesiastical unity.

The Holy Russian Orthodox Church, striving for the good of the Church, has directed her efforts toward the normalization of relations among the various ecclesiastical jurisdictions in America, particularly by negotiating with the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in America, concerning the possibility of grant¬ing autocephaly to this Church in the hope that this might serve the good of the Orthodox Church in America and the glory of God.....

....Confirming the Autocephaly of the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in America, we bless her to call herself The Holy Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America; we acknowledge and proclaim her our Sister Church, and we invite all local Orthodox Churches and their Primates and their faithful children to acknowledge her as such and to include her in the dyptichs in accordance with the Canons of the Church, the traditions of the Fathers and ecclesiastical practice.

The newly-established local Orthodox Autocephalous Church in America should abide in brotherly relations with all the Orthodox Churches and their Primates as well as with their bishops, clergy and pious flock, who are in America and who for the time being preserve their de facto existing canonical and jurisdictional dependence on their national Churches and their Primates.

Note, de facto, NOT de jure.
http://www.oca.org/DOCtomos.asp?SID=12

Btw, and interesting thing that (unlike the agreements that ROCORthodox brings up) is referenced in the Tomos:
Quote
Article III
Jurisdiction of the Autocephalous Church
 
(1) The Patriarchate agrees that the Metropolia after its proclamation as Autocephalous Church shall have exclusive jurisdiction, both spiritual and temporal, over all the bishops, clerics, and faithful of the Eastern Orthodox faith in continental North America, including the State of Hawaii, who are now in communion with the Metropolia or who shall hereafter enter into communion with the Metropolia, and also over all the parishes which are now affiliated with the Metropolia or which hereafter may be received into affiliation with the Metropolia, excluding all clergy, all properties and parishes enumerated in Article V, paragraph (1), subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c).

(2) The Patriarchate agrees that it shall not hereafter assert jurisdiction, either spiritual or temporal, over the bishops, clergy and faithful of the Eastern Orthodox faith referred to in paragraph (1) of this Article, or over the parishes referred to in said paragraph (1), and hereby cedes to the Metropolia all such jurisdiction in every respect which it now claims to possess, in that territory, excluding all clergy, properties and parishes enumerated in Article V, paragraph (1), subparagraphs (a), (b) and (c). 
http://www.oca.org/DOCautocephaly.asp?SID=12&ID=65

As all of canonical Orthodox is now in communion with the Metropolia/OCA, what then?
« Last Edit: May 05, 2009, 11:57:27 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ROCORthodox
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 301



« Reply #14 on: May 05, 2009, 12:28:21 PM »

"The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, in her fullness, thus preserves her existence and self-governing status. She will continue to have her own First Hierarch, her own Council of Bishops, her own Synod of Bishops, her own Regulations, and will govern herself with complete independence.

http://www.synod.com/synod/eng2006/9enaktexplanantion.html

You never did explain this contradiction between your position and that of our hierarchs when I posted it to you the first or second time!

Could you please address this?

Yes, certainly.  The statement to which you have referred was issued at the end of 2006 about 7 months prior to the Act of Canonical Communion.

There is a possibility that the bishops of ROCA had the hope that the forthcoming union would grant them complete independence.  In other words they may have hoped that Russia would confer autocephaly on the Russian Church Abroad since only an autocephalous Church may govern itself with complete independence.

However, such a hope makes no sense to me.  How would Russia create two autocephalous Churches on the territory of the United States and Canada?

In the end, the Act of Canonical Communion did not confer "complete independence" on the Russian Church Abroad.  We were accorded neither autocephalous nor autonomous status but the lesser status of self-governing.


We do not have complete independence to choose our bishops.  They must be approved by Moscow before consecration.  Bishop Jerome (Shaw) and Bishop John (Berzins) were consecrated only after Moscow had said they could be.

Likewise the Russian Church Abroad does not have complete independence to settle its internal problems.  Appeals may be made to Moscow which can either confirm or overturn a decision of the Synod of the Church Abroad.

Likewise, the Church Abroad may not create or liquidate dioceses.  That can be done only by Moscow.

This is simply not "complete independence" unless we adopt some Orwellian understanding of "complete."

The Act of Canonical Communion May 2007
http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/engdocuments/enmat_akt.html
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/070517113937.htm


Fr. Ambrose, you are assuming that the points you bring up were not yet established at the time the official statement was made. 

That is not the case.   

The points you mention were already addressed in the Act when the official statement was made.  How else do you explain the hierarch's last sentence from the same official statement posted below?   Clearly they understood that there would be decrees that were subject to review or confirmation from the MP, yet they still stated ROCOR has "complete independence".


According to the “Act on Canonical Communion,” the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is “self-governing in pastoral, educational, administrative, management, property and civil matters” (par. 2). No decrees of the Synod of Bishops or Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia are subject to the review or confirmation of the Holy Synod or Council of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, except those of a canonical nature.


It has been explained by Fr. Alexander Lebedeff that basically the MP only can refuse an action of ROCOR "if" it is uncanonical.   Of course ROCOR is not independent of the Canons!

It seems that you would assert that claiming "complete independence" would be false given the hierarch's last sentence in the statement above.

Is this correct?



« Last Edit: May 05, 2009, 12:30:22 PM by ROCORthodox » Logged
cholmes
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 146



« Reply #15 on: May 05, 2009, 02:26:43 PM »

Is it really necessary to have two threads going on this now?   Huh
Logged

Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #16 on: May 06, 2009, 12:27:52 AM »


It seems that you would assert that claiming "complete independence" would be false given the hierarch's last sentence in the statement above.


As I have said, it would be false to claim that the Russian Church Abroad was accorded "complete independence" by Moscow.

The Act of Canonical Communion does not allow complete independence.


1.  We must commemorate the Patriarch of Russia in first place before our Metropolitan at every Liturgy and Church service. 

     When Metropolitan Hilarion himself serves Liturgy the ONLY person he commemorates
     is the Patriarch of Moscow who is his superior and supreme authority.  He commemorates
     the Patriarch as his "Great Lord and Father."
 
2.  We cannot choose our Metropolitan without approval from Moscow
 
3.  We cannot choose any of our bishops without approval from Moscow.
 
4,  We cannot create new dioceses nor liquidate existing dioceses without approval from Moscow
 
5.  Our supreme ecclesiastical authority is Moscow
 
6.  We must observe decisions made in Moscow.
 
7.  Appeals on decisions made by our NY Synod must be heard in Moscow

Plase see the The Act of Canonical Communion May 2007
http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/engdocuments/enmat_akt.html
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/070517113937.htm

Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.112 seconds with 44 queries.