OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 02, 2014, 01:33:27 AM *
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 2 3 4 5 6 7 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: North American Unity  (Read 34102 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Tamara
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Diocese of America
Posts: 2,208


+Pray for Orthodox Unity+


« Reply #180 on: May 30, 2008, 04:19:04 PM »

It is interesting that you find the modified congregational model that is so prevalent in American Orthodoxy due to trusteeism to be the way to move forward in the future.  I think many people sort of unknowingly accept this model because it exists in so many places, or it fits in with the way we view things in general as people raised in the West.  The problem with the model of course is that it is completely counter to the traditions of the Orthodox Church and is not shared by some portions of the Orthodox Church in the diaspora, including North America.  If you want to see how much power the priest wields in the traditional model, I would suggest a quick read of the standard parish by-laws of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia

The so-called "traditional" model was only traditional in Russia. Part of the problems seen in the OCA were because they were still operating under this model. The Greek and Antiochian model will probably be the way of the future in North America but will need some tweaking so that the decision making remains in balance.
Logged
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #181 on: May 30, 2008, 04:54:10 PM »

The so-called "traditional" model was only traditional in Russia. Part of the problems seen in the OCA were because they were still operating under this model. The Greek and Antiochian model will probably be the way of the future in North America but will need some tweaking so that the decision making remains in balance.

The traditional model is the traditional model, and that is the running of dioceses and parishes are in the hands of the bishops and their representatives at the local level, i.e. priests.  This is not a particularly Russian model.  I would say it's actually the Byzantine model.

The circumstances in North America led to trusteeism and lay control, this is completely foreign to the hierarchal model of both Catholicism and Orthodoxy.  The Catholic bishops recognized this and aggressively stamped out trusteeism at the end of the 19th century.  Trusteeism however became ingrained in North American Orthodoxy and is why the vast majority of North American Orthodox churches at the parish level operate in a semi-congregational framework.  The OCA in fact did not follow the traditional model of hierarchal control, but was formed with a large base of trustee parishes.  Read the statute of the OCA which is published online and you can see for parish governance they basically defer to local bylaws in order to lay out how things are run.  This is in opposition for instance to what the ROCOR lays out for their model of church governance.  In other words the problems of the OCA, which are probably manifold in their origins, have nothing to do with the traditional model of hierarchal church governance.  It is actually possible that the lack of this traditional model may be a major source of their issues, and that should be something to think about for people who think lay control, or the Greek model (because the GOA bylaws are in many ways given to the same semi congregational issues) is the way of the future.  You will certainly for instance never convince the bishops of the ROCOR to release any of their parishes in to a structure that operates this way, nor could you convince them to take in parishes without first having those parishes adopt bylaws that adhere to the traditional model.  That in a nutshell is what I think the unity issue is.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2008, 05:27:27 PM by AMM » Logged
Tamara
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Diocese of America
Posts: 2,208


+Pray for Orthodox Unity+


« Reply #182 on: May 30, 2008, 07:09:26 PM »

The traditional model is the traditional model, and that is the running of dioceses and parishes are in the hands of the bishops and their representatives at the local level, i.e. priests.  This is not a particularly Russian model.  I would say it's actually the Byzantine model.

The circumstances in North America led to trusteeism and lay control, this is completely foreign to the hierarchal model of both Catholicism and Orthodoxy.  The Catholic bishops recognized this and aggressively stamped out trusteeism at the end of the 19th century.  Trusteeism however became ingrained in North American Orthodoxy and is why the vast majority of North American Orthodox churches at the parish level operate in a semi-congregational framework.  The OCA in fact did not follow the traditional model of hierarchal control, but was formed with a large base of trustee parishes.  Read the statute of the OCA which is published online and you can see for parish governance they basically defer to local bylaws in order to lay out how things are run.  This is in opposition for instance to what the ROCOR lays out for their model of church governance.  In other words the problems of the OCA, which are probably manifold in their origins, have nothing to do with the traditional model of hierarchal church governance.  It is actually possible that the lack of this traditional model may be a major source of their issues, and that should be something to think about for people who think lay control, or the Greek model (because the GOA bylaws are in many ways given to the same semi congregational issues) is the way of the future.  You will certainly for instance never convince the bishops of the ROCOR to release any of their parishes in to a structure that operates this way, nor could you convince them to take in parishes without first having those parishes adopt bylaws that adhere to the traditional model.  That in a nutshell is what I think the unity issue is.

I disagree. The Russian model was influenced by the tight control welded by the Tsar over the church. The problems of the OCA stemmed from the Metropolitan making all the decisions. The Metropolitan council had no power or influence on the Holy Synod.
The Greek and Antiochian model seem to be the most successful in this country.

What worked in one era may not in another. In times passed, the laity were all illiterate, ignorant peasants. During the Byzantine Empire the lower clergy and laity were educated and involved with the governance of the church. As my OCL friend shared with me, "Many bishops were sent up the Bosphorus if they were found lacking."

« Last Edit: May 30, 2008, 09:24:02 PM by Tamara » Logged
Tamara
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Diocese of America
Posts: 2,208


+Pray for Orthodox Unity+


« Reply #183 on: May 31, 2008, 11:47:29 AM »

From Orthodoxinfo site:   http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/general/history5.aspx

"The Muscovite Empire, however, was quite different from Byzantium both in its political system and in its cultural self-understanding. The Byzantine "symphony" (harmonious relationship) between the emperor and the patriarch was never really applied in Russia. The secular goals of the Muscovite state and the will of the monarch always superseded canonical or religious considerations, which were still binding on the medieval emperors of Byzantium. Muscovite political ideology was always influenced more by the beginnings of western European secularism and by Asiatic despotism than by Roman or Byzantine law. Though strong patriarchs of Constantinople were generally able to oppose open violations of dogma and canon law by the emperors, their Russian successors were quite powerless; a single metropolitan of Moscow, St. Philip (metropolitan 1566-68), who dared to condemn the excesses of Ivan IV, was deposed and murdered."

 
from my OCL friend on the Byzantine Empire (a post from a few years ago):

Dear xxxx,

With all due respect, I think you are a victim of Western historians' view of the East.

Most people tend to forget that it was only the West that suffered the Dark Ages, not the East. When Rome fell, learning and literacy declined in the West, and remained at pitiful levels for 600-700 years. The result of this is the commonly held, and not altogether incorrect image of the monks or priest being the only one in an entire village who could read. This dramatic decline in literacy helped to accelerate the concentration of power of the Roman popes.

In the East, however, the barbarians did not win. The walls of Constantinople held back the barbarians, who essentially skipped off (to the West), leaving things more or less unchanged. The Eastern Empire continued on for another 1000 years. Most people do not realize that the EAst had always been the economic colossus in the Empire, even during the height of Rome. Alexandria was always a bigger city than Rome, even in Rome's heyday.

Most people also tend to forget that literacy was no particular achievement in the East, and that the common curriculum included Homer, the classics of ancient Greece, the Old and New Testament. The key, though, was that literacy levels did not fall as they did in the West. In the cities in particular, literacy was pretty commonplace...people could read and write. They even used surnames from very very early on. I have even read orders which had been issued in the Byzantine army to lower level officers. You don't issue written orders if the people can't read.

What was the result of this? In the East, from the very beginning, there was an engaged, involved laity which took an active role in the church. Consider what the stories of the controversies surrounding the various heresies actually represent. Clergy and laity throughout the empire understood and argued the various issues surrounding these. Is this the mark of an uninformed, unengaged populace?**

There are Byzantine stories of bishops being sent BACK to the capital, having been considered ANAXIOS. Laity were certainly at least present at most of the ecumenical councils, and there are even debates over their ability to vote at them. They were almost always chaired by lay representatives of the emperors. There are also very clear quotes from later emperors, I remember one from John Paleologos at the Council of Florence, in which the emperor complained to the patriarch something to the effect of, "Why are all my best theologians my LAY theologians."

My point is this - those who would support an active, engaged laity - one which is also actively involved in the governance of the church, are not introducing anything new into the system. They are merely returning to a time honored tradition of the church of the first 15 centuries.

It was only after the fall of the Eastern Empire when many of the "traditions" which we are so familiar with today arose. For example, it was only after the Fall that the bishops were brought out in front of the iconostasis, and seated in what had been traditionally the imperial throne (at the front on the right). They also took on the other elements of the imperial regalia at the same time. Take a look in your own church at the icons of the great hierarchs of the church (St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil, St. Photios, St. Athanasios, etc). Do your icons show any of them vested in crowns and jewels as we see today? Or do they show them dressed in simple clerical garments?

Similarly, it was only after the Fall that the behavior that some might call 'despotic' began. The office of ecumenical patriarch was essentially "auctioned off" by the sultans for 400 years (it was very clearly purchased), and the bishops became provincial representatives of what was a temporal power (the patriarch) residing in C'nople.

Finally, it was also during this period that the East suffered its own Dark Age, with literacy levels dropping to the same pathetic levels which had been experienced in the West 900 years earlier. The priests in the villages became as illiterate as the peasants, and the relative gap between the people and the hierarchs grew. There are Western reports from visitors to the East during the 16th and 17th centuries which decry the level of illiteracy and general educational ignorance of the Eastern clergy living in the Ottoman Empire at that time.

This was the backdrop for the growth of despotic power, and the decline of lay involvement, which I have characterized as one of the worst remnants of the Turkish occupation. I would suggest that a patriarch even attempting such similar power grabbing "shenanigans" 1500 years ago would have quickly found himself on a boat ride up the Bosporus. Look at what happened to St. John Chrysostom and St. Photios.

We find ourselves today in a country which replicates the Eastern Empire in many many ways. Literacy is widespread. Commerce and the economy are flourishing. Diversity of culture is celebrated. Citizenship in a nation supercedes ethnic and tribal ties. The national currency of our country is used worldwide as a medium of exchange. The US is the only superpower in the world. All of these items are almost exactly analogous to the situation in Byzantium during much of its history, particularly prior to the year 1000.

Why is it so unbelieveable to think that as part of our spiritual advancement, we are actually redressing and reinstituting a lay/clergy balance which was traditionally a hallmark of the Eastern Church? A move back toward working together in harmony, working for the betterment of the Church, and for the advancement of the faith.

I continue to view this not as Old World or New World, but as reclaiming and reestablishing many of the fundamentals of the Church of the first 15 centuries.

Those Church Fathers were truly amazing, brilliant, and ingenious people. I don't think we've taken enough time to truly understand what they built..and why. I think if more people look, they will find an incredibly solid, sophisticated and workable structure...on which very little improvement is really necessary.

Just my humble opinion...sorry to go on.

Best Regards,
Dean Calvert


**St. Gregory of Nyssa describes the unending theological arguments in Constantinople at the time of the second general council:

The whole city is full of it, the squares, the market places, the cross-roads, the alleyways; old-clothes men, money changers, food sellers: they are all busy arguing. If you ask someone to give you change, he philosophizes about the Begotten and the Unbegotten; if you inquire about the price of a loaf, you are told by way of reply that the Father is greater and the Son inferior; if you ask 'Is my bath ready?' the attendant answers that the Son was made out of nothing.'
« Last Edit: May 31, 2008, 02:56:40 PM by Tamara » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,483



« Reply #184 on: June 01, 2008, 03:14:32 PM »

What I'm looking for is documentation of what ialmisry is talking about (i.e. the intrigue around the formation of the Church of Sweeden).

Nothing about documentation, but our priest just returned from Sweden and Norway, telling it was "business as usual" there.

There is a group in Norway, which was years ago all members of the State church of Norway but is now ecumenical because some have left.  Some went to Rome.  A large group tried to go Orthodox, but the Greek primate of Sweden was against the idea of Orthodoxy being for Scandinavians, so they ended up forming the "Nordic Catholic Church" and joined the Polish National Church.  This Nordic church already have their own bishop.  Another lost opportunity for Orthodoxy.

There was a recent plan to form a convent in Norway near Aeslund (a Greek family of 30+ years there told this story).  Up to a hundred nuns, and 15 priests from Athos to minister to them and the surrounding country.  Again, the Greek primate KOd the idea, as it smacked of the idea that "Orthodoxy is for Scandinavians."

The remnants of the non-Greeks there, basically the Slavs, have moved in that they have services in Norwegian, etc.  Evidenty, since all non-Greeks are the same, the primate isn't watching too closely what the exarchate is doing.

Btw, word was that the Greek primate ended up in Scandinavia because he was run out of Greece.
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
username!
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,063



« Reply #185 on: June 01, 2008, 07:22:23 PM »

As my OCL friend shared with me, "Many bishops were sent up the Bosphorus if they were found lacking."

OCL?  Is that Orthodox Christian Laity group, the one anyone whether a Orthodox or not can belong to?
Logged

Tamara
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Diocese of America
Posts: 2,208


+Pray for Orthodox Unity+


« Reply #186 on: June 01, 2008, 10:43:43 PM »

OCL?  Is that Orthodox Christian Laity group, the one anyone whether a Orthodox or not can belong to?

Most of the members are in the Greek Archdiocese but there are members from other jurisdictions.
I doubt anyone who isn't Orthodox would be interested in joining.

My friend, who wrote the letter above, is a Greek-American (spent most of his life in the Greek Archdiocese) but is now a member of the OCA. He was active in the OCL a while ago but now focuses his attention on evangelizing through St. Andrew's
House of Orthodox Study under Archbishop Nathaniel.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2008, 10:45:13 PM by Tamara » Logged
admiralnick
Cardinal, Editor for Photogalleries
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,880


« Reply #187 on: June 02, 2008, 11:29:57 AM »

I think talking about OCL is a topic for the private forums personally  police


In regards to models of church government, I still go back to the simple question. Are priests educated and learned enough to make business decisions that are in the best interest of the church? The idea of congregationalism falls back on the fundamental accounting philosophy of Separation of Duties. If one person has control over all of the money or administration or fixed assets, etc. risk for fraud goes up tremendously. Basically by instituting congregationalism, not only do you get people who have degrees and knowledge in accounting, finance, management, marketing, etc. but you also separate the vital church functions among more people which can prevent Fr ___________ (fill in the blank) from taking his 2 month cruise in the carribean courtesy of the church.

-Nick
Logged

The ORIGINAL: "NULL"
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,053


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #188 on: June 02, 2008, 11:39:32 AM »

In regards to models of church government, I still go back to the simple question. Are priests educated and learned enough to make business decisions that are in the best interest of the church? The idea of congregationalism falls back on the fundamental accounting philosophy of Separation of Duties. If one person has control over all of the money or administration or fixed assets, etc. risk for fraud goes up tremendously. Basically by instituting congregationalism, not only do you get people who have degrees and knowledge in accounting, finance, management, marketing, etc. but you also separate the vital church functions among more people which can prevent Fr ___________ (fill in the blank) from taking his 2 month cruise in the carribean courtesy of the church. 

I don't think they need to be "making the decisions" - but they have to know what's going on, understand fully what the Church and it's board are deciding, and be able to voice his opinion; and, if need be, to voice a veto if the Church makes a damaging decision.  I'm all for the separation of duties, and having people who have skills in the field using their talents for the good of the community - but the Priest, I feel, has no choice but to educate himself in finances and governance, so he can be an active and contributing member of the parish.  I've seen parishes hide their money, do raffles and the like against the will of their bishop, and budget some strange things - and often the priests don't know what's really going on!  The problem with the situation is that while said priest may not be legally culpable for what's going on, he is spiritually.  The shepherd must be aware of what's going on, and has no excuse before the master of "ignorance" if anything befalls the sheep or the field.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
admiralnick
Cardinal, Editor for Photogalleries
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,880


« Reply #189 on: June 02, 2008, 12:02:30 PM »

It would seem then, that the need here is to make an additional requirement of all seminarians who do not have previous accounting and management experience or course work to fulfill the requirements of at least a minor in management and accounting. If it doesn't start at the seminary, where would it begin? Further, finance and management isn't for everyone. Our priest has said on a number of occasions that finances and accounting are a mystery to him as he doesn't even do his own finances, his Matushka does. How do you (not you personally, you infinitively) explain difficult management and financial concepts to a person who is not gifted in some way, shape, or form in those fields?

-Nick
« Last Edit: June 02, 2008, 12:03:22 PM by admiralnick » Logged

The ORIGINAL: "NULL"
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,053


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #190 on: June 02, 2008, 12:17:23 PM »

It would seem then, that the need here is to make an additional requirement of all seminarians who do not have previous accounting and management experience or course work to fulfill the requirements of at least a minor in management and accounting. If it doesn't start at the seminary, where would it begin? Further, finance and management isn't for everyone. Our priest has said on a number of occasions that finances and accounting are a mystery to him as he doesn't even do his own finances, his Matushka does. How do you (not you personally, you infinitively) explain difficult management and financial concepts to a person who is not gifted in some way, shape, or form in those fields?

-Nick 

As I stated previously, some of the seminaries are moving in the direction of requiring instruction in management or finance as part of the curriculum.  Our president at Holy Cross definitely considers it a high priority - sometimes one is a great pastor, but they unfortunately get moved because they are terrible administrators.  In a big parish, one must know what's going on because there is so much going on.  In a small parish, one must know what's going on because so much work must be done in order to sustain the parish, and usually there are fewer laborers to help.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
admiralnick
Cardinal, Editor for Photogalleries
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,880


« Reply #191 on: June 02, 2008, 12:23:29 PM »

As I stated previously, some of the seminaries are moving in the direction of requiring instruction in management or finance as part of the curriculum.  Our president at Holy Cross definitely considers it a high priority - sometimes one is a great pastor, but they unfortunately get moved because they are terrible administrators.  In a big parish, one must know what's going on because there is so much going on.  In a small parish, one must know what's going on because so much work must be done in order to sustain the parish, and usually there are fewer laborers to help.

I guess I can't shake the rust off on this one..... Did you notice how quiet it gets when we debate?

-Nick
Logged

The ORIGINAL: "NULL"
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,053


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #192 on: June 02, 2008, 01:45:07 PM »

I guess I can't shake the rust off on this one..... Did you notice how quiet it gets when we debate?

-Nick

Oh yeah.  I think everyone else goes into another room and plays twister while we go at it.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #193 on: June 02, 2008, 02:16:49 PM »

I'm still waiting for someone to clarify what they mean by "models", what models are on the table as possibilities, and how we decide?? Tongue
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #194 on: June 02, 2008, 02:33:06 PM »

I'm still waiting for someone to clarify what they mean by "models", what models are on the table as possibilities, and how we decide?? Tongue

Me, too. Seems I asked this ages ago.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,483



« Reply #195 on: June 02, 2008, 05:23:50 PM »

Models: Russian/OCA: seems that the aim from the start was to develop an autonomous, local, missionary Church.  Sort of what happened between the US and Britain on the secular plane.

Constantinople: seems that the aim from the start was to minister to immigrant communities, the Church remaining a diaspora branch under the perpetual care, and control, of the EP.  Sort of what Britain did in Canada, especially before the Canada Constitution Act, 1982 (passed not in Ottawa but London).

The rest of the jurisdictions seem to line up (or split up) on these two models.

« Last Edit: June 02, 2008, 05:29:33 PM 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
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #196 on: June 03, 2008, 08:53:05 AM »

Models: Russian/OCA: seems that the aim from the start was to develop an autonomous, local, missionary Church.  Sort of what happened between the US and Britain on the secular plane.

Constantinople: seems that the aim from the start was to minister to immigrant communities, the Church remaining a diaspora branch under the perpetual care, and control, of the EP.  Sort of what Britain did in Canada, especially before the Canada Constitution Act, 1982 (passed not in Ottawa but London).

The rest of the jurisdictions seem to line up (or split up) on these two models.


Actually, Isa, I assumed we were discussing the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese and OCA "models".

While I don't disagree with your opinion of the EP, I do take some issue with your "Russian" model. It seems pretty obvious that the Metropolia was not made autonomous (unless you have some evidence of this intent) but was in fact orphaned by its mother church for decades until 1970- cut loose in isolation and in communion with...whom?
Do you have any other examples of this 'model' as you say the Russians exercised? Maybe China? I don't know.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the Midwest
Posts: 8,790



« Reply #197 on: June 03, 2008, 09:04:41 AM »

=It seems pretty obvious that the Metropolia was not made autonomous (unless you have some evidence of this intent) but was in fact orphaned by its mother church for decades until 1970- cut loose in isolation and in communion with...whom?
From my own experience, Antioch. Maybe others, too. There aren't very many churches in my area.
Logged

"It is remarkable that what we call the world...in what professes to be true...will allow in one man no blemishes, and in another no virtue."--Charles Dickens
Robert W
Self-appointed forum herald
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Finland
Posts: 469


Love is no feeling


« Reply #198 on: June 03, 2008, 09:46:15 AM »

Nothing about documentation, but our priest just returned from Sweden and Norway, telling it was "business as usual" there.

There is a group in Norway, which was years ago all members of the State church of Norway but is now ecumenical because some have left.  Some went to Rome.  A large group tried to go Orthodox, but the Greek primate of Sweden was against the idea of Orthodoxy being for Scandinavians, so they ended up forming the "Nordic Catholic Church" and joined the Polish National Church.  This Nordic church already have their own bishop.  Another lost opportunity for Orthodoxy.

There was a recent plan to form a convent in Norway near Aeslund (a Greek family of 30+ years there told this story).  Up to a hundred nuns, and 15 priests from Athos to minister to them and the surrounding country.  Again, the Greek primate KOd the idea, as it smacked of the idea that "Orthodoxy is for Scandinavians."

The remnants of the non-Greeks there, basically the Slavs, have moved in that they have services in Norwegian, etc.  Evidenty, since all non-Greeks are the same, the primate isn't watching too closely what the exarchate is doing.

Btw, word was that the Greek primate ended up in Scandinavia because he was run out of Greece.

AAARGH!


I was going to post a long monologue but... I don't know what to say.  Embarrassed Hearing things like this hurt me, almost physically.
Logged
Thomas
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,790



« Reply #199 on: June 03, 2008, 09:47:08 AM »

I know many people on this forum tend to dismiss the Antiochian model preferring to look at the GOA and OCA models, yet I believe it does have a unique gradual approach that could be well accepted here in the US.

After the turmoil of the Bolshevik revolution and its splintering impact on the Orthodox Church in the US, the Mother Churches, at the request of their orphaned children began to send priests and then bishops to serve their immigrant children in the US. The Antiochian Church had split into two separate movements/dioceses or Archdioceses both under the Antiochian Patriarchate but not in real communication between the two until In 1975, Metropolitan Philip led the healing of the division between the two Antiochian archdioceses in America. With Metropolitan Michael (Shaheen) of Toledo, he combined the Archdioceses of New York and Toledo into a single archdiocese, placing unity over self aggrandizing he offered to become the assistant to Metropolitan Michael. Metropolitan Michael (of blessed memory) saw that the unification of the Orthodox Church would need a younger man who could develop it over a longer period of time.  He told Metropolitan Phillip that he should be the primate of the Antiochian Archdiocese and that he, Metropolitan Michael would be the auxiliary archbishop. This unity was ratified by the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate on August 19, 1975.

Once resolving the issue of disunity among themselves, the Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese began to focus on unity of the American Orthodox jurisdictions.From November 30 to December 2, 1994, at the Antiochian Village in Ligonier, Pennsylvania a meeting of twenty-eight or twenty-nine Orthodox Christian hierarchs in North America, specifically those affiliated with SCOBA,  held multiple sessions and presentations, and issued two statements, specifically on evangelism and on the notion of American Orthodox Christians being a "diaspora." Metroploitan Phillip, with the permission of Archbishop Iokovos, gave the opening address to the gathered bishops, and Archbishop Dmitri (Royster) of Dallas gave the official response. "By all accounts, unity and amity of purpose abounded. The assembled bishops came to an agreement and issued a statement declaring their intention of forming a united American Orthodox Church".  This meeting rejected by the Patriarch of Constantinople formed the basis for possible unification of the Orthodoxy in America.

Realizing that only through self-rule would a local jurisdiction be able to work as an equal among other jurisdictions, In 2003, a truly historic event occurred under the leadership of Metropolitan PHILIP. The Archdiocese of North America requested, and was granted by the Holy Synod of Antioch the status of a self-ruling archdiocese. In conjunction with this event, the archdiocese established a diocesan structure, and elected three new Diocesan Bishops who were consecrated by His Beatitude IGNATIUS IV in the Patriarchal Cathedral in Damascus, Syria. This has,  by 2008, increased to 9 dioceses.

The Antiochian model notes that one must do as Metropolitan Michael and Metropolitan Phillip did to unify the Antiochian Archdiocese, that is give up power and self aggrandizing of ones own bishopric for the good of the unity of the Orthodox Church in the Americas. In 1984 Metropolitan Phillip noted that "There is no doubt that we need a catalyst to lead us from the wilderness of division to the promised land of unity and fulfillment. I do not know of a better catalyst than the Ecumenical Patriarch, himself, who continues to live like a prisoner in Istanbul. Let us prevail on him to leave Turkey, come to America and unite our various jurisdictions under his wings. The Greek remnant in Istanbul can be shepherded by an exarch who would represent the ecumenical throne. The Ecumenical Patriarch will preserve his traditional role in the world regardless of where he resides. We have unlimited opportunities in this free land, but if we do not move forward with faith and courage, our Church on this continent will remain an insignificant dot on the margin of history."[Word Magazine April 1984]

The Antiochian model is that bishops release their own agendas and work on a single agenda that of the unity of the Church as a single Orthodox Church in the Americas so  that Church can become the powerful witness of Orthodoxy Christianity to the Americas.

Thomas

« Last Edit: June 03, 2008, 10:52:22 AM by Thomas » Logged

Your brother in Christ ,
Thomas
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #200 on: June 03, 2008, 10:04:21 AM »

Thomas, what is the Antiochian approach to governance at the parish level?  The Ferencz book says the Archdiocese put out a model constitution for parishes in the 70's and also published in the priest's guide a list of the duties and responsibilities of priests.  I can't find either online.  At the time of the writing of the book it said a new "clergy/laity reference manual" was due to be published.  Has that come out?

Quote
I know many people on this forum tend to dismiss the Antiochian model preferring to look at the GOA and OCA models, yet I believe it does have a unique  gradual approach that could be well accepted here in the US.

It seems the Romanians may be going this route.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2008, 10:04:47 AM by AMM » 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 #201 on: June 03, 2008, 10:50:35 AM »

The Ferencz book says the Archdiocese put out a model constitution for parishes in the 70's and also published in the priest's guide a list of the duties and responsibilities of priests.  I can't find either online. 

You will not find either online since they are internal documents. The model constitution was rewritten a few years ago to reflect the new self-rule of the Archdiocese. The priest's guide is in committee now so if anyone ever sees it a miracle will have occurred.
Logged

Joseph
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,483



« Reply #202 on: June 03, 2008, 11:09:49 AM »

Actually, Isa, I assumed we were discussing the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese and OCA "models".

A la EP Meltios, the GOA and Constantinople models are the same.

Quote
While I don't disagree with your opinion of the EP, I do take some issue with your "Russian" model. It seems pretty obvious that the Metropolia was not made autonomous (unless you have some evidence of this intent) but was in fact orphaned by its mother church for decades until 1970- cut loose in isolation and in communion with...whom?
Do you have any other examples of this 'model' as you say the Russians exercised? Maybe China? I don't know.

No, the Metropolia was not made autonomous, it wasn't ready when the Bolshevik revolution came about.  But some signs it was moving in that direction.

1. It always cultivated a native clergy.  That includes having the first Orthodox bishop ordained in this country.
2. It translated the DL into the vernaculars.
3. It moved its headquarters from Alaska to San Francisco to New York/Washington, i.e. away from links to the Mother Church and closer to the center of the nation in which the Metropolia found herself.
4. With the questioning of the suitability of Anglican rites for a WRO, it acknowledged its place among a non-Orthodox culture, and how to bring it to Orthodox.
5. It cultivated a pan-Orthodox world view in the New World.

Just to give a little of the contrast to the GOA.
1. the GOA traces itself, in official publications, to the Greeks in Florida.  There is no evidence if they had a priest or even if a service was ever conducted.  And if it was, it wouldn't be Orthodox: the immigrants were from an area that had submitted to Rome.
2. The first community it speaks of is the one in New Orleans.  St. Herman's mission had born fruit nearly a century earlier.
3. The first parish it recognizes is New York.  Alaska had her bishop about a century earlier, and her parish in New York a generation earlier.
4. It says Constantinople got jurisdiction in 1908.  North America was already a seperate archdiocese of the Russian Church by then.
5. Does the GOA cultivate native clergy now?
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
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #203 on: June 03, 2008, 03:32:20 PM »

A la EP Meltios, the GOA and Constantinople models are the same.
Using the M-word does not a argument make.
You are merely labeling here, not defining. It's a simple question...unless this is another bash-the-Greeks thread in which case you need to add some Romanians, Antioch, Greece (not the EP at the time, most parishes were under Greece at first, not Constantinople), Ukranians, Serbs, etal.

Quote
Just to give a little of the contrast to the GOA.
1. the GOA traces itself, in official publications, to the Greeks in Florida.  There is no evidence if they had a priest or even if a service was ever conducted.  And if it was, it wouldn't be Orthodox: the immigrants were from an area that had submitted to Rome.
No one asserted that they had an Orthodox priest at New Smyrna. They were promised one by the colony's organizer and were held in virtual slavery far beyond their contracted period of indenture. They worshiped as RC - the only clergy provided- excepting one family who refused.
Quote
2. The first community it speaks of is the one in New Orleans.  St. Herman's mission had born fruit nearly a century earlier.
We've done this before here - that was part of Russia at the time. So what? This does not obviate the fact that from the 1920s to 1970 arriving Orthodox had no church to find here (we can argue the OCA canonical status at the time if you like. The issue has always been avoided here, even by me, as no one wants to bash the OCA as they seem to wish on the Greeks.
Quote
3. The first parish it recognizes is New York.  Alaska had her bishop about a century earlier, and her parish in New York a generation earlier.
Given the above, your point?
Quote
4. It says Constantinople got jurisdiction in 1908.  North America was already a seperate archdiocese of the Russian Church by then.
See comments above
Quote
5. Does the GOA cultivate native clergy now?
Duh...I'll ask Fr Chris  Cheesy
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,483



« Reply #204 on: June 03, 2008, 05:00:03 PM »

Using the M-word does not a argument make.

Didn't say it did.  But the fact remains, the present set up, as far as the Greek contribution, is his doing.

Quote
You are merely labeling here, not defining. It's a simple question...unless this is another bash-the-Greeks thread in which case you need to add some Romanians, Antioch, Greece (not the EP at the time, most parishes were under Greece at first, not Constantinople), Ukranians, Serbs, etal.
As for defining: the Greek model (CoG or Constantinople, I don't see a difference here) is that the New World is diaspora, and any Church organization here is to be based on Orthodox ethnic indenty, and under foreign control in perpetuity.

Quote
No one asserted that they had an Orthodox priest at New Smyrna. They were promised one by the colony's organizer and were held in virtual slavery far beyond their contracted period of indenture. They worshiped as RC - the only clergy provided- excepting one family who refused.

I mention the priest to point out the need to provide some relevance as to the beginnings of Orthodoxy in this country, on this continent.  Long before St. Herman's mission, lay Russian traders brought Orthodoxy with them.  But with St. Herman's mission, the organization of normal Church like began in this country.  The New Smyrna colony was not set up to lead to anything Orthodox, and it didn't.

Quote
We've done this before here - that was part of Russia at the time.

And Florida was under Spain.  When the bishop moved his cathedral to California in 1872, i.e. a few years after the New Orleans Church, both she and Alaska were parts of the US.

Quote
So what? This does not obviate the fact that from the 1920s to 1970 arriving Orthodox had no church to find here (we can argue the OCA canonical status at the time if you like. The issue has always been avoided here, even by me, as no one wants to bash the OCA as they seem to wish on the Greeks.Given the above, your point?

Funny, many of those immigrants found that non-existence Church in from the 1920s to 1970.

Quote
Duh...I'll ask Fr Chris  Cheesy
I've been told by a GOA, that the archdiocese requires a year in Greece.  So they could learn the language, it seems.
Most clergy in the GOA I've met are from Greece, and all at least of Greek extraction.  All the other jurisdications I've encountered (i.e. most) have clergy not of the ethnic group, and a few converts.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2008, 05:00:42 PM 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
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,958


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #205 on: June 03, 2008, 05:26:59 PM »

Most clergy in the GOA I've met are from Greece, and all at least of Greek extraction.  All the other jurisdications I've encountered (i.e. most) have clergy not of the ethnic group, and a few converts.
Funny.  Both GOA priests in my city are converts and as ethnically non-Greek as they can be.  I think the closest either of them is to being Greek is that one of them married a Greek woman.
Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,053


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #206 on: June 03, 2008, 08:58:59 PM »

I've been told by a GOA, that the archdiocese requires a year in Greece. 

Wrong.  The Seminary "requires" a 6-to-7-week Summer course the summer before senior year: 3 weeks in Thessaloniki studying Greek, and 1 week in Constantinople, almost a week at Mt. Athos, and just over a week traveling Greece (Rizarios School where St. Nektarios taught, Patmos where St. John the Evangelist was, Athens where St. Paul preached, etc.).  However, those who are not able to come for various reasons (family, work, etc.) are exempted.

So they could learn the language, it seems.

Eh, kind of.  It is more for the experience of traveling through historic Orthodox lands (more time is spent on travel than on instruction).

Most clergy in the GOA I've met are from Greece, and all at least of Greek extraction. 

Eh, that may have been the case, but as you'll see below...

All the other jurisdications I've encountered (i.e. most) have clergy not of the ethnic group, and a few converts.

The majority of students at the Seminary in the last 5 years have been those who came into Orthodoxy as adults, and certainly the vast majority of them are not ethnically Greek.  That's the trend, my friend.

By the way, just because priests are or are not ethnically Greek doesn't mean they will or won't push the ethnic agenda: I've met a few non-Greek who do push it, and many more Greeks who don't.  Don't let the ethnicity of the priest dissuade you - by and large they have their priorities in the right place.

Now that you're done with your sweeping over-generalizations...
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,483



« Reply #207 on: June 03, 2008, 10:10:11 PM »

Wrong.  The Seminary "requires" a 6-to-7-week Summer course the summer before senior year: 3 weeks in Thessaloniki studying Greek, and 1 week in Constantinople, almost a week at Mt. Athos, and just over a week traveling Greece (Rizarios School where St. Nektarios taught, Patmos where St. John the Evangelist was, Athens where St. Paul preached, etc.).  However, those who are not able to come for various reasons (family, work, etc.) are exempted.

Eh, kind of.  It is more for the experience of traveling through historic Orthodox lands (more time is spent on travel than on instruction).

Thank God they spend their time in Thessaloniki then.  It's been some time since I've been there, but I'm told it is still the place to get an idea of what Greece was like before she tried to catch up to the EU in godlessness.  Much of Athens seems to show St. Paul has as much success now as he had in his own day.

Quote
Eh, that may have been the case, but as you'll see below...

The majority of students at the Seminary in the last 5 years have been those who came into Orthodoxy as adults, and certainly the vast majority of them are not ethnically Greek.  That's the trend, my friend.
Are they GOA?  I know some who went, but were Antiochean, coming since the fall out with the OCA over a subject I don't want to keep off on a tangeant on.

Quote
By the way, just because priests are or are not ethnically Greek doesn't mean they will or won't push the ethnic agenda: I've met a few non-Greek who do push it, and many more Greeks who don't.  Don't let the ethnicity of the priest dissuade you - by and large they have their priorities in the right place.

True, many converts want to be more Greek than Homer, more Russian than Vladimir, etc. 

By and large I don't know about, but I've known quite a few.  One, I remember, I met because my friend wanted to marry a Greek girl, but her parents were saying they couldn't because he wasn't Orthodox (he was considering converting, he belonged to Rome).  I talked to the priest, who insisted that the marriage could take place, and took out the register and matter of factly stated that the majority of the couples were mixed marriages (he was all for conversion, but stated that a Catholic baptism would suffice).  He did volunteer that at the time he was telling someone that he had to choose between "his heritage" and his fiancee, who was Jewish.  Btw, this priest was from Greece.

Quote
Now that you're done with your sweeping over-generalizations...
Actually my comments were in the main looking at things from the viewpoint of the hierarchs.  I know plenty of diplomats serving as priests in the GOA.  And there are other bishops, such as Isaish of Denver about whom I have never heard a cross word from any jurisdiction.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2008, 10:12:26 PM 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
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #208 on: June 04, 2008, 07:52:05 AM »

It's pretty easy to see why unity doesn't exist.
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #209 on: June 04, 2008, 08:13:00 AM »

No kidding...
This thread makes me more entrenched in the E_Patriarchate.

Isa STILL has no given definitions, only editorials.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2008, 08:23:44 AM by Αριστοκλής » Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,053


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #210 on: June 04, 2008, 09:57:01 AM »

Thank God they spend their time in Thessaloniki then.  It's been some time since I've been there, but I'm told it is still the place to get an idea of what Greece was like before she tried to catch up to the EU in godlessness.  Much of Athens seems to show St. Paul has as much success now as he had in his own day.

Agreed.

Are they GOA?  I know some who went, but were Antiochean, coming since the fall out with the OCA over a subject I don't want to keep off on a tangeant on.

Yes, they are GOA.  I'm telling you - as a former employee of the school, as a former student body president, and one who kept his "ear to the ground" a lot while at seminary, the trend is non-Greek priests in the GOA.  The majority of the GOA graduating classes are non-Greek now, and the trend will continue.

True, many converts want to be more Greek than Homer, more Russian than Vladimir, etc.


"Zeal for your house consumes me."

By and large I don't know about, but I've known quite a few.  One, I remember, I met because my friend wanted to marry a Greek girl, but her parents were saying they couldn't because he wasn't Orthodox (he was considering converting, he belonged to Rome).  I talked to the priest, who insisted that the marriage could take place, and took out the register and matter of factly stated that the majority of the couples were mixed marriages (he was all for conversion, but stated that a Catholic baptism would suffice).  He did volunteer that at the time he was telling someone that he had to choose between "his heritage" and his fiancee, who was Jewish.  Btw, this priest was from Greece.

I can understand the priest saying that about an Orthodox-Jewish wedding, which is a canonical no-no.

Actually my comments were in the main looking at things from the viewpoint of the hierarchs.  I know plenty of diplomats serving as priests in the GOA.  And there are other bishops, such as Isaish of Denver about whom I have never heard a cross word from any jurisdiction.

Oh.  Makes more sense now.  Thanks for the context.  By the way, Metropolitan Isaiah is pretty unusual: ex-Marine, used to ride a motorcycle.  Great guy.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #211 on: June 05, 2008, 06:37:02 PM »

I was thinking about this the other day, and I came to the conclusion so far all proposals on the table have essentially been some version of the top-down consolidation model.

Not being well versed in church politics, I want to throw an idea out there that I think I personally would prefer, and would be more successful.

I would like to highlight two Canadian examples. First, Lethbridge, Alberta; and second Kamloops, British Columbia.

They are relative comparable in size (Kamloops has approx. 91000 ppl, Lethbridge has approx 82000) and are a few hours away from a major city.

In terms of Orthodox presence, Kamloops has one Ukrainian parish (which serves a mission parish up north) as well as two mission communities; one OCA and one Greek.

Lethbridge, has two missions, one Ukrainian (with their own building) and one Serbian. Both are served only once a week.

So my question is, is there a canonical reason for these communities can NOT consolidate, in terms of going from one Liturgy a week to actually every week?? Especially for Lethbridge.... In the initial stages, they would still pay parish dues to their respective diocesan authorities, yet at the same time have a Liturgy every week, with the intent to be one Orthodox community?? How would that work with the commemoration of bishops?? I assume only one bishop may be commemorated....
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,053


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #212 on: June 05, 2008, 11:15:08 PM »

I was thinking about this the other day, and I came to the conclusion so far all proposals on the table have essentially been some version of the top-down consolidation model.

Not being well versed in church politics, I want to throw an idea out there that I think I personally would prefer, and would be more successful.

I would like to highlight two Canadian examples. First, Lethbridge, Alberta; and second Kamloops, British Columbia.

They are relative comparable in size (Kamloops has approx. 91000 ppl, Lethbridge has approx 82000) and are a few hours away from a major city.

In terms of Orthodox presence, Kamloops has one Ukrainian parish (which serves a mission parish up north) as well as two mission communities; one OCA and one Greek.

Lethbridge, has two missions, one Ukrainian (with their own building) and one Serbian. Both are served only once a week.

So my question is, is there a canonical reason for these communities can NOT consolidate, in terms of going from one Liturgy a week to actually every week?? Especially for Lethbridge.... In the initial stages, they would still pay parish dues to their respective diocesan authorities, yet at the same time have a Liturgy every week, with the intent to be one Orthodox community?? How would that work with the commemoration of bishops?? I assume only one bishop may be commemorated.... 

I suppose that would work in an area with a number of smaller parishes.  You are correct: only one bishop is to be commemorated in Liturgy (and anything else is an anomaly, save the heads of the Autocephalous churches, who commemorate the diptychs).
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
A Sombra
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 112


« Reply #213 on: June 06, 2008, 08:07:27 AM »

   I feel that "North American Unity" is largely a pipedream and do not think I will see it in my lifetime. I doubt that my children will see it in their lifetime. (I am 57, my oldest is 27, youngest 20) Also, as I have been a member of ROCOR for 20+years, "North American Unity" is not something I feel is very important. First, I feel the concerns of smaller Churches will be overlooked by the larger Churches. And, for one, I would NOT be interested in the least in administrative unity with Churches whose hierarchies are investing a lot of time and money in never ending and fruitless "dialogue" in the ecumenical movement.
   Also, due to the hard times that the Patriarchates of Antioch and Constantinople are getting in the "Old Country," I do not believe that either of these Patriarchates will ever fully "give up" their cash cow American Dioceses. Also, things have definitely not progressed so far that the "ethnic church" is dead. MANY Orthodox people WANT Bishops who speak their languages, and are from their homelands. Of course, to many partisans of this evasive Unity, they have no right to feel that way; only "Americans", of course, should have Bishops from their "homeland" who speak their language!
   I was reading the other day some posts on another forum, and a priest told some person that he should only be concerned with things that were essential to his salvation. Apparently, "North American Unity" is not something that is essential to the salvation of anyone, and is merely the preference of SOME of the Orthodox in North America. I myself do not know that these partisans of Unity are even a majority. I really do not even know anyone personally who feels this matter is of any great importance.

   A historical note-I believe that the Moscow Patriarchate left SCOBA after the Tomos of Autocephaly was granted to the OCA. At that time, and until this day, Moscow claims it has no dioceses in North America, no Diocesan Bishops in North America, so it could not be part of an organization of North American Bishops. Also, I would find it hard to believe that any jurisdiction of the Orthodox Church in North America that is represented in SCOBA has fewer parishes than the Moscow Patriarchate in North America (not counting ROCOR parishes).
Logged
John of the North
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Edmonton and the West
Posts: 3,533


Christ is Risen!

tgild
« Reply #214 on: June 06, 2008, 12:01:50 PM »

If the MP says that, its incorrect. I have received the Eucharist in an MP Cathedral, at the hand of an MP hierarch, with an MP priest hearing my confession. All on Canadian soil.
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
A Sombra
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 112


« Reply #215 on: June 07, 2008, 01:03:29 AM »

Quote: "If the MP says that, its incorrect. I have received the Eucharist in an MP Cathedral, at the hand of an MP hierarch, with an MP priest hearing my confession. All on Canadian soil."


Technically, they are not incorrect. This is indeed what they claim, however... the MP Bishop in Canada is Bishop Iov of Kashira; the MP Bishop in the U.S. is Bishop Merkury of Zaraisk. As you may note, "Kashira" is not in Canada, and "Zaraisk" is not in the U.S.-hence, accorsing to the MP, these are not Diocesan Bishops, but "representation" Bishops.The MP Parishes in Canada are not in an MP Diocese-they are "the Patriarchal Parishes in Canada," those in the U.S. are not part of an MP Diocese, but are "the Patriarchal Parishes in the USA."

Since the MP granted the Tomos of Autocephaly to the OCA, they claim that they havce given up all their Dioceses in North America-only parishes of the original North American Metropolia who wanted no part of the Autocephaly, or parishes in the U.S. that were in the MP's North American Dioceses at the time of the Autocephaly was granted, and wished to remain under the MP are (supposedly) part of the Patriarchal Parishes in USA and Canada. The MP also stated that they would not accept any new parishes in North America after the Autocephaly was granted. They have not stood by that statement, however.

The OCA also agrees with this view of the situation.

"In 1970, normal ecclesiastical and canonical relations were established with the American Metropolia of the Russian Orthodox Church with the granting of Autocephaly­ by the Mother Church to the American Metropolia. The achievement of this unity of Orthodox people was long and difficult.In accordance with TOMOS, the former American Metropolia was officially named as the "Orthodox Church of America" (OCA). The parishes of the Edmonton Canadian Diocese of the Moscow Patriarchate became officially the Patriarchal Parishes in Canada, which are administered by vicar bishops appointed by His Holiness the Patriarch and the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church."
Bishop Mark of Kashira, Address by: His Grace MARK
Bishop of Kashira, Administrator of the Patriarchal Parishes in Canada
at the Centenary Celebrations 
July 27, 1997 Wostok, Alberta
http://www.orthodoxcanada.net/eng/content/view/19/38/

Mark of Kashira is a former Bishop of the Patriarchal Parishes of Canada-the title "of Kashira" is used by all the Bishops who head the patriarchal Parishes of Canada, and "of Zaraisk" by all Bishops who head the Patriarchal Parishes of the USA.
Logged
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,021



« Reply #216 on: June 07, 2008, 03:23:48 AM »

Just a quick reply to A Sombra, Reply #213, the Patriarchate of Moscow, was never associated w/SCOBA.  Their diocesan unit, in 1961, when it was founded, did not join, probably due to the disputes w/the Metropolia at the time.  I have a recollection, perhaps in error, that they were invited to join.

While not taking the time to elaborate at this time, I believe "North American Unity" will, only God knows when, be achieved through SCOBA.  Through 1968, Archbishop Iakovos, of Thrice Blessed Memory, does not get the credit for the aggressive and practical efforts he made in this regard.  Constantinople collaborated w/Moscow to keep SCOBA's "pro-synod" proposal, off the 1967 pre-conciliar commission meeting in Geneva.  Interesting, in '67 (+/-)Moscow helps scuttle a unity proposal for the Americas, while they were engaged in private dialogue w/the Metropolia; two years before they unilaterally declared the Metropolia "autocephalos."  olc.org has a recently posted essay, written by their president, which I consider a beginning to this process, though I think they're ignoring the fact that he Greek Orthodox Archdiocese hierarchy are precluded by Patriarch Bartholomew from engaging in meaningfull dialogue regarding this topic.

What ever happened to the "pre-conciliar" process for the convening of the Great and Holy (Council)/Synod?  I have only seen two pre-conciliar meetings reported since Patriarch Bartholomew's tenure, while Patriarch Dimitrios'  (of Thrice Blessed Memory),tenure was marked by substantial progress, in the '80's, led by the former Metropolitan of Philadelphia and, later, Chalcedon, Bartholomew.

While the post is correct in noting this topic is not essential to salvation, it is essential to the progress of Orthodoxy in North America and its unified voice on this continent.  Such a unified jurisdiction, does not mean the current parish structures need to be necessarily altered.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2008, 03:50:26 AM by BTRAKAS » Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #217 on: June 07, 2008, 04:46:39 AM »

While not taking the time to elaborate at this time, I believe "North American Unity" will, only God knows when, be achieved through SCOBA.  Through 1968, Archbishop Iakovos, of Thrice Blessed Memory, does not get the credit for the aggressive and practical efforts he made in this regard.  Constantinople collaborated w/Moscow to keep SCOBA's "pro-synod" proposal, off the 1967 pre-conciliar commission meeting in Geneva.  Interesting, in '67 (+/-)Moscow helps scuttle a unity proposal for the Americas, while they were engaged in private dialogue w/the Metropolia; two years before they unilaterally declared the Metropolia "autocephalos."  olc.org has a recently posted essay, written by their president, which I consider a beginning to this process, though I think they're ignoring the fact that he Greek Orthodox Archdiocese hierarchy are precluded by Patriarch Bartholomew from engaging in meaningfull dialogue regarding this topic.
Indeed they are precluded from any meaningful dialogue on this topic.
However, I see the whole issue of NA unity to be a side-show/pawn in the greater game being played out between Moscow and Constantinople - transpiring now in western Europe, the former Soviet republics, Australia, and now China as well along with NA. This game has been ongoing for centuries, ever since the Patriarch of Constantinople crowned a Russian Tsar proclaiming Moscovy to be the 'Third Rome' (it did happen) and allowing the Double-Eagle standard to be used by the Princes of Moscovy (and by marriage the Austrian-Hungarians- an interesting but irrelevant oddity). At that time the Metropolitan of Moscow was under Constantinople and EP's intent was not to cede his Ecumenical status within the Church, but to declare the Russian Imperial house as the successors to the then extinct New Roman imperial house. Several hundred years later the Russians take their autocephalcy and assume that ecumenical status SHOULD derive from that earlier 'Third Rome' declaration.
Today we are witnessing that interplay continue.
Quote
What ever happened to the "pre-conciliar" process for the convening of the Great and Holy (Council)/Synod?  I have only seen two pre-conciliar meetings reported since Patriarch Bartholomew's tenure, while Patriarch Dimitrios'  (of Thrice Blessed Memory),tenure was marked by substantial progress, in the '80's, led by the former Metropolitan of Philadelphia and, later, Chalcedon, Bartholomew.
You must know more than I as the last I saw of an agenda from from the early 1980s. These General Synods are tightly controlled as to issues to be addressed. I'm sure the scenario I describe above affects this agenda process.

Despite Isa and I showing some disagreement here, among my 5700 posts somewhere is my own support for the OCA to be primacy in NA. I still stand by that.
However, the Russians must get their house in order. The tome which created the Orthodox Church in America quite directly noted the the OCA was not the only jurisdiction in America and, more importantly to me, the MP still has 54 parishes directly under itself (not including ROCOR). Some kind of autocephalcy? This is a model?
My Greek Orthodox archimandrite priest served 30 years with the OCA and stated to me, "The Russians are free now, they must learn how to act now" (this commenting on Estonia). In other words, he who would lead must learn to serve.
Moscow now threatens schism over the EP in Ukraine. Isa maintains the American Metropolia was created on an eventual 'autonomous model'. But if I'm not mistaken the UOC-MP was only made autonomous in reaction to the schisms there and not as a planned model.
Even if the EP doesn't like SCOBA, it's the best we have now.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,483



« Reply #218 on: June 07, 2008, 08:29:03 AM »

Indeed they are precluded from any meaningful dialogue on this topic.
However, I see the whole issue of NA unity to be a side-show/pawn in the greater game being played out between Moscow and Constantinople - transpiring now in western Europe, the former Soviet republics, Australia, and now China as well along with NA. This game has been ongoing for centuries, ever since the Patriarch of Constantinople crowned a Russian Tsar proclaiming Moscovy to be the 'Third Rome' (it did happen) and allowing the Double-Eagle standard to be used by the Princes of Moscovy (and by marriage the Austrian-Hungarians- an interesting but irrelevant oddity). At that time the Metropolitan of Moscow was under Constantinople and EP's intent was not to cede his Ecumenical status within the Church, but to declare the Russian Imperial house as the successors to the then extinct New Roman imperial house. Several hundred years later the Russians take their autocephalcy and assume that ecumenical status SHOULD derive from that earlier 'Third Rome' declaration.

Now New Rome knows how Old Rome felt.  After all, Constantinople got her position from the move of the capital, and the Fathers in Ecumenical Council were quite explicit about that.

The Austrians aren't irrelevant, in the sense that they claimed to be the Roman emperors up until the 19th century.  It is this that has labeled the empire centered in Constantinople "Byzantine," with all the delegitimizing that goes with that term.

That aside, I would be against changing the primacy from Constantinonple to Moscow.  Many saints may have served as EP only because the capital was there, but that doesn't change the fact that they sat on that throne.


Today we are witnessing that interplay continue.You must know more than I as the last I saw of an agenda from from the early 1980s. These General Synods are tightly controlled as to issues to be addressed. I'm sure the scenario I describe above affects this agenda process.

Quote
Despite Isa and I showing some disagreement here, among my 5700 posts somewhere is my own support for the OCA to be primacy in NA. I still stand by that.
However, the Russians must get their house in order. The tome which created the Orthodox Church in America quite directly noted the the OCA was not the only jurisdiction in America and, more importantly to me, the MP still has 54 parishes directly under itself (not including ROCOR). Some kind of autocephalcy? This is a model?
My Greek Orthodox archimandrite priest served 30 years with the OCA and stated to me, "The Russians are free now, they must learn how to act now" (this commenting on Estonia). In other words, he who would lead must learn to serve.
Moscow now threatens schism over the EP in Ukraine. Isa maintains the American Metropolia was created on an eventual 'autonomous model'. But if I'm not mistaken the UOC-MP was only made autonomous in reaction to the schisms there and not as a planned model.
Even if the EP doesn't like SCOBA, it's the best we have now.

Yes, the UOC-MP was set up in the face of changing events (for once the Orthodox moved rapidly, and not at a snail's pace). It remains to be seen, however, where all the dust is going to settle, in the Church and in the State.

Unlike the Metropolia, which the Russians saw was going to be in a new situation, not linked to Russia, Ukraine is a different story.  Estonia is different still. To use an English speaker's analogy, with Russia as England, Ukraine as Scotland, Northern Ireland as Estonia, and Canada the GOA model and Cyprus the OCA model (I chose Cyprus because, like an independent NA Orthodox would still be in communion, it's still an Commonwealth Country, but does not owe its exitence to Britain, as the NA Orthodox would be/is in a society that the Orthodox did not start): the idea that the NA Church would remain forever under a foreign patriarch, as I have seen floated in the GOA, is untenable.

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
A Sombra
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 112


« Reply #219 on: June 07, 2008, 09:49:44 AM »

QUOTE: "ROCOR was invited to participate in the Standing Conference of Orthodox Bishops of America (SCOBA) established in 1960 at the initiative of Archbishop Iakovos (Patriarchate of Constantinople). In his reply, however, Metropolitan Anastasii stated that ROCOR would participate in the conference only if representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate were excluded, which was unacceptable to Archbishop Iakovos."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1837344/posts

I found this but I have a book at home that may have some more info...
Logged
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,021



« Reply #220 on: June 07, 2008, 05:59:22 PM »

There is another post on another topic on this site that indicates that at the Holy Synod meeting of May 30th of the AOCANA, the topic of "new initiatives for Orthodox Unity" was on the agenda.  It may refer to that luncheon (or some meal) meeting Metropolitan Phillip convened at his Archdiocese among non-Ecumenical Patriarchate affiliated SCOBA members.  Does anyone know anything about this "initiative" or what was decided/discussed by the Synod about this agenda item?
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Tamara
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Diocese of America
Posts: 2,208


+Pray for Orthodox Unity+


« Reply #221 on: June 07, 2008, 06:13:52 PM »

There is another post on another topic on this site that indicates that at the Holy Synod meeting of May 30th of the AOCANA, the topic of "new initiatives for Orthodox Unity" was on the agenda.  It may refer to that luncheon (or some meal) meeting Metropolitan Phillip convened at his Archdiocese among non-Ecumenical Patriarchate affiliated SCOBA members.  Does anyone know anything about this "initiative" or what was decided/discussed by the Synod about this agenda item?

I haven't heard any rumors but I wonder if these non-EP SCOBA members will start meeting regularly? No one is tying their hands behind their backs to slow unity down...perhaps they could provide the leadership needed to move it forward. I guess time will tell. If they start meeting regularly then we will have a hint at what the "new initiatives for Orthodox Unity" might be.
Logged
Starlight
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of USA (Ecumenical Patriarchate)
Posts: 1,537


« Reply #222 on: June 07, 2008, 11:07:25 PM »

    Also, I would find it hard to believe that any jurisdiction of the Orthodox Church in North America that is represented in SCOBA has fewer parishes than the Moscow Patriarchate in North America (not counting ROCOR parishes).

Albanian Orthodox Diocese of America - EP (2) parishes. I enjoyed visiting one of them several times. Another one, in Chicago, possesses a myrrh-streaming icon.

Belarusian Council of Orthodox Churches of North America - EP. Technically, not a member of SCOBA, but nevertheless a completely Canonical Jurisdiction - (4) parishes in USA, (1) in Canada.

Sacred Patriarchial and Stavropegial Monastery of Saint Irene Chrysovalantou and Dependencies - EP. Represented by GOA in SCOBA. (3) monasteries, (9) parishes and (1) mission in USA, (1) mission in Belize. I visited the main monastery and it was one of the best visits to a church ever!

Edited for spelling.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2008, 11:08:31 PM by Starlight » Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #223 on: June 07, 2008, 11:13:42 PM »


Belarusian Council of Orthodox Churches of North America - EP. Technically, not a member of SCOBA, but nevertheless a completely Canonical Jurisdiction - (4) parishes in USA, (1) in Canada.


The parishes of the Byelorussian Council are now in ACROD and hence, in SCOBA.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Starlight
Site Supporter
OC.net guru
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of USA (Ecumenical Patriarchate)
Posts: 1,537


« Reply #224 on: June 07, 2008, 11:24:07 PM »

The parishes of the Byelorussian Council are now in ACROD and hence, in SCOBA.


Thank you very much for information. Metropolitan Nicholas is a great leader, so it is a win-win situation.
Logged
Tags: American Unity 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 »   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 0.188 seconds with 72 queries.