OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 01, 2014, 06:11:28 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 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Could/should the MP repeal the OCA's Autocephalecy?  (Read 4820 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« on: September 13, 2009, 01:25:05 AM »

Why did the MP chose to grant the OCA autocephalecy in 1970?  Was this a free, canonical act of the holy Patriarchal synod or an act forced on them by the USSR?  Was the OCA (the Metropolia) even ready to become an autocephalous Church?

I respect the OCA but seriously disagree with the MP's decision in 90 The OCA does not seem to have what it takes to be a completely self governing body free of any overseas oversight.

Would it ever be possible for the Mp to revoke the tomos of autocephalecy and create a new exarchate for North America under a Metropolitan chosen by Moscow? 

Not all Russian Orthodox agree with the tomos of 1970.  I remember talking to several older priest of the MP patriarchal parishes in America and they were really against the autocephalecy being issued.  They used to occasionally rail against it in their magazine, 'One Church".  I used to have a copy of an issue somewhere where one of their senior priest wrote critical of the OCA.  He told me that he was really "called to the carpet" in Moscow for writting it but he did not regret doing so.  I'm sure that there are many people in the OCA who would join a reinvigorated MP exarchate if it were formed.  This could include parts of ROCOR in N America which would give this jurisdiction a real Russian character.
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #1 on: September 13, 2009, 03:56:24 AM »

Why did the MP chose to grant the OCA autocephalecy in 1970?  (1) Was this a free, canonical act of the holy Patriarchal synod or an act forced on them by the USSR?  Was the OCA (the Metropolia) even ready to become an autocephalous Church?
I respect the OCA but seriously disagree with the MP's decision in 90 The OCA does not seem to have what it takes to be a completely self governing body free of any overseas oversight.

Would it ever be possible for the Mp to revoke the tomos of autocephalecy and create a new exarchate for North America under a Metropolitan chosen by Moscow? 

Not all Russian Orthodox agree with the tomos of 1970.  I remember talking to several older priest of the MP patriarchal parishes in America and they were really against the autocephalecy being issued.  They used to occasionally rail against it in their magazine, 'One Church".  I used to have a copy of an issue somewhere where one of their senior priest wrote critical of the OCA.  He told me that he was really "called to the carpet" in Moscow for writting it but he did not regret doing so.  (2) I'm sure that there are many people in the OCA who would join a reinvigorated MP exarchate if it were formed.  This could include parts of ROCOR in N America which would give this jurisdiction a real Russian character.

Reply:

(1) What would make you think it wasn't?  You would think that if the Soviets were behind it they would do just the opposite and do evrything possible to stop it.  How could they control the church if it became autocephalous?

(2)  As a member of the OCA I doubt that very much.  Why would anyone want to go back to where we were 30+ years ago?  We live in America, we don't want a church with a specific Russian, Greek, or middle eastern character.  We want a church that encompasses beauty found in all three mixed with an American outlook.  The biggest mistake we Orthodox here in America make is putting more emphasis on what we put BEFORE the word Orthodox than what comes after (Catholic).  Because of that we have lost a whole generation from the first born American members and have silently stood by while our Catholicity is being taken away from us.

Orthodoc

 (An Orthodox Catholic who lives in America rather than an American Orthodox or Russian Orthodox for that matter).
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
Romans13x10
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 7


« Reply #2 on: November 22, 2009, 10:00:55 PM »

Would they even have the legitmate authority to "take back" the OCA's autocephaly?  The OCA is no longer under MP jurisdiction.  That would be like the EP "taking back" the autocephaly of the Russian Church.
Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,462


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 22, 2009, 10:06:21 PM »

Why did the MP chose to grant the OCA autocephalecy in 1970?  Was this a free, canonical act of the holy Patriarchal synod or an act forced on them by the USSR?  Was the OCA (the Metropolia) even ready to become an autocephalous Church?

I respect the OCA but seriously disagree with the MP's decision in 90 The OCA does not seem to have what it takes to be a completely self governing body free of any overseas oversight.

Would it ever be possible for the Mp to revoke the tomos of autocephalecy and create a new exarchate for North America under a Metropolitan chosen by Moscow?  

Not all Russian Orthodox agree with the tomos of 1970.  I remember talking to several older priest of the MP patriarchal parishes in America and they were really against the autocephalecy being issued.  They used to occasionally rail against it in their magazine, 'One Church".  I used to have a copy of an issue somewhere where one of their senior priest wrote critical of the OCA.  He told me that he was really "called to the carpet" in Moscow for writting it but he did not regret doing so.  I'm sure that there are many people in the OCA who would join a reinvigorated MP exarchate if it were formed.  This could include parts of ROCOR in N America which would give this jurisdiction a real Russian character.

The revocation of the Tomos aside (of which there is NO indication of that happening), that's kind of what ROCOR (in the US) is now since the reunion, isn't it?

And I agree with Orthodoc.  

Yes, you read that correctly Wink
« Last Edit: November 22, 2009, 10:07:25 PM by Schultz » Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
ms.hoorah
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 866


« Reply #4 on: November 22, 2009, 10:20:29 PM »

^^^^ Me three with Orthodoc and Schultz
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 22, 2009, 10:49:47 PM »

What's MP? Military Police?
Logged

Love never fails.
ytterbiumanalyst
Professor Emeritus, CSA
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #6 on: November 22, 2009, 10:59:35 PM »

What's MP? Military Police?
Moscow Patriarch. He's the one who granted autocephaly to the OCA.
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
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #7 on: November 22, 2009, 11:10:44 PM »

The biggest mistake we Orthodox here in America make is putting more emphasis on what we put BEFORE the word Orthodox than what comes after (Catholic).

I agree with this statement, but don't see why autocephaly is needed to achieve that. Why can't you be Orthodox Americans under the Patriarchate of Moscow, or Orthodox Americans under the Patriarchate of Antioch, or Orthodox Americans under the Patriarchate of Constantinople?

Phyletism will not help to make you "Orthodox Americans," it will just make you "American Orthodox".
Logged
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 22, 2009, 11:10:49 PM »

What's MP? Military Police?
Moscow Patriarch. He's the one who granted autocephaly to the OCA.

I know, I was just pulling Robb's leg. Of course it is impossible to revoke the tomos of autocephaly. BTW, just like it is not possible to revoke the tomos of autocephaly granted to the Kyiv Orthodox jurisdiction by a Jerusalem Patriarch in 1620. Smiley
Logged

Love never fails.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #9 on: November 23, 2009, 03:48:58 AM »

Of course it is impossible to revoke the tomos of autocephaly. BTW, just like it is not possible to revoke the tomos of autocephaly granted to the Kyiv Orthodox jurisdiction by a Jerusalem Patriarch in 1620. Smiley
I'm starting to wonder as to whether a Patriarchate can indeed "grant" autocephaly in the first place. Since the autocephaly of a local Church needs to be recognised by the Ecumene of the Church throughout the world, surely at least a PanOrthodox Synod (ideally an Ecumenical one) needs to grant autocephaly.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,991



« Reply #10 on: November 23, 2009, 04:33:52 AM »

As much as I love and respect the holiness of the OCA, and its predecessor, the Metropolia, I have always been opposed to its claim of autocephaly, believing Orthodox unity efforts in America were stalled for 20 years as a result of it.  The OCA's claimed autocephaly has been debated without resolution from both perspectives, for or against the OCA's autocephaly.

However, there are too many in the OCA who are invested in it at this point.  I do not think retracting the Tomos would be of any value at this time, in fact, it would detrimentally impact current efforts toward a unified representation of our church on this continent.  Metropolitan Jonah has taken a very mature position toward the Regional Episcopal Assemblies plan of the Holy Orthodox Churches.  If all the jurisdictions take this process seriously, and within our current multiple jurisdictional situation promote unified action, with joint services at all levels, multinational, regional, and local; and joint activities, such as youth, religious education, etc., a unified structure will manifest itself in the coming years.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #11 on: November 23, 2009, 12:53:29 PM »

Of course it is impossible to revoke the tomos of autocephaly. BTW, just like it is not possible to revoke the tomos of autocephaly granted to the Kyiv Orthodox jurisdiction by a Jerusalem Patriarch in 1620. Smiley
I'm starting to wonder as to whether a Patriarchate can indeed "grant" autocephaly in the first place. Since the autocephaly of a local Church needs to be recognised by the Ecumene of the Church throughout the world, surely at least a PanOrthodox Synod (ideally an Ecumenical one) needs to grant autocephaly.

The biggest problem with that theory is that it never happened that way--not even in the period (i.e. between St. Constantine and the fall of Constanintople) when Ecumenical and Pan-Orthodox synods were held on a regular basis.  Ecumenical rulings on autocephaly or territory (Constaninople I.2, Ephesus 8, etc) normally amount to 'let the existing structure stand.'. The only exception to this is Constantinople itself, although even there, Constantinople I.3 doesn't explicitly say that Constantinople is to be autocephalous or what the boundaries of its territory will be--you have to kind of infer that from its elevation to "prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome".

If anything the historical record would seem to indicate that 'autocephaly' is the default setting for any regional grouping of bishops once they are established enough to claim it. Though if we don't want to go that far, then the precedent is agreement between the new Church and its 'Mother Church'.

I see no evidence that 'recognition by the Ecumene' has ever been a factor. When a Church is selecting its own presiding hierarch without anyone else's input, it is autocephalous in fact. The issue with the OCA has never actually been its autocephaly; it's whether the bishops who trace back through the Metropolia to the Russian mission are the legitimate bishops for the areas they are consecrated for, such that anyone exercising episcopal or priestly functions in Alaska or San Francisco or Pittsburgh without the local bishop's permission is violating the canons. That's the case whether the bishop of Alaska, San Francisco, or Pittsburgh is a member of the synod of the Russian Church or of an autocephalous local synod.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #12 on: November 23, 2009, 01:44:59 PM »

What's MP? Military Police?
Moscow Patriarch. He's the one who granted autocephaly to the OCA.

I know, I was just pulling Robb's leg. Of course it is impossible to revoke the tomos of autocephaly. BTW, just like it is not possible to revoke the tomos of autocephaly granted to the Kyiv Orthodox jurisdiction by a Jerusalem Patriarch in 1620. Smiley

HUH!  By what authority would the Patriarch of Jerusalem have to grant the Kievan Church autocephally when it was never part of the Jerusalem Church but Constantinople!  That's probaly why it was never recognized by any other canonical Orthodox Patriarchate!

Can you provide evidence that this really occured?

Orthodoc

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
Heorhij
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA, for now, but my heart belongs to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Posts: 8,576



WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 23, 2009, 04:42:52 PM »

What's MP? Military Police?
Moscow Patriarch. He's the one who granted autocephaly to the OCA.

I know, I was just pulling Robb's leg. Of course it is impossible to revoke the tomos of autocephaly. BTW, just like it is not possible to revoke the tomos of autocephaly granted to the Kyiv Orthodox jurisdiction by a Jerusalem Patriarch in 1620. Smiley

HUH!  By what authority would the Patriarch of Jerusalem have to grant the Kievan Church autocephally when it was never part of the Jerusalem Church but Constantinople!  That's probaly why it was never recognized by any other canonical Orthodox Patriarchate!

Can you provide evidence that this really occured?

Orthodoc

Orthodoc

I read about it in a book on history of the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, published in Kyiv in 2007 or 2008, in Ukrainian language.
Logged

Love never fails.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #14 on: November 23, 2009, 04:51:10 PM »

I also haven't heard about autocephaly. Patriarch Theophanes III ordained 7 Bishops - that's true, but never heard about granting the autocephaly.

edit:
Concerning the fact that he had just been on the enthronement of Patriarch of Moscow I really doubt that he would have acted against him.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2009, 04:53:30 PM by mike » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #15 on: November 23, 2009, 07:45:03 PM »

What's MP? Military Police?
Moscow Patriarch. He's the one who granted autocephaly to the OCA.

I know, I was just pulling Robb's leg. Of course it is impossible to revoke the tomos of autocephaly. BTW, just like it is not possible to revoke the tomos of autocephaly granted to the Kyiv Orthodox jurisdiction by a Jerusalem Patriarch in 1620. Smiley

HUH!  By what authority would the Patriarch of Jerusalem have to grant the Kievan Church autocephally when it was never part of the Jerusalem Church but Constantinople!  That's probaly why it was never recognized by any other canonical Orthodox Patriarchate!

Can you provide evidence that this really occured?

Orthodoc

Orthodoc

I read about it in a book on history of the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, published in Kyiv in 2007 or 2008, in Ukrainian language.

If you read it in a Ukrainian history book then it must have stated whether or not this act had the appoval of worldwide Orthodoxy  Can you tell us which Patriarchates within worldwide Orthodoxy accepted this decision of interference of a patriarchate in another Patriarchates jurisdiction? 

Orthodoc
Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #16 on: November 23, 2009, 08:16:59 PM »

I see no evidence that 'recognition by the Ecumene' has ever been a factor.
But you citied it yourself:
Ecumenical rulings on autocephaly or territory (Constaninople I.2, Ephesus 8, etc) normally amount to 'let the existing structure stand.'.
What is this if not recognition of autocephalous status by the Ecumene?
« Last Edit: November 23, 2009, 08:18:35 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #17 on: November 24, 2009, 01:34:00 AM »

I see no evidence that 'recognition by the Ecumene' has ever been a factor.
But you citied it yourself:
Ecumenical rulings on autocephaly or territory (Constaninople I.2, Ephesus 8, etc) normally amount to 'let the existing structure stand.'.
What is this if not recognition of autocephalous status by the Ecumene?

If I own a TV, and you come into my house and steal the TV, and then a court rules that you are a thief and makes you give back my TV, that doesn't mean that everyone who wants to own a TV needs a court ruling to do so. You've got the causation completely backwards to the actual text of the Fathers' rulings.

Three hundred years before Ephesus took up the case of the Bishop of Antioch "contrary to the ecclesiastical constitutions and the Canons of the Holy Apostles" consecrating bishops in Cyprus, Cyprus was an autocephalous Church. The Fathers of Ephesus explicitly base their ruling against Antioch on this fact--Cyprus didn't need the 'recognition of the Ecumene' to be autocephalous, they only needed the authority of a general council to make the Bishop of Antioch stop doing uncanonical things. The same thing is true of Constantinople I.2. That canon is not about 'recognizing autocephaly', it's about ruling "let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited."
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #18 on: November 27, 2009, 12:53:26 AM »

The body which has the authority to say "Let it stand" has the authority to say "Let it not stand". Autocephaly, historically, requires the acceptance of the Ecumene.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #19 on: November 27, 2009, 01:38:48 AM »

The body which has the authority to say "Let it stand" has the authority to say "Let it not stand".

You are continuing to confuse the casaulity. In the past, Ecumenical councils have seen fit to depose bishops, including Patriarchs, and we universally recognize that a general council has the authority to do so. That doesn't mean the election of every bishop or Patriarch requires an explicit 'acceptance of the Ecumene' in order to be valid. 'Historically', the assumption is that such a decision by the local bishops is valid and stands until/unless a higher council revokes it.

Quote
Autocephaly, historically, requires the acceptance of the Ecumene.

If that's 'historically' the case, then you should be able to give an actual example rather than continuing to make the claim in a vacuum.

Historically, with the possible exception of Constantinople (the canons of precedence don't actually mention autocephaly, but its possible the autocephaly was derived from the implication rather than existing beforehand), no autocephalous Church has received its status by act of an Ecumenical Council.

Historically, no autocephalous church has had it status revoked by the act of an Ecumenical Council.

And historically, the only 'acceptance' that has ever been actually relevant to the autocephaly of any group of bishops has been acceptance by the 'Mother Church.' Once the 'Mother Church' has accepted (whether its a grudging recognition or a formal declaration) autocephaly and stopped exercising or attempting to exercise any say in the election of new primates and bishops by the new autocephalous Church, then self-rule has simply been an established fact, no matter how long it might take other synods to get around to recognizing it.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,991



« Reply #20 on: November 27, 2009, 02:32:01 AM »

FYI.  All of the following is from recollection which I may not be right about.

The book "Toward an American Orthodox Church," originally published in the early 1960's, outlines various scenarios as to how autocephaly has been accorded to churches.  I thought it listed the Ancient Patriarchates as having been granted autocephaly by the Ecumenical Synods, along with the Church of Cyprus, which I thought the Church of Antioch was attempting to maintain control over, prior to the ecumenical synod's declaration.  I thought that an ecumenical synod's declaration of the Jerusalem Patriarchate's autocephaly overtook a claim by Ceasaria (sp), or another archdiocese in the region. I recall that Imperial decrees were also included as having been the vehicle for granting autocephaly.  Even when the Church of Russia was declared a patriarchate, I though the Ecumenical Patriarchate sought the concurrence of the Ancient Patriarchates.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2009, 02:35:16 AM by Basil 320 » Logged

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

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #21 on: November 27, 2009, 03:19:02 AM »

Would they even have the legitmate authority to "take back" the OCA's autocephaly?  The OCA is no longer under MP jurisdiction.  That would be like the EP "taking back" the autocephaly of the Russian Church.

I think that it would be absolutely brilliant for the Church of Russia to loose its autocephaly and return to being a daughter Church of Constantinople.

That would bring the 180 Russian bishops into the Synod of Constantinople...

Guess what nationality the next Patriarch of Constantinople will be?

Long may he reign....Patriarch Ivan Russkie I of Constantinople.  Grin
« Last Edit: November 27, 2009, 03:21:42 AM by Irish Hermit » Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #22 on: November 27, 2009, 03:36:10 AM »

FYI.  All of the following is from recollection which I may not be right about.

The book "Toward an American Orthodox Church," originally published in the early 1960's, outlines various scenarios as to how autocephaly has been accorded to churches.  I thought it listed the Ancient Patriarchates as having been granted autocephaly by the Ecumenical Synods, along with the Church of Cyprus, which I thought the Church of Antioch was attempting to maintain control over, prior to the ecumenical synod's declaration.  I thought that an ecumenical synod's declaration of the Jerusalem Patriarchate's autocephaly overtook a claim by Ceasaria (sp), or another archdiocese in the region. I recall that Imperial decrees were also included as having been the vehicle for granting autocephaly.  Even when the Church of Russia was declared a patriarchate, I though the Ecumenical Patriarchate sought the concurrence of the Ancient Patriarchates.

Basil - you don't have to go off recollection. The decisions of the Ecumenical Councils are easily available online:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.html

I've quoted or referenced most of the relevant canons above, but it is completely incorrect to state that Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, or Cyprus were 'granted autocephaly' by the Councils. The texts which reference these Churches all state clearly that the Fathers were only confirming the existing and 'ancient customs'. In fact, the relevant canons clear thrust is not about the existing autocephaly but about condemning those who tried to interfere with or change the existing status.

Constantinople has been noted as a possible exception. No canon declares Constantinople 'autocephalous', but Constantinople I did declare: "As for the bishop of Constantinople, let him have the prerogatives of honor after the bishop of Rome, seeing that this city is the new Rome". Since Rome was clearly self-ruled, one might argue this statement implied the same for Constantinople (although the historical evidence seems fairly clear that the Constantinople too was actually operating as an autocephalous Church well before the Fathers made this declaration).

Jerusalem's an interesting one. Nicea canon 7 actually states that it should have honor due to 'custom and ancient tradition'--but also explicitly leaves the position of presiding hierarch for the Church of Palestine with the bishop of Caesarea who held it at the time. Eventually, the see of Jerusalem (*without* ecumenical sanction) took that role away from the see of Caesarea. But this was all essentially movement within the Church of Palestine which appears to have been autocephalous all along.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #23 on: November 27, 2009, 06:47:43 AM »

You are continuing to confuse the casaulity.
No I'm not. The causaiity of the autocephaly of the Church of Greece, the Church of Moscow, etc meant absolutely squat until the Ecumene recognized it. Until then, they were out of Communion with the Church throughout the Ecumene.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,580



« Reply #24 on: November 27, 2009, 11:15:03 AM »

Some of the folks who know much more than I please correct me on this. It seems to me that:

(a) Each Diocese is theologically and ecclesiastically complete in most essentials (the Ignatian model).

(b) The basic governing canon on this issue is Canon 34 that defines the relationship in a province between the local bishops and the provincial bishop or the metropolitan.

(c) The relationship of the local bishops with the presiding bishop of autocephalous churches has evolved by extension of Canon 34 and not by another canon.

(d) The other canons on the books have addressed the relationships between the autocephalous churches but mostly in response to problems between them.

(e) The various relationships between mother and daughter churches evolved in geographical locations that were not contemplated in the Apostolic Church. If there is any parallel to the Apostolic Church, it is the spread of the faith across the Roman Empire. As far as we know, local churches were autocephalous and in communion with other local churches merely because their beliefs and practices were in consonance with each other. No local church was allowed to be autocephalous--they just were by virtue of some very few and most basic criteria.

(f) Over the subsequent centuries, most autocephalous churches were formed by the missionary effort of a mother church. Some churches were given their autocephaly, others declared theirs unilaterally. Either route seems valid from a canonical standpoint.

(g) The fact a mother church did not recognize the autocephaly of a daughter church that declared herself autocephalous says more about the spiritual maturity of the mother rather than the child. It shows the mother to be selfish, conrolling and without charity.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
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 #25 on: November 27, 2009, 12:59:24 PM »

(g) The fact a mother church did not recognize the autocephaly of a daughter church that declared herself autocephalous says more about the spiritual maturity of the mother rather than the child. It shows the mother to be selfish, conrolling and without charity.

Why is it assumed the mother church is "selfish, controlling, and without charity" if she rejects the autocephaly of the daughter church??
Logged

"Christianity is not a philosophy, not a doctrine, but life." - Elder Sophrony (Sakharov)
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,580



« Reply #26 on: November 27, 2009, 02:15:11 PM »

(g) The fact a mother church did not recognize the autocephaly of a daughter church that declared herself autocephalous says more about the spiritual maturity of the mother rather than the child. It shows the mother to be selfish, conrolling and without charity.

Why is it assumed the mother church is "selfish, controlling, and without charity" if she rejects the autocephaly of the daughter church??

Assuming that any church (autocephalous or not) consists of grown men and women, and that a church needs only a bare minimum to qualify as complete (one bishop + his presbyters, deacons and laity), just like a human child, it can leave the nest and be its own independent person. While it would be nice to also have a seminary and some monastic communities, these institutions are not absolutely required.

I believe that the powers of a mother church have evolved over time, the reasons for their exercise have historically been for reasons of state rather than reasons of faith. By reasons of state I must also include the behavior of Sultan's Ethnarch, the Patriarch of Constantinople, whose long history as a pawn of the Ottoman Turks influenced all Orthodox Churches. When boiled down to fundamentals and looked at from the prism of the Gospels and the teachings of the Apostles, the behavior of mother churches throughout history has been "selfish, controlling, and without charity," where I should indicate that by "charity" I mean "agape."
« Last Edit: November 27, 2009, 02:16:14 PM by Second Chance » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
simplygermain
beer-bellied tellitubby
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA - Northwest, Baby!
Posts: 771


Zechariah 11:7


WWW
« Reply #27 on: November 28, 2009, 03:44:41 PM »

^ Second Chance,
What would be your opinion of the L'EOCOF then?

If you have not heard of them, I can fill you in and give you links. Just PM me.
Logged

I believe, help Thou my unbelief!! - St. John of Krondstadt

http://Http://hairshirtagenda.blogspot.com

 Witega: "Bishops and Metropolitans and even Patriarchs have been removed under decidedly questionable circumstances before but the Church moves on."
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #28 on: November 28, 2009, 09:33:00 PM »

You are continuing to confuse the casaulity.
No I'm not. The causaiity of the autocephaly of the Church of Greece, the Church of Moscow, etc meant absolutely squat until the Ecumene recognized it. Until then, they were out of Communion with the Church throughout the Ecumene.

Greece actually validates what I've been saying--while it's "Mother Church" in Constantinople disputed the autocephaly they were out of communion. But it was not a 'recognition by the Ecumene' that resolved their situation. It was recognition by their Mother Church. The Tomos from Constantinople didn't say, "You'll be autocephalous--as long as Russia and Antioch and everybody else agree." (Seriously, can you imagine the EP's reaction if the Church of Russian had said, 'no wait, we should get a say in whether you recognize Greek autocephaly or not'?)

As for Russia, was Russia ever out of communion with the Church? It was certainly out of communion with Constantinople for awhile, but that's because the EP of the time was apostate. It was Constantinople that had to get right with the Ecumene, not Russia.

And of course, in the one clear example of a Church whose autocephaly is recognized by its Mother Church but not by the whole of the Ecumene, the OCA, there is no issue  of 'out of communion'. The EP may not commemorate Metropolitan Jonah or invite him to serve liturgy together, but OCA faithful commune in EP parishes and EP faithful commune in OCA parishes every Sunday.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
simplygermain
beer-bellied tellitubby
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA - Northwest, Baby!
Posts: 771


Zechariah 11:7


WWW
« Reply #29 on: November 28, 2009, 10:00:33 PM »

So is it basically a known fact to everyone else but me, that a Church can not have Autocephaly until they are recognized by the "Ecumene"? Because if that is so, why are their so many churches outside of "World Orthodoxy" if the Canons are that clear?

(I'm asking for actual clarity, not to be my usual self. Grin )
« Last Edit: November 28, 2009, 10:01:41 PM by simplygermain » Logged

I believe, help Thou my unbelief!! - St. John of Krondstadt

http://Http://hairshirtagenda.blogspot.com

 Witega: "Bishops and Metropolitans and even Patriarchs have been removed under decidedly questionable circumstances before but the Church moves on."
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #30 on: November 28, 2009, 10:10:49 PM »

So is it basically a known fact to everyone else but me, that a Church can not have Autocephaly until they are recognized by the "Ecumene"? Because if that is so, why are their so many churches outside of "World Orthodoxy" if the Canons are that clear?

(I'm asking for actual clarity, not to be my usual self. Grin )

Ozgeorge has made this claim. I have disagreed. You can review his posts to see if you think he has offered any actual evidence rather than unsupported statements which don't match the historical record.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #31 on: November 28, 2009, 10:16:40 PM »

why are their so many churches outside of "World Orthodoxy" if the Canons are that clear?

In Communion with whom? Or doesn't the Church have to be in Communion any more?
« Last Edit: November 28, 2009, 10:17:34 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
simplygermain
beer-bellied tellitubby
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA - Northwest, Baby!
Posts: 771


Zechariah 11:7


WWW
« Reply #32 on: November 28, 2009, 10:28:30 PM »

why are their so many churches outside of "World Orthodoxy" if the Canons are that clear?

In Communion with whom? Or doesn't the Church have to be in Communion any more?
Which canon states this?
Logged

I believe, help Thou my unbelief!! - St. John of Krondstadt

http://Http://hairshirtagenda.blogspot.com

 Witega: "Bishops and Metropolitans and even Patriarchs have been removed under decidedly questionable circumstances before but the Church moves on."
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #33 on: November 29, 2009, 12:08:14 AM »

Why did the MP chose to grant the OCA autocephalecy in 1970?  Was this a free, canonical act of the holy Patriarchal synod or an act forced on them by the USSR?  Was the OCA (the Metropolia) even ready to become an autocephalous Church?

About as ready as Russia was when she got hers.  And it was as free and canonical as when Russia got hers.


Quote
I respect the OCA but seriously disagree with the MP's decision in 90 The OCA does not seem to have what it takes to be a completely self governing body free of any overseas oversight.

How many Churches, including Russia and the EP, would pass that standard?



Quote
Would it ever be possible for the Mp to revoke the tomos of autocephalecy and create a new exarchate for North America under a Metropolitan chosen by Moscow? 

History would say no. "Abolished" autocephalies never seem to go away.


Quote
Not all Russian Orthodox agree with the tomos of 1970.  I remember talking to several older priest of the MP patriarchal parishes in America and they were really against the autocephalecy being issued.  They used to occasionally rail against it in their magazine, 'One Church".  I used to have a copy of an issue somewhere where one of their senior priest wrote critical of the OCA.  He told me that he was really "called to the carpet" in Moscow for writting it but he did not regret doing so.  I'm sure that there are many people in the OCA who would join a reinvigorated MP exarchate if it were formed.  This could include parts of ROCOR in N America which would give this jurisdiction a real Russian character.

Why does the American Church need a "real Russian" character?  Why not let Moscow have that?
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #34 on: November 29, 2009, 12:10:53 AM »

Would they even have the legitmate authority to "take back" the OCA's autocephaly?  The OCA is no longer under MP jurisdiction.  That would be like the EP "taking back" the autocephaly of the Russian Church.

LOL.  Don't think for a second that the Phanar doesn't dream it can do it.  We have plenty of threads here of Phanar toadies stating just that (including one that insists the EP can do that, although said person claims Christianity is a misguided myth).
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #35 on: November 29, 2009, 12:12:43 AM »

Why did the MP chose to grant the OCA autocephalecy in 1970?  Was this a free, canonical act of the holy Patriarchal synod or an act forced on them by the USSR?  Was the OCA (the Metropolia) even ready to become an autocephalous Church?

I respect the OCA but seriously disagree with the MP's decision in 90 The OCA does not seem to have what it takes to be a completely self governing body free of any overseas oversight.

Would it ever be possible for the Mp to revoke the tomos of autocephalecy and create a new exarchate for North America under a Metropolitan chosen by Moscow?  

Not all Russian Orthodox agree with the tomos of 1970.  I remember talking to several older priest of the MP patriarchal parishes in America and they were really against the autocephalecy being issued.  They used to occasionally rail against it in their magazine, 'One Church".  I used to have a copy of an issue somewhere where one of their senior priest wrote critical of the OCA.  He told me that he was really "called to the carpet" in Moscow for writting it but he did not regret doing so.  I'm sure that there are many people in the OCA who would join a reinvigorated MP exarchate if it were formed.  This could include parts of ROCOR in N America which would give this jurisdiction a real Russian character.

The revocation of the Tomos aside (of which there is NO indication of that happening), that's kind of what ROCOR (in the US) is now since the reunion, isn't it?

Actually, no.  The clauses of the Tomos end up grandfathering ROCOR, as ROCOR wasn't under Moscow's jurisdiction at the time, and Moscow hasn't pushed that issue of the past in the interests of the future.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #36 on: November 29, 2009, 12:14:53 AM »

What's MP? Military Police?
Moscow Patriarch. He's the one who granted autocephaly to the OCA.

I know, I was just pulling Robb's leg. Of course it is impossible to revoke the tomos of autocephaly. BTW, just like it is not possible to revoke the tomos of autocephaly granted to the Kyiv Orthodox jurisdiction by a Jerusalem Patriarch in 1620. Smiley

When was Kiev in the Patriarchate of Jerusalem?  And of course, the problem that the Metropolitan of Kiev had been translated to Moscow by 1620.
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #37 on: November 29, 2009, 12:21:26 AM »

The body which has the authority to say "Let it stand" has the authority to say "Let it not stand". Autocephaly, historically, requires the acceptance of the Ecumene.
Interesting that you should say that.

The revived Bulgarian Patriarchate at Turnovo was recognized by a Pan Orthodox Council held under the EP in 1235, at which all the primates were unanimous.  That being said, by what authority could the EP "abolish"  the Patriarchate at Turnovo, when it was not agreed by all the primates?
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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #38 on: November 29, 2009, 12:38:03 AM »

What's MP? Military Police?
Moscow Patriarch. He's the one who granted autocephaly to the OCA.

I know, I was just pulling Robb's leg. Of course it is impossible to revoke the tomos of autocephaly. BTW, just like it is not possible to revoke the tomos of autocephaly granted to the Kyiv Orthodox jurisdiction by a Jerusalem Patriarch in 1620. Smiley

HUH!  By what authority would the Patriarch of Jerusalem have to grant the Kievan Church autocephally when it was never part of the Jerusalem Church but Constantinople!  That's probaly why it was never recognized by any other canonical Orthodox Patriarchate!

Can you provide evidence that this really occured?

Orthodoc

Orthodoc

I read about it in a book on history of the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, published in Kyiv in 2007 or 2008, in Ukrainian language.

If you read it in a Ukrainian history book then it must have stated whether or not this act had the appoval of worldwide Orthodoxy  Can you tell us which Patriarchates within worldwide Orthodoxy accepted this decision of interference of a patriarchate in another Patriarchates jurisdiction? 

Orthodoc

Just to be brief (I can post links, but I would have to dredge them up).

What I believe Heorhij is referring to is during the time from the forced Union on Galicia to the Vatican until the Polish-Lithuanian state gave into reality around 1630 and recognized that the Orthodox had rejected the "union."  The Patriarch of Jerusalem had come into the territory and ordained a number of bishops to serve the Orthodox in the area, but there was no issue of autocephaly, just an Orthodox hiearchy to shadow the usurping one the Vatican put in place.  Given the circumstances, all the Orthodox accepted it, but the government refused to recognize the clandestine bishops, even after Orthodoxy was legal again (at least on paper).
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
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,991



« Reply #39 on: November 29, 2009, 12:50:55 AM »

Despite my lack of knowledge of the canons, I have read a good deal about the debate between the Patriarchate of Moscow and the Ecumenical Patriarchate just prior to and after Moscow issued its Tomos of autocephaly as to the OCA.  The reason why we can even engage in this debate is that there is not a canon that defines how autocephaly is achieved. Both Churches agreed that the future Holy and Great Synod (Council) would be the final determiner of the OCA's autocephaly.

I don't want to reactivate the debate, because far too much has been said by both sides of the OCA autocephaly issue, without resolution, which stymied any unity efforts for North America over the past 38 years, but out of love for the holiness of the Metropolia, communion may not have been broken, but that doesn't negate the fact that only all but two of the Holy Orthodox Churches had officially accepted the OCA's autocephaly, primarily because, in part, of the multiple diocesan entity's that it overlaps.  Twenty one or so years after the Tomos was issued, the Ecumenical Patriarchate officially recognized the OCA's ability to govern itself and elect its own hierarchy, including its primate, but did not accept its claim to autocephaly.  I would submit too, that the Moscow Patriarchate tacitly acknowledged that their autocephaly plan didn't quite work, by agreeing to the Episcopal Assemblies plan for the territories, including North and Central America, that are not within the boundaries of the Holy Orthodox Churches.

The point herein is that it does seem that a part of the process toward autocephaly, includes whether the sister Churches agree to accept a new member of the family of our Churches.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #40 on: November 29, 2009, 12:56:29 AM »

Despite my lack of knowledge of the canons, I have read a good deal about the debate between the Patriarchate of Moscow and the Ecumenical Patriarchate just prior to and after Moscow issued its Tomos of autocephaly as to the OCA.  The reason why we can even engage in this debate is that there is not a canon that defines how autocephaly is achieved. Both Churches agreed that the future Holy and Great Synod (Council) would be the final determiner of the OCA's autocephaly.

Problem is, the OCA is fully impowered to insist on her autocephaly.  Which checkmates that future promised and dreaded Great Synod: how can it be the decision of the Ecumene if part of the Ecumene (which the OCA is in communion with) doesn't agree?

Quote
I don't want to reactivate the debate, because far too much has been said by both sides of the OCA autocephaly issue, without resolution, which stymied any unity efforts for North America over the past 38 years, but out of love for the holiness of the Metropolia, communion may not have been broken, but that doesn't negate the fact that only all but two of the Holy Orthodox Churches had officially accepted the OCA's autocephaly, primarily because, in part, of the multiple diocesan entity's that it overlaps.  Twenty one or so years after the Tomos was issued, the Ecumenical Patriarchate officially recognized the OCA's ability to govern itself and elect its own hierarchy, including its primate, but did not accept its claim to autocephaly.  I would submit too, that the Moscow Patriarchate tacitly acknowledged that their autocephaly plan didn't quite work, by agreeing to the Episcopal Assemblies plan for the territories, including North and Central America, that are not within the boundaries of the Holy Orthodox Churches.

I've been of the opinion that Moscow's agreement was handing the EP a rope  

Quote
The point herein is that it does seem that a part of the process toward autocephaly, includes whether the sister Churches agree to accept a new member of the family of our Churches.
  Bulgaria had to wait 75 years for the EP to own up to reality.  The OCA still has a lot of time.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2009, 12:58:12 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
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,625


Teaching on the mountain


« Reply #41 on: November 29, 2009, 03:06:45 AM »

 
Quote
Bulgaria had to wait 75 years for the EP to own up to reality.  The OCA still has a lot of time
I don't think you can compare the two: whereas Bulgaria has been a traditionally Orthodox land with a church older than a thousand years, the same cannot be said about OCA and America. So yes, " a lot of time" can mean even 1000 years.
I don't really think that a tiny, relatively young  Church, in a Protestant/Catholic land can claim autocephaly yet, no matter how many "tomoi" the Russian Church may issue.
Heck, even we Romanians, waited until 1885 I think, to be granted autocephaly. And we have had a much stronger and older Orthodox identity than America.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #42 on: November 29, 2009, 05:09:39 AM »

 
Quote
Bulgaria had to wait 75 years for the EP to own up to reality.  The OCA still has a lot of time
I don't think you can compare the two: whereas Bulgaria has been a traditionally Orthodox land with a church older than a thousand years, the same cannot be said about OCA and America. So yes, " a lot of time" can mean even 1000 years.

Another difference: Bulgaria wasn't independent, and its Church depended on State sponsorship.  Not the case in the US.


Quote
I don't really think that a tiny, relatively young  Church, in a Protestant/Catholic land can claim autocephaly yet,

...unlike a tiny, young Church in a pagan land could?



Quote
no matter how many "tomoi" the Russian Church may issue.

Since Russia had jurisdiction, it requires only one Tomos.  The EP can treat the OCA as a part of the PoM, but if the MP refuses to speak for the OCA, what then?

Quote
Heck, even we Romanians, waited until 1885 I think, to be granted autocephaly.

The date depends on who you ask. It wasn't granted in 1882, it was taken: parliament voted to buy the ingredients for the Holy Chism, and the Metropolitan of Bucharest, over the EP's howling and threatening, consecrated it.  But it had pretty much been taken, with the Phanariots monastic estates, in 1864.  The Romanians outsmarted the Great Powers at their own game.


Quote
And we have had a much stronger and older Orthodox identity than America.

The oldest Orthodox Autocephalous Patriarchates do not live in majority Orthodox countries now, nor did they when they began.

The OCA is a fait accompoli: it can, and does, function as an autocephalous body.
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
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #43 on: November 29, 2009, 07:19:58 AM »

why are their so many churches outside of "World Orthodoxy" if the Canons are that clear?

In Communion with whom? Or doesn't the Church have to be in Communion any more?
Which canon states this?
The Nicene-Constantinoplian Creed:
"ONE holy Catholic and Apostolic Church".
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Orthodoc
Supporter & Defender Of Orthodoxy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,526

Those who ignore history tend to repeat it.


« Reply #44 on: November 29, 2009, 09:08:54 AM »

What's MP? Military Police?
Moscow Patriarch. He's the one who granted autocephaly to the OCA.



I know, I was just pulling Robb's leg. Of course it is impossible to revoke the tomos of autocephaly. BTW, just like it is not possible to revoke the tomos of autocephaly granted to the Kyiv Orthodox jurisdiction by a Jerusalem Patriarch in 1620. Smiley

HUH!  By what authority would the Patriarch of Jerusalem have to grant the Kievan Church autocephally when it was never part of the Jerusalem Church but Constantinople!  That's probaly why it was never recognized by any other canonical Orthodox Patriarchate!

Can you provide evidence that this really occured?

Orthodoc

Orthodoc

I read about it in a book on history of the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, published in Kyiv in 2007 or 2008, in Ukrainian language.

If you read it in a Ukrainian history book then it must have stated whether or not this act had the appoval of worldwide Orthodoxy  Can you tell us which Patriarchates within worldwide Orthodoxy accepted this decision of interference of a patriarchate in another Patriarchates jurisdiction?  

Orthodoc

Just to be brief (I can post links, but I would have to dredge them up).

What I believe Heorhij is referring to is during the time from the forced Union on Galicia to the Vatican until the Polish-Lithuanian state gave into reality around 1630 and recognized that the Orthodox had rejected the "union."  The Patriarch of Jerusalem had come into the territory and ordained a number of bishops to serve the Orthodox in the area, but there was no issue of autocephaly, just an Orthodox hiearchy to shadow the usurping one the Vatican put in place.  Given the circumstances, all the Orthodox accepted it, but the government refused to recognize the clandestine bishops, even after Orthodoxy was legal again (at least on paper).

Quite a stretch from granting autocephally to Kiev, isn't it?  Perfect example of how history is manipulated by some (not all) Ukrainians.

Orthodoc

« Last Edit: November 29, 2009, 09:12:17 AM by Orthodoc » Logged

Oh Lord, Save thy people and bless thine inheritance.
Grant victory to the Orthodox Christians over their adversaries.
And by virtue of thy Cross preserve thy habitation.
Tags: Aghia Sophia 
Pages: 1 2 »  All   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 0.171 seconds with 72 queries.