Could/should the MP repeal the OCA's Autocephalecy?

[Robb]

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.

[Orthodoc]

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).

[Romans13x10]

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.

[Schultz]

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

[ms.hoorah]

^^^^ Me three with Orthodoc and Schultz

[Heorhij]

What's MP? Military Police?

[ytterbiumanalyst]

What's MP? Military Police?

Moscow Patriarch. He's the one who granted autocephaly to the OCA.

[Orthodox11]

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".

[Heorhij]

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.

[ozgeorge]

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.

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.

[Basil 320]

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.

[witega]

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.

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.

[Orthodoc]

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.

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

[Heorhij]

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.

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.

[mike]

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.

[Orthodoc]

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.

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

[ozgeorge]

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?

[witega]

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."

[ozgeorge]

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.

[witega]

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.

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.

[Basil 320]

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.

[Irish Hermit]

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.  

[witega]

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.

[ozgeorge]

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.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

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.

[John of the North]

(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??

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

(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."

[simplygermain]

^ 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.

[witega]

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.

[simplygermain]

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. )

[witega]

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. )

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.

[ozgeorge]

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?

[simplygermain]

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?

[ialmisry]

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.

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?

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.

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?

[ialmisry]

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).

[ialmisry]

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.

[ialmisry]

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.

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.

[ialmisry]

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?

[ialmisry]

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.

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).

[Basil 320]

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.

[ialmisry]

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?

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  

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.

[augustin717]

 

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.

[ialmisry]

 

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

[ozgeorge]

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".

[Orthodoc]

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.

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

[augustin717]

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

Well, then grant America the first place in  the diptychs instead of Rome. But seriously, although the Pentarchy may have started in an pagan Empire, it was consolidated and flourished in an Orthodox Empire. Moreover, these ancient sees, although drastically reduced numerically and only a shadow of their former glory, retain all the ancient privileges in account of their glorious past. I do not think that this is the case of the OCA yet.
All other, newer autocephalous Churches live in lands that are overwhelmingly Orthodox.
OCA can be an autonomous Church under a Patriarchate, but conditions for autocephaly are not met yet.
I do not really think that its metropolitan showed much maturity when making impertinent remarks about the ecumenical patriarch and other patriarchs. The mentality displayed seemed and seems to be something like this: We deserve it because we are Americans and we are number one.

The OCA is a fait accompoli: it can, and does, function as an autocephalous body

.
With so many other sorts of "bodies" around her , some outnumbering her numerically.

[ialmisry]

[quote author = augustin717 link = topic = 23401.msg379687 # msg379687 date = 1259506944]

The oldest Orthodox Autocephalous Patriarchates do not live in majority Orthodox countries now, nor did they when they began. [/ quote]
Well, then grant America the first place in the diptychs instead of Rome.

Why, when New Rome never got it?

But seriously, although the Pentarchy may have started in the year pagan Empire, it was consolidated and flourished in an Orthodox Empire.

It was rent by schism for two centuries, and then the oldest Patriarchates were under Muslim occupation.

Moreover, these ancient sees, although numerically reduced drastically and only a shadow of their former glory, retain all the ancient privileges on account of their glorious past. I do not think that this is the case of the OCA yet.

It wasn't true of Constantinople either in 451, but not only was it consolidated as autocephalous, but moved towards the top.

All other, newer autocephalous Churches live in lands that are overwhelmingly Orthodox.

Albania? Poland? Czech Lands and Slovakia?

It's not necessary. The ancient ones, including perhaps Constantinople itself, weren't when they became autocephalous.

OCA can be an autonomous Church under the Patriarchate, but conditions for autocephaly has not met yet.

It is in far better position than for instance, the Church of Cyprus, which couldn't depose its primate witout outside help.

Conditions?  What "conditions" haven't been met?  The EP hasn't approved?  So what: history shows that's not a condition.

I do not really think that its metropolitan showed much maturity when making rude remarks about the Ecumenical Patriarchate and other patriarchs.

The EP sent his surrogate over, while the Phanar was scheming over North America.  The comments, given the context, were called for.  His Beatitude apologized for not mending his speech, but the "mature" EP had his surrogates continue to beat the dead horse.

The mentality displayed seemed and seems to be something like this: We deserve it because we are Americans and we are number one.

No, his Beatitude came right out and said it: we didn't take Ultramontanism from Old Rome, we (meaning all the Orthodox, not just in North America) won't tolerate it from New Rome.


[quote author = augustin717 link = topic = 23401.msg379687 # msg379687 date = 1259506944]The OCA is a fait accompoli: it can, and does, function as an autocephalous body [/ quote].
With so many other sorts of "bodies" around her, her outnumbering some numerically.

Is numbers one of the "conditions?"  Colonies do not count.

Sunteti la Romania?  The problem, for instance, between the Romanian Patriarchate and the Romanian Episcopate of the OCA is that the former sees no difference between the latter and Moldovan Orthodox Church.  The Eastern Orthodox Romanian Archbishoprick of both Americas is not in the same situation as the Metropolis of Bessarabia.

[Fr. George]

Conditions?  What "conditions" haven't been met?  The EP hasn't approved?  So what: history shows that's not a condition.

The Synod of the EP aren't the only ones.

while the Phanar was scheming over North America.

Slander doesn't suit you.

the "mature" EP had his surrogates continue to beat the dead horse.

He has no more control over the American bishops than he does over you.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

while the Phanar was scheming over North America.

Slander doesn't suit you.

the "mature" EP had his surrogates continue to beat the dead horse.

He has no more control over the American bishops than he does over you.

Definitions first (from Merriam-Webster):

scheming: given to forming schemes; especially : devious

byzantine: 4 often not capitalized (a) : of, relating to, or characterized by a devious and usually surreptitious manner of operation <a Byzantine power struggle> (b) : intricately involved : labyrinthine <rules of Byzantine complexity>

Correct me if I am wrong but it is my understanding that the Patriarchate of Constantinople is quite adept at operating in a byzantine manner; indeed, the term came into being to describe what this ancienty patriarchate is most proficient in. It is not pejorative but descriptive.

Since truth is the perfect defense against slander, I would think that Isa is not guilty of slander. As for the patriarch not having control over his bishops, may I respectfully remind you of what happened to Archbishop Iakovos and to the American unity a la Ligonier.

Furthermore, the regional assemblies plan is a perfect example of successful (so far) byzantine scheming. It replaces any local initiatives with processes controlled by the mother churches.

Actually, I am very impressed that a small church like the Patriarchate of Constantinople has been able to control and guide inter-Orthodox affairs as much as she has since 1917. I do not think that this situation is ideal from a purely ecclesiastic perspective but there we are. Just save us the self-righteous sanctimony: one should not tell the ravished to lay back and enjoy it.

[Fr. George]

Correct me if I am wrong but it is my understanding that the Patriarchate of Constantinople is quite adept at operating in a byzantine manner; indeed, the term came into being to describe what this ancienty patriarchate is most proficient in. It is not pejorative but descriptive.

Byzantine when used in this manner is indeed a pejorative, and was always intended to be such by those who coined the term.  I admit my bias in any conversation I'm in - you should too, rather than trying to convince me that the term doesn't mean what it obviously means. 

Since truth is the perfect defense against slander, I would think that Isa is not guilty of slander. As for the patriarch not having control over his bishops, may I respectfully remind you of what happened to Archbishop Iakovos and to the American unity a la Ligonier.

Based on some later comments, I'll kindly doubt how sincere your "respectfully" comment is; however, as to the substance of your argument, rather than the presentation - I had the pleasure of seeing Archbishop Iakovos the year after his retirement.  He did not have the strength to serve Liturgy (although he had not lost even one ounce of his charisma and speaking ability) - his retirement was likely right on time, even if it was under a bit of pressure.  But, as I've maintained elsewhere, especially after having this conversation with folks much closer to Iakovos, the retirement was fully in his control - he had done things contrary to the EP's wishes before, and was fully aware that as a sovereign bishop he could only be "ordered around" or forced to retire by a synod.

Furthermore, the regional assemblies plan is a perfect example of successful (so far) byzantine scheming. It replaces any local initiatives with processes controlled by the mother churches.

I disagree, but then again maybe I'm too much of an optimist for the skeptics.

Actually, I am very impressed that a small church like the Patriarchate of Constantinople has been able to control and guide inter-Orthodox affairs as much as she has since 1917. I do not think that this situation is ideal from a purely ecclesiastic perspective but there we are.

Control is, IMO, much less accurate than 'guide' in your example.  As for "small church," the Patriarchate of Constantinople includes Northern Greece, numerous islands, and North America's largest jurisdiction amongst others, so I'd hardly call it "small" in comparison to, say, Albania.  Yes, everyone is "small" compared to Russia, but they've got their own issues, too.

Just save us the self-righteous sanctimony: 

Good day to you too, kettle.

one should not tell the ravished to lay back and enjoy it.

I haven't found anyone who has said that.  "Ravished," eh?  A bit over-the-top, but hey, if this needs to be an emotional conversation for you, then be my guest.

[ialmisry]

Conditions?  What "conditions" haven't been met?  The EP hasn't approved?  So what: history shows that's not a condition.

The Synod of the EP aren't the only ones.

No, but no one brings up what Cyprus thinks on this matter.

History does not show that being a conition either.

while the Phanar was scheming over North America.

Slander doesn't suit you.

What is it called when third parties decide someone's fate behind closed doors, to suit their own ends.

the "mature" EP had his surrogates continue to beat the dead horse.

He has no more control over the American bishops than he does over you.

Hmmm.  Makes me wonder what the Chief Secretary was talking about then, about all those brights horizons that submission to the EP birngs.  If his American bishops don't see them.....

[augustin717]

Albania? Poland? Czech Lands and Slovakia?

Albania has had an immemorial Orthodox presence within its present borders.
Czechia Slovakia and Poland have also had had a very long Orthodox presence within their borders and a native population that has been Orthodox for centuries.
I do not see how this applies now to America, where the only local  historically Orthodox population is in Alaska, except the immigrant islands. So, perhaps Alaska Indians/Eskimos should get the autocephaly first.

Sunteti la Romania?  The problem, for instance, between the Romanian Patriarchate and the Romanian Episcopate of the OCA is that the former sees no difference between the latter and Moldovan Orthodox Church.  The Eastern Orthodox Romanian Archbishoprick of both Americas is not in the same situation as the Metropolis of Bessarabia.

Sint in America acum, insa petrec o mare parte a timpului in Romania.
I am not sure what you mean by comparing Basarabia with the Archdiocese of America.
I don't see much of a difference either, except the geographical contiguity.

[ialmisry]

Albania? Poland? Czech Lands and Slovakia?

Albania has had an immemorial Orthodox presence within its present borders.
Czechia Slovakia and Poland have also had had a very long Orthodox presence within their borders and a native population that has been Orthodox for centuries.
I do not see how this applies now to America,

You mentioned something about an Orthodox majority, and none of the above has one.

where the only local  historically Orthodox population is in Alaska, except the immigrant islands.

Autocephaly should concern itself Orthodox populations in the present and future, not the past.


But in AK, the Orthodox are presently the largest Church in the state.

So, perhaps Alaska Indians/Eskimos should get the autocephaly first.

It does: it's a diocese of the OCA (I believe the bishop enthrones the Metropolitan or some such thing).

Sunteti la Romania?  The problem, for instance, between the Romanian Patriarchate and the Romanian Episcopate of the OCA is that the former sees no difference between the latter and Moldovan Orthodox Church.  The Eastern Orthodox Romanian Archbishoprick of both Americas is not in the same situation as the Metropolis of Bessarabia.

Sint in America acum, insa petrec o mare parte a timpului in Romania.
I am not sure what you mean by comparing Basarabia with the Archdiocese of America.
I don't see much of a difference either, except the geographical contiguity.

I heard Bishop Nathaniel speak last August.  He will never be a member of the Holy Synod of Romania, as he is a member of the Holy Synod of the local Church of his see.  Lord willing, Bessarabia will return to Romania, as it had previously.  That's never going to happen to Detroit, nor is there any reason for it to happen.  Bishop Nathaniel is not a Romanian bishop under the Russians, the same cannot be said for the Metropolitan of the Moldovan Church.

Apropo, under sunteti in America?

[augustin717]

I heard Bishop Nathaniel speak last August.  He will never be a member of the Holy Synod of Romania, as he is a member of the Holy Synod of the local Church of his see.  Lord willing, Bessarabia will return to Romania, as it had previously.  That's never going to happen to Detroit, nor is there any reason for it to happen.  Bishop Nathaniel is not a Romanian bishop under the Russians, the same cannot be said for the Metropolitan of the Moldovan Church

IPS Natanail might not be a Romanian bishop under the Russians , but he certainly is a Romanian bishop under de Americans or whatever they be, as the Romanians in the OCA have their own national diocese and do not submit to the normal geographical diocesan OCA structures.
I think the only reason that prevents ROEA uniting with thje Archdiocese is the money issue: the first has money, the latter has debts.
Sint in Midwest.

[ialmisry]

I heard Bishop Nathaniel speak last August.  He will never be a member of the Holy Synod of Romania, as he is a member of the Holy Synod of the local Church of his see.  Lord willing, Bessarabia will return to Romania, as it had previously.  That's never going to happen to Detroit, nor is there any reason for it to happen.  Bishop Nathaniel is not a Romanian bishop under the Russians, the same cannot be said for the Metropolitan of the Moldovan Church

IPS Natanail might not be a Romanian bishop under the Russians , but he certainly is a Romanian bishop under de Americans or whatever they be,

They are mostly Ameicans, as is he.  Some Canadians.

as the Romanians in the OCA have their own national diocese and do not submit to the normal geographical diocesan OCA structures.

LOL.  And all these "exarchs" adhere to normal geographical diocesan structures?

I'd like to see +Nathaniel serve as geographical bishop of Detroit and Michigan, in addition to being a defender of Romanian usage etc.  But the present set up is not a herendous travesty of the canons like having 5 bishops to one city and multiple exarchates claiming jurisdiciton on the territory of a local Church.

I think the only reason that prevents ROEA uniting with thje Archdiocese is the money issue: the first has money, the latter has debts.
Sint in Midwest.

Where exactly in the Midwest?

[augustin717]

So, like it or not, IPS Natanail is more like what the Americans would call an "etnarch" than " a real Orthodox bishop".

[ialmisry]

So, like it or not, IPS Natanail is more like what the Americans would call an "etnarch" than " a real Orthodox bishop".

No.  I know a lot of Greeks who would testify otherwise, along with this Arab. More real than bishops of sees that don't exist, or aren't even here.

It takes more than just standing and defending a certain ethnic tradition/liturgical tradition to become an ethnarch. It requires a good dose of denial of reaity of where you are.  +Nathaniel doesn't have that.  Being a convert doesn't help with being an ethnarch either.

He is what the Metropolitan of Sibiu was 1783-1862: the local bishop who defended an ethnic tradition in the one Church, the Karlovci Patriarchate.  Nothing else.

[augustin717]

I don't see former Greek-Catholics as really converts, at least not in the sense of this message board.
The fact is that he is the head of an ethnic, non-geographical diocese and the Romanians in it, even if they wouldn't go back to the mother church, they won't merge with the regular OCA dioceses either. It suits them best this way, for now , at least.

[ialmisry]

I don't see former Greek-Catholics as really converts, at least not in the sense of this message board.

I understand the "Romanian Church United with Rome, Greek Catholic" didn't see it that way, and condemned him from the pulpit.

The fact is that he is the head of an ethnic, non-geographical diocese and the Romanians in it, even if they wouldn't go back to the mother church, they won't merge with the regular OCA dioceses either. It suits them best this way, for now , at least.

It suits the canons better as well, nothing of which would be "fixed" if the diocese "went back" to Romania.

The ethnic dioceses aren't unique to America, as I stated, and they are not new either: they have been part of the synod now for over a century, a number of saints (Tikhon, Raphael, Alexander....) being involed in setting up the first one in Brooklyn.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

Actually, I am very impressed that a small church like the Patriarchate of Constantinople has been able to control and guide inter-Orthodox affairs as much as she has since 1917. I do not think that this situation is ideal from a purely ecclesiastic perspective but there we are.

Control is, IMO, much less accurate than 'guide' in your example.  As for "small church," the Patriarchate of Constantinople includes Northern Greece, numerous islands, and North America's largest jurisdiction amongst others, so I'd hardly call it "small" in comparison to, say, Albania.  Yes, everyone is "small" compared to Russia, but they've got their own issues, too.

It would indeed be quite small (and restricted to its Ottoman jurisdiction) if it did not have the exarchates in Australia, Western Europe, and North America. I have said it before: there are existential reasons for what any church does and they have been quite acute for this patriarchate since 1453. IMHO, its options are quite limited. I think they are limited to:

a. Constantinople must become the ecumenical patriarchate in a real sense: of the modern ecumene, not merely the Eastern Roman Empire, and not merely because an Emperor bestowed the title as Maurice did in late 6th Century and because an Ottoman Turk gifted her with more jurisdictions than allowed by the canons.

b. Constantinople must win its argument on Canon 28. At the very least, it cannot let go of its Western European, Australian and North American exarchates. The patriarchate's presence in these lands bolsters the Canon 28 argument; spreads the jurisdiction to the modern ecumene; and keeps the number of her members in a range that is proper for an ecumenical patriarchate.

[ialmisry]

b. Constantinople must win its argument on Canon 28. At the very least, it cannot let go of its Western European, Australian and North American exarchates. The patriarchate's presence in these lands bolsters the Canon 28 argument; spreads the jurisdiction to the modern ecumene; and keeps the number of her members in a range that is proper for an ecumenical patriarchate.

Speaking of the innovation of Met. Meletios:
Looking through some things to refresh my memory and add to my knowledge on the jurisdictions of the Orthodox Churches c. 1794-c. 1922, I came across this:

Verfassung und gegenwärtiger Bestand sämmtlicher Kirchen des Orients Eine canonistisch-statistische Abhandlung (Constitution and Current Stock of all the Churches of the Orient. A canonist--statistical treatment) by Isodore Silbernagl

The first edition came in 1865:beware! It's in Fraktur.
http://books.google.ro/books?id=jM0CAAAAQAAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s

The second edition with revisions came out after the death of the author, in 1904.
http://books.google.com/books?id=hiIQAAAAYAAJ&dq=Verfassung+Silbernagl+1904&source=gbs_navlinks_s

The author goes through all the jurisdictions that existed in his day. I reproduce what he says under the Ecumenical Patriarchate:

6. Jurisdiction of the Patriarch.

The spiritual power of jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople extends over the whole European Turkey, a part of Bulgaria, Rumelia and Asia Minor and the islands of the Aegean Sea, with Crete.

[the 1865 version reads:  "The spiritual power of jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople extends over the whole European Turkey, in more certain respects, at least, even with inclusion of the Danube Principalities [i.e. Romania], as well as over the Diocese of Asia, as far as these are not subject to the Patriarch of Antioch and Jerusalem. The archbishoprick of Ohrid and Pec claimed earlier times, although an independent position, but however were united with the Patriarchate of Constantinoplein in modern times by a Turkish Hatti-serif of the government: however, found exempt even now, are the Archbishop of Cyprus as autokephalos [in Greek in the original] and the Vladika of Montenegro."  I wil put in the more important differences between the editions]

As spiritual leader to the Patriarch is due the highest ecclesiastical legislative, governmental and administrative law. It is to him to interpret the various special or universel ecclesiastical rules and to him to judge all the controversies going to the dioceses, as generally all important religious matters. As for the individual spiritual powers of the patriarch, he can choose according to the following Berat issued by the Turkish Government in particular:
"The Patriarch is the manager of all the churches and monasteries of the Greek--Orthodox Confession, as well as the control of their economic circumstances."
"He has to confirm the bishop chosen by the Synod of the and the deciding vote in caseof a tie.  [1865: He can at his pleasure appointe and dismiss all Metropolitans and Bishops] At his request, the Port shall adopt the requisite advisement for the newly appointed prelates."
"He has the right to expel all Metropolitans and Bishops from their diocese, with the exception of the four metropolitans, which  are named to use the patriarchal seal, and so those who are, with the Patriarch, in possession of the Synodal Seal. Yea, even the Patriarch of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem not been allowed to come, without his consent and that of the Synod, to Constantinople."
"The patriarch and his vicars have unlimited jurisdiction in marriage and wills."
"The Patriarch is entitled to the criminal code about the whole clergy, according to the laws of the church."
"If complaints are collected by the Turkish administrative or the various competant authorities about a bishop, it may be decided only with the aid of the Patriarch of the Porte. Similarly, the arrest of a prelate should be made only with the consent of the Patriarch and with the assistance of his officials."
"All the adherents of the Greek Orthodox Church are bond to the strictest obedience to the patriarchal and it is therefore of the same law of correction against the recalcitrant. He can excommunicate them freely, to deny them church burial etc."
" Furthermore, the Patriarch enjoys the privilege exclusively to consecrate the sacred chrism, and the right of Strauropegions in every diocese. But as the patriarch of Constantinople is also the Head of the Greek nation, and so certain secular powers come to him, and in this respect extends his jurisdiction even over the territory the remaining patriarchs, because he is over all the Greek schismatic [sic] subjects of the Porte.  Only [1865: in the Danube Principalities and in Montenegro, which have a Christian administration seperate from the Turkic government [N.B. the Danube Principalities, i.e. Romania, were still technically part of the Empire, or as the Vizier was saying at the time "integral territory," and Montenegro's independence had not yet been recognized internationally besides Russia] as well as ] in Egypt  in Egypt, where the Viceroy has made himself independent of the Port may it be obvious, that the [Ecumenical] Patriarch has no secular authority. To this belongs primarily with respect to some policing powers of the patriarch for lesser offenses, theft, etc. For this purpose the patriarch's own Court of Justice (kriterion), which is composed of seven Officials (klerikoi) and has under him or his presidencies (Protosynellos) two public weekly court sessions held, namely on Wednesday and Friday, . The Patriarch has therefore his own kavasses (military police) and a private prison. He can have each of his faithful, if he deserves, to be condemned to the galleys, without this, only by specially obtaining the required permission from the Porte.   Similarly, can all civil disputes, not only between the Greeks themselves, but also between Armenians and Greeks and even between Greeks and Turks be used with the consent of the parties before the Court of the Patriarchs, and this decided verdict is also recognized by the Porte as valid.  However,  the recourse to the Turkish Courts remains free to the parties. The laws by which the spiritual court of the Patriarchs proceed, are precisely the Byzantine, especially in use are the Hexabiblos of Harmenopolos and the Pedalion (ie pedalion pattern book). Finally, we note that the patriarch can exercise all these spiritual and temporal rights only in communion with the Synod.  Therefore, the orders of the Patriarch must be issued under the Synodal seal [1865: after the enactment of the Piscopos-Calent (Bureau of Bishops)], and the Port is bound to consider only those perfomances submited under the synodal seal."

He is aware of the Orthodox in North America:"Also into America has the Russian Orthodox Church extended itself, and the Bishop of the Aleutians and of North America has his see in San Francisco in California."

What he is not aware of, is some sort of super jurisdiction of the EP over barbarian lands, neither in 1865 (just before the Alaskan Cession) nor 1904 (just before the claims of 1908).  I have come across things in Jerusalem and Cyprus, which, like the 1908 Tomos, promote Greek control, and they have Meletios finger prints all over them (as the British authorities found).

[brasstureen]

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.  

  By Turkish law, the patriarch must be a citizen of Turkey, so the chances of there ever being a Patriarch Ivan Russkie I are less than slim no matter how many Russian bishops there are in the EP, unless, of course, they just close up shop in Turkey to free themselves of the Turkish secular law and move the EP back to the third Rome, Moscow (or as once suggested, New York City). Since that is not very likely,the next EP will most likely be yet another born-in-Turkey Greek, assuming there are any left by then.

[ialmisry]

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.  

  By Turkish law, the patriarch must be a citizen of Turkey, so the chances of there ever being a Patriarch Ivan Russkie I are less than slim no matter how many Russian bishops there are in the EP, unless, of course, they just close up shop in Turkey to free themselves of the Turkish secular law and move the EP back to the third Rome, Moscow (or as once suggested, New York City). Since that is not very likely,the next EP will most likely be yet another born-in-Turkey Greek, assuming there are any left by then.

Telling the Greeks "no" is one thing, telling the Russians "no," quite another.

[Orthodoc]

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.  

  By Turkish law, the patriarch must be a citizen of Turkey, so the chances of there ever being a Patriarch Ivan Russkie I are less than slim no matter how many Russian bishops there are in the EP, unless, of course, they just close up shop in Turkey to free themselves of the Turkish secular law and move the EP back to the third Rome, Moscow (or as once suggested, New York City). Since that is not very likely,the next EP will most likely be yet another born-in-Turkey Greek, assuming there are any left by then.

Something tells me that law would be repealed very fast if what has been suggested were to happen!  So Patriarch Ivan Russkie I would be a definite possibility.

Orthodoc

[Irish Hermit]

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.  

  By Turkish law, the patriarch must be a citizen of Turkey, so the chances of there ever being a Patriarch Ivan Russkie I are less than slim no matter how many Russian bishops there are in the EP, unless, of course, they just close up shop in Turkey to free themselves of the Turkish secular law and move the EP back to the third Rome, Moscow (or as once suggested, New York City). Since that is not very likely,the next EP will most likely be yet another born-in-Turkey Greek, assuming there are any left by then.

Dear Tureen,

The Russians who reside in Istanbul and are citizens of Turkey now outnumber, twice over, the Greeks who reside there and are also citizens.    These Russians, quite rightly, are members of the Church of Constantinople and commemorate the Patriarch of Constantinople as their bishop.  The Patriarch of Constantinople cares for these Russians spiritually and recently he consecrated a church which he has designated for them.

The Russians who are citizens of Turkey are increasing.  The Greeks are decreasing.  EU membership could increase the number of Greeks but EU membership for Turkey seems to be forever on hold and in the meantime the Russians grow.

Given time it is inevitable that the Russian members of the Church of Constantinople will come to the fore and a Patriarch of Russian origin and Turkish citizenship will be elected from among them.

[simplygermain]

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.  

  By Turkish law, the patriarch must be a citizen of Turkey, so the chances of there ever being a Patriarch Ivan Russkie I are less than slim no matter how many Russian bishops there are in the EP, unless, of course, they just close up shop in Turkey to free themselves of the Turkish secular law and move the EP back to the third Rome, Moscow (or as once suggested, New York City). Since that is not very likely,the next EP will most likely be yet another born-in-Turkey Greek, assuming there are any left by then.

Dear Tureen,

The Russians who reside in Istanbul and are citizens of Turkey now outnumber, twice over, the Greeks who reside there and are also citizens.    These Russians, quite rightly, are members of the Church of Constantinople and commemorate the Patriarch of Constantinople as their bishop.  The Patriarch of Constantinople cares for these Russians spiritually and recently he consecrated a church which he has designated for them.

The Russians who are citizens of Turkey are increasing.  The Greeks are decreasing.  EU membership could increase the number of Greeks but EU membership for Turkey seems to be forever on hold and in the meantime the Russians grow.

Given time it is inevitable that the Russian members of the Church of Constantinople will come to the fore and a Patriarch of Russian origin and Turkish citizenship will be elected from among them.

yay! no more Phanariotism.

[Irish Hermit]

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.  

  By Turkish law, the patriarch must be a citizen of Turkey, so the chances of there ever being a Patriarch Ivan Russkie I are less than slim no matter how many Russian bishops there are in the EP, unless, of course, they just close up shop in Turkey to free themselves of the Turkish secular law and move the EP back to the third Rome, Moscow (or as once suggested, New York City). Since that is not very likely,the next EP will most likely be yet another born-in-Turkey Greek, assuming there are any left by then.

Telling the Greeks "no" is one thing, telling the Russians "no," quite another.

I think you are right!   There have been two instances in recent years when Russian bishops have been in Istanbul for pan-Orthodox events.   While there they have taken the opportunity to walk into Hagia Sophia, put on vestments and celebrate Requiem services for the deceased Patriarchs of the city.

You can only imagine the poor Turkish Police and the museum authorities who would have stood there disbelieving and openmouthed.  No doubt they would have rushed to the telephone to ask what to do and were probably told it is better to let the Russians go ahead rather than to risk the international bad press and adverse diplomatic repercussions from Russia if they closed the services down and arrested the Russian bishops.  

How wonderful it would have been to be there and to hear the singing of Christian prayer reverberating in the dome of Hagia Sophia, with the strength and the beauty of Russian male voices raised in worship of the Trinity.

[Irish Hermit]

  By Turkish law, the patriarch must be a citizen of Turkey,

Brasstureen,

Just noticed that this is your first post  ~  WELCOME to the Forum!

[augustin717]

How wonderful it would have been to be there and to hear the singing of Christian prayer reverberating in the dome of Hagia Sophia, with the strength and the beauty of Russian male voices raised in worship of the Trinity.

Greek psaltic chant sounds even better, IMHO.

[ozgeorge]

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.  

  By Turkish law, the patriarch must be a citizen of Turkey, so the chances of there ever being a Patriarch Ivan Russkie I are less than slim no matter how many Russian bishops there are in the EP, unless, of course, they just close up shop in Turkey to free themselves of the Turkish secular law and move the EP back to the third Rome, Moscow (or as once suggested, New York City). Since that is not very likely,the next EP will most likely be yet another born-in-Turkey Greek, assuming there are any left by then.

Dear Tureen,

The Russians who reside in Istanbul and are citizens of Turkey now outnumber, twice over, the Greeks who reside there and are also citizens.    These Russians, quite rightly, are members of the Church of Constantinople and commemorate the Patriarch of Constantinople as their bishop.  The Patriarch of Constantinople cares for these Russians spiritually and recently he consecrated a church which he has designated for them.

The Russians who are citizens of Turkey are increasing.  The Greeks are decreasing.  EU membership could increase the number of Greeks but EU membership for Turkey seems to be forever on hold and in the meantime the Russians grow.

Given time it is inevitable that the Russian members of the Church of Constantinople will come to the fore and a Patriarch of Russian origin and Turkish citizenship will be elected from among them.

yay! no more Phanariotism.

People with no idea what they are talking about should not make statements that linger for all to read.

[simplygermain]

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.  

  By Turkish law, the patriarch must be a citizen of Turkey, so the chances of there ever being a Patriarch Ivan Russkie I are less than slim no matter how many Russian bishops there are in the EP, unless, of course, they just close up shop in Turkey to free themselves of the Turkish secular law and move the EP back to the third Rome, Moscow (or as once suggested, New York City). Since that is not very likely,the next EP will most likely be yet another born-in-Turkey Greek, assuming there are any left by then.

Dear Tureen,

The Russians who reside in Istanbul and are citizens of Turkey now outnumber, twice over, the Greeks who reside there and are also citizens.    These Russians, quite rightly, are members of the Church of Constantinople and commemorate the Patriarch of Constantinople as their bishop.  The Patriarch of Constantinople cares for these Russians spiritually and recently he consecrated a church which he has designated for them.

The Russians who are citizens of Turkey are increasing.  The Greeks are decreasing.  EU membership could increase the number of Greeks but EU membership for Turkey seems to be forever on hold and in the meantime the Russians grow.

Given time it is inevitable that the Russian members of the Church of Constantinople will come to the fore and a Patriarch of Russian origin and Turkish citizenship will be elected from among them.

yay! no more Phanariotism.

People with no idea what they are talking about should not make statements that linger for all to read.

it was a joke in regards to another thread. Lost in translation though. Sorry if anyone took offense.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: minasoliman) > Topic: Could/should the MP repeal the OCA's Autocephalecy?