OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 24, 2014, 11:01:26 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: PoM:‘We have reached consensus on the autocephaly procedure’  (Read 1800 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« on: May 06, 2010, 06:38:21 AM »

Quote
We have reached consensus on the autocephaly procedure’ – DECR chairman’s interview with the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate
 4.05.2010 · DECR Chairman, Inter-Orthodox relations 

As the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission for the agenda of a Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church continues its work, the issue of granting autocephaly and the diptych order has come up to its attention in the period of 2009-2010. The leader of the Russian Orthodox delegation at the Preparatory Commission meetings, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, head of the Moscow Patriarchate’s department for external church relations, expounds the work of the Commission in an interview to the editor-in-chief of the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, S. V. Chapnin.


- Your Eminence, the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory commission’s decisions on the procedure of granting autocephaly, adopted in December 2009 in Chambesy, make it possible to speak about a serious step made in the development of inter-Orthodox cooperation. How different were the initial positions of the Churches, and can one say that the search for consensus was difficult?


- According to the resolution of the Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conference, which took place in June 2009, the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission was to consider the way in which an Orthodox Church can declare its autocephaly and autonomy as well as the order of diptychs, which are lists prescribing the order in which the names of the heads of Local Churches are mentioned during the liturgy. During the six days of its work, the Commission managed to consider two of the above-mentioned issues, namely, autocephaly and autonomy, while the discussion on diptychs had to be put off till the next meeting of the Commission.

The issue of church autocephaly was already considered by the Preparatory Commission in 1993. At that time, it was agreed that autocephaly asked by a certain part of a Local Church can be granted on the basis of the consent given by the Mother Church to be followed by a search for pan-Orthodox consensus with the Patriarch of Constantinople as coordinator. It was the procedure for declaring autocephaly that came under discussion at the December meeting, and it was not an easy task to reach an agreement on this matter.

The principled stand of the Russian Orthodox Church, expressed by our delegation, was that this procedure should conform to the principle of sobornost, traditional for the Orthodox Church, in making decisions on important common church matters. In this understanding, a Tomos on Autocephaly should be signed by the heads of all the Local Churches. The same stand was taken by the delegations of the Serbian, Romanian, Bulgarian and Polish Orthodox Churches as well as the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia. At the same time, the delegations of some Churches insisted that the signature of the Ecumenical Patriarch alone was sufficient for granting autocephaly.

Wonder which those would be.

Quote
As a result of a prolonged discussion the Commission adopted a wording that presupposes signatures of the primates of all the autocephalous Churches. It was also agreed that the very contents and procedure for signing a Tomos on Autocephaly would be specified by the next meeting of the Preparatory Commission.

As for church autonomy, the Russian Orthodox Church believes every Local Church has the right to decide on its own whether autonomy should be granted to some part of it, otherwise the canonical principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of an autocephalous Orthodox Church would be challenged. Indeed, while enjoying broad rights to self-governance, every autonomous Church still preserves fundamental relationship with its predominating Church. This relationship is expressed both in the approval of its head by the autocephalous center and in receiving holy myrrh from it and in exalting the name of the primate of the autocephalous Church during liturgy celebrated in the churches of a respective autonomous Church.

This position was unanimously approved by the meeting in Chambesy, which resolved that every autocephalous Church has the right to an independent decision on granting autonomy to any of her part. In doing so, she is obliged to notify other Churches about the granting of autonomy which took place.

On the whole, the working out of agreed decisions was a strained but constructive process.

- There is a notorious problem of precise wordings, especially in translation to other languages. Which language or languages were used in discussing the documents? Are there official Russian versions?


- According to the procedure of the Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conferences and Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commissions, adopted in 1986, their official languages are Greek, Russian and French. During the December meeting in Chambesy, just as during similar previous meetings, the speakers used all three languages. The secretariat in Chambesy provides for the simultaneous translation of the reports and discussions into these languages. The final documents are signed in their Greek, Russian and French versions. They all are authentic.

- How representative were the Local Churches’ delegations who participated in the discussion on the document?


- The Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commissions’ terms of reference provides only for a primary elaboration of the agenda for a Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church. Documents adopted at the Commission meetings are only drafts. They are to be submitted for approval to Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conferences and then to a Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church. The next Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conference, the fifth one, will be possible to convene only after the Commission has finalized its work to draft a document on autocephaly and to consider the issue of diptychs.

- When will the next meeting of the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission take place?


- The date for the next Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission to draft a procedure for signing a Tomos on Autocephaly and to discuss the diptychs has not been fixed as yet. I hope its participants will manage to build on the progress already achieved, and the common desire to reach agreement in discussing even the most acute issues will remain unchanged.

http://www.mospat.ru/en/2010/05/04/news17608/

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
Robert W
Self-appointed forum herald
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Finland
Posts: 469


Love is no feeling


« Reply #1 on: May 06, 2010, 07:46:18 AM »

Whenever Constantinople and Moscow agrees, there is a special angelic choir (led by the Theotokos) in heaven that will sing for 40 days, and then be silent until the next occasion.   Grin Tongue

I hope to hear confirmation from Constantinople that this really constitutes a consensus. Thanks for the news ialmisry!

Note to admins/mods: Angry spellchecker on the forum still complains about "Theotokos" Grin
Logged
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,354


metron ariston


« Reply #2 on: May 06, 2010, 08:23:35 AM »

A very sensible procedure. I wonder, though, how it will or will not be applied to the OCA, since its autocephaly is still not agreed upon (unlike Poland or the Czech and Slovak Church).
« Last Edit: May 06, 2010, 08:33:50 AM by pensateomnia » Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #3 on: May 06, 2010, 10:22:19 AM »

A very sensible procedure. I wonder, though, how it will or will not be applied to the OCA, since its autocephaly is still not agreed upon (unlike Poland or the Czech and Slovak Church).
Actually, just like the Church of Poland and the Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia: The OCA is now in the same position for 40 years that Poland was for 24 years, between the time the Phanar said she was autocephalous until she became autocephalous by the Tomos of her Mother Church, and CzS for 47 years, between its autocephaly and the Phanar recognizing its reality.

As for the Phanar trying to apply it to the OCA (which I assume it is trying to do as we speak), I'm wondering instead about where Antioch, Georgia and Albania stand on the issue. I assume we know where the OCA and the branches of the Greek Church stand.

This bears a slight resemblance to something we've seen before:
Quote
Prior to the Charter of 1922, Met/Archb./EP Meletios depended on another document, the Tomos of 1908, for his "authority" in the New World.  I recently came across in Échos d'Orient, Volume 11, an account of the lead up to the issuing of that document, which I reproduce in full:
Quote
THE GREEK COMMUNITIES OF THE DISPERSION

With the Jews and the modern Italians, no people has ever migrated as far as the Greek people. From time immemorial, the allure of the sea, the taste for commerce and love of adventure had pushed the Greeks to emigrate, to scatter throughout the shores of the Mediterranean lake prosperous colonies, which gradually supplanted the Phoenician and Carthaginian competitors and created for long one of the most brilliant civilizations. The cities in the interior, Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt, to Persia and Arabia, they were also inhabited by Greeks and Hellenized very quickly.

The same phenomenon of immigration is reproduced before our eyes. Each year, especially before the age of military service, young Greeks by the thousands abandon the heaven so laughing and the soil so thin of the fatherland, to go seek his fortune elsewhere. The human tide is going today in preference to the United States. The year 1902 saw from 11, 490 Greeks to the port of New York. The years 1903, slightly more than 13,700. For the general census of Hellenic subjects worldwide, which the government of Athens is in the process of conducting at this moment, if I am well informed, sends in America a 130,000 registration sheet. No doubt this figure is well below the number of people to register.

The United States is not the only ones containing Greek colonies. Not mentioning the Greeks living on Ottoman territory, one meets everywhere, mainly in large industrial and commercial centers, even some of their colonies, such as Venice, which already has several centuries of existence. However, if, from the civil point of view, the emigrants very easily adopt their new country-without abandoning the rest, not any more than the Jews, of their own race-under the religious-relationship it is not the same. Orthodox in religion, they do not want at any price, with very few exceptions, to go to the Catholic and Protestant churches of the countries that deign to receive them. They therefore have churches and chapels for them for the celebration of their offices and their liturgy, they possess the Greek priests for them as if they were still living in the Hellenic Kindgom or the Ottoman Empire.

Who governs these priests, these churches and the faithful, from the canonical point of view? A serious issue, which has been studied for a long time, no one has come to be any solution. There is, in effect, outside the Hellenic kingdom of the church, the four old patriarchs and the church of Cyprus, no constituted Greek Orthodox hierarchy.

The Russians definitely have in North America the Diocese of the Aleutian Islands, whose primate lives in San Francisco and is also assisted by two Auxiliary Bishops: they possess even a bishop in Japan and are going to establish another in Rome for the West[ern Europe], but while being brothers in religion, while having the same liturgical rite, the Greeks never opt to attend the Russian offices and especially to be dependent on a Muscovite bishop.

With the Russians, we must further except the Church of Cyprus, which does not count any more, those of Jerusalem and Alexandria, which hardly count, at least for the topic at hand, that of Antioch, who already has an Arab bishop, Raphael,  Auxiliary of the Russian bishop of San Francisco. All these churches once set aside, there remains at presence the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Holy Synod of Athens.

Between these two churches that struggle is incurred, on the subject of jurisdiction exercised over the Greeks of the diaspora or dispersion. Athens wants everything, Constantinople, although very disposed to concessions, desiring, however, to keep something. Who will win?).

On October 30/November 12, 1907, was read before the Holy Synod of Constantinople a report presented on this matter by the Metropolitan of Nicomedia, Pelagonia and Grevena. He concludes, based on the holy canons-which one does not quote-that all churches and Greek communities abroad, not included in the constituency of an Orthodox autocephalous Church are dependent on the Ecumenical Patriarchate.  For the success of this project, the Comission has been of the opinion that one should write to the sister autocephalous Churches to ask the Ecumenical Patriarchate for formal consent for the appointment of the ecclesiastical [authorites], charged with their annexes abroad. In this case, the Ecumenical patriacate would have no right to refuse, it would, in short, be a mere formality, but that still imposes the recognition of the patriarchal jurisdiction over all Greek communities of the dispersion [i.e. Diaspora].

His All-Holiness Patriarch Joachim III has not been of this opinion. He proposes that, in Europe at least, things remain in the [present] state, communities continue to depend throughout on their own churches. Regarding the Greek communities in America, they would come directly under the Holy Synod of Athens. After a discussion engaged on this idea, it was decided that the Commission report and the opinion of the patriarch would be reproduced and distributed to members of the Holy Synod, which should study the question in their particular.

The next day after the reading of the minutes, the patriarch clarified his ideas and requested that the Venetian colony come under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, as it still intends to establish there a high school of theology for young people who have completed their studies at the seminary of Halki. [That is how] things are for the moment.
http://books.google.com/books?id=1B_SAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA55&dq=Echos+d'orient+commautes+grecques+de+la+dispersion&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Interesting how the commission invoked the canons, but did not quote them.  The Tomos of 1908 does the same.

On the Church of Cyprus not "count[ing] any more," the same issue of Echos d'orient (p. 172) deals with why: it had been without a primate for sometime, in a dispute which drew in Constantinople, Alexandria and Jerusalem in the solution.  And who was, according to the account, in the midst of that at the highest levels?  Meletios Metaxakis (in the French "Métaxakès").
http://books.google.fr/books?id=1B_SAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA172&dq=M%C3%A9taxak%C3%A8s&cd=8#v=onepage&q=M%C3%A9taxak%C3%A8s&f=false

It would seem that this present "consensus" hinges on whether "the Ecumenical patriacate would have no right to refuse, it would, in short, be a mere formality," and in which case would not apply to the OCA, or if the "some Churches" (i.e. Greek) "insist that the signature of the Ecumenical Patriarch alone was sufficient for granting autocephaly."  In either case, the OCA is going to force the issue to be resolved.
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
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,354


metron ariston


« Reply #4 on: May 06, 2010, 10:37:03 AM »

I don't follow your line of thought.

Regarding Échos d'Orient: Not only is its content irrelevant, since a new procedure for autocephaly has been agreed upon, but the bolded part of the article has nothing to do with the granting of autocephaly. Its concern is merely with the "appointment of the ecclesiastical [authorites]" in the diaspora, i.e. sending Bishops and establishing some kind of diocese, not with granting those dioceses autonomy or autocephaly.

Regarding the matter at hand: The new procedure is, at least according to Met. Hilarion, already agreed upon, even by those who had initially argued for something else. The case is settled: All autocephalies, initiated by a Mother Church, must be agreed upon by all Orthodox Churches. If true, that means the consensus must be absolute. The only open question is: "Does this apply retroactively to the OCA?"
« Last Edit: May 06, 2010, 11:03:05 AM by pensateomnia » Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #5 on: May 06, 2010, 11:10:55 AM »


Note to admins/mods: Angry spellchecker on the forum still complains about "Theotokos" Grin

What a perceptive and civilised spellchecker.   Go with the English preference and use "Mother of God."

There were so many people refusing to use the "Theotokos" Jordanville Prayer Book that His Eminence Metropolitan Laurus gave his blessing for the original Prayer Book with "Mother of God" to be printed again.
Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,917



« Reply #6 on: May 06, 2010, 11:16:51 AM »

There were so many people refusing to use the "Theotokos" Jordanville Prayer Book that His Eminence Metropolitan Laurus gave his blessing for the original Prayer Book with "Mother of God" to be printed again.

Mine says Theotokos, and I just replace it with Mother of God whenever I come across it. One of the nuns at my parish does the same thing during services.
Logged
Robert W
Self-appointed forum herald
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Finland
Posts: 469


Love is no feeling


« Reply #7 on: May 06, 2010, 11:40:34 AM »

Note to admins/mods: Angry spellchecker on the forum still complains about "Theotokos" Grin

What a perceptive and civilised spellchecker.   Go with the English preference and use "Mother of God."
  Grin I will not argue about the usage of Theotokos vs "Mother of God" in English speaking countries. I am used to language similar to "Birthgiver of God" (Gudaföderskan in Swedish and Jumalansynnyttäjä in Finnish). I would prefer to use Theotokos even when communicating in English. I will continue to use angry-face  Angry whenever the spellchecker say there is something wrong with "Theotokos"!  Grin
Logged
Robert W
Self-appointed forum herald
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Finland
Posts: 469


Love is no feeling


« Reply #8 on: May 06, 2010, 11:49:04 AM »

Regarding the matter at hand: The new procedure is, at least according to Met. Hilarion, already agreed upon, even by those who had initially argued for something else. The case is settled: All autocephalies, initiated by a Mother Church, must be agreed upon by all Orthodox Churches. If true, that means the consensus must be absolute. The only open question is: "Does this apply retroactively to the OCA?"
What about Japan then? Would this mean that Constantinople agrees that the mother church can grant autonomy without involvement of the Ecumenical Patriarch?

If there really exists a consensus, when will we start to see this in reality?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #9 on: May 06, 2010, 11:55:20 AM »

I don't follow your line of thought.

Regarding Échos d'Orient: Not only is its content irrelevant,

LOL. Au contraire: It remains my contention (and nothing that has happened, i.e. the treatment of the Church of Poland in Latin America by the Phanar's agent (treatment worse than that dished out to the OCA), does anything but support that) that the Phanar wants to sneak in the back window what it has failed to jam through the front door, i.e. the Tomos of 1908 and the novel

Quote
since a new procedure for autocephaly has been agreed upon,

Has it?

We have some who say all Churches must affix their agreement to the Tomos.

We have some who say that the EP need only sign off on it, a la Tomos of 1908 and the report of 1907.

And then there's that problem that one autocephalous Church, i.e. the OCA, has not agreed nor signed its agreement to it.  I know that Fr. Arey et alia is as found of saying "unanimous" prefixed to Chambesy as he is to saying "so-called" prefixed to OCA, but since we are not Hindus, mantras do not work.

It would seem the devil is in the details, which have not yet been hammered out: the OCA, no doubt, will serve as the anvil for that.

Quote
but the bolded part of the article has nothing to do with the granting of autocephaly.

It has to do with claims of "Mother Church," "Diaspora" and "Jurisdiction," and the concocting of the assertions of Universal Jurisdiction that the EP thinks he can still operate under.

Quote
Its concern is merely with the "appointment of the ecclesiastical [authorites]" in the diaspora, i.e. sending Bishops and establishing some kind of diocese, not with granting those dioceses autonomy or autocephaly.

Remember canon 8 of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus?

Quote
Regarding the matter at hand: The new procedure is, at least according to Met. Hilarion, already agreed upon,

I'm sure in Moscow's mind it is, and Moscow will enforce it.

Quote
even by those who had initially argued for something else.

At most, I only see a change in tactics, not in outlook, from the Phanar.

Quote
The case is settled:

LOL.  Not even the Phanar claims that: if you look at the agreements (the details, the details) these agreements are preparation for that ever coming Great Council, where the case is supposed to be settled.

Quote
All autocephalies, initiated by a Mother Church, must be agreed upon by all Orthodox Churches. If true, that means the consensus must be absolute. The only open question is: "Does this apply retroactively to the OCA?"
How could it, as not all Orthodox Churches have affixed their seal to the Chambesy accord.

This would be clearer, perhaps, if Patriarch Alexei of blessed memory were still alive: the issue of Estonia, so near and dear to his heart (being, unlike the Phanar's Greek metropolitane from the Congo, Estonian) would have made a conclusive answer as for as Moscow was concerned.  I doubt things have changed: did Patriarch Kyrill reitereate the directions to his parishes in North America concerning the diptychs?
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
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #10 on: May 06, 2010, 11:56:45 AM »

Note to admins/mods: Angry spellchecker on the forum still complains about "Theotokos" Grin

What a perceptive and civilised spellchecker.   Go with the English preference and use "Mother of God."
  Grin I will not argue about the usage of Theotokos vs "Mother of God" in English speaking countries. I am used to language similar to "Birthgiver of God" (Gudaföderskan in Swedish and Jumalansynnyttäjä in Finnish). I would prefer to use Theotokos even when communicating in English. I will continue to use angry-face  Angry whenever the spellchecker say there is something wrong with "Theotokos"!  Grin

I don't know why they have a problem with Theotokos when they don't have a problem with Christ versus "annointed."
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
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #11 on: May 06, 2010, 11:57:29 AM »

Regarding the matter at hand: The new procedure is, at least according to Met. Hilarion, already agreed upon, even by those who had initially argued for something else. The case is settled: All autocephalies, initiated by a Mother Church, must be agreed upon by all Orthodox Churches. If true, that means the consensus must be absolute. The only open question is: "Does this apply retroactively to the OCA?"
What about Japan then? Would this mean that Constantinople agrees that the mother church can grant autonomy without involvement of the Ecumenical Patriarch?

If there really exists a consensus, when will we start to see this in reality?

And then we have that little problem in Estonia.....
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
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,885



« Reply #12 on: May 06, 2010, 12:00:20 PM »

I believe that Metropolitan Jonah is on the record in affirming his highest priority to be the establishment of one autocephalous church in North America, whether or not it is based on OCA or another, newer body. I also think that he made his support conditional on rapid movement toward such a solution.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #13 on: May 06, 2010, 12:16:29 PM »

Note to admins/mods: Angry spellchecker on the forum still complains about "Theotokos" Grin

What a perceptive and civilised spellchecker.   Go with the English preference and use "Mother of God."
  Grin I will not argue about the usage of Theotokos vs "Mother of God" in English speaking countries. I am used to language similar to "Birthgiver of God" (Gudaföderskan in Swedish and Jumalansynnyttäjä in Finnish). I would prefer to use Theotokos even when communicating in English. I will continue to use angry-face  Angry whenever the spellchecker say there is something wrong with "Theotokos"!  Grin

I don't know why they have a problem with Theotokos when they don't have a problem with Christ versus "annointed."

See here
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27405.new.html
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #14 on: May 06, 2010, 12:18:50 PM »

I believe that Metropolitan Jonah is on the record in affirming his highest priority to be the establishment of one autocephalous church in North America, whether or not it is based on OCA or another, newer body. I also think that he made his support conditional on rapid movement toward such a solution.

Yes, that would be nice way out, letting the EA here in the US assume its position as the autocephalous Church of North America.  Given what HB has said, Archbishop Demetrios could head such a body.  But things lately in the Greek Church seem to indicate a shortening of the leash, not a cutting.
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
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,885



« Reply #15 on: May 06, 2010, 01:04:12 PM »

I believe that Metropolitan Jonah is on the record in affirming his highest priority to be the establishment of one autocephalous church in North America, whether or not it is based on OCA or another, newer body. I also think that he made his support conditional on rapid movement toward such a solution.

Yes, that would be nice way out, letting the EA here in the US assume its position as the autocephalous Church of North America.  Given what HB has said, Archbishop Demetrios could head such a body.  But things lately in the Greek Church seem to indicate a shortening of the leash, not a cutting.

I would have no problem with a hyphenated American, Canadian or Mexican citizen as the Patriarch of the Church in North America. I do not think that we can afford to have any bishop (including the Patriarch) who is a "citizen" of the world, or who exhibits dual loyalties. I do not think that we can afford to have any bishop who is not committed to the Great Commission, who has not cut off the apron strings to the mother church or to ethnic movements (such as Panhellenism or the Holy Rus or Panromaniasm (whatever the Romanian Church is calling for lately), who is autocratic, or who is more attached to the "letter of the law" than its meaning. 

If progress is not made very rapidly, I would not mind the OCA going on as the autocephalous church in North America. For one thing, we do not exist in the Byzantine or Ottoman Empires, where autocephalies were granted, rescinded,  and re-granted again (sometimes based on some gold and some pelts). The OCA is already autocephalous, whether or not the Patriarch of Constinople has given its stamp of approval. This means that the laity, in particular, can vote with its feet and its wallets. We will then see which body is indeed the true church on these shores.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,354


metron ariston


« Reply #16 on: May 06, 2010, 01:28:59 PM »

if you look at the agreements (the details, the details) these agreements are preparation for that ever coming Great Council, where the case is supposed to be settled.

True. I just wonder how this current agreement may or may not influence the ultimate settlement. According to Met. Hilarion, the Pre-Conciliar process has reached agreement on how autocephaly should be granted. The recognition (or not) of the OCA's autocephaly is another matter, as is how to proceed in each of the various regions that now have an Episcopal Assembly.
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
pensateomnia
Bibliophylax
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Posts: 2,354


metron ariston


« Reply #17 on: May 06, 2010, 02:05:22 PM »

The DECR's actual press release about the Dec 2009 meeting of the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission has more details about the agreed upon process:

Quote
The documents prepared by the Commission will be submitted to a Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conference. They stipulate in particular that the ecclesiological, canonical and pastoral prerequisites for granting autocephaly to a particular church region, if requested, are to be assessed by the Mother Church at her Local Council. If the Council’s decision is favourable, the Mother Church is to notify it to the Ecumenical Patriarchate which is in its turn to inform other Local Autocephalous Churches in order to find out whether there is a pan-Orthodox consensus expressed in the unanimity of Councils or Synods of the autocephalous Churches. Expressing the consent of the Mother Church and the pan-Orthodox consensus, the Ecumenical Patriarch is to declare the autocephaly of a petitioning Church by issuing a Tomos of Autocephaly to be signed by the Ecumenical Patriarch and verified by the signatures of the Primates of Orthodox Churches invited for it by the Ecumenical Patriarch.

The question of the contents of the Tomos and the signing procedure will be considered additionally by the next meeting of the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission.

http://www.mospat.ru/en/2009/12/17/news10309/
Logged

But for I am a man not textueel I wol noght telle of textes neuer a deel. (Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale, 1.131)
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #18 on: May 06, 2010, 02:18:33 PM »

According to Met. Hilarion, the Pre-Conciliar process has reached agreement on how autocephaly should be granted. The recognition (or not) of the OCA's autocephaly is another matter, as is how to proceed in each of the various regions that now have an Episcopal Assembly.

Yes and yes.

http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/documents/chambesy/communique
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Robert W
Self-appointed forum herald
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Finland
Posts: 469


Love is no feeling


« Reply #19 on: May 07, 2010, 08:30:06 AM »

Thanks of the link Mike. I'm getting slightly optimistic about the long prophesied +++Great and Holy Council+++ (crosses added for holiness)
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.103 seconds with 46 queries.