Topic: ARCHBISHOP DEMETRIOS TO CHAIR 1st ASSEMBLY... (Read rest here)

[HandmaidenofGod]

ARCHBISHOP DEMETRIOS TO CHAIR FIRST ASSEMBLY OF CANONICAL ORTHODOX HIERARCHS IN NORTH AND CENTRAL AMERICA

May 14, 2010

NEW YORK – More than 50 hierarchs will take part in the first Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in North and Central America, to be convened by His Eminence Archbishop Demetrios of America in New York City, May 26-28.

This Assembly is the result of the decision of the Fourth Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conference, which met in Chambésy Switzerland in June of 2009, after the extraordinary Synaxis of all the Heads of the Autocephalous Churches convened by His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. This Assembly, one of twelve that will be convened around the world in regions where there is no single Orthodox presence, will consist of the active canonical bishops who reside in the region designated as North and Central America. In every Assembly, the chairman will be the senior bishop of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

The Assembly will convene at the Helmsley Park Lane Hotel, where accommodations and arrangements have been coordinated by the staff of the Archbishop. The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, through the Leadership 100 grant to the Office of Inter-Orthodox, Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations, is underwriting much of the expense, with other funds coming from a variety of Pan-Orthodox sources.

In discussing the Assembly at the May 7 meeting of the Archdiocesan Council in Atlanta, Archbishop Demetrios explained that the nature of the assembly is as “a temporary, not a permanent institution. It is simply preparatory to facilitate the process of an ecumenical council (in the future) that will decide the final form of the existence of the Church in a particular country.” His Eminence further explained that the assembly is to meet annually and is not a continuation of SCOBA. Rather, it works to “prepare a plan for dealing with anomalies, such as more than one bishop in a given locale and other things that interfere with the life of the Church.” It is also designed “to project a unified witness of the faith.” As such, the Archbishop called the work of the Assembly “tremendously important. The function and outcome of this first meeting will determine how it continues in the future.”

The Archbishop also said the following: “The leadership of His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew in convening the Heads of world Orthodoxy is truly visionary. This vision of the unity of the Church has been confirmed from ages past, and with the Ecumenical Patriarchate leading the way, we will aspire to manifesting our unity in Christ based on the greatest commandment of all; to love one another.”

[observer]

... such as more than one bishop in a given locale and other things that interfere with the life of the Church.”  Does His Eminence mean the Greek (Canon 28) Church?  And what is a 'Unified" witness?  Is it the secular calendar?  Every cock crows on its own dunghill...we don't need suggestions from eagles!

[PresterJohn]

Why will the OCA not be seated on the Executive Council of the Episcopal Assembly?

[Father H]

Why will the OCA not be seated on the Executive Council of the Episcopal Assembly?

How do you know if they will or not?   I thought that was to be decided at the Synaxis.

[ialmisry]

Why will the OCA not be seated on the Executive Council of the Episcopal Assembly?

How do you know if they will or not?   I thought that was to be decided at the Synaxis.

The Phanar tried hard to have the OCA ignored.  Somewhere here there is something about the tiff the Phanar had with Archb. Demetrios for inviting Met. Jonah.  Met. Jonah, for his part, does not view Archb. Demetrios in the same light as the Phanar as he did in the homily heard round the world.

[Basil 320]

I have not seen confirmation of the Kalmoulkos story in "The National Herald" about the Ecumenical Patriarchate questioning the OCA's presence on the Executive Committee of the North & Central American Episcopal Assembly, anywhere.  He may be reporting gossip from underlings of the Patriarchate.  When Patriarch Bartholomew met with SCOBA last fall, one of the hierarchs in his entourage told SCOBA that the OCA would be a unit vote, for purposes of voting, apparently each of the "jurisdictions" associated with a mother church, vote as one unit.  Why would the Patriarch tell this to SCOBA including Metropolitan Jonah, if he didn't expect them to be seated?  Kalmoukos has always been a critic of the OCA.  I believe there is a lot of Byzantine intrigue attendant to Kalmoulkos' story, that isn't even connected with the OCA. I pray that Kalmoulkos' story is in error in this regard or the episcopal assembly process will flop before it's even launched.

[podkarpatska]

Surely we should pray that the Holy Spirit our Bishops through this process rather than engage in idle speculation and gossip.

[FatherGiryus]

Is there an invitation list?

[pensateomnia]

Is there an invitation list?

Bishops in the OCA have been invited to attend. The chairman is Archbishop Demetrios, and, as per the regulations passed in Switzerland, the vice-chairs come from whatever churches are the next two in the diptychs. So, in our case, that's Antioch (Met. Philip) and Moscow (Archbishop Justinian of Naro-Fominsk).

[Father H]

Right, Met. Jonah is on the Executive Committee per regulations:  "The Episcopal Assembly will have an Executive Committee composed of the Primatial Bishops of each of the canonical Churches in the Region."  The Patriarch clarified this includes the primate of the OCA. 

[pensateomnia]

Right, Met. Jonah is on the Executive Committee per regulations:  "The Episcopal Assembly will have an Executive Committee composed of the Primatial Bishops of each of the canonical Churches in the Region."  The Patriarch clarified this includes the primate of the OCA. 

That I'm not sure about. It certainly may turn out that way, but everything is determined by the diptychs, and Met. Jonah only appears at the bottom of the diptychs of two other churches in attendance at the EA. We'll just have to see what the Assembly decides.

[PresterJohn]

Right, Met. Jonah is on the Executive Committee per regulations:  "The Episcopal Assembly will have an Executive Committee composed of the Primatial Bishops of each of the canonical Churches in the Region."  The Patriarch clarified this includes the primate of the OCA. 

With respect, where did the Patriarch clarify this?

[deusveritasest]

These titles sound a little misleading. Isn't the GOAA the only canonical presence in the US according to the EP?

[Father H]

Just to clarify, the Executive Committee is not just the chair and the two co-chairs.  It is all the primates of the jurisdictions (i.e., the executive committee is basically what SCOBA is now in terms of constitution).  The chair and the co-chairs hold this position both in the Synaxis itself and the executive committee. 

[Father H]

These titles sound a little misleading. Isn't the GOAA the only canonical presence in the US according to the EP?

No, where did you get that idea?   Especially since I am of one of the patriarchal jurisdictions, I am interested to know. 

[Irish Hermit]

These titles sound a little misleading. Isn't the GOAA the only canonical presence in the US according to the EP?

No, where did you get that idea?   Especially since I am of one of the patriarchal jurisdictions, I am interested to know.  

Over the last 5 years and more the Patriarch of Micklegarth and his servants abroad have been making increasingly assertive claims to control of the entire "diaspora", under their own idiosyncratic interpretation of Canon 28.  I think that the rest of the Orthodox world is coming to the realisation that this is not a chest thumping exercise by Constantinople.  They are deadly serious.   For example, Bishop Basil Osborne in the UK (who had been in the Russian Church for 30 years) gave testimony last year in the British High Court that the EP is the one and only canonical authority in Western Europe and the Russians, Serbs and Antiochians in W.Europe are uncanonical interlopers tolerated by Constantinople.  Presumably the same claim would be made by the EP with regard to America.

See Paragraph 37 and Paragraph 38
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2009/1250.html


See also the speech of the Secretary of the Sacred Synod Archimandrite Elpidiphoros who was sent from Constantinople to Holy Cross seminary Boston in March last year to preach the Constantinople claims of suzerainty over the American Orthodox, whether the Homogenia or the extra-Homogenia.

"American Diaspora Must Submit to Mother Church"
http://www.aoiusa.org/blog/2009/03/ecumenical-patriarchate-american-diaspora-must-submit-to-mother-church/


Incredible as it is to us non-Greeks, the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew interprets Canon 28 of Chalcedon as giving him canonical authority over all territories around the globe except those belonging to existing autocephalous and autonomous Churches. As such all the Americas belong to him, and not even Rome should have jurisdiction since these countries did not constitute the traditional territory of the Church of Rome at the time when we were united and no Council has granted them to Rome.

One has heard that an uncontrollable desire to collapse into laughter seizes some people when they think of this claim. However, contemplating the claim with a serious mind, we may better understand why some Orthodox are resolutely opposed to this interpretation of Canon 28, as also to the newly invented role of a "Protos" or "Primus" within Orthodoxy and also opposed to Belgrade 2006, Ravenna 2007, and what some are now calling the "Cretan Unia" (the position paper developed on Crete in 2008 and presented to but not approved by the Joint International Catholic-Orthodox Meeting on Cyprus 2009.)

The submission of Western Orthodoxy to the Patriarch of Constantinople will involve not simply the desired canonical unity but it will, unfortunately, provide a great impetus to the EP's claims to universal hegemony and the introduction of a new thing, an aberration, into orthodox ecclesiology, a new creature called the "Protos,"  As such, submission should be resisted

Nor wanting to cause conniptions in any advocates for an EP-based unity, after all your proposal is a valued one to be considered,  and nor do I want to attract violence against my ideas. . .  These are just a few thoughts I am mulling over...

[LizaSymonenko]

These titles sound a little misleading. Isn't the GOAA the only canonical presence in the US according to the EP?

Where did you come up with such a notion???

Other Jurisdictions affiliated with the Ecumenical Patriarchate

In the United States, there are several jurisdictions who are directly affiliated with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Besides the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, the following fall under this category:

Starvropegial Monasteries and Churches
Albanian Orthodox Diocese
Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Ukrainian Orthodox Church
Vicariate for the Palestinian/Jordanian Orthodox Christian Communities

http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/otherpatriarchal

[pensateomnia]

Just to clarify, the Executive Committee is not just the chair and the two co-chairs.  It is all the primates of the jurisdictions (i.e., the executive committee is basically what SCOBA is now in terms of constitution).  The chair and the co-chairs hold this position both in the Synaxis itself and the executive committee. 

Yes, of course, there are other positions and members on the executive committee (e.g. treasurer, secretary, etc.). According to the regulations, holders of these and other offices on the executive committee need not even be "from the ranks of the bishops." So, one could theoretically be a member of the executive committee without even being a member of the Assembly itself.

Anyway, no one disputes that there will be more officers and members of the executive committee than the chair and vice-chairs. And, again, no one disputes that Article 3 of the Regulations states "[t]he Episcopal Assembly will have an Executive Committee composed of the Primatial Bishops of each of the canonical Churches in the Region."

The issue at hand is: How, in reality, will Articles 3 and 4 be interpreted and applied? I know for a fact how they will be interpreted and applied in the cases of the chair and the two vice-chairs. I simply don't know, nor have I seen any public statement on, how they will be interpreted and applied for any other bishop, most especially for the primate of the OCA. It very well may turn out as you say, Father. It would certainly not surprise me. However, unless you can point us to the statement from the Patriarch that you alluded to, I think we'll just have to wait and see.

These titles sound a little misleading. Isn't the GOAA the only canonical presence in the US according to the EP?

Where did you come up with such a notion???

As deusveritasest's profile says, he is an inquirer -- and an OO one at that -- so I don't think we should expect him to understand EO history or canon law.

[ialmisry]

Just to clarify, the Executive Committee is not just the chair and the two co-chairs.  It is all the primates of the jurisdictions (i.e., the executive committee is basically what SCOBA is now in terms of constitution).  The chair and the co-chairs hold this position both in the Synaxis itself and the executive committee. 

Yes, of course, there are other positions and members on the executive committee (e.g. treasurer, secretary, etc.). According to the regulations, holders of these and other offices on the executive committee need not even be "from the ranks of the bishops." So, one could theoretically be a member of the executive committee without even being a member of the Assembly itself.

Anyway, no one disputes that there will be more officers and members of the executive committee than the chair and vice-chairs. And, again, no one disputes that Article 3 of the Regulations states "[t]he Episcopal Assembly will have an Executive Committee composed of the Primatial Bishops of each of the canonical Churches in the Region."

The issue at hand is: How, in reality, will Articles 3 and 4 be interpreted and applied? I know for a fact how they will be interpreted and applied in the cases of the chair and the two vice-chairs. I simply don't know, nor have I seen any public statement on, how they will be interpreted and applied for any other bishop, most especially for the primate of the OCA. It very well may turn out as you say, Father. It would certainly not surprise me. However, unless you can point us to the statement from the Patriarch that you alluded to, I think we'll just have to wait and see.

These titles sound a little misleading. Isn't the GOAA the only canonical presence in the US according to the EP?

Where did you come up with such a notion???

As deusveritasest's profile says, he is an inquirer -- and an OO one at that -- so I don't think we should expect him to understand EO history or canon law.

That's too facil a dismissal. In fact, Met./Arb./EP/Pope Meletius, when the Russian Archbishop of All North America didn't kow tow to him, said just what DVE says.  How there are other jurisdictions/ethnic ghettos under the EP here range from the disgusting manner, i.e. the Phanariot way, the Jerusalem plantation was set up to the somewhat canonical reception of the schismatic Ukrainians and the more canonical Carpatho-Rusyn refugees from the Vatican. The Albanian "Diocese" consists of two parishes, renegades from the OCA Diocese, which is the Mother Church of the Orthodox Church in Albania. The Stavropaghal institutions are a modus vivendi, an extension of the struggle between the EP and Athos.

So no, DVE's characterization is not ridiculous at all.

Btw, do the EP's Ukrainian, Albanian, Carpatho-Rusyn and Jerusalemite get a seat on the Executive Committee?

[Alveus Lacuna]

As deusveritasest's profile says, he is an inquirer -- and an OO one at that -- so I don't think we should expect him to understand EO history or canon law.

Actually, he is still technically a non-communing Eastern Orthodox Christian. He is switching churches after studying the Christological controversies in greater detail.

[Alveus Lacuna]

I think that the rest of the Orthodox world is coming to the realization that this is not a chest thumping exercise by Constantinople.  They are deadly serious.

I don't know much about anything, but it seems to me that this interpretation came up recently as a way in which the Ecumenical Patriarchate can remain relevant. It seems like the Turkish government is choking them out and their going to go extinct in the next several decades. So it really seems dishonest to change the core ecclesiology of Orthodoxy, if that's what he's doing, simply in order to survive. That seems wrong to me because it seems to be about little else besides worldly institutional power. I hope I'm mistaken.

I seem to recall reading in other threads that some have proposed the Patriarchate be moved. Others have said that, no, if they did that, they'd be moved to the bottom of the dyptichs(sp?). I was wondering why this is, because this has been done before. For example, the Patriarch of Antioch actually resides in Damascus, correct? But his title still remains in Antioch. Why couldn't something similar be arranged for the Ecumenical Patriarch, for example in Athens, where his title and position remain unchanged, but only his physical location?

[Alveus Lacuna]

Also, I forgot to add that I would really like to see this meeting be a huge success. May we all find administrative unity in North and Central America.

Lord, have mercy and grant this to us. Most Holy Mother of God, intercede for us that your Son's will might be done.

[pensateomnia]

Btw, do the EP's Ukrainian, Albanian, Carpatho-Rusyn and Jerusalemite get a seat on the Executive Committee?

Certainly possible, if the Assembly so wills it. According to the regulations, they have the competency to appoint basically anyone they want to the Executive Committee -- even you!   

[ialmisry]

Btw, do the EP's Ukrainian, Albanian, Carpatho-Rusyn and Jerusalemite get a seat on the Executive Committee?

Certainly possible, if the Assembly so wills it. According to the regulations, they have the competency to appoint basically anyone they want to the Executive Committee -- even you!   

I'd settle for Met. Jonah, who, sources close to him say, has not yet been invited to the Executive committee.  I know, talking with him personally, that he received no official word on anything at Chambesy until Archb. Demetrios sent the invitation for this upcoming meeting.

If the above were to get a seat, then it should be Patriarch Kyril, Arb. Anastasios, Met. Christopher and Patriarch Theophilos (despite having sold them) doing the appointing, not the Phanar.

[pensateomnia]

If the above were to get a seat, then it should be Patriarch Kyril, Arb. Anastasios, Met. Christopher and Patriarch Theophilos (despite having sold them) doing the appointing...

That would be manifestly against the agreed upon procedure. The chairman and two vice-chairs are determined by the Regulations -- the same Regulations that give the Assembly itself (not Patriarch Bartholomew, Patriarch Kyril, Arb. Anastasios, Met. Christopher or Patriarch Theophilos) the authority to appoint any other officers and members it sees fit.

[pensateomnia]

I'd settle for Met. Jonah, who, sources close to him say, has not yet been invited to the Executive committee. 

Well, duh. How could he be invited to the Executive Committee before the Assembly itself has been held? All officers (other than the chair and two vice-chairs) and all members of the Executive Committee have to be appointed by the Assembly. So, it is impossible to receive an "invitation" to the Executive Committee.

[ialmisry]

I'd settle for Met. Jonah, who, sources close to him say, has not yet been invited to the Executive committee. 

Well, duh. How could he be invited to the Executive Committee before the Assembly itself has been held? All officers (other than the chair and two vice-chairs) and all members of the Executive Committee have to be appointed by the Assembly. So, it is impossible to receive an "invitation" to the Executive Committee.

Soooo, no discussion is being had on these matters? They are waiting to actually meet?  Somehow I find that quite hard to believe.....Fr. Arey is making quite a lot of statements about the "so-called" OCA while gushing about the colonial model.

What is it, two weeks until we see?

[ialmisry]

If the above were to get a seat, then it should be Patriarch Kyril, Arb. Anastasios, Met. Christopher and Patriarch Theophilos (despite having sold them) doing the appointing...

That would be manifestly against the agreed upon procedure. The chairman and two vice-chairs are determined by the Regulations -- the same Regulations that give the Assembly itself (not Patriarch Bartholomew, Patriarch Kyril, Arb. Anastasios, Met. Christopher or Patriarch Theophilos) the authority to appoint any other officers and members it sees fit.

So they couldn't get the novel interpretation of canon 28 in the front door, so it will come in the back?  The procedures reiterate control of the "Mother Churches": where does that leave the Ukrainians, Albanians, Carpatho-Rusyn and Jerusalemites?

[pensateomnia]

Soooo, no discussion is being had on these matters? They are waiting to actually meet? 

I'm sure there will be plenty of discussion at the Assembly itself, amongst the Bishops themselves.

Believe it or not, yes, indeed, most assemblies, boards, and organizations do indeed "wait" to actually meet before electing their executive committee (or appointing members to any committee, for that matter).

What is it, two weeks until we see?

Sooner than that, at this point.

[pensateomnia]

Since this seems to come up a lot, here's Article 4 of the Rules of Operation of Episcopal Assemblies in the Orthodox Diaspora:

1. The Episcopal Assembly and its Executive Committee will have a Chairman, one or two Vice-Chairmen, a Secretary and a Treasurer, and any other positions of responsibility that the Assembly may designate.

2. The Chairman is ex officio the first among the Bishops of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and, in the absence thereof, in the order of Diptychs. The Chairman of the Episcopal Assembly convenes the meetings thereof, directs its work and presides over its colleagues. Regarding issues that were discussed during the meeting of the Episcopal Assembly, and on which a unanimous decision was reached, the President (or another member of the Episcopal Assembly charged by him), presents the common position of the Orthodox Church in the Region to government, society and to other religious organizations.

3. The Vice-Chairmen are appointed ex officio from the Member Bishops of the Assemblies, from the next ranking Churches, in accordance with the order of the Diptychs of the Orthodox Churches. The Secretary, Treasurer and other positions of responsibility are chosen by the Assembly, and have the possibility not to originate from the ranks of the bishops.

[ialmisry]

Since it has come up, Met. Jonah should have gotten his invitation already to the executive committe:

Article 3.

The Episcopal Assembly will have an Executive Committee composed of the Primatial Bishops of each of the canonical Churches in the Region.

http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/documents/chambesy/rules

[pensateomnia]

Since it has come up, Met. Jonah should have gotten his invitation already to the executive committe:

Article 3.

The Episcopal Assembly will have an Executive Committee composed of the Primatial Bishops of each of the canonical Churches in the Region.

http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/documents/chambesy/rules

A total impossibility. At this point, there is no Executive Committee to be invited to. Article 4 explains how Article 3 will come about in the future, stipulating that there will be three ex officio members and that every one else must be "chosen by the Assembly." No one -- not even the chairman -- is "invited" to be a member of the Executive Committee. Total hogwash.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

Since it has come up, Met. Jonah should have gotten his invitation already to the executive committe:

Article 3.

The Episcopal Assembly will have an Executive Committee composed of the Primatial Bishops of each of the canonical Churches in the Region.

http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/documents/chambesy/rules

A total impossibility. At this point, there is no Executive Committee to be invited to. Article 4 explains how Article 3 will come about in the future, stipulating that there will be three ex officio members and that every one else must be "chosen by the Assembly." No one -- not even the chairman -- is "invited" to be a member of the Executive Committee. Total hogwash.

IAW the rules posted at the GOA web site, Isa has it right and Article 4 does not contradict Article 3, that is, Metropolitan Jonah is supposed to be part of the Executive Committee. Unless you are arguing that Metropolitan Jonah is not the "primatial bishop of a canonical church in the region" or that OCA is not a canonical church.

[ialmisry]

Since it has come up, Met. Jonah should have gotten his invitation already to the executive committe:

Article 3.

The Episcopal Assembly will have an Executive Committee composed of the Primatial Bishops of each of the canonical Churches in the Region.

http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/documents/chambesy/rules

A total impossibility. At this point, there is no Executive Committee to be invited to. Article 4 explains how Article 3 will come about in the future, stipulating that there will be three ex officio members and that every one else must be "chosen by the Assembly." No one -- not even the chairman -- is "invited" to be a member of the Executive Committee. Total hogwash.

Whether English, or Greek

Ἡ Ἐπισκοπική Συνέλευσις θά ἔχῃ Ἐκτελεστικήν Ἐπιτροπήν ἀπαρτιζομένην ἐκ τῶν πρώτων ἐπισκόπων ἑκάστης τῶν κανονικῶν Ἐκκλησιῶν τῆς Περιοχῆς.

http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/documents/chambesy/rules-gr
it is clear that the primates ("primatial bishops"/οἱ πρώτοι ἐπισκόποι) compose the Executive Committee. The membership is not up for a vote, at least for the primates.  What you reference is the offiicials, not only of the Committee, but the Assembly itself:

The Episcopal Assembly and its Executive Committee will have a Chairman, one or two Vice-Chairmen, a Secretary and a Treasurer, and any other positions of responsibility that the Assembly may designate.

Like membership in the Episcopal Assembly supposedly being determined only by canonical episcopacy, so too membership in the Executive Committee determined only by primateship of an autocephalous Church.

[pensateomnia]

IAW the rules posted at the GOA web site, Isa has it right and Article 4 does not contradict Article 3, that is, Metropolitan Jonah is supposed to be part of the Executive Committee.

Of course they don't contradict each other. What I am trying to alleviate is Isa's whining about how Met. Jonah hasn't been "invited" to the Executive Committee. That committee has not constituted itself yet, and therefore no "invitations" have been sent to it to any of its putative members.

Like membership in the Episcopal Assembly supposedly being determined only by canonical episcopacy, so too membership in the Executive Committee determined only by primateship of an autocephalous Church.

No, it is not. The regulations call for its membership to be composed of "Primatial Bishops of each of the canonical Churches" in the region. The Assembly will have to determine what, exactly, that means, especially since it is an Assembly that includes Bishops from multiple countries, some of whom might indeed (rightly) claim to be ἐκ τῶν πρώτων ἐπισκόπων in their country, even though there is another claimant from the same church in a different country! It'll all have to be straightened out.

Regulations have to be interpreted and applied. All the more reason why it would be unthinkable to send out "invitations" to putative members of the Executive Committee before the Assembly even convened!!

[ialmisry]

IAW the rules posted at the GOA web site, Isa has it right and Article 4 does not contradict Article 3, that is, Metropolitan Jonah is supposed to be part of the Executive Committee.

Of course they don't contradict each other. What I am trying to alleviate is Isa's whining about how Met. Jonah hasn't been "invited" to the Executive Committee. That committee has not constituted itself yet, and therefore no "invitations" have been sent to it to any of its putative members.

Like membership in the Episcopal Assembly supposedly being determined only by canonical episcopacy, so too membership in the Executive Committee determined only by primateship of an autocephalous Church.

No, it is not. The regulations call for its membership to be composed of "Primatial Bishops of each of the canonical Churches" in the region. The Assembly will have to determine what, exactly, that means, especially since it is an Assembly that includes Bishops from multiple countries, some of whom might indeed (rightly) claim to be ἐκ τῶν πρώτων ἐπισκόπων in their country, even though there is another claimant from the same church in a different country! It'll all have to be straightened out.

Regulations have to be interpreted and applied. All the more reason why it would be unthinkable to send out "invitations" to putative members of the Executive Committee before the Assembly even convened!!

Then why send invitations to the bishops to come?  After all, we evidently are working in complete ignorance on who is a canonical bishop and who isn't, which is a canonical Church and which isn't, which canonical Churches are in a region (like the Church of Poland in Brazil, as the LA EA showed), and which isn't.  If we don't know who the "primatial bishops" and the canonical Churches are, then (per Apostolic canon 34 et alia) we can't possibly know which bishops compose the Episcopal Assembly.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

IAW the rules posted at the GOA web site, Isa has it right and Article 4 does not contradict Article 3, that is, Metropolitan Jonah is supposed to be part of the Executive Committee.

Of course they don't contradict each other. What I am trying to alleviate is Isa's whining about how Met. Jonah hasn't been "invited" to the Executive Committee. That committee has not constituted itself yet, and therefore no "invitations" have been sent to it to any of its putative members.

Like membership in the Episcopal Assembly supposedly being determined only by canonical episcopacy, so too membership in the Executive Committee determined only by primateship of an autocephalous Church.

No, it is not. The regulations call for its membership to be composed of "Primatial Bishops of each of the canonical Churches" in the region. The Assembly will have to determine what, exactly, that means, especially since it is an Assembly that includes Bishops from multiple countries, some of whom might indeed (rightly) claim to be ἐκ τῶν πρώτων ἐπισκόπων in their country, even though there is another claimant from the same church in a different country! It'll all have to be straightened out.

Regulations have to be interpreted and applied. All the more reason why it would be unthinkable to send out "invitations" to putative members of the Executive Committee before the Assembly even convened!!

Then why send invitations to the bishops to come?  After all, we evidently are working in complete ignorance on who is a canonical bishop and who isn't, which is a canonical Church and which isn't, which canonical Churches are in a region (like the Church of Poland in Brazil, as the LA EA showed), and which isn't.  If we don't know who the "primatial bishops" and the canonical Churches are, then (per Apostolic canon 34 et alia) we can't possibly know which bishops compose the Episcopal Assembly.

Because this way the various bishops who are members of autocephalous churches recognized by ALL (that is, Constantinople) can flex their muscles vis-a-vis those bishops who are not. The other side of the coin is that that formal acknowledgment of the OCA as a canonical church by this EA would be a big deal and some folks would expect gratitude for such an act of largess.

I do not know if we have a choice but to see the process unfold. Something that bothers me even more is the apparent irrelevancy of citizenship in these Regional Assemblies. Citizenship appears to be a big deal in the established autocephalous churches but not in North America. Actually, for some of the autocephalous churches, like those of Romania and perhaps Russia, ethnicity is just as big a deal as citizenship. The Patriarchate of Constantinople seems to be a fascinating case in this regard. In accordance to the information supplied by pensateomnia, the bishops from Northern Greece appear to have Greek and Turkish citizenship, while those in the United States have Greek and American citizenship. No wonder that the Coordinator for America talks about dual citizenship and "citizen of the world," while mere Hellenism has now been upped to Universal Hellenism. It is indeed a different world that we are living in. What happened to the following oath I took when I became a naturalized US citizen?:

"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God."

[pensateomnia]

I do not know if we have a choice but to see the process unfold. Something that bothers me even more is the apparent irrelevancy of citizenship in these Regional Assemblies.

  If U.S. citizenship is such an important episcopal characteristic to you, you shouldn't be worried about the bishops in the GOA, all of whom are American citizens, unlike two of the members of the Synod of the OCA (and, as far as I know, both of its auxiliaries). Not to mention many bishops from other jurisdictions!

Anyway, even if that were cause for concern, U.S. citizenship is obviously not something to be bothered about when it comes to this Assembly, since it is not an Assembly of the Orthodox Bishops in the United States of America, but of Orthodox Bishops throughout many countries in North and Central America.

And, shocking though it may be to red-blooded American sensibilities, some of those Bishops, including a putative vice-chair, don't even speak the holy ancestral tongue of the Motherland: English! 

[ialmisry]

I do not know if we have a choice but to see the process unfold. Something that bothers me even more is the apparent irrelevancy of citizenship in these Regional Assemblies.

  If U.S. citizenship is such an important episcopal characteristic to you, you shouldn't be worried about the bishops in the GOA, all of whom are American citizens,

The Times Square bomber was an US citizen too.

unlike two of the members of the Synod of the OCA (and, as far as I know, both of its auxiliaries).

Oh.  Do they have loyalties elsewhere?

Not to mention many bishops from other jurisdictions!

I'll have to take your word on it, though I've noticed most have settled here permanently  Perhaps except the unabashedly phyletist.

Anyway, even if that were cause for concern, U.S. citizenship is obviously not something to be bothered about when it comes to this Assembly, since it is not an Assembly of the Orthodox Bishops in the United States of America, but of Orthodox Bishops throughout many countries in North and Central America.

So Mexican or Canadian.

And, shocking though it may be to red-blooded American sensibilities, some of those Bishops, including a putative vice-chair, don't even speak the holy ancestral tongue of the Motherland: English! 

Yes, shocking that the Americans ask for what every other Orthodox has, a synod that speaks their language (except, of course, Jerusalem, where phyletism is even worse).

[pensateomnia]

Oh.  Do they have loyalties elsewhere?

They are not U.S. citizens, which is a concern of Second Chance's. They are foreign nationals.

Yes, shocking that the Americans ask for what every other Orthodox has, a synod that speaks their language...

As far as I know, the OCA's is the only synod in the U.S. with a member who is not fluent in English. Although, I wouldn't be surprised if among the Serbs, say, Bishop Georgije in Canada doesn't speak much English.

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

I do not know if we have a choice but to see the process unfold. Something that bothers me even more is the apparent irrelevancy of citizenship in these Regional Assemblies.

  If U.S. citizenship is such an important episcopal characteristic to you, you shouldn't be worried about the bishops in the GOA, all of whom are American citizens, unlike two of the members of the Synod of the OCA (and, as far as I know, both of its auxiliaries). Not to mention many bishops from other jurisdictions!

Anyway, even if that were cause for concern, U.S. citizenship is obviously not something to be bothered about when it comes to this Assembly, since it is not an Assembly of the Orthodox Bishops in the United States of America, but of Orthodox Bishops throughout many countries in North and Central America.

And, shocking though it may be to red-blooded American sensibilities, some of those Bishops, including a putative vice-chair, don't even speak the holy ancestral tongue of the Motherland: English! 

I guess it is just a personal thing with me when it comes to dual citizenship, may be because I was already a member of the United States Air Force when I took my oath of citizenship.  Dual loyalty, particularly for a member of the Armed Forces, is not a god thing. Bishops, of course, are (should be different) and they may be able to be perfectly loyal to more than one country, particularly because their ultimate loyalty is to the Lord.

In any case, I made my point rather weakly: I was attempting to point out the divergent approaches to loyalty, to citizenship between the traditional Orthodox Churches in the Old World and their more cosmopolitan approach when it comes to the "diaspora."