Go to Chicago, where as I understand there are 17 different Orthodox bishops who claim jurisdiction there. Do you not see what an irregular hodgepodge this is?
But as my original question asks about jurisdictions and which are supposed to be united, even after unity, instead of 17 bishops wouldn't there still be 12 different Orthodox bishops in Chicago who claim jurisdiction (OO, old calendar, others, etc.)?
Rather, by basing Orthodox dioceses on geography, rather than ethnicity, people can be closer to their bishops. And they can use the money they are now spending on overlapping administrative costs to other causes, such as evangelizing the US.
But the ethnics who only donate to the church because they want to see the language school or the soccer team or the dance group, will NOT give money to a non-ethnic orthodox church. This is something some of you do not seem to want to understand. The ethnics will give this money directly to language schools/soccer teams/dance groups, and NOT the church. So there will be a lot less money coming in.
But Bob, since your mind is already made up on the matter, why did you ask the question in the first place?
My original question was about the various jurisdictions and who would be united and how about the rest. Then my post just kept expanding. While, I am pretty convinced that "unity" will lead to civil war in the OC with no winners in the end, like I said, this is a new issue to me and I want to understand the reasoning of those who think that unity will be a positive. I am willing to change my mind if somebody can convince me unity will be good.
On the other hand, if it was just a bunch of keyboard cowboys discussing this issue, it could be easily ignored. But this issue obviously has legs with the sham that's happening in NYC this week. So if none of you can change my mind, maybe I can show some of you how us "ethnics" view this issue and that it has great potential in being a complete disaster.
"Frankly, it seems to me that "unity" is a way for the OCA-types to take over the GOA and their resources."
LOL! Riiight. As if.
The GOAA vastly outnumbers the OCA in terms of churches, parishioners, money and resources. The only area where the OCA outnumbers the GOAA is in its number of seminaries: The OCA has 3 (plus another in Canada IIRC), whereas the GOAA only has one, Holy Cross.
No one in the OCA is seriously advocating that they "take over" the GOAA. That would be like the guppy trying to swallow the beluga whale.
I don't mean literally take over, but from an idealogical stand point. Meaning from issues like abortion (will you not demand they stop supporting politicians who support abortion?) to homosexuality or stem cell research, to canceling ethnic language schools and dance groups, to issues like what language the liturgy should be in or confession, etc.
With regards to unity, since this American pope is supposed to rule Canada if not the entire Americas, why stop there? Why not have world wide unity and have 1 leader? Are you seriously referring to Met. JONAH as an "American pope"
No and it's not about Met. JONAH specifically. My point is that people complain about the EP and being subjected to a foreign ruler, yet under all unity plans, Canada is supposed to be subjected to a foreign ruler in the US? Also, since people want unity, why should it be based on 21st century political boundaries? Why not just 1 world wide unified church with 1 leader?
I'd have to know where you are coming to make any intelligent reply. You seem to 1) think the Church is a human instiution. It's a divine institution with humans in it, 2) that the One and Catholic part is somehow less important than Holy or Apostolic.
I fail to see how where I'm coming from makes a difference to your answer. Anyway, I'm Canadian, cradle Orthodox, I always thought the reason the church existed was to teach us ethnic dances and to meet a nice ethnic girl.
Like I said, this unity issue is not a big issue up here. Unfortunately anything that happens down there affects us up here. I've never paid attention to the administrative side of things so this is all new to me. As for the "One and Catholic" part, again, wouldn't there still be multiple orthodox churches in the US? How does uniting some of them make it acceptable?
What was the question?
I guess the title is too ethnic for you.
The title was the main question of my post but then it kept expanding as since it's all tied together. My main question is about unity and how does it help. I would like specific examples on a parish level as well as a national level. My point is that if there are none or very little positives, why not just let things be. The OCA can focus on the non-ethnics and the various ethnics can focus on the ethnics until they all assimilate. Why do we need a civil war to destroy the church much faster?
For example, my one-voice example in the original post. Unity supporters think that is a benefit. I am just saying you are wrong. And it most likely will not be the voice you want heard.
At the parish level, all the ethnics that many of you seem to have had bad experiences with, they will not disappear. They will still not like you "foreigners". So that will not change at the parish level.
Eugenio's example of more money spent on evangelizing the US is an other popular answer that will not happen. Like I state above, that money will NOT be donated for evangelical purposes. It will be donated to various ethnic groups that will pop up (which from afar, seems to be already happening in the US).