, I was thinking of all of Asia, western Europe and the Americas. Not just California.
And some of the "so-called" mother churches have less Orthodox Christians residing within their borders than we have here.
Don't you think saying "so-called" about the mother Church to be equally offensive as the phrase diaspora? None of us are Christians because of our own greatness, we have all had teachers and mothers.
How about Orthodox Christians living in freedom or OCLIF
Unfortunately I would not call all of Asia, and perhaps Southern America, free.
I know you were thinking of Northern America, I'm misunderstanding you on purpose.
But seriously I applaud the bishops who wishes to replace the term Diaspora. I'm having a hard time though, thinking up something that would work for both the US and China (and all the rest).
I'm not sure a term is needed, as it perpetuates a mentality and philosophy of autocephaly I believe at odds with Orthodoxy.
To quote Fr. John Erickson (revised) essay, issued around the time of autocephaly of the OCA:
“…To put matters in simplest terms, according to the Russian Church, any autocephalous Church has the right to grant canonical independence to one of its parts. According to Cosntantinople, on the other hand, only an ecumenical coucil can definitely establish an autocephalous Church, and any interim arrangements depend upon approbation of Constantinople, acting in its capacity as the ‘mother church” and “first among equals.”
Chapter 7, p. 91.http://books.google.com/books?id=XgRrh2M08p0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=John+Erickson+Autocephaly&source=bl&ots=vyPbXV1N7g&sig=puFyHCBZ7dbXPjbRGyCYGUdTI8w&hl=en&ei=FKb2S5miLpDuMrHWoJoF&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
To this divide I will add the view of autocephaly as normal, as opposed to abnormal. The Phanar takes the latter position, and OzGeorge has advocated it:
Well, a Mod created this thread from the Decision of the Holy Synod of Antioch thread because some people were asserting that autocephaly may be rescinded by the Mother Church.
No. This thread already existed.
Look at the date on the OP of this thread, and then read all the arguments that have already been made before asking the same questions they answer.
My point was I know of no canons on granting the status to begin with and, hence, to expect canons on rescinding it are unrealistic.
So you would agree that the assertion which caused this thread -that Mother Churches may rescind autocephaly- is misleading?
Why would that make it misleading? The status of autocephaly was created by the Church and can be rescinded by the Church. Autocephaly is not a Mysterion like Baptism, Chrisimation or Holy Orders which are inextinguishable, Autocephaly is not a Divine Right, it is not even a Gospel ideal- it's a failure. Its a compromise to schism for the sake of unity.
I, and others, see it as the norm: it is the norm that a land be evangelized, converted, its Church founded and then matured where it goes forth to make disciples of other nations, evangelizing, converting, founding Churches..... The latter view resembles the natural expectation that children will follow the Scriptural command to leave their father and mother and cleave to their spouse to found a new family. The former resembles parents who keep their children in perpetual childhood, refusing to recognize when they have grown and trying to prevent maturity. That's a failure of parenting, to the detriment of all concerned. As we say in Egypt "Raise your son, and then treat him like a brother."
The time must come when the bishops of the "diaspora" have to stop hanging on the apron strings of "Mother Church," and be married to their see where their acutal presence with their Faithful manifest the Orthodox Church. (Btw, I am told that this is why Moscow is not actively advocating the OCA cause. The OCA must fight its own battles, and Met. Jonah has made plain it will).