Don't all these regions i, ii, iii and iv fall into the Episcopal Assembly of Oceania and Asia? I read the invitation from the Greek Archdiocese of Australia and it is mentioned as the Episcopal Assembly of all canonical Orthodox Bishops of Oceania and Asia.
It is not in the Chambesy Documents. So either a) not everything about Chambesy is up front (shocking
), or Abp. Stylianos or his boss took it upon himself to include it.http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33170.0.html
As can be seen, there are serious lacuna:
i. China and the rest of the Far East. Since Abp. Stylianos invited the Greek bishops of Korea and China, but not the Russians nor the Japense (autonomous under Moscow, but the Greek Archdiocese of New Zealand once claimed it), but they did not come, it seems that no EA is envisiond here, for whatever reason.
I think ROCOR Russians were represented by Bishop Agapit.
Of Stuttgart. As such, he represented ROCOR's vacant see in Australia, if I'm not mistaken since the First Hiearch is still serving as locum tenens for his old see.
As for Japan, from what I understand Ecumenical Patriarchate doesn't recognize it and now claims it through the Greek Metropolis of Korea.
According to the public Chambesy documents OzGeorge postedhttp://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33170.0.html
that shouldn't matter. Abp. Daniel of Tokyo and Metropolitan of All Japan is "in canonical communion with all of the most holy Orthodox Churches," and should have been invite. Unless someone has an agenda, in which recognition by the Phanar is determinative.
But at the same time if the Japanese Orthodox Church is the canonical Orthodox Church of Japan, I think there is no need for the Japanese Orthodox Church to be invited to the Episcopal Assembly of Oceania and Asia, because it is the Orthodox Church in Japan, it is not part of the diaspora.
Then the Phanar shouldn't be laying any claim to Japan through Korea, and should stop disputing its autonomous status and canonical jurisdiction over all Japan.
So this Episcopal Assembly should include Asia, but excluding Japan. For the same reason the Episcopal Assembly of Scandinavia excludes Finland.
Finland places itself under the Phanar, which I have a suspicion is why that is a special case. Japan should be recognized like Finland is.
iii. Southeast Asia. I know that the Russians have been working here.I think situation here is complicated. ROCOR Diocese of Australia has been working in Indonesia and Korea, so they are represented by Bishop Agapit. While MP Russians don't have Dioceses there, they have the leading Orthodox missions in Thailand, Vietnam, Mongolia, but there is no Bishop, no Diocese, so I wonder who should represent them to the Episcopal Assembly? At the same time the Patriarchate of Antioch does not have any presence in Southeast and South Asia.
iv. Southasia. Is and should be in the jurisdiction of Antioch, but I'm not sure we have any parishes there. There are Greeks and no doubt Russians etc.
Whoever the priests are commemorating (and if you are not commemorating an Orthodox bishop, you are not "in canonical communion with all of the most holy Orthodox Churches," and don't count anyway. At least not yet.
v The Middle East. Is and should be in the jurisdiction of Antioch (except for Palestine and Jordan), but since the last Ecumenical Patriarch was a parish priest in Tehran, I know that is not so.
Does the Greek parish in Tehran still exist? I know there is a Greek Orthodox church in Tehran, but is it functioning? There is also Russian Orthodox church with a parish priest there, who also serves in Dubai and Sharjah.
It was functioning in 2002, at least having a congregation to greet EP Bartholomew.http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-49477317.html
Supposedly the Russians have a bishop therehttp://www.imamreza.net/eng/imamreza.php?id=6059
I'd add Antarctica, but the Russians I think have a monopoly for now.
Actually Bulgarians were first there.
Oh? How's that?
As for the Episcopal Assembly of North and Central America, I tend to support the view of the Greek Metropolitan of Canada that Canada should be separated and the view of the Antiochian Metropolitan of Mexico and Central America that Mexico and Central America should be merged with South America.
I understand that part of why that didn't happen was the effort of the SA Chairman trying to exclude Bp. Alejo, Exarch of the OCA in Mexico. He was left off the list at first (and the other Central Americans, not to underline that fact), but he came anyway and the discrepancy was noted right away, then corrected. That Met. Soterios didn't show has less to do with the rectitude of Canada's rights but his tenacity in the ethnarch model, which clashes with Abp. Demotrios' evangelistic and Orthodox mindset.