OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 22, 2014, 03:55:41 AM *
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: If you want to see the Church in a particular place operating in accordance with the Canons...  (Read 12120 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,365



« on: February 23, 2011, 09:34:01 PM »

I am not an American and it seems to many of us outside America that the word "Jurisdiction" has virtually replaced the word "Church."   Does anyone know why this has happened?
Its an attempt to explain an anomalous situation. Overlapping episcopal jurisdictions in the so-called 'diaspora' is a new phenomenon. While it was common to refer to the local Churches as "Churches" (eg, the Seven Churches of Asia Minor), each Church was located in one city/geographical area under one Bishop. In the "diaspora" there is now more than one Bishop (and Cathedral) per city which is an anomaly.

How long does an anomaly have to last before we admit it is the new normal?

The anomoly isn't supposed to be there to begin with.

I agree. But it began, and it remains. Is there an Orthodox Christian alive today who has ever known the proper canonical situation first-hand?

Yes.  Me. Serbia. laugh

Ha! I meant in America. So I will restate my question: Is there an Orthodox Christian alive today in America who has ever known the proper canonical situation first-hand? I'd really like to know.
Anyone in the US who has travelled to Europe of the middle East would experience it first hand, as indeed our own forum member 88Devin12 currently is. Go travel and see the world!

You mean I have to travel overseas to find a canonical Orthodox Church?
Well, technically, yes. If you want to see the Church in a particular place operating in accordance with the Canons, you have to travel overseas.
No. If you are in America,all you need to do is go to the nearest OCA parish. In places like Alaska, that is even more in evidence.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2011, 09:40:13 PM by ialmisry » 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
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 23, 2011, 09:44:46 PM »

I am not an American and it seems to many of us outside America that the word "Jurisdiction" has virtually replaced the word "Church."   Does anyone know why this has happened?
Its an attempt to explain an anomalous situation. Overlapping episcopal jurisdictions in the so-called 'diaspora' is a new phenomenon. While it was common to refer to the local Churches as "Churches" (eg, the Seven Churches of Asia Minor), each Church was located in one city/geographical area under one Bishop. In the "diaspora" there is now more than one Bishop (and Cathedral) per city which is an anomaly.

How long does an anomaly have to last before we admit it is the new normal?

The anomoly isn't supposed to be there to begin with.

I agree. But it began, and it remains. Is there an Orthodox Christian alive today who has ever known the proper canonical situation first-hand?

Yes.  Me. Serbia. laugh

Ha! I meant in America. So I will restate my question: Is there an Orthodox Christian alive today in America who has ever known the proper canonical situation first-hand? I'd really like to know.
Anyone in the US who has travelled to Europe of the middle East would experience it first hand, as indeed our own forum member 88Devin12 currently is. Go travel and see the world!

You mean I have to travel overseas to find a canonical Orthodox Church?
Well, technically, yes. If you want to see the Church in a particular place operating in accordance with the Canons, you have to travel overseas.
No. If you are in America,all you need to do is go to the nearest OCA parish. In places like Alaska, that is even more in evidence.
I see. So any local Church anywhere in the world (especially one in a Communist state) can establish its own jurisdiction in another country and declare it the only Canonical Orthodox Church in that country.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 23, 2011, 10:00:44 PM »

I am not an American and it seems to many of us outside America that the word "Jurisdiction" has virtually replaced the word "Church."   Does anyone know why this has happened?
Its an attempt to explain an anomalous situation. Overlapping episcopal jurisdictions in the so-called 'diaspora' is a new phenomenon. While it was common to refer to the local Churches as "Churches" (eg, the Seven Churches of Asia Minor), each Church was located in one city/geographical area under one Bishop. In the "diaspora" there is now more than one Bishop (and Cathedral) per city which is an anomaly.

How long does an anomaly have to last before we admit it is the new normal?

The anomoly isn't supposed to be there to begin with.

I agree. But it began, and it remains. Is there an Orthodox Christian alive today who has ever known the proper canonical situation first-hand?

Yes.  Me. Serbia. laugh

Ha! I meant in America. So I will restate my question: Is there an Orthodox Christian alive today in America who has ever known the proper canonical situation first-hand? I'd really like to know.
Anyone in the US who has travelled to Europe of the middle East would experience it first hand, as indeed our own forum member 88Devin12 currently is. Go travel and see the world!

You mean I have to travel overseas to find a canonical Orthodox Church?
Well, technically, yes. If you want to see the Church in a particular place operating in accordance with the Canons, you have to travel overseas.
No. If you are in America,all you need to do is go to the nearest OCA parish. In places like Alaska, that is even more in evidence.
I see. So any local Church anywhere in the world (especially one in a Communist state) can establish its own jurisdiction in another country and declare it the only Canonical Orthodox Church in that country.
According to its "Tomos of Autocephaly":
"The Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America shall have exclusive spiritual and canonical jurisdiction over all bishops, clerics and laymen of the Eastern Orthodox confession in continental North America, excluding Mexico, and including the State of Hawaii who are presently part of the Metropolitanate or who shall later enter the Metropolitanate; and over all parishes which now belong or later shall be accepted into the Metropolitanate, excepting the entire clergy, possessions and parishes enumerated in Paragraph 3, points a,b,c.  "
So, the Tomos does not give the OCA jurisdiction over all Orthodox Christians in the US, nor indeed even over all Orthodox  in the US which were under the jurisdiction of the Church which issued the "Tomos of Autocephaly".
If this was supposed to resolve any confusion- mission failed.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2011, 10:06:51 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,666



« Reply #3 on: February 23, 2011, 10:08:08 PM »

I am not an American and it seems to many of us outside America that the word "Jurisdiction" has virtually replaced the word "Church."   Does anyone know why this has happened?
Its an attempt to explain an anomalous situation. Overlapping episcopal jurisdictions in the so-called 'diaspora' is a new phenomenon. While it was common to refer to the local Churches as "Churches" (eg, the Seven Churches of Asia Minor), each Church was located in one city/geographical area under one Bishop. In the "diaspora" there is now more than one Bishop (and Cathedral) per city which is an anomaly.

How long does an anomaly have to last before we admit it is the new normal?

The anomoly isn't supposed to be there to begin with.

I agree. But it began, and it remains. Is there an Orthodox Christian alive today who has ever known the proper canonical situation first-hand?

Yes.  Me. Serbia. laugh

Ha! I meant in America. So I will restate my question: Is there an Orthodox Christian alive today in America who has ever known the proper canonical situation first-hand? I'd really like to know.
Anyone in the US who has travelled to Europe of the middle East would experience it first hand, as indeed our own forum member 88Devin12 currently is. Go travel and see the world!

You mean I have to travel overseas to find a canonical Orthodox Church?
Well, technically, yes. If you want to see the Church in a particular place operating in accordance with the Canons, you have to travel overseas.
No. If you are in America,all you need to do is go to the nearest OCA parish. In places like Alaska, that is even more in evidence.
I see. So any local Church anywhere in the world (especially one in a Communist state) can establish its own jurisdiction in another country and declare it the only Canonical Orthodox Church in that country.

It is not that simple: the Russian Orthodox Church evangelized North America, starting in Alaska; established the first parishes and the first diocese in North America; and was a viable presence as the local church before the Bolshevik Revolution. The Russian mission grew into a full-fledged diocese; after the revolution, split apart into the Metropolia, Patriarchal Parishes and ROCOR; and finally reached maturity as the autocephalous Orthodox Church in America. One should note that the Russians did not try to convert anyone into being ethnic Russians; they translated Holy Scriptures and services into the native languages and established separate episcopates for non-Russian Orthodox folks, such as those of Arab descent (Saint Raphael should ring a bell here). They obviously were not successful in persuading other nationalities to join the established local church, the Greeks being the most numerous and, dare I say, the most philatelist of the lot. Many folks who did not cooperate with the Russian had good reasons as the Russian presence itself was fractured and greatly diminished after the Bolshevik Revolution. But, regardless of reasons, the present situation did not come about haphazardly but was brought about by many folks who valued their ethnicity more than proper canonical structure.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #4 on: February 23, 2011, 10:09:29 PM »

I am not an American and it seems to many of us outside America that the word "Jurisdiction" has virtually replaced the word "Church."   Does anyone know why this has happened?
Its an attempt to explain an anomalous situation. Overlapping episcopal jurisdictions in the so-called 'diaspora' is a new phenomenon. While it was common to refer to the local Churches as "Churches" (eg, the Seven Churches of Asia Minor), each Church was located in one city/geographical area under one Bishop. In the "diaspora" there is now more than one Bishop (and Cathedral) per city which is an anomaly.

How long does an anomaly have to last before we admit it is the new normal?

The anomoly isn't supposed to be there to begin with.

I agree. But it began, and it remains. Is there an Orthodox Christian alive today who has ever known the proper canonical situation first-hand?

Yes.  Me. Serbia. laugh

Ha! I meant in America. So I will restate my question: Is there an Orthodox Christian alive today in America who has ever known the proper canonical situation first-hand? I'd really like to know.
Anyone in the US who has travelled to Europe of the middle East would experience it first hand, as indeed our own forum member 88Devin12 currently is. Go travel and see the world!

You mean I have to travel overseas to find a canonical Orthodox Church?
Well, technically, yes. If you want to see the Church in a particular place operating in accordance with the Canons, you have to travel overseas.
No. If you are in America,all you need to do is go to the nearest OCA parish. In places like Alaska, that is even more in evidence.
I see. So any local Church anywhere in the world (especially one in a Communist state) can establish its own jurisdiction in another country and declare it the only Canonical Orthodox Church in that country.

It is not that simple: the Russian Orthodox Church evangelized North America, starting in Alaska; established the first parishes and the first diocese in North America; and was a viable presence as the local church before the Bolshevik Revolution. The Russian mission grew into a full-fledged diocese; after the revolution, split apart into the Metropolia, Patriarchal Parishes and ROCOR; and finally reached maturity as the autocephalous Orthodox Church in America. One should note that the Russians did not try to convert anyone into being ethnic Russians; they translated Holy Scriptures and services into the native languages and established separate episcopates for non-Russian Orthodox folks, such as those of Arab descent (Saint Raphael should ring a bell here). They obviously were not successful in persuading other nationalities to join the established local church, the Greeks being the most numerous and, dare I say, the most philatelist of the lot. Many folks who did not cooperate with the Russian had good reasons as the Russian presence itself was fractured and greatly diminished after the Bolshevik Revolution. But, regardless of reasons, the present situation did not come about haphazardly but was brought about by many folks who valued their ethnicity more than proper canonical structure.

I repeat:

According to its "Tomos of Autocephaly":
"The Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America shall have exclusive spiritual and canonical jurisdiction over all bishops, clerics and laymen of the Eastern Orthodox confession in continental North America, excluding Mexico, and including the State of Hawaii who are presently part of the Metropolitanate or who shall later enter the Metropolitanate; and over all parishes which now belong or later shall be accepted into the Metropolitanate, excepting the entire clergy, possessions and parishes enumerated in Paragraph 3, points a,b,c.  "
So, the Tomos does not give the OCA jurisdiction over all Orthodox Christians in the US, nor indeed even over all Orthodox  in the US which were under the jurisdiction of the Church which issued the "Tomos of Autocephaly".
If this was supposed to resolve any confusion- mission failed.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,365



« Reply #5 on: February 23, 2011, 11:36:05 PM »

I am not an American and it seems to many of us outside America that the word "Jurisdiction" has virtually replaced the word "Church."   Does anyone know why this has happened?
Its an attempt to explain an anomalous situation. Overlapping episcopal jurisdictions in the so-called 'diaspora' is a new phenomenon. While it was common to refer to the local Churches as "Churches" (eg, the Seven Churches of Asia Minor), each Church was located in one city/geographical area under one Bishop. In the "diaspora" there is now more than one Bishop (and Cathedral) per city which is an anomaly.

How long does an anomaly have to last before we admit it is the new normal?

The anomoly isn't supposed to be there to begin with.

I agree. But it began, and it remains. Is there an Orthodox Christian alive today who has ever known the proper canonical situation first-hand?

Yes.  Me. Serbia. laugh

Ha! I meant in America. So I will restate my question: Is there an Orthodox Christian alive today in America who has ever known the proper canonical situation first-hand? I'd really like to know.
Anyone in the US who has travelled to Europe of the middle East would experience it first hand, as indeed our own forum member 88Devin12 currently is. Go travel and see the world!

You mean I have to travel overseas to find a canonical Orthodox Church?
Well, technically, yes. If you want to see the Church in a particular place operating in accordance with the Canons, you have to travel overseas.
No. If you are in America,all you need to do is go to the nearest OCA parish. In places like Alaska, that is even more in evidence.
I see. So any local Church anywhere in the world (especially one in a Communist state) can establish its own jurisdiction in another country and declare it the only Canonical Orthodox Church in that country.
Any local Church can go anywhere in the world "to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest [they] build on another man's foundation." This the Holy Governing Synod of Russia did in 1736 (a century before Communism was even imagined) for North America. As the Pedalion, published around the time when the HGS organized the Diocese of America, interpretated the canons:
Quote
Bishops must not leave their own diocese and go over to churches beyond its boundaries; but, on the contrary, in accordance with the Canons, let the Bishop of Alexandria administer the affairs of Egypt only, let the Bishops of the East govern the Eastern Church only, the priorities granted to the church of the Antiochians in the Nicene Canons being kept inviolate, and let the Bishops of the Asian diocese (or administrative domain) administer only the affairs of the Asian church, and let those of the Pontic diocese look after the affairs of the diocese of Pontus only, and let those of the Thracian diocese manage the affairs of the Thracian diocese only. Let Bishops not go beyond their own province to carry out an ordination or any other ecclesiastical services unless (officially) summoned thither. When the Canon prescribed in regard to dioceses (or administrative provinces) is duly kept, it is evident that the synod of each province will confine itself to the affairs of that particular province, in accordance with the regulations decreed in Nicaea. But the churches of God that are situated in territories belonging to barbarian nations must be administered in accordance with the customary practice of the Fathers.

(Ap. cc. XXXIV, XXXV; cc. VI, VII of the 1st; c. VIII of the 3rd; c. XXVIII of the 4th; cc. XX, XXX, XXXIX of the 6th; c. IX of Antioch; cc. III, XI, and XII of Sardica.)


Interpretation.

Since, as is attested by Socrates (Book 5, ch. Cool, officiation beyond the boundaries of one’s own diocese was formerly a matter of indifference on account of persecutions, and, as Theodoret says, blessed Eusebius of Samosata did it as a matter of extraordinary zeal. On this account, when peace reappeared in the Church as a whole, the present Canon was adopted and promulgated. It relates neither to autocephalous Metropolitans alone, as Balsamon interpreted it, nor to Patriarchs alone, but to both these classes of dignitaries alike, according to Dositheus (p. 233 of "Those who have served as Patriarchs"), in order that each of them may serve his own province and diocese, and not interfere in one that is alien, and not confound the rights of the churches; but, on the contrary, in accordance with the Canons (cc. VI and VII, that is to say of the First, and much more in accordance with Ap. cc. XXXIV and XXXV), that the bishop of Alexandria may manage only the parishes in Egypt (the Council expressly mentioned the bishop of Alexandria because the Bishop of Alexandria with his party cooperated to have Maximus the Cynic ordained in Constantinople, while, on the other hand, great St. Gregory was ousted from office in spite of its being his diocese and parish). The metropolitans of the East are to attend to the affairs of the East, with the proviso that the prerogatives of the bishop of Antioch be duly respected, in accordance with the Canon (sc. VI) of the Nicene Council; and the metropolitans of the Asian, Pontic and Thracian domains are to manage only the provinces belonging to them (these dignitaries, according to c. XXVIII of the 4th, have to be ordained after the bishop of Constantinople). It commands, in addition, that both patriarchs and metropolitans alike refrain from interloping beyond their own dioceses and provinces with the object of ordaining others or performing other ecclesiastical services in the parishes of others, without being invited to do so; and that the synod of each particular province shall manage the ecclesiastical matters of each province of the metropolitans, whether they be elections, or ordinations, or penances, or absolutions, or any other such matters; likewise, as regarding the affairs of each diocese of the patriarchs, the diocesan synod shall govern such matters of the diocese in question, as the Nicene Council has decreed (c. VI). For the same thing is involved in the decree of the Nicene Council that no bishop shall be ordained without the consent of the metropolitan, and in which the present Council says to the effect that the synod of each province (of the metropolitan, that is to say) shall govern the affairs of each province, respectively. As for the churches of God that are situated in the midst of barbarian nations, where there either were not enough bishops to make up a synod, or it was necessary for some scholarly bishop to go there in order to bolster up the Christians in their faith. These churches, I say, ought to be managed in accordance with the prevailing custom of the Fathers. To be more explicit, neighboring and abler bishops ought to go to them, in order to supply what is missing for a local synod. Which, though contrary to Canons, yet as a matter of necessity was allowed by the Council. Read Ap. cc. XXXIV and XXXV, and c. I of the Sixth.
http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/councils_ecumenical_rudder.htm#_Toc34001968

Evidently, the Phanar didn't agree: it arrogated to itself to the power anywhere in the world (actually any in the world and especially being a local Church in a Muslim state) to establish its own jurisdiction in another country without having a bishop set foot even in the same hemisphere and declare it the only Canonical Orthodox Church in that country. Indeed, it arrogated the power to itself to declare itself the only Canonical Orthodox Church in any country not Orthodox. And even a number of Orthodox ones, as Bulgaria showed.

The first attempt that the Phanar made in setting up a Church in North America didn't come until after a century and a half after the HGS of Russia took North America under its care. Father Stephen Hatherly opposed Dr. Overbeck in restoring the Western Orthodox Church-Fr. Hatherly worked for an Eastern Rite Church in English for the Anglophone world.  He came to NYC in 1886, and left empty handed after 3 months. His presence, however, according to the dictates of the Phanar, was an act of disobedience-he was told not to contradict the Episcopalian claims of jursdiction


Quote
Letter of the Grand Protosyncelus of the Patriarch of Constantinople to Stephen Hatherly :—
“Dorolheus Euelpides, Grand Protosyncelus of the Patriarchal (Ecumenical throne in Constantinople, to Stephen Hatherly, appointed Priest over the Orthodox Church in Wolverhampton, England, peace from God and brotherly greeting in Christ.
“Among many other difficulties with which the Orthodox Church is daily contending is reckoned, your dear reverence well knows, that proselytism among some of her children which is being always carried on by missionaries of the West.
“If these Missionaries had been really impelled by a true zeal for the Lord, they would have had before them a wide field for their energy in Asia, and especially in Africa and other parts, where ‘ Christ is not yet preached,’ and not among the pious sons of the Orthodox Church, whose fathers were the first to receive the Gospel of Christ from the witnesses of the Word, and then to cultivate and impart it to all other nations among which are numbered even those from which at the present day these Missionaries present themselves self-authorized teachers, pursuing the work of proselytism among the faithful, forgetting the resolve of the Apostle of the Gentiles who ‘strove to preach the Gospel not where Christ was named, lest he should build upon another man’s foundation, but, as it is written, to whom He was not spoken of they shall see, and they that have not heard shall understand’ (Rom. xv. 20). Through such conduct of theirs they revive in themselves the work of those concerning whom the Apostle, writing to the Philippians (i. 15) said, (and the Orthodox Church is justified in repeating his words)—’ Some indeed preach Christ of envy and strife, and some of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds.’
“The mother Church, beholding the disastrous consequences of such proselytism with grief, laments, like another Rachel, the destruction of her children, and therefore she regards it as opposed to the Gospel, and not as promoting the glory of the Lord’s Name—nor peace and love, but as sowing discord and hatred between Christian Churches.
“And for this cause, following the noble aim of the Apostle, she has always been averse from that practice, never hunting for proselytes among the members of another Church, and she appeals to the truth of history on her behalf to show that she has always faithfully maintained this principle.
Of this principle your reverence is requested and ecclesiastically enjoined to become the official ppponent in the presence of the English brethren, instructing as becomes you the little Orthodox flock over which you have been called and appointed by the Church to be priest, but never, no, not in mind, assuming to proselytise any one single member of the Anglican Church, which has signally exhibited of late towards our Orthodox Church so many proofs of sisterly love and sympathy. Our fervent desire is not that we should receive into the bosom of our Church five or possibly ten members of tlie Anglican or any other Church, but that, differences being removed through care and previous labour undertaken in the spirit of meekness, the unity of the Churches may follow, so that with one mouth and with one heart glorifying in the same temples the great Chief Shepherd, our Lord and God, we may in common impart the light of the knowledge of God to nations that are sitting in darkness and the shadow of death, and that united praise of all that are on the earth may be borne up to the only-begotten Son and Word of God, Who is at the right hand of the Throne of the Majesty. For this does the Church entreat night and day, continually praying ‘for the union of all.’
“Under this banner of our Church, into the ranks of whose ministry you have been called, may your Reverence fight the good fight in Christian Great Britain, proving yourself an example and a teacher of a cause, not of dismemberment and hatred, but of union and love. Let us who have been called to be ministers of the Church be foremost in practising this, conducting ourselves according to it in all our actions and after the Apostle’s example, praying ‘that the love of believers may abound yet more.and more in knowledge and in all judgment, that they may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ, being filled with the fruits of righteousnsss which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God’ (Phil. i. 9—12).
“Assuring your Reverence of the prayers and blessings of our most pious Father and Patriarch, by whose command I have written the above, I offer the brotherly greeting in Christ.—Your reverence’s brother in Christ, “+ The Grand Protosyncelus, D. Euelpides.
“The Patriarchate, Feb. 27, 1873.”
II.—Article in the official Neologus of Constantinople, 29th April, 1873, commenting on the above letter :—
“A bright contrast to the proselytising spirit of some ministers of the Christian religion, and to their constant eagerness to bring over to their own dogma other believers in the Gospel, is presented by the conduct of the Eastern Orthodox Church, which seeks and desires nothing but union in Christ, and that by brotherly and peaceful approximation, and not by ensnaring consciences through any means whatever, as is the practice of others.
“Our Church has very lately given a clear proof that this is her rule of conduct by proclaiming it officially in a letter sent by the Grand Protosyncelus, and by command of his Holiness the Oecumenical Patriarch,
to the Rev. Stephen Hatherly, an Orthodox Priest in Great Britain, for his guidance as to his intercourse with the English community. In this letter the Grand Protosyncelus, interpreting the mind of the Church, first denounces that proselytism which is carried on by some in the East among the Christians, and which, instead of the peace and love taught by the Gospel, rather sows the seed of strife and division; and so proves that the Orthodox Church, justly hating such consequences, has always discountenanced inclination to proselytism. Accordingly, he enjoins the Rev. priest, Mr. Stephen Hatherly, as her minister, to content himself with instructing and feeding the small Orthodox flock of which he has been appointed spiritual father, but to abstain from even the idea of proselytising a few members of the Anglican Church with which the great Church continues in good and sisterly relations. This representation of the Orthodox Church made by the Grand Protosyncelus the (Ecumenical Patriarch, bears witness to her feelings towards all other Christian Churches and to the lofty principle by which she is guided in her manner of dealing with Christians of other confessions, while she keeps in view rather the more general and truer union of the Churches for which, too, she never ceases to pray, than partial and often scandalous conversions.”
The language of the official organ of the Church of Constantinople is the more remarkable because two years ago, in reply to Mr. Curtis’s protest against Mr. Hatherly’s ordination, it admitted letters justifying Orthodox proselytism in England on the ground of the heterodoxy of the English Church—(see Report of the Anglo-Continental Society, 1871). This position is now formally abandoned.
Frederick Meyrick.
http://orthodoxhistory.org/2010/05/20/the-failed-mission-of-fr-stephen-hatherly-2/#comments
The Colonial Church chronicle, and missionary journal. July 1847-Dec. 1874
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA465&dq=Stephen+Hatherly+Orthodox&id=CigEAAAAQAAJ#v=onepage&q=Stephen%20Hatherly%20Orthodox&f=false

No bishop of the Phanar set foot in any of the Americas until after the Communist State seized control in Russia and imprisoned the bishops of the Orthodox Church.
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
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,576



« Reply #6 on: February 23, 2011, 11:44:09 PM »

A mission cannot claim a whole continent because it was a mission to a (then) Russian territory. 

I am not an American and it seems to many of us outside America that the word "Jurisdiction" has virtually replaced the word "Church."   Does anyone know why this has happened?
Its an attempt to explain an anomalous situation. Overlapping episcopal jurisdictions in the so-called 'diaspora' is a new phenomenon. While it was common to refer to the local Churches as "Churches" (eg, the Seven Churches of Asia Minor), each Church was located in one city/geographical area under one Bishop. In the "diaspora" there is now more than one Bishop (and Cathedral) per city which is an anomaly.

How long does an anomaly have to last before we admit it is the new normal?

The anomoly isn't supposed to be there to begin with.

I agree. But it began, and it remains. Is there an Orthodox Christian alive today who has ever known the proper canonical situation first-hand?

Yes.  Me. Serbia. laugh

Ha! I meant in America. So I will restate my question: Is there an Orthodox Christian alive today in America who has ever known the proper canonical situation first-hand? I'd really like to know.
Anyone in the US who has travelled to Europe of the middle East would experience it first hand, as indeed our own forum member 88Devin12 currently is. Go travel and see the world!

You mean I have to travel overseas to find a canonical Orthodox Church?
Well, technically, yes. If you want to see the Church in a particular place operating in accordance with the Canons, you have to travel overseas.
No. If you are in America,all you need to do is go to the nearest OCA parish. In places like Alaska, that is even more in evidence.
I see. So any local Church anywhere in the world (especially one in a Communist state) can establish its own jurisdiction in another country and declare it the only Canonical Orthodox Church in that country.
Any local Church can go anywhere in the world "to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest [they] build on another man's foundation." This the Holy Governing Synod of Russia did in 1736 (a century before Communism was even imagined) for North America. As the Pedalion, published around the time when the HGS organized the Diocese of America, interpretated the canons:
Quote
Bishops must not leave their own diocese and go over to churches beyond its boundaries; but, on the contrary, in accordance with the Canons, let the Bishop of Alexandria administer the affairs of Egypt only, let the Bishops of the East govern the Eastern Church only, the priorities granted to the church of the Antiochians in the Nicene Canons being kept inviolate, and let the Bishops of the Asian diocese (or administrative domain) administer only the affairs of the Asian church, and let those of the Pontic diocese look after the affairs of the diocese of Pontus only, and let those of the Thracian diocese manage the affairs of the Thracian diocese only. Let Bishops not go beyond their own province to carry out an ordination or any other ecclesiastical services unless (officially) summoned thither. When the Canon prescribed in regard to dioceses (or administrative provinces) is duly kept, it is evident that the synod of each province will confine itself to the affairs of that particular province, in accordance with the regulations decreed in Nicaea. But the churches of God that are situated in territories belonging to barbarian nations must be administered in accordance with the customary practice of the Fathers.

(Ap. cc. XXXIV, XXXV; cc. VI, VII of the 1st; c. VIII of the 3rd; c. XXVIII of the 4th; cc. XX, XXX, XXXIX of the 6th; c. IX of Antioch; cc. III, XI, and XII of Sardica.)


Interpretation.

Since, as is attested by Socrates (Book 5, ch. Cool, officiation beyond the boundaries of one’s own diocese was formerly a matter of indifference on account of persecutions, and, as Theodoret says, blessed Eusebius of Samosata did it as a matter of extraordinary zeal. On this account, when peace reappeared in the Church as a whole, the present Canon was adopted and promulgated. It relates neither to autocephalous Metropolitans alone, as Balsamon interpreted it, nor to Patriarchs alone, but to both these classes of dignitaries alike, according to Dositheus (p. 233 of "Those who have served as Patriarchs"), in order that each of them may serve his own province and diocese, and not interfere in one that is alien, and not confound the rights of the churches; but, on the contrary, in accordance with the Canons (cc. VI and VII, that is to say of the First, and much more in accordance with Ap. cc. XXXIV and XXXV), that the bishop of Alexandria may manage only the parishes in Egypt (the Council expressly mentioned the bishop of Alexandria because the Bishop of Alexandria with his party cooperated to have Maximus the Cynic ordained in Constantinople, while, on the other hand, great St. Gregory was ousted from office in spite of its being his diocese and parish). The metropolitans of the East are to attend to the affairs of the East, with the proviso that the prerogatives of the bishop of Antioch be duly respected, in accordance with the Canon (sc. VI) of the Nicene Council; and the metropolitans of the Asian, Pontic and Thracian domains are to manage only the provinces belonging to them (these dignitaries, according to c. XXVIII of the 4th, have to be ordained after the bishop of Constantinople). It commands, in addition, that both patriarchs and metropolitans alike refrain from interloping beyond their own dioceses and provinces with the object of ordaining others or performing other ecclesiastical services in the parishes of others, without being invited to do so; and that the synod of each particular province shall manage the ecclesiastical matters of each province of the metropolitans, whether they be elections, or ordinations, or penances, or absolutions, or any other such matters; likewise, as regarding the affairs of each diocese of the patriarchs, the diocesan synod shall govern such matters of the diocese in question, as the Nicene Council has decreed (c. VI). For the same thing is involved in the decree of the Nicene Council that no bishop shall be ordained without the consent of the metropolitan, and in which the present Council says to the effect that the synod of each province (of the metropolitan, that is to say) shall govern the affairs of each province, respectively. As for the churches of God that are situated in the midst of barbarian nations, where there either were not enough bishops to make up a synod, or it was necessary for some scholarly bishop to go there in order to bolster up the Christians in their faith. These churches, I say, ought to be managed in accordance with the prevailing custom of the Fathers. To be more explicit, neighboring and abler bishops ought to go to them, in order to supply what is missing for a local synod. Which, though contrary to Canons, yet as a matter of necessity was allowed by the Council. Read Ap. cc. XXXIV and XXXV, and c. I of the Sixth.
http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/councils_ecumenical_rudder.htm#_Toc34001968

Evidently, the Phanar didn't agree: it arrogated to itself to the power anywhere in the world (actually any in the world and especially being a local Church in a Muslim state) to establish its own jurisdiction in another country without having a bishop set foot even in the same hemisphere and declare it the only Canonical Orthodox Church in that country. Indeed, it arrogated the power to itself to declare itself the only Canonical Orthodox Church in any country not Orthodox. And even a number of Orthodox ones, as Bulgaria showed.

The first attempt that the Phanar made in setting up a Church in North America didn't come until after a century and a half after the HGS of Russia took North America under its care. Father Stephen Hatherly opposed Dr. Overbeck in restoring the Western Orthodox Church-Fr. Hatherly worked for an Eastern Rite Church in English for the Anglophone world.  He came to NYC in 1886, and left empty handed after 3 months. His presence, however, according to the dictates of the Phanar, was an act of disobedience-he was told not to contradict the Episcopalian claims of jursdiction


Quote
Letter of the Grand Protosyncelus of the Patriarch of Constantinople to Stephen Hatherly :—
“Dorolheus Euelpides, Grand Protosyncelus of the Patriarchal (Ecumenical throne in Constantinople, to Stephen Hatherly, appointed Priest over the Orthodox Church in Wolverhampton, England, peace from God and brotherly greeting in Christ.
“Among many other difficulties with which the Orthodox Church is daily contending is reckoned, your dear reverence well knows, that proselytism among some of her children which is being always carried on by missionaries of the West.
“If these Missionaries had been really impelled by a true zeal for the Lord, they would have had before them a wide field for their energy in Asia, and especially in Africa and other parts, where ‘ Christ is not yet preached,’ and not among the pious sons of the Orthodox Church, whose fathers were the first to receive the Gospel of Christ from the witnesses of the Word, and then to cultivate and impart it to all other nations among which are numbered even those from which at the present day these Missionaries present themselves self-authorized teachers, pursuing the work of proselytism among the faithful, forgetting the resolve of the Apostle of the Gentiles who ‘strove to preach the Gospel not where Christ was named, lest he should build upon another man’s foundation, but, as it is written, to whom He was not spoken of they shall see, and they that have not heard shall understand’ (Rom. xv. 20). Through such conduct of theirs they revive in themselves the work of those concerning whom the Apostle, writing to the Philippians (i. 15) said, (and the Orthodox Church is justified in repeating his words)—’ Some indeed preach Christ of envy and strife, and some of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds.’
“The mother Church, beholding the disastrous consequences of such proselytism with grief, laments, like another Rachel, the destruction of her children, and therefore she regards it as opposed to the Gospel, and not as promoting the glory of the Lord’s Name—nor peace and love, but as sowing discord and hatred between Christian Churches.
“And for this cause, following the noble aim of the Apostle, she has always been averse from that practice, never hunting for proselytes among the members of another Church, and she appeals to the truth of history on her behalf to show that she has always faithfully maintained this principle.
Of this principle your reverence is requested and ecclesiastically enjoined to become the official ppponent in the presence of the English brethren, instructing as becomes you the little Orthodox flock over which you have been called and appointed by the Church to be priest, but never, no, not in mind, assuming to proselytise any one single member of the Anglican Church, which has signally exhibited of late towards our Orthodox Church so many proofs of sisterly love and sympathy. Our fervent desire is not that we should receive into the bosom of our Church five or possibly ten members of tlie Anglican or any other Church, but that, differences being removed through care and previous labour undertaken in the spirit of meekness, the unity of the Churches may follow, so that with one mouth and with one heart glorifying in the same temples the great Chief Shepherd, our Lord and God, we may in common impart the light of the knowledge of God to nations that are sitting in darkness and the shadow of death, and that united praise of all that are on the earth may be borne up to the only-begotten Son and Word of God, Who is at the right hand of the Throne of the Majesty. For this does the Church entreat night and day, continually praying ‘for the union of all.’
“Under this banner of our Church, into the ranks of whose ministry you have been called, may your Reverence fight the good fight in Christian Great Britain, proving yourself an example and a teacher of a cause, not of dismemberment and hatred, but of union and love. Let us who have been called to be ministers of the Church be foremost in practising this, conducting ourselves according to it in all our actions and after the Apostle’s example, praying ‘that the love of believers may abound yet more.and more in knowledge and in all judgment, that they may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ, being filled with the fruits of righteousnsss which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God’ (Phil. i. 9—12).
“Assuring your Reverence of the prayers and blessings of our most pious Father and Patriarch, by whose command I have written the above, I offer the brotherly greeting in Christ.—Your reverence’s brother in Christ, “+ The Grand Protosyncelus, D. Euelpides.
“The Patriarchate, Feb. 27, 1873.”
II.—Article in the official Neologus of Constantinople, 29th April, 1873, commenting on the above letter :—
“A bright contrast to the proselytising spirit of some ministers of the Christian religion, and to their constant eagerness to bring over to their own dogma other believers in the Gospel, is presented by the conduct of the Eastern Orthodox Church, which seeks and desires nothing but union in Christ, and that by brotherly and peaceful approximation, and not by ensnaring consciences through any means whatever, as is the practice of others.
“Our Church has very lately given a clear proof that this is her rule of conduct by proclaiming it officially in a letter sent by the Grand Protosyncelus, and by command of his Holiness the Oecumenical Patriarch,
to the Rev. Stephen Hatherly, an Orthodox Priest in Great Britain, for his guidance as to his intercourse with the English community. In this letter the Grand Protosyncelus, interpreting the mind of the Church, first denounces that proselytism which is carried on by some in the East among the Christians, and which, instead of the peace and love taught by the Gospel, rather sows the seed of strife and division; and so proves that the Orthodox Church, justly hating such consequences, has always discountenanced inclination to proselytism. Accordingly, he enjoins the Rev. priest, Mr. Stephen Hatherly, as her minister, to content himself with instructing and feeding the small Orthodox flock of which he has been appointed spiritual father, but to abstain from even the idea of proselytising a few members of the Anglican Church with which the great Church continues in good and sisterly relations. This representation of the Orthodox Church made by the Grand Protosyncelus the (Ecumenical Patriarch, bears witness to her feelings towards all other Christian Churches and to the lofty principle by which she is guided in her manner of dealing with Christians of other confessions, while she keeps in view rather the more general and truer union of the Churches for which, too, she never ceases to pray, than partial and often scandalous conversions.”
The language of the official organ of the Church of Constantinople is the more remarkable because two years ago, in reply to Mr. Curtis’s protest against Mr. Hatherly’s ordination, it admitted letters justifying Orthodox proselytism in England on the ground of the heterodoxy of the English Church—(see Report of the Anglo-Continental Society, 1871). This position is now formally abandoned.
Frederick Meyrick.
http://orthodoxhistory.org/2010/05/20/the-failed-mission-of-fr-stephen-hatherly-2/#comments
The Colonial Church chronicle, and missionary journal. July 1847-Dec. 1874
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA465&dq=Stephen+Hatherly+Orthodox&id=CigEAAAAQAAJ#v=onepage&q=Stephen%20Hatherly%20Orthodox&f=false

No bishop of the Phanar set foot in any of the Americas until after the Communist State seized control in Russia and imprisoned the bishops of the Orthodox Church.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,835


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #7 on: February 23, 2011, 11:47:29 PM »

I am not an American and it seems to many of us outside America that the word "Jurisdiction" has virtually replaced the word "Church."   Does anyone know why this has happened?
Its an attempt to explain an anomalous situation. Overlapping episcopal jurisdictions in the so-called 'diaspora' is a new phenomenon. While it was common to refer to the local Churches as "Churches" (eg, the Seven Churches of Asia Minor), each Church was located in one city/geographical area under one Bishop. In the "diaspora" there is now more than one Bishop (and Cathedral) per city which is an anomaly.

How long does an anomaly have to last before we admit it is the new normal?

The anomoly isn't supposed to be there to begin with.

I agree. But it began, and it remains. Is there an Orthodox Christian alive today who has ever known the proper canonical situation first-hand?

Yes.  Me. Serbia. laugh

Ha! I meant in America. So I will restate my question: Is there an Orthodox Christian alive today in America who has ever known the proper canonical situation first-hand? I'd really like to know.
Anyone in the US who has travelled to Europe of the middle East would experience it first hand, as indeed our own forum member 88Devin12 currently is. Go travel and see the world!

You mean I have to travel overseas to find a canonical Orthodox Church?
Well, technically, yes. If you want to see the Church in a particular place operating in accordance with the Canons, you have to travel overseas.
No. If you are in America,all you need to do is go to the nearest OCA parish. In places like Alaska, that is even more in evidence.
I see. So any local Church anywhere in the world (especially one in a Communist state) can establish its own jurisdiction in another country and declare it the only Canonical Orthodox Church in that country.
Any local Church can go anywhere in the world "to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest [they] build on another man's foundation." This the Holy Governing Synod of Russia did in 1736 (a century before Communism was even imagined) for North America. As the Pedalion, published around the time when the HGS organized the Diocese of America, interpretated the canons:
Quote
Bishops must not leave their own diocese and go over to churches beyond its boundaries; but, on the contrary, in accordance with the Canons, let the Bishop of Alexandria administer the affairs of Egypt only, let the Bishops of the East govern the Eastern Church only, the priorities granted to the church of the Antiochians in the Nicene Canons being kept inviolate, and let the Bishops of the Asian diocese (or administrative domain) administer only the affairs of the Asian church, and let those of the Pontic diocese look after the affairs of the diocese of Pontus only, and let those of the Thracian diocese manage the affairs of the Thracian diocese only. Let Bishops not go beyond their own province to carry out an ordination or any other ecclesiastical services unless (officially) summoned thither. When the Canon prescribed in regard to dioceses (or administrative provinces) is duly kept, it is evident that the synod of each province will confine itself to the affairs of that particular province, in accordance with the regulations decreed in Nicaea. But the churches of God that are situated in territories belonging to barbarian nations must be administered in accordance with the customary practice of the Fathers.

(Ap. cc. XXXIV, XXXV; cc. VI, VII of the 1st; c. VIII of the 3rd; c. XXVIII of the 4th; cc. XX, XXX, XXXIX of the 6th; c. IX of Antioch; cc. III, XI, and XII of Sardica.)


Interpretation.

Since, as is attested by Socrates (Book 5, ch. Cool, officiation beyond the boundaries of one’s own diocese was formerly a matter of indifference on account of persecutions, and, as Theodoret says, blessed Eusebius of Samosata did it as a matter of extraordinary zeal. On this account, when peace reappeared in the Church as a whole, the present Canon was adopted and promulgated. It relates neither to autocephalous Metropolitans alone, as Balsamon interpreted it, nor to Patriarchs alone, but to both these classes of dignitaries alike, according to Dositheus (p. 233 of "Those who have served as Patriarchs"), in order that each of them may serve his own province and diocese, and not interfere in one that is alien, and not confound the rights of the churches; but, on the contrary, in accordance with the Canons (cc. VI and VII, that is to say of the First, and much more in accordance with Ap. cc. XXXIV and XXXV), that the bishop of Alexandria may manage only the parishes in Egypt (the Council expressly mentioned the bishop of Alexandria because the Bishop of Alexandria with his party cooperated to have Maximus the Cynic ordained in Constantinople, while, on the other hand, great St. Gregory was ousted from office in spite of its being his diocese and parish). The metropolitans of the East are to attend to the affairs of the East, with the proviso that the prerogatives of the bishop of Antioch be duly respected, in accordance with the Canon (sc. VI) of the Nicene Council; and the metropolitans of the Asian, Pontic and Thracian domains are to manage only the provinces belonging to them (these dignitaries, according to c. XXVIII of the 4th, have to be ordained after the bishop of Constantinople). It commands, in addition, that both patriarchs and metropolitans alike refrain from interloping beyond their own dioceses and provinces with the object of ordaining others or performing other ecclesiastical services in the parishes of others, without being invited to do so; and that the synod of each particular province shall manage the ecclesiastical matters of each province of the metropolitans, whether they be elections, or ordinations, or penances, or absolutions, or any other such matters; likewise, as regarding the affairs of each diocese of the patriarchs, the diocesan synod shall govern such matters of the diocese in question, as the Nicene Council has decreed (c. VI). For the same thing is involved in the decree of the Nicene Council that no bishop shall be ordained without the consent of the metropolitan, and in which the present Council says to the effect that the synod of each province (of the metropolitan, that is to say) shall govern the affairs of each province, respectively. As for the churches of God that are situated in the midst of barbarian nations, where there either were not enough bishops to make up a synod, or it was necessary for some scholarly bishop to go there in order to bolster up the Christians in their faith. These churches, I say, ought to be managed in accordance with the prevailing custom of the Fathers. To be more explicit, neighboring and abler bishops ought to go to them, in order to supply what is missing for a local synod. Which, though contrary to Canons, yet as a matter of necessity was allowed by the Council. Read Ap. cc. XXXIV and XXXV, and c. I of the Sixth.
http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/councils_ecumenical_rudder.htm#_Toc34001968

Evidently, the Phanar didn't agree: it arrogated to itself to the power anywhere in the world (actually any in the world and especially being a local Church in a Muslim state) to establish its own jurisdiction in another country without having a bishop set foot even in the same hemisphere and declare it the only Canonical Orthodox Church in that country. Indeed, it arrogated the power to itself to declare itself the only Canonical Orthodox Church in any country not Orthodox. And even a number of Orthodox ones, as Bulgaria showed.

The first attempt that the Phanar made in setting up a Church in North America didn't come until after a century and a half after the HGS of Russia took North America under its care. Father Stephen Hatherly opposed Dr. Overbeck in restoring the Western Orthodox Church-Fr. Hatherly worked for an Eastern Rite Church in English for the Anglophone world.  He came to NYC in 1886, and left empty handed after 3 months. His presence, however, according to the dictates of the Phanar, was an act of disobedience-he was told not to contradict the Episcopalian claims of jursdiction


Quote
Letter of the Grand Protosyncelus of the Patriarch of Constantinople to Stephen Hatherly :—
“Dorolheus Euelpides, Grand Protosyncelus of the Patriarchal (Ecumenical throne in Constantinople, to Stephen Hatherly, appointed Priest over the Orthodox Church in Wolverhampton, England, peace from God and brotherly greeting in Christ.
“Among many other difficulties with which the Orthodox Church is daily contending is reckoned, your dear reverence well knows, that proselytism among some of her children which is being always carried on by missionaries of the West.
“If these Missionaries had been really impelled by a true zeal for the Lord, they would have had before them a wide field for their energy in Asia, and especially in Africa and other parts, where ‘ Christ is not yet preached,’ and not among the pious sons of the Orthodox Church, whose fathers were the first to receive the Gospel of Christ from the witnesses of the Word, and then to cultivate and impart it to all other nations among which are numbered even those from which at the present day these Missionaries present themselves self-authorized teachers, pursuing the work of proselytism among the faithful, forgetting the resolve of the Apostle of the Gentiles who ‘strove to preach the Gospel not where Christ was named, lest he should build upon another man’s foundation, but, as it is written, to whom He was not spoken of they shall see, and they that have not heard shall understand’ (Rom. xv. 20). Through such conduct of theirs they revive in themselves the work of those concerning whom the Apostle, writing to the Philippians (i. 15) said, (and the Orthodox Church is justified in repeating his words)—’ Some indeed preach Christ of envy and strife, and some of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds.’
“The mother Church, beholding the disastrous consequences of such proselytism with grief, laments, like another Rachel, the destruction of her children, and therefore she regards it as opposed to the Gospel, and not as promoting the glory of the Lord’s Name—nor peace and love, but as sowing discord and hatred between Christian Churches.
“And for this cause, following the noble aim of the Apostle, she has always been averse from that practice, never hunting for proselytes among the members of another Church, and she appeals to the truth of history on her behalf to show that she has always faithfully maintained this principle.
Of this principle your reverence is requested and ecclesiastically enjoined to become the official ppponent in the presence of the English brethren, instructing as becomes you the little Orthodox flock over which you have been called and appointed by the Church to be priest, but never, no, not in mind, assuming to proselytise any one single member of the Anglican Church, which has signally exhibited of late towards our Orthodox Church so many proofs of sisterly love and sympathy. Our fervent desire is not that we should receive into the bosom of our Church five or possibly ten members of tlie Anglican or any other Church, but that, differences being removed through care and previous labour undertaken in the spirit of meekness, the unity of the Churches may follow, so that with one mouth and with one heart glorifying in the same temples the great Chief Shepherd, our Lord and God, we may in common impart the light of the knowledge of God to nations that are sitting in darkness and the shadow of death, and that united praise of all that are on the earth may be borne up to the only-begotten Son and Word of God, Who is at the right hand of the Throne of the Majesty. For this does the Church entreat night and day, continually praying ‘for the union of all.’
“Under this banner of our Church, into the ranks of whose ministry you have been called, may your Reverence fight the good fight in Christian Great Britain, proving yourself an example and a teacher of a cause, not of dismemberment and hatred, but of union and love. Let us who have been called to be ministers of the Church be foremost in practising this, conducting ourselves according to it in all our actions and after the Apostle’s example, praying ‘that the love of believers may abound yet more.and more in knowledge and in all judgment, that they may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ, being filled with the fruits of righteousnsss which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God’ (Phil. i. 9—12).
“Assuring your Reverence of the prayers and blessings of our most pious Father and Patriarch, by whose command I have written the above, I offer the brotherly greeting in Christ.—Your reverence’s brother in Christ, “+ The Grand Protosyncelus, D. Euelpides.
“The Patriarchate, Feb. 27, 1873.”
II.—Article in the official Neologus of Constantinople, 29th April, 1873, commenting on the above letter :—
“A bright contrast to the proselytising spirit of some ministers of the Christian religion, and to their constant eagerness to bring over to their own dogma other believers in the Gospel, is presented by the conduct of the Eastern Orthodox Church, which seeks and desires nothing but union in Christ, and that by brotherly and peaceful approximation, and not by ensnaring consciences through any means whatever, as is the practice of others.
“Our Church has very lately given a clear proof that this is her rule of conduct by proclaiming it officially in a letter sent by the Grand Protosyncelus, and by command of his Holiness the Oecumenical Patriarch,
to the Rev. Stephen Hatherly, an Orthodox Priest in Great Britain, for his guidance as to his intercourse with the English community. In this letter the Grand Protosyncelus, interpreting the mind of the Church, first denounces that proselytism which is carried on by some in the East among the Christians, and which, instead of the peace and love taught by the Gospel, rather sows the seed of strife and division; and so proves that the Orthodox Church, justly hating such consequences, has always discountenanced inclination to proselytism. Accordingly, he enjoins the Rev. priest, Mr. Stephen Hatherly, as her minister, to content himself with instructing and feeding the small Orthodox flock of which he has been appointed spiritual father, but to abstain from even the idea of proselytising a few members of the Anglican Church with which the great Church continues in good and sisterly relations. This representation of the Orthodox Church made by the Grand Protosyncelus the (Ecumenical Patriarch, bears witness to her feelings towards all other Christian Churches and to the lofty principle by which she is guided in her manner of dealing with Christians of other confessions, while she keeps in view rather the more general and truer union of the Churches for which, too, she never ceases to pray, than partial and often scandalous conversions.”
The language of the official organ of the Church of Constantinople is the more remarkable because two years ago, in reply to Mr. Curtis’s protest against Mr. Hatherly’s ordination, it admitted letters justifying Orthodox proselytism in England on the ground of the heterodoxy of the English Church—(see Report of the Anglo-Continental Society, 1871). This position is now formally abandoned.
Frederick Meyrick.
http://orthodoxhistory.org/2010/05/20/the-failed-mission-of-fr-stephen-hatherly-2/#comments
The Colonial Church chronicle, and missionary journal. July 1847-Dec. 1874
http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA465&dq=Stephen+Hatherly+Orthodox&id=CigEAAAAQAAJ#v=onepage&q=Stephen%20Hatherly%20Orthodox&f=false

No bishop of the Phanar set foot in any of the Americas until after the Communist State seized control in Russia and imprisoned the bishops of the Orthodox Church.
And once again this ugly argument rears its ugly head. Sad
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,365



« Reply #8 on: February 23, 2011, 11:50:29 PM »

I am not an American and it seems to many of us outside America that the word "Jurisdiction" has virtually replaced the word "Church."   Does anyone know why this has happened?
Its an attempt to explain an anomalous situation. Overlapping episcopal jurisdictions in the so-called 'diaspora' is a new phenomenon. While it was common to refer to the local Churches as "Churches" (eg, the Seven Churches of Asia Minor), each Church was located in one city/geographical area under one Bishop. In the "diaspora" there is now more than one Bishop (and Cathedral) per city which is an anomaly.

How long does an anomaly have to last before we admit it is the new normal?

The anomoly isn't supposed to be there to begin with.

I agree. But it began, and it remains. Is there an Orthodox Christian alive today who has ever known the proper canonical situation first-hand?

Yes.  Me. Serbia. laugh

Ha! I meant in America. So I will restate my question: Is there an Orthodox Christian alive today in America who has ever known the proper canonical situation first-hand? I'd really like to know.
Anyone in the US who has travelled to Europe of the middle East would experience it first hand, as indeed our own forum member 88Devin12 currently is. Go travel and see the world!

You mean I have to travel overseas to find a canonical Orthodox Church?
Well, technically, yes. If you want to see the Church in a particular place operating in accordance with the Canons, you have to travel overseas.
No. If you are in America,all you need to do is go to the nearest OCA parish. In places like Alaska, that is even more in evidence.
I see. So any local Church anywhere in the world (especially one in a Communist state) can establish its own jurisdiction in another country and declare it the only Canonical Orthodox Church in that country.
According to its "Tomos of Autocephaly":
"The Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America shall have exclusive spiritual and canonical jurisdiction over all bishops, clerics and laymen of the Eastern Orthodox confession in continental North America, excluding Mexico, and including the State of Hawaii who are presently part of the Metropolitanate or who shall later enter the Metropolitanate; and over all parishes which now belong or later shall be accepted into the Metropolitanate, excepting the entire clergy, possessions and parishes enumerated in Paragraph 3, points a,b,c.  "
So, the Tomos does not give the OCA jurisdiction over all Orthodox Christians in the US, nor indeed even over all Orthodox  in the US which were under the jurisdiction of the Church which issued the "Tomos of Autocephaly".
If this was supposed to resolve any confusion- mission failed.
At least the Patriarch of Moscow has never excommunicated the Metrpolitan of the OCA nor struck him from the diptychs, unlike what the Patriarch of Constantinople did to the Archbishop of the CoG over Northern Greece.
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
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: 37,365



« Reply #9 on: February 23, 2011, 11:55:19 PM »

And once again this ugly argument rears its ugly head. Sad
The hydra of the primus? Yes, so it tends to do.
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
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: 37,365



« Reply #10 on: February 24, 2011, 12:15:17 AM »

I am not an American and it seems to many of us outside America that the word "Jurisdiction" has virtually replaced the word "Church."   Does anyone know why this has happened?
Its an attempt to explain an anomalous situation. Overlapping episcopal jurisdictions in the so-called 'diaspora' is a new phenomenon. While it was common to refer to the local Churches as "Churches" (eg, the Seven Churches of Asia Minor), each Church was located in one city/geographical area under one Bishop. In the "diaspora" there is now more than one Bishop (and Cathedral) per city which is an anomaly.
How long does an anomaly have to last before we admit it is the new normal?
It is not normal in traditionally Orthodox countries, it is anathema.   It is tolerated in "the diaspora." 

Indeed. And to expect the vast majority of the Church to accept as canonical an uncanonical situation which is tolerated among the smallest minority of Orthodox Christians simply because they are the wealthiest is, in my opinion, nothing short of cultural colonialism.
Funny, that's what Old Rome squawked at Chalcedon.

We don't expect the vast majority of the Church to accept as canonical an uncanonical situation which is tolerated (btw, it's not the smallest minority of Orthodox Christians). We expect all of the Church to cease creating and maintaining uncanonical situations and accept the canonical jurisdiction.

But do continue to make your cultural colonialism and wealth arguments-in North America the argument is often made that GOARCH (and hence the Phanar) should be the sole jurisdiction/Church because its the richest.  The topic is sure to come up more, now that the collapse of the Greek economy is going to resolve the debate of where the Phanar gets its funding from, Greece or America.
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
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: 37,365



« Reply #11 on: February 24, 2011, 12:17:58 AM »

I am not an American and it seems to many of us outside America that the word "Jurisdiction" has virtually replaced the word "Church."   Does anyone know why this has happened?
Its an attempt to explain an anomalous situation. Overlapping episcopal jurisdictions in the so-called 'diaspora' is a new phenomenon. While it was common to refer to the local Churches as "Churches" (eg, the Seven Churches of Asia Minor), each Church was located in one city/geographical area under one Bishop. In the "diaspora" there is now more than one Bishop (and Cathedral) per city which is an anomaly.
How long does an anomaly have to last before we admit it is the new normal?
It is not normal in traditionally Orthodox countries, it is anathema.   It is tolerated in "the diaspora."  
Tolerated by "whom" and in what way?
The "whom" is the various jurisdictions in the "diaspora". The "what way" is mutual recognition.
Well they can follow the example of the Phanar over Bulgaria, which worked SO well Roll Eyes, or the example of Serbia in establishing the canonical authority over is Patriarchate.  Truely a difficult choice.
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
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #12 on: February 24, 2011, 12:19:23 AM »

I am not an American and it seems to many of us outside America that the word "Jurisdiction" has virtually replaced the word "Church."   Does anyone know why this has happened?
Its an attempt to explain an anomalous situation. Overlapping episcopal jurisdictions in the so-called 'diaspora' is a new phenomenon. While it was common to refer to the local Churches as "Churches" (eg, the Seven Churches of Asia Minor), each Church was located in one city/geographical area under one Bishop. In the "diaspora" there is now more than one Bishop (and Cathedral) per city which is an anomaly.
How long does an anomaly have to last before we admit it is the new normal?
It is not normal in traditionally Orthodox countries, it is anathema.   It is tolerated in "the diaspora."  

Indeed. And to expect the vast majority of the Church to accept as canonical an uncanonical situation which is tolerated among the smallest minority of Orthodox Christians simply because they are the wealthiest is, in my opinion, nothing short of cultural colonialism.
Funny, that's what Old Rome squawked at Chalcedon.

We don't expect the vast majority of the Church to accept as canonical an uncanonical situation which is tolerated (btw, it's not the smallest minority of Orthodox Christians). We expect all of the Church to cease creating and maintaining uncanonical situations and accept the canonical jurisdiction.
"We expect"? Is that the Royal Plural or are you speaking on behalf of someone or some organization- and if so, whom?

« Last Edit: February 24, 2011, 12:19:40 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,365



« Reply #13 on: February 24, 2011, 12:33:26 AM »

I am not an American and it seems to many of us outside America that the word "Jurisdiction" has virtually replaced the word "Church."   Does anyone know why this has happened?
Its an attempt to explain an anomalous situation. Overlapping episcopal jurisdictions in the so-called 'diaspora' is a new phenomenon. While it was common to refer to the local Churches as "Churches" (eg, the Seven Churches of Asia Minor), each Church was located in one city/geographical area under one Bishop. In the "diaspora" there is now more than one Bishop (and Cathedral) per city which is an anomaly.
How long does an anomaly have to last before we admit it is the new normal?
It is not normal in traditionally Orthodox countries, it is anathema.   It is tolerated in "the diaspora."  

Indeed. And to expect the vast majority of the Church to accept as canonical an uncanonical situation which is tolerated among the smallest minority of Orthodox Christians simply because they are the wealthiest is, in my opinion, nothing short of cultural colonialism.
Funny, that's what Old Rome squawked at Chalcedon.

We don't expect the vast majority of the Church to accept as canonical an uncanonical situation which is tolerated (btw, it's not the smallest minority of Orthodox Christians). We expect all of the Church to cease creating and maintaining uncanonical situations and accept the canonical jurisdiction.
"We expect"? Is that the Royal Plural or are you speaking on behalf of someone or some organization- and if so, whom?
"We believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church." Those of us living in North America.
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
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #14 on: February 24, 2011, 12:36:54 AM »

I am not an American and it seems to many of us outside America that the word "Jurisdiction" has virtually replaced the word "Church."   Does anyone know why this has happened?
Its an attempt to explain an anomalous situation. Overlapping episcopal jurisdictions in the so-called 'diaspora' is a new phenomenon. While it was common to refer to the local Churches as "Churches" (eg, the Seven Churches of Asia Minor), each Church was located in one city/geographical area under one Bishop. In the "diaspora" there is now more than one Bishop (and Cathedral) per city which is an anomaly.
How long does an anomaly have to last before we admit it is the new normal?
It is not normal in traditionally Orthodox countries, it is anathema.   It is tolerated in "the diaspora."  

Indeed. And to expect the vast majority of the Church to accept as canonical an uncanonical situation which is tolerated among the smallest minority of Orthodox Christians simply because they are the wealthiest is, in my opinion, nothing short of cultural colonialism.
Funny, that's what Old Rome squawked at Chalcedon.

We don't expect the vast majority of the Church to accept as canonical an uncanonical situation which is tolerated (btw, it's not the smallest minority of Orthodox Christians). We expect all of the Church to cease creating and maintaining uncanonical situations and accept the canonical jurisdiction.
"We expect"? Is that the Royal Plural or are you speaking on behalf of someone or some organization- and if so, whom?
"We believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church." Those of us living in North America.
So are you speaking on behalf of all Orthodox Christians in North America? OK, so which "canonical jurisdiction" do "all Orthodox Christians in North America" on whose behalf you speak expect should be accepted by the Orthodox Church throughout the world?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #15 on: February 24, 2011, 12:39:14 AM »

I am not an American and it seems to many of us outside America that the word "Jurisdiction" has virtually replaced the word "Church."   Does anyone know why this has happened?
Its an attempt to explain an anomalous situation. Overlapping episcopal jurisdictions in the so-called 'diaspora' is a new phenomenon. While it was common to refer to the local Churches as "Churches" (eg, the Seven Churches of Asia Minor), each Church was located in one city/geographical area under one Bishop. In the "diaspora" there is now more than one Bishop (and Cathedral) per city which is an anomaly.
How long does an anomaly have to last before we admit it is the new normal?
It is not normal in traditionally Orthodox countries, it is anathema.   It is tolerated in "the diaspora."  

Indeed. And to expect the vast majority of the Church to accept as canonical an uncanonical situation which is tolerated among the smallest minority of Orthodox Christians simply because they are the wealthiest is, in my opinion, nothing short of cultural colonialism.
Funny, that's what Old Rome squawked at Chalcedon.

We don't expect the vast majority of the Church to accept as canonical an uncanonical situation which is tolerated (btw, it's not the smallest minority of Orthodox Christians). We expect all of the Church to cease creating and maintaining uncanonical situations and accept the canonical jurisdiction.
"We expect"? Is that the Royal Plural or are you speaking on behalf of someone or some organization- and if so, whom?



I'd say it is an example of nosism. I do it all the time myself.
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #16 on: February 24, 2011, 12:45:26 AM »

I am not an American and it seems to many of us outside America that the word "Jurisdiction" has virtually replaced the word "Church."   Does anyone know why this has happened?
Its an attempt to explain an anomalous situation. Overlapping episcopal jurisdictions in the so-called 'diaspora' is a new phenomenon. While it was common to refer to the local Churches as "Churches" (eg, the Seven Churches of Asia Minor), each Church was located in one city/geographical area under one Bishop. In the "diaspora" there is now more than one Bishop (and Cathedral) per city which is an anomaly.
How long does an anomaly have to last before we admit it is the new normal?
It is not normal in traditionally Orthodox countries, it is anathema.   It is tolerated in "the diaspora."  

Indeed. And to expect the vast majority of the Church to accept as canonical an uncanonical situation which is tolerated among the smallest minority of Orthodox Christians simply because they are the wealthiest is, in my opinion, nothing short of cultural colonialism.
Funny, that's what Old Rome squawked at Chalcedon.

We don't expect the vast majority of the Church to accept as canonical an uncanonical situation which is tolerated (btw, it's not the smallest minority of Orthodox Christians). We expect all of the Church to cease creating and maintaining uncanonical situations and accept the canonical jurisdiction.
"We expect"? Is that the Royal Plural or are you speaking on behalf of someone or some organization- and if so, whom?



I'd say it is an example of nosism. I do it all the time myself.
You didn't do it then, so your statement is clearly inaccurate that you "do it all the time". Smiley
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #17 on: February 24, 2011, 12:59:45 AM »

I am not an American and it seems to many of us outside America that the word "Jurisdiction" has virtually replaced the word "Church."   Does anyone know why this has happened?
Its an attempt to explain an anomalous situation. Overlapping episcopal jurisdictions in the so-called 'diaspora' is a new phenomenon. While it was common to refer to the local Churches as "Churches" (eg, the Seven Churches of Asia Minor), each Church was located in one city/geographical area under one Bishop. In the "diaspora" there is now more than one Bishop (and Cathedral) per city which is an anomaly.
How long does an anomaly have to last before we admit it is the new normal?
It is not normal in traditionally Orthodox countries, it is anathema.   It is tolerated in "the diaspora."  

Indeed. And to expect the vast majority of the Church to accept as canonical an uncanonical situation which is tolerated among the smallest minority of Orthodox Christians simply because they are the wealthiest is, in my opinion, nothing short of cultural colonialism.
Funny, that's what Old Rome squawked at Chalcedon.

We don't expect the vast majority of the Church to accept as canonical an uncanonical situation which is tolerated (btw, it's not the smallest minority of Orthodox Christians). We expect all of the Church to cease creating and maintaining uncanonical situations and accept the canonical jurisdiction.
"We expect"? Is that the Royal Plural or are you speaking on behalf of someone or some organization- and if so, whom?



I'd say it is an example of nosism. I do it all the time myself.
You didn't do it then, so your statement is clearly inaccurate that you "do it all the time". Smiley

English speakers may use "all the time" as an idiom to mean repeatedly, frequently.

He goes to that restaurant all the time.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,365



« Reply #18 on: February 24, 2011, 01:03:17 AM »

I am not an American and it seems to many of us outside America that the word "Jurisdiction" has virtually replaced the word "Church."   Does anyone know why this has happened?
Its an attempt to explain an anomalous situation. Overlapping episcopal jurisdictions in the so-called 'diaspora' is a new phenomenon. While it was common to refer to the local Churches as "Churches" (eg, the Seven Churches of Asia Minor), each Church was located in one city/geographical area under one Bishop. In the "diaspora" there is now more than one Bishop (and Cathedral) per city which is an anomaly.
How long does an anomaly have to last before we admit it is the new normal?
It is not normal in traditionally Orthodox countries, it is anathema.   It is tolerated in "the diaspora."  

Indeed. And to expect the vast majority of the Church to accept as canonical an uncanonical situation which is tolerated among the smallest minority of Orthodox Christians simply because they are the wealthiest is, in my opinion, nothing short of cultural colonialism.
Funny, that's what Old Rome squawked at Chalcedon.

We don't expect the vast majority of the Church to accept as canonical an uncanonical situation which is tolerated (btw, it's not the smallest minority of Orthodox Christians). We expect all of the Church to cease creating and maintaining uncanonical situations and accept the canonical jurisdiction.
"We expect"? Is that the Royal Plural or are you speaking on behalf of someone or some organization- and if so, whom?
"We believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church." Those of us living in North America.
So are you speaking on behalf of all Orthodox Christians in North America? OK, so which "canonical jurisdiction" do "all Orthodox Christians in North America" on whose behalf you speak expect should be accepted by the Orthodox Church throughout the world?
The one whose roots stretch to the first planting of Orthodoxy on this soil, and who nutured it here from then until the present day, exercised jurisdiction in buidling up the hiearchy of the Holy Synod of these lands per canon 8 of Ephesus, exercising the rights which heretofore, from the beginning, have belonged to it, and shall be preserved to it, according to the old prevailing custom, unchanged and uninjured, its autocephalous primate assuming control of these provinces which have heretofore, from the very beginning, been under his own hand or that of his predecessors, his autocephalous Holy Synod enjoying, without dispute or injury, according to the Canons of the blessed Fathers and ancient custom, the right of performing for themselves the ordination of their excellent Bishops.
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
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #19 on: February 24, 2011, 01:13:20 AM »

I am not an American and it seems to many of us outside America that the word "Jurisdiction" has virtually replaced the word "Church."   Does anyone know why this has happened?
Its an attempt to explain an anomalous situation. Overlapping episcopal jurisdictions in the so-called 'diaspora' is a new phenomenon. While it was common to refer to the local Churches as "Churches" (eg, the Seven Churches of Asia Minor), each Church was located in one city/geographical area under one Bishop. In the "diaspora" there is now more than one Bishop (and Cathedral) per city which is an anomaly.
How long does an anomaly have to last before we admit it is the new normal?
It is not normal in traditionally Orthodox countries, it is anathema.   It is tolerated in "the diaspora."  

Indeed. And to expect the vast majority of the Church to accept as canonical an uncanonical situation which is tolerated among the smallest minority of Orthodox Christians simply because they are the wealthiest is, in my opinion, nothing short of cultural colonialism.
Funny, that's what Old Rome squawked at Chalcedon.

We don't expect the vast majority of the Church to accept as canonical an uncanonical situation which is tolerated (btw, it's not the smallest minority of Orthodox Christians). We expect all of the Church to cease creating and maintaining uncanonical situations and accept the canonical jurisdiction.
"We expect"? Is that the Royal Plural or are you speaking on behalf of someone or some organization- and if so, whom?
"We believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church." Those of us living in North America.
So are you speaking on behalf of all Orthodox Christians in North America? OK, so which "canonical jurisdiction" do "all Orthodox Christians in North America" on whose behalf you speak expect should be accepted by the Orthodox Church throughout the world?
The one whose roots stretch to the first planting of Orthodoxy on this soil, and who nutured it here from then until the present day, exercised jurisdiction in buidling up the hiearchy of the Holy Synod of these lands per canon 8 of Ephesus, exercising the rights which heretofore, from the beginning, have belonged to it, and shall be preserved to it, according to the old prevailing custom, unchanged and uninjured, its autocephalous primate assuming control of these provinces which have heretofore, from the very beginning, been under his own hand or that of his predecessors, his autocephalous Holy Synod enjoying, without dispute or injury, according to the Canons of the blessed Fathers and ancient custom, the right of performing for themselves the ordination of their excellent Bishops.
Well, firstly, the first Orthodox Church on US soil was Greek. Alaska was Russian soil before that. Secondly, the Patriarch of Moscow has relinquished jurisdiction over most of his Orthodox Churches in North America. The current Tomos of Autocephaly of the OCA only gives it jurisdiction over most (but not all) of the Churches which were under the Russian Exarchate of the Metropolitanate of the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in America. The Tomos, however, grants no jurisdiction of the OCA over any other Orthodox Churches in North America other than most (but not all) of those of the Russian Exarchate, as well as those who later join it. Which brings us to another problem, in that ROCOR joined the Moscow Patriarchate at the Rapprochement, therefore, according to the OCA's Tomos of Autocephaly, ROCOR in the USA should come under the jurisdiction of the OCA- yet it doesn't. So even the Patriarchate of Moscow now recognizes three different jurisdictions in North America which the MP itself has spawned and which have bishops in the same cities. If you are looking to the Moscow Patriarchate alone to resolve your country's jurisdictional mess, you will be sadly disappointed.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2011, 01:14:18 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,323


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #20 on: February 24, 2011, 02:03:46 AM »

I am not an American and it seems to many of us outside America that the word "Jurisdiction" has virtually replaced the word "Church."   Does anyone know why this has happened?
Its an attempt to explain an anomalous situation. Overlapping episcopal jurisdictions in the so-called 'diaspora' is a new phenomenon. While it was common to refer to the local Churches as "Churches" (eg, the Seven Churches of Asia Minor), each Church was located in one city/geographical area under one Bishop. In the "diaspora" there is now more than one Bishop (and Cathedral) per city which is an anomaly.
How long does an anomaly have to last before we admit it is the new normal?
It is not normal in traditionally Orthodox countries, it is anathema.   It is tolerated in "the diaspora."  
Tolerated by "whom" and in what way?
The "whom" is the various jurisdictions in the "diaspora". The "what way" is mutual recognition.
Well they can follow the example of the Phanar over Bulgaria, which worked SO well Roll Eyes, or the example of Serbia in establishing the canonical authority over is Patriarchate.  Truely a difficult choice.

Out of curiosity, what about the Serbian Patriarchate establishment do you agree with / like? 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,365



« Reply #21 on: February 24, 2011, 02:28:15 AM »

Well, firstly, the first Orthodox Church on US soil was Greek.
Well, firstly, the first Orthodox Church on US soil was not Greek, it was Russian. And it was canonical served by canonical priests under a canonical Orthodox bishop, unlike the first Greek Churches (the latter point your friend the Phanar's First Secretary brought up a year or so ago).

Alaska was Russian soil before that.

LOL. And? And what of San Francisco?

Secondly, the Patriarch of Moscow has relinquished jurisdiction over most of his Orthodox Churches in North America. The current Tomos of Autocephaly of the OCA only gives it jurisdiction over most (but not all) of the Churches which were under the Russian Exarchate of the Metropolitanate of the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in America.
You have muddled two things here: the Russian Exarchate was abolished. The Metropolitinate was declared autocephalous.


The Tomos, however, grants no jurisdiction of the OCA over any other Orthodox Churches in North America other than most (but not all) of those of the Russian Exarchate, as well as those who later join it.
you left out the rest:
Quote
excepting the entire clergy, possessions and parishes enumerated in Paragraph 3, points a,b,c.
http://www.oca.org/DOCtomos.asp?SID=12
Those "other Orthodox Churches in North America" are not included in those exceptions enumrated, which "shall be governed by the Most Holy Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia through one of his vicar bishops not having a title of the local American Church, especially appointed for this, and until such time as these parishes express their official desire to join the Autocephalous Church in America in the manner described below.  The Moscow Patriarchate shall not lay claim to either spiritual or canonical jurisdiction over bishops, clergy and laymen of the Eastern Orthodox confession, or over parishes mentioned in Division 1, Paragraph 7, and by the present yields to the Metropolitanate, all jurisdiction to which she has laid claim on the above mentioned territory (Paragraph 7); excepting the entire clergy, possessions and parishes enumerated in Para¬graph 3, points a,b,c."  That includes defending those claims. Hence no reason to mention those "other Orthodox Churches" who spurned the canonical authority of Russia over its territory.  Amazing as it may seem to you, the Russian Church acts and speaks on/to/for its Church in Estonia without reference to the Church run for the Phanar by the Cyprian Bishop from the Congo.

Quote
2. By “autocephaly,” which is confirmed in this decision, it is understood that the Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America shall:...d. enjoy all the authority, privileges and rights usually inherent in the term “autocephaly” in the canonical tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church, including the right of preparing and consecrating Holy Chrism....
Confirming the Autocephaly of the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in America, we bless her to call herself The Holy Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America; we acknowledge and proclaim her our Sister Church, and we invite all local Orthodox Churches and their Primates and their faithful children to acknowledge her as such and to include her in the dyptichs in accordance with the Canons of the Church, the traditions of the Fathers and ecclesiastical practice
So the Tomos goes on to reference the "other Churches."
Quote
The newly-established local Orthodox Autocephalous Church in America should abide in brotherly relations with all the Orthodox Churches and their Primates as well as with their bishops, clergy and pious flock, who are in America and who for the time being preserve their de facto existing canonical and jurisdictional dependence on their national Churches and their Primates.
Nothing about de jure status, as the Tomos is the singular de jure instrument.


Which brings us to another problem, in that ROCOR joined the Moscow Patriarchate at the Rapprochement, therefore, according to the OCA's Tomos of Autocephaly, ROCOR in the USA should come under the jurisdiction of the OCA- yet it doesn't.

Answered in part by art. 10:
Quote
The Moscow Patriarchate shall not receive into its care in North America any clerics without written release or any parishes except parishes from uncanonical ecclesiastical organizations in Canada


So even the Patriarchate of Moscow now recognizes three different jurisdictions in North America which the MP itself has spawned and which have bishops in the same cities. If you are looking to the Moscow Patriarchate alone to resolve your country's jurisdictional mess, you will be sadly disappointed.
I'll take any Russian solution over any Phanariot "solution" any day.  Btw:

http://www.oca.org/DOCtomos.asp?SID=12

canon 8.  Look at the final clause.
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
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #22 on: February 24, 2011, 02:33:14 AM »

I'll take any Russian solution over any Phanariot "solution" any day.  Btw:
That is your choice.
Personally I would rather the whole Church seek a solution together, and fortunately, contrary to your own desires, this is happening. Smiley
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,365



« Reply #23 on: February 24, 2011, 02:55:14 AM »

I'll take any Russian solution over any Phanariot "solution" any day.  Btw:
That is your choice.
Personally I would rather the whole Church seek a solution together, and fortunately, contrary to your own desires, this is happening. Smiley
You mean cutting the Phanar enough slack to hang itself?
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
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: 37,365



« Reply #24 on: February 24, 2011, 03:03:16 AM »

I am not an American and it seems to many of us outside America that the word "Jurisdiction" has virtually replaced the word "Church."   Does anyone know why this has happened?
Its an attempt to explain an anomalous situation. Overlapping episcopal jurisdictions in the so-called 'diaspora' is a new phenomenon. While it was common to refer to the local Churches as "Churches" (eg, the Seven Churches of Asia Minor), each Church was located in one city/geographical area under one Bishop. In the "diaspora" there is now more than one Bishop (and Cathedral) per city which is an anomaly.
How long does an anomaly have to last before we admit it is the new normal?
It is not normal in traditionally Orthodox countries, it is anathema.   It is tolerated in "the diaspora."  
Tolerated by "whom" and in what way?
The "whom" is the various jurisdictions in the "diaspora". The "what way" is mutual recognition.
Well they can follow the example of the Phanar over Bulgaria, which worked SO well Roll Eyes, or the example of Serbia in establishing the canonical authority over is Patriarchate.  Truely a difficult choice.

Out of curiosity, what about the Serbian Patriarchate establishment do you agree with / like? 
LOL. Where should I start?

I have to get some shut eye first.
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
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,206


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #25 on: February 24, 2011, 01:27:27 PM »

Well, firstly, the first Orthodox Church on US soil was Greek.
Well, firstly, the first Orthodox Church on US soil was not Greek, it was Russian. And it was canonical served by canonical priests under a canonical Orthodox bishop, unlike the first Greek Churches (the latter point your friend the Phanar's First Secretary brought up a year or so ago).

Alaska was Russian soil before that.

LOL. And? And what of San Francisco?

Secondly, the Patriarch of Moscow has relinquished jurisdiction over most of his Orthodox Churches in North America. The current Tomos of Autocephaly of the OCA only gives it jurisdiction over most (but not all) of the Churches which were under the Russian Exarchate of the Metropolitanate of the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in America.
You have muddled two things here: the Russian Exarchate was abolished. The Metropolitinate was declared autocephalous.


The Tomos, however, grants no jurisdiction of the OCA over any other Orthodox Churches in North America other than most (but not all) of those of the Russian Exarchate, as well as those who later join it.
you left out the rest:
Quote
excepting the entire clergy, possessions and parishes enumerated in Paragraph 3, points a,b,c.
http://www.oca.org/DOCtomos.asp?SID=12
Those "other Orthodox Churches in North America" are not included in those exceptions enumrated, which "shall be governed by the Most Holy Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia through one of his vicar bishops not having a title of the local American Church, especially appointed for this, and until such time as these parishes express their official desire to join the Autocephalous Church in America in the manner described below.  The Moscow Patriarchate shall not lay claim to either spiritual or canonical jurisdiction over bishops, clergy and laymen of the Eastern Orthodox confession, or over parishes mentioned in Division 1, Paragraph 7, and by the present yields to the Metropolitanate, all jurisdiction to which she has laid claim on the above mentioned territory (Paragraph 7); excepting the entire clergy, possessions and parishes enumerated in Para¬graph 3, points a,b,c."  That includes defending those claims. Hence no reason to mention those "other Orthodox Churches" who spurned the canonical authority of Russia over its territory.  Amazing as it may seem to you, the Russian Church acts and speaks on/to/for its Church in Estonia without reference to the Church run for the Phanar by the Cyprian Bishop from the Congo.

Quote
2. By “autocephaly,” which is confirmed in this decision, it is understood that the Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America shall:...d. enjoy all the authority, privileges and rights usually inherent in the term “autocephaly” in the canonical tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church, including the right of preparing and consecrating Holy Chrism....
Confirming the Autocephaly of the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in America, we bless her to call herself The Holy Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America; we acknowledge and proclaim her our Sister Church, and we invite all local Orthodox Churches and their Primates and their faithful children to acknowledge her as such and to include her in the dyptichs in accordance with the Canons of the Church, the traditions of the Fathers and ecclesiastical practice
So the Tomos goes on to reference the "other Churches."
Quote
The newly-established local Orthodox Autocephalous Church in America should abide in brotherly relations with all the Orthodox Churches and their Primates as well as with their bishops, clergy and pious flock, who are in America and who for the time being preserve their de facto existing canonical and jurisdictional dependence on their national Churches and their Primates.
Nothing about de jure status, as the Tomos is the singular de jure instrument.


Which brings us to another problem, in that ROCOR joined the Moscow Patriarchate at the Rapprochement, therefore, according to the OCA's Tomos of Autocephaly, ROCOR in the USA should come under the jurisdiction of the OCA- yet it doesn't.

Answered in part by art. 10:
Quote
The Moscow Patriarchate shall not receive into its care in North America any clerics without written release or any parishes except parishes from uncanonical ecclesiastical organizations in Canada


So even the Patriarchate of Moscow now recognizes three different jurisdictions in North America which the MP itself has spawned and which have bishops in the same cities. If you are looking to the Moscow Patriarchate alone to resolve your country's jurisdictional mess, you will be sadly disappointed.
I'll take any Russian solution over any Phanariot "solution" any day.  Btw:

http://www.oca.org/DOCtomos.asp?SID=12

canon 8.  Look at the final clause.

I absolutely hate these back and forth arguments, as they approach medieval Jesuitical hair splitting in their attempts to obfuscate what the military would call 'the situation on the ground.'

And, FYI, frankly I am certain that the majority of the Orthodox faithful in America do not share either your faith in, or your enthusiasm for 'any Russian solution' to the current status quo in America. I suspect that they would resist any hierarchically imposed 'Russian solution' in the same manner that their forebearers resisted (here it comes again) Florence many centuries ago.

Ozgeorge is right when he states that it is far preferable for the whole Church seek a solution together.

I would also like to defend the poor immigrants who are often much maligned on these pages. Their knowledge of the Church and Orthodoxy was OF COURSE premised upon their own national and ethnic experience. That is the manner in which our Orthodoxy is established historically - by nations and local synods.  A Greek peasant would never have experienced any interaction with or perhaps even possess any direct knowledge as to how a Russian, Arab, Ukrainian or any other peasant would worship. If it weren't what he or she had been taught or had experienced, it probably didn't seem 'correct' to them through their eyes. Of course today we know that is not the case but one should never presume that these peoples were as worldly or educated as we are today.

Furthermore, immigrants tended to settle in ethnic enclaves and neighborhoods. They were not interspersed across America and Canada in multi cultural suburbs with peoples of many backgrounds and faiths. They lacked the transportation means to go to a church beyond the narrow confines of neigborhood and place of employment. It is not as if some cabal of powerless Old World patriarchs and bishops conspired to create the mosaic that was the fabric of New World life in the early 20th century.

Frankly, when the chaos of the Russian Revolution rolled across the world leaving the missions of the Russian Church orphaned on foreign shores, what were the old world Bishops to do? Should they have abandoned their fellow countrymen and fellow Orthodox on these Protestant/Roman shores without a hierarchy and method to keep true to Orthodoxy? Had they done so in the first half of the 20th century I daresay that this forum would likely not exist nor would we be having such an energetic and emotionally charged discussion.

There is an old saying in law school that if your case is solid on the facts you must pound on the facts. If your case is solid on the law, you must pound on the law. But, if the case is flawed either in part or as a whole on both, you must pound the table and demand a settlement.

I say we must pound the table and demand that these matters be settled in an open, realistic and honest manner.

« Last Edit: February 24, 2011, 01:33:58 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
admiralnick
Cardinal, Editor for Photogalleries
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,880


« Reply #26 on: February 24, 2011, 01:45:23 PM »

Well, firstly, the first Orthodox Church on US soil was Greek.
Well, firstly, the first Orthodox Church on US soil was not Greek, it was Russian. And it was canonical served by canonical priests under a canonical Orthodox bishop, unlike the first Greek Churches (the latter point your friend the Phanar's First Secretary brought up a year or so ago).

Alaska was Russian soil before that.

LOL. And? And what of San Francisco?

Secondly, the Patriarch of Moscow has relinquished jurisdiction over most of his Orthodox Churches in North America. The current Tomos of Autocephaly of the OCA only gives it jurisdiction over most (but not all) of the Churches which were under the Russian Exarchate of the Metropolitanate of the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in America.
You have muddled two things here: the Russian Exarchate was abolished. The Metropolitinate was declared autocephalous.


The Tomos, however, grants no jurisdiction of the OCA over any other Orthodox Churches in North America other than most (but not all) of those of the Russian Exarchate, as well as those who later join it.
you left out the rest:
Quote
excepting the entire clergy, possessions and parishes enumerated in Paragraph 3, points a,b,c.
http://www.oca.org/DOCtomos.asp?SID=12
Those "other Orthodox Churches in North America" are not included in those exceptions enumrated, which "shall be governed by the Most Holy Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia through one of his vicar bishops not having a title of the local American Church, especially appointed for this, and until such time as these parishes express their official desire to join the Autocephalous Church in America in the manner described below.  The Moscow Patriarchate shall not lay claim to either spiritual or canonical jurisdiction over bishops, clergy and laymen of the Eastern Orthodox confession, or over parishes mentioned in Division 1, Paragraph 7, and by the present yields to the Metropolitanate, all jurisdiction to which she has laid claim on the above mentioned territory (Paragraph 7); excepting the entire clergy, possessions and parishes enumerated in Para¬graph 3, points a,b,c."  That includes defending those claims. Hence no reason to mention those "other Orthodox Churches" who spurned the canonical authority of Russia over its territory.  Amazing as it may seem to you, the Russian Church acts and speaks on/to/for its Church in Estonia without reference to the Church run for the Phanar by the Cyprian Bishop from the Congo.

Quote
2. By “autocephaly,” which is confirmed in this decision, it is understood that the Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America shall:...d. enjoy all the authority, privileges and rights usually inherent in the term “autocephaly” in the canonical tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church, including the right of preparing and consecrating Holy Chrism....
Confirming the Autocephaly of the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in America, we bless her to call herself The Holy Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America; we acknowledge and proclaim her our Sister Church, and we invite all local Orthodox Churches and their Primates and their faithful children to acknowledge her as such and to include her in the dyptichs in accordance with the Canons of the Church, the traditions of the Fathers and ecclesiastical practice
So the Tomos goes on to reference the "other Churches."
Quote
The newly-established local Orthodox Autocephalous Church in America should abide in brotherly relations with all the Orthodox Churches and their Primates as well as with their bishops, clergy and pious flock, who are in America and who for the time being preserve their de facto existing canonical and jurisdictional dependence on their national Churches and their Primates.
Nothing about de jure status, as the Tomos is the singular de jure instrument.


Which brings us to another problem, in that ROCOR joined the Moscow Patriarchate at the Rapprochement, therefore, according to the OCA's Tomos of Autocephaly, ROCOR in the USA should come under the jurisdiction of the OCA- yet it doesn't.

Answered in part by art. 10:
Quote
The Moscow Patriarchate shall not receive into its care in North America any clerics without written release or any parishes except parishes from uncanonical ecclesiastical organizations in Canada


So even the Patriarchate of Moscow now recognizes three different jurisdictions in North America which the MP itself has spawned and which have bishops in the same cities. If you are looking to the Moscow Patriarchate alone to resolve your country's jurisdictional mess, you will be sadly disappointed.
I'll take any Russian solution over any Phanariot "solution" any day.  Btw:

http://www.oca.org/DOCtomos.asp?SID=12

canon 8.  Look at the final clause.

I absolutely hate these back and forth arguments, as they approach medieval Jesuitical hair splitting in their attempts to obfuscate what the military would call 'the situation on the ground.'

And, FYI, frankly I am certain that the majority of the Orthodox faithful in America do not share either your faith in, or your enthusiasm for 'any Russian solution' to the current status quo in America. I suspect that they would resist any hierarchically imposed 'Russian solution' in the same manner that their forebearers resisted (here it comes again) Florence many centuries ago.

Ozgeorge is right when he states that it is far preferable for the whole Church seek a solution together.

I would also like to defend the poor immigrants who are often much maligned on these pages. Their knowledge of the Church and Orthodoxy was OF COURSE premised upon their own national and ethnic experience. That is the manner in which our Orthodoxy is established historically - by nations and local synods.  A Greek peasant would never have experienced any interaction with or perhaps even possess any direct knowledge as to how a Russian, Arab, Ukrainian or any other peasant would worship. If it weren't what he or she had been taught or had experienced, it probably didn't seem 'correct' to them through their eyes. Of course today we know that is not the case but one should never presume that these peoples were as worldly or educated as we are today.

Furthermore, immigrants tended to settle in ethnic enclaves and neighborhoods. They were not interspersed across America and Canada in multi cultural suburbs with peoples of many backgrounds and faiths. They lacked the transportation means to go to a church beyond the narrow confines of neigborhood and place of employment. It is not as if some cabal of powerless Old World patriarchs and bishops conspired to create the mosaic that was the fabric of New World life in the early 20th century.

Frankly, when the chaos of the Russian Revolution rolled across the world leaving the missions of the Russian Church orphaned on foreign shores, what were the old world Bishops to do? Should they have abandoned their fellow countrymen and fellow Orthodox on these Protestant/Roman shores without a hierarchy and method to keep true to Orthodoxy? Had they done so in the first half of the 20th century I daresay that this forum would likely not exist nor would we be having such an energetic and emotionally charged discussion.

There is an old saying in law school that if your case is solid on the facts you must pound on the facts. If your case is solid on the law, you must pound on the law. But, if the case is flawed either in part or as a whole on both, you must pound the table and demand a settlement.

I say we must pound the table and demand that these matters be settled in an open, realistic and honest manner.




Sounds to me like you're advocating for Churches based on Nationality.... That my friend is non-canonical.

-Nick
Logged

The ORIGINAL: "NULL"
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,206


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #27 on: February 24, 2011, 01:50:35 PM »




Sounds to me like you're advocating for Churches based on Nationality.... That my friend is non-canonical.

-Nick
[/quote]

You missed my point. There was a real world reason for the establishment of ethnic based parishes in the Americas during the height of immigration. Those days are in the rapidly receding past.

Now is the time for administrative clarity and canonical organization. I am merely staking out a position against a legalistic, exclusionary and absolutist view of the role of the Tomos and the OCA as being the ONLY means to solve the problem.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2011, 01:52:25 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
admiralnick
Cardinal, Editor for Photogalleries
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,880


« Reply #28 on: February 24, 2011, 01:53:12 PM »




Sounds to me like you're advocating for Churches based on Nationality.... That my friend is non-canonical.

-Nick

You missed my point. There was a real world reason for the establishment of ethnic based parishes in the Americas during the height of immigration. Those days are in the rapidly receding past.

Now is the time for administrative clarity and canonical organization. I am merely staking out a position against a legalistic, exclusionary and absolutist view of the role of the Tomos and the OCA as being the ONLY means to solve the problem.
[/quote]


Ok, then I have no argument against this.

-Nick
Logged

The ORIGINAL: "NULL"
Punch
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Body of Christ
Posts: 5,260



« Reply #29 on: February 24, 2011, 10:29:08 PM »


Sounds to me like you're advocating for Churches based on Nationality.... That my friend is non-canonical.

-Nick

Given that no Church follows all the Canons, the term non-canonical has little meaning.  All Orthodox Churches are non-canonical.  Just pick and choose which canon you like that they don't follow.
Logged

Orthodox only because of God and His Russians.
serb1389
Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom!
Global Moderator
Merarches
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 8,323


Michał Kalina's biggest fan

FrNPantic
WWW
« Reply #30 on: February 26, 2011, 01:51:18 AM »

I am not an American and it seems to many of us outside America that the word "Jurisdiction" has virtually replaced the word "Church."   Does anyone know why this has happened?
Its an attempt to explain an anomalous situation. Overlapping episcopal jurisdictions in the so-called 'diaspora' is a new phenomenon. While it was common to refer to the local Churches as "Churches" (eg, the Seven Churches of Asia Minor), each Church was located in one city/geographical area under one Bishop. In the "diaspora" there is now more than one Bishop (and Cathedral) per city which is an anomaly.
How long does an anomaly have to last before we admit it is the new normal?
It is not normal in traditionally Orthodox countries, it is anathema.   It is tolerated in "the diaspora."  
Tolerated by "whom" and in what way?
The "whom" is the various jurisdictions in the "diaspora". The "what way" is mutual recognition.
Well they can follow the example of the Phanar over Bulgaria, which worked SO well Roll Eyes, or the example of Serbia in establishing the canonical authority over is Patriarchate.  Truely a difficult choice.

Out of curiosity, what about the Serbian Patriarchate establishment do you agree with / like? 
LOL. Where should I start?

I have to get some shut eye first.

Take your time.  i was merely curious.  if it's easier you can even write me a PM, but since you brought it up publicly, I thought i'd ask. 
Logged

I got nothing.
I forgot the maps
March 27th and May 30th 2010 were my Ordination dates, please forgive everything before that
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #31 on: February 26, 2011, 01:59:08 AM »

There is an old saying in law school that if your case is solid on the facts you must pound on the facts. If your case is solid on the law, you must pound on the law. But, if the case is flawed either in part or as a whole on both, you must pound the table and demand a settlement.
I like that!
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,206


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #32 on: February 26, 2011, 01:07:52 PM »

The Church and those of us who post on the internet can continue to argue these arcane points and pull out the  'big Cannons' (sic) and fire away until the proverbial cows come home. In the meantime, we will continue to see declining membership and an erosion of the Church as a whole.

On the other hand, we could hope that the EA process, coupled with the actions of the assembled world hierarchs, will be guided by the Holy Spirit so that our earthly divisions and petty jealousies will be overcome.

We humans do love to argue as it is more stimulating than working on points of agreement, but since we survived the first 2000 years of the Church in spite of our human nature I remain optimistic!
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,576



« Reply #33 on: February 28, 2011, 05:54:53 PM »

The Church and those of us who post on the internet can continue to argue these arcane points and pull out the  'big Cannons' (sic) and fire away until the proverbial cows come home. In the meantime, we will continue to see declining membership and an erosion of the Church as a whole.

On the other hand, we could hope that the EA process, coupled with the actions of the assembled world hierarchs, will be guided by the Holy Spirit so that our earthly divisions and petty jealousies will be overcome.

We humans do love to argue as it is more stimulating than working on points of agreement, but since we survived the first 2000 years of the Church in spite of our human nature I remain optimistic!

I agree
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,576



« Reply #34 on: February 28, 2011, 06:07:42 PM »

I'll take any Russian solution over any Phanariot "solution" any day.  

I think this is a ridiculous statement.   Moscow for the most part has followed Troitsky's interpretation of Apostolic Canon 34, that "nations" refers to ethnicities, not to geography (and therefore can have "Russian exarchates" whereever there are "Russian peoples" even though it is another canonical territory.   Constantinople has remained consistant that it refers to geography.   
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,576



« Reply #35 on: February 28, 2011, 06:13:52 PM »

^In other words, even though there have been failings on both sides to "stick to their positions," I would urge Constantinople to stick to its official position and urge Moscow not to (that is, if Moscow still holds to Pat. Alexei II's pov).  Then again, I do not want to impose on Patriarch Kyrill his predecessor's position, although since the Synod's composition is the same, it is not a stretch.  Patriarch Alexei II held strictly to Troitsky's interpretation.  Hopefully his Holiness and the Synod does not adhere to the same position as Pat. Alexei II.     
Logged
tuesdayschild
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 966



« Reply #36 on: February 28, 2011, 06:24:26 PM »


Sounds to me like you're advocating for Churches based on Nationality.... That my friend is non-canonical.

-Nick

Given that no Church follows all the Canons, the term non-canonical has little meaning.  All Orthodox Churches are non-canonical.  Just pick and choose which canon you like that they don't follow.

ozgeorge appears to agree with you, at least as it applies to America.

You mean I have to travel overseas to find a canonical Orthodox Church?
Well, technically, yes. If you want to see the Church in a particular place operating in accordance with the Canons, you have to travel overseas.

Who else agrees? Are all Orthodox Churches non-canonical, technically-speaking, at least? Is the term "non-canonical" a meaningless slur?
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,576



« Reply #37 on: February 28, 2011, 06:36:03 PM »

I don't think so.  Paracanonical and non-canonical are two different things.  Like when the Donatists were brought back in, in some places, there was an overlapping jurisdiction with the Bishop that was there in the first place.   It was "tolerated" until it was fixed.   The former Donatists who had now become Orthodox Catholics were no longer non-canonical, even though some of them found themselves in para-canonical situations that needed fixed. 

Sounds to me like you're advocating for Churches based on Nationality.... That my friend is non-canonical.
-Nick
Given that no Church follows all the Canons, the term non-canonical has little meaning.  All Orthodox Churches are non-canonical.  Just pick and choose which canon you like that they don't follow.
ozgeorge appears to agree with you, at least as it applies to America.
You mean I have to travel overseas to find a canonical Orthodox Church?
Well, technically, yes. If you want to see the Church in a particular place operating in accordance with the Canons, you have to travel overseas.

Who else agrees? Are all Orthodox Churches non-canonical, technically-speaking, at least? Is the term "non-canonical" a meaningless slur?
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,206


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #38 on: February 28, 2011, 06:44:11 PM »

I don't think so.  Paracanonical and non-canonical are two different things.  Like when the Donatists were brought back in, in some places, there was an overlapping jurisdiction with the Bishop that was there in the first place.   It was "tolerated" until it was fixed.   The former Donatists who had now become Orthodox Catholics were no longer non-canonical, even though some of them found themselves in para-canonical situations that needed fixed. 

Sounds to me like you're advocating for Churches based on Nationality.... That my friend is non-canonical.
-Nick
Given that no Church follows all the Canons, the term non-canonical has little meaning.  All Orthodox Churches are non-canonical.  Just pick and choose which canon you like that they don't follow.
ozgeorge appears to agree with you, at least as it applies to America.
You mean I have to travel overseas to find a canonical Orthodox Church?
Well, technically, yes. If you want to see the Church in a particular place operating in accordance with the Canons, you have to travel overseas.

Who else agrees? Are all Orthodox Churches non-canonical, technically-speaking, at least? Is the term "non-canonical" a meaningless slur?


I agree with Father here regarding 'para-canonical'. I have also heard the term 'extra=canonical' used as well.

The words 'non-canonical' and 'heretical' are used in common religious conversation with a frequency that is not seen in formal Church documents or pronouncements. They are 'loaded' terms of art that all too often are used to describe something small in enormous terms. I would think that an example would be if a person were exrememely, but not abnormally, short in stature the simple term 'short' might suffice to describe the person, while the use of 'dwarf' or 'midget' might be both erroneous and insulting.
Logged
tuesdayschild
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 966



« Reply #39 on: February 28, 2011, 07:00:52 PM »

I don't think so.  Paracanonical and non-canonical are two different things.  Like when the Donatists were brought back in, in some places, there was an overlapping jurisdiction with the Bishop that was there in the first place.   It was "tolerated" until it was fixed.   The former Donatists who had now become Orthodox Catholics were no longer non-canonical, even though some of them found themselves in para-canonical situations that needed fixed. 

Sounds to me like you're advocating for Churches based on Nationality.... That my friend is non-canonical.
-Nick
Given that no Church follows all the Canons, the term non-canonical has little meaning.  All Orthodox Churches are non-canonical.  Just pick and choose which canon you like that they don't follow.
ozgeorge appears to agree with you, at least as it applies to America.
You mean I have to travel overseas to find a canonical Orthodox Church?
Well, technically, yes. If you want to see the Church in a particular place operating in accordance with the Canons, you have to travel overseas.

Who else agrees? Are all Orthodox Churches non-canonical, technically-speaking, at least? Is the term "non-canonical" a meaningless slur?


I agree with Father here regarding 'para-canonical'. I have also heard the term 'extra=canonical' used as well.

The words 'non-canonical' and 'heretical' are used in common religious conversation with a frequency that is not seen in formal Church documents or pronouncements. They are 'loaded' terms of art that all too often are used to describe something small in enormous terms. I would think that an example would be if a person were exrememely, but not abnormally, short in stature the simple term 'short' might suffice to describe the person, while the use of 'dwarf' or 'midget' might be both erroneous and insulting.

Do you (FatherHLL and/or podkarpatska) mean that the situation we have here in the US with overlapping jurisdictions is best described as "paracanonical"? And do you mean that the "paracanonical" situation is tolerated because the bishops whose jurisdictions overlap hold to the same Orthodox Faith and Liturgy?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,365



« Reply #40 on: February 28, 2011, 07:53:27 PM »

I'll take any Russian solution over any Phanariot "solution" any day.  

I think this is a ridiculous statement.   Moscow for the most part has followed Troitsky's interpretation of Apostolic Canon 34, that "nations" refers to ethnicities, not to geography (and therefore can have "Russian exarchates" whereever there are "Russian peoples" even though it is another canonical territory.   Constantinople has remained consistant that it refers to geography.  
Father, that is consistent only in that the Phanar claims the whole world as its jurisdiction.

What exarch did the Church of Russia ever set up where there was another canonical territory? Because I can name a few that the Phanar has right off the top of my head.  Starting with North America.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2011, 07:58:01 PM by ialmisry » 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
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: 37,365



« Reply #41 on: February 28, 2011, 08:01:52 PM »

^In other words, even though there have been failings on both sides to "stick to their positions," I would urge Constantinople to stick to its official position and urge Moscow not to (that is, if Moscow still holds to Pat. Alexei II's pov).  Then again, I do not want to impose on Patriarch Kyrill his predecessor's position, although since the Synod's composition is the same, it is not a stretch.  Patriarch Alexei II held strictly to Troitsky's interpretation.  Hopefully his Holiness and the Synod does not adhere to the same position as Pat. Alexei II.     
Then I'm afraid that we are praying on different sides, Father, as God grant that the Holy Synod and Pat. Kyrill hold fast to the positions of Pat. Alexei of blessed memory against the arrogations of the Phanar.  It seems from the latest news of Chambesy that God has answered my prayers.
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
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: 37,365



« Reply #42 on: February 28, 2011, 08:07:38 PM »


Sounds to me like you're advocating for Churches based on Nationality.... That my friend is non-canonical.

-Nick

Given that no Church follows all the Canons, the term non-canonical has little meaning.  All Orthodox Churches are non-canonical.  Just pick and choose which canon you like that they don't follow.

ozgeorge appears to agree with you, at least as it applies to America.

You mean I have to travel overseas to find a canonical Orthodox Church?
Well, technically, yes. If you want to see the Church in a particular place operating in accordance with the Canons, you have to travel overseas.

Who else agrees? Are all Orthodox Churches non-canonical, technically-speaking, at least? Is the term "non-canonical" a meaningless slur?
Well, since the Mother Churches by definition are the ones with their fingers in someone else's pie here and recognize each other's piece of the pie here, and those who don't anymore (Alexandria, Jerusalem) or never did (Cyprus, Czech Lands and Slovakia) have approved this division of our pie, yes it means every Orthodox Church by that definition is non-canonical.

But since that definition is incorrect, no, it's not a meaningless slur.
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
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: 37,365



« Reply #43 on: March 01, 2011, 12:34:00 PM »

I'll take any Russian solution over any Phanariot "solution" any day.  

I think this is a ridiculous statement.   Moscow for the most part has followed Troitsky's interpretation of Apostolic Canon 34, that "nations" refers to ethnicities, not to geography (and therefore can have "Russian exarchates" whereever there are "Russian peoples" even though it is another canonical territory.   Constantinople has remained consistant that it refers to geography.  
Father, that is consistent only in that the Phanar claims the whole world as its jurisdiction.

What exarch did the Church of Russia ever set up where there was another canonical territory? Because I can name a few that the Phanar has right off the top of my head.  Starting with North America.

Btw, I don't include the reducing of the Georgia Catholicate to an Exarchate of the Russian Holy Governing Synod (borderline canonical though that was IMHO) as such an example.  The reuniting of the Abkhaz Catholicate to the Georgian Exarchate might have been.
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
Tags: Canons 
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 0.34 seconds with 70 queries.