Or was it simply more rebellion at work? This game of ever-shifting borders and the need for national churches as accoutrements to phyletism is totally disgusting. I want a Missouri Orthodox Church, so if we ever get a national Orthodox Church, I say we just throw up our middle fingers and demand that we have 50 autocephalous Orthodox Churches arranged by state, and then after that we'll finally have built a perfect kingdom, like a bunch of idiotic politicians.
So, why are you a member of a Serbian Church, which may be regarded by some as an "accoutrement to phyletyism"? And, not in Serbia itself but thousands of miles away in the United States of America, where there is already an autocephalous church.
An "autochephalous church" I think not whenever you had Patriarchs meet and start the EA and the document signed by all of the heads of autochephalous churches (oca was represented by Russia)
No, Russia did not represent the OCA, and it made quite a point about that. It cannot, per its own (i.e. Moscow's) statute, represent the OCA. It can, and does, look after the OCA's interests.
The OCA, consequently, was not bound by Chambesy, and the Phanar didn't want it represented. Things turned out differently, thanks to Arbp. Demetrios (Many Years!)
stating that North America should be brought together by the rules of their decree and that it should be an autonomous church. Chambesy argreement I believe. Google it.
The Chambesy agreement says no such thing, though the Phanar is trying to put that spin on it:
The Conference decided to establish an “Episcopal Assembly” in specific regions which are beyond the boundaries of the Autocephalous Churches.
The Conference decided to establish new Bishops Assemblies in certain regions throughout the world in order to resolve the problem of the Diaspora, namely for the Orthodox faithful that have settled outside the traditional boundaries of the local Orthodox Churches.
http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/documents/chambesyhttp://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/documents/chambesy/communiqueThe Decision and Regulations, signed by all the Churches except the OCA, say no such thing.
I am going to take the word of the current patriarchs over +Alexi I who "signed' this tomos on his death bed.
Should we void the Creed as well, as Pat. St. Meletius, who opened the Second Ecumenical Council, died during it?
The Tomos was signed by +Alexi I, his successor +Pimen, his successor +Alexi II of blessed memory and even his rival Philaret, the deposed metropolitan of Kiev, and the last Russian Archbishop of New York, the Aleutians and Exarch of North and South America +Jonathan, and ratified by the Holy Synod. None have retracted that I know of.
Negotiations with Pat. Alexi started in 1946, nearly at the beginning of his patriarchate, which caused the split with ROCOR, who would not associate with Moscow. Talks assumed a regularity throughout the 1960's, full communion was restored and then autocephaly granted. It didn't start on Pat. Alexi's death bed.
Furthermore ROCOR has JUST as much right to argue the same points as the Metropolia.
Not really.
A) before the russian revolution existing parishes were under the Moscow Patriarch
Not exactly:they were under the Archbishop of the Aleutians and North America, an archdiocese of the Russian Church.
B) 1921 they split into the Synod and MEtropolia, although I think this may have lasted over a number of years.
No. The Archdiocese continued on as the Metropolia. The Synod was organized as a Church in exile. The Archdiocse wasn't in exile.
C) So therefore both the OCA and ROCOR are equally entitled to have the same claim, they all were and are Russian Orthodox parishes.
No. The OCA had, besides Russian parishes, Antiochian (it took some time for Antioch to wrest them from the Metropolia) and Albanian parishes, to which Romanian ones were added as well. This, in addition to the native American ones (I don't think ROCOR had any).
The EP took the Polish, Belarussian, Finnish and Estonian parishes.
Later, the Church of Japan remained under the Metropolia until the Tomos (the return of Japan to Moscow's jurisdiction was one of the terms:if the Tomos is no good, the Tokyo returns to Washington).
Rocor made a public, visible and transparent move to align themselves back to the MP. The Metropolia was formed under the Iron Curtain veiled in secrecy and on +Alexi's death bed.
ROCOR had no choice but to make a visible and transparent move, as there no longer remained an Iron Curtain to hide behind. The sight of parishes of the Russian Church Outside of Russia inside Russia made things appear incongruous.
D) Realising that there were churches created in the Synod and the Metropolia (aka now ROCOR and OCA) post split post revolution, it doesn't matter. They all were consecrated by Bishops were either made bishops by bishops who come from the MP line.
who come from the EP line. Your point?
It is a moot point about the autochephaly of the OCA really, because if one goes with what the patriarchs said in Chambesy, their autochephaly given in mystery behind the iron curtain of the CCCP is null and void.
Since the patriarchs said no such thing in Chambesy, we do not have to even go into the absence of the competency of the Greek Church (who is what we are talking about) to rule on the issue.
You don't think that the autocephaly of Greece, Romania, Serbia, Poland, Bulgaria, Albania Czechoslovakia and even Russia were not given/recognized in mystery behind the Sublime Porte? Why don't you try to void their autocephaly as well?
If people say the Patriarch of Constantinople and Pope of Rome ending the schism in 1964 didn't really count because all of the Patriarchs didn't ascend to it, then the OCA autochelphaly can be looked at the same way.
Dumb analogy: no one, not even Constantinople, resumed communion with the Pope of Rome with the statements of 1964. Everyone, including Constantinople, entered into full communion with the OCA with the issuance of the Tomos (objections from Moscow were the only impediment to such full communion), as happened with ROCOR once it signed the Act of Canonical Communion with Moscow.
The one entails entering communion with heretics, the other resuming communion after a schism has been healed. Quite a difference.
If you read Chambesy and according to a Metropolitan I knew rather well, the goal is for everyone to be autonomous under the EP and all bishops will be given USA/Canadian etc.. city sees, so like Second Chance of Sacramento instead of titular bishops of forgotten Greek cities. At first they will take care of all parishes in a given region, no matter what jurisdiction and then eventually bishops will be moved around and new regions then dioceses will be set up.
I'm not the guy that made this up, so don't kill the messenger
Oh, my sources say the same thing. And that is what the Phanar planned. Things have not gone according to plan, however, and the other Churches never bound themselves to the Phanariot agenda. Indeed, do read Chambesy, i.e. whatever one signed, and not what the Phanar claims for Chambesy.
