OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 02, 2014, 06:30:21 PM *
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: OCA and Rue Daru  (Read 1185 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« on: August 02, 2013, 04:36:25 PM »

Can someone simply explain to me why there seems to be so much mutual relations between these two in history despite Constantinople having, slightly saying, some distance to the OCA?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Samn!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 302


« Reply #1 on: August 02, 2013, 05:27:53 PM »

Similar background of the early leadership. Saint-Serge------> St Vlad's.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2013, 05:28:35 PM by Samn! » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,483



« Reply #2 on: August 02, 2013, 05:35:08 PM »

Rue Daru has the same type of convoluted history as the OCA does after the revolution.  It wasn't always under Constantinople, and the OCA, then the Metropolia, at one time even tried to come under the Phanar.
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
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #3 on: August 02, 2013, 06:13:00 PM »

Saint-Serge------> St Vlad's.

That's what I'm asking about.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,021



« Reply #4 on: August 02, 2013, 06:54:44 PM »

Sorry, but I don't have a clue what is "Rue Daru?"  Would someone please advise me what "Rue Daru" means?
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Aedificare
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Russian Orthodox Churches in Western Europe
Posts: 119



« Reply #5 on: August 02, 2013, 06:57:06 PM »

Sorry, but I don't have a clue what is "Rue Daru?"  Would someone please advise me what "Rue Daru" means?

Look at my Jurisdiction.

I have never heard "Rue Daru" before either.  Cheesy
« Last Edit: August 02, 2013, 06:59:49 PM by Aedificare » Logged
Santagranddad
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: ROCA
Posts: 1,047



« Reply #6 on: August 02, 2013, 06:58:18 PM »

Sorry, but I don't have a clue what is "Rue Daru?"  Would someone please advise me what "Rue Daru" means?

Look at my Jurisdiction.

I have never heard "Rue Daru" before either.  Cheesy

It's where their Paris cathedral is, yes?
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: Agnostic
Posts: 29,581



« Reply #7 on: August 02, 2013, 06:59:46 PM »

Rue Daru is the street in Paris where the Cathedral is located...
Logged
Aedificare
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Russian Orthodox Churches in Western Europe
Posts: 119



« Reply #8 on: August 02, 2013, 07:00:26 PM »

Rue Daru is the street in Paris where the Cathedral is located...

Which is a pretty weird nickname for people who don't live in Paris, if you ask me. Tongue
Logged
DeniseDenise
Tiredness personified
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen no more!
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,762



« Reply #9 on: August 02, 2013, 07:02:08 PM »

Rue Daru is the street in Paris where the Cathedral is located...

Which is a pretty weird nickname for people who don't live in Paris, if you ask me. Tongue

I had to google....I kept thinking, why are we talking about who is leading the werewolves of France.

 Grin
Logged

Please secure your own oxygen mask before assisting other passengers.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,112


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #10 on: August 02, 2013, 07:04:12 PM »

Rue Daru is the street in Paris where the Cathedral is located...

Which is a pretty weird nickname for people who don't live in Paris, if you ask me. Tongue

I had to google....I kept thinking, why are we talking about who is leading the werewolves of France.

 Grin

Oh noes! Break out the silver-tipped canes!
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,632



« Reply #11 on: August 02, 2013, 07:10:38 PM »

it's in the most posh arrondissement of Paris.
Logged
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #12 on: August 02, 2013, 07:55:46 PM »

Rue Daru is the street in Paris where the Cathedral is located...

I've heard that, when Czar Alexander I entered triumphantly into Paris after defeating Napoleon's army in 1814, a thanksgiving service (Liturgy?) was held on the spot where the Cathedral now stands.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2013, 07:57:49 PM by Romaios » Logged
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,021



« Reply #13 on: August 03, 2013, 02:09:22 AM »

So, are we discussing the Russian Exarchate in Western Europe under the Ecumenical Patriarchate?
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,021



« Reply #14 on: August 06, 2013, 08:40:01 PM »

Rue Daru has the same type of convoluted history as the OCA does after the revolution.  It wasn't always under Constantinople, and the OCA, then the Metropolia, at one time even tried to come under the Phanar.

Yes, the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Metropolia (predecessor to the OCA) and the Archdiocese of the Russian Orthodox Churches of Western Europe have a common problematic history from the 1920's, as they collaborated about the Patriarchate of Moscow, their common mother church and hierarchal authority, as it came under the control of the Soviet Communist authorities, and likewise, how to relate to the Russian émigré hierarchs as they were forming the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. Both the Metropolia and the Russian West European Archdiocese had been canonical dioceses of the Church of Russia, so they both had the common problem of how to deal with the communications, some of which were bizarre, coming from the mother church, and as well, how to relate to this new extracanonical presence of ROCOR, an unprecedented phenomenon.  While the Metropolia did not come under the Church of Constantinople, it was closely aligned with the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of (No.&So.) America, particularly among the leading priests of each church, because the GOAA maintained Communion with the Metropolia despite the "Anathema" pronounced upon it by the Patriarchate of Moscow.  The close collaboration between the Metropolia and the GOAA, at some risk due to the Ecumenical Patriarchate's responsibilities among the Holy Orthodox Churches and its relationship with the Patriarchate of Moscow, is, in my opinion, one of the underlying reasons why the revelation of the secretly negotiated, and unilateral "Tomos of Autocephaly," of the Patriarchate of Moscow, was so difficult for the GOAA to respect, in addition to protocol and other administrative disagreements.
« Last Edit: August 06, 2013, 08:40:48 PM by Basil 320 » Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #15 on: August 10, 2013, 05:44:36 AM »

Does it mean their good relations stopped after OCA had been made autocephalous by Moscow?
« Last Edit: August 10, 2013, 06:09:14 AM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,483



« Reply #16 on: August 10, 2013, 08:30:49 AM »

Does it mean their good relations stopped after OCA had been made autocephalous by Moscow?
Depends on who you are talking about.  The maintenance of communion was maintained basically at the personal intervention of Abp. Iakovos of blessed memory.  Met. Soterios of Canada, for instance, wanted to follow the Phanar in cutting the OCA off, but at the time his Metropolitanate of Canada was not separate from the Archdiocese.
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
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,842


« Reply #17 on: August 12, 2013, 08:10:08 AM »

Can someone simply explain to me why there seems to be so much mutual relations between these two in history despite Constantinople having, slightly saying, some distance to the OCA?

The differences between the OCA and Rue Daru do not extend much beyond the manner in which they attempted to resolve their uncanonical situations after Metropolitans Evlogy in France and Metroplitan Platon in America went into schism from the ROCOR Synod to which both belonged.  The Metropolia and Rue Daru share a very strong common foundation historically, theologically, culturally, etc.  Those who played the biggest role in establishing the OCA came from St. Sergius Institute in France (Fr. Alexander Schmemann, Fr. John Meyendorff, etc.).  The Metropolia was not opposed to being under Constantinople, and actually requested to be received under Constantinople, but they were told by Constantinople to reconcile with Moscow.  What Constantinople objects to is the manner in which this reconciliation took place, namely through Moscow granting the Metropolia the status of "autocephaly".
Logged
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 6,000


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #18 on: August 12, 2013, 08:26:30 AM »

Rue Daru is the street in Paris where the Cathedral is located...

Which is a pretty weird nickname for people who don't live in Paris, if you ask me. Tongue


Kind of like when people say "the Phanar" when referencing the Patriarch of Constantinople's HQ.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,483



« Reply #19 on: August 12, 2013, 09:19:30 AM »

Can someone simply explain to me why there seems to be so much mutual relations between these two in history despite Constantinople having, slightly saying, some distance to the OCA?

The differences between the OCA and Rue Daru do not extend much beyond the manner in which they attempted to resolve their uncanonical situations after Metropolitans Evlogy in France and Metroplitan Platon in America went into schism from the ROCOR Synod to which both belonged.
 
Not quite: Metropolitan Platon presided over his own see in an intact Archdiocese of the Russian Church which had made use of Ukaz 362 to proclaim its own automony.  The Karlovsky synod of mostly exiled bishops-who lacked control of their dioceses-used the Ukaz to proclaim for itself primacy over all the Russian Church not under Soviet control.  The bishops in possession of their intact (or nearly so) diocese-Finland, the Baltic Republics, the area controlled by the Polish Second Republic and North America didn't buy it, and refused the demands of the Karlovsky synod to be integrated under its authority-which was also "uncanonical" it that it did not follow normal canons, but those were not normal times.

The Metropolia and Rue Daru share a very strong common foundation historically, theologically, culturally, etc.  Those who played the biggest role in establishing the OCA came from St. Sergius Institute in France (Fr. Alexander Schmemann, Fr. John Meyendorff, etc.).  The Metropolia was not opposed to being under Constantinople, and actually requested to be received under Constantinople, but they were told by Constantinople to reconcile with Moscow.  What Constantinople objects to is the manner in which this reconciliation took place, namely through Moscow granting the Metropolia the status of "autocephaly".
That's autocephaly.  No quotation marks.
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
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,842


« Reply #20 on: August 12, 2013, 09:35:33 AM »

Can someone simply explain to me why there seems to be so much mutual relations between these two in history despite Constantinople having, slightly saying, some distance to the OCA?

The differences between the OCA and Rue Daru do not extend much beyond the manner in which they attempted to resolve their uncanonical situations after Metropolitans Evlogy in France and Metroplitan Platon in America went into schism from the ROCOR Synod to which both belonged.
 
Not quite: Metropolitan Platon presided over his own see in an intact Archdiocese of the Russian Church which had made use of Ukaz 362 to proclaim its own automony.  The Karlovsky synod of mostly exiled bishops-who lacked control of their dioceses-used the Ukaz to proclaim for itself primacy over all the Russian Church not under Soviet control.  The bishops in possession of their intact (or nearly so) diocese-Finland, the Baltic Republics, the area controlled by the Polish Second Republic and North America didn't buy it, and refused the demands of the Karlovsky synod to be integrated under its authority-which was also "uncanonical" it that it did not follow normal canons, but those were not normal times.

Regarding Met Platon’s allegiance (and that of the Metropolia) to ROCOR:
Quote

At the same time as Metropolitan Evlogy, Metropolitan Platon in America severed his connection with the Council of the Church Abroad.  The situation in the American Diocese was as follows:  Metropolitan Platon was appointed diocesan head in America at the recommendation of Patriarch Tikhon, transmitted by an American by the name of Colton and Father Pashkovsky, the latter presenting the report to Metropolitan Antony on August 22/Sept 5, 1922.  The Synod of Bishops decreed:  “May it stand: in view of the expressed desire of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow and all Russia, that Metropolitan Platon of Kherson and Odessa accept the administration of the North American diocese, communicated by V. Rev. T. Pashkovsky who had arrived from Moscow in the report of July 1/14, 1922, No. 1, and in view of the consent of Archbishop Alexander to the temporary transfer of the administration of the diocese to Metropolitan Platon, Metropolitan Platon is considered temporary administrator of the North American Diocese.”

Being already in America, Metropolitan Platon tried in every way to stress his genuine obedience to the Council and Synod.  Thus he wrote in the “American Orthodox Messenger” (No 6 of 1924):  “In the circumstances amid which the Russian Church in exile has begun to live, her one comfort and consolation is the possibility of calling Bishops’ Councils, composed of the hierarchs who by the will of Providence find themselves outside the borders of Russia.  A Council of Hierarchs is morally of such a magnitude that before it even an energetic unit, accustomed to willfulness and stubbornness, must bow…  We shall therefore expect that, even in America, they who say that they are authentic ‘bishops’ will carefully examine the essence of the discord in the church which they create, and will show their Orthodox disposition in the spirit indicated by the Bishops’ Council in Karlovtsy”.  http://monasterypress.com/anonftp/pub/Rocatruth.pdf 


St. Tikhon recognized the authority of ROCOR (the Karlovsky synod) and sent to this Synod his recommendation to appoint Metropolitan Platon as head of the American diocese.  ROCOR assigned him as such and Metropolitan Platon expressed his allegiance to ROCOR.  In 1924, Met Platon participated in the ROCOR Council at Sremski Karlovtsky, was elected to be a member of the ROCOR Synod, and he expressed his full submission to this Council.  However, in 1926, there was a council of the American diocese in Detroit which attempted to assert the autocephaly of the Russian churches in America under Met Platon.  In 1926, when Met Platon returned to the ROCOR Council in Sremsky Karlovtsy and reported on this Detroit Council, ROCOR responded by stating that the Russian diocese in America had no canonical right to assert its own autocephaly and neither would the Synod acknowledge such an assertion.  Met Platon then left the Council along with Met Evlogy and it was then that both bishops separated from ROCOR and went into schism.     

Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,483



« Reply #21 on: August 12, 2013, 11:44:25 AM »

Can someone simply explain to me why there seems to be so much mutual relations between these two in history despite Constantinople having, slightly saying, some distance to the OCA?

The differences between the OCA and Rue Daru do not extend much beyond the manner in which they attempted to resolve their uncanonical situations after Metropolitans Evlogy in France and Metroplitan Platon in America went into schism from the ROCOR Synod to which both belonged.
 
Not quite: Metropolitan Platon presided over his own see in an intact Archdiocese of the Russian Church which had made use of Ukaz 362 to proclaim its own automony.  The Karlovsky synod of mostly exiled bishops-who lacked control of their dioceses-used the Ukaz to proclaim for itself primacy over all the Russian Church not under Soviet control.  The bishops in possession of their intact (or nearly so) diocese-Finland, the Baltic Republics, the area controlled by the Polish Second Republic and North America didn't buy it, and refused the demands of the Karlovsky synod to be integrated under its authority-which was also "uncanonical" it that it did not follow normal canons, but those were not normal times.
Quote
To: the Chairman of the Supreme Ecclesiastical Administration Abroad
the Most Reverend Anthony, Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia

With the blessing of His Holiness the Patriarch, the Holy Synod and
the Supreme Ecclesiastical Council, in a combined hearing discussed:
the proposal of His Holiness the Patriarch dated March 28 (April 10)
of this year which consisted of the following:

I submit the issues of "New Time" dated December 3 and 4, 1921 and March 1, 1922. In them are reproduced the Epistles of the Karlovtsi
Sobor and its Address to the World Conference. These acts are of a political nature and, as such, are in contradiction to my Epistle dated September 25, 1919.

Therefore:

1. I recognize the Karlovtsi Sobor of the Russian clergy and layman abroad as not having any canonical significance and its Epistle calling for the restoration of the Romanov dynasty, as well as its Address to the Genoa Conference as not expressing the official voice of the Russian Orthodox Church;

2. Because the Russian ecclesiastical administration abroad has entered into the arena of making political statements, and also because, at the same time, the Russian parishes abroad have already been placed under the care of the Most Reverend Metropolitan Evlogy, who resides in Germany, to dissolve the Supreme Ecclesiastical Administration Abroad;

3. The Holy Synod is to have judgment on the question of the accountability before the Church of some of the clergy abroad for their political statements in the name of the Church.

After discussion of the above proposal of His Holiness the Patriarch it was decided:

1. To consider the Epistle of the All-Diaspora Church Sobor to the Flock of the Russian Orthodox Church Who are Found Abroad and in Exile about the restoration of monarchy in Russia with a Tsar from the House of Romanov, printed in "New Time" dated December 3, 1921,
No. 184, and the Address to the World Conference from the Russian All-Diaspora Sobor, printed in the same "New Time" on March 1 of this year, No. 254, and signed by Your Eminence, as acts which do not express the official voice of the Russian Orthodox Church, and which, because of their purely political character, as not having any ecclesiastical-canonical significance;

2. Because of the above indicated statements given in the name of the Church were sanctioned by the Supreme Russian Ecclesiastical Administration Abroad, and taking into consideration the fact that because of the appointment by the same administration of the Most Reverend Metropolitan Evlogy as the administrator of the Russian Orthodox churches abroad there is no more area for a supreme ecclesiastical administration to perform its responsibilities the above mentioned Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority is dissolved, retaining the temporary administration of the Russian parishes abroad by Metropolitan Evlogy, and to direct him to submit his considerations
about the method of the administration of the above noted churches;

3. In order to pass judgment on the ecclesiastical accountability of some clergy abroad for their political statements given in the name of
the Church, to gather materials necessary for this task, while the judgment itself, because of the fact that some of those concerned belong to the episcopate, to consider this matter after the restoration of the normal activity of the holy Synod in its full, as noted in the regulations of the Sobor, complement of its members.  Concerning which, in order that the proper directions on this matter may be given, to inform Your Eminence.

April 22/May 5, 1922,
No. 348.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/orthodox-synod/message/19459
(including a very bizarre "explanation" of St. John Maximovich's "refusal" to recognize Patriarch Pimen as Patriarch when the latter wasn't elected until years after the repose of the former).

Regarding Met Platon’s allegiance (and that of the Metropolia) to ROCOR:
Quote

At the same time as Metropolitan Evlogy, Metropolitan Platon in America severed his connection with the Council of the Church Abroad.  The situation in the American Diocese was as follows:  Metropolitan Platon was appointed diocesan head in America at the recommendation of Patriarch Tikhon, transmitted by an American by the name of Colton and Father Pashkovsky, the latter presenting the report to Metropolitan Antony on August 22/Sept 5, 1922.  The Synod of Bishops decreed:  “May it stand: in view of the expressed desire of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow and all Russia, that Metropolitan Platon of Kherson and Odessa accept the administration of the North American diocese, communicated by V. Rev. T. Pashkovsky who had arrived from Moscow in the report of July 1/14, 1922, No. 1, and in view of the consent of Archbishop Alexander to the temporary transfer of the administration of the diocese to Metropolitan Platon, Metropolitan Platon is considered temporary administrator of the North American Diocese.”

Being already in America, Metropolitan Platon tried in every way to stress his genuine obedience to the Council and Synod.  Thus he wrote in the “American Orthodox Messenger” (No 6 of 1924):  “In the circumstances amid which the Russian Church in exile has begun to live, her one comfort and consolation is the possibility of calling Bishops’ Councils, composed of the hierarchs who by the will of Providence find themselves outside the borders of Russia.  A Council of Hierarchs is morally of such a magnitude that before it even an energetic unit, accustomed to willfulness and stubbornness, must bow…  We shall therefore expect that, even in America, they who say that they are authentic ‘bishops’ will carefully examine the essence of the discord in the church which they create, and will show their Orthodox disposition in the spirit indicated by the Bishops’ Council in Karlovtsy”.  http://monasterypress.com/anonftp/pub/Rocatruth.pdf 
St. Tikhon recognized the authority of ROCOR (the Karlovsky synod) and sent to this Synod his recommendation to appoint Metropolitan Platon as head of the American diocese.  ROCOR assigned him as such and Metropolitan Platon expressed his allegiance to ROCOR.  In 1924, Met Platon participated in the ROCOR Council at Sremski Karlovtsky, was elected to be a member of the ROCOR Synod, and he expressed his full submission to this Council.  However, in 1926, there was a council of the American diocese in Detroit which attempted to assert the autocephaly of the Russian churches in America under Met Platon.  In 1926, when Met Platon returned to the ROCOR Council in Sremsky Karlovtsy and reported on this Detroit Council, ROCOR responded by stating that the Russian diocese in America had no canonical right to assert its own autocephaly and neither would the Synod acknowledge such an assertion.  Met Platon then left the Council along with Met Evlogy and it was then that both bishops separated from ROCOR and went into schism.
Met. Platon never gave up the autonomy adopted  by his Sobor in 1924-following the decision of the All American Sobor of 1923 electing him as its primate.  Neither Metropolitan Platon nor the Metropolia renounced this autonomy as the Karlvosky Synod demanded.
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
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,021



« Reply #22 on: August 12, 2013, 11:51:33 AM »

"Temporary autonomy," I believe is the term used by the Metropolia at the time.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,483



« Reply #23 on: August 12, 2013, 12:15:54 PM »

"Temporary autonomy," I believe is the term used by the Metropolia at the time.

At the time, per Ukaz 362, everything was temporary.
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
jah777
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 1,842


« Reply #24 on: August 12, 2013, 12:47:07 PM »

Met. Platon never gave up the autonomy adopted  by his Sobor in 1924-following the decision of the All American Sobor of 1923 electing him as its primate.  Neither Metropolitan Platon nor the Metropolia renounced this autonomy as the Karlvosky Synod demanded.

The American Diocese was part of the Karlovsky Synod.  The self-declared autonomy of the American Diocese was in direct disobedience to the Synod that appointed, and had authority over, Metropolitan Platon and the American Diocese.  In 1935, the American Metropolia once again reunited with ROCOR and recognized the legitimacy of ROCOR on the basis of St. Tikhon's Ukaz 362.  Sadly, this union did not last and the Metropolia once again jumped ship in 1946.
Logged
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,021



« Reply #25 on: August 12, 2013, 02:10:14 PM »

In the Metropolia/OCA's published history, it claims that the Metropolia never accepted all of ROCOR's statutes and specifically notified ROCOR that their Metropolitan Council, their local Council of Bishops, and their All-America Sobor maintained their responsibilities they had previously, when ROCOR didn't exist; ROCOR responded that it did not recognize this exception the Metropolia claimed.  ROCOR's essential governance was vested it its Synod---it did not have priest-laity boards with any substantive authority, if I'm not mistaken.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2013, 02:12:15 PM by Basil 320 » Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
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: 37,483



« Reply #26 on: August 12, 2013, 02:44:49 PM »

Met. Platon never gave up the autonomy adopted  by his Sobor in 1924-following the decision of the All American Sobor of 1923 electing him as its primate.  Neither Metropolitan Platon nor the Metropolia renounced this autonomy as the Karlvosky Synod demanded.

The American Diocese was part of the Karlovsky Synod.  The self-declared autonomy of the American Diocese was in direct disobedience to the Synod that appointed, and had authority over, Metropolitan Platon and the American Diocese.  In 1935, the American Metropolia once again reunited with ROCOR and recognized the legitimacy of ROCOR on the basis of St. Tikhon's Ukaz 362.  Sadly, this union did not last and the Metropolia once again jumped ship in 1946.
Yes, I'm aware of the ROCA narrative.

No, it does not accord with the facts of the time.

Quote
Ukase No. 362  
The Resolutions of His Holiness the Patriarch [Tikhon],
of the Sacred Synod and Supreme Ecclesiastical Council of the Russian Orthodox Church,
20/7 November 1920

With the blessing of His Holiness the Patriarch [Tikhon], the Sacred Synod and the Supreme Ecclesiastical Council united together, have deliberated concerning the necessity, supplementary to the instructions already given in the encyclical letter of His Holiness the Patriarch in case of the cessation of the activity of the diocesan councils, of giving to the diocesan bishops just such instructions in the event of the severance of relations between the diocese and the Supreme Church Administration, or the cessation of the activity of the latter and, on the basis of past decisions, we have resolved:  
By an encyclical letter in the name of His Holiness to give the following instructions to the diocesan bishops for their guidance in necessary cases:

1) In the event that the Holy Synod and the Supreme Ecclesiastical Council for any reason whatever terminate their ecclesiastical administrative activity, the diocesan bishop, for instructions in directing his ministry and for the resolution of cases in accordance with rules which go back to the Supreme Church Administration, turns directly to His Holiness the Patriarch or to that person or institution indicated by His Holiness the Patriarch.

2) In the event a diocese, in consequence of the movement of the war front, changes of state borders, etc., finds itself completely out of contact with the Supreme Church Administration, or if the Supreme Church Administration itself, headed by His Holiness the Patriarch, for any reason whatsoever ceases its activity, the diocesan bishop immediately enters into relations with the bishops of neighboring dioceses for the purpose of organizing a higher instance of ecclesiastical authority for several dioceses in similar conditions (in the form either of a temporary Supreme Church government or a Metropolitan district, or anything else).

3) Care for the organization of a Supreme Church Authority is the objective of an entire group of dioceses which find themselves in the position indicated in paragraph 2, is the indispensable obligation of the senior bishop of such a group.

4) In the case of the impossibility of establishing relations with bishops of neighboring dioceses, and until the organization of a higher instance of ecclesiastical authority, the diocesan bishop takes upon himself all the fullness of authority granted him by the canons of the Church, taking all measures for the ordering of Church life and, if it appear necessary, for the organization of the diocesan administration, in conformity with the conditions which have arisen, deciding all cases granted by the canons to episcopal authority, with the cooperation of existing organs of diocesan administration (the diocesan assembly, the diocesan council, et al, or those that are newly organized); in case of the impossibility of constituting the above indicated institutions, he is under his own recognizance.

5) In case the state of affairs indicated in paragraphs 2 and 4 takes on a protracted or even a permanent character, in particular with the impossibility for the bishop to benefit from the cooperation of the organs of the diocesan administration, by the most expedient means (in the sense of the establishment of ecclesiastical order) it is left to him to divide the diocese into several local dioceses, for which the diocesan bishop:  
a) grants his right reverend vicar bishops, who now, in accordance with the Instruction, enjoy the rights of semi-independent bishops, all the rights of diocesan bishops, with the organization by them of administration in conformity to local conditions and resources;  
b) institutes, by conciliar decision with the rest of the bishops of the diocese, as far as possible in all major cities of his own diocese, new episcopal Sees with the rights of semi-independent or independent bishops.

6) A diocese divided in the manner specified in paragraph 5 forms an ecclesiastical district headed by the bishop of the principle diocesan city, which commences the administration of local ecclesiastical affairs in accordance with the canons.

7) If, in the situation indicated in paragraphs 2 and 4, there is found a diocese lacking a bishop, then the Diocesan Council or, in its absence, the clergy and laity, turns to the diocesan bishop of the diocese nearest or most accessible to regards convenience or relations, and the aforesaid bishop either dispatches his vicar bishop to administer the widowed (i.e. vacant) diocese or undertakes its administration himself, acting in the cases indicated in paragraph 5 and in relation to that diocese in accordance with paragraphs 5 and 6, under which, given the corresponding facts, the widowed diocese can be organized into a special ecclesiastical district.

8 ) If for whatever reason an invitation from a widowed diocese is not forthcoming, the diocesan bishop indicated in paragraph 7 undertakes the care of its affairs on his own initiative.

9) In case of the extreme disorganization of ecclesiastical life, when certain persons and parishes cease to recognize the authority of the diocesan bishop, the latter, finding himself in the position indicated in paragraphs 2 and 6, does not relinquish his episcopal powers, but forms deaneries and a diocese; he permits, where necessary, that the divine services be celebrated even in private homes and other places suited therefore, and severs ecclesiastical communion with the disobedient.

10) All measures taken in places in accordance with the present instruction, afterwards, in the event of the restoration of the central ecclesiastical authority, must be subject to the confirmation of the latter.
http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/engdocuments/enuk_ukaz362.html

I know that the Karlovski synod liked to see this ukaz as directed only to and for itself, but such was not the case.  For one, it, unlike the Archdiocese of the Aleutians and North America, did not exist on Nov 20, 1920.

Even on ROCOR's website it is admitted
Quote
...the Patriarch, in 1922, was obliged to issue an order decreeing the shutting down of the Supreme Church Authority Abroad. A few days later, the Patriarch was arrested.

In August 1922, a Council of the Bishops of the Church Abroad was held in Yugoslavia , which decreed that the ukase of the Patriarch be executed and the Supreme Ecclesiastical Authority be disbanded...
http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/enghistory/enhis_rocorshukin.html

Archbishop (later Pat.) St. Tikhon himself had instituted the All American Sobor, with the first in 1907 organizing the Archdiocese of the Aleutians and All North America.  The second was scheduled for 1918, but was delayed by the Bolshevik revolution until 1919, electing Bp Alexander as its own primate and regularizing its internal and external administration, confirmed by Pat. St. Tikhon in August 1920. All before Ukaz 362, and before the Karlovsky Synod or even its conception in Constantinople in Nov 1920, and therefore independent of its authority, assumed or presumed.

Upon Abp. Platon's return to the US from Russia, on June 7, 1922 Abp. Alexander resigned in favor of Abp. Platon, former primate of the Archdiocese of the Aleutians and North America as successor to Abp. then Pat. St. Tikhon, which was regularized by the All American Sobor of early 1924. At that time there was no Karlovsky Synod to obey, accept its appointments nor recognize its authority-Ukaz 348 disposed of the Synod of the First All-Diaspora, and the Second would not take place until 1938.  Unlike the ROCOR, the Metropolia already had its statute.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2013, 02:55:05 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
Tags:
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 0.122 seconds with 55 queries.