OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 23, 2014, 10:46:45 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Autocephaly  (Read 2204 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
alexpetros
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 128


Go sábhála Dia Éire.


WWW
« on: January 07, 2014, 01:46:09 PM »

I never understood why the autocephaly of the OCA has never been recognized by all other autocephaleous churches.

This line of thinking seems pretty clear: if the mother church recognizes the autocephaly of a daughter church, then the daughter church is autocephaleous.

So, wherein lies the problem?
Logged
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 4,263


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #1 on: January 07, 2014, 01:55:35 PM »

The Ecumenical Patriarchate thinks it should have the final say.  "First among equals" and all that.  That and the administrative nightmare outside of traditionally Orthodox areas.

Even though OCA's autocephaly is questioned, because of how it was done, we are all still in communion.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2014, 01:55:46 PM by hecma925 » 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: 35,626



« Reply #2 on: January 07, 2014, 03:50:23 PM »

The Ecumenical Patriarchate thinks it should have the final say.  "First among equals" and all that.  That and the administrative nightmare outside of traditionally Orthodox areas.

Even though OCA's autocephaly is questioned, because of how it was done, we are all still in communion.
How it was done: i.e. with the consent of the Mother Church, a procedure not followed with most of the others.

As for that "administrative nightmare," three guesses who was the main contributor to the horror.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2014, 03:51:20 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
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 4,263


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #3 on: January 07, 2014, 03:59:45 PM »

The Ecumenical Patriarchate thinks it should have the final say.  "First among equals" and all that.  That and the administrative nightmare outside of traditionally Orthodox areas.

Even though OCA's autocephaly is questioned, because of how it was done, we are all still in communion.
How it was done: i.e. with the consent of the Mother Church, a procedure not followed with most of the others.

As for that "administrative nightmare," three guesses who was the main contributor to the horror.
Is there a prize if I guess correctly on the first try? Wink
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: 35,626



« Reply #4 on: January 07, 2014, 04:12:02 PM »

The Ecumenical Patriarchate thinks it should have the final say.  "First among equals" and all that.  That and the administrative nightmare outside of traditionally Orthodox areas.

Even though OCA's autocephaly is questioned, because of how it was done, we are all still in communion.
How it was done: i.e. with the consent of the Mother Church, a procedure not followed with most of the others.

As for that "administrative nightmare," three guesses who was the main contributor to the horror.
Is there a prize if I guess correctly on the first try? Wink
Orthodoxy Grin
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
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 9,949


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #5 on: January 07, 2014, 04:45:02 PM »

The Ecumenical Patriarchate thinks it should have the final say.  "First among equals" and all that.  That and the administrative nightmare outside of traditionally Orthodox areas.

Even though OCA's autocephaly is questioned, because of how it was done, we are all still in communion.
How it was done: i.e. with the consent of the Mother Church, a procedure not followed with most of the others.

As for that "administrative nightmare," three guesses who was the main contributor to the horror.
Is there a prize if I guess correctly on the first try? Wink
Orthodoxy Grin
Is that the prize, or the answer, or both? Cool
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Agabus
The user formerly known as Agabus.
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Pan-American Colloquial Convert Hybrid Orthodoxy.
Jurisdiction: We are all uncanonical now.
Posts: 1,955



« Reply #6 on: January 07, 2014, 05:36:33 PM »

I never understood why the autocephaly of the OCA has never been recognized by all other autocephaleous churches.

This line of thinking seems pretty clear: if the mother church recognizes the autocephaly of a daughter church, then the daughter church is autocephaleous.

So, wherein lies the problem?
Orthodoxy in the Americas was spread by more than one group, and declaring the OCA autocephalous would realign all the churches in the hemisphere under it rather than under their current -- and varied -- episcopal organizations. Since not everyone was operating under the assumption that the Metropolia should take over the operations of the American church(s), not everyone got on board with Russia’s/the Metropolia’s well-intentioned if badly planned initiative.
Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL ORTHODOX CHURCH
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,959


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #7 on: January 07, 2014, 05:45:54 PM »

I never understood why the autocephaly of the OCA has never been recognized by all other autocephaleous churches.

This line of thinking seems pretty clear: if the mother church recognizes the autocephaly of a daughter church, then the daughter church is autocephaleous.

So, wherein lies the problem?

The autocephaly of the OCA is pretty unprecedented to follow a well-trodden path. I don't think it is recognized by all the the autocephalous churches because they took exception to a unilateral grant of autocephaly, rather than something which comes about through universal consent.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,959


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #8 on: January 07, 2014, 05:48:08 PM »

Also the OCA's autocephaly is not even truly regarded as autocephaly like unto that of other churches by the Moscow Patriarchate because the MP still has parishes in America. Unless it is an autocephaly which does away with canonical territory--something becoming more and more fashionable.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
username!
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 4,748



« Reply #9 on: January 07, 2014, 08:09:32 PM »

The Ecumenical Patriarchate thinks it should have the final say.  "First among equals" and all that.  That and the administrative nightmare outside of traditionally Orthodox areas.

Even though OCA's autocephaly is questioned, because of how it was done, we are all still in communion.
The ep runs his churches a lot better than the oca. If you only knew what went on and goes on in the workings of the oca you wouldn't be putting the ep down.  Look at your own house before you judge someone else's.
Logged

Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,959


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #10 on: January 07, 2014, 08:19:02 PM »

The Ecumenical Patriarchate thinks it should have the final say.  "First among equals" and all that.  That and the administrative nightmare outside of traditionally Orthodox areas.

Even though OCA's autocephaly is questioned, because of how it was done, we are all still in communion.
The ep runs his churches a lot better than the oca. If you only knew what went on and goes on in the workings of the oca you wouldn't be putting the ep down.  Look at your own house before you judge someone else's.

Well, that argument is rather dependent on the present circumstances, not official expressions purporting to state Orthodox ecclesiology. We don't really need an ecumenical patriarchate or the OCA to be Orthodox. We need bishops, but we don't need the structures we presently have.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
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: 35,626



« Reply #11 on: January 07, 2014, 08:21:21 PM »

The Ecumenical Patriarchate thinks it should have the final say.  "First among equals" and all that.  That and the administrative nightmare outside of traditionally Orthodox areas.

Even though OCA's autocephaly is questioned, because of how it was done, we are all still in communion.
The ep runs his churches a lot better than the oca. If you only knew what went on and goes on in the workings of the oca you wouldn't be putting the ep down.  Look at your own house before you judge someone else's.
How many in the Phanar's control does he run?  A dozen?

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: 35,626



« Reply #12 on: January 07, 2014, 08:23:54 PM »

Also the OCA's autocephaly is not even truly regarded as autocephaly like unto that of other churches by the Moscow Patriarchate because the MP still has parishes in America. Unless it is an autocephaly which does away with canonical territory--something becoming more and more fashionable.
The MP retaining parishes is neither unique nor unprecedented.
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
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #13 on: January 07, 2014, 08:25:14 PM »

The ep runs his churches a lot better than the oca.



sure

The MP retaining parishes is neither unique nor unprecedented.

Actually it is. And it was a very bad move.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2014, 08:26:15 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,959


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #14 on: January 07, 2014, 08:25:46 PM »

Also the OCA's autocephaly is not even truly regarded as autocephaly like unto that of other churches by the Moscow Patriarchate because the MP still has parishes in America. Unless it is an autocephaly which does away with canonical territory--something becoming more and more fashionable.
The MP retaining parishes is neither unique nor unprecedented.

Based on what?
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,959


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #15 on: January 07, 2014, 08:27:47 PM »

The ep runs his churches a lot better than the oca.



sure

The MP retaining parishes is neither unique nor unprecedented.

Actually it is. And it was a very bad move.

The EP hasn't had that church since 1453. Are you referring to the enforcement of the Union of Florence before that, some argue, was the reason the church became a mosque in the first place?
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #16 on: January 07, 2014, 08:30:08 PM »

Are you referring to the enforcement of the Union of Florence before that, some argue, was the reason the church became a mosque in the first place?

I am referring that "and you are lynching Negroes" is a very bad argument. OCA's financial problems are not an excuse for EP's papal leanings.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
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: 35,626



« Reply #17 on: January 07, 2014, 08:36:48 PM »

Also the OCA's autocephaly is not even truly regarded as autocephaly like unto that of other churches by the Moscow Patriarchate because the MP still has parishes in America. Unless it is an autocephaly which does away with canonical territory--something becoming more and more fashionable.
The MP retaining parishes is neither unique nor unprecedented.

Based on what?
For one, the agreement between the Church of Greece and the EP in 1928 on the "New Lands."
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: 35,626



« Reply #18 on: January 07, 2014, 08:38:09 PM »

The MP retaining parishes is neither unique nor unprecedented.

Actually it is. And it was a very bad move.
It worked well enough.  A similar agreement could help unclog one big log jamb in the way of Ukraine's autocephaly.
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
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,959


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #19 on: January 07, 2014, 08:38:55 PM »

Are you referring to the enforcement of the Union of Florence before that, some argue, was the reason the church became a mosque in the first place?

I am referring that "and you are lynching Negroes" is a very bad argument. OCA's financial problems are not an excuse for EP's papal leanings.

Sorry, where did the Negro lynching come in? Is that like, "When did you stop beating your wife?" I'm confused.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,959


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #20 on: January 07, 2014, 08:39:29 PM »

Also the OCA's autocephaly is not even truly regarded as autocephaly like unto that of other churches by the Moscow Patriarchate because the MP still has parishes in America. Unless it is an autocephaly which does away with canonical territory--something becoming more and more fashionable.
The MP retaining parishes is neither unique nor unprecedented.

Based on what?
For one, the agreement between the Church of Greece and the EP in 1928 on the "New Lands."

So it's a modern thing.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Nephi
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Auntie Oak
Posts: 3,000



« Reply #21 on: January 07, 2014, 08:41:00 PM »

Are you referring to the enforcement of the Union of Florence before that, some argue, was the reason the church became a mosque in the first place?

I am referring that "and you are lynching Negroes" is a very bad argument. OCA's financial problems are not an excuse for EP's papal leanings.

Sorry, where did the Negro lynching come in? Is that like, "When did you stop beating your wife?" I'm confused.

I haven't heard that wife-beating phrase, but it sounds the same. Just "yeah, well [insert something the other person is doing to distract from the original issue]."
Logged

Liberalochian: Ecumenism Lite™
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #22 on: January 07, 2014, 08:45:14 PM »

Are you referring to the enforcement of the Union of Florence before that, some argue, was the reason the church became a mosque in the first place?

I am referring that "and you are lynching Negroes" is a very bad argument. OCA's financial problems are not an excuse for EP's papal leanings.

Sorry, where did the Negro lynching come in? Is that like, "When did you stop beating your wife?" I'm confused.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
TheTrisagion
Jack-of-all-Trades, Master of none
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,974



« Reply #23 on: January 07, 2014, 08:47:25 PM »

Can't we all just get along?  Kiss
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,959


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #24 on: January 07, 2014, 08:52:47 PM »

Are you referring to the enforcement of the Union of Florence before that, some argue, was the reason the church became a mosque in the first place?

I am referring that "and you are lynching Negroes" is a very bad argument. OCA's financial problems are not an excuse for EP's papal leanings.

Sorry, where did the Negro lynching come in? Is that like, "When did you stop beating your wife?" I'm confused.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynching_Negroes

Oh, that's genius! Thanks.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,959


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #25 on: January 07, 2014, 08:54:40 PM »

Can't we all just get along?  Kiss

"I'll get along when that guy over there stops being a jerk."

That said, to "get along" when there are things such as rights and precedence, requires, I think, getting rid of the rights and precedence in the first place as things which work contrary to the substance of our faith. If a Christian is supposed to take the last place, how can he insist on the first?
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,869



« Reply #26 on: January 07, 2014, 09:01:35 PM »

The Ecumenical Patriarchate thinks it should have the final say.  "First among equals" and all that.  That and the administrative nightmare outside of traditionally Orthodox areas.

Even though OCA's autocephaly is questioned, because of how it was done, we are all still in communion.
The ep runs his churches a lot better than the oca. If you only knew what went on and goes on in the workings of the oca you wouldn't be putting the ep down.  Look at your own house before you judge someone else's.
How many in the Phanar's control does he run?  A dozen?



I don't get it; this is a joke of some sort?

This is a picture of Metropolitan Spyridon, Formerly of Ephesos, who never accepted his election by the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the Senior See of Ephesos, having retired from active ministry upon his resignation as Archbishop of America, of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, July, 1999.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
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: 35,626



« Reply #27 on: January 07, 2014, 11:47:28 PM »

The Ecumenical Patriarchate thinks it should have the final say.  "First among equals" and all that.  That and the administrative nightmare outside of traditionally Orthodox areas.

Even though OCA's autocephaly is questioned, because of how it was done, we are all still in communion.
The ep runs his churches a lot better than the oca. If you only knew what went on and goes on in the workings of the oca you wouldn't be putting the ep down.  Look at your own house before you judge someone else's.
How many in the Phanar's control does he run?  A dozen?



I don't get it; this is a joke of some sort?

This is a picture of Metropolitan Spyridon, Formerly of Ephesos, who never accepted his election by the Holy and Sacred Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the Senior See of Ephesos, having retired from active ministry upon his resignation as Archbishop of America, of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, July, 1999.
He didn't retire, he was retired, and at the insistence of his flock.  He was sent after the Phanar retaliated after Ligonier, elbowed Abp. Iakovos of blessed memory out, and after the tour by the "troika" as someone at Holy Cross referred to them Met. Spyridon was sent.  A prime example of how the EP "runs his churches a lot better."
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
alexpetros
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 128


Go sábhála Dia Éire.


WWW
« Reply #28 on: January 07, 2014, 11:52:52 PM »

Yeah, after all this, my question still is left unanswered:

If the mother church declares her daughter church to be autocephaleous, then why is that not enough to make her autocephaleous?

If this question is too hard to answer:
If a parent says that a child is independent, why question the child's independence?
Logged
TheTrisagion
Jack-of-all-Trades, Master of none
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,974



« Reply #29 on: January 08, 2014, 12:01:31 AM »

Yeah, after all this, my question still is left unanswered:

If the mother church declares her daughter church to be autocephaleous, then why is that not enough to make her autocephaleous?

If this question is too hard to answer:
If a parent says that a child is independent, why question the child's independence?
Hang on, we haven't finished putting each other down.  Maybe we can answer your question after we have sufficiently denigrated all the bishops.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Nephi
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Auntie Oak
Posts: 3,000



« Reply #30 on: January 08, 2014, 12:20:58 AM »

Yeah, after all this, my question still is left unanswered:

If the mother church declares her daughter church to be autocephaleous, then why is that not enough to make her autocephaleous?

If this question is too hard to answer:
If a parent says that a child is independent, why question the child's independence?

Perhaps if the child is unfit for independence - say, a toddler?

But for your real question about autocephaly, IDK.
Logged

Liberalochian: Ecumenism Lite™
alexpetros
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 128


Go sábhála Dia Éire.


WWW
« Reply #31 on: January 08, 2014, 12:22:20 AM »

Yeah, after all this, my question still is left unanswered:

If the mother church declares her daughter church to be autocephaleous, then why is that not enough to make her autocephaleous?

If this question is too hard to answer:
If a parent says that a child is independent, why question the child's independence?
Hang on, we haven't finished putting each other down.  Maybe we can answer your question after we have sufficiently denigrated all the bishops.

Oh right, I forgot that that is how things are done.  Cool

Way to be a jerk about it Nephi. Seriously. Way to be a jerk about it.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 12:22:34 AM by alexpetros » Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,959


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #32 on: January 08, 2014, 12:26:25 AM »

Yeah, after all this, my question still is left unanswered:

If the mother church declares her daughter church to be autocephaleous, then why is that not enough to make her autocephaleous?

If this question is too hard to answer:
If a parent says that a child is independent, why question the child's independence?

Obviously, things are more complicated than that. Come on, this is Orthodoxy.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Nephi
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Auntie Oak
Posts: 3,000



« Reply #33 on: January 08, 2014, 12:27:52 AM »

Way to be a jerk about it Nephi. Seriously. Way to be a jerk about it.

What? I was joking about your child-parent question, not saying that OCA = toddler or anything like that. I added "But for your real question about autocephaly, IDK." to make that clear.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 12:28:01 AM by Nephi » Logged

Liberalochian: Ecumenism Lite™
alexpetros
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 128


Go sábhála Dia Éire.


WWW
« Reply #34 on: January 08, 2014, 12:42:15 AM »

Way to be a jerk about it Nephi. Seriously. Way to be a jerk about it.

What? I was joking about your child-parent question, not saying that OCA = toddler or anything like that. I added "But for your real question about autocephaly, IDK." to make that clear.

Dude, I am sorry. I get more edgy here at night I have noticed. I should go to bed.
Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Auntie Oak
Posts: 3,000



« Reply #35 on: January 08, 2014, 12:45:58 AM »

Way to be a jerk about it Nephi. Seriously. Way to be a jerk about it.

What? I was joking about your child-parent question, not saying that OCA = toddler or anything like that. I added "But for your real question about autocephaly, IDK." to make that clear.

Dude, I am sorry. I get more edgy here at night I have noticed. I should go to bed.

Not a problem. I should've made it a little more clear. Smiley
Logged

Liberalochian: Ecumenism Lite™
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: 35,626



« Reply #36 on: January 08, 2014, 02:37:23 AM »

Yeah, after all this, my question still is left unanswered:

If the mother church declares her daughter church to be autocephaleous, then why is that not enough to make her autocephaleous?

If this question is too hard to answer:
If a parent says that a child is independent, why question the child's independence?
Grandma is possessive.
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
username!
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 4,748



« Reply #37 on: January 08, 2014, 03:04:38 AM »

Wasn't the tomos signed by the patriarch on his death bed? 
Logged

Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #38 on: January 08, 2014, 07:22:53 AM »

Yeah, after all this, my question still is left unanswered:

If the mother church declares her daughter church to be autocephaleous, then why is that not enough to make her autocephaleous?

If this question is too hard to answer:
If a parent says that a child is independent, why question the child's independence?
Grandma is possessive.

Or it's not their child.
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: 2,869



« Reply #39 on: January 08, 2014, 09:31:34 AM »

Wasn't the tomos signed by the patriarch on his death bed?  

He had been ailing for years, I doubt if Patriarch Alexis I actually personally signed the Tomos of Autocephaly.  
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 09:41:37 AM by Basil 320 » 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: 2,869



« Reply #40 on: January 08, 2014, 10:06:23 AM »

Also the OCA's autocephaly is not even truly regarded as autocephaly like unto that of other churches by the Moscow Patriarchate because the MP still has parishes in America. Unless it is an autocephaly which does away with canonical territory--something becoming more and more fashionable.
The MP retaining parishes is neither unique nor unprecedented.

Based on what?
For one, the agreement between the Church of Greece and the EP in 1928 on the "New Lands."

The "New Lands" agreement between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Church of Greece is not analogous to the Russian Orthodox Church's maintenance of their "Patriarchal Representation" in the U.S. and Canada, but nice try.  

The Metropolis's of the "New Lands" are integrated into the administration of the Church of Greece, their Metropolitan-Bishops being members of the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece, while their elections are ratified (approved) by the Ecumenical Patriarchate---though if I'm not mistaken, they commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch liturgically.

The Russian Orthodox Church maintains 32 parishes in the U.S. and 25 parishes in Canada, a total of 57 parishes which have no administrative ties whatsoever with the Orthodox Church in America, thereby maintaining essentially parallel dioceses on the territory of "The Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America." Within the "Patriarchal Representation," the Patriarch of Moscow is commemorated, and it is administered in the U.S. by his auxiliary archbishop from his New York Cathedral, the cathedral the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Metropolia lost to the "Living Church" 9 decades ago.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 10:12:07 AM by Basil 320 » Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Antonious Nikolas
Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite, Anagnostis
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,278


Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra


WWW
« Reply #41 on: January 08, 2014, 10:59:21 AM »

Yeah, after all this, my question still is left unanswered:

If the mother church declares her daughter church to be autocephaleous, then why is that not enough to make her autocephaleous?

If this question is too hard to answer:
If a parent says that a child is independent, why question the child's independence?

For some reason, everyone is ignoring Agabus's reply, which seems to me to answer the question:

Orthodoxy in the Americas was spread by more than one group, and declaring the OCA autocephalous would realign all the churches in the hemisphere under it rather than under their current -- and varied -- episcopal organizations. Since not everyone was operating under the assumption that the Metropolia should take over the operations of the American church(s), not everyone got on board with Russia’s/the Metropolia’s well-intentioned if badly planned initiative.

Basically, if I understand him correctly, the multifarious EO jurisdictions operating in North America (or is it the Americas?) simply don't want to see their their churches absorbed into an autocephalous OCA, so - while not breaking communion - they've opted not to recognize it as the legitimate church of the realm.  Is this correct?
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 11:03:49 AM by Antonious Nikolas » Logged

“Nothing is better than to realize one’s weakness and ignorance and nothing is worse than not to be aware of them.” - St. Peter of Damascus
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #42 on: January 08, 2014, 11:46:37 AM »

The Russian Orthodox Church maintains 32 parishes in the U.S. and 25 parishes in Canada, a total of 57 parishes which have no administrative ties whatsoever with the Orthodox Church in America, thereby maintaining essentially parallel dioceses on the territory of "The Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America." Within the "Patriarchal Representation," the Patriarch of Moscow is commemorated, and it is administered in the U.S. by his auxiliary archbishop from his New York Cathedral, the cathedral the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Metropolia lost to the "Living Church" 9 decades ago.

I thought they commemorate OCA metropolitan.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,094



« Reply #43 on: January 08, 2014, 11:52:41 AM »

When the Tomos was being developed, there were a number of parishes which refused to enter into the OCA.  So, the Tomos specified that these parishes would remain under Moscow in a separate jurisdiction that would not be a metropolitanate.  Interestingly enough, a large number of them are actually ethnic Bulgarian parishes.

The Russian Orthodox Church maintains 32 parishes in the U.S. and 25 parishes in Canada, a total of 57 parishes which have no administrative ties whatsoever with the Orthodox Church in America, thereby maintaining essentially parallel dioceses on the territory of "The Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America." Within the "Patriarchal Representation," the Patriarch of Moscow is commemorated, and it is administered in the U.S. by his auxiliary archbishop from his New York Cathedral, the cathedral the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Metropolia lost to the "Living Church" 9 decades ago.

I thought they commemorate OCA metropolitan.
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
Antonious Nikolas
Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite, Anagnostis
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,278


Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra


WWW
« Reply #44 on: January 08, 2014, 11:57:09 AM »

Interestingly enough, a large number of them are actually ethnic Bulgarian parishes.


What was their reason for not wanting to enter into the OCA?
Logged

“Nothing is better than to realize one’s weakness and ignorance and nothing is worse than not to be aware of them.” - St. Peter of Damascus
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,869



« Reply #45 on: January 08, 2014, 12:13:16 PM »

Yeah, after all this, my question still is left unanswered:

If the mother church declares her daughter church to be autocephaleous, then why is that not enough to make her autocephaleous?

If this question is too hard to answer:
If a parent says that a child is independent, why question the child's independence?

Can a sister introduce another sister into a family without the consent of the family?

There is a substantive canonical argument in favor of the Church of Russia's authority over America due to its unchallenged presence on the American territory prior to the proliferation of multiple eparchies of Orthodox jurisdictions of the Holy Orthodox Churches.  However, 50 some years later, it was a fact that there were canonical Orthodox dioceses functioning on this territory. The answer to this canonically anomalous organization of the church was not for one of those jurisdictions to be unilaterally declared "The Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America." A pan-Orthodox problem necessitates a pan-Orthodox conciliar solution.

When the "autocephaly" of the OCA's predecessor, the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Metropolia was being negotiated in secret between the Metropolia and the Patriarchate of Moscow, the Metropolia was under "anathema" of the later. Officially, these parties had no relationship; the Metropolia having been in a state of excommunication. At this time, and during the previous 46 years of the "excommunication" of the Metropolia by the Church of Russia, the Ecumenical Patriarchate's eparchy in the Western Hemisphere, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, graciously and lovingly maintained Communion with the Metropolia, the largest of 3 Russian jurisdictions in North America, considering the Russian Church's "anathema" an unfounded act attributable to the Communist Party's control of the Russian Church. In fact, it was imposed because the Metropolia rightly refused to sign "Loyalty Oaths," which would bar their clergy and lay faithful from criticizing the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Other Orthodox jurisdictions likewise maintained communion with the Metropolia during this time, a time when the Russian Church's Archdiocese always objected to the presence of Metropolia clergy at pan-Orthodox gatherings, while, of course, likewise objecting to the presence of clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

Further, in the 1960's, the leading clergy of the Metropolia were actively involved in the Study and Planning Commission of the Standing Conference of Orthodox Bishops in the Americas (SCOBA).  Fathers John Meyendorff and Alexander Schememann were close collaborators of the Chancellor of the GOANSA, Fr. George Bacopolous and of the Chairman of SCOBA, Archbishop Iakovos of America, along with Fr. Paul Shernilla (I apologize for spelling his name wrong) of the Syrian Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese. These leaders of SCOBA were actively working toward seeking support from the Pre-Conciliar Commission for the preparation of the Holy and Great Synod (Council) of the Orthodox Church, to deem SCOBA a "Provisional Synod" of the Orthodox Churches in the Western Hemisphere, to work on a plan for development of an administratively unified church. In 1968, Frs. Bacopolous and Schernilla spoke to the Pre-Conciliar Commission, but were rebuked, the Commission indicating their agenda was full, but actually, the Church of Russia collaborated with the Ecumenical Patriarchate to preclude the topic, due to its "anathema" on the Metropolia and its known active involvement within SCOBA. Despite the rebuke, it was felt by many that this process would ultimately succeed.

Notice, this was a pan-Orthodox process, working to address a pan-Orthodox problem.

Note too, the Metropolia's close collaborators within SCOBA, were the same clerics who were secretly negotiating with the Church of Russia. In fairness to this issue, nearly 20 years ago, the OCA's former primate, Metropolitan Theodosios, claimed that the Metropolia's clergy were informing Archbishop Iakovos of the progress of their secret negotiations, however, to my knowledge, this allegation remains uncorroborated. Metropolitan Theodosios's information came from his time as a deacon working in the Metropolia's Chancery. I would note too, Metropolitan Theodosios' 27 year primatial tenure was largely discredited by the SIC (Special Investigation Committee) Report of September, 2008.

Finally, in the Fall of 1969, the Chancellor of the Metropolia, Fr. Joseph Pishtey (sp), released a statement that the Metropolia was engaged in discussions with the Patriarchate of Moscow to reconcile the absence of Communion between the two parties, and that the Church of Russia was preparing to grant autocephaly to the Metropolia. The Russian Church's Tomos of Autocephaly was issued the following Spring.

While the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Church of Russia will assert canons and precident in support of their respective positions, it was the failure to observe the traditional practice of a conciliar, pan-Orthodox process, to demonstrate respect and good manners, that is the cause, as much as anything, that resulted in a stagnation of work toward a resolution of the anomalous organization of the church in North America, a stagnation that lasted 20 years, until Metropolitan Theodosios began attending SCOBA meetings.

I won't elaborate about the administrative weakness's of the "The Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America" at this point, but will bring to mind ROCOR's infamous statement of non-recognition of the OCA's autocephaly, "...the Greek [Orthodox] Archdiocese is larger and better organized."

A decade after its autocephaly, the OCA began a large decline in membership.  The GOAA has progressed and grown numerically and in terms of financial strength.  The GOAA's national mailing list has grown by 40 thousand over the last decade, to 165,000 from 125,000 in 1998, while the OCA's national mailing list continues to decline; it was at 33,000 in 2008.  The GOAA's National Ministries budget exceeds $26 million, while the OCA's national budget is a paltry $2 million.

Would anyone think the GOAA could possibly say, "Hey, let's join in with this group."

This is not to diminish the excellence of the OCA's seminaries, the holiness of its priests and parishes, the devotion of its faithful, the fact that it has given us our Saints of North America.

Thus, the Ecumenical Patriarchate accepts the OCA as a canonical "self-governed" church, but cannot accept it as a sister among the Holy Orthodox Churches.

« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 12:38:19 PM by Basil 320 » Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,094



« Reply #46 on: January 08, 2014, 12:15:27 PM »

I've heard a number of stories, so I'm not sure which one to believe.

The underlying problem was that when the Metropolia was under threat from the 'Living Church,' they signed over all the properties to the local communities.  That meant there was no way to force parishes under any system other than pulling the priest.  Due to the tensions with ROCOR at the time, some parishes opted to 'flip-flop' back and forth between the two jurisdictions.  I visited one parish that had made the 'switch' five or six times.

The Tomos' arrangement was meant to preserve stability and keep parishes from going over to ROCOR.  Of course, now that ROCOR is in communion, this arrangement is no longer necessary, but old habits die hard.


Interestingly enough, a large number of them are actually ethnic Bulgarian parishes.


What was their reason for not wanting to enter into the OCA?
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
Agabus
The user formerly known as Agabus.
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Pan-American Colloquial Convert Hybrid Orthodoxy.
Jurisdiction: We are all uncanonical now.
Posts: 1,955



« Reply #47 on: January 08, 2014, 12:19:33 PM »

Interestingly enough, a large number of them are actually ethnic Bulgarian parishes.


What was their reason for not wanting to enter into the OCA?
Prescience?
Logged

Blessed Nazarius practiced the ascetic life. His clothes were tattered. He wore his shoes without removing them for six years.

THE OPINIONS HERE MAY NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL ORTHODOX CHURCH
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #48 on: January 08, 2014, 12:23:55 PM »

What was their reason for not wanting to enter into the OCA?

Others do not want to join OCA because they fear they will be Russianised... Oh, wait.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
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: 35,626



« Reply #49 on: January 08, 2014, 12:34:01 PM »

Also the OCA's autocephaly is not even truly regarded as autocephaly like unto that of other churches by the Moscow Patriarchate because the MP still has parishes in America. Unless it is an autocephaly which does away with canonical territory--something becoming more and more fashionable.
The MP retaining parishes is neither unique nor unprecedented.

Based on what?
For one, the agreement between the Church of Greece and the EP in 1928 on the "New Lands."

The "New Lands" agreement between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Church of Greece is not analogous to the Russian Orthodox Church's maintenance of their "Patriarchal Representation" in the U.S. and Canada, but nice try.  

The Metropolis's of the "New Lands" are integrated into the administration of the Church of Greece, their Metropolitan-Bishops being members of the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece, while their elections are ratified (approved) by the Ecumenical Patriarchate---though if I'm not mistaken, they commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch liturgically.
IOW you have many dioceses in one Church, sitting in its Holy Synod, approved by the primate of another Church, whom they commemorate. Said dioceses being in one Church on the territory of another Church.

Yeah, real different. Roll Eyes

The Russian Orthodox Church maintains 32 parishes in the U.S. and 25 parishes in Canada, a total of 57 parishes which have no administrative ties whatsoever with the Orthodox Church in America, thereby maintaining essentially parallel dioceses on the territory of "The Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America." Within the "Patriarchal Representation," the Patriarch of Moscow is commemorated, and it is administered in the U.S. by his auxiliary archbishop from his New York Cathedral, the cathedral the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Metropolia lost to the "Living Church" 9 decades ago.
You left out that they commemorate the Metropolitan of the OCA as well.

Technically, the auxiliary archbishop has no New York Cathedral (which is a metochion), which "shall be governed by the Most Holy Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia through a person representing him in the rank of Presbyter."  He must "not hav[e] a title of the local American Church," the present Archbishop's see being a suburb of Moscow IIRC (the sees have changed over time, which underlays the disconnect from the NYC Cathedral).

And the OCA lost the Cathedral 60 years ago: the New York courts took it from the "Living Church" and turned it over to them. SCOTUS reversed almost 30 years later.

The Patriarch of Moscow has never struck the Metropolitan of the OCA from the diptychs over the Tomos.  The same cannot be said about the EP and the Archbishop of Athens.

Have you seen the Tomos that the Phanar issued to the Church of Greece, finally, in 1850?

Btw, when I was in Crete (many, many moons ago), I was made aware of a minority of CoG parishes there.  I didn't get the whole story.

Btw, this is not unique: there are such situations in the Czech Lands and Slovakia, Serbia and Romania.
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
Antonious Nikolas
Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite, Anagnostis
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,278


Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra


WWW
« Reply #50 on: January 08, 2014, 12:35:14 PM »


Can a sister introduce another sister into a family without the consent of the family?...



Thank you for this thoughtful, thorough reply.  It really does explain quite a bit.

I've heard a number of stories, so I'm not sure which one to believe.

The underlying problem was that when the Metropolia was under threat from the 'Living Church,' they signed over all the properties to the local communities.  That meant there was no way to force parishes under any system other than pulling the priest.  Due to the tensions with ROCOR at the time, some parishes opted to 'flip-flop' back and forth between the two jurisdictions.  I visited one parish that had made the 'switch' five or six times.

The Tomos' arrangement was meant to preserve stability and keep parishes from going over to ROCOR.  Of course, now that ROCOR is in communion, this arrangement is no longer necessary, but old habits die hard.



Interesting.  Thanks.

Prescience?

 Cheesy
Logged

“Nothing is better than to realize one’s weakness and ignorance and nothing is worse than not to be aware of them.” - St. Peter of Damascus
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: 35,626



« Reply #51 on: January 08, 2014, 01:11:48 PM »

Yeah, after all this, my question still is left unanswered:

If the mother church declares her daughter church to be autocephaleous, then why is that not enough to make her autocephaleous?

If this question is too hard to answer:
If a parent says that a child is independent, why question the child's independence?

Can a sister introduce another sister into a family without the consent of the family?
Mom introduces a daughter into a family no matter what grandma says.
There is a substantive canonical argument in favor of the Church of Russia's authority over America due to its unchallenged presence on the American territory prior to the proliferation of multiple eparchies of Orthodox jurisdictions of the Holy Orthodox Churches.  However, 50 some years later, it was a fact that there were canonical Orthodox dioceses functioning on this territory. The answer to this canonically anomalous organization of the church was not for one of those jurisdictions to be unilaterally declared "The Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America." A pan-Orthodox problem necessitates a pan-Orthodox conciliar solution.
We have a pan-Orthodox conciliar solution: Canon 8 of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus.  By it, there was only one canonical Orthodox diocese functioning on this territory (no, it wasn't the Metropolia, but Moscow's Exarchate of North and South America was yielded to the OCA. Much like what happened in 1850 between the EP and Greece).

When the "autocephaly" of the OCA's predecessor, the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Metropolia was being negotiated in secret between the Metropolia and the Patriarchate of Moscow, the Metropolia was under "anathema" of the later. Officially, these parties had no relationship; the Metropolia having been in a state of excommunication. At this time, and during the previous 46 years of the "excommunication" of the Metropolia by the Church of Russia, the Ecumenical Patriarchate's eparchy in the Western Hemisphere, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, graciously and lovingly maintained Communion with the Metropolia, the largest of 3 Russian jurisdictions in North America, considering the Russian Church's "anathema" an unfounded act attributable to the Communist Party's control of the Russian Church. In fact, it was imposed because the Metropolia rightly refused to sign "Loyalty Oaths," which would bar their clergy and lay faithful from criticizing the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Other Orthodox jurisdictions likewise maintained communion with the Metropolia during this time, a time when the Russian Church's Archdiocese always objected to the presence of Metropolia clergy at pan-Orthodox gatherings, while, of course, likewise objecting to the presence of clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.
Greeks in America have recalled being told they were not in communion with the Metropolia, and I seem to remember seeing GOANSA Yearbooks from the early '60s (or was it the '50s?) saying the same.

Again, not very different from the situation between the Church of Greece and the Phanar 1833-1850 (which would have continued, were it not for Russia stepping in).

Further, in the 1960's, the leading clergy of the Metropolia were actively involved in the Study and Planning Commission of the Standing Conference of Orthodox Bishops in the Americas (SCOBA).  Fathers John Meyendorff and Alexander Schememann were close collaborators of the Chancellor of the GOANSA, Fr. George Bacopolous and of the Chairman of SCOBA, Archbishop Iakovos of America, along with Fr. Paul Shernilla (I apologize for spelling his name wrong) of the Syrian Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese.

Schneirla, IIRC.  He was, btw, the long time Vicar of the WRO.

These leaders of SCOBA were actively working toward seeking support from the Pre-Conciliar Commission for the preparation of the Holy and Great Synod (Council) of the Orthodox Church, to deem SCOBA a "Provisional Synod" of the Orthodox Churches in the Western Hemisphere, to work on a plan for development of an administratively unified church. In 1968, Frs. Bacopolous and Schernilla spoke to the Pre-Conciliar Commission, but were rebuked, the Commission indicating their agenda was full, but actually, the Church of Russia collaborated with the Ecumenical Patriarchate to preclude the topic, due to its "anathema" on the Metropolia and its known active involvement within SCOBA. Despite the rebuke, it was felt by many that this process would ultimately succeed.

Notice, this was a pan-Orthodox process, working to address a pan-Orthodox problem.

Note too, the Metropolia's close collaborators within SCOBA, were the same clerics who were secretly negotiating with the Church of Russia. In fairness to this issue, nearly 20 years ago, the OCA's former primate, Metropolitan Theodosios, claimed that the Metropolia's clergy were informing Archbishop Iakovos of the progress of their secret negotiations, however, to my knowledge, this allegation remains uncorroborated. Metropolitan Theodosios's information came from his time as a deacon working in the Metropolia's Chancery. I would note too, Metropolitan Theodosios' 27 year primatial tenure was largely discredited by the SIC (Special Investigation Committee) Report of September, 2008.

Finally, in the Fall of 1969, the Chancellor of the Metropolia, Fr. Joseph Pishtey (sp), released a statement that the Metropolia was engaged in discussions with the Patriarchate of Moscow to reconcile the absence of Communion between the two parties, and that the Church of Russia was preparing to grant autocephaly to the Metropolia. The Russian Church's Tomos of Autocephaly was issued the following Spring.

While the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Church of Russia will assert canons and precident in support of their respective positions, it was the failure to observe the traditional practice of a conciliar, pan-Orthodox process, to demonstrate respect and good manners, that is the cause, as much as anything, that resulted in a stagnation of work toward a resolution of the anomalous organization of the church in North America, a stagnation that lasted 20 years, until Metropolitan Theodosios began attending SCOBA meetings.
Btw, you left out where the Metropolia approached the Phanar somewhat like A.C.R.O.D. had, and was told to approach its Mother Church Russia.

I won't elaborate about the administrative weakness's of the "The Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America" at this point, but will bring to mind ROCOR's infamous statement of non-recognition of the OCA's autocephaly, "...the Greek [Orthodox] Archdiocese is larger and better organized."
So is the Patriarchate of Moscow compared to the Phanar.

The GOANSA cant' be so well organized, seeing as it has been reorganized a number of times.

A decade after its autocephaly, the OCA began a large decline in membership.  The GOAA has progressed and grown numerically and in terms of financial strength.  The GOAA's national mailing list has grown by 40 thousand over the last decade, to 165,000 from 125,000 in 1998, while the OCA's national mailing list continues to decline; it was at 33,000 in 2008.  The GOAA's National Ministries budget exceeds $26 million, while the OCA's national budget is a paltry $2 million.
"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."  A number of the Archons are hell bent on proving that.

I understand that GOAA funding of the ACOBNCA has been declining ever since it didn't rubber stamp the canon 28 myth like it was supposed to (by the Phanar and his "Archons," not Abp. Demetrios (Many Years!)

Would anyone think the GOAA could possibly say, "Hey, let's join in with this group."

"and leave that foreign head with a noose around his neck, with the other end in the hand of the Muslims...and stop letting that well run Greece dictate to us."

This is not to diminish the excellence of the OCA's seminaries, the holiness of its parishes, the fact that it has given us our Saints of North America.

Thus, the Ecumenical Patriarchate accepts the OCA as a canonical "self-governed" church, but cannot accept it as a sister among the Holy Orthodox Churches.
It is not up to it, in particular as it is questionable how "self-governed" it has been in its history since 381.  It is certainly not self governing now.

It started its autocephaly by driving a actual saint from its throne, shortly thereafter letting another primate exile another saint from its throne to his death, and then had another primate cause an upheaval by his heresy, which he supported the Emperor in calling an Ecumenical Council to confirm.  And that was just in Constantinople's first 50 years.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 01:30:05 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
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,183



« Reply #52 on: January 08, 2014, 01:15:29 PM »

Yeah, after all this, my question still is left unanswered:

If the mother church declares her daughter church to be autocephaleous, then why is that not enough to make her autocephaleous?

If this question is too hard to answer:
If a parent says that a child is independent, why question the child's independence?

Can a sister introduce another sister into a family without the consent of the family?
.....
Thus, the Ecumenical Patriarchate accepts the OCA as a canonical "self-governed" church, but cannot accept it as a sister among the Holy Orthodox Churches.

The problem here is the claim that only Constantinople can grant or recognize autocephaly, not only to her daughter churches, but to the daughter churches of any other local church. I can see the duty of coordinating such recognition, but I am at a loss to find any canonical reason for the asserted right to grant autocephaly. Yes, I am acutely aware of the Canon 28 angle in this.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
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: 35,626



« Reply #53 on: January 08, 2014, 01:31:59 PM »

I've heard a number of stories, so I'm not sure which one to believe.

The underlying problem was that when the Metropolia was under threat from the 'Living Church,' they signed over all the properties to the local communities.  That meant there was no way to force parishes under any system other than pulling the priest.  Due to the tensions with ROCOR at the time, some parishes opted to 'flip-flop' back and forth between the two jurisdictions.  I visited one parish that had made the 'switch' five or six times.

The Tomos' arrangement was meant to preserve stability and keep parishes from going over to ROCOR.  Of course, now that ROCOR is in communion, this arrangement is no longer necessary, but old habits die hard.


Interestingly enough, a large number of them are actually ethnic Bulgarian parishes.


What was their reason for not wanting to enter into the OCA?
Btw, somewhere here we have a thread over the parishes named in the Tomos, a sort of "where are they now."
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
username!
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 4,748



« Reply #54 on: January 08, 2014, 01:43:57 PM »

Wasn't the tomos signed by the patriarch on his death bed?  

He had been ailing for years, I doubt if Patriarch Alexis I actually personally signed the Tomos of Autocephaly.  
The whole tomos was done in.thr wrong circumstances.  Of Pat. ALEXIS didn't sign it, it makes the tomos even more null.
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: 35,626



« Reply #55 on: January 08, 2014, 02:19:49 PM »

Wasn't the tomos signed by the patriarch on his death bed?  

He had been ailing for years, I doubt if Patriarch Alexis I actually personally signed the Tomos of Autocephaly.  
The whole tomos was done in.thr wrong circumstances.  Of Pat. ALEXIS didn't sign it, it makes the tomos even more null.
Sorry to dash your hopes, but HH, HH's successor, and HH's successor's successor with the rest of the Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate and All Russia signed it:
Quote
Signed in the city of Moscow, April 10, 1970.

ALEXIS, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia
Members of the Holy Synod:

Metropolitan of Krutitsy and Kolomna, PIMEN
Metropolitan of Leningrad and Novgorod, NIKODIM
Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia, Exarch of the Ukraine, PHILARET
Metropolitan of Orel and Briansk, PALLADY
Metropolitan of Alma-Ata and Khazakstan, IOSIF
Metropolitan of Yaroslavl and Rostov, IOANN
Archbishop of Irkutsk and Tchita, VENIAMIN
Archbishop of Ufa and Sterlitamak, IOV
Archbishop of New York and the Aleutians, Exarch of North and South America, IONAFAN
Bishop of Kishinev and Moldavia, VARFOLOMEY
Bishop of Tula and Belev, IUVENALY
Bishop of Chernigov and Nezhinsk, VLADIMIR
Bishop of Smolensk and Viazmia, GEDEON
Chancellor of the Moscow Patriarchate, Metropolitan of Tallin and Estonia, ALEXEI
http://oca.org/history-archives/tomos-of-autocephaly
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: 2,869



« Reply #56 on: January 08, 2014, 03:48:58 PM »

Wasn't the tomos signed by the patriarch on his death bed?  

He had been ailing for years, I doubt if Patriarch Alexis I actually personally signed the Tomos of Autocephaly.  
The whole tomos was done in.thr wrong circumstances.  Of Pat. ALEXIS didn't sign it, it makes the tomos even more null.

I am sorry to have mislead.  I was thinking of the circumstances of Patriarch Pimen's health in his last years. My Reply No. 39 is in error.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 128


Go sábhála Dia Éire.


WWW
« Reply #57 on: January 08, 2014, 06:18:03 PM »

The problem here is the claim that only Constantinople can grant or recognize autocephaly, not only to her daughter churches, but to the daughter churches of any other local church. I can see the duty of coordinating such recognition, but I am at a loss to find any canonical reason for the asserted right to grant autocephaly. Yes, I am acutely aware of the Canon 28 angle in this.
Emphasis mine.

This right here is my question.
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: 35,626



« Reply #58 on: January 08, 2014, 06:22:53 PM »

Wasn't the tomos signed by the patriarch on his death bed?  

He had been ailing for years, I doubt if Patriarch Alexis I actually personally signed the Tomos of Autocephaly.  
The whole tomos was done in.thr wrong circumstances.  Of Pat. ALEXIS didn't sign it, it makes the tomos even more null.

I am sorry to have mislead.  I was thinking of the circumstances of Patriarch Pimen's health in his last years. My Reply No. 39 is in error.
No, you were close enough.  Pat. Alexis did repose a week after the Tomos was signed, and it was given to the OCA by Pat. Pimen when he was still locum tenens for the vacated throne of Moscow.
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: 2,869



« Reply #59 on: January 08, 2014, 08:35:15 PM »

Yeah, after all this, my question still is left unanswered:

If the mother church declares her daughter church to be autocephaleous, then why is that not enough to make her autocephaleous?

If this question is too hard to answer:
If a parent says that a child is independent, why question the child's independence?

Can a sister introduce another sister into a family without the consent of the family?
Mom introduces a daughter into a family no matter what grandma says.
There is a substantive canonical argument in favor of the Church of Russia's authority over America due to its unchallenged presence on the American territory prior to the proliferation of multiple eparchies of Orthodox jurisdictions of the Holy Orthodox Churches.  However, 50 some years later, it was a fact that there were canonical Orthodox dioceses functioning on this territory. The answer to this canonically anomalous organization of the church was not for one of those jurisdictions to be unilaterally declared "The Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America." A pan-Orthodox problem necessitates a pan-Orthodox conciliar solution.
We have a pan-Orthodox conciliar solution: Canon 8 of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus.  By it, there was only one canonical Orthodox diocese functioning on this territory (no, it wasn't the Metropolia, but Moscow's Exarchate of North and South America was yielded to the OCA. Much like what happened in 1850 between the EP and Greece).

When the "autocephaly" of the OCA's predecessor, the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Metropolia was being negotiated in secret between the Metropolia and the Patriarchate of Moscow, the Metropolia was under "anathema" of the later. Officially, these parties had no relationship; the Metropolia having been in a state of excommunication. At this time, and during the previous 46 years of the "excommunication" of the Metropolia by the Church of Russia, the Ecumenical Patriarchate's eparchy in the Western Hemisphere, the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, graciously and lovingly maintained Communion with the Metropolia, the largest of 3 Russian jurisdictions in North America, considering the Russian Church's "anathema" an unfounded act attributable to the Communist Party's control of the Russian Church. In fact, it was imposed because the Metropolia rightly refused to sign "Loyalty Oaths," which would bar their clergy and lay faithful from criticizing the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Other Orthodox jurisdictions likewise maintained communion with the Metropolia during this time, a time when the Russian Church's Archdiocese always objected to the presence of Metropolia clergy at pan-Orthodox gatherings, while, of course, likewise objecting to the presence of clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.
Greeks in America have recalled being told they were not in communion with the Metropolia, and I seem to remember seeing GOANSA Yearbooks from the early '60s (or was it the '50s?) saying the same.

Again, not very different from the situation between the Church of Greece and the Phanar 1833-1850 (which would have continued, were it not for Russia stepping in).

Further, in the 1960's, the leading clergy of the Metropolia were actively involved in the Study and Planning Commission of the Standing Conference of Orthodox Bishops in the Americas (SCOBA).  Fathers John Meyendorff and Alexander Schememann were close collaborators of the Chancellor of the GOANSA, Fr. George Bacopolous and of the Chairman of SCOBA, Archbishop Iakovos of America, along with Fr. Paul Shernilla (I apologize for spelling his name wrong) of the Syrian Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese.

Schneirla, IIRC.  He was, btw, the long time Vicar of the WRO.

These leaders of SCOBA were actively working toward seeking support from the Pre-Conciliar Commission for the preparation of the Holy and Great Synod (Council) of the Orthodox Church, to deem SCOBA a "Provisional Synod" of the Orthodox Churches in the Western Hemisphere, to work on a plan for development of an administratively unified church. In 1968, Frs. Bacopolous and Schernilla spoke to the Pre-Conciliar Commission, but were rebuked, the Commission indicating their agenda was full, but actually, the Church of Russia collaborated with the Ecumenical Patriarchate to preclude the topic, due to its "anathema" on the Metropolia and its known active involvement within SCOBA. Despite the rebuke, it was felt by many that this process would ultimately succeed.

Notice, this was a pan-Orthodox process, working to address a pan-Orthodox problem.

Note too, the Metropolia's close collaborators within SCOBA, were the same clerics who were secretly negotiating with the Church of Russia. In fairness to this issue, nearly 20 years ago, the OCA's former primate, Metropolitan Theodosios, claimed that the Metropolia's clergy were informing Archbishop Iakovos of the progress of their secret negotiations, however, to my knowledge, this allegation remains uncorroborated. Metropolitan Theodosios's information came from his time as a deacon working in the Metropolia's Chancery. I would note too, Metropolitan Theodosios' 27 year primatial tenure was largely discredited by the SIC (Special Investigation Committee) Report of September, 2008.

Finally, in the Fall of 1969, the Chancellor of the Metropolia, Fr. Joseph Pishtey (sp), released a statement that the Metropolia was engaged in discussions with the Patriarchate of Moscow to reconcile the absence of Communion between the two parties, and that the Church of Russia was preparing to grant autocephaly to the Metropolia. The Russian Church's Tomos of Autocephaly was issued the following Spring.

While the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Church of Russia will assert canons and precident in support of their respective positions, it was the failure to observe the traditional practice of a conciliar, pan-Orthodox process, to demonstrate respect and good manners, that is the cause, as much as anything, that resulted in a stagnation of work toward a resolution of the anomalous organization of the church in North America, a stagnation that lasted 20 years, until Metropolitan Theodosios began attending SCOBA meetings.
Btw, you left out where the Metropolia approached the Phanar somewhat like A.C.R.O.D. had, and was told to approach its Mother Church Russia.

I won't elaborate about the administrative weakness's of the "The Autocephalous Orthodox Church in America" at this point, but will bring to mind ROCOR's infamous statement of non-recognition of the OCA's autocephaly, "...the Greek [Orthodox] Archdiocese is larger and better organized."
So is the Patriarchate of Moscow compared to the Phanar.

The GOANSA cant' be so well organized, seeing as it has been reorganized a number of times.

A decade after its autocephaly, the OCA began a large decline in membership.  The GOAA has progressed and grown numerically and in terms of financial strength.  The GOAA's national mailing list has grown by 40 thousand over the last decade, to 165,000 from 125,000 in 1998, while the OCA's national mailing list continues to decline; it was at 33,000 in 2008.  The GOAA's National Ministries budget exceeds $26 million, while the OCA's national budget is a paltry $2 million.
"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."  A number of the Archons are hell bent on proving that.

I understand that GOAA funding of the ACOBNCA has been declining ever since it didn't rubber stamp the canon 28 myth like it was supposed to (by the Phanar and his "Archons," not Abp. Demetrios (Many Years!)

Would anyone think the GOAA could possibly say, "Hey, let's join in with this group."

"and leave that foreign head with a noose around his neck, with the other end in the hand of the Muslims...and stop letting that well run Greece dictate to us."

This is not to diminish the excellence of the OCA's seminaries, the holiness of its parishes, the fact that it has given us our Saints of North America.

Thus, the Ecumenical Patriarchate accepts the OCA as a canonical "self-governed" church, but cannot accept it as a sister among the Holy Orthodox Churches.
It is not up to it, in particular as it is questionable how "self-governed" it has been in its history since 381.  It is certainly not self governing now.

It started its autocephaly by driving a actual saint from its throne, shortly thereafter letting another primate exile another saint from its throne to his death, and then had another primate cause an upheaval by his heresy, which he supported the Emperor in calling an Ecumenical Council to confirm.  And that was just in Constantinople's first 50 years.

Say what you want, the autocephaly of the OCA is not recognized by the communion of the Holy Orthodox Churches. Only the Churches of Georgia, Poland and Czechoslovakia announced recognition of the OCA's "autocephaly" at the time the Patriarchate of Moscow unilaterally issued the Tomos of Autocephaly; the Polish and Czech churches having been Warsaw Pact member states, tightly within the Soviet orbit; Georgia was actually a republic within the U.S.S.R.  The Church of Serbia, which was also under the control of Communists, "fellow travelers" with the Soviets, issued a "wait and see" commentary.

Only you and a significantly declining number of OCA autocephalist fanatics continue to argue in support of the OCA's autocephaly. Most of the OCA leadership and clergy now decline from such debates. "Monomakhos" recently posted an article that the Church of Russia remains publically supportive of the OCA's autocephaly, only to keep a thorn in the side of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. At the celebration of the 1,025th Anniversary of the Baptism of St. Vladimir this past July, at which the heads or representatives of nearly all the Holy Orthodox Churches were in Moscow at the invitation of the Patriarch of Moscow, during the pan-Orthodox celebration of the Hierarchal Divine Liturgy, at which the OCA's  Metropolitan Tikhon of Washington was a concelebrant, his name was not recited in the Diptychs; right within the Patriarchal Cathedral of the very church which authored and issued the notorious Tomos of Autocephaly, the OCA's primate was not mentioned in the Diptychs!

Do any of the newly enthroned Heads of the Holy Orthodox Churches visit Oyster Bay Cove (Syosset) as part of their traditional initial irenic visits to each of the Holy Orthodox Churches?  Not too many, if any, have included the OCA in their traditional irenic visits. Patriarch Kirill didn't even include the OCA in this traditional sign of unity among the Holy Orthodox Churches. And I will bet, if any of the Heads of the Holy Orthodox Churches happen to visit America, they would stop off and pay their respects at 10 East 79th Street, before they get over to Oyster Bay Cove.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 08:40:47 PM by Basil 320 » Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #60 on: January 08, 2014, 08:39:12 PM »

At the celebration of the 1,025th Anniversary of the Baptism of St. Vladimir this past July, at which the heads or representatives of nearly all the Holy Orthodox Churches were in Moscow at the invitation of the Patriarch of Moscow, during the pan-Orthodox celebration of the Hierarchal Divine Liturgy, at which the OCA's  Metropolitan Tikhon of Washington was a concelebrant, his name was not recited in the Diptychs; right within the Patriarchal Cathedral of the very church which authored and issued the notorious Tomos of Autocephaly, the OCA's primate was not mentioned in the Diptychs!

Video proof?

Metr. Tikhon was seated on the main place during the service among other primates.

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: 2,869



« Reply #61 on: January 08, 2014, 08:41:57 PM »

He wasn't commemorated in the Diptychs.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #62 on: January 08, 2014, 08:43:21 PM »

He wasn't commemorated in the Diptychs.

Were you there? If not, prove it.
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: 2,869



« Reply #63 on: January 08, 2014, 08:55:03 PM »

At the celebration of the 1,025th Anniversary of the Baptism of St. Vladimir this past July, at which the heads or representatives of nearly all the Holy Orthodox Churches were in Moscow at the invitation of the Patriarch of Moscow, during the pan-Orthodox celebration of the Hierarchal Divine Liturgy, at which the OCA's  Metropolitan Tikhon of Washington was a concelebrant, his name was not recited in the Diptychs; right within the Patriarchal Cathedral of the very church which authored and issued the notorious Tomos of Autocephaly, the OCA's primate was not mentioned in the Diptychs!

Video proof?

Metr. Tikhon was seated on the main place during the service among other primates.



Doesn't look to me like this is a picture of the concelebration of the Divine Liturgy.  During the celebration of the Divine Liturgy, Metropolitan Tikhon was behind Metropolitan Emanuel of France (to the East of him), the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #64 on: January 08, 2014, 08:57:01 PM »

Doesn't look to me like this is a picture of the concelebration of the Divine Liturgy.  

Wonder if you have seen any hierarchical Liturgy in Russian tradition, then.

Quote
During the celebration of the Divine Liturgy, Metropolitan Tikhon was behind Metropolitan Emanuel of France (to the East of him), the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch.

This is a picture from Kiev (or Minsk) where EP delegation was not present. In Moscow, Metropolitan Emmanuel was seated alongside primates (what was strange) but Metr. Tikhon was at his place too.

« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 08:58:47 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
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: 35,626



« Reply #65 on: January 08, 2014, 09:09:33 PM »

He wasn't commemorated in the Diptychs.

Were you there? If not, prove it.
Being the trouble maker I am, when Fr. Arey made the same claim about Met. Jonah during the EP's visit to Moscow, I spoke to someone who served at the altar of the very service.  I'd rather not say who, because later Fr. Arey had to retract the statement.
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
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #66 on: January 08, 2014, 09:28:06 PM »

Well, you are right. Actually, the only two primates that were commemorated were Patriarch Theodore II as the main celebrant and Patriarch Cyril as the host. Others, including Metr. Tikhon (but Patriarch Bartholomew and co. as well) were not.

I mean, on Great Entrance. Because it is only shown in the vid.

http://youtu.be/KuSTapKQTFo?t=9m44s

Howeve in Kiev, Metr. Tikhon was definitely commemorated on Trisagion (the video does not show Great Entrance).

http://youtu.be/HGOXF1Q5AyE?t=43m15s
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 09:32:53 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
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: 35,626



« Reply #67 on: January 08, 2014, 10:38:52 PM »

Say what you want

the Truth.
the autocephaly of the OCA is not recognized by the communion of the Holy Orthodox Churches.
Neither was Albanias' for 15 years (29 years, if you count its existence in Boston, in the Albanian Archdiocese of the OCA).  The Church of Albania didn't wither.

Neither was Greece's for 17 years-after the Russians stepped in.  The Church of Greece didn't wither in the meantime.

Neither was Poland's for 24 years.  The Church of Poland didn't wither.

Neither was Romania's for 18 years.  The Church of Romania didn't wither.

Neither was Bulgaria's for 73 years.  The Church of Bulgaria didn't wither.

Neither were the remaining parts of Serbia's for about 100 years (it is unclear when the Phanar capitulated).  The Church of Serbia didn't wither.

Neither was Moscow's for 145 years.  The Church of Moscow didn't wither.

Neither was Jerusalem's for 381 years.  The Church of Jerusalem, although decimated, didn't wither and die.

Neither was Cyprus' for 433 years.  The Church of Cyprus didn't wither.

Neither was Constantinople's for 834 years.  The Church of Constantinople didn't wither.

Neither was Georgia's for 1,496 years.  The Church of Georgia didn't wither. Many years Abp. Demetrios!

The Holy Synod of the OCA hasn't managed to destroy it in 43 years, so the Phanar had better reconcile itself to the fact that it is here to say.  And-thanks to the Phanar's insistence on every Church signing the Chambesy Accords-now has de facto and indirect de jure acknowledgement of its autocephaly by the Communion of ALL the Holy Orthodox Churches.

Only the Churches of Georgia, Poland and Czechoslovakia announced recognition of the OCA's "autocephaly" at the time the Patriarchate of Moscow unilaterally issued the Tomos of Autocephaly; the Polish and Czech churches having been Warsaw Pact member states, tightly within the Soviet orbit; Georgia was actually a republic within the U.S.S.R.  The Church of Serbia, which was also under the control of Communists, "fellow travelers" with the Soviets, issued a "wait and see" commentary.
Only the Churches of Constantinople and the Church of Greece denounced recognition of the OCA's "autocephaly" with sustained "argument"; Alexandria and Jerusalem being Churches run by Greeks (and, especially in the later, for Greeks), tightly within the Greek state's payroll; Cyprus was actually a republic which was trying to unit with Greece.

The Alexandria, the CoG and Jerusalem's disagreement was undermined by the fact that they repeatly extended their "jurisdiction" into the "diaspora" in the Americas several times.

Only you and a significantly declining number of OCA autocephalist fanatics continue to argue in support of the OCA's autocephaly.
Given the significantly declining number of Faithful in Istanbul-whether canon 28 fanatics or otherwise-that doesn't help your argument, even if it were true.

Most of the OCA leadership and clergy now decline from such debates. "Monomakhos" recently posted an article that the Church of Russia remains publically supportive of the OCA's autocephaly, only to keep a thorn in the side of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.

Antioch got its independence from the Phanar the same way.  It will do.
At the celebration of the 1,025th Anniversary of the Baptism of St. Vladimir this past July, at which the heads or representatives of nearly all the Holy Orthodox Churches were in Moscow at the invitation of the Patriarch of Moscow, during the pan-Orthodox celebration of the Hierarchal Divine Liturgy, at which the OCA's  Metropolitan Tikhon of Washington was a concelebrant, his name was not recited in the Diptychs; right within the Patriarchal Cathedral of the very church which authored and issued the notorious Tomos of Autocephaly, the OCA's primate was not mentioned in the Diptychs!
This has already been answered.

Do any of the newly enthroned Heads of the Holy Orthodox Churches visit Oyster Bay Cove (Syosset) as part of their traditional initial irenic visits to each of the Holy Orthodox Churches?
 
Traditional?  It might be my age (it's my birthday), but I can't find hoary anything that has started in my lifetime.
Not too many, if any, have included the OCA in their traditional irenic visits. Patriarch Kirill didn't even include the OCA in this traditional sign of unity among the Holy Orthodox Churches. And I will bet, if any of the Heads of the Holy Orthodox Churches happen to visit America, they would stop off and pay their respects at 10 East 79th Street, before they get over to Oyster Bay Cove.
Weren't you the one who just referenced that Met. Tikhon lives at St. Tikhon's?

I short google shows that many haven't visited the Czech Lands and Slovakia.  They come first.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 10:39:38 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
alexpetros
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 128


Go sábhála Dia Éire.


WWW
« Reply #68 on: January 08, 2014, 10:48:47 PM »

Only you and a significantly declining number of OCA autocephalist fanatics continue to argue in support of the OCA's autocephaly.

I ask a simple question and get called a fanatic. A topic that I am new to and get called a fanatic.
Basil, you have some serious issues to work out.
Logged
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,869



« Reply #69 on: January 08, 2014, 11:01:45 PM »

Well, you are right. Actually, the only two primates that were commemorated were Patriarch Theodore II as the main celebrant and Patriarch Cyril as the host. Others, including Metr. Tikhon (but Patriarch Bartholomew and co. as well) were not.

I mean, on Great Entrance. Because it is only shown in the vid.

http://youtu.be/KuSTapKQTFo?t=9m44s

Howeve in Kiev, Metr. Tikhon was definitely commemorated on Trisagion (the video does not show Great Entrance).

http://youtu.be/HGOXF1Q5AyE?t=43m15s

Thank you so much for this link.  How utterly inspiring and impressive!  The beauty of the Liturgy in Church Slavonic and Greek, the gorgeous Tabernacle (Artophorion) in the Moscow Cathedral, those massive chalices and diskos', the baritone voices of the Russian deacons; fantastic!

I would think, however, evidence of the commemorations in the Diptychs would be better examined at the petition, "First of all, remember Lord..." That is where the practice of the Heads of the Holy Orthodox Churches commemorating each other would be evident. It was the Liturgy in Moscow that I cited in my post.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2014, 11:03:24 PM by Basil 320 » Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,582


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #70 on: January 08, 2014, 11:43:19 PM »

Only you and a significantly declining number of OCA autocephalist fanatics continue to argue in support of the OCA's autocephaly.

I ask a simple question and get called a fanatic. A topic that I am new to and get called a fanatic.
Basil, you have some serious issues to work out.

If you walk into the middle of a catfight and get scratched, please don't presume to complain about the cats being neither declawed nor neutered.  Then again,  organization comes as naturally to the Orthodox as herding comes to cats.

Frankly, the argument is primarily academic and not practically relevant to the ultimate solution, if there ever will be one, to the organization of North American Orthodoxy (which I doubt will ever occur the older I get). Most OCA clergy, at least here in the northeast , today rarely espouse the autocephaly hard line which some, even non OCA members, like to proclaim on this forum.
Logged
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,094



« Reply #71 on: January 09, 2014, 01:28:18 AM »

I think the 'fun' of autocephaly has worn off for most people, and now the reality is setting in.  There is no 'going home' so to speak.  The OCA has to deal with all of its own problems and make its own solutions.  That's a lot of responsibility, and there are no 'convenient' foreigners with funny accents to blame when everything goes sideways.

I would also say that the truth is that autocephaly does not have to be argued for any longer.  Sure, there are arguments against it, but it is not an improbable proposition.  It makes the most sense, because even the most 'ethnic' of the ethnic communities are far more Americanized than anyone wants to admit.  There is a world of difference between Greek parishes in the GOA and those in Turkey or Greece.  The idea that we are one big happy family is purely theoretical.

That being said, the whole idea of somehow reverting to closer ties to Old Countries makes little sense to all the people in all of the jurisdictions who have absolutely no ties to said Old Countries.  For them, there is no going home because they are already there.  When they try to put on airs of the Old Country, they get put down for being fakers (which they are in a sense).  When they act normally, they get put down for being 'too American.'

The $50,000 Question is why anyone from the Old World would want to yank the autocephaly of the OCA or have more control here when all it means is more responsibility and thus more headaches.  Many people are suspicious.  Even the Assembly of Bishops can't really explain what the long-term plan is.  So, what if tomorrow we all decided to 'go under' the Patriarchate of Constantinople... then what?

I suppose we could all feel comforted knowing that we would be shown the indulgence granted the other various specialty ethnic jurisdictions of the Patriarchate, which means we would be left alone to do our own thing.  However, that's not what a bishop is there to do, as much as many of us would like to be left alone it would seem.  We need to be challenged, and in some other way than fundraising.  We need a vision, and it must be more than 'Hellenism' or 'Holy Mother Russia' since those things make no sense to those outside the circle in which they are popular.  For most of us, Greek festivals and Russian glendis are fine... once a year. 

What about the rest of the time?  That's what autocephaly is really all about.  It is dealing with conflict, but also about setting a goal.  When the OCA received the Tomos, the idea was that it would be free to really work on building a local church based on the locals.  The OCA's stumbles, which is what it shares with all the rest of the jurisdictions, is that the focus became more about their existing communities rather than actual expansion.  Well, that and the shenanigans of the certain far-famed Protopresbyter who poisoned the well they are still largely drinking from.

Before anyone seriously entertains the idea of rearranging the abysmal system we have now, I would like to see the plan for the future.  I would like to see the new ministries to sick and the poor.  I would like to see how the Great Commandment will be fulfilled with new bishops at the helm.  Because the one thing I believe is that we can always make things worse.


Only you and a significantly declining number of OCA autocephalist fanatics continue to argue in support of the OCA's autocephaly.

I ask a simple question and get called a fanatic. A topic that I am new to and get called a fanatic.
Basil, you have some serious issues to work out.

If you walk into the middle of a catfight and get scratched, please don't presume to complain about the cats being neither declawed nor neutered.  Then again,  organization comes as naturally to the Orthodox as herding comes to cats.

Frankly, the argument is primarily academic and not practically relevant to the ultimate solution, if there ever will be one, to the organization of North American Orthodoxy (which I doubt will ever occur the older I get). Most OCA clergy, at least here in the northeast , today rarely espouse the autocephaly hard line which some, even non OCA members, like to proclaim on this forum.
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,869



« Reply #72 on: January 09, 2014, 01:43:33 AM »

Only you and a significantly declining number of OCA autocephalist fanatics continue to argue in support of the OCA's autocephaly.

I ask a simple question and get called a fanatic. A topic that I am new to and get called a fanatic.
Basil, you have some serious issues to work out.

I was not referring to you.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2014, 01:48:12 AM by Basil 320 » Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
username!
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 4,748



« Reply #73 on: January 09, 2014, 02:14:31 AM »

At the end of the day this autochephaly business has no bearing on those in the pew. Orthodoxy is completed at the altar not in church politics.
Logged

Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #74 on: January 09, 2014, 02:55:16 AM »

I would think, however, evidence of the commemorations in the Diptychs would be better examined at the petition, "First of all, remember Lord..." That is where the practice of the Heads of the Holy Orthodox Churches commemorating each other would be evident. It was the Liturgy in Moscow that I cited in my post.

You are not getting primatial Liturgy in Russian tradition. Or purposely trolling.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2014, 02:57:08 AM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,094



« Reply #75 on: January 09, 2014, 10:20:21 AM »

That sounds good, but everyone knows that the people who control the politics also control what goes on around the Altar Table... because it is the same people.

Politics always trickles down to the pews, be it assessments or liturgical directives or clergy assignments.  There is no 'asbestos curtain' between the liturgical life and the administrative life of the Church.


At the end of the day this autochephaly business has no bearing on those in the pew. Orthodoxy is completed at the altar not in church politics.
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,582


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #76 on: January 09, 2014, 10:57:09 AM »

I think the 'fun' of autocephaly has worn off for most people, and now the reality is setting in.  There is no 'going home' so to speak.  The OCA has to deal with all of its own problems and make its own solutions.  That's a lot of responsibility, and there are no 'convenient' foreigners with funny accents to blame when everything goes sideways.

I would also say that the truth is that autocephaly does not have to be argued for any longer.  Sure, there are arguments against it, but it is not an improbable proposition.  It makes the most sense, because even the most 'ethnic' of the ethnic communities are far more Americanized than anyone wants to admit.  There is a world of difference between Greek parishes in the GOA and those in Turkey or Greece.  The idea that we are one big happy family is purely theoretical.

That being said, the whole idea of somehow reverting to closer ties to Old Countries makes little sense to all the people in all of the jurisdictions who have absolutely no ties to said Old Countries.  For them, there is no going home because they are already there.  When they try to put on airs of the Old Country, they get put down for being fakers (which they are in a sense).  When they act normally, they get put down for being 'too American.'

The $50,000 Question is why anyone from the Old World would want to yank the autocephaly of the OCA or have more control here when all it means is more responsibility and thus more headaches.  Many people are suspicious.  Even the Assembly of Bishops can't really explain what the long-term plan is.  So, what if tomorrow we all decided to 'go under' the Patriarchate of Constantinople... then what?

I suppose we could all feel comforted knowing that we would be shown the indulgence granted the other various specialty ethnic jurisdictions of the Patriarchate, which means we would be left alone to do our own thing.  However, that's not what a bishop is there to do, as much as many of us would like to be left alone it would seem.  We need to be challenged, and in some other way than fundraising.  We need a vision, and it must be more than 'Hellenism' or 'Holy Mother Russia' since those things make no sense to those outside the circle in which they are popular.  For most of us, Greek festivals and Russian glendis are fine... once a year.  

What about the rest of the time?  That's what autocephaly is really all about.  It is dealing with conflict, but also about setting a goal.  When the OCA received the Tomos, the idea was that it would be free to really work on building a local church based on the locals.  The OCA's stumbles, which is what it shares with all the rest of the jurisdictions, is that the focus became more about their existing communities rather than actual expansion.  Well, that and the shenanigans of the certain far-famed Protopresbyter who poisoned the well they are still largely drinking from.

Before anyone seriously entertains the idea of rearranging the abysmal system we have now, I would like to see the plan for the future.  I would like to see the new ministries to sick and the poor.  I would like to see how the Great Commandment will be fulfilled with new bishops at the helm.  Because the one thing I believe is that we can always make things worse.


Only you and a significantly declining number of OCA autocephalist fanatics continue to argue in support of the OCA's autocephaly.

I ask a simple question and get called a fanatic. A topic that I am new to and get called a fanatic.
Basil, you have some serious issues to work out.

If you walk into the middle of a catfight and get scratched, please don't presume to complain about the cats being neither declawed nor neutered.  Then again,  organization comes as naturally to the Orthodox as herding comes to cats.

Frankly, the argument is primarily academic and not practically relevant to the ultimate solution, if there ever will be one, to the organization of North American Orthodoxy (which I doubt will ever occur the older I get). Most OCA clergy, at least here in the northeast , today rarely espouse the autocephaly hard line which some, even non OCA members, like to proclaim on this forum.

My point was not meant to claim that a self ruling, autocephalous American church is unnecessary. It was directed to the seemingly endless distraction which is the argument about the OCA and its Tomos.

We need an American Orthodox Church and a nationally and internationally recognized Primate. It's just not the current OCA or its current Primate.

I'm not "slamming" them or criticising Met. Tikhon (who by all accounts is a good man and a fine Bishop) .I am trying to make the point that arguing about the efficacy and correctness of an act which occurred more than forty years ago (when I was in high school)and which in reality never gained much traction or acceptance here in America over the past four+ decades impedes our progress and prevents us from a meaningful dialogue which will solve our ultimate goal.

 
« Last Edit: January 09, 2014, 10:57:47 AM by podkarpatska » Logged
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,094



« Reply #77 on: January 09, 2014, 11:05:20 AM »

Yes, I see your point.

I would disagree that we 'need' an internationally recognized Primate in order for all this to work.  That has been the problem: we are getting the cart before the horse.

Real recognition comes when we have a functioning church here.  It may, based on historical examples, take another couple hundred years.  That's OK so long as we are doing what God wills.  The whole idea that you can get Greeks or Russians to agree to anything together is to ignore their cultures and how they function.  They do not have the compulsion for unanimity that Americans do, and so they will naturally balk at just about anything offered them until there is nothing else left to do but quietly go along.  They are much more comfortable with conflict than we are.

So, we cannot project our expectations on them.  We need to allow them to disagree and be upset for a time, but go about doing what makes sense to us here, because that is what spirituality is all about.


My point was not meant to claim that a self ruling, autocephalous American church is unnecessary. It was directed to the seemingly endless distraction which is the argument about the OCA and its Tomos.

We need an American Orthodox Church and a nationally and internationally recognized Primate. It's just not the current OCA or its current Primate.

I'm not "slamming" them or criticising Met. Tikhon (who by all accounts is a good man and a fine Bishop) .I am trying to make the point that arguing about the efficacy and correctness of an act which occurred more than forty years ago (when I was in high school)and which in reality never gained much traction or acceptance here in America over the past four+ decades impedes our progress and prevents us from a meaningful dialogue which will solve our ultimate goal.

 
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,582


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #78 on: January 09, 2014, 12:12:55 PM »

Yes, I see your point.

I would disagree that we 'need' an internationally recognized Primate in order for all this to work.  That has been the problem: we are getting the cart before the horse.

Real recognition comes when we have a functioning church here.  It may, based on historical examples, take another couple hundred years.  That's OK so long as we are doing what God wills.  The whole idea that you can get Greeks or Russians to agree to anything together is to ignore their cultures and how they function.  They do not have the compulsion for unanimity that Americans do, and so they will naturally balk at just about anything offered them until there is nothing else left to do but quietly go along.  They are much more comfortable with conflict than we are.

So, we cannot project our expectations on them.  We need to allow them to disagree and be upset for a time, but go about doing what makes sense to us here, because that is what spirituality is all about.


My point was not meant to claim that a self ruling, autocephalous American church is unnecessary. It was directed to the seemingly endless distraction which is the argument about the OCA and its Tomos.

We need an American Orthodox Church and a nationally and internationally recognized Primate. It's just not the current OCA or its current Primate.

I'm not "slamming" them or criticising Met. Tikhon (who by all accounts is a good man and a fine Bishop) .I am trying to make the point that arguing about the efficacy and correctness of an act which occurred more than forty years ago (when I was in high school)and which in reality never gained much traction or acceptance here in America over the past four+ decades impedes our progress and prevents us from a meaningful dialogue which will solve our ultimate goal.

 

You are correct about the cart before the horse - we Americans are an impatient lot. When we project our individual hopes and values on individual leaders - like our Presidents - we are always disappointed - regardless of our politics or whether or not we voted for the person. The Church would be no different. The corrosive impact of our personality projections and disappointments regarding the Presidency these past fifty years has taken its toll on the nation, the same would hold true for the Church if we are not careful. Well taken point. Thanks!
Logged
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,869



« Reply #79 on: January 09, 2014, 12:23:50 PM »

Yes, I see your point.

I would disagree that we 'need' an internationally recognized Primate in order for all this to work.  That has been the problem: we are getting the cart before the horse.

Real recognition comes when we have a functioning church here.  It may, based on historical examples, take another couple hundred years.  That's OK so long as we are doing what God wills.  The whole idea that you can get Greeks or Russians to agree to anything together is to ignore their cultures and how they function.  They do not have the compulsion for unanimity that Americans do, and so they will naturally balk at just about anything offered them until there is nothing else left to do but quietly go along.  They are much more comfortable with conflict than we are.

So, we cannot project our expectations on them.  We need to allow them to disagree and be upset for a time, but go about doing what makes sense to us here, because that is what spirituality is all about.


My point was not meant to claim that a self ruling, autocephalous American church is unnecessary. It was directed to the seemingly endless distraction which is the argument about the OCA and its Tomos.

We need an American Orthodox Church and a nationally and internationally recognized Primate. It's just not the current OCA or its current Primate.

I'm not "slamming" them or criticising Met. Tikhon (who by all accounts is a good man and a fine Bishop) .I am trying to make the point that arguing about the efficacy and correctness of an act which occurred more than forty years ago (when I was in high school)and which in reality never gained much traction or acceptance here in America over the past four+ decades impedes our progress and prevents us from a meaningful dialogue which will solve our ultimate goal.

 

Despite our never enduing debates over the nearly 44 year old Tomos of Autocephaly, the leadership of the churches in America have moved on; the OCA is an actively, positively engaged participant in the Assembly of Bishops and its committee work, along side the GOAA, the AOCANA, and others.

ACOB should be promoting unified work among the churches, pan-Orthodox Services, joint conferences for all the work of the various ministries of the churches, youth commissions, religious educators, outreach, stewardship, etc.  Unified administration will naturally come about from unified work.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,094



« Reply #80 on: January 09, 2014, 12:47:16 PM »

I agree that we have moved on by largely ignoring one another.  Kind of like how it all started in the first place.

I absolutely agree that unified ministry and service to the American community in the name of God will lead to administrative unity.  However, I take Metropolitan Savvas at his word (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjLQMSgVTM0#t=103) that unity means an end to autocephaly as far as the Assembly of Bishops is concerned as conceived by the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

So, we are back to square one.

My belief is that local ministries will ultimately be the undoing of overseas administration, because just as problems in Greece and Russia are a mystery to us, so are our social problems in America a mystery to foreign bishops.  The 'xenos' cannot effectively manage such things as counseling programs... otherwise they would be doing them in Turkey.  The Russians have a bit more experience, but most of it is still under development.

I think the Patriarchate of Constantinople is at a distinct instinctual disadvantage coming from Turkey, where the fight is to preserve a dying minority community.  It holds itself as separate from the larger Turkish population and does not identify with them.  When that thinking comes here, it is dysfunctional because American society naturally melts these distinctions.  So, if you are all about holding yourself as a separate community from the larger society, then you really can't do outreach and ministry.

When Constantinople embraces the Turkish people and overcomes its centuries of isolation, I think you will see amazing things.  Turks need the faith as much as Greeks, and there must be more than lip-service to Turkish national identity.  The Patriarchate is the the perfect place to start demonstrating on its home turf what it wants to do in America.

Because, honestly, I don't want to end up like them.  You can only lead by what you know, and what you know is what you do.


Despite our never enduing debates over the nearly 44 year old Tomos of Autocephaly, the leadership of the churches in America have moved on; the OCA is an actively, positively engaged participant in the Assembly of Bishops and its committee work, along side the GOAA, the AOCANA, and others.

ACOB should be promoting unified work among the churches, pan-Orthodox Services, joint conferences for all the work of the various ministries of the churches, youth commissions, religious educators, outreach, stewardship, etc.  Unified administration will naturally come about from unified work.
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 5,840


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #81 on: January 09, 2014, 02:19:30 PM »

Until there is one administrative Orthodox Church in the US, not subservient to the Old World, all this talk is really a moot point. Orthodoxy will continue to be looked at as "that Greek" or "that Russian" thing. This isn't a new frontier anymore.

It wont work if there is a Greek, or a Russian, or an Antiochian label on it. Sadly, the circus that is the OCA is obviously not working. Until every jurisdiction here in the US is willing to give up their own little slice of the pie for the sake of the Gospel, we'll keep wallowing in this nonsense. Jurisdictions need to stop looking at everyone else for humility and start doing it themselves.....mine included. Unified administration will never happen if everyone wants to keep their fingers in the pie to one degree or another.

PP
« Last Edit: January 09, 2014, 02:20:22 PM by primuspilus » Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,869



« Reply #82 on: January 09, 2014, 08:07:51 PM »

In Re. Reply No. 80, FrGiryus,

Turkish law prohibits proselytizing by Orthodox Christians among their Moslems.

The Greek Hospital of Balouki (probably misspelled), which overwhelmingly served Turkish citizens, has historically been among the finest health care facilities in Turkey; it has an Eastern Orthodox Chapel. It's the hospital where Patriarch Athenagoras spent his final hours in this life, July, 1972. In recent years, unfortunately, it may be have become an elderly care facility, due to some Turkish harassment with their taxation policies; I'm not sure what has changed but do recall reading something about the Turks harassing this most reputable institution.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,094



« Reply #83 on: January 09, 2014, 08:51:20 PM »

And, so why isn't the Patriarchate making a big stink about that rather than Halki?

In Re. Reply No. 80, FrGiryus,

Turkish law prohibits proselytizing by Orthodox Christians among their Moslems.

The Greek Hospital of Balouki (probably misspelled), which overwhelmingly served Turkish citizens, has historically been among the finest health care facilities in Turkey; it has an Eastern Orthodox Chapel. It's the hospital where Patriarch Athenagoras spent his final hours in this life, July, 1972. In recent years, unfortunately, it may be have become an elderly care facility, due to some Turkish harassment with their taxation policies; I'm not sure what has changed but do recall reading something about the Turks harassing this most reputable institution.
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,869



« Reply #84 on: January 09, 2014, 10:58:10 PM »

I think I read about the "Balouki" problems in the context of their complaints about tax laws that were enabling confiscation of properties of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and parish churches.  I think Erdogan intervened and gave them a break, to salvage some of the properties.  But "Balouki" may be the subject of a complaint before the European Court of Justice.  You know, the Patriarchate won one of those suites regarding an orphanage that Turkey had to return to the church.

The Patriarch believes that the reopening of Halki is vital to the survival of the Patriarchate, not-with-standing the paltry remnant population of Istanbul, as it will produce clerics for them. I'll check the Order of St. Andrew web page on the GOAA website.  I know I read a whole litany of their grievances about property confiscation, a fact sheet that had been sent to all U.S. Congressmen and Senators.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,094



« Reply #85 on: January 10, 2014, 01:32:44 AM »

This is precisely why it would be wise  for the Constantinopolitan Patriarchate to stand down from any type assertion of world authority and focus instead on its own problem of survival.

If the bishops of the Patriarchate would renounce their Greek ties and vest all their interests in Turkey alone, things would change.  When they stop identifying as Greeks and start identifying themselves as a Turkish Church for Turks, then a great deal of their problems would go away.  So long as they continue to identify themselves as 'xeni' to the Turks, the Turks will continue to fight them.

The strategy of maintaining a foreign identity has failed.  They could keep doing it, and fail more.  Or, they could try something new for the sake of the Gospel, and really trust in God. 

They could demand Turkey lift their restrictions as a truly Turkish Church, and they could even bring this up to the EU and the US rather than going on and on about a school which, even if reopened, would only need to graduate one student a year to cover the pastoral needs of the entire community in Turkey.

They don't need Halki... they need Turkish Orthodox Christians.

If the Orthodox community here wanted to remain isolated from American society, then I would be all for Constantinople's leadership here, because that is their demonstrated mode of existence.  But, that is not what most of us want.  We want converts, and we want to be a truly local church open to all.

If Patriarch Bartholomew wants us to embrace his leadership, he has to show us how he will lead here.  So far, he has led compartmentalized, mono-ethnic isolation.  He's got to show us he has a different game.

Most Americans don't want to be part of a community that is 'pining for the fjords.'  We all know when the parrot is dead.


I think I read about the "Balouki" problems in the context of their complaints about tax laws that were enabling confiscation of properties of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and parish churches.  I think Erdogan intervened and gave them a break, to salvage some of the properties.  But "Balouki" may be the subject of a complaint before the European Court of Justice.  You know, the Patriarchate won one of those suites regarding an orphanage that Turkey had to return to the church.

The Patriarch believes that the reopening of Halki is vital to the survival of the Patriarchate, not-with-standing the paltry remnant population of Istanbul, as it will produce clerics for them. I'll check the Order of St. Andrew web page on the GOAA website.  I know I read a whole litany of their grievances about property confiscation, a fact sheet that had been sent to all U.S. Congressmen and Senators.
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
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: 35,626



« Reply #86 on: January 10, 2014, 09:47:18 AM »

I absolutely agree that unified ministry and service to the American community in the name of God will lead to administrative unity.  However, I take Metropolitan Savvas at his word (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjLQMSgVTM0#t=103) that unity means an end to autocephaly as far as the Assembly of Bishops is concerned as conceived by the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
I've seen this presented as a smoking gun elsewhere, Father, but I don't understand how His Eminence's words are being parsed to see the smoke.  What precisely did H.E. say?
(my thoughts on the Phanar's intentions with the Episcopal Assemblies are well known: the mouthpiece let that slip/pushed the envelope at Holy Cross "The submission of the diaspora to the Ecumenical Patriarchate does not mean either Hellenization or violation of the canonical order, because it is only in this way that both the letter and the spirit of the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils is respected. The Mother Church knows, however, that such a submission is difficult to be accomplished under the present historical conditions. For this reason, and by employing the principle of economy, it was suggested and it has now become accepted in Pan-Orthodox level, that there will be local Pan-Orthodox Episcopal Assemblies in the diaspora (like SCOBA in the US). The principle of presidency is followed, namely the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate presides over these Episcopal Assemblies in order to preserve the necessary element of canonicity.")
http://www.ecclesia.gr/englishnews/default.asp?id=3986#sthash.s5jhkCcD.dpuf
« Last Edit: January 10, 2014, 09:48:01 AM 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
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,094



« Reply #87 on: January 10, 2014, 12:02:28 PM »

On the video, watch 1:24-1:44.

I absolutely agree that unified ministry and service to the American community in the name of God will lead to administrative unity.  However, I take Metropolitan Savvas at his word (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjLQMSgVTM0#t=103) that unity means an end to autocephaly as far as the Assembly of Bishops is concerned as conceived by the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
I've seen this presented as a smoking gun elsewhere, Father, but I don't understand how His Eminence's words are being parsed to see the smoke.  What precisely did H.E. say?
(my thoughts on the Phanar's intentions with the Episcopal Assemblies are well known: the mouthpiece let that slip/pushed the envelope at Holy Cross "The submission of the diaspora to the Ecumenical Patriarchate does not mean either Hellenization or violation of the canonical order, because it is only in this way that both the letter and the spirit of the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils is respected. The Mother Church knows, however, that such a submission is difficult to be accomplished under the present historical conditions. For this reason, and by employing the principle of economy, it was suggested and it has now become accepted in Pan-Orthodox level, that there will be local Pan-Orthodox Episcopal Assemblies in the diaspora (like SCOBA in the US). The principle of presidency is followed, namely the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate presides over these Episcopal Assemblies in order to preserve the necessary element of canonicity.")
http://www.ecclesia.gr/englishnews/default.asp?id=3986#sthash.s5jhkCcD.dpuf
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,582


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #88 on: January 10, 2014, 12:11:54 PM »

To my ears, the twenty seconds being focused upon need to be heard in the entirety of the Metropolitan's carefully measured words. If we play "gotcha", as is the norm in modern secular, political America, NOTHING will ever come of a unified entity.

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: 35,626



« Reply #89 on: January 10, 2014, 12:28:54 PM »

On the video, watch 1:24-1:44.

I absolutely agree that unified ministry and service to the American community in the name of God will lead to administrative unity.  However, I take Metropolitan Savvas at his word (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjLQMSgVTM0#t=103) that unity means an end to autocephaly as far as the Assembly of Bishops is concerned as conceived by the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
I've seen this presented as a smoking gun elsewhere, Father, but I don't understand how His Eminence's words are being parsed to see the smoke.  What precisely did H.E. say?
(my thoughts on the Phanar's intentions with the Episcopal Assemblies are well known: the mouthpiece let that slip/pushed the envelope at Holy Cross "The submission of the diaspora to the Ecumenical Patriarchate does not mean either Hellenization or violation of the canonical order, because it is only in this way that both the letter and the spirit of the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils is respected. The Mother Church knows, however, that such a submission is difficult to be accomplished under the present historical conditions. For this reason, and by employing the principle of economy, it was suggested and it has now become accepted in Pan-Orthodox level, that there will be local Pan-Orthodox Episcopal Assemblies in the diaspora (like SCOBA in the US). The principle of presidency is followed, namely the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate presides over these Episcopal Assemblies in order to preserve the necessary element of canonicity.")
http://www.ecclesia.gr/englishnews/default.asp?id=3986#sthash.s5jhkCcD.dpuf
Thats clear.  Just it happens that the spot where the video started when it pops up matches what others have offered in evidence, and it made no sense to me.

Of course, there is an issue with the read H.E. put on their charge: autocephaly is a canonical solution.  In fact, in North America, it is the only canonical solution, not only because of the existence of the OCA, but because Moscow is not going to place its patriarchal parishes and ROCOR under Abp. Demetios (Many years!)-let alone giving the Phanar the opportunity for an "I told you so" moment by revoking (uncanonically) the OCA's Tomos autocephaly (and therefore also giving the Phanar a precedent of a Mother Church revoking unilaterally autocephaly-which the latest communique from Bursa, er, Constantinople makes reference to, in claiming it as a power of the Phanar not as a Mother Church but as "the Mother Church" of universal jurisdiction)-nor is the Phanar going to place Abp. Demetrios (Many Years) under Abp. Justinian.  Not going to happen. Whether the OCA arises in that fact as a neutral option, or, as Met. Jonah alluded to, ACOBNCA is reconstituted as a Holy Synod and, with the OCA, becomes a united autocephalous Church in North America-OCNA, is a different matter.

And, of course, I know that the "charge" as the Phanar issued was directly against autocephaly: the Assemblies were supposed to sneak in the back window the same canon 28 mythology refused at the door.

I don't know about outside of North America-again, the circumstances (including, but not limited to, the existence of the OCA) set it apart from the other areas.  The foolishness of the Phanar to resort to the secular courts to enforce its canon 28 mythology in Great Britain and France-and loosing to Moscow, which now has legal authority backing its, Orthodox, interpretation of the matter of jurisdiction, sets those areas apart as well. This, in contrast to the wisdom the EP displayed vis-a-vis the Turkish Republic in court.  It seems the argument that the Phanar worry about it neighborhood more and in aggrandizing itself with overseas possessions less is a good one.
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
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,094



« Reply #90 on: January 10, 2014, 12:37:19 PM »

The opening remarks qualify everything said afterwards.  I think it is important to get his perspective, and this was far from a throw-away line or a slip of the tongue.  He went on from there to expand it, and so this is the dialectic of the process from their perspective. 

To my ears, the twenty seconds being focused upon need to be heard in the entirety of the Metropolitan's carefully measured words. If we play "gotcha", as is the norm in modern secular, political America, NOTHING will ever come of a unified entity.


Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,869



« Reply #91 on: January 10, 2014, 12:41:41 PM »

To my ears, the twenty seconds being focused upon need to be heard in the entirety of the Metropolitan's carefully measured words. If we play "gotcha", as is the norm in modern secular, political America, NOTHING will ever come of a unified entity.



You're always a voice for rationality, "podkarpatska."
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: 2,869



« Reply #92 on: January 10, 2014, 12:45:17 PM »

I absolutely agree that unified ministry and service to the American community in the name of God will lead to administrative unity.  However, I take Metropolitan Savvas at his word (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjLQMSgVTM0#t=103) that unity means an end to autocephaly as far as the Assembly of Bishops is concerned as conceived by the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
I've seen this presented as a smoking gun elsewhere, Father, but I don't understand how His Eminence's words are being parsed to see the smoke.  What precisely did H.E. say?
(my thoughts on the Phanar's intentions with the Episcopal Assemblies are well known: the mouthpiece let that slip/pushed the envelope at Holy Cross "The submission of the diaspora to the Ecumenical Patriarchate does not mean either Hellenization or violation of the canonical order, because it is only in this way that both the letter and the spirit of the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils is respected. The Mother Church knows, however, that such a submission is difficult to be accomplished under the present historical conditions. For this reason, and by employing the principle of economy, it was suggested and it has now become accepted in Pan-Orthodox level, that there will be local Pan-Orthodox Episcopal Assemblies in the diaspora (like SCOBA in the US). The principle of presidency is followed, namely the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate presides over these Episcopal Assemblies in order to preserve the necessary element of canonicity.")
http://www.ecclesia.gr/englishnews/default.asp?id=3986#sthash.s5jhkCcD.dpuf

In the YouTube video of the Orthodox-Forum at the Orthodox Christian Church of the Holy Trinity, in Parma, Ohio, from last October, that's me beginning at "16.37."
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,582


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #93 on: January 10, 2014, 12:56:18 PM »

To my ears, the twenty seconds being focused upon need to be heard in the entirety of the Metropolitan's carefully measured words. If we play "gotcha", as is the norm in modern secular, political America, NOTHING will ever come of a unified entity.



You're always a voice for rationality, "podkarpatska."

I still don't see the boogeyman of a supposed Hellenic plot. His Eminence speaks wisely of the many real differences among us that will not go away by waving the banner of independence or unity. Frankly, at this point in time our obsession with legalism over substance seems to me to be Orthodoxy's greatest hinderance in America.  A forced and false unity intended to rectify a canonical anomaly - not to cure or correct any doctrinal or dogmatic errors - will only result in more schism, fighting and division within our parishes and families.

The uneasy status quo seems preferable at this juncture.

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: 35,626



« Reply #94 on: January 10, 2014, 01:05:03 PM »

To my ears, the twenty seconds being focused upon need to be heard in the entirety of the Metropolitan's carefully measured words. If we play "gotcha", as is the norm in modern secular, political America, NOTHING will ever come of a unified entity.



You're always a voice for rationality, "podkarpatska."

I still don't see the boogeyman of a supposed Hellenic plot. His Eminence speaks wisely of the many real differences among us that will not go away by waving the banner of independence or unity. Frankly, at this point in time our obsession with legalism over substance seems to me to be Orthodoxy's greatest hinderance in America.  A forced and false unity intended to rectify a canonical anomaly - not to cure or correct any doctrinal or dogmatic errors - will only result in more schism, fighting and division within our parishes and families.

The uneasy status quo seems preferable at this juncture.
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective) a Metropolitan with too much time on his hands (not having a flock to tend to) just made a shot across the bow into a direct hit on the largest and most powerful of the "local Churches,"  putting another hole into the hull of U.S.S. Status Quo.

Events do not stand still.  Either you shape them or are shaped by them.

Btw, in the long litany of "nuts and bots" that H.E. listed (all valid, btw), H.E. did not explain how an autocephalous Church would be inflicted with them more than the "Diapora" Church would, except that the autocephalous Church would have to deal with Faithful who want to keep their link to the "Mother Church": which of course means the EA won't accomplish a "canonical solution," given that they all don't look to the same "Mother Church."  At least they are all living in the same jurisdictional territory of the OCA.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2014, 01:13:28 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
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,094



« Reply #95 on: January 10, 2014, 01:14:14 PM »

Yes, the status quo is the easiest.  Look at what has happened with so many of our communities under it.

The question should not be about what we want, but what will work.  This is my challenge to all the churches, not just the Greeks.  Sure the Greeks take the brunt, but only because they are pushing this assembly system the hardest and want to take the lead.  Fine.  Show me your plan for evangelization and public ministries.

I have the same challenge for Moscow or any other church: show me where you are willing to serve ALL the people rather than just YOUR people.  If we continue with the 'us-first-and-only' model, we will die. 

Frankly, the American community is spoiled enough without more enabling of our present isolationism.  We have been treated like a mission to 'our people' for long enough.

By saying that autocephaly is off the table as part of a solution, it shows that there is an assumption that there will be a perpetual un-integrated Orthodox community in America that will always be administered from afar.  This will not work.  It isn't working.

What's hilarious is that, in effect, he is asking all but one of the Mother Churches to break ties.  Go back and listen to what he is describing.  Who's ready to do that?  Greeks?  Russians?  Is the OCA ready to throw in its autocephaly?  I can tell you with no uncertainty that Antioch is not ready to cuts ties in the least, and most of us expect the next metropolitan to actually pull the North American Archdiocese (or whatever new eparchies are formed from it) even closer to the Patriarchate.

That's the reality we need to be grounded in.  Unless it hurts equally for everyone, no one is going to accept any plan whatsoever, and there are plenty more who will never accept anything short of a status quo.


To my ears, the twenty seconds being focused upon need to be heard in the entirety of the Metropolitan's carefully measured words. If we play "gotcha", as is the norm in modern secular, political America, NOTHING will ever come of a unified entity.



You're always a voice for rationality, "podkarpatska."

I still don't see the boogeyman of a supposed Hellenic plot. His Eminence speaks wisely of the many real differences among us that will not go away by waving the banner of independence or unity. Frankly, at this point in time our obsession with legalism over substance seems to me to be Orthodoxy's greatest hinderance in America.  A forced and false unity intended to rectify a canonical anomaly - not to cure or correct any doctrinal or dogmatic errors - will only result in more schism, fighting and division within our parishes and families.

The uneasy status quo seems preferable at this juncture.


Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,582


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #96 on: January 10, 2014, 03:47:13 PM »

What is coming, I fear, is a war no one wants, but one certain quarters will cause. The so called American problem is a direct result of our very ecclesiology. For better or worse we are organized on this planet by national churches, each of which possesses the fullness of the Faith, but each expressing it in a somewhat different fashion.

Converts have to accept this reality: Greek-, Russian-, Ukrainian-, Serbian-,Romanian-,Palestinian-, Arab-, Rusyn-, whatever-Americans are fully American and fully Orhodox but we do cherish the traditions of our ancestors. We sense - rightly or not - that the so called non-ethnic recent convert Orthodox view us as somehow being deficient because we cherish these things.

Take our Ukrainian brothers and sisters as an example. If you think for a nanosecond that they would accept the suppression of time honored Ukrainian customs by a non Ukrainian Bishop, you must live in Colorado where you can legally smoke pot. Its not gonna happen. They (clergy, laity and bishops) have options). Same holds true for most of the faithful in most of the national groups mentioned.(The Greeks have options, heck every group does. ) It isn't about being subservient to foreign bishops, it is about NOT TRUSTING A STRUCTURE DESIGNED TO REPLACE WHAT WE HAVE.

Frankly I, for one, am tired of the subject and the discussion. I've heard it over again and again for nearly fifty years and nothing changes.
Logged
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,094



« Reply #97 on: January 10, 2014, 04:18:51 PM »

I would say that the 'American Problem' is a direct result of NOT following our ecclesiology.  Even Met. Savvas says that we are dealing with an 'anomaly' that is not normative.

I also don't know too many American converts who want to take away anyone else's practices.  To be honest, Americans have none of their own practices really.  We are all using 'borrowed' materials.  There are also quite a few Americans who like the 'every-parish-for-itself' model that we presently operate under.

What many American converts do react to is when holding these 'time-honored traditions' means that the only access to Orthodoxy in a particular area is that group thinking of themselves and what they like or remember.  It is this self-indulgence that becomes a problem, where the parish forgets that it, too, has a role in the Great Commandment.  Newcomers come, and are welcomed to either be 'absorbed' into this local culture... or go away.

Some ethnic parishes are able to integrate newcomers, and those are the parishes that have an excellent long-term prognosis.  However, there are plenty of dying parishes where there are just a few die-hards left from the old days, and we watch as they slowly evaporate.  What many converts hate to see is a dying church.

Of course, nothing will change because the pattern repeats itself: nobody wants to give up the time-honored tradition of doing our own thing and not being bossed around or not being required to change.  But, every parish has to change, or it will die.


What is coming, I fear, is a war no one wants, but one certain quarters will cause. The so called American problem is a direct result of our very ecclesiology. For better or worse we are organized on this planet by national churches, each of which possesses the fullness of the Faith, but each expressing it in a somewhat different fashion.

Converts have to accept this reality: Greek-, Russian-, Ukrainian-, Serbian-,Romanian-,Palestinian-, Arab-, Rusyn-, whatever-Americans are fully American and fully Orhodox but we do cherish the traditions of our ancestors. We sense - rightly or not - that the so called non-ethnic recent convert Orthodox view us as somehow being deficient because we cherish these things.

Take our Ukrainian brothers and sisters as an example. If you think for a nanosecond that they would accept the suppression of time honored Ukrainian customs by a non Ukrainian Bishop, you must live in Colorado where you can legally smoke pot. Its not gonna happen. They (clergy, laity and bishops) have options). Same holds true for most of the faithful in most of the national groups mentioned.(The Greeks have options, heck every group does. ) It isn't about being subservient to foreign bishops, it is about NOT TRUSTING A STRUCTURE DESIGNED TO REPLACE WHAT WE HAVE.

Frankly I, for one, am tired of the subject and the discussion. I've heard it over again and again for nearly fifty years and nothing changes.
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,183



« Reply #98 on: January 10, 2014, 06:56:48 PM »

What is coming, I fear, is a war no one wants, but one certain quarters will cause. The so called American problem is a direct result of our very ecclesiology. For better or worse we are organized on this planet by national churches, each of which possesses the fullness of the Faith, but each expressing it in a somewhat different fashion.


This is very true; "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations..." He did not say "make disciples of all provinces, dioceses or regions, did He?
Why can't Canada, the USA, Mexico, Brazil, etc.. be considered nations in the Biblical sense? It seems to me that the Lord was acknowledging a natural order and it does not make sense to pretend that the nations in the so-called diaspora will forever be mere hosts to several ethnic groups, preferably organized into ethnic ghettos. Put another way, is the preservation of ethnic differences is more important than the Great Commission? 
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong." - Carl Kraeff
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 12,083


I'm back, Mom...miss Me?


WWW
« Reply #99 on: January 10, 2014, 07:18:30 PM »

This is very true; "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations..." He did not say "make disciples of all provinces, dioceses or regions, did He?
Why can't Canada, the USA, Mexico, Brazil, etc.. be considered nations in the Biblical sense?

I would say it is because they coincide with political borders just as much as the Roman set-up.  It's not like anyone's advocating for a "Cherokee Orthodox Church" and a "Navajo Orthodox Church" and an "Appalachian Orthodox Church", etc.  As I understand the biblical term for "nation" (and perhaps I'm wrong), the US has any number of nations within its "national" borders.  The other countries you named have the same issue.  Many large countries can say the same.  Unless we are comfortable with a million, small, autocephalous Churches, I think the argument in favour of "national Churches" needs to be made apart from a reference to the Great Commission. 

It would be more reasonable, IMO, to argue that the organisation of the world in the 21st century doesn't follow the same pattern as the Roman Empire, and so we should apply the latter example of accommodation to the world political structure to the world as we know it today.  If anything, it was that principle, and not the exact order of cities, that was enshrined in canonical legislation.  Apply it today and watch the sparks fly.  Wink         
Logged

"Best of all, Mor Ephrem won't trap you into having his baby." - dzheremi

"Mor Ephrim will not be allowed in(to the getes of heaven) because God doesnt know him." - Cackles

"You are consistently one of the cruelest posters on this forum." - William
TheTrisagion
Jack-of-all-Trades, Master of none
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,974



« Reply #100 on: January 10, 2014, 07:22:12 PM »

This is very true; "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations..." He did not say "make disciples of all provinces, dioceses or regions, did He?
Why can't Canada, the USA, Mexico, Brazil, etc.. be considered nations in the Biblical sense?

I would say it is because they coincide with political borders just as much as the Roman set-up.  It's not like anyone's advocating for a "Cherokee Orthodox Church" and a "Navajo Orthodox Church" and an "Appalachian Orthodox Church", etc.  As I understand the biblical term for "nation" (and perhaps I'm wrong), the US has any number of nations within its "national" borders.  The other countries you named have the same issue.  Many large countries can say the same.  Unless we are comfortable with a million, small, autocephalous Churches, I think the argument in favour of "national Churches" needs to be made apart from a reference to the Great Commission. 

It would be more reasonable, IMO, to argue that the organisation of the world in the 21st century doesn't follow the same pattern as the Roman Empire, and so we should apply the latter example of accommodation to the world political structure to the world as we know it today.  If anything, it was that principle, and not the exact order of cities, that was enshrined in canonical legislation.  Apply it today and watch the sparks fly.  Wink         

I think a million might be an exaggeration, but would there really be anything so wrong with having hundreds of small autocephalous Churches? You could still have an order of precedence and it would solve many of the issues that we have now in the Ukraine, Macedonia, USA, etc.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong." - Carl Kraeff
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 12,083


I'm back, Mom...miss Me?


WWW
« Reply #101 on: January 10, 2014, 07:27:51 PM »

I think a million might be an exaggeration, but would there really be anything so wrong with having hundreds of small autocephalous Churches? You could still have an order of precedence and it would solve many of the issues that we have now in the Ukraine, Macedonia, USA, etc.

How do you figure?
Logged

"Best of all, Mor Ephrem won't trap you into having his baby." - dzheremi

"Mor Ephrim will not be allowed in(to the getes of heaven) because God doesnt know him." - Cackles

"You are consistently one of the cruelest posters on this forum." - William
TheTrisagion
Jack-of-all-Trades, Master of none
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,974



« Reply #102 on: January 10, 2014, 07:41:01 PM »

I think a million might be an exaggeration, but would there really be anything so wrong with having hundreds of small autocephalous Churches? You could still have an order of precedence and it would solve many of the issues that we have now in the Ukraine, Macedonia, USA, etc.

How do you figure?
Not quite sure I know what you are asking. Are you inquiring how do I figure that it would solve many of the issues? It if it just accepted that there is an autocephalous Church of Ukraine, Church of Russia, Church of Belarus, Church of Kazakstan, you wouldn't have the MP trying to control Ukraine or the USA Church, or at least not to the extent that it is today.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
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: 35,626



« Reply #103 on: January 10, 2014, 07:50:52 PM »

This is very true; "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations..." He did not say "make disciples of all provinces, dioceses or regions, did He?
Why can't Canada, the USA, Mexico, Brazil, etc.. be considered nations in the Biblical sense?

I would say it is because they coincide with political borders just as much as the Roman set-up.  It's not like anyone's advocating for a "Cherokee Orthodox Church" and a "Navajo Orthodox Church" and an "Appalachian Orthodox Church", etc.  As I understand the biblical term for "nation" (and perhaps I'm wrong), the US has any number of nations within its "national" borders.  The other countries you named have the same issue.  Many large countries can say the same.  Unless we are comfortable with a million, small, autocephalous Churches, I think the argument in favour of "national Churches" needs to be made apart from a reference to the Great Commission. 

It would be more reasonable, IMO, to argue that the organisation of the world in the 21st century doesn't follow the same pattern as the Roman Empire, and so we should apply the latter example of accommodation to the world political structure to the world as we know it today.  If anything, it was that principle, and not the exact order of cities, that was enshrined in canonical legislation.  Apply it today and watch the sparks fly.  Wink         

I think a million might be an exaggeration, but would there really be anything so wrong with having hundreds of small autocephalous Churches? You could still have an order of precedence and it would solve many of the issues that we have now in the Ukraine, Macedonia, USA, etc.
I figure that anyone able to support a Holy Synod of at least 12 bishops and a primate can have an autocephalous Church.  Many autocephalous Churches do now with less.
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
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong." - Carl Kraeff
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 12,083


I'm back, Mom...miss Me?


WWW
« Reply #104 on: January 10, 2014, 07:56:04 PM »

Not quite sure I know what you are asking. Are you inquiring how do I figure that it would solve many of the issues? It if it just accepted that there is an autocephalous Church of Ukraine, Church of Russia, Church of Belarus, Church of Kazakstan, you wouldn't have the MP trying to control Ukraine or the USA Church, or at least not to the extent that it is today.

If Churches cannot abide by the canons now, they're not going to be more inclined to do so just because there's more of them.  And that's not to pick on the Russians, since you have called them out: everyone has these issues to one extent or another. 
Logged

"Best of all, Mor Ephrem won't trap you into having his baby." - dzheremi

"Mor Ephrim will not be allowed in(to the getes of heaven) because God doesnt know him." - Cackles

"You are consistently one of the cruelest posters on this forum." - William
TheTrisagion
Jack-of-all-Trades, Master of none
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 4,974



« Reply #105 on: January 10, 2014, 08:01:48 PM »

Not quite sure I know what you are asking. Are you inquiring how do I figure that it would solve many of the issues? It if it just accepted that there is an autocephalous Church of Ukraine, Church of Russia, Church of Belarus, Church of Kazakstan, you wouldn't have the MP trying to control Ukraine or the USA Church, or at least not to the extent that it is today.

If Churches cannot abide by the canons now, they're not going to be more inclined to do so just because there's more of them.  And that's not to pick on the Russians, since you have called them out: everyone has these issues to one extent or another. 
Perhaps, but the effects would not be quite so devastating.  When huge organizations have conflicts, it makes worldwide news.  If the Autocephalous Church of Kazakstan and the Autocephalous Church of Tajikistan have a dispute, it isn't as big of a deal as a Patriarch who is in charge of 40% of the world's land mass.
Logged

Have you considered the possibility that your face is an ad hominem?
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong." - Carl Kraeff
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 12,083


I'm back, Mom...miss Me?


WWW
« Reply #106 on: January 10, 2014, 09:37:25 PM »

Perhaps, but the effects would not be quite so devastating.  When huge organizations have conflicts, it makes worldwide news.  If the Autocephalous Church of Kazakstan and the Autocephalous Church of Tajikistan have a dispute, it isn't as big of a deal as a Patriarch who is in charge of 40% of the world's land mass.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but I'm not seeing it that way. 
Logged

"Best of all, Mor Ephrem won't trap you into having his baby." - dzheremi

"Mor Ephrim will not be allowed in(to the getes of heaven) because God doesnt know him." - Cackles

"You are consistently one of the cruelest posters on this forum." - William
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,582


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #107 on: January 10, 2014, 09:43:43 PM »

This is very true; "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations..." He did not say "make disciples of all provinces, dioceses or regions, did He?
Why can't Canada, the USA, Mexico, Brazil, etc.. be considered nations in the Biblical sense?

I would say it is because they coincide with political borders just as much as the Roman set-up.  It's not like anyone's advocating for a "Cherokee Orthodox Church" and a "Navajo Orthodox Church" and an "Appalachian Orthodox Church", etc.  As I understand the biblical term for "nation" (and perhaps I'm wrong), the US has any number of nations within its "national" borders.  The other countries you named have the same issue.  Many large countries can say the same.  Unless we are comfortable with a million, small, autocephalous Churches, I think the argument in favour of "national Churches" needs to be made apart from a reference to the Great Commission. 

It would be more reasonable, IMO, to argue that the organisation of the world in the 21st century doesn't follow the same pattern as the Roman Empire, and so we should apply the latter example of accommodation to the world political structure to the world as we know it today.  If anything, it was that principle, and not the exact order of cities, that was enshrined in canonical legislation.  Apply it today and watch the sparks fly.  Wink         


Exactly.
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: 35,626



« Reply #108 on: January 11, 2014, 12:17:31 AM »

This is very true; "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations..." He did not say "make disciples of all provinces, dioceses or regions, did He?
Why can't Canada, the USA, Mexico, Brazil, etc.. be considered nations in the Biblical sense?

I would say it is because they coincide with political borders just as much as the Roman set-up.  It's not like anyone's advocating for a "Cherokee Orthodox Church" and a "Navajo Orthodox Church" and an "Appalachian Orthodox Church", etc.  As I understand the biblical term for "nation" (and perhaps I'm wrong), the US has any number of nations within its "national" borders.  The other countries you named have the same issue.  Many large countries can say the same.  Unless we are comfortable with a million, small, autocephalous Churches, I think the argument in favour of "national Churches" needs to be made apart from a reference to the Great Commission. 

It would be more reasonable, IMO, to argue that the organisation of the world in the 21st century doesn't follow the same pattern as the Roman Empire, and so we should apply the latter example of accommodation to the world political structure to the world as we know it today.  If anything, it was that principle, and not the exact order of cities, that was enshrined in canonical legislation.  Apply it today and watch the sparks fly.  Wink         


Exactly.
Not sure what is meant.  If ya'll mean that Rome isn't the center of the universe, yeah the world today is different.  If it means big countries dictate to small countries or beat the crap out of them....that is still going on.

Even if Russia recreated the territory of the old Soviet Union, there is no reason why that precludes an autocephalous Ukraine, Belarus etc.  The Roman Empire had 6 autocephalous Churches in it.  Georgia had its autocephaly back throughout the Soviet Period.
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
kyril
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian (Orthodox)
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Canada - OCA
Posts: 239


« Reply #109 on: January 11, 2014, 01:03:16 AM »

it would be nice
, as I was told repeatedly in my catechumenate, if we ( North America) could go back to to the ancient practice of one city/one bishop.
Never happen:
"that's not the way it was in The Old Country." (This from 4th generation Canadians who probably couldn't even point to The Old Country on a map.)
When I converted, a year ago, at 71, I was too old to learn Arabic and there were no Antiochean parishes nearby anyway. So I went to the nearby all- English OCA --- not 'autocephalous'? - well, at least it's Orthodox, thank God!
You seem, all, to be pursuing a 'tempest in a teapot.'
Isn't our Faith, and our love for our Saviour and God just too HUGE! to waste time in little quibbles like this?
Logged

kyril
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,582


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #110 on: January 11, 2014, 09:44:26 AM »

it would be nice
, as I was told repeatedly in my catechumenate, if we ( North America) could go back to to the ancient practice of one city/one bishop.
Never happen:
"that's not the way it was in The Old Country." (This from 4th generation Canadians who probably couldn't even point to The Old Country on a map.)
When I converted, a year ago, at 71, I was too old to learn Arabic and there were no Antiochean parishes nearby anyway. So I went to the nearby all- English OCA --- not 'autocephalous'? - well, at least it's Orthodox, thank God!
You seem, all, to be pursuing a 'tempest in a teapot.'
Isn't our Faith, and our love for our Saviour and God just too HUGE! to waste time in little quibbles like this?

With age, comes wisdom. This is a tempest in a teapot if ever there were one indeed!

Welcome!
Logged
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #111 on: January 11, 2014, 10:06:37 AM »

A forced and false unity intended to rectify a canonical anomaly - not to cure or correct any doctrinal or dogmatic errors - will only result in more schism, fighting and division within our parishes and families.

What doctrinal or dogmatic errors in other jurisdictions do you want to correect prior to uniting?

Take our Ukrainian brothers and sisters as an example. If you think for a nanosecond that they would accept the suppression of time honored Ukrainian customs by a non Ukrainian Bishop, you must live in Colorado where you can legally smoke pot. Its not gonna happen. They (clergy, laity and bishops) have options). Same holds true for most of the faithful in most of the national groups mentioned.(The Greeks have options, heck every group does. ) It isn't about being subservient to foreign bishops, it is about NOT TRUSTING A STRUCTURE DESIGNED TO REPLACE WHAT WE HAVE.

In 2 generations UOC-USA will be as Ukrainian as ACROD is Rusyn or OCA/Rue Daru is Russian. No one speaking ethnic language, no services in traditional language, new calendar, and bishops no one minds about they are foreign. It will be just a meaningless fancy label. And that will be good.

I figure that anyone able to support a Holy Synod of at least 12 bishops and a primate can have an autocephalous Church.  Many autocephalous Churches do now with less.


I thought the condition was 3.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2014, 10:08:34 AM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
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: 35,626



« Reply #112 on: January 11, 2014, 11:19:07 AM »

A forced and false unity intended to rectify a canonical anomaly - not to cure or correct any doctrinal or dogmatic errors - will only result in more schism, fighting and division within our parishes and families.

What doctrinal or dogmatic errors in other jurisdictions do you want to correect prior to uniting?

Take our Ukrainian brothers and sisters as an example. If you think for a nanosecond that they would accept the suppression of time honored Ukrainian customs by a non Ukrainian Bishop, you must live in Colorado where you can legally smoke pot. Its not gonna happen. They (clergy, laity and bishops) have options). Same holds true for most of the faithful in most of the national groups mentioned.(The Greeks have options, heck every group does. ) It isn't about being subservient to foreign bishops, it is about NOT TRUSTING A STRUCTURE DESIGNED TO REPLACE WHAT WE HAVE.

In 2 generations UOC-USA will be as Ukrainian as ACROD is Rusyn or OCA/Rue Daru is Russian. No one speaking ethnic language, no services in traditional language, new calendar

I remember when my old parish (OCA, but "Nash") was looking for a new priest.  For one of the candidates someone asked "does he speak the language?" "Yes," someone else replied, "he speaks English."

and bishops no one minds about they are foreign. It will be just a meaningless fancy label. And that will be good.

I figure that anyone able to support a Holy Synod of at least 12 bishops and a primate can have an autocephalous Church.  Many autocephalous Churches do now with less.


I thought the condition was 3.
That's a problem.  Alexandria had 3 for a long time, but when Pope Photios at the turn of the prior century re-established autocephaly in deed as well as word, he had to expand the Holy Synod, because every time a bishop deceased, we had to depend on the Phanar for a third consecrator.  It also takes 12 bishops IIRC to depose a bishop (though they can be forced to retire with less).
« Last Edit: January 11, 2014, 11:21:47 AM 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
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #113 on: January 11, 2014, 11:23:29 AM »

we had to depend on the Phanar for a third consecrator. 

It is a custom in the PAOC one consecrator being outside of it.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,582


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #114 on: January 11, 2014, 11:58:31 AM »

A forced and false unity intended to rectify a canonical anomaly - not to cure or correct any doctrinal or dogmatic errors - will only result in more schism, fighting and division within our parishes and families.

What doctrinal or dogmatic errors in other jurisdictions do you want to correect prior to uniting?

Take our Ukrainian brothers and sisters as an example. If you think for a nanosecond that they would accept the suppression of time honored Ukrainian customs by a non Ukrainian Bishop, you must live in Colorado where you can legally smoke pot. Its not gonna happen. They (clergy, laity and bishops) have options). Same holds true for most of the faithful in most of the national groups mentioned.(The Greeks have options, heck every group does. ) It isn't about being subservient to foreign bishops, it is about NOT TRUSTING A STRUCTURE DESIGNED TO REPLACE WHAT WE HAVE.

In 2 generations UOC-USA will be as Ukrainian as ACROD is Rusyn or OCA/Rue Daru is Russian. No one speaking ethnic language, no services in traditional language, new calendar, and bishops no one minds about they are foreign. It will be just a meaningless fancy label. And that will be good.

I figure that anyone able to support a Holy Synod of at least 12 bishops and a primate can have an autocephalous Church.  Many autocephalous Churches do now with less.


I thought the condition was 3.

That is very apt observation. We ACROD nowadays are for the most part not obsessed with Europe and the past. We remember and observe bits and pieces - a carol/kolady, an ethnic food sale, but that's about it. And it's not a bad thing at all. The past becomes a mist over time rather than a living, breathing memory.

I try to respect the past,not forget it but not live in it.
Logged
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,094



« Reply #115 on: January 11, 2014, 12:14:37 PM »

I think that is a wonderful thing you are describing, Podki.  When we share our cultures, we not only bless people but guarantee their continuance into the future.

When we become 'exclusive' and try to seal ourselves off from the world, we are guaranteed to fail.


That is very apt observation. We ACROD nowadays are for the most part not obsessed with Europe and the past. We remember and observe bits and pieces - a carol/kolady, an ethnic food sale, but that's about it. And it's not a bad thing at all. The past becomes a mist over time rather than a living, breathing memory.

I try to respect the past,not forget it but not live in it.
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
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: 35,626



« Reply #116 on: January 11, 2014, 12:43:05 PM »

we had to depend on the Phanar for a third consecrator. 

It is a custom in the PAOC one consecrator being outside of it.
With the Phanar, the third consecrator didn't come without strings.  It got that Pope Photios forbade (backed up by the British) the representative of the Phanar from setting foot in Egypt.
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: 35,626



« Reply #117 on: January 11, 2014, 12:51:43 PM »

I think that is a wonderful thing you are describing, Podki.  When we share our cultures, we not only bless people but guarantee their continuance into the future.

When we become 'exclusive' and try to seal ourselves off from the world, we are guaranteed to fail.


That is very apt observation. We ACROD nowadays are for the most part not obsessed with Europe and the past. We remember and observe bits and pieces - a carol/kolady, an ethnic food sale, but that's about it. And it's not a bad thing at all. The past becomes a mist over time rather than a living, breathing memory.

I try to respect the past,not forget it but not live in it.
I can walk into any parish of the Vatican, and tell you if the founders were Italian, Polish, German, Spanish, French whatever, no matter how mixed the present congregation.  Even if overnight all services were switched to English, I can guarentee that I would still be able to pick out the Greek, Arab, Russian, Carpatho-Russian etc.  And there's nothing wrong with that.

I remember arguing with the priest who crismated me, who said with glee that he was shoving a stake through the heart of the Slavonic (both he and the congregation were Carpatho-Russians). "Why?" I asked, pointing out that I didn't have a drop of slavic blood that I knew of, and it didn't bother me that some hymns this week were in Slavonic when next week they would be in English (in the choir, I sang them).  At Pascha, I pointed out, many had tried to learn how to say "Christ is Risen!" in Arabic for me, and I had never been made to feel an outsider. "This is the heritage of the people who built the Church so it was here for me to come to.  I didn't build it for them."  I have no problem with a heritage as a basis, as long as it isn't a basis of exclusivity and ghettoization.
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
Noddy999
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Posts: 30


« Reply #118 on: January 11, 2014, 12:53:40 PM »

Please can you elaborate on your observation below in relation to the courts. What was the context of this matter?

'The foolishness of the Phanar to resort to the secular courts to enforce its canon 28 mythology in Great Britain and France-and loosing to Moscow, which now has legal authority backing its, Orthodox, interpretation of the matter of jurisdiction, sets those areas apart as well. This, in contrast to the wisdom the EP displayed vis-a-vis the Turkish Republic in court.'
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: 35,626



« Reply #119 on: January 11, 2014, 01:08:58 PM »

Please can you elaborate on your observation below in relation to the courts. What was the context of this matter?

'The foolishness of the Phanar to resort to the secular courts to enforce its canon 28 mythology in Great Britain and France-and loosing to Moscow, which now has legal authority backing its, Orthodox, interpretation of the matter of jurisdiction, sets those areas apart as well. This, in contrast to the wisdom the EP displayed vis-a-vis the Turkish Republic in court.'
In brief (we have several threads on both I think) the agents of the Phanar tried to receive the Russian Diocese of Sorouzh (i.e. Great Britain) along with Bishop Basil Osborne.  Bishop Basil did not appeal to the Phanar's canon 28 mythology in his canonical battle (he ended up  retired by Moscow but still received by the Phanar but as an auxiliary to its exarchate in Paris), but he did argue it in the secular court (for possession of the Cathedral etc.).  The courts did't buy it any more than anyone outside the Greek Church at least and perhaps anyone outside the Phanar itself buys it.  There was a similar battle waged along similar lines over the Russian Cathedral in Nice, with a similar result.
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
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,582


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #120 on: January 11, 2014, 08:41:15 PM »

I think that is a wonderful thing you are describing, Podki.  When we share our cultures, we not only bless people but guarantee their continuance into the future.

When we become 'exclusive' and try to seal ourselves off from the world, we are guaranteed to fail.


That is very apt observation. We ACROD nowadays are for the most part not obsessed with Europe and the past. We remember and observe bits and pieces - a carol/kolady, an ethnic food sale, but that's about it. And it's not a bad thing at all. The past becomes a mist over time rather than a living, breathing memory.

I try to respect the past,not forget it but not live in it.
I can walk into any parish of the Vatican, and tell you if the founders were Italian, Polish, German, Spanish, French whatever, no matter how mixed the present congregation.  Even if overnight all services were switched to English, I can guarentee that I would still be able to pick out the Greek, Arab, Russian, Carpatho-Russian etc.  And there's nothing wrong with that.

.

Mark this down. We agree!  Wink Anti-heritage zeal (based on a lack of understanding of the difference between respecting a heritage and worshipping it - a problem many ACROD and OCA Slavic cradle Orthodox clergy seem to have) is as misplaced as empty "worship" of the past.

(Actually, on stuff that really matters, I suspect we agree on many things! )
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: 35,626



« Reply #121 on: January 11, 2014, 08:51:00 PM »

I think that is a wonderful thing you are describing, Podki.  When we share our cultures, we not only bless people but guarantee their continuance into the future.

When we become 'exclusive' and try to seal ourselves off from the world, we are guaranteed to fail.


That is very apt observation. We ACROD nowadays are for the most part not obsessed with Europe and the past. We remember and observe bits and pieces - a carol/kolady, an ethnic food sale, but that's about it. And it's not a bad thing at all. The past becomes a mist over time rather than a living, breathing memory.

I try to respect the past,not forget it but not live in it.
I can walk into any parish of the Vatican, and tell you if the founders were Italian, Polish, German, Spanish, French whatever, no matter how mixed the present congregation.  Even if overnight all services were switched to English, I can guarentee that I would still be able to pick out the Greek, Arab, Russian, Carpatho-Russian etc.  And there's nothing wrong with that.

.

Mark this down. We agree!  Wink Anti-heritage zeal (based on a lack of understanding of the difference between respecting a heritage and worshipping it - a problem many ACROD and OCA Slavic cradle Orthodox clergy seem to have) is as misplaced as empty "worship" of the past.

(Actually, on stuff that really matters, I suspect we agree on many things! )
I suspect you're right. Wink
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
kyril
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian (Orthodox)
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Canada - OCA
Posts: 239


« Reply #122 on: January 11, 2014, 09:05:55 PM »

Please!!!

"Worshipping" a heritage;
"Worship" of the past?

I  -  respect - the past (if it is worthy of respect)
but
I worship God!
Logged

kyril
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,582


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #123 on: January 11, 2014, 11:45:37 PM »

Please!!!

"Worshipping" a heritage;
"Worship" of the past?

I  -  respect - the past (if it is worthy of respect)
but
I worship God!


Perhaps I was not clear. I was criticizing those who fail to distinguish between simply respecting one's heritage and making the past the focus of one's spiritual life.
Logged
kyril
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian (Orthodox)
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Canada - OCA
Posts: 239


« Reply #124 on: January 12, 2014, 12:38:43 AM »

I'm very sorry, I ought to have seen that.
Please accept my apologies.
Logged

kyril
Yurysprudentsiya
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA
Posts: 1,007


« Reply #125 on: January 12, 2014, 03:53:01 PM »

A forced and false unity intended to rectify a canonical anomaly - not to cure or correct any doctrinal or dogmatic errors - will only result in more schism, fighting and division within our parishes and families.

What doctrinal or dogmatic errors in other jurisdictions do you want to correect prior to uniting?

Take our Ukrainian brothers and sisters as an example. If you think for a nanosecond that they would accept the suppression of time honored Ukrainian customs by a non Ukrainian Bishop, you must live in Colorado where you can legally smoke pot. Its not gonna happen. They (clergy, laity and bishops) have options). Same holds true for most of the faithful in most of the national groups mentioned.(The Greeks have options, heck every group does. ) It isn't about being subservient to foreign bishops, it is about NOT TRUSTING A STRUCTURE DESIGNED TO REPLACE WHAT WE HAVE.

In 2 generations UOC-USA will be as Ukrainian as ACROD is Rusyn or OCA/Rue Daru is Russian. No one speaking ethnic language, no services in traditional language, new calendar, and bishops no one minds about they are foreign. It will be just a meaningless fancy label. And that will be good.

I figure that anyone able to support a Holy Synod of at least 12 bishops and a primate can have an autocephalous Church.  Many autocephalous Churches do now with less.


I thought the condition was 3.

That is very apt observation. We ACROD nowadays are for the most part not obsessed with Europe and the past. We remember and observe bits and pieces - a carol/kolady, an ethnic food sale, but that's about it. And it's not a bad thing at all. The past becomes a mist over time rather than a living, breathing memory.

I try to respect the past,not forget it but not live in it.

I don't know.   Many of our new priests are immigrants from Westen Ukraine.  Mostly twentysomething guys who come here to study in South Bound Brook and then are given American parishes.  In fact we now have a surplus of priests with several of the newest priests attached to South Bound Brook until parishes can be found for them.  And half a dozen seminarians almost all Ukrainian who are learning English as well as theology.  Our youngest bishop is an immigrant from Ukraine.  And every parish I've been to is being healthily resupplied by young immigrants from Ukraine so there is a need for bilingual liturgy in most places.  As long as that trend continues I'm not so sure that you're right. 
Logged
Yurysprudentsiya
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA
Posts: 1,007


« Reply #126 on: January 12, 2014, 03:57:01 PM »

A forced and false unity intended to rectify a canonical anomaly - not to cure or correct any doctrinal or dogmatic errors - will only result in more schism, fighting and division within our parishes and families.

What doctrinal or dogmatic errors in other jurisdictions do you want to correect prior to uniting?

Take our Ukrainian brothers and sisters as an example. If you think for a nanosecond that they would accept the suppression of time honored Ukrainian customs by a non Ukrainian Bishop, you must live in Colorado where you can legally smoke pot. Its not gonna happen. They (clergy, laity and bishops) have options). Same holds true for most of the faithful in most of the national groups mentioned.(The Greeks have options, heck every group does. ) It isn't about being subservient to foreign bishops, it is about NOT TRUSTING A STRUCTURE DESIGNED TO REPLACE WHAT WE HAVE.

In 2 generations UOC-USA will be as Ukrainian as ACROD is Rusyn or OCA/Rue Daru is Russian. No one speaking ethnic language, no services in traditional language, new calendar, and bishops no one minds about they are foreign. It will be just a meaningless fancy label. And that will be good.

I figure that anyone able to support a Holy Synod of at least 12 bishops and a primate can have an autocephalous Church.  Many autocephalous Churches do now with less.


I thought the condition was 3.

That is very apt observation. We ACROD nowadays are for the most part not obsessed with Europe and the past. We remember and observe bits and pieces - a carol/kolady, an ethnic food sale, but that's about it. And it's not a bad thing at all. The past becomes a mist over time rather than a living, breathing memory.

I try to respect the past,not forget it but not live in it.

Do you still celebrate the Old New Year with a malanka?
Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,959


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #127 on: January 12, 2014, 04:17:57 PM »

This is very true; "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations..." He did not say "make disciples of all provinces, dioceses or regions, did He?
Why can't Canada, the USA, Mexico, Brazil, etc.. be considered nations in the Biblical sense?

I would say it is because they coincide with political borders just as much as the Roman set-up.  It's not like anyone's advocating for a "Cherokee Orthodox Church" and a "Navajo Orthodox Church" and an "Appalachian Orthodox Church", etc.  As I understand the biblical term for "nation" (and perhaps I'm wrong), the US has any number of nations within its "national" borders.  The other countries you named have the same issue.  Many large countries can say the same.  Unless we are comfortable with a million, small, autocephalous Churches, I think the argument in favour of "national Churches" needs to be made apart from a reference to the Great Commission. 

It would be more reasonable, IMO, to argue that the organisation of the world in the 21st century doesn't follow the same pattern as the Roman Empire, and so we should apply the latter example of accommodation to the world political structure to the world as we know it today.  If anything, it was that principle, and not the exact order of cities, that was enshrined in canonical legislation.  Apply it today and watch the sparks fly.  Wink         

I think a million might be an exaggeration, but would there really be anything so wrong with having hundreds of small autocephalous Churches? You could still have an order of precedence and it would solve many of the issues that we have now in the Ukraine, Macedonia, USA, etc.
I figure that anyone able to support a Holy Synod of at least 12 bishops and a primate can have an autocephalous Church.  Many autocephalous Churches do now with less.


Until you get a church which can't fill the open positions for bishops, cannot meet its own guidelines to depose bishops, and must do weird things like retire them and/or each bishop must carry dirt on the others.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
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: 35,626



« Reply #128 on: January 12, 2014, 05:29:06 PM »

A forced and false unity intended to rectify a canonical anomaly - not to cure or correct any doctrinal or dogmatic errors - will only result in more schism, fighting and division within our parishes and families.

What doctrinal or dogmatic errors in other jurisdictions do you want to correect prior to uniting?

Take our Ukrainian brothers and sisters as an example. If you think for a nanosecond that they would accept the suppression of time honored Ukrainian customs by a non Ukrainian Bishop, you must live in Colorado where you can legally smoke pot. Its not gonna happen. They (clergy, laity and bishops) have options). Same holds true for most of the faithful in most of the national groups mentioned.(The Greeks have options, heck every group does. ) It isn't about being subservient to foreign bishops, it is about NOT TRUSTING A STRUCTURE DESIGNED TO REPLACE WHAT WE HAVE.

In 2 generations UOC-USA will be as Ukrainian as ACROD is Rusyn or OCA/Rue Daru is Russian. No one speaking ethnic language, no services in traditional language, new calendar, and bishops no one minds about they are foreign. It will be just a meaningless fancy label. And that will be good.

I figure that anyone able to support a Holy Synod of at least 12 bishops and a primate can have an autocephalous Church.  Many autocephalous Churches do now with less.


I thought the condition was 3.

That is very apt observation. We ACROD nowadays are for the most part not obsessed with Europe and the past. We remember and observe bits and pieces - a carol/kolady, an ethnic food sale, but that's about it. And it's not a bad thing at all. The past becomes a mist over time rather than a living, breathing memory.

I try to respect the past,not forget it but not live in it.

I don't know.   Many of our new priests are immigrants from Westen Ukraine.  Mostly twentysomething guys who come here to study in South Bound Brook and then are given American parishes.  In fact we now have a surplus of priests with several of the newest priests attached to South Bound Brook until parishes can be found for them.  And half a dozen seminarians almost all Ukrainian who are learning English as well as theology.  Our youngest bishop is an immigrant from Ukraine.  And every parish I've been to is being healthily resupplied by young immigrants from Ukraine so there is a need for bilingual liturgy in most places.  As long as that trend continues I'm not so sure that you're right. 

Why are there no parishes for that surplus of priests?

If those parishes are being resupplied with immigrants, where are the parishioners going?
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
Yurysprudentsiya
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA
Posts: 1,007


« Reply #129 on: January 12, 2014, 06:35:30 PM »

Quote
Why are there no parishes for that surplus of priests?

There have been some mission parishes set up but it is not an easy thing to do.  Who will pay the priests?  The UOC-USA has very limited funds to help.  We are not a wealthy jurisdiction by any stretch of the word; if one saw the accommodations of some of our priests and hierarchs, one can appreciate these sacrifices.  The mission parishes are of course the most non-Ukrainian in character, i.e., mixed Orthodox ethnicities and converts as well.  Several of them are successful, such as Four Evangelists in Bel Air, Maryland, and I believe one in Las Cruces, N.M., come to mind.  I know there was a former parish in Montana that was exploring the possibility of re-opening but they did not have enough support there to get anything started.

Quote
If those parishes are being resupplied with immigrants, where are the parishioners going?

To the cemetery, sadly, in many cases.  The first wave of Ukrainian immigration (ca. 1890-1920) is long deceased and only a fraction of their descendants, now in the fourth and fifth generations, still identify with Orthodoxy, because when the third generation (generally) came of age in the '50s and '60s, the church was still very much in an exclusive "cultural traditions" mode, and these grandchildren of the immigrants could not understand the language of the liturgy.  Many of them married non-Ukrainian or even non-Orthodox people and joined their spouse's church. 

The second wave of immigrants, who came after WWII and many of whom were displaced persons who had either been workers in Germany during the war or otherwise ended up in refugee camps when they were fleeing the resurrection of Soviet power in Ukraine after 1944 when the Nazis were pushed out, is far more patriotic than the first wave.  The first wave came here to work and make money and, in fact, probably two-thirds of them actually went back to Ukraine during the years between WWI and WWII with their money to buy a farm.  (I know one third-waver whose grandfather was a first-waver who went back like this.)  Those who stayed kept up the traditions but generally considered America their home.  The second wave generally were forced to leave Ukraine so it is they who really sought to preserve the culture here so that it would not be lost there, and used the parishes (as well as other Ukrainian organizations, such as Plast, the Ukrainian scouting organization in the Americas and other groups such as the Ukrainian National Association, Ukrainian-American newspapers such as "Svoboda" and the "Ukrainian Weekly," the Ukrainian camps for youth, etc.) to keep it going.  Because of the effort placed on Ukrainian-language and cultural education, the second generation of this wave was often as patriotic, if not more patriotic, than the first.  But the third generation may or may not be, depending on the family.

The new wave of immigration, since the break up of the USSR, is what is going on now.  These people are coming here for better economic opportunity, like the first wave.  But unlike the first wave, technology enables them to connect to Ukrainian culture so they can watch Ukrainian news, listen to Ukrainian music, travel back home on a regular basis, etc.  Ukraine is in terrible shape today, as I've posted on other threads here, because of the way that the country is run and the lack of a rule of law there, so immigrants are coming by the tens of thousands annually.  They are speakers of Ukrainian and Russian, but most lean toward the former.  They are generally not as nationalistic as the second-wavers, but they are, of course, native-born Ukrainians who are most comfortable with their native language and culture, especially in the cities.  And so we are training dozens of priests who are also immigrants of this sort, who have come here essentially out of high school to be trained for the priesthood in our churches.

It has only been in the past 20-30 years or so that many of our parishes have begun to integrate English language into the services.  Some are nearly all English, and some are nearly all Ukrainian.  Most are somewhere in between.  The all English parishes are best at receiving non-Ukrainian converts.  The mixed parishes are doing much better than they used to at retaining people who marry outside of the Ukrainian ethnicity and adding converts.  But the total membership has declined considerably from its peak perhaps 40 or 50 years ago, because of the phenomenon of what happened to the first-wavers' grandchildren.  The new immigration, which is exceedingly robust, has strengthened a lot of parishes.  But this too has to be balanced because these new immigrants are not as religious as their predecessors and may only show up for holidays.  One of the problems is educating them that the government does not pay the priests as it does back home, and that it is necessary for them to support their church with their time, talents, and gifts.  The mixed parishes are sometimes hard because you have new immigrants, patriotic second-wavers, legacy first-wavers, and American converts all together in one parish, and they have very different pastoral needs in some cases.  One needs a very wise priest to keep such a parish together and keep it growing.

At our Sobor, held each three years, addresses are made in both English and Ukrainian.  English has predominated but some of the speakers, particularly those who are immigrants, will rise to address the body in Ukrainian and their words will be translated into English for those who do not understand.  Probably 60-70% of the Divine Liturgies served at these Sobors and similar gatherings are mostly Ukrainian language.

I love my church and her people.  There are challenges but I can see firsthand the good work that is being done in some very difficult situations.
Logged
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,582


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #130 on: January 13, 2014, 09:47:15 AM »

I'm very sorry, I ought to have seen that.
Please accept my apologies.

No problem!
Logged
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,582


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #131 on: January 13, 2014, 11:10:44 AM »

Quote
Why are there no parishes for that surplus of priests?

There have been some mission parishes set up but it is not an easy thing to do.  Who will pay the priests?  The UOC-USA has very limited funds to help.  We are not a wealthy jurisdiction by any stretch of the word; if one saw the accommodations of some of our priests and hierarchs, one can appreciate these sacrifices.  The mission parishes are of course the most non-Ukrainian in character, i.e., mixed Orthodox ethnicities and converts as well.  Several of them are successful, such as Four Evangelists in Bel Air, Maryland, and I believe one in Las Cruces, N.M., come to mind.  I know there was a former parish in Montana that was exploring the possibility of re-opening but they did not have enough support there to get anything started.

Quote
If those parishes are being resupplied with immigrants, where are the parishioners going?

To the cemetery, sadly, in many cases.  The first wave of Ukrainian immigration (ca. 1890-1920) is long deceased and only a fraction of their descendants, now in the fourth and fifth generations, still identify with Orthodoxy, because when the third generation (generally) came of age in the '50s and '60s, the church was still very much in an exclusive "cultural traditions" mode, and these grandchildren of the immigrants could not understand the language of the liturgy.  Many of them married non-Ukrainian or even non-Orthodox people and joined their spouse's church. 

The second wave of immigrants, who came after WWII and many of whom were displaced persons who had either been workers in Germany during the war or otherwise ended up in refugee camps when they were fleeing the resurrection of Soviet power in Ukraine after 1944 when the Nazis were pushed out, is far more patriotic than the first wave.  The first wave came here to work and make money and, in fact, probably two-thirds of them actually went back to Ukraine during the years between WWI and WWII with their money to buy a farm.  (I know one third-waver whose grandfather was a first-waver who went back like this.)  Those who stayed kept up the traditions but generally considered America their home.  The second wave generally were forced to leave Ukraine so it is they who really sought to preserve the culture here so that it would not be lost there, and used the parishes (as well as other Ukrainian organizations, such as Plast, the Ukrainian scouting organization in the Americas and other groups such as the Ukrainian National Association, Ukrainian-American newspapers such as "Svoboda" and the "Ukrainian Weekly," the Ukrainian camps for youth, etc.) to keep it going.  Because of the effort placed on Ukrainian-language and cultural education, the second generation of this wave was often as patriotic, if not more patriotic, than the first.  But the third generation may or may not be, depending on the family.

The new wave of immigration, since the break up of the USSR, is what is going on now.  These people are coming here for better economic opportunity, like the first wave.  But unlike the first wave, technology enables them to connect to Ukrainian culture so they can watch Ukrainian news, listen to Ukrainian music, travel back home on a regular basis, etc.  Ukraine is in terrible shape today, as I've posted on other threads here, because of the way that the country is run and the lack of a rule of law there, so immigrants are coming by the tens of thousands annually.  They are speakers of Ukrainian and Russian, but most lean toward the former.  They are generally not as nationalistic as the second-wavers, but they are, of course, native-born Ukrainians who are most comfortable with their native language and culture, especially in the cities.  And so we are training dozens of priests who are also immigrants of this sort, who have come here essentially out of high school to be trained for the priesthood in our churches.

It has only been in the past 20-30 years or so that many of our parishes have begun to integrate English language into the services.  Some are nearly all English, and some are nearly all Ukrainian.  Most are somewhere in between.  The all English parishes are best at receiving non-Ukrainian converts.  The mixed parishes are doing much better than they used to at retaining people who marry outside of the Ukrainian ethnicity and adding converts.  But the total membership has declined considerably from its peak perhaps 40 or 50 years ago, because of the phenomenon of what happened to the first-wavers' grandchildren.  The new immigration, which is exceedingly robust, has strengthened a lot of parishes.  But this too has to be balanced because these new immigrants are not as religious as their predecessors and may only show up for holidays.  One of the problems is educating them that the government does not pay the priests as it does back home, and that it is necessary for them to support their church with their time, talents, and gifts.  The mixed parishes are sometimes hard because you have new immigrants, patriotic second-wavers, legacy first-wavers, and American converts all together in one parish, and they have very different pastoral needs in some cases.  One needs a very wise priest to keep such a parish together and keep it growing.

At our Sobor, held each three years, addresses are made in both English and Ukrainian.  English has predominated but some of the speakers, particularly those who are immigrants, will rise to address the body in Ukrainian and their words will be translated into English for those who do not understand.  Probably 60-70% of the Divine Liturgies served at these Sobors and similar gatherings are mostly Ukrainian language.

I love my church and her people.  There are challenges but I can see firsthand the good work that is being done in some very difficult situations.

Yuri points out the fundamental difference between ACROD and UOCUSA - that is the impact of immigration. There has been no parallel emigration from Slovakia and immigrants from Transcarpathis more often self identify as Ukrainian or as Greek Catholics.

But, I would argue that UOC is in something of a crossroads. In our community, there is a large UOC parish of long standing with little to none of the recent immigration. The last three priests have been young immigrants with English issues and the parish is unhappy as they are 2nd and 3rd generation . I suspect in other stagnant growth areas similar issues are found. The BCC and UGCC folks have some of the same issues with immigrant clergy.
Logged
username!
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 4,748



« Reply #132 on: January 13, 2014, 12:26:28 PM »

A forced and false unity intended to rectify a canonical anomaly - not to cure or correct any doctrinal or dogmatic errors - will only result in more schism, fighting and division within our parishes and families.

What doctrinal or dogmatic errors in other jurisdictions do you want to correect prior to uniting?

Take our Ukrainian brothers and sisters as an example. If you think for a nanosecond that they would accept the suppression of time honored Ukrainian customs by a non Ukrainian Bishop, you must live in Colorado where you can legally smoke pot. Its not gonna happen. They (clergy, laity and bishops) have options). Same holds true for most of the faithful in most of the national groups mentioned.(The Greeks have options, heck every group does. ) It isn't about being subservient to foreign bishops, it is about NOT TRUSTING A STRUCTURE DESIGNED TO REPLACE WHAT WE HAVE.

In 2 generations UOC-USA will be as Ukrainian as ACROD is Rusyn or OCA/Rue Daru is Russian. No one speaking ethnic language, no services in traditional language, new calendar, and bishops no one minds about they are foreign. It will be just a meaningless fancy label. And that will be good.

I figure that anyone able to support a Holy Synod of at least 12 bishops and a primate can have an autocephalous Church.  Many autocephalous Churches do now with less.


I thought the condition was 3.

That is very apt observation. We ACROD nowadays are for the most part not obsessed with Europe and the past. We remember and observe bits and pieces - a carol/kolady, an ethnic food sale, but that's about it. And it's not a bad thing at all. The past becomes a mist over time rather than a living, breathing memory.

I try to respect the past,not forget it but not live in it.

Do you still celebrate the Old New Year with a malanka?
Our newest and youngest bishop is an immigrant from Ukraine who speaks impeccable English with the slightest accent. He is American as much as he is Ukrainian and he is a great man. He connects with the cradles, converts and immigrants and connects well with the youth. Eis polla eti despota!
Logged

Yurysprudentsiya
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA
Posts: 1,007


« Reply #133 on: January 13, 2014, 12:32:10 PM »

A forced and false unity intended to rectify a canonical anomaly - not to cure or correct any doctrinal or dogmatic errors - will only result in more schism, fighting and division within our parishes and families.

What doctrinal or dogmatic errors in other jurisdictions do you want to correect prior to uniting?

Take our Ukrainian brothers and sisters as an example. If you think for a nanosecond that they would accept the suppression of time honored Ukrainian customs by a non Ukrainian Bishop, you must live in Colorado where you can legally smoke pot. Its not gonna happen. They (clergy, laity and bishops) have options). Same holds true for most of the faithful in most of the national groups mentioned.(The Greeks have options, heck every group does. ) It isn't about being subservient to foreign bishops, it is about NOT TRUSTING A STRUCTURE DESIGNED TO REPLACE WHAT WE HAVE.

In 2 generations UOC-USA will be as Ukrainian as ACROD is Rusyn or OCA/Rue Daru is Russian. No one speaking ethnic language, no services in traditional language, new calendar, and bishops no one minds about they are foreign. It will be just a meaningless fancy label. And that will be good.

I figure that anyone able to support a Holy Synod of at least 12 bishops and a primate can have an autocephalous Church.  Many autocephalous Churches do now with less.


I thought the condition was 3.

That is very apt observation. We ACROD nowadays are for the most part not obsessed with Europe and the past. We remember and observe bits and pieces - a carol/kolady, an ethnic food sale, but that's about it. And it's not a bad thing at all. The past becomes a mist over time rather than a living, breathing memory.

I try to respect the past,not forget it but not live in it.

Do you still celebrate the Old New Year with a malanka?
Our newest and youngest bishop is an immigrant from Ukraine who speaks impeccable English with the slightest accent. He is American as much as he is Ukrainian and he is a great man. He connects with the cradles, converts and immigrants and connects well with the youth. Eis polla eti despota!

Everything you say is absolutely true.  I meant only to point out the effect of the new immigration in out church.  Like you, I believe that Bishop Daniel has been sent by God to us for "such a time is this."  He is truly a wise leader who can keep the disparate groups mentioned above together. 
Logged
username!
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 4,748



« Reply #134 on: January 13, 2014, 12:33:42 PM »

A forced and false unity intended to rectify a canonical anomaly - not to cure or correct any doctrinal or dogmatic errors - will only result in more schism, fighting and division within our parishes and families.

What doctrinal or dogmatic errors in other jurisdictions do you want to correect prior to uniting?

Take our Ukrainian brothers and sisters as an example. If you think for a nanosecond that they would accept the suppression of time honored Ukrainian customs by a non Ukrainian Bishop, you must live in Colorado where you can legally smoke pot. Its not gonna happen. They (clergy, laity and bishops) have options). Same holds true for most of the faithful in most of the national groups mentioned.(The Greeks have options, heck every group does. ) It isn't about being subservient to foreign bishops, it is about NOT TRUSTING A STRUCTURE DESIGNED TO REPLACE WHAT WE HAVE.

In 2 generations UOC-USA will be as Ukrainian as ACROD is Rusyn or OCA/Rue Daru is Russian. No one speaking ethnic language, no services in traditional language, new calendar, and bishops no one minds about they are foreign. It will be just a meaningless fancy label. And that will be good.

I figure that anyone able to support a Holy Synod of at least 12 bishops and a primate can have an autocephalous Church.  Many autocephalous Churches do now with less.


I thought the condition was 3.
The ACROD bishop is a cradle Greek.Orthodox and he seems to be doing well. The whole Rusyn thing is kept more alive in the prostopinije music and little traditions than in being the sole essence of the diocese
Logged

Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,183



« Reply #135 on: January 13, 2014, 01:18:42 PM »

This is very true; "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations..." He did not say "make disciples of all provinces, dioceses or regions, did He?
Why can't Canada, the USA, Mexico, Brazil, etc.. be considered nations in the Biblical sense?

I would say it is because they coincide with political borders just as much as the Roman set-up.  It's not like anyone's advocating for a "Cherokee Orthodox Church" and a "Navajo Orthodox Church" and an "Appalachian Orthodox Church", etc.  As I understand the biblical term for "nation" (and perhaps I'm wrong), the US has any number of nations within its "national" borders.  The other countries you named have the same issue.  Many large countries can say the same.  Unless we are comfortable with a million, small, autocephalous Churches, I think the argument in favour of "national Churches" needs to be made apart from a reference to the Great Commission.  

It would be more reasonable, IMO, to argue that the organisation of the world in the 21st century doesn't follow the same pattern as the Roman Empire, and so we should apply the latter example of accommodation to the world political structure to the world as we know it today.  If anything, it was that principle, and not the exact order of cities, that was enshrined in canonical legislation.  Apply it today and watch the sparks fly.  Wink        


As Isa, our resident historian, pointed out, there were at least six autocephalous churches in the Roman Empire. Nonetheless, the churches still ended up organized to suit the political realities. That said, I think that the Lord did not equate "nation" with a political entity--I think He was referring to a practical reality: a nation is normally composed of folks of certain ethnicity, speak a same language, have cultural similarities, share aspirations and occupy a defined place in our world. Empires usually are formed by expansion and thus contain various nations in their boundaries. The Roman, Ottoman and Russian Empires were certainly so, and very much like the hyphenated Americans, one had two identities: one that defined political allegiance and the second that that defined the real nation that one belonged to. Thus, in the Ottoman Empire, even the Turks would be hyphenated--Ottoman-Turks, to distinguish them from Ottoman-Greeks, Armenians, Bulgarians, etc.

In the modern age, it is usually not the case that most politically defined nations contain many radically different ethnically defined nations, with the UK, Canada, Russian Federation, and Switzerland being the exceptions to the rule. Since we are close, let's take Canada as an example of how a politically defined national local church can successfully serve the English and French speaking sub-areas of the country. I would think that if there is a future Orthodox Church of Switzerland, it would have a tri-lingual aspect to it. In the United States, that is also possible with parishes that are bi-lingual in order to serve those recent immigrants who are not yet proficient in English. Certainly, in the transitional phase, the current ethnic dioceses would be subsumed into the local church without any discernable changes in the lives of their parishioners. The OCA and the GOA are proof that such arrangements can work. However, there would be (must be) a different strategic approach for any autocephalous church in North America: the mission would be to grow the Body of Christ, period. That would not obviate the requirement to respect the cherished ethnic traditions of existing cradle Orthodox. It means however, taking a bold step forward in acknowledging that the local church will have a great number of parishes whose liturgical and parish practices echo various Old World churches and nations, along side of purely American parishes that may or may not keep such Old World praxis and thinking. It may be that even ethnic churches will have outreach events such as a Mediterranean Festival, rather than separate Greek or Lebanese Festivals. Somebody mentioned an Appalachian church, something that would be a good thing indeed, if they were to have a Appalachian Food Fair for community outreach.

The point that I am slowly making is that numbers sometimes talk and here are the numbers for the United States:

Population: roughly 317 million (2014 estimate)

Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life / U.S. Religious Landscape Survey:

Evangelical Protestant Churches 26.3%
Historically Black Churches          6.9%
Mormon                                     1.7%
Orthodox                                    0.6%
Jewish                                        1.7%
Muslim                                       0.6%
Other World Religions                <0.3%
Unaffiliated                               16.1%
Mainline Protestant Churches      18.1%
Catholic                                     23.9%
Jehovah's Witness                        0.7%
Other Christian                             0.3%
Buddhist                                      0.7%
Hindu                                          0.4%
Other Faiths                                 1.2%
Don't Know / Refused                   0.8%
http://religions.pewforum.org/affiliations

US Census data, race/ethnicity percentages (2010)
White: 72.4%
Latino/Hispanic: 16.4%
African-American: 12.6%
Asian-American: 4.8%
Native-American: 0.9

As the table at the link below shows, except for Aleuts/Eskimos, no other ethnic group normally associated with Easter Orthodoxy is mentioned.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Census-2000-Data-Top-US-Ancestries-by-County.svg

Thus, a truly autocephalous church of the USA has the potential of making ethnic differences meaningless, even if all reasonable efforts are made to respect and preserve such differences. This would hold true no matter how broadly or narrowly one defines the new local church boundaries. I submit that some folks believe that the only way not to get lost in an "American" church would be for the current ethnically-based jurisdictions to oppose autocephaly and evangelization with all of their might.


« Last Edit: January 13, 2014, 01:22:47 PM by Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
username!
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 4,748



« Reply #136 on: January 13, 2014, 02:11:25 PM »

The eastern orthodox leaders have agreed on a solution to this issue six years ago. It was called the chambesy agreement.http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/documents/chambesy

The agreement was signed by all of the leading bishops, i think of both autochephalous and autonomous churches.  That is why there is the Episcopal assembly now and no scoba.

I got a concise explanation from a bishop of what the agreement would do once it was implemented.
Among other things, standardization of the liturgy and uniform ordaination requirements are a part of it.  Moving bishops around so there wasn'ta plentitude in one city is another. Giving bishops a city title is another. Organizing north america into standard dioceses too. Also, churches would be allowed to keep traditions to serve a particular parish population.  So you might have parishes here and there that serve the Ukrainians or say Serbs.  
The one thing that makes some of you upset is that this model is to be autonomous under the ep. Again, you can get upset but all of the head bishops agreed to it.  It's all in the agreement. I'm just parsing what I was told.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2014, 02:12:31 PM by username! » Logged

Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,183



« Reply #137 on: January 13, 2014, 03:31:36 PM »

The eastern orthodox leaders have agreed on a solution to this issue six years ago. It was called the chambesy agreement.http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/documents/chambesy

The agreement was signed by all of the leading bishops, i think of both autochephalous and autonomous churches.  That is why there is the Episcopal assembly now and no scoba.

I got a concise explanation from a bishop of what the agreement would do once it was implemented.
Among other things, standardization of the liturgy and uniform ordaination requirements are a part of it.  Moving bishops around so there wasn'ta plentitude in one city is another. Giving bishops a city title is another. Organizing north america into standard dioceses too. Also, churches would be allowed to keep traditions to serve a particular parish population.  So you might have parishes here and there that serve the Ukrainians or say Serbs.  
The one thing that makes some of you upset is that this model is to be autonomous under the ep. Again, you can get upset but all of the head bishops agreed to it.  It's all in the agreement. I'm just parsing what I was told.

What you are writing is not evident in the words of the three documents that you referred to. Here is the clearest wording that may be found in them "(Article 5.1. The competencies of the Episcopal Assembly are:) e. The preparation of a plan to organize the Orthodox of the Region on a canonical basis." http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/documents/chambesy/rules-pdf

It is true that some folks would prefer the reorganized churches to be autonomous under Constantinople. It is just as true that other folks do not agree. By the criterion agreed to by all, "Article 10. 1. The decisions of the Episcopal Assembly are taken by consensus." (Same source as above). Ergo, if Moscow and Constantinople do not agree (and they are in fundamental disagreement right now over Canon 28 and Canon 34), there will not a plan to present to the Great and Holy Council. Indeed, probably there will not be a Great and Holy Council as Moscow insists that everything should be agree to ahead of the Council and all Orthodox bishops should attend, while Constantinople  takes the opposite approach.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2014, 03:32:38 PM by Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
username!
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 4,748



« Reply #138 on: January 13, 2014, 03:40:53 PM »

The eastern orthodox leaders have agreed on a solution to this issue six years ago. It was called the chambesy agreement.http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/documents/chambesy

The agreement was signed by all of the leading bishops, i think of both autochephalous and autonomous churches.  That is why there is the Episcopal assembly now and no scoba.

I got a concise explanation from a bishop of what the agreement would do once it was implemented.
Among other things, standardization of the liturgy and uniform ordaination requirements are a part of it.  Moving bishops around so there wasn'ta plentitude in one city is another. Giving bishops a city title is another. Organizing north america into standard dioceses too. Also, churches would be allowed to keep traditions to serve a particular parish population.  So you might have parishes here and there that serve the Ukrainians or say Serbs.  
The one thing that makes some of you upset is that this model is to be autonomous under the ep. Again, you can get upset but all of the head bishops agreed to it.  It's all in the agreement. I'm just parsing what I was told.

What you are writing is not evident in the words of the three documents that you referred to. Here is the clearest wording that may be found in them "(Article 5.1. The competencies of the Episcopal Assembly are:) e. The preparation of a plan to organize the Orthodox of the Region on a canonical basis." http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/documents/chambesy/rules-pdf

It is true that some folks would prefer the reorganized churches to be autonomous under Constantinople. It is just as true that other folks do not agree. By the criterion agreed to by all, "Article 10. 1. The decisions of the Episcopal Assembly are taken by consensus." (Same source as above). Ergo, if Moscow and Constantinople do not agree (and they are in fundamental disagreement right now over Canon 28 and Canon 34), there will not a plan to present to the Great and Holy Council. Indeed, probably there will not be a Great and Holy Council as Moscow insists that everything should be agree to ahead of the Council and all Orthodox bishops should attend, while Constantinople  takes the opposite approach.
Hey, for all I know that could have been the dream of that particular bishop more so than what was written up and signed at chambesy.  I'm not an expert on such things. It's hard enough just trying to.live as a Christian let alone know organizational politics.
Logged

podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,582


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #139 on: January 13, 2014, 04:07:55 PM »

A forced and false unity intended to rectify a canonical anomaly - not to cure or correct any doctrinal or dogmatic errors - will only result in more schism, fighting and division within our parishes and families.

What doctrinal or dogmatic errors in other jurisdictions do you want to correect prior to uniting?

Take our Ukrainian brothers and sisters as an example. If you think for a nanosecond that they would accept the suppression of time honored Ukrainian customs by a non Ukrainian Bishop, you must live in Colorado where you can legally smoke pot. Its not gonna happen. They (clergy, laity and bishops) have options). Same holds true for most of the faithful in most of the national groups mentioned.(The Greeks have options, heck every group does. ) It isn't about being subservient to foreign bishops, it is about NOT TRUSTING A STRUCTURE DESIGNED TO REPLACE WHAT WE HAVE.

In 2 generations UOC-USA will be as Ukrainian as ACROD is Rusyn or OCA/Rue Daru is Russian. No one speaking ethnic language, no services in traditional language, new calendar, and bishops no one minds about they are foreign. It will be just a meaningless fancy label. And that will be good.

I figure that anyone able to support a Holy Synod of at least 12 bishops and a primate can have an autocephalous Church.  Many autocephalous Churches do now with less.


I thought the condition was 3.
The ACROD bishop is a cradle Greek.Orthodox and he seems to be doing well. The whole Rusyn thing is kept more alive in the prostopinije music and little traditions than in being the sole essence of the diocese

Neither ACROD nor the Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Pittsburgh have a 'mother country' to which their faithful have any particular loyalties. The 'old country' is more of a place in time, rather than a real place to Rusyn Americans. Frankly, the same holds true for the older regions of the OCA - the east coast, midAtlantic and Midwest regions where Rusyn or Lemko immigrants founded the parishes. Their descendents share the same lack of a real 'mother country' together with the ACROD and the BCC . Hence, for all three of these groups, similar in historical background, the sense of ethnic clubiness is missing. There is no Shevchenko or Holodymyr or independence day to commemorate. Some general background is in this article: "They are a people without a country" http://www.tribune-democrat.com/homelands/x1195966371/They-are-a-people-without-a-country/print
Logged
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #140 on: January 13, 2014, 04:13:44 PM »

The agreement was signed by all of the leading bishops, i think of both autochephalous and autonomous churches. 

Not quite. There are signatures in the bottom.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,183



« Reply #141 on: January 13, 2014, 04:15:17 PM »

The eastern orthodox leaders have agreed on a solution to this issue six years ago. It was called the chambesy agreement.http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/documents/chambesy

The agreement was signed by all of the leading bishops, i think of both autochephalous and autonomous churches.  That is why there is the Episcopal assembly now and no scoba.

I got a concise explanation from a bishop of what the agreement would do once it was implemented.
Among other things, standardization of the liturgy and uniform ordaination requirements are a part of it.  Moving bishops around so there wasn'ta plentitude in one city is another. Giving bishops a city title is another. Organizing north america into standard dioceses too. Also, churches would be allowed to keep traditions to serve a particular parish population.  So you might have parishes here and there that serve the Ukrainians or say Serbs.  
The one thing that makes some of you upset is that this model is to be autonomous under the ep. Again, you can get upset but all of the head bishops agreed to it.  It's all in the agreement. I'm just parsing what I was told.

What you are writing is not evident in the words of the three documents that you referred to. Here is the clearest wording that may be found in them "(Article 5.1. The competencies of the Episcopal Assembly are:) e. The preparation of a plan to organize the Orthodox of the Region on a canonical basis." http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/documents/chambesy/rules-pdf

It is true that some folks would prefer the reorganized churches to be autonomous under Constantinople. It is just as true that other folks do not agree. By the criterion agreed to by all, "Article 10. 1. The decisions of the Episcopal Assembly are taken by consensus." (Same source as above). Ergo, if Moscow and Constantinople do not agree (and they are in fundamental disagreement right now over Canon 28 and Canon 34), there will not a plan to present to the Great and Holy Council. Indeed, probably there will not be a Great and Holy Council as Moscow insists that everything should be agree to ahead of the Council and all Orthodox bishops should attend, while Constantinople  takes the opposite approach.
Hey, for all I know that could have been the dream of that particular bishop more so than what was written up and signed at chambesy.  I'm not an expert on such things. It's hard enough just trying to.live as a Christian let alone know organizational politics.

I think that it is more likely that the Greeks and the Russians came away from Chambesy with completely different interpretations. I do not think that you misunderstood or that the bishop you talked to intended to steer you in any way.  Wink
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,094



« Reply #142 on: January 13, 2014, 05:11:40 PM »

I think this is quite true.  I wonder if the Chambesy meetings would have taken place at all if the presumption was that they were operating under this matrix: http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/primus-sine-paribus-elpidophoros-lambriniadis


I think that it is more likely that the Greeks and the Russians came away from Chambesy with completely different interpretations. I do not think that you misunderstood or that the bishop you talked to intended to steer you in any way.  Wink
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,869



« Reply #143 on: January 13, 2014, 09:24:57 PM »

The eastern orthodox leaders have agreed on a solution to this issue six years ago. It was called the chambesy agreement.http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/documents/chambesy

The agreement was signed by all of the leading bishops, i think of both autochephalous and autonomous churches.  That is why there is the Episcopal assembly now and no scoba.

I got a concise explanation from a bishop of what the agreement would do once it was implemented.
Among other things, standardization of the liturgy and uniform ordaination requirements are a part of it.  Moving bishops around so there wasn'ta plentitude in one city is another. Giving bishops a city title is another. Organizing north america into standard dioceses too. Also, churches would be allowed to keep traditions to serve a particular parish population.  So you might have parishes here and there that serve the Ukrainians or say Serbs.  
The one thing that makes some of you upset is that this model is to be autonomous under the ep. Again, you can get upset but all of the head bishops agreed to it.  It's all in the agreement. I'm just parsing what I was told.

What you are writing is not evident in the words of the three documents that you referred to. Here is the clearest wording that may be found in them "(Article 5.1. The competencies of the Episcopal Assembly are:) e. The preparation of a plan to organize the Orthodox of the Region on a canonical basis." http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/documents/chambesy/rules-pdf

It is true that some folks would prefer the reorganized churches to be autonomous under Constantinople. It is just as true that other folks do not agree. By the criterion agreed to by all, "Article 10. 1. The decisions of the Episcopal Assembly are taken by consensus." (Same source as above). Ergo, if Moscow and Constantinople do not agree (and they are in fundamental disagreement right now over Canon 28 and Canon 34), there will not a plan to present to the Great and Holy Council. Indeed, probably there will not be a Great and Holy Council as Moscow insists that everything should be agree to ahead of the Council and all Orthodox bishops should attend, while Constantinople  takes the opposite approach.
Hey, for all I know that could have been the dream of that particular bishop more so than what was written up and signed at chambesy.  I'm not an expert on such things. It's hard enough just trying to.live as a Christian let alone know organizational politics.

I think that it is more likely that the Greeks and the Russians came away from Chambesy with completely different interpretations. I do not think that you misunderstood or that the bishop you talked to intended to steer you in any way.  Wink

I think Constantinople and Russia must have cut some sort of deal when IV Chambesy was initially concluded.  I think, my own opinion not based on source information, Constantinople agreed to ignore the problems of and pleas from Ukraine, and that Constantinople would be the mother church to autonomous churches in the diasphora--the regions where the Episcopal Assemblies are designated.

The blow up occurred at the follow-up meeting of the representatives of the Pre-Conciliar Commission for the matter of the Orthodox Church diasphora.  Supposed, it was the language of the letter that would announce the proclamation of a new sister into the family of Orthodox Churches. The language the Ecumenical Patriarchate proposed, required the signatures of each of the Heads of the Holy Orthodox Churches, and included, proceeding his signature, "Patriarch Bartholomew declares..." (I've noted that such language exists on the GOAA's Constitutional Charter.)  The Churches of Russia and Romania took issue with that language and the meeting concluded without resolution.  The method of evaluation of a petition of one of the Holy Orthodox Churches for the autocephaly of one of its eparchies was agreed to, but not how to proclaim the determination to grant autocephaly.

The Ravenna document and possibly some interpersonal relations, and who knows what else, have placed the Churches of Constantinople and Russia at loggerheads, and have essentially put a hold on any progress on the remaining outstanding issues.

I'm intrigued by what will come of the forthcoming assembly of the Heads of the Holy Orthodox Churches at the Phanar.
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
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: 35,626



« Reply #144 on: January 13, 2014, 09:58:40 PM »

The eastern orthodox leaders have agreed on a solution to this issue six years ago. It was called the chambesy agreement.http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/documents/chambesy

The agreement was signed by all of the leading bishops, i think of both autochephalous and autonomous churches.  That is why there is the Episcopal assembly now and no scoba.

I got a concise explanation from a bishop of what the agreement would do once it was implemented.
Among other things, standardization of the liturgy and uniform ordaination requirements are a part of it.  Moving bishops around so there wasn'ta plentitude in one city is another. Giving bishops a city title is another. Organizing north america into standard dioceses too. Also, churches would be allowed to keep traditions to serve a particular parish population.  So you might have parishes here and there that serve the Ukrainians or say Serbs.  
The one thing that makes some of you upset is that this model is to be autonomous under the ep. Again, you can get upset but all of the head bishops agreed to it.  It's all in the agreement. I'm just parsing what I was told.
The OCA did not sign.

Nor was the EP mentioned as ruling hierarch.  Now, I'm fully aware the Phanar wanted to use the Chambesy scheme to bring its canon 28 mythology in the back window when the front door was slammed in HAH's face, but it wasn't mentioned in the agreements, thus no bishop signed off on it.
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: 35,626



« Reply #145 on: January 13, 2014, 10:03:13 PM »

The eastern orthodox leaders have agreed on a solution to this issue six years ago. It was called the chambesy agreement.http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/documents/chambesy

The agreement was signed by all of the leading bishops, i think of both autochephalous and autonomous churches.  That is why there is the Episcopal assembly now and no scoba.

I got a concise explanation from a bishop of what the agreement would do once it was implemented.
Among other things, standardization of the liturgy and uniform ordaination requirements are a part of it.  Moving bishops around so there wasn'ta plentitude in one city is another. Giving bishops a city title is another. Organizing north america into standard dioceses too. Also, churches would be allowed to keep traditions to serve a particular parish population.  So you might have parishes here and there that serve the Ukrainians or say Serbs.  
The one thing that makes some of you upset is that this model is to be autonomous under the ep. Again, you can get upset but all of the head bishops agreed to it.  It's all in the agreement. I'm just parsing what I was told.

What you are writing is not evident in the words of the three documents that you referred to. Here is the clearest wording that may be found in them "(Article 5.1. The competencies of the Episcopal Assembly are:) e. The preparation of a plan to organize the Orthodox of the Region on a canonical basis." http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/documents/chambesy/rules-pdf

It is true that some folks would prefer the reorganized churches to be autonomous under Constantinople. It is just as true that other folks do not agree. By the criterion agreed to by all, "Article 10. 1. The decisions of the Episcopal Assembly are taken by consensus." (Same source as above). Ergo, if Moscow and Constantinople do not agree (and they are in fundamental disagreement right now over Canon 28 and Canon 34), there will not a plan to present to the Great and Holy Council. Indeed, probably there will not be a Great and Holy Council as Moscow insists that everything should be agree to ahead of the Council and all Orthodox bishops should attend, while Constantinople  takes the opposite approach.
Hey, for all I know that could have been the dream of that particular bishop more so than what was written up and signed at chambesy.  I'm not an expert on such things. It's hard enough just trying to.live as a Christian let alone know organizational politics.

I think that it is more likely that the Greeks and the Russians came away from Chambesy with completely different interpretations. I do not think that you misunderstood or that the bishop you talked to intended to steer you in any way.  Wink

I think Constantinople and Russia must have cut some sort of deal when IV Chambesy was initially concluded.  I think, my own opinion not based on source information, Constantinople agreed to ignore the problems of and pleas from Ukraine, and that Constantinople would be the mother church to autonomous churches in the diasphora--the regions where the Episcopal Assemblies are designated.

The blow up occurred at the follow-up meeting of the representatives of the Pre-Conciliar Commission for the matter of the Orthodox Church diasphora.  Supposed, it was the language of the letter that would announce the proclamation of a new sister into the family of Orthodox Churches. The language the Ecumenical Patriarchate proposed, required the signatures of each of the Heads of the Holy Orthodox Churches, and included, proceeding his signature, "Patriarch Bartholomew declares..." (I've noted that such language exists on the GOAA's Constitutional Charter.)  The Churches of Russia and Romania took issue with that language and the meeting concluded without resolution.  The method of evaluation of a petition of one of the Holy Orthodox Churches for the autocephaly of one of its eparchies was agreed to, but not how to proclaim the determination to grant autocephaly.

The Ravenna document and possibly some interpersonal relations, and who knows what else, have placed the Churches of Constantinople and Russia at loggerheads, and have essentially put a hold on any progress on the remaining outstanding issues.

I'm intrigued by what will come of the forthcoming assembly of the Heads of the Holy Orthodox Churches at 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
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong." - Carl Kraeff
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 12,083


I'm back, Mom...miss Me?


WWW
« Reply #146 on: January 13, 2014, 11:17:09 PM »

I'm intrigued by what will come of the forthcoming assembly of the Heads of the Holy Orthodox Churches at the Phanar.


But we weren't invited.  Wink
Logged

"Best of all, Mor Ephrem won't trap you into having his baby." - dzheremi

"Mor Ephrim will not be allowed in(to the getes of heaven) because God doesnt know him." - Cackles

"You are consistently one of the cruelest posters on this forum." - William
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,869



« Reply #147 on: January 14, 2014, 12:44:46 AM »

The eastern orthodox leaders have agreed on a solution to this issue six years ago. It was called the chambesy agreement.http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/documents/chambesy

The agreement was signed by all of the leading bishops, i think of both autochephalous and autonomous churches.  That is why there is the Episcopal assembly now and no scoba.

I got a concise explanation from a bishop of what the agreement would do once it was implemented.
Among other things, standardization of the liturgy and uniform ordaination requirements are a part of it.  Moving bishops around so there wasn'ta plentitude in one city is another. Giving bishops a city title is another. Organizing north america into standard dioceses too. Also, churches would be allowed to keep traditions to serve a particular parish population.  So you might have parishes here and there that serve the Ukrainians or say Serbs.  
The one thing that makes some of you upset is that this model is to be autonomous under the ep. Again, you can get upset but all of the head bishops agreed to it.  It's all in the agreement. I'm just parsing what I was told.

What you are writing is not evident in the words of the three documents that you referred to. Here is the clearest wording that may be found in them "(Article 5.1. The competencies of the Episcopal Assembly are:) e. The preparation of a plan to organize the Orthodox of the Region on a canonical basis." http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/documents/chambesy/rules-pdf

It is true that some folks would prefer the reorganized churches to be autonomous under Constantinople. It is just as true that other folks do not agree. By the criterion agreed to by all, "Article 10. 1. The decisions of the Episcopal Assembly are taken by consensus." (Same source as above). Ergo, if Moscow and Constantinople do not agree (and they are in fundamental disagreement right now over Canon 28 and Canon 34), there will not a plan to present to the Great and Holy Council. Indeed, probably there will not be a Great and Holy Council as Moscow insists that everything should be agree to ahead of the Council and all Orthodox bishops should attend, while Constantinople  takes the opposite approach.

Do you recall the GOAA's Metropolitan Savas of Pittsburgh stating (paraphrased) "20 Bulgarian Churches not participating are not going to stop the process...?" (I don't recall exactly how he ended the statement.) I don't know if all of what was stated at the Orthodox-Forum in Parma, Ohio last October was fully included in these YouTube snippets.  Significantly, those who attended the forum were told that the Church of Russia, through the Patriarch's auxiliary Archbishop of its U.S. Representation, and by the Church of Bulgaria's diocesan bishop, that their parishes (and presumably ROCOR's parishes) would not be participating in any plan developed by ACOB for an administratively unified church in this region. Aghast, at the forum, I asked the panel of presenters if I heard correctly. Bishop Peter of ROCOR's titular see of Cleveland, who is the Administrator of ROCOR's Mid-America Diocese, said he had been "seeking clarification of the matter."

So, the Church of Russia is attempting to stifle the Episcopal Assembly process by remaining engaged in the process, but asserting it will not participate in the ultimate plan for an administratively united church, for now.

The OCA is participating in the process.

The plan that seems to have significant support within ACOB, is to establish 9 (or 11, I don't recall) Ecclesiastical Provinces in this Episcopal Region, which would be headed by a single ruling Archbishop, and within each district would be vicariates, led by auxiliary bishops or priests depending on availability, that would encompass the parishes of what are the current jurisdictions.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2014, 12:56:43 AM by Basil 320 » 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: 2,869



« Reply #148 on: January 14, 2014, 02:18:13 AM »

I need to supplement a few maters I addressed in Reply No. 147 above.

The Ecclesiastical Provinces would have dioceses within them; the ethnic vicariates would be within each diocese.

This "Ecclesiastical Provinces" proposal is just the model which ACOB is currently examining.  There is no indication that it is the preference of the bishops, as I indicated above.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2014, 02:18:34 AM by Basil 320 » Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,183



« Reply #149 on: January 14, 2014, 12:16:01 PM »

The eastern orthodox leaders have agreed on a solution to this issue six years ago. It was called the chambesy agreement.http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/documents/chambesy

The agreement was signed by all of the leading bishops, i think of both autochephalous and autonomous churches.  That is why there is the Episcopal assembly now and no scoba.

I got a concise explanation from a bishop of what the agreement would do once it was implemented.
Among other things, standardization of the liturgy and uniform ordaination requirements are a part of it.  Moving bishops around so there wasn'ta plentitude in one city is another. Giving bishops a city title is another. Organizing north america into standard dioceses too. Also, churches would be allowed to keep traditions to serve a particular parish population.  So you might have parishes here and there that serve the Ukrainians or say Serbs.  
The one thing that makes some of you upset is that this model is to be autonomous under the ep. Again, you can get upset but all of the head bishops agreed to it.  It's all in the agreement. I'm just parsing what I was told.

What you are writing is not evident in the words of the three documents that you referred to. Here is the clearest wording that may be found in them "(Article 5.1. The competencies of the Episcopal Assembly are:) e. The preparation of a plan to organize the Orthodox of the Region on a canonical basis." http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/documents/chambesy/rules-pdf

It is true that some folks would prefer the reorganized churches to be autonomous under Constantinople. It is just as true that other folks do not agree. By the criterion agreed to by all, "Article 10. 1. The decisions of the Episcopal Assembly are taken by consensus." (Same source as above). Ergo, if Moscow and Constantinople do not agree (and they are in fundamental disagreement right now over Canon 28 and Canon 34), there will not a plan to present to the Great and Holy Council. Indeed, probably there will not be a Great and Holy Council as Moscow insists that everything should be agree to ahead of the Council and all Orthodox bishops should attend, while Constantinople  takes the opposite approach.

Do you recall the GOAA's Metropolitan Savas of Pittsburgh stating (paraphrased) "20 Bulgarian Churches not participating are not going to stop the process...?" (I don't recall exactly how he ended the statement.)

This may be similar to the Canon 34's history, where its language and application have differed many times. Lip service to canons and Chambesy official documents are nothing new; however, I do not believe it is prudent to publicly display such lip service. Regardless of the number of bishops who object, or their jurisdiction's place in the diptychs, it is important not to publicly disown a canon or rule simply because in reality who objects is indeed important. It is true that a Patriarch or Archbishop has taken initiatives without the unanimous consent of his fellow Holy Synod members, only to obtain such assent later so as to preserve the myth that Canon 34 is operative. It is disconcerting that Metropolitan Savvas has declared that the RA's own rules will be overlooked. I suppose having the chairmanship gives the GOA bishops some privileges; I do not think that such a cavalier attitude is one of them.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
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: 35,626



« Reply #150 on: January 14, 2014, 12:28:32 PM »

The eastern orthodox leaders have agreed on a solution to this issue six years ago. It was called the chambesy agreement.http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/documents/chambesy

The agreement was signed by all of the leading bishops, i think of both autochephalous and autonomous churches.  That is why there is the Episcopal assembly now and no scoba.

I got a concise explanation from a bishop of what the agreement would do once it was implemented.
Among other things, standardization of the liturgy and uniform ordaination requirements are a part of it.  Moving bishops around so there wasn'ta plentitude in one city is another. Giving bishops a city title is another. Organizing north america into standard dioceses too. Also, churches would be allowed to keep traditions to serve a particular parish population.  So you might have parishes here and there that serve the Ukrainians or say Serbs.  
The one thing that makes some of you upset is that this model is to be autonomous under the ep. Again, you can get upset but all of the head bishops agreed to it.  It's all in the agreement. I'm just parsing what I was told.

What you are writing is not evident in the words of the three documents that you referred to. Here is the clearest wording that may be found in them "(Article 5.1. The competencies of the Episcopal Assembly are:) e. The preparation of a plan to organize the Orthodox of the Region on a canonical basis." http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/documents/chambesy/rules-pdf

It is true that some folks would prefer the reorganized churches to be autonomous under Constantinople. It is just as true that other folks do not agree. By the criterion agreed to by all, "Article 10. 1. The decisions of the Episcopal Assembly are taken by consensus." (Same source as above). Ergo, if Moscow and Constantinople do not agree (and they are in fundamental disagreement right now over Canon 28 and Canon 34), there will not a plan to present to the Great and Holy Council. Indeed, probably there will not be a Great and Holy Council as Moscow insists that everything should be agree to ahead of the Council and all Orthodox bishops should attend, while Constantinople  takes the opposite approach.

Do you recall the GOAA's Metropolitan Savas of Pittsburgh stating (paraphrased) "20 Bulgarian Churches not participating are not going to stop the process...?" (I don't recall exactly how he ended the statement.)

This may be similar to the Canon 34's history, where its language and application have differed many times. Lip service to canons and Chambesy official documents are nothing new; however, I do not believe it is prudent to publicly display such lip service. Regardless of the number of bishops who object, or their jurisdiction's place in the diptychs, it is important not to publicly disown a canon or rule simply because in reality who objects is indeed important. It is true that a Patriarch or Archbishop has taken initiatives without the unanimous consent of his fellow Holy Synod members, only to obtain such assent later so as to preserve the myth that Canon 34 is operative. It is disconcerting that Metropolitan Savvas has declared that the RA's own rules will be overlooked. I suppose having the chairmanship gives the GOA bishops some privileges; I do not think that such a cavalier attitude is one of them.
RA?

I'm also curious as the OCA Bulgarian Diocese has about 20 parishes.  Btw, that includes St. John of Rila in Chicago, a congregation which  is being built up all by recent immigrants.
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
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,183



« Reply #151 on: January 15, 2014, 10:25:16 AM »

The eastern orthodox leaders have agreed on a solution to this issue six years ago. It was called the chambesy agreement.http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/documents/chambesy

The agreement was signed by all of the leading bishops, i think of both autochephalous and autonomous churches.  That is why there is the Episcopal assembly now and no scoba.

I got a concise explanation from a bishop of what the agreement would do once it was implemented.
Among other things, standardization of the liturgy and uniform ordaination requirements are a part of it.  Moving bishops around so there wasn'ta plentitude in one city is another. Giving bishops a city title is another. Organizing north america into standard dioceses too. Also, churches would be allowed to keep traditions to serve a particular parish population.  So you might have parishes here and there that serve the Ukrainians or say Serbs.  
The one thing that makes some of you upset is that this model is to be autonomous under the ep. Again, you can get upset but all of the head bishops agreed to it.  It's all in the agreement. I'm just parsing what I was told.

What you are writing is not evident in the words of the three documents that you referred to. Here is the clearest wording that may be found in them "(Article 5.1. The competencies of the Episcopal Assembly are:) e. The preparation of a plan to organize the Orthodox of the Region on a canonical basis." http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/documents/chambesy/rules-pdf

It is true that some folks would prefer the reorganized churches to be autonomous under Constantinople. It is just as true that other folks do not agree. By the criterion agreed to by all, "Article 10. 1. The decisions of the Episcopal Assembly are taken by consensus." (Same source as above). Ergo, if Moscow and Constantinople do not agree (and they are in fundamental disagreement right now over Canon 28 and Canon 34), there will not a plan to present to the Great and Holy Council. Indeed, probably there will not be a Great and Holy Council as Moscow insists that everything should be agree to ahead of the Council and all Orthodox bishops should attend, while Constantinople  takes the opposite approach.

Do you recall the GOAA's Metropolitan Savas of Pittsburgh stating (paraphrased) "20 Bulgarian Churches not participating are not going to stop the process...?" (I don't recall exactly how he ended the statement.)

This may be similar to the Canon 34's history, where its language and application have differed many times. Lip service to canons and Chambesy official documents are nothing new; however, I do not believe it is prudent to publicly display such lip service. Regardless of the number of bishops who object, or their jurisdiction's place in the diptychs, it is important not to publicly disown a canon or rule simply because in reality who objects is indeed important. It is true that a Patriarch or Archbishop has taken initiatives without the unanimous consent of his fellow Holy Synod members, only to obtain such assent later so as to preserve the myth that Canon 34 is operative. It is disconcerting that Metropolitan Savvas has declared that the RA's own rules will be overlooked. I suppose having the chairmanship gives the GOA bishops some privileges; I do not think that such a cavalier attitude is one of them.
RA?

I'm also curious as the OCA Bulgarian Diocese has about 20 parishes.  Btw, that includes St. John of Rila in Chicago, a congregation which  is being built up all by recent immigrants.

RA=Regional Assemblies. I think the reference was to the Bulgarian parishes under the Patriarchate and not part of the OCA.

ISA--Do you know of a historical study of the way Canon 34 has been observed over the centuries? I am particularly interested in the second part of the canon that plainly prevents the primate from doing anything on his own, that is without obtaining unanimous consent, if such action will affect the whole church and not only his own diocese.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
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: 35,626



« Reply #152 on: January 15, 2014, 10:28:48 AM »

The eastern orthodox leaders have agreed on a solution to this issue six years ago. It was called the chambesy agreement.http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/documents/chambesy

The agreement was signed by all of the leading bishops, i think of both autochephalous and autonomous churches.  That is why there is the Episcopal assembly now and no scoba.

I got a concise explanation from a bishop of what the agreement would do once it was implemented.
Among other things, standardization of the liturgy and uniform ordaination requirements are a part of it.  Moving bishops around so there wasn'ta plentitude in one city is another. Giving bishops a city title is another. Organizing north america into standard dioceses too. Also, churches would be allowed to keep traditions to serve a particular parish population.  So you might have parishes here and there that serve the Ukrainians or say Serbs.  
The one thing that makes some of you upset is that this model is to be autonomous under the ep. Again, you can get upset but all of the head bishops agreed to it.  It's all in the agreement. I'm just parsing what I was told.

What you are writing is not evident in the words of the three documents that you referred to. Here is the clearest wording that may be found in them "(Article 5.1. The competencies of the Episcopal Assembly are:) e. The preparation of a plan to organize the Orthodox of the Region on a canonical basis." http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/documents/chambesy/rules-pdf

It is true that some folks would prefer the reorganized churches to be autonomous under Constantinople. It is just as true that other folks do not agree. By the criterion agreed to by all, "Article 10. 1. The decisions of the Episcopal Assembly are taken by consensus." (Same source as above). Ergo, if Moscow and Constantinople do not agree (and they are in fundamental disagreement right now over Canon 28 and Canon 34), there will not a plan to present to the Great and Holy Council. Indeed, probably there will not be a Great and Holy Council as Moscow insists that everything should be agree to ahead of the Council and all Orthodox bishops should attend, while Constantinople  takes the opposite approach.

Do you recall the GOAA's Metropolitan Savas of Pittsburgh stating (paraphrased) "20 Bulgarian Churches not participating are not going to stop the process...?" (I don't recall exactly how he ended the statement.)

This may be similar to the Canon 34's history, where its language and application have differed many times. Lip service to canons and Chambesy official documents are nothing new; however, I do not believe it is prudent to publicly display such lip service. Regardless of the number of bishops who object, or their jurisdiction's place in the diptychs, it is important not to publicly disown a canon or rule simply because in reality who objects is indeed important. It is true that a Patriarch or Archbishop has taken initiatives without the unanimous consent of his fellow Holy Synod members, only to obtain such assent later so as to preserve the myth that Canon 34 is operative. It is disconcerting that Metropolitan Savvas has declared that the RA's own rules will be overlooked. I suppose having the chairmanship gives the GOA bishops some privileges; I do not think that such a cavalier attitude is one of them.
RA?

I'm also curious as the OCA Bulgarian Diocese has about 20 parishes.  Btw, that includes St. John of Rila in Chicago, a congregation which  is being built up all by recent immigrants.

RA=Regional Assemblies. I think the reference was to the Bulgarian parishes under the Patriarchate and not part of the OCA.

ISA--Do you know of a historical study of the way Canon 34 has been observed over the centuries? I am particularly interested in the second part of the canon that plainly prevents the primate from doing anything on his own, that is without obtaining unanimous consent, if such action will affect the whole church and not only his own diocese.
No study AFAIK has taken up that question: it's not the part most citers of the canon are interested in.  Alas! their lack of interest doesn't void it. Grin
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
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,183



« Reply #153 on: January 15, 2014, 04:12:19 PM »

The eastern orthodox leaders have agreed on a solution to this issue six years ago. It was called the chambesy agreement.http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/documents/chambesy

The agreement was signed by all of the leading bishops, i think of both autochephalous and autonomous churches.  That is why there is the Episcopal assembly now and no scoba.

I got a concise explanation from a bishop of what the agreement would do once it was implemented.
Among other things, standardization of the liturgy and uniform ordaination requirements are a part of it.  Moving bishops around so there wasn'ta plentitude in one city is another. Giving bishops a city title is another. Organizing north america into standard dioceses too. Also, churches would be allowed to keep traditions to serve a particular parish population.  So you might have parishes here and there that serve the Ukrainians or say Serbs.  
The one thing that makes some of you upset is that this model is to be autonomous under the ep. Again, you can get upset but all of the head bishops agreed to it.  It's all in the agreement. I'm just parsing what I was told.

What you are writing is not evident in the words of the three documents that you referred to. Here is the clearest wording that may be found in them "(Article 5.1. The competencies of the Episcopal Assembly are:) e. The preparation of a plan to organize the Orthodox of the Region on a canonical basis." http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/documents/chambesy/rules-pdf

It is true that some folks would prefer the reorganized churches to be autonomous under Constantinople. It is just as true that other folks do not agree. By the criterion agreed to by all, "Article 10. 1. The decisions of the Episcopal Assembly are taken by consensus." (Same source as above). Ergo, if Moscow and Constantinople do not agree (and they are in fundamental disagreement right now over Canon 28 and Canon 34), there will not a plan to present to the Great and Holy Council. Indeed, probably there will not be a Great and Holy Council as Moscow insists that everything should be agree to ahead of the Council and all Orthodox bishops should attend, while Constantinople  takes the opposite approach.

Do you recall the GOAA's Metropolitan Savas of Pittsburgh stating (paraphrased) "20 Bulgarian Churches not participating are not going to stop the process...?" (I don't recall exactly how he ended the statement.)

This may be similar to the Canon 34's history, where its language and application have differed many times. Lip service to canons and Chambesy official documents are nothing new; however, I do not believe it is prudent to publicly display such lip service. Regardless of the number of bishops who object, or their jurisdiction's place in the diptychs, it is important not to publicly disown a canon or rule simply because in reality who objects is indeed important. It is true that a Patriarch or Archbishop has taken initiatives without the unanimous consent of his fellow Holy Synod members, only to obtain such assent later so as to preserve the myth that Canon 34 is operative. It is disconcerting that Metropolitan Savvas has declared that the RA's own rules will be overlooked. I suppose having the chairmanship gives the GOA bishops some privileges; I do not think that such a cavalier attitude is one of them.
RA?

I'm also curious as the OCA Bulgarian Diocese has about 20 parishes.  Btw, that includes St. John of Rila in Chicago, a congregation which  is being built up all by recent immigrants.

RA=Regional Assemblies. I think the reference was to the Bulgarian parishes under the Patriarchate and not part of the OCA.

ISA--Do you know of a historical study of the way Canon 34 has been observed over the centuries? I am particularly interested in the second part of the canon that plainly prevents the primate from doing anything on his own, that is without obtaining unanimous consent, if such action will affect the whole church and not only his own diocese.
No study AFAIK has taken up that question: it's not the part most citers of the canon are interested in.  Alas! their lack of interest doesn't void it. Grin

I have a feeling that the praxis of the Church has changed the plain language meaning of many canons, without corresponding formal changes made to the canons. It is a pity for a Church that claims to be conservative and apostolic. What I mean by this is that it is hardly conservative or apostolic if a bishop or a priest uncritically accepts what has been passed to him by his immediate predecessors. I am not saying anything new, of course; I am just paraphrasing (I am sure very poorly at that) the argument made by Fr Alexander Schmemann, among others.

I have a feeling this is about what Father Alexander set out to overcome; the Latin captivity of the Russian Orthodox Church, and in particular the Latin theory expounded by Cardinal John Henry Newman that "Christianity that originated with Jesus and His apostles was merely the starting point of a series of theological developments that continued to evolve over the centuries." (Kostenberger and Kruger, The Heresy of Orthodoxy, page 53). The authors of the above cited work continue by favorably citing Father John Behr of SVOTS: "the theology that emanated from the New Testament, continued through the church fathers, was guarded by the Apologists, and solidified in the ecumenical church councils represents an continuous uninterrupted stream. The theology espoused by the Orthodox clarified, elucidated and expounded  the theology of the New Testament without deviating from it, and the creeds accurately represent the essence of the apostolic faith."

These Evangelical authors do understand the chasm that separates the Roman Catholic approach (which was crowned by Vatican I's doctrine of Papal Infallibility) and the true Eastern Orthodox approach expounded Father Behr. The first one is but a tautology:  the Apostolic faith is whatever the Holy Church proclaims it to be. Ironically, it is my impression (and I would dearly like to be corrected) that elements of the Russian Orthodox Church and ROCOR have denounced Father Alexander Schmemann as an innovationist for defining apostolicity as fidelity to the Early Fathers rather than the latest decision of a pan-Orthodox council or decisions of the Holy Synod of a local church, or even the latest editions of the service books--in other words, the Roman Catholic approach. Interestingly, I think that both Father Alexander and his detractors use our Liturgical deposit of faith as "the culminating expression of the teaching of the holy Apostles and Fathers of the Church, both in the sphere of dogma and of morals." (Father Michael Pomazansky, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology).

Father Alexander would not disagree with Father Michael on this point but I think that his aim was to scrub off the largely Latin barnacles off of our deposit of faith. Now, I admire the fidelity that is shown by ROCOR and ROC to our liturgical deposit. There also is some truth to the charge that sometimes Father Alexander's eloquence and zeal for Orthodoxy causes him to be misunderstood (or at least gives ammunition to his critics). The bottom line for me is that the word apostolic must mean more than what the Church teaches at any given point in time.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2014, 04:22:08 PM by Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,094



« Reply #154 on: January 15, 2014, 07:16:45 PM »

When we talk about Orthodox ecclesiology in America, doesn't it kind of feel like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGM_0_CqxFA&feature=share
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,582


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #155 on: January 15, 2014, 07:18:33 PM »

The eastern orthodox leaders have agreed on a solution to this issue six years ago. It was called the chambesy agreement.http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/documents/chambesy

The agreement was signed by all of the leading bishops, i think of both autochephalous and autonomous churches.  That is why there is the Episcopal assembly now and no scoba.

I got a concise explanation from a bishop of what the agreement would do once it was implemented.
Among other things, standardization of the liturgy and uniform ordaination requirements are a part of it.  Moving bishops around so there wasn'ta plentitude in one city is another. Giving bishops a city title is another. Organizing north america into standard dioceses too. Also, churches would be allowed to keep traditions to serve a particular parish population.  So you might have parishes here and there that serve the Ukrainians or say Serbs.  
The one thing that makes some of you upset is that this model is to be autonomous under the ep. Again, you can get upset but all of the head bishops agreed to it.  It's all in the agreement. I'm just parsing what I was told.

What you are writing is not evident in the words of the three documents that you referred to. Here is the clearest wording that may be found in them "(Article 5.1. The competencies of the Episcopal Assembly are:) e. The preparation of a plan to organize the Orthodox of the Region on a canonical basis." http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/documents/chambesy/rules-pdf

It is true that some folks would prefer the reorganized churches to be autonomous under Constantinople. It is just as true that other folks do not agree. By the criterion agreed to by all, "Article 10. 1. The decisions of the Episcopal Assembly are taken by consensus." (Same source as above). Ergo, if Moscow and Constantinople do not agree (and they are in fundamental disagreement right now over Canon 28 and Canon 34), there will not a plan to present to the Great and Holy Council. Indeed, probably there will not be a Great and Holy Council as Moscow insists that everything should be agree to ahead of the Council and all Orthodox bishops should attend, while Constantinople  takes the opposite approach.
Hey, for all I know that could have been the dream of that particular bishop more so than what was written up and signed at chambesy.  I'm not an expert on such things. It's hard enough just trying to.live as a Christian let alone know organizational politics.

I think that it is more likely that the Greeks and the Russians came away from Chambesy with completely different interpretations. I do not think that you misunderstood or that the bishop you talked to intended to steer you in any way.  Wink

I think Constantinople and Russia must have cut some sort of deal when IV Chambesy was initially concluded.  I think, my own opinion not based on source information, Constantinople agreed to ignore the problems of and pleas from Ukraine, and that Constantinople would be the mother church to autonomous churches in the diasphora--the regions where the Episcopal Assemblies are designated.

The blow up occurred at the follow-up meeting of the representatives of the Pre-Conciliar Commission for the matter of the Orthodox Church diasphora.  Supposed, it was the language of the letter that would announce the proclamation of a new sister into the family of Orthodox Churches. The language the Ecumenical Patriarchate proposed, required the signatures of each of the Heads of the Holy Orthodox Churches, and included, proceeding his signature, "Patriarch Bartholomew declares..." (I've noted that such language exists on the GOAA's Constitutional Charter.)  The Churches of Russia and Romania took issue with that language and the meeting concluded without resolution.  The method of evaluation of a petition of one of the Holy Orthodox Churches for the autocephaly of one of its eparchies was agreed to, but not how to proclaim the determination to grant autocephaly.

The Ravenna document and possibly some interpersonal relations, and who knows what else, have placed the Churches of Constantinople and Russia at loggerheads, and have essentially put a hold on any progress on the remaining outstanding issues.

I'm intrigued by what will come of the forthcoming assembly of the Heads of the Holy Orthodox Churches at the Phanar.

It is also possible that  geopolitical interests within the Moscow Patriarchate have been emboldened in the six years since Chambesy by the foreign policies of the Putin regime in terms of advancing the role of the MP and legitimizing it as the Third Rome. The more I read, the less satisfied I am by the postitions of either Constantinople and her allies and Moscow and her allies. Each seems bound and determined to stake out prestige and power rather than come to the table with the intent of strengthening the Church and coming to grips with what should have been done, but for the USSR, in the first half of the twentieth century - which is of course, how the Church was to function given the final collapse of any vestigal secular link to the Roman Empire with the collapse of the Ottoman and Tsarist Empires following the first world war.

We've been treading water for nearly a century now and the world has been turned upside down in the intervening decades.
Logged
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #156 on: January 16, 2014, 04:59:15 AM »

What geopolitical interests within the Moscow Patriarchate? In last several years I have not seen any violations of inter-Church relations from Moscow Patriarchate (maybe but that last decision from ROCOR).
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,193



WWW
« Reply #157 on: January 16, 2014, 05:48:55 AM »

When we talk about Orthodox ecclesiology in America, doesn't it kind of feel like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGM_0_CqxFA&feature=share

A black patriarch/bishop for the European Churches (Slavic ones primarily) in America could really show that we can think beyond nationality.
Logged

Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #158 on: January 16, 2014, 07:19:22 AM »

When we talk about Orthodox ecclesiology in America, doesn't it kind of feel like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGM_0_CqxFA&feature=share

I guess I'm setting trends here.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 4,263


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #159 on: January 16, 2014, 08:02:31 AM »

When we talk about Orthodox ecclesiology in America, doesn't it kind of feel like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGM_0_CqxFA&feature=share

This just became my favorite video.
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: 35,626



« Reply #160 on: January 16, 2014, 09:21:11 AM »

What geopolitical interests within the Moscow Patriarchate? In last several years I have not seen any violations of inter-Church relations from Moscow Patriarchate (maybe but that last decision from ROCOR).
Yeah, that one is existential for the ROCOR.  Moscow might use it to play both sides, but there is a danger of alienating everyone else into the Phanar's camp (at least for an alliance), if it validates ROCOR's ideas that it can resist inter-Church relations.
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
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,094



« Reply #161 on: January 16, 2014, 12:17:13 PM »

Only if you admit that the Japanese do ethno-covers better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1A9rYIVHyM

When we talk about Orthodox ecclesiology in America, doesn't it kind of feel like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGM_0_CqxFA&feature=share

I guess I'm setting trends here.
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,582


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #162 on: January 16, 2014, 12:27:28 PM »

When we talk about Orthodox ecclesiology in America, doesn't it kind of feel like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGM_0_CqxFA&feature=share

No.
Logged
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,094



« Reply #163 on: January 16, 2014, 12:34:39 PM »

Say 'yes,' or Kojanko shots...


When we talk about Orthodox ecclesiology in America, doesn't it kind of feel like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGM_0_CqxFA&feature=share

No.
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,582


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #164 on: January 16, 2014, 12:42:58 PM »

Say 'yes,' or Kojanko shots...


When we talk about Orthodox ecclesiology in America, doesn't it kind of feel like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGM_0_CqxFA&feature=share

No.

Umm, let me think about that, perhaps??
« Last Edit: January 16, 2014, 12:44:10 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,094



« Reply #165 on: January 16, 2014, 12:48:34 PM »

Хто любить тебе, малюк?

Say 'yes,' or Kojanko shots...


When we talk about Orthodox ecclesiology in America, doesn't it kind of feel like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGM_0_CqxFA&feature=share

No.

Umm, let me think about that, perhaps??
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 4,263


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #166 on: January 16, 2014, 01:08:13 PM »

Хто любить тебе, малюк?
Translation?  Huh
Logged

FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,094



« Reply #167 on: January 16, 2014, 03:22:54 PM »

translate.google.com

Хто любить тебе, малюк?
Translation?  Huh
Logged

http://orthodoxyandrecovery.blogspot.com
The most dangerous thing about riding a tiger is the dismount.  - Indian proverb
Yurysprudentsiya
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA
Posts: 1,007


« Reply #168 on: January 16, 2014, 03:31:29 PM »

Хто любить тебе, малюк?
Translation?  Huh

I'll help out. 

"who loves you, baby?" in Ukrainian. 
Logged
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #169 on: January 16, 2014, 04:01:10 PM »

Only if you admit that the Japanese do ethno-covers better: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1A9rYIVHyM

Not quite. The winner for me is by that band you have recommended me recently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-TlZEJV9A8&list=PL8E3FE7C358FF89F0

Funny thing, I listened to that particular song like two years ago but I did not think it was real band. I thought they are students or homeless or other drunkards.

And the secon