OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 26, 2014, 06:20:39 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Autocephaly  (Read 2798 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,930



« 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: 5,070



« 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: 6,930



« 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: 5,070



« 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
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,795


Pokrov


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
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,476


« 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
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,930



« 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: 2,122



« 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: 3,083



« 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
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« 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
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« 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."
Section Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,352


"Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee..."


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

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,083



« 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: 3,083



« 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: 6,930



« 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
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« 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: 6,930



« 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
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« 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: 6,930



« 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: 2,122



« 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
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,795


Pokrov


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
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,476


« 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
IoanC
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,397



« 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

mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,476


« 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
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 6,890


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
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« 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: 2,122



« 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
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,795


Pokrov


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: 2,122



« 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
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,795


Pokrov


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: 2,122



« 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
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 6,890


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: 2,122



« 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
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA, although in my heart I will always remain a loving son of the UOC-USA
Posts: 2,219


God, the Great, the Only, Keep for Us Our Ukraine!


« 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
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,476


« 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 second place is a tie between two songs by Buranovo Grannies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK_4MMShIzY&list=PL0E81794F66448A45
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVpEP8FgM7U&list=PL0E81794F66448A45

Logged
FatherGiryus
You are being watched.
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch - NA
Posts: 2,122



« Reply #170 on: January 16, 2014, 04:07:12 PM »

OK, you win!   Cheesy

But, don't forget the runners-up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1upZz3a-7iM


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 second place is a tie between two songs by Buranovo Grannies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK_4MMShIzY&list=PL0E81794F66448A45
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVpEP8FgM7U&list=PL0E81794F66448A45


Logged

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

Posts: 21,476


« Reply #171 on: January 16, 2014, 04:24:06 PM »

But, don't forget the runners-up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1upZz3a-7iM[/font][/size]

Yeah. Heard it in the past but forgotten. Great too.
Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,930



« Reply #172 on: January 16, 2014, 07:39:03 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.


I am with you.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
username!
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,070



« Reply #173 on: January 16, 2014, 08:46:18 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.
Was the oca invited?
Logged

mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,476


« Reply #174 on: January 17, 2014, 07:18:59 AM »

No. EP never invites OCA to anything.
Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,594


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #175 on: January 17, 2014, 08:24:24 AM »

No. EP never invites OCA to anything.
Im not surprised. The EP doesn't recognize the OCA, so its natural that they would not invite. If it did, then that could be used as proof of "legitimacy" as if the OCA needed it from the EP.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Basil 320
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,083



« Reply #176 on: January 17, 2014, 09:04:50 AM »

No. EP never invites OCA to anything.
Im not surprised. The EP doesn't recognize the OCA, so its natural that they would not invite. If it did, then that could be used as proof of "legitimacy" as if the OCA needed it from the EP.

PP

Just to clarify terminology for those who may think otherwise, the Ecumenical Patriarchate does recognize the Orthodox Church in America as a canonical, "legitimate," church that is "self-governed;" it does not recognize it as a sister church ranking along side the Holy Orthodox Churches.  (To recall, in the early 1990's, when the Iron Curtain was falling, voices within the Church of Russia were promoting reconsideration of the 1970 "Tomos of Autocephaly" and supporting rescission of it.  At the initiative of its former Chancellor, the OCA approached the Ecumenical Patriarchate to seek clarification of the Ecumenical Patriarchate's understanding of the OCA's governing status as communal relations between the two churches had been maintained despite the dispute over the Church of Russia's 1970 promulgation of the Tomos of Autocephaly upon the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Metropolia. The consultation resulted in the Ecumenical Patriarchate's publication of a communique announcing its understanding that the OCA is self-governed, akin to the attitude its eparchy in America, the GOANSA, had maintained toward the Metropolia after the Church of Russia had imposed its "Anathema" upon it in 1924, but that it is not a sister "autocephalous" church along side the Holy Orthodox Churches.  Later, in 1994, Patriarch Alexii II of the Church of Russia also advised the OCA, that he would not permit a rescission of the disputed "Tomos of Autocephaly.)
Logged

"...Strengthen the Orthodox Community..."
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #177 on: January 17, 2014, 09:21:11 AM »

No. EP never invites OCA to anything.
Im not surprised. The EP doesn't recognize the OCA, so its natural that they would not invite. If it did, then that could be used as proof of "legitimacy" as if the OCA needed it from the EP.

PP

Just to clarify terminology for those who may think otherwise, the Ecumenical Patriarchate does recognize the Orthodox Church in America as a canonical, "legitimate," church that is "self-governed;" it does not recognize it as a sister church ranking along side the Holy Orthodox Churches.  (To recall, in the early 1990's, when the Iron Curtain was falling, voices within the Church of Russia were promoting reconsideration of the 1970 "Tomos of Autocephaly" and supporting rescission of it.  At the initiative of its former Chancellor, the OCA approached the Ecumenical Patriarchate to seek clarification of the Ecumenical Patriarchate's understanding of the OCA's governing status as communal relations between the two churches had been maintained despite the dispute over the Church of Russia's 1970 promulgation of the Tomos of Autocephaly upon the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Metropolia. The consultation resulted in the Ecumenical Patriarchate's publication of a communique announcing its understanding that the OCA is self-governed, akin to the attitude its eparchy in America, the GOANSA, had maintained toward the Metropolia after the Church of Russia had imposed its "Anathema" upon it in 1924, but that it is not a sister "autocephalous" church along side the Holy Orthodox Churches.  Later, in 1994, Patriarch Alexii II of the Church of Russia also advised the OCA, that he would not permit a rescission of the disputed "Tomos of Autocephaly.)
Btw, the canon of limitations for the Moscow Patriarchate ran out in 2000; it will run out for ROCOR in 2000 or thereabouts (it starts running from the opening of the first parish of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia in Russia).
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
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 6,890


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #178 on: January 17, 2014, 09:29:03 AM »

Btw, the canon of limitations for the Moscow Patriarchate ran out in 2000; it will run out for ROCOR in 2000 or thereabouts (it starts running from the opening of the first parish of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia in Russia).

What is the canon of limitations?  I'm ignorant to what you are referring to.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #179 on: January 17, 2014, 09:30:30 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.
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.
Was the oca invited?
ACOBNCA, outside of Mexico, is in the OCA's jurisdiction and canonical territory.  A plurality of those who did sign, representing an absolute majority of the Orthodox, recognize that (and just to preempt you, those who do recognize the OCA and yet have parishes in North America also have parishes in the canonical territory of other Church's that signed:e.g. Bulgaria still has its exarchate Cathedral in Constantinople, and a few years back even sued the EP for harassment or some such thing).

Back when Chambesy was announced the devious and the gullible both were saying that it meant that the Phanar had abandoned its canon 28 pretensions.   Some of us saw right through that.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.243 seconds with 72 queries.