Author Topic: How many claimants for each of the 5 Sees of the Pentarchy?  (Read 3402 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,204
Re: How many claimants for each of the 5 Sees of the Pentarchy?
« Reply #45 on: August 23, 2014, 09:58:21 PM »
It is not ludicrous claims in the plural, just singular, as there is only one claim.  And it is in response to the ludicrous claim from the other side mentioned in the same article.  

Fr H,

This has been repeated many times by more than just yourself, but no one has ever explained it.  Certainly I read "the ludicrous claim from the other side" and did not see what was so ludicrous about it.  Perhaps this thread isn't the right place for it, but I would be happy to have someone help me see it.  

Sure.  The main point is found right in the article linked above by Isa with the citation from Met. Jonah on the OCA:
"the presence of any other jurisdiction on American territory becomes uncanonical, and membership in the Synod of the Orthodox Church in America becomes the criterion of canonicity of all bishops in America."

That is a whopper of an extreme statement.
No, it is not. Not to judge from the behavior of the primates of the Greek Church. For instance, a few years back, the Phanar struck the Archbishop of Athens from its diptychs because of the Church of Greece exercising jurisdiction in Northern Greece, although the Phanar itself had done worse in Estonia.  The Patriarchate of Jerusalem struck the Patriarchate of Romania from the diptychs over a parish, and then did the same thing to Antioch with trying to erect a diocese in Anitochian territory.

If it is not the norm so expressed, what is problem in Ukraine?  Why not three Churches?  Why did the Phanar attempt to anathematize the Church of Bulgaria at the Black-Pot-and-Kettle Council of 1872 as "Philestists" (while, of course, the Phanar and the Greek Church were the worst practitioners of it)?

Why this farce?
Quote
The Conference expressed the common desire of all Orthodox Churches for a solution to the problem of the canonical organization of the Orthodox Diaspora, in accordance with the ecclesiology, canonical tradition and practice of the Orthodox Church...It is affirmed that is the common will of all of the most holy Orthodox Churches that the problem of the Orthodox Diaspora be resolved as quickly as possible, and that it be organized in accordance with Orthodox ecclesiology, and the canonical tradition and practice of the Orthodox Church... the strictly canonical order of the Church on this issue, that is, the existence of only one bishop in the same place...The Orthodox churches are bound not to advance actions that could hinder the above process for a canonical resolution of the issue of the Diaspora, and to do their utmost to facilitate the work of the Episcopal Assemblies and the restoration of normal canonical order in the Diaspora
http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/documents/chambesy

One city, ONE bishop. It's Orthodox ecclesiology 101.

You also failed to finish the quote, Father.
Quote
This, of course, has not been pushed by the OCA. What is at stake, however, is the canonical Order of the Church, its vision and Mission

If in the future we colonize Mars with numerous eco-domes with several cities/towns in each, and in 50 years a Romanian Bishop is sent to Mars and sets up parishes in one of the 50 bubble-domes, can he claim jurisdiction over the whole planet because he was the first bishop on Mars?  No, he can claim the diocese of neo-rover landing #3 since that is the one that he actually shepherds.

You seem hell bent on ignoring, Father, the facts we are dealing with here (North America, the canonical territory of the OCA): the Romanian Patriarchate had pastored the only Orthodox in neo-rover #1, sent a bishop in the founding of another dome, said bishop pastoring another dome as well-the bishop later being translated to that dome as plans were drawn up to pastor all fifty domes, the All Martian authority recognizing the chaplaincy of the bishop and incorporating the Romanian exarchate of Mars, as it spreads to the major dome on Mars (at the same point that the only dome where any other Orthodox can claim any first on Mars set up a parish including Romanians who had been in the distant dome, said parish enjoying patronage of the Romanian Patriarchate)....nearly all 50 domes being pastored and visited by the Romanian Patriarchate's bishops-plural, and the Romanian Patriarchate has already started consecrating its bishops on Mars and setting up a Holy Synod...all BEFORE, after over a century of mission on Mars, the FIRST BISHOP FROM THE PHANAR TO SET FOOT ON MARS COMES AND SAYS "THIS PLANET IS OURS."

But lets take your scenario as you set it up, Father: if one of the domes needs a priest, who can ordain them?  If chrism is needed, who can provide it?  From whom can a parish get a antimens?

To paraphrase Apostolic Canon 34, it is the duty of All Martial Domes to recognize the Dome with a bishop as its head.

Jurisdiction in a place where you have no flock makes no sense.

And yet the Phanar did just that.
Alaska, hands down OCA.  It was Russian territory and its legitimate pastoral presence cannot be disputed just because the land was bought by the US from Russia.
And yet the Phanar did dispute just that.
However, the reverse is also true, that just because it was bought from Russia does not mean that the whole continent can be claimed by the former Russian Diocese of Alaska.
Alexandria claims all of Africa, and it's just a city. The Phanar is just a neighborhood, and it claims the whole world (and Mars too I suppose).

The whole continent can be claimed from Alaska, and, with canonical rectitude, is, Father.

Hwever, you are too fixated on Alaska, Father.  In 1872 the bishop was in San Francisco, where he had his flocks for 6 decades, in the US of A.  It would be twenty years to any priest was sent by the Phanar to anywhere on the continent, over thirty years-the canonical statute of limitations-before the Phanar made an official claim and permitted the Church of Greece to exercise jurisdiction in North America, and almost 50 years before a bishop so authorized by the Phanar set foot in North America, and 50 years before the Greek Archdiocese was set up with its charter.
One drop does not make a well;
It is if it is the only drop. Conversely, if a drop of arsenic is in the well, you going to drink from it, Father?

However, in the case we are talking about, we are talking about the ground water that makes the well.

likewise, one diocese does not make an ecclesiastical province, much less a continental supra-province.  
not keen on the idea of Metropolitinates-a key constituent element of Orthodox canonical Taxis and Praxis-are you, Father.  Rather odd from someone connected with the Ukrainians, given the history (and claims) of the Metropolis of Kiev and All Rus'.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2014, 10:08:35 PM by ialmisry »
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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,204
Re: How many claimants for each of the 5 Sees of the Pentarchy?
« Reply #46 on: August 23, 2014, 10:09:57 PM »
Thanks, Father.  I think I mixed up my ludicrousnesses because this is a different document from what I had in mind.  :)

I'll take a look at this.
I think Father wants you to look at this, Met. (then a monk) Jonah's actual words
https://oca.org/PDF/metropolitan-jonah/MJ.Episcopacy_Primacy_Mother%20Churches.pdf
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

Offline Father H

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,680
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Nea Roma
Re: How many claimants for each of the 5 Sees of the Pentarchy?
« Reply #47 on: August 23, 2014, 10:19:54 PM »
It is not ludicrous claims in the plural, just singular, as there is only one claim.  And it is in response to the ludicrous claim from the other side mentioned in the same article.  

Fr H,

This has been repeated many times by more than just yourself, but no one has ever explained it.  Certainly I read "the ludicrous claim from the other side" and did not see what was so ludicrous about it.  Perhaps this thread isn't the right place for it, but I would be happy to have someone help me see it.  

Sure.  The main point is found right in the article linked above by Isa with the citation from Met. Jonah on the OCA:
"the presence of any other jurisdiction on American territory becomes uncanonical, and membership in the Synod of the Orthodox Church in America becomes the criterion of canonicity of all bishops in America."

That is a whopper of an extreme statement.
No, it is not. Not to judge from the behavior of the primates of the Greek Church. For instance, a few years back, the Phanar struck the Archbishop of Athens from its diptychs because of the Church of Greece exercising jurisdiction in Northern Greece, although the Phanar itself had done worse in Estonia.  The Patriarchate of Jerusalem struck the Patriarchate of Romania from the diptychs over a parish, and then did the same thing to Antioch with trying to erect a diocese in Anitochian territory.

If it is not the norm so expressed, what is problem in Ukraine?  Why not three Churches?  Why did the Phanar attempt to anathematize the Church of Bulgaria at the Black-Pot-and-Kettle Council of 1872 as "Philestists" (while, of course, the Phanar and the Greek Church were the worst practitioners of it)?

Why this farce?
Quote
The Conference expressed the common desire of all Orthodox Churches for a solution to the problem of the canonical organization of the Orthodox Diaspora, in accordance with the ecclesiology, canonical tradition and practice of the Orthodox Church...It is affirmed that is the common will of all of the most holy Orthodox Churches that the problem of the Orthodox Diaspora be resolved as quickly as possible, and that it be organized in accordance with Orthodox ecclesiology, and the canonical tradition and practice of the Orthodox Church... the strictly canonical order of the Church on this issue, that is, the existence of only one bishop in the same place...The Orthodox churches are bound not to advance actions that could hinder the above process for a canonical resolution of the issue of the Diaspora, and to do their utmost to facilitate the work of the Episcopal Assemblies and the restoration of normal canonical order in the Diaspora
http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/documents/chambesy

One city, ONE bishop. It's Orthodox ecclesiology 101.

You also failed to finish the quote, Father.
Quote
This, of course, has not been pushed by the OCA. What is at stake, however, is the canonical Order of the Church, its vision and Mission

If in the future we colonize Mars with numerous eco-domes with several cities/towns in each, and in 50 years a Romanian Bishop is sent to Mars and sets up parishes in one of the 50 bubble-domes, can he claim jurisdiction over the whole planet because he was the first bishop on Mars?  No, he can claim the diocese of neo-rover landing #3 since that is the one that he actually shepherds.

You seem hell bent on ignoring, Father, the facts we are dealing with here (North America, the canonical territory of the OCA): the Romanian Patriarchate had pastored the only Orthodox in neo-rover #1, sent a bishop in the founding of another dome, said bishop pastoring another dome as well-the bishop later being translated to that dome as plans were drawn up to pastor all fifty domes, the All Martian authority recognizing the chaplaincy of the bishop and incorporating the Romanian exarchate of Mars, as it spreads to the major dome on Mars (at the same point that the only dome where any other Orthodox can claim any first on Mars set up a parish including Romanians who had been in the distant dome, said parish enjoying patronage of the Romanian Patriarchate)....nearly all 50 domes being pastored and visited by the Romanian Patriarchate's bishops-plural, and the Romanian Patriarchate has already started consecrating its bishops on Mars and setting up a Holy Synod...all BEFORE, after over a century of mission on Mars, the FIRST BISHOP FROM THE PHANAR TO SET FOOT ON MARS COMES AND SAYS "THIS PLANET IS OURS."

But lets take your scenario as you set it up, Father: if one of the domes needs a priest, who can ordain them?  If chrism is needed, who can provide it?  From whom can a parish get a antimens?

To paraphrase Apostolic Canon 34, it is the duty of All Martial Domes to recognize the Dome with a bishop as its head.

Jurisdiction in a place where you have no flock makes no sense.

And yet the Phanar did just that.
Alaska, hands down OCA.  It was Russian territory and its legitimate pastoral presence cannot be disputed just because the land was bought by the US from Russia.
And yet the Phanar did dispute just that.
However, the reverse is also true, that just because it was bought from Russia does not mean that the whole continent can be claimed by the former Russian Diocese of Alaska.
Alexandria claims all of Africa, and it's just a city. The Phanar is just a neighborhood, and it claims the whole world (and Mars too I suppose).

The whole continent can be claimed from Alaska, and, with canonical rectitude, is, Father.

Hwever, you are too fixated on Alaska, Father.  In 1872 the bishop was in San Francisco, where he had his flocks for 6 decades, in the US of A.  It would be twenty years to any priest was sent by the Phanar to anywhere on the continent, over thirty years-the canonical statute of limitations-before the Phanar made an official claim and permitted the Church of Greece to exercise jurisdiction in North America, and almost 50 years before a bishop so authorized by the Phanar set foot in North America, and 50 years before the Greek Archdiocese was set up with its charter.
One drop does not make a well;
It is if it is the only drop. Conversely, if a drop of arsenic is in the well, you going to drink from it, Father?

However, in the case we are talking about, we are talking about the ground water that makes the well.

likewise, one diocese does not make an ecclesiastical province, much less a continental supra-province.  
not keen on the idea of Metropolitinates-a key constituent element of Orthodox canonical Taxis and Praxis-are you, Father.  Rather odd from someone connected with the Ukrainians, given the history (and claims) of the Metropolis of Kiev and All Rus'.

LOL!   I hope that you are not serious on what you wrote.  A Metropolia is an ecclesial province Isa.  Of course I said "province" to cover both Greek and Slavic terminology.  Sorry that you don't know that and thought that you had to "correct" me.  So I will say it in layman's terms so that even you can understand it:  The setting up of a diocese does not make a metropolia beyond it.  I now feel like the calculus teacher who took on an algebra class in favor to a friend and has to deal with an incorrigible student.    
« Last Edit: August 23, 2014, 10:22:00 PM by Father H »

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,204
Re: How many claimants for each of the 5 Sees of the Pentarchy?
« Reply #48 on: August 24, 2014, 12:29:34 AM »
LOL!   I hope that you are not serious on what you wrote.  A Metropolia is an ecclesial province Isa.  Of course I said "province" to cover both Greek and Slavic terminology.  Sorry that you don't know that and thought that you had to "correct" me.  So I will say it in layman's terms so that even you can understand it:  The setting up of a diocese does not make a metropolia beyond it.  I now feel like the calculus teacher who took on an algebra class in favor to a friend and has to deal with an incorrigible student.
 
answered here
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,60450.msg1176932/topicseen.html#msg1176932
« Last Edit: August 24, 2014, 12:36:22 AM by ialmisry »
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

Offline Father H

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,680
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Nea Roma
Re: How many claimants for each of the 5 Sees of the Pentarchy?
« Reply #49 on: August 24, 2014, 12:47:29 AM »
LOL!   I hope that you are not serious on what you wrote.
 
Dead serious as always, Father.
A Metropolia is an ecclesial province Isa.
You seemed unaware of that fact, Father.
Of course I said "province" to cover both Greek and Slavic terminology.
Your problem, unfortunately, lies deeper than mere terms, Father.
Sorry that you don't know that and thought that you had to "correct" me.

I have to correct more than your terminology, Father.
So I will say it in layman's terms so that even you can understand it:  The setting up of a diocese does not make a metropolia beyond it.
 
We could go over this pursuant to canon 1 of Constantionople, and Apostolic Canon 35 as interpreted by St. Nektarios in the Pedalion etc. but to cut to the chase: in 1905 the Russian Archbishop of the Aleutians and North America had his cathedra in New York (where his predecessors had been pastoring and exercising jurisdiction (officially recognized/required by the State of New York since the 1870s) since the 1860s, with suffragans on both coasts and in between (his jurisdiction recognized by the Dominion of Canada in 1903 over the Orthodox parishes-at the time the only Orthodox parishes in Canada) visiting the parishes throughout the USA and Canada beyond the cathedrals of Sitka, San Francisco and Brooklyn and the cathedral parishes forming in Chicago, Boston and Winnipeg. As the local Church per Canon 8 of Ephesus, it consecrated its bishop of Brooklyn-the first consecration of an Orthodox bishop in the New World, and uncanonical under Canon 8 of Ephesus if the Russian Archdiocse of the Aleutians and North America was not the Local Church per the Orthodox canons.

But since the Russian Archdiocese, as indicated above, was the Local Church having jurisdiction over the continent years (plural) before the Phanar even advanced its THEORETICAL jurisdiction in its Tomos of 1908, over a decade before a bishop authorized by that uncanonical Tomos set foot on the continent, and nearly two decades before any jurisdiction was organized and chartered on the uncanonical basis of that Tomos, and decades still before that jurisdiction so formed on that uncanonical basis was able to consolidate: that consecration in March 1904 New York by the Russian bishops of North America (the primate then still in San Francisco as the New York Cathedral was being built) was uncontestably in correct Orthodox canonical form and authority.

I now feel like the calculus teacher who took on an algebra class in favor to a friend and has to deal with an incorrigible student.    
Incorrible student-is that a confession, Father?

"You seemed unaware of that fact"  Lol.  You are hilarious Isa.  The Mediterraneans, of course, use metropolis for a diocese and eparchia for a cluster of them.  The Slavs are the reverse, using "eparchy" for a diocese and "metropolia" for a cluster of them (province).  The term "eparchia" (province) is the canonical term for a cluster of episkopi.  In any case, you did not know this, and I called you out on it, and now you try to cover your tracks with THIS!  Hilarious!

Actually, I do teach math on a college level (in this case to medical students and others).  You just reminded me of a quick-gunned student that I had last year who made himself look stupid to the rest of the class, so yes, I suppose it is a confession.   

Offline Father H

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,680
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Nea Roma
Re: How many claimants for each of the 5 Sees of the Pentarchy?
« Reply #50 on: August 24, 2014, 12:52:57 AM »
^Also, your pathological need to "always have the last word" Carl pointed out a few days back.  He is right.  This is something you seriously need to look at for your salvation.  I may or may not respond to your next post (which I predict that you cannot refrain from in the course of your pathology), but I do pray that you do also pray that you be delivered from this very pathos.  
« Last Edit: August 24, 2014, 12:54:05 AM by Father H »

Offline Maria

  • Boldly Proclaiming True Orthodox Christianity
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 14,023
  • O most Holy Theotokos, save us.
    • Saint Euphrosynos Cafe Discussion Forum
  • Faith: TrueGenuine Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: GOC under Archbishop Stephanos
Re: How many claimants for each of the 5 Sees of the Pentarchy?
« Reply #51 on: August 24, 2014, 01:09:31 AM »
^Also, your pathological need to "always have the last word" Carl pointed out a few days back.  He is right.  This is something you seriously need to look at for your salvation.  I may or may not respond to your next post (which I predict that you cannot refrain from in the course of your pathology), but I do pray that you do also pray that you be delivered from this very pathos.  

Lord have mercy.
The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai
Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,
Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,204
Re: How many claimants for each of the 5 Sees of the Pentarchy?
« Reply #52 on: August 24, 2014, 03:45:39 PM »
wakil

From what language does this word come, and what does it mean?  Is it related in any way to "lawyer" or "advocate"? 
Arabic. It means agent.


Interesting.  In Malayalam, we have a word that sounds like this, and it means "lawyer". 

Hmm.  May be originally a Syriac word that got imported into Arabic and Malayalam.

I was wondering that myself, Fr H.  We have enough loanwords from Syriac and even Arabic. 

Quote
Out of curiosity, in Malayalam, is it is used to translate parakletos for the Holy Spirit? 

No.  I checked a few translations, and it doesn't seem like this particular word is used.

Ok, so may be closer to Greek ekdikos, which would make more sense as correlating to the Arab usage that Isa presented.       
On the Arabic term, taken up in the Quran and hence into Islamic law, Encyclopedia of Islam 2nd ed.:
Quote
WAKALA (A.), verbal noun of the verb wakala, a technical term of Islamic religion, and more generally, of commercial practice and law. It means to commission, depute or authorise a person to act on behalf of another. It is a term far from easy to encapsulate in one meaning since it carries a variety of legal, and theological concepts. One of the attributes of God, given in the Kur'an and hadith is al-Wakil, which indicates protection and sustenance, while according to al-Sarakhsf, the word indicates the entrusting (hifdz) of another person's property. The concept of wakala is significant in Islamic law as a practical mechanism by which all forms of contracts may be activated. According to Hanafi law, it is the basis of all forms of contractual partnership. For validity, the following basic rules are required, many of which are the same as expected in general contracts: 1. The condition of contract validity (sihhd) requires that both parties must be able to dispose of their property, that the object of wakala must be definite and legal, and that the obligation and acceptance of both parties (igjdb, kabul) are clearly manifest. 2. The authorisation may be specific or general within the configuration which will be explained below. 3. The wakala contract is like that of wadfa [q.v.], representing a voluntary contract which would be converted into a commercial contract if fees are stipulated. 4. No responsibility is incured on the proxy (waktl) except in case of negligence (tqfrit) or intentional transgression (ta'addi). 5. The contract can be terminated at the behest of either party or, like any other contract, by the death, insanity or legal incompetency of either of them.
The reference to Hanafi law is significant, as that is what the Ottomans followed, and the Mughals IIRC (from whom the usage might have gotten into Malayam). Jefferey's Foreign Vocabulary of the Quran and the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon turned up nothing (Aramaic using Greek and Persian loans for "agent") turned up nothing, so it seems native Arabic root, meaning "in entrust."

It can be used for "lawyer," or more accurately "attorney" as in "power of attorney," but we usually say "muHaanii," which, btw, comes form the root "to protect" and like the Greek legal use of "parakletos" (we say "al-mu'azzii," however, for Parakete, from the root of "to comfort").
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

Online Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,221
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: How many claimants for each of the 5 Sees of the Pentarchy?
« Reply #53 on: August 24, 2014, 04:05:20 PM »
Interesting...so maybe it is an Arabic loanword.  :)
How this relates to the coming Antichrist? I don't know...

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,204
Re: How many claimants for each of the 5 Sees of the Pentarchy?
« Reply #54 on: August 24, 2014, 06:13:03 PM »
LOL!   I hope that you are not serious on what you wrote.
 
Dead serious as always, Father.
A Metropolia is an ecclesial province Isa.
You seemed unaware of that fact, Father.
Of course I said "province" to cover both Greek and Slavic terminology.
Your problem, unfortunately, lies deeper than mere terms, Father.
Sorry that you don't know that and thought that you had to "correct" me.

I have to correct more than your terminology, Father.
So I will say it in layman's terms so that even you can understand it:  The setting up of a diocese does not make a metropolia beyond it.
 
We could go over this pursuant to canon 1 of Constantionople, and Apostolic Canon 35 as interpreted by St. Nektarios in the Pedalion etc. but to cut to the chase: in 1905 the Russian Archbishop of the Aleutians and North America had his cathedra in New York (where his predecessors had been pastoring and exercising jurisdiction (officially recognized/required by the State of New York since the 1870s) since the 1860s, with suffragans on both coasts and in between (his jurisdiction recognized by the Dominion of Canada in 1903 over the Orthodox parishes-at the time the only Orthodox parishes in Canada) visiting the parishes throughout the USA and Canada beyond the cathedrals of Sitka, San Francisco and Brooklyn and the cathedral parishes forming in Chicago, Boston and Winnipeg. As the local Church per Canon 8 of Ephesus, it consecrated its bishop of Brooklyn-the first consecration of an Orthodox bishop in the New World, and uncanonical under Canon 8 of Ephesus if the Russian Archdiocse of the Aleutians and North America was not the Local Church per the Orthodox canons.

But since the Russian Archdiocese, as indicated above, was the Local Church having jurisdiction over the continent years (plural) before the Phanar even advanced its THEORETICAL jurisdiction in its Tomos of 1908, over a decade before a bishop authorized by that uncanonical Tomos set foot on the continent, and nearly two decades before any jurisdiction was organized and chartered on the uncanonical basis of that Tomos, and decades still before that jurisdiction so formed on that uncanonical basis was able to consolidate: that consecration in March 1904 New York by the Russian bishops of North America (the primate then still in San Francisco as the New York Cathedral was being built) was uncontestably in correct Orthodox canonical form and authority.

I now feel like the calculus teacher who took on an algebra class in favor to a friend and has to deal with an incorrigible student.    
Incorrible student-is that a confession, Father?

"You seemed unaware of that fact"  Lol.  You are hilarious Isa.  The Mediterraneans, of course, use metropolis for a diocese and eparchia for a cluster of them.  The Slavs are the reverse, using "eparchy" for a diocese and "metropolia" for a cluster of them (province).  The term "eparchia" (province) is the canonical term for a cluster of episkopi.  In any case, you did not know this, and I called you out on it, and now you try to cover your tracks with THIS!  Hilarious!  
answered (a start-such deep wrong requires going through layer by layer) here:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,60450.msg1177132/topicseen.html#msg1177132
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