Topic: To GOA or not to GOA, that is the question

[GiC]

Yes you did, you said most Churches consider the OCA schismatic - that is questioning the validity of their Autocephaly....and you have in the past as well.

Fine, you have the perogative to refuse to be respectful and be rude.

So am I wrong? How many of the various autonomous Orthodox Churches include the Metropolia in their dyptics?

[serb1389]

Hey what about the serbs!  

If any of you want a fun filled time with lots of drinking and carrying on after church, go SOC!  (what a slogan...  )

I don't think this option really speaks to the originator of this topic, but hey!  Can't blame me for trying...

[Matthew777]

Personally, I'd recommend the Greek Orthodox Church over the OCA. Then again, that just may be my Greek bias speaking to you.

[Thomas]

In reference to Bishops in the United States not being bishops over specific Cities, I think the Antiochian Bishops now are Bishops over specific cities, I no longer see the title of the  Syrian Bishoprics attached to their names but rather to their American Diocese city (example from the official website of the archdiocese: His Grace, BASIL, Bishop of the City of Wichita and the Diocese of Mid-America).

In Christ,
Thomas

[Elisha]

Hey what about the serbs! ÂÂ  

If any of you want a fun filled time with lots of drinking and carrying on after church, go SOC!  (what a slogan...  )

I don't think this option really speaks to the originator of this topic, but hey!  Can't blame me for trying...

If there are some refreshments after the concert I'm in on Sunday at a SOC, then I plan to ask, "Where's the Slivo?"

[serb1389]

There's almost always refreshments.  Home-made cookies from the balkans!  

And in response to your question about the slivo they will conveniently direct you to the bar.  Every serbian church has a bar!  Some bars in serbian churches in Chicago are bigger than the city bars!  

Usually the drinks are free or dirt-cheap.  But they still make prophets.  i know one church where the guy pays out of his own pocket to import the slivo just so that everyone can drink.  FREE OF CHARGE!!!  

as a side note, i've heard that there is 1 SOC church that exists without a bar...somewhere in Nebraska or something.  I personally think its a lie, or that the people just havn't gotten around to build one yet....

[Arystarcus]

Usually the drinks are free or dirt-cheap.  But they still make prophets.

Freudian slip or an acute observation?    

[Elisha]

There's almost always refreshments.  Home-made cookies from the balkans! ÂÂ

And in response to your question about the slivo they will conveniently direct you to the bar. ÂÂ Every serbian church has a bar! ÂÂ Some bars in serbian churches in Chicago are bigger than the city bars! ÂÂ  

Usually the drinks are free or dirt-cheap.  But they still make prophets.  i know one church where the guy pays out of his own pocket to import the slivo just so that everyone can drink.  FREE OF CHARGE!!! ÂÂ

as a side note, i've heard that there is 1 SOC church that exists without a bar...somewhere in Nebraska or something.  I personally think its a lie, or that the people just havn't gotten around to build one yet....

I DID notice the bar beforehand last time...and the Serbian beer the priest was stocking it with as well, but neither Serb beer nor Slivo were on our table of refreshments...why I'm thinking about making a flippant remark.  This concert will be at 4:30 pm on Sunday at Holy Assumption in Sacramento.

[serb1389]

I know that church!  Make sure to tell Fr. Dane that he needs to bust out the slivo. i'm sure he'll get a kick out of that...  

You know, usually we don't put the stuff out on EVERY table.  You have to walk your butt up to the bar and SHOW the whole church that you're an alcoholic.  

Its just like church...God reaches his hand out and you have to grab it.  We leave the liquor out and you need to get up and grab it!  

[Elisha]

I know that church!  Make sure to tell Fr. Dane that he needs to bust out the slivo. i'm sure he'll get a kick out of that... ÂÂ

You know, usually we don't put the stuff out on EVERY table. ÂÂ You have to walk your butt up to the bar and SHOW the whole church that you're an alcoholic. ÂÂ  

Its just like church...God reaches his hand out and you have to grab it.  We leave the liquor out and you need to get up and grab it! ÂÂ

If things happen like last time, there was food on ONE table in the middle of the hall, there were not that many people at the concert and I think a little wine, but that's it - bar was closed and mainly older people.  Since the director of the choir is Russian and heavily Russians in the choir, alcohol they brought with them was mainly just a box of (shudder...)....Franzia.  Ick.

We'll see.

[serb1389]

that doesn't sound like the serbian events i've been too.  You should go on a Sunday I've been a couple of times and they always had the bar open.  

I'll pass on commenting on Russian drinking habits...

Freudian slip or an acute observation?    

Just tellin it like it is my friend  

[Elisha]

that doesn't sound like the serbian events i've been too.  You should go on a Sunday I've been a couple of times and they always had the bar open. ÂÂ

I'll pass on commenting on Russian drinking habits...

Just tellin it like it is my friend ÂÂ

Maybe it was quiet since it was Sunday afternoon and the more social types had places to be.  Forget - Russians get props for Vodka, but definitely not for Beer or Wine.

We are taking a small rental bus for this thing and it is about 2 hours away.  I'm not driving 2 hours for a regular Sunday liturgy.  Some other time though.

[serb1389]

if it isn't let me know.  i'll put in some phone calls and bust some people's b**ls!!  

Hope you have fun.  SOC ALL THE WAY!!!!

[Matthew777]

I haven't personally been to an OCA church though I have been to the liturgy at the Greek Church several times. From what I've read, I'm not impressed with the OCA. But I have a friend who belongs to that jurisdiction and he's a pretty cool guy.

Peace.

[Elisha]

if it isn't let me know.  i'll put in some phone calls and bust some people's b**ls!!  

Hope you have fun.  SOC ALL THE WAY!!!!

I JUST FOUND OUT AT CHOIR PRACTICE THAT WE'RE NOT GOING THERE BUT TO HOLY ASCENSION (ROCOR) DOWNTOWN SAC INSTEAD!!!!!!   Grrrrrrrrrrrr......

[Elisha]

I haven't personally been to an OCA church though I have been to the liturgy at the Greek Church several times. From what I've read, I'm not impressed with the OCA. But I have a friend who belongs to that jurisdiction and he's a pretty cool guy.

Peace.

Don't believe everything you read.  M777, there is a huge variance in praxis in individual parishes in almost EVERY jurisdiction.  You don't have the right to have any sort of credible opinion until you have personally visited at least a few DIFFERENT parishes of the SAME jurisdiction.

[Matthew777]

Don't believe everything you read.  M777, there is a huge variance in praxis in individual parishes in almost EVERY jurisdiction.  You don't have the right to have any sort of credible opinion until you have personally visited at least a few DIFFERENT parishes of the SAME jurisdiction.

My knowledge of the OCA is mostly limited to its disputes with ROCOR and from what I've seen, if I had to take sides, it would be ROCOR's. That does not mean that my opinion on this matter is intelligent or informed.

Peace.

[Elisha]

My knowledge of the OCA is mostly limited to its disputes with ROCOR and from what I've seen, if I had to take sides, it would be ROCOR's. That does not mean that my opinion on this matter is intelligent or informed.

Peace.

It would be better to try to not to have an opinion at all if you are not trying to be reasonably informed about the OCA.  

[PeterTheAleut]

My knowledge of the OCA is mostly limited to its disputes with ROCOR and from what I've seen, if I had to take sides, it would be ROCOR's. That does not mean that my opinion on this matter is intelligent or informed.

Peace.

M777,

Can you give us a good, clear reason why you don't like the OCA?  The majority of your posts on this issue look in their brevity like poorly conceived pot shots.

[PeterTheAleut]

Maybe I'm a bit behind the flow of the thread, but maybe not.  I'm mystified by some of the inter-jurisdictional vitriol I've seen on this thread.  Can somebody explain to me why it's so important to be in the "right jurisdiction" (EP, MP, ROCOR, OCA, Antiochian, etc.)?  Could it be that the whole idea of jurisdiction itself is an external concept that grew more out of the world's influence on the Church (not that this is all bad) than from within the very Mystery of the Church?  A good link to follow on this matter:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/schmem_canon.aspx

(Don't let the link's wording fool you.  The article is really about Orthodox inter-jurisdictional relations in the USA.)

[Matthew777]

M777,

Can you give us a good, clear reason why you don't like the OCA? ÂÂ

I perceive contempt in the OCA toward ROCOR and perhaps even toward Fr. Seraphim Rose. Please forgive me if it doesn't exist.

[serb1389]

Maybe I'm a bit behind the flow of the thread, but maybe not.  I'm mystified by some of the inter-jurisdictional vitriol I've seen on this thread.  Can somebody explain to me why it's so important to be in the "right jurisdiction" (EP, MP, ROCOR, OCA, Antiochian, etc.)?  Could it be that the whole idea of jurisdiction itself is an external concept that grew more out of the world's influence on the Church (not that this is all bad) than from within the very Mystery of the Church?  A good link to follow on this matter:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/schmem_canon.aspx

(Don't let the link's wording fool you.  The article is really about Orthodox inter-jurisdictional relations in the USA.)

You know even if you are right about the jurisdictions, which I personally don't think that you are, then what are we going to do about it?  The history of Orthodoxy is such that jurisdictions were formed.  This is a historical factor just as much as martyrdom, apologetics, etc.  

We have established jurisdictons as part of our tradition.  It may not be a perfect system but lets look at WHY its not.  The jurisdictonal system only doesn't work because patriarchs, archbishops, etc. don't want to relinquish power.  They don't want to see Orthodoxy progress in another place without THEM being in charge.  On the other hand, some Patriarchs have more "right" than others to be concerned with that.  But who makes that decision?  Usually the patriarchs with the most prestige, power, money, etc.  

Like I said, its not a perfect system, but the church is the working of the HS on earth, and I don't think that the HS would have left us hanging for so long if it didn't have a plan...could be wrong though, can't speak for the HS.  

Plus I don't know why you question one jurisdiction over the other, we all know the Serbian Patriarchate is the most holy...jeez  

[Bizzlebin]

I perceive contempt in the OCA toward ROCOR and perhaps even toward Fr. Seraphim Rose. Please forgive me if it doesn't exist.

It really boils down to the person more than the jurisdiction. For example, my OCA parish holds Fr. Seraphim Rose and his writings in very high regard. Also, ROCOR and OCA laity can often commune in a parish of the other jurisdiction.

[Matthew777]

It really boils down to the person more than the jurisdiction. For example, my OCA parish holds Fr. Seraphim Rose and his writings in very high regard. Also, ROCOR and OCA laity can often commune in a parish of the other jurisdiction.

Thank you for sharing that. I guess another thing that I don't like about the OCA is its name. Is it attempting to distance itself from the Russian Church by calling itself the "Orthodox Church in America"? Obviously, there are several Orthodox jurisdictions in this country besides the OCA.

[GiC]

Thank you for sharing that. I guess another thing that I don't like about the OCA is its name. Is it attempting to distance itself from the Russian Church by calling itself the "Orthodox Church in America"? Obviously, there are several Orthodox jurisdictions in this country besides the OCA.

That's why it should be refered to as the Russian Orthodox Metropolia or simply the Metropolia.

[Elisha]

Thank you for sharing that. I guess another thing that I don't like about the OCA is its name. Is it attempting to distance itself from the Russian Church by calling itself the "Orthodox Church in America"? Obviously, there are several Orthodox jurisdictions in this country besides the OCA.

Yes and no - and for good reason.  From the point of view of both parties, the OCA is Autocephalous and it was given by the Russian Church.  The OCA has its own Primate and elects its own as well.

In addition, OCA/ROCOR relations must be bad...because the son of one of the priests at the Geary St. Cathedral (where St. John Maximovitch is entombed) joined our OCA Russian Men's choir (of the Anza St. parish down the stree - an Old Calendar and Slavonic parish - not many of these in the OCA with the exception of Alaska).  Said priest also saw our concert before his son joined...and there was at least one other ROCOR priest in attendance as well.

[PeterTheAleut]

You know even if you are right about the jurisdictions, which I personally don't think that you are, then what are we going to do about it?  The history of Orthodoxy is such that jurisdictions were formed.  This is a historical factor just as much as martyrdom, apologetics, etc.  

We have established jurisdictons as part of our tradition.  It may not be a perfect system but lets look at WHY its not.  The jurisdictonal system only doesn't work because patriarchs, archbishops, etc. don't want to relinquish power.  They don't want to see Orthodoxy progress in another place without THEM being in charge.  On the other hand, some Patriarchs have more "right" than others to be concerned with that.  But who makes that decision?  Usually the patriarchs with the most prestige, power, money, etc.  

Like I said, its not a perfect system, but the church is the working of the HS on earth, and I don't think that the HS would have left us hanging for so long if it didn't have a plan...could be wrong though, can't speak for the HS.  

Plus I don't know why you question one jurisdiction over the other, we all know the Serbian Patriarchate is the most holy...jeez  

Did you follow my link?

I guess what I'm having trouble understanding is this:  We all preach and practice the same Orthodox faith.  We are all in sacramental communion with each other such that any Greek Orthodox Christian in America (under the EP) can receive Communion in virtually any OCA or ROCOR church, even though we don't agree on jurisdictional matters.  We're all committed to the same Great Commission of making disciples of all the nations.

So why is it so important that the "right patriarch" be in charge?  Should not our jurisdictional reality be subordinate to the Church's Sacred Mystery?  I don't deny at all the importance of jurisdiction.  Even if it is a product of the world's influence on the Church, the Church has incorporated the territorial model of organization and jurisdiction--something the Church adopted from Roman civil law--into our Holy Tradition.  I'm just concerned that we may be overemphasizing jurisdiction at the expense of sacramental unity and the real mission of the Orthodox Church, the making of disciples.

Respectfully,

PeterTheAleut

[serb1389]

I am so sorry, I can't believe that I didn't even see that link.  I'll make sure to try to read through it.  

One thing that I do want to add is that it IS important which Patriarch we are under.  If I'm patriarch of my own religion, and i'm a saint, then i'm no good to you.  I can only be somone you "leave alone" as Christ said about those who are not against us.  

Also we have to keep in mind that any bishop is a representative of Christ, so if we decide to follow a bishop who is completely away from the path and not part of the church, then we are siding with a heretic/schizmatic/whatever you want to call him.  

The problem with this is, no ecumenical council to tell us whether or not we're following the right church/belief/bishop, etc.  

In some ways I view this in a business sence, you want the right guy to be in charge, in order for the business to prosper.  If there were no Bill Gates, where would Microsoft be?

Any of this making sense?  maybe i'm not being specific enough...

[PeterTheAleut]

Thank you for sharing that. I guess another thing that I don't like about the OCA is its name. Is it attempting to distance itself from the Russian Church by calling itself the "Orthodox Church in America"? Obviously, there are several Orthodox jurisdictions in this country besides the OCA.

Yes and no - and for good reason.  From the point of view of both parties, the OCA is Autocephalous and it was given by the Russian Church.  The OCA has its own Primate and elects its own as well.

Many in the OCA and in the MP will point out that the issue of the OCA's autocephaly is purely an internal matter for the MP to decide.  The arguments the OCA and MP make to bolster this position are these:

• The first Orthodox presence in North America was missionaries of the Russian Orthodox Church (i.e., Bishop Innocent of Alaska, the monk Herman, the Hieromartyr Juvenaly)
• Even into the 20th Century, the Orthodox Church in North America was united under the authority of Moscow.  Even the Greeks and Antiochians in the American Church looked to Moscow as Mother until about 1920.
• Most of the other Orthodox jurisdictions that formed in North America since 1920 were composed almost entirely of immigrants who wanted to bring their own clergy with them from their homelands and wanted to remain in  the jurisdiction of the churches of their homelands.  Of course, it also appears as if the "Old World" Orthodox jurisdictions were loth to relinquish charge of their flocks in America and allow them to unite with other American Orthodox into the established local jurisdiction.  To my knowledge, this is how the EP relates to the GOA today, refusing on more than one occasion to grant the GOA any semblence of independence from the EP.

Personally, I don't have a well-developed opinion on the matter.  My concern is more that our administrative unity represent the sacramental unity that we still possess.  It doesn't particularly matter to me how this comes about, as long as we follow canonical means.

[serb1389]

Personally, I don't have a well-developed opinion on the matter.  My concern is more that our administrative unity represent the sacramental unity that we still possess.  It doesn't particularly matter to me how this comes about, as long as we follow canonical means.

I think that it IS important how it happens.  There are RIGHT and WRONG ways of doing things.  And if we are going to follow the cannons on this, how about the one granting Constantinople jurisdiction over all barbarian (is it land or people?  I always forget that distinction)??

Cannons are up to interpretation.  I think we should follow a model that makes the most sense, with the fewest people getting hurt and the most integration possible.  

[PeterTheAleut]

I am so sorry, I can't believe that I didn't even see that link.  I'll make sure to try to read through it.  

One thing that I do want to add is that it IS important which Patriarch we are under.  If I'm patriarch of my own religion, and i'm a saint, then i'm no good to you.  I can only be somone you "leave alone" as Christ said about those who are not against us.  

Also we have to keep in mind that any bishop is a representative of Christ, so if we decide to follow a bishop who is completely away from the path and not part of the church, then we are siding with a heretic/schizmatic/whatever you want to call him.  

The problem with this is, no ecumenical council to tell us whether or not we're following the right church/belief/bishop, etc.  

In some ways I view this in a business sence, you want the right guy to be in charge, in order for the business to prosper.  If there were no Bill Gates, where would Microsoft be?

Any of this making sense?  maybe i'm not being specific enough...

I agree for the most part with what you present in the above post.  I just don't think that this answers the specific questions I have in mind.  I'm thinking more in terms of canonically valid bishops, metropolitans, and patriarchs who have not departed from the Faith (but may have their own competitive power issues)--whom do we follow then?

[PeterTheAleut]

I think that it IS important how it happens.  There are RIGHT and WRONG ways of doing things.  And if we are going to follow the cannons on this, how about the one granting Constantinople jurisdiction over all barbarian (is it land or people?  I always forget that distinction)??

Cannons are up to interpretation.  I think we should follow a model that makes the most sense, with the fewest people getting hurt and the most integration possible.  

Yes, I do agree that Constantinople should have a say in the matter of such issues as American autocephaly, but maybe not in the way I think you envision this.  I think Moscow does have the authority to grant the Metropolia autocephaly, because the issue is fundamentally internal to the MP's jurisdiction over its own churches.  However, I also recognize that the issue of granting the OCA autocephalous status equal to that of the more ancient autocephalous churches is an issue that affects the entire Orthodox Church and should therefore be decided also by the EP in union with all the other autocephalous Orthodox churches--this has not happened yet.  Maybe Moscow should be allowed to make the initial decision while the EP and the other autocephalous churches grant the final ratification of the decision.

[serb1389]

Yes, I do agree that Constantinople should have a say in the matter of such issues as American autocephaly, but maybe not in the way I think you envision this.  I think Moscow does have the authority to grant the Metropolia autocephaly, because the issue is fundamentally internal to the MP's jurisdiction over its own churches.  However, I also recognize that the issue of granting the OCA autocephalous status equal to that of the more ancient autocephalous churches is an issue that affects the entire Orthodox Church and should therefore be decided also by the EP in union with all the other autocephalous Orthodox churches--this has not happened yet.  Maybe Moscow should be allowed to make the initial decision while the EP and the other autocephalous churches grant the final ratification of the decision.

I agree with this.  I think that would be awesome if all of them could get together and ratify a decision from the MP.  If the MP makes that decision....and if they get together...and if...and if...and if...I could keep going.  

Unfortunately, this brings us to the first topic:  Bishops  

I'm thinking more in terms of canonically valid bishops, metropolitans, and patriarchs who have not departed from the Faith (but may have their own competitive power issues)--whom do we follow then?

I am too my friend.  You find me a perfect bishop and i'll find you the perfect answer.  

Seriously though, my answer is, whoever sounds the best and has the best plan at the time, and isn't a major (put in word of your choice).  

Even bishops who have a really clear plan that might actually work, usually have an agenda up their sleaves.  Which is unfortunate.  I personally wouldn't mind the agenda as long as America gets taken care of.  But that's just me.  

I also would LOVE to see the other jurisdictions get together and just talk, discuss, come to a conclusion, and GO WITH IT!!!  But i'm not sure if we can have such a decision, much less all the processes before it.  

Does this answer more your question?  If you want a semi-rediculous but semi-truthful answer, I would say go with Patriarch Pavle (SOC) and do what HE wants.  

[PeterTheAleut]

Does this answer more your question?

Yes, you've done much more good than just answer my question.  Thank you.

If you want a semi-rediculous but semi-truthful answer, I would say go with Patriarch Pavle (SOC) and do what HE wants.  

Of course you'd say this, with a screen name such as you have chosen.  

[PeterTheAleut]

Interesting tidbit from Church history:

Several centuries ago the Russian Church declared its independence of Constantinople, but Constantinople didn't recognize Russia's independence and autocephaly until over 100 years later.  I understand that at a recent major ROC celebration (like maybe the celebration of the ROC's millennium anniversary in 1988) Constantinople dated the beginning of the ROC's autocephaly as the year the ROC declared its independence of Constantinople (and not the year Constantinople finally recognized Russia's autocephaly).

[serb1389]

Wow that is REALLY interesting.  I wonder if they celebrate both?  

Celebrating the declaration makes more sense though.  Greek Independence day is the celebration of a declaration.  

In the Serbian church, however, we celebrate the day that St. Sava was given the blessing to begin his own church, from Constantinople...so slightly different...

[Elisha]

I think that it IS important how it happens.  There are RIGHT and WRONG ways of doing things.  And if we are going to follow the cannons on this, how about the one granting Constantinople jurisdiction over all barbarian (is it land or people?  I always forget that distinction)??

Cannons are up to interpretation.  I think we should follow a model that makes the most sense, with the fewest people getting hurt and the most integration possible. ÂÂ

Well, this is an issue of contention.  While GiC and those of his ilk disagree or interpret this rather narrow-minded, how can or ought "barbarian" lands/people be defined?  What about the missionizing the ROC did for Alaska/lower 48 because the EP was not able and/or willing?  Since it was done, should it all be for naught ecclesially speaking since it was not their (the MP's) jurisdiction?  These are questions that need to be resolved by the hierarchs.

[PeterTheAleut]

Since it was done, should it all be for naught ecclesially speaking since it was not their (the MP's) jurisdiction?

Do you mean the EP's jurisdiction, since the Russian missionaries were under the MP's jurisdiction.  (I assume that EP means Ecumenical Patriarchate and MP means Moscow Patriarchate.  Technically, because Moscow had no patriarchate during the time of the first ROC missionaries to America, the Moscow Patriarchate during this era should be known as the Moscow Metropolitanate.  Again, I'm just being a picker of technical nits.)

[serb1389]

Well, this is an issue of contention.  While GiC and those of his ilk disagree or interpret this rather narrow-minded, how can or ought "barbarian" lands/people be defined?  What about the missionizing the ROC did for Alaska/lower 48 because the EP was not able and/or willing?  Since it was done, should it all be for naught ecclesially speaking since it was not their (the MP's) jurisdiction?  These are questions that need to be resolved by the hierarchs.

Not to burst your bubble my friend but I personally agree with the EP on this, and with GiC on the matter of "barbarian" lands.  I think that it's pretty clear that the barbarian lands were all the lands that were unexplored by Orthodox people/churches at the time of the council.  Even if certain lands were evangalized by other churches.

Ultimatly though, I think the answer is for the bishops to find a solution on this.  The EP decided, for whatever reason, not to evangalize these lands.  MM (Moscow Metropolitanate  ) decided TO evangalize.  So what now?  Both did something "not normal" and we're stuck with the situation.  So why not find a solution?  Because no one wants to let go...

[Fr. George]

Do you mean the EP's jurisdiction, since the Russian missionaries were under the MP's jurisdiction.  (I assume that EP means Ecumenical Patriarchate and MP means Moscow Patriarchate.  Technically, because Moscow had no patriarchate during the time of the first ROC missionaries to America, the Moscow Patriarchate during this era should be known as the Moscow Metropolitanate.  Again, I'm just being a picker of technical nits.)

No, he meant "technically not under MP's jurisdiction" since a narrow reading of canonical tradition or whatnot would lead to the conlcusion that the strict borders of the MP's jurisdiction would be the borders of Russia at the time Autocephaly was granted.  BY this reading, Alaska, despite being missionized by MP clergy, would technically be "under" the EP even from the beginning... THis, of course, is from a narrow reading of the canons, which some promote.

[PeterTheAleut]

No, he meant "technically not under MP's jurisdiction" since a narrow reading of canonical tradition or whatnot would lead to the conlcusion that the strict borders of the MP's jurisdiction would be the borders of Russia at the time Autocephaly was granted.  BY this reading, Alaska, despite being missionized by MP clergy, would technically be "under" the EP even from the beginning... THis, of course, is from a narrow reading of the canons, which some promote.

Ahhh, jurisdictionalism over our missionary duties.  Gotta love this mentality.   (Sarcasm intended)

[Fr. George]

Who ever said to stop sending missionaries?  Nobody (okay, I haven't read all of my famous schoolmate's posts.... and I won't, either).

[Thomas]

The basic question should be, if a nation is colonizing a "barbaric land" or in our case the ":New World"  that was unknown when the canons where written. ÂÂ I think the prevailing response would be that the colonizing country or ruling country, if Orthodox would take that country/colony under their jurisdictional responsibility, whether they were at Patriarchal or Metropolitanate level. I believe that that would be upheld by most International Courts and probably even the EP, then in captivity, and unable to even minister to the Greeks who had settled in the outlying lands. If it were not for the Russians, there probably would not have been a successful Orthodox Mission in the US---It seems that only when Communism raised its head did the multijurisdictional issues arise in the US and as a response to the pleas of sheperdless flocks now appealing to their homeland for support.

 In Christ,
Thomas

[calligraphqueen]

The fact that you have more than one option is a good sign.  here where I am , there is a very famous (or infamous) televangelist- so it makes finding an Orthodox parish rather difficult at all.
We have 1 (one) parish and it's GOA.  When we began the process we were warned that the Greek is a bit exclusive and not very open to those outside the ethnic aspect. Had nothing to do with the ecumenism or anything, it was more cultural.  That was not the case for us, and we bearing 6 children at the time.  We have really livened the place up.
I don't find that they are more liberal in the sense of the faith itself, though I could certainly drive for a few hours (with seven kids in tow) and find a more rigid parish if I wanted.  In the end, your faith matters.  not your jurisdiction.  Be thankful you can worship at all.  Once our already retired and only here on the weekend priest "really" retires, we are in a heap of trouble.
 Be blessed!

[PeterTheAleut]

Yeah, in my city we have a GOA parish that is about as missionary-minded and ethnically un-Greek as one can get.  They have a priest who really understands the Evangelical mindset and has sought to embrace their missionary zeal while at the same time becoming increasingly Orthodox in his preaching and teaching.  I wish every Orthodox church was like this parish regardless of what jurisdiction it may be in.