Wednesday, September 29. 2010
Episcopal Assembly
Your comments are welcome.
Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
Looks like a plan to break up the OCA's Holy Synod by splitting Archbishop Seraphim off by himself (with Bishop Alexander of the AOCA).
(Editor's note: This is no way affects the Synod of the OCA. It is a simple recognition that Canada is a very different country than the US, and given the major differences in religious, tax laws, a separate assembly only makes sense.)
(Editor's note: This is no way affects the Synod of the OCA. It is a simple recognition that Canada is a very different country than the US, and given the major differences in religious, tax laws, a separate assembly only makes sense.)
#1
anonymous
on
2010-09-29 21:53
Thank you for confirming that Canada is a different country. A very different history of Orthodoxy. Bilingualism and multiculturalism.
Also the majority of the parishes in Canada are under the EP. The two largest churches are the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Toronto and Canada and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada centred in Winnipeg.
Canada needs to go its own way without "Big Brother" America aka the USA.
Also the majority of the parishes in Canada are under the EP. The two largest churches are the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Toronto and Canada and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada centred in Winnipeg.
Canada needs to go its own way without "Big Brother" America aka the USA.
#1.1
Riel
on
2010-10-04 21:52
I didn't see or hear anything about a "GUARANTEE" of recognition of a new, autocephalous American Church. Without this, all this other stuff is moot! What every Orthodox Christian in N. Am. needs to hear from the Bishop of Istanbul is, "We will recognize the Episcopal Assembly of N. America as an autocephalous church by xxxxxx." Without this, it is a sham for the Greeks to rule over all the Orthodox under the guise of "UNITY." Did I mention the Russians taking their own piece of the pie?
(Editor's note: Bingo. Nowhere in the many discussions for a "united" Orthodox Church in North America is there a committment for an autocephalous Church indicated. As a process it remains structurally deficient as all others in the past: if anyone thinks you are going to get 10 old world jurisdictions to give up their American dioceses, or that a majority of the people in those American jurisdictions want to be given up, well, dream on. Remember Ligonier?
I think it revealing the reasoning given by Istanbul for the move: to prevent scandal, to influence public policy... Moreover, the first thing he mentions is that it "revealed the proper hierarchy and spiritual priority of our Orthodox bishops". If healing "canonical anomalies" is the first priority of Istanbul, or even our Bishops, we have much bigger problems in Orthodox America than any disunity. We've lost the point of the whole adventure. I would suggest, therefore, that this letter reveals our "spiritual slip" is showing - and it ain't pretty.
Unity in America will require confidence and cooperation - and so far, since no Americans are allowed to participate in the decisions - notice every reference in the letter is to rules and regulations no Americans had a say in - how is one to have confidence? Or even be allowed to cooperate? No, cooperation is not required, for one is to obey, because the "values" expressed by the letter are for the "safeguarding" their pasts, not our future.
Fortunately, I have been around the block to know that self-interest will most likely destroy this attempt just as it has all previous ones that were imposed from the outside. They killed Ligonier, and Ligonier Lite is hardly a step forward. All the problems the committees mention could be solved in a series of phone calls. That have not been argues that they will not be. This can only lead to more disunity, I fear. Our Lord's words continue to ring: "For what profit if a man gain the world, but lose his soul?"
(Editor's note: Bingo. Nowhere in the many discussions for a "united" Orthodox Church in North America is there a committment for an autocephalous Church indicated. As a process it remains structurally deficient as all others in the past: if anyone thinks you are going to get 10 old world jurisdictions to give up their American dioceses, or that a majority of the people in those American jurisdictions want to be given up, well, dream on. Remember Ligonier?
I think it revealing the reasoning given by Istanbul for the move: to prevent scandal, to influence public policy... Moreover, the first thing he mentions is that it "revealed the proper hierarchy and spiritual priority of our Orthodox bishops". If healing "canonical anomalies" is the first priority of Istanbul, or even our Bishops, we have much bigger problems in Orthodox America than any disunity. We've lost the point of the whole adventure. I would suggest, therefore, that this letter reveals our "spiritual slip" is showing - and it ain't pretty.
Unity in America will require confidence and cooperation - and so far, since no Americans are allowed to participate in the decisions - notice every reference in the letter is to rules and regulations no Americans had a say in - how is one to have confidence? Or even be allowed to cooperate? No, cooperation is not required, for one is to obey, because the "values" expressed by the letter are for the "safeguarding" their pasts, not our future.
Fortunately, I have been around the block to know that self-interest will most likely destroy this attempt just as it has all previous ones that were imposed from the outside. They killed Ligonier, and Ligonier Lite is hardly a step forward. All the problems the committees mention could be solved in a series of phone calls. That have not been argues that they will not be. This can only lead to more disunity, I fear. Our Lord's words continue to ring: "For what profit if a man gain the world, but lose his soul?"
#2
Anonymous
on
2010-09-30 06:18
For my own part, my own preferences for the outcome of the EA and Chambesy process are, in descending order of pleasingness to me:
1. Autonomy tied to Moscow (as the Patriarchate that first evangelized America)
2. Autocephaly
3. Return to the theoretical status-quo-ante 1917 as part of the Patriarchate of Moscow
4. Autonomy tied to Constantinople
5. Anything else, so long as we are united, and governed under the canons with no overlapping dioceses, with out bishops answerable to an American holy synod, real ruling bishops for all dioceses, all bishops being ruling bishops of a diocese except for at most one or two auxiliary bishops as assistants to the primate of the American church, dioceses with their own finances, and financial transparency in the spirit of the ancient canon that called for all bishops to have a steward "that the good of the Church not be squandered, nor the priesthood be brought into disrepute".
1. Autonomy tied to Moscow (as the Patriarchate that first evangelized America)
2. Autocephaly
3. Return to the theoretical status-quo-ante 1917 as part of the Patriarchate of Moscow
4. Autonomy tied to Constantinople
5. Anything else, so long as we are united, and governed under the canons with no overlapping dioceses, with out bishops answerable to an American holy synod, real ruling bishops for all dioceses, all bishops being ruling bishops of a diocese except for at most one or two auxiliary bishops as assistants to the primate of the American church, dioceses with their own finances, and financial transparency in the spirit of the ancient canon that called for all bishops to have a steward "that the good of the Church not be squandered, nor the priesthood be brought into disrepute".
Editor: I think you are absolutely correct! So, what should the stance of the OCA be? I believe, distant. + Jonah has been a disappointment with his comments of "modifying" the OCA's autocephaly and reuniting with Moscow. These are fighting words! Neither Moscow nor Istanbul is the answer. The OCA MUST stick up for who we are - the ONLY indigenous, canonical, autocephalous Orthodox Church in North America!
#3
Anonymous
on
2010-09-30 08:54
An "autocephaly," of course, declared by one of those "foreign patriarchates." Oh, the humanity!
#3.1
ejv
on
2010-09-30 19:56
I agree with Mark's comments. Canada is much different that the US in many ways, not to mention, eastern canada with French. Some parishes in Quebec (Antiochian) only use Arabic or French in Liturgical Services.
One question will this mean Bishop Alexander of the antiochian archdiocese will be seated in 2 EA since his diocese includes upstate New York "Diocese of Ottawa and Upstate New York" - interesting Question?
(editor's note: Why don't you write Bishop Basil and ask? We would all love to hear the answer to that question!)
One question will this mean Bishop Alexander of the antiochian archdiocese will be seated in 2 EA since his diocese includes upstate New York "Diocese of Ottawa and Upstate New York" - interesting Question?
(editor's note: Why don't you write Bishop Basil and ask? We would all love to hear the answer to that question!)
#4
Anonymous
on
2010-09-30 09:43
Editor: This situation is already contemplated by the Rules of Operation, Article 1.2, and Bishops who have parishes in both North and South America have already attended the Assemblies for both regions. The same will undoubtedly be the case with the new Canadian Assembly.
#4.1
ejv
on
2010-09-30 20:01
Wow! These committees are nothing but a welfare program for sinecure Church staffers. Look busy.....
Ask yourself this question,
If the entire membership of the EA had a pro-life document put before them condemning abortion, what percentage of the bishops would sign it?
If the entire membership of the EA had a pro-chastity/pro-marriage document put before them, what percentage would sign this document?
Make no mistake....There is a real difference of beliefs that exists among these bishops when it comes to the moral questions of our day.
Ask yourself this question,
If the entire membership of the EA had a pro-life document put before them condemning abortion, what percentage of the bishops would sign it?
If the entire membership of the EA had a pro-chastity/pro-marriage document put before them, what percentage would sign this document?
Make no mistake....There is a real difference of beliefs that exists among these bishops when it comes to the moral questions of our day.
#5
Andrew
on
2010-09-30 13:33
I did some research Bishops with conflicting Diocese will be part of both EA it looks like sicne they ahve Churches in both
#6
Anonymous
on
2010-09-30 14:20
The Episcopal Assemblies are all baloney! It is really great that all the canonical Orthodox bishops get together for tea sponsored by the GOA. However, + Demetrios then uses this stating that he is the HEAD of all the bishops and speaks on behalf of all of them - BALONEY! Then, we have Moscow trying to do their "land grab" of the OCA and all slav churches. All of this takes Orthodoxy in North America back to 1940 or earlier. Orthodox people of N. America, see what is really going on here. The OCA must remain strong and vigilant against the wiles of foreign bishops - they are only interested in taking our money under the guise of proclaiming unity!
#7
Anonymous
on
2010-10-01 05:30
I respect His Holiness, but have fundamental problems with him as a Christian leader, and I have very certain BIG problems with him as the leader of the American Orthodox Church (not the least of which is his acceptance of abortion in certain circumstances, and his "Green Patriarch" eagerness to prioritize environmental issues while American goes unevangelized because of our ethnic insularity).
I think that here he shows his true colors, which are papal, not conciliar. "The consent of the Church of Constantinople," is nothing other than his own unilateral decision-making for a well-established church he only visits once every ten years or so.
Incidentally, there is no "Church of Constantinople." (Someone please send the Phanar a CD with the song, "Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople"!) I'm with Metropolitan PHILIP, sick of the debilitating nostalgic pretense so prevalent throughout Orthodoxy. At it's root, it's a denial of reality and our responsibility to pastor today's world.
Then again, "citing the difficult of convening a gathering of all Orthodox Primates to formally deal with this request, 'Constantinople' will '...anticipate their consensus...'" As I see it, this is again unilateral decision making, not Orthodox consensus. Please correct me if I'm not seeing clearly.
I agree with "anonymous" that "What every Orthodox Christian in N. Am. needs to hear from the Bishop of Istanbul is, 'We will recognize the Episcopal Assembly of N. America as an autocephalous church by xxxx.' Without this, it is a sham for the Greeks to rule over all the Orthodox under the guise of 'UNITY.'"
"Ligonier Lite" indeed...
(that was a good one, Mark!)
Fr Mark Hodges
+
I think that here he shows his true colors, which are papal, not conciliar. "The consent of the Church of Constantinople," is nothing other than his own unilateral decision-making for a well-established church he only visits once every ten years or so.
Incidentally, there is no "Church of Constantinople." (Someone please send the Phanar a CD with the song, "Now it's Istanbul, not Constantinople"!) I'm with Metropolitan PHILIP, sick of the debilitating nostalgic pretense so prevalent throughout Orthodoxy. At it's root, it's a denial of reality and our responsibility to pastor today's world.
Then again, "citing the difficult of convening a gathering of all Orthodox Primates to formally deal with this request, 'Constantinople' will '...anticipate their consensus...'" As I see it, this is again unilateral decision making, not Orthodox consensus. Please correct me if I'm not seeing clearly.
I agree with "anonymous" that "What every Orthodox Christian in N. Am. needs to hear from the Bishop of Istanbul is, 'We will recognize the Episcopal Assembly of N. America as an autocephalous church by xxxx.' Without this, it is a sham for the Greeks to rule over all the Orthodox under the guise of 'UNITY.'"
"Ligonier Lite" indeed...
(that was a good one, Mark!)
Fr Mark Hodges
+
Well, speaking of "the debilitating nostalgic pretense so prevalent throughout Orthodoxy," just as there's no longer any Constantinople, there's no longer any Antioch, either. The patriarchate bearing the name of that city has been headquartered in a completely different city since the 15th century. So let's not just look at the bishop of Istanbul to deal with reality. Will the bishop of Damascus rechristen his North American possession "The Damascene Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America (self-ruled or otherwise)" any time soon?
#8.1
Gregory
on
2010-10-04 08:43
Antioch (Antakya) still exists, although you are correct that the Patriarch no longer lives in that city. Because of its ancient and honored heritage, I wouldn't give up the title if I were IGNATIUS IV. But the point is we Orthodox live in Byzantium, when Byzantium no longer exists at all. Constantinople is a past dream. As you yourself say, BARTHOLOMEW is "the bishop of Istanbul."
Maybe someone can help me with this? The episcopal assemblies appear to me to have the same hidden agenda as SCOBA: to keep the status quo in place by providing a forum for the chief hierarchs to key an eye on each other under the guise of cooperation if not unity. Ligoneer may have tried to break out of that and the foreign patriarchs squashed it. They may not have been initially on board with SCOBA, either, but perhaps they have come to embrace the concept and the benign inertia that it came to embody.
It seems odd to me that our local bishops have all jumped on this bus to nowhere without any apparent dissent? What's the incentive or what's the leverage? Or maybe no one wanted to be left out? It's all very odd.
MWP
Maybe someone can help me with this? The episcopal assemblies appear to me to have the same hidden agenda as SCOBA: to keep the status quo in place by providing a forum for the chief hierarchs to key an eye on each other under the guise of cooperation if not unity. Ligoneer may have tried to break out of that and the foreign patriarchs squashed it. They may not have been initially on board with SCOBA, either, but perhaps they have come to embrace the concept and the benign inertia that it came to embody.
It seems odd to me that our local bishops have all jumped on this bus to nowhere without any apparent dissent? What's the incentive or what's the leverage? Or maybe no one wanted to be left out? It's all very odd.
MWP
It seems odd to me that our local bishops have all jumped on this bus to nowhere without any apparent dissent? What's the incentive or what's the leverage? Or maybe no one wanted to be left out? It's all very odd.
MWP
Maybe someone can help me with this? The episcopal assemblies appear to me to have the same hidden agenda as SCOBA: to keep the status quo in place by providing a forum for the chief hierarchs to key an eye on each other under the guise of cooperation if not unity. Ligoneer may have tried to break out of that and the foreign patriarchs squashed it. They may not have been initially on board with SCOBA, either, but perhaps they have come to embrace the concept and the benign inertia that it came to embody.
It seems odd to me that our local bishops have all jumped on this bus to nowhere without any apparent dissent? What's the incentive or what's the leverage? Or maybe no one wanted to be left out? It's all very odd.
MWP
#9
MWP
on
2010-10-02 06:45
MWP: SCOBA didn't have any "hidden agenda." In the 1950's, all the Orthodox hierarchs did their own thing and there was no coordination or interface between them. SCOBA originated in 1960-61 to gather the canonical Orthodox bishops to discuss common issues and work together where they could. The Orthodox Christian Education Commission was one great product of SCOBA. After Ligonier in 1994, + Iakavos was FORCED to retire and his replacement DEMANDED that as the Greek representative in America, he should be the head of SCOBA. (The President of SCOBA was always "elected" by the other bishops). To appease the Greeks, they said OK. Then the GOA bishop began to usurp authority which wasn't his to say that he spoke for all the bishops of SCOBA. The Episcopal Assembly now wishes to make this a permanent arrangement; yet, the Episcopal Assemblies have no actual canonical authority. It is good that ALL the bishops gather in the Episcopal Assemblies, but the Greeks wish to make more of this than what it is, "Tea Time for Hierarchs."
#9.1
Anonymous
on
2010-10-04 06:35
The author does not allow comments to this entry
Calendar
|
May '13 | |||||
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||