I suppose in the end I support the following broad concepts to guide the Church in discernment.
1) that whatever is done is always done with the prime intention of spreading the Gospel in both fraternal love (that means respecting each other, both layity and clergy) and love for all man kind.
2) The litmus test of us being One Body is two-fold a) Our adherance to the Orthodox faith b) the fact that we visibly intercommune (or that such is permitted/practiced)
3) That, while this is not an issue of defining the faith, we all recognize that this is an important issue that needs to be addressed and eventually resolved without haste.
4) We should always be sensative to the needs of parishes and not force anyone out from under a Metroploia/Synod.
-So, if a compromise is worked out with the EP where he would hand his parishes over to be Autocephalous or to join the OCA but some parishes have strong reservations and wish to remain under the care of the EP, forcing them out would not work towards any kind of unity except on paper. yes, this would make the process slow, but it would also make whatever governing North American Canonical Body (be it the OCA or a Synod) seriously consider the POV of parishes and not only the bigger picture.
-As one who is under the MP, although I personally would have no issue with going under the OCA, for many of us, it would be a sad day to leave Moscow (especially the more "ethnic" parishes, which my parish is not so much) and if some parishes felt "forced" out or coerced, hard-feelings would arise where none existed before. that doesn't mean that it should be that way, but that's the reality.
4) That the canons regarding jurisdictional issues and the Patriarchs should be a guide but not a hinderance to pragmatism in this matter.
-That is, regardless of who is techinically right, on any of this, we need to keep in mind the first concept above.
- Example (pertinent to this discussion): regadless on HOW or IF the OCA should have become autocephalous, the fact remains that it now is and there has never been a point at which communion has been broken between OCA parishes and EP parishes in the US. So, regardless of who's "right", it is futile to not recognize the autocephaly of the OCA.
-This also implies that non-canonical situations will probably be officially recognized, not as being ideal but for the sake of sincerity and point (1. In other words, there will be an awkward growing time when things are officially messed-up (canonically) but, if they work, then, so be it
5) But, we should not linger in canonically messed up situations. We should always officially aim for a more "canonical" situation, not dwelling on the past (The MP shouldnt have... or the EP should have) but looking ahead always.
My process is first and foremost pragmatic and, yes, it is not quick or speedy. It also calls for a lot of humility. If that means that in the end the EP gets certain territories that were formerly under another patriarch, then so be it. If that means one side is more humble and loses parishes, or the "right" side loses the battle, but the peace is preserved and the TRUTH of the faith is preserved, then so be it. If that means that we are all under the EP in five years (not that that would ever happen) in the US for whatever reason... then so be it (and I don't support that happening at all!).
Joshua
1) that whatever is done is always done with the prime intention of spreading the Gospel in both fraternal love (that means respecting each other, both layity and clergy) and love for all man kind.
2) The litmus test of us being One Body is two-fold a) Our adherance to the Orthodox faith b) the fact that we visibly intercommune (or that such is permitted/practiced)
3) That, while this is not an issue of defining the faith, we all recognize that this is an important issue that needs to be addressed and eventually resolved without haste.
4) We should always be sensative to the needs of parishes and not force anyone out from under a Metroploia/Synod.
-So, if a compromise is worked out with the EP where he would hand his parishes over to be Autocephalous or to join the OCA but some parishes have strong reservations and wish to remain under the care of the EP, forcing them out would not work towards any kind of unity except on paper. yes, this would make the process slow, but it would also make whatever governing North American Canonical Body (be it the OCA or a Synod) seriously consider the POV of parishes and not only the bigger picture.
-As one who is under the MP, although I personally would have no issue with going under the OCA, for many of us, it would be a sad day to leave Moscow (especially the more "ethnic" parishes, which my parish is not so much) and if some parishes felt "forced" out or coerced, hard-feelings would arise where none existed before. that doesn't mean that it should be that way, but that's the reality.
4) That the canons regarding jurisdictional issues and the Patriarchs should be a guide but not a hinderance to pragmatism in this matter.
-That is, regardless of who is techinically right, on any of this, we need to keep in mind the first concept above.
- Example (pertinent to this discussion): regadless on HOW or IF the OCA should have become autocephalous, the fact remains that it now is and there has never been a point at which communion has been broken between OCA parishes and EP parishes in the US. So, regardless of who's "right", it is futile to not recognize the autocephaly of the OCA.
-This also implies that non-canonical situations will probably be officially recognized, not as being ideal but for the sake of sincerity and point (1. In other words, there will be an awkward growing time when things are officially messed-up (canonically) but, if they work, then, so be it
5) But, we should not linger in canonically messed up situations. We should always officially aim for a more "canonical" situation, not dwelling on the past (The MP shouldnt have... or the EP should have) but looking ahead always.
My process is first and foremost pragmatic and, yes, it is not quick or speedy. It also calls for a lot of humility. If that means that in the end the EP gets certain territories that were formerly under another patriarch, then so be it. If that means one side is more humble and loses parishes, or the "right" side loses the battle, but the peace is preserved and the TRUTH of the faith is preserved, then so be it. If that means that we are all under the EP in five years (not that that would ever happen) in the US for whatever reason... then so be it (and I don't support that happening at all!).
Joshua
Upvote
0
