Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
This is how I understand it.The name of the OCA is not The Orthodox Church of the United States, but rather the Orthodox Church of America. America includes the United States, Canada and Mexico. Thus there are no churches in the OCA that are in countries foreign to America. And last I checked Canada was just given another OCA bishop, so it is not like the OCA treats its Canadian parishes as second class.
That's a very secular approach.I will treat the EP with respect when he respects the work of the American saints and respects the presence of the Orthodox Church in America. Until then I have very little respect for the man.
That's a very secular approach.
I definitely agree... in fact I would go as far as to say it would work (administratively at least).I can't argue with that, although things like translations are generally up to the individual diocesan bishops anyway. As long as this new church does not try to ban every language except for english I think it could work.
I can't argue with that, although things like translations are generally up to the individual diocesan bishops anyway. As long as this new church does not try to ban every language except for english I think it could work.
You might be right on that... I was just trying to offer some perspective. The truth is that none of us here (unless i am unaware of some heirarchy undercover here) is in a position to truly appreciate and understand what the EP, the MP and the OCA Met. is undergoing unless we are their right-hand man... regardless of "who we know" or what we've heard from someone "in the know". It's like being a teacher. I didn't understand this job until I actually did it even though my mom has always been a teacher.
And as far as respecting rank and not necessarily the person... I kind of agree except that I would refer you to my last paragraph above. What do you really know in order to say how much you should respect Pat. Bartholomew (the man). Do you really know what he has to deal with... really? Isn't it better not to judge.
Also, I know people in the OCA had been bitten really badly by the last scandle. But I couldn't have beent he only one to see the connection between today's gospel and Scandal (and I am not OCA!). whom did Christ KNOWINGLY CHOOSE to hold the money box? Judas. And yet, Christ wasn't worried about his Church building. That doesn't mean we should knowlingly leave our church coffers to theives, but certainly that should tell us not only that we will make it through, but that perhaps it was part of God's plan. So let's not worry about who's greedy or power hungry before the Church officially condemns them of such. Let's trust that God knows what he is doing and leave the detective work to other bishops. Let's respect not only the rank but the man as a brother in Christ even if we do not agree with all decisions.
Joshua
I believe that you are correct here.I've read the speech. Got impressed. I don't think that Metr. Jonah promotes nationalism. To me it's rather a sign that American Orthodoxy has come of age.
I concur.I prefer "Orthodoxy in America". The phrase "American Orthodoxy" scares me a bit and I am not sure what that, as a modifier rather than just a location, means in such a pluralistic society.
I've heard that if Archbishop SERAPHIM were made the Metropolitan it would cause his Canadian retirement to go haywire. I am not familiar with how it would go haywire if it could at all. Any insight?Metropolitan Jonah talks about not submitting to a 'foreign' Church... Well guess what, many churches in the OCA are also in a foreign country... (Canada)
During the past 2 OCA elections it was also fairly clear that it's an American dominated church, when Archbishop Seraphim was passed over in favour of Metropolitan Herman (despite Seraphim receiving a majority of the votes, albeit less than 2/3s), and at the most recent council Seraphim withdrew his name from consideration because he felt he'd be out of place (not being an American and all)...
Apart from the nationalist element I thought it was a fairly good speech by Metropolitan Jonah, I understand he's trying to assert the OCA's place.
I think that I do understand what Mike is meaning. The Holy Synod presently has seven diocean bishops, one auxilary bishop and one metropolitan with thirteen dioceses. One diocese, an exarchate, is south of the border in Mexico. One archdiocese is north of the border in Canada and the other eleven are in this mess of fifty states we call a country. Of those thirteen dioceses, three are ethnic dioceses and by that I mean we have the "Romanian Episcopate" and so forth. Well, one bishop has New England and the Albanian Diocese. Another bishop has just the Romanian Episcopate and our metropolitan has his own diocese, plus he is the locuum tenens of the Bulgarian Diocese and has a number of institutions under his own omniphorion.The name of the OCA is not The Orthodox Church of the United States, but rather the Orthodox Church of America. America includes the United States, Canada and Mexico. Thus there are no churches in the OCA that are in countries foreign to America. And last I checked Canada was just given another OCA bishop, so it is not like the OCA treats its Canadian parishes as second class.
At the defense of Michael's sentiment here, Met. JONAH did say that there are those who declare there was no canonical Orthodox bishop until the 1920s when the GOARCH was formed under the EP and there are those who do not recognize the canonization of the saints in America. It sounds to me like those who do say that are more nationalistic than those who are just saying "Get off my lawn".What I can't get over is how easily you are willing to throw words like greed, power-grabbing and neglect, not only in this situation but in every situation where you don't agree with the thoughts of the bishops. Yes, great saints have been martyred or neared martyrdom for speaking and acting out against their bishops, but these were not the type of issues. They were issues of doctrine, not squabbles over jurisdictions and who should be where adn who should be under whom.
The EP can have the Greek diaspora all he wishes. I do not mean any disrepect to the Greeks here, but even in the days of when St. Tikhon was bishop of San Francisco the Greeks couldn't play well with non-Greeks, specifically Russians and Arabs.A few things:
The EP is not trying to be the Pope. He is simply claiming that those in the diaspora (and yes, I agree that in most cases applying "diaspora" to exstablished Orthodox in North America is a misnomer at best) are to be under the care of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
The Roman pope says that all are under his omniphorion. The EP is saying that all outside of other juridictions are to be under his own omniphorion. The OCA is autocephalous, thus the states of Canada, Mexico and the USA are the canonical territory of the OCA, not the EP.And yes, he is reticent (at best) to give them up ever (I'll get back to that). I agree that this is a problem, but this has nothing to do with the modern claims of the RCC in regards to the Papal Primacy. 1) It certainly does not touch at all any idea of Infallibility in any way and 2) it doesn't even touch in any way on Universal Jurisdiction because he is not pretending to have any power or say over Moscow, Jerusalem or Antioch.
I'm the decendent of Irish, Germans, French, Welsh, Scottish and Spanish people. How am I part of the diaspora of Greeks, Russians, or Romanians when none of my ancestors were from those countries, much less Orthodox?Again, I agree his application of diaspora is worse than a stretch and I don't agree with it, at least not in the long run. I agree with the core of the message of Metropolitan JONAH even if he and i don't agree on how quickly this should happen.
The EP should be like the Patriarch of Antioch and just move out of the country. Half of Greece is under his omniphorion, so why not there?However, that said... so? Yeah... so. So some of us pay a tab for one of the most important patriarchates in the history of the Church. We've already lost Rome. Do we not respect things for antiquity's sake? Yes, it may be a sort of unjust persecution (I... guess) for those Americans and Canadians stuck under the awesome 'tyranny' of the EP, but certainly it is not with out a great reward: helping to keep alive an important Patriarchate that, without the worldwide attention, would surely undergo more persecution from the Turks than it already is (the EU doesn't care nor does the US... only Greece and powerful Romania care at all). So, honestly,although I still don't agree with his tactics... were I in his place, I'm not SURE if I would do anything differently other than perhaps being more diplomatic about it (???). It's like when immigrants illegally cross a border to escape hellish hardships. Do I agree with it... no. But can I condemn it... not till I've been there and to be honest, if I had kids and were in the same circumstances, I would surely do the same (although, thankfully, I can only imagine).
Bolded and underlined for emphasis.In the end, we NEED to trust our bishopS (plural) and that is what is so wonderful about them coming together in June. The terrible effects of not having gathered for so long as that we fail to see the Church as one unit. Thank God Almighty that we do tend to view our brothers and sisters as such regardless of Jurisdiction. But we do sometimes forget that although we are not under the direct care of their bishops, they are still bishops just as much as ANY bishop in the Church and they deserve our equal respect and honor. I would not bow any further to the ground for Patriarch Kyrill than I would for Metropolitan Jonah or Patriarch Bartholomew or Bishop Mercurius (whom I am no longer under), etc. The next time we speak about another Orthodox Bishop and we disagree with them, let's imagine they came to our parish to talk about whatever issue is bugging you and he is clear that he wants you to be honest. Ask yourself in ALL HONESTY how you would address him to his face. Would you show him disgust to his face. Would you call him Bart or Joe-Joe or Kyri or Joby or what have you to his face? Would even Christ himself do so to them... or any of us?
I have to agree with you here, but I must disagree on one point: there must be one jurisdiction because having half a dozen bishops in one industrial town cancel Sunday of Orthodoxy because they can not agree to worship in English, Russian, Greek or Basque is, in my opinion, ridiculous. If Sunday of Orthodoxy were canceled because someone was reviving Arianism, that would be different, but because of language?This is an issue between bishops and God has charged them with figuring this out. I have my own strong opinions about one American Jurisdiction and it does not line up with the idea that in a year's (or ten) time we should all be completely autonomous and broken off from all Motherlands. In fact, such an idea of such rapidity in actions strikes me as hasty and most of all very scary (because the more I learn about Orthodoxy the less I appreciate American/Western culture).
I am not judgmental of you at all and I have no intent of putting you on ignore. I am perfectly able to ignore your posts through my own volition without using buttons. If nothing you said was of value, I might due that just to save space on the page, but much of what you say, even in these threads, is of value and especially in other threads. I appreciate you Onion Dome articles, I value your thoughts and opinions on iconography, and many other things.Joshua, do me a favor and put me on ignore. It is obvious you have nothing but disdain for me and I frankly am not going to read your tirade against me nor am I going to respond other than this. It is funny that you go off on me for the views that I have of foreign heirarchs and yet you have a very judgemental view of me that is based on very limited contact with me. Thus I ask you to do me a favor and put me on ignore.
My apologies. Perhaps it came off as supporting the EP or perhaps I misunderstood. Either way, we don't agree with the EP on this one.EC:
Very nice post.
A few things to clarify:
1) I don't know if you fully understood, but I was merely stating the EP's stance... not supporting it except to say that perhaps in such a dire sitation I might to the same... I also said I might talk badly about my neighbor. Point: I'm not saying he is doing the right thing. I am merely stating his position. In fact, I don't agree with it. I think Met. Jonah (and for that matter you and Michael) is right on in many cases.
The problem is this: in North America, there already was a patriarchate in charge: Moscow. Well, at the time the office of the patriarch was abolished, but the territory still belonged to Moscow and not Constantinople. First Alaska, then the immigrants and the rest is history.2) Universal Jurisdiction is VERY different from this. yes, he is claiming sweeping jurisdiction. However, he claims NO jurisdiction over already established patriarchates which means that, even if he had it his way (which he won't, but let's say he did) he wouldn't have anything similar to universal jursidiction because he claims no authority over jurisdictions like Moscow and Antioch. That's very different. This necessarily implies that he has NO sweeping powers that can affect the entire Church. He can decide nothing sweeping without the other Patriarchs in agreement. The pope can do that. That's a VERY important distinction and was the distinction I was trying to make. I wouldn't care at all if the Pope said he has "universal jurisdiction" over Western rite parishes. I would chuckle because that's not universal at all, but I would be fine with that. What I am not fine with is that one bishop has authority over all.
If I remember correctly, the canon of one bishop in one city came from Nicea in 325. I may have to look it up later as I'm using a college computer and I'm sure I would get more than my fair share of funny looks.3) The doctrine is what we as a Church believe about God and salvation. Overlapping bishops is an admministerial problem and yes, goes against canons and is an issue that can create spiritual problems (as does hastiness), but this is not an issue of timeless doctrines.
Thank you4) You and I may agree or disagree on the details or even overall concept of how the Americas should gain autonomy (I agree with you, however, that eventually, this is necessary), but it's beside the point. I stated my opinion only to say that I have one and strong one. My point was to say that my opinion and your opinion in the end need to give way to whoever our bishops are in the end. Yes, it is good and even important to state them. But in the end, this is how it is. And when we disagree, we need to do so with respect. I commend you on your post which i found entirely respectful of all bishops as both people and holders of the seat despite how much you may disagree with the actions of some. THAT is the point. We agree while still recognizing the dignity of each one of us as brothers and sister in CHRIST. that's what you did.
And I am glad you bolded my statement that we need to respect all bishops. We do. The EP, to an extent, is my bishop and if I were to meet him I would show him the respect due any bishop and I hope I would do the same behind his back as well. that's what I saw in your post.
In Christ,
Josh
Honestly,I probably didn't make it clear enough. I didn't focus attention on how I felt about this issue (until at the end) so as to not take away from my point which was not on whether or not I agreed with the EP.My apologies. Perhaps it came off as supporting the EP or perhaps I misunderstood. Either way, we don't agree with the EP on this one.
Surely you are right. However, there are a few things to consider that might make this understandable. First of all, for many of them, it may be very difficult for a Slavic priest to connect with Greeks or antiochians, not only on a linguistic level but also on a cultural level. Even the setup of the sanctuary is different enough to throw a liturgical purist into a conniption fit. Working with non-orthodox no established tradition is different than working with Orthodox with an already established tradition. It's difficult for them to remain sensitive to their cultural needs (not alienating an entire generation from the Faith) while knowing was is good accepted practice and not. It's a vastly different situation than, say, going to Russia where most are Orthodox and therefore you, as the Greek or Antiochian, logically assimilate yourself to the traditions and even language of the local Church. But in a pluralistic society where Orthodoxy is not established, and in such a vast land (I mean, NY and Alabama are worlds away from Alaska both in space and culturally... even today) it's difficult to see the relevance some west coast Slavic parishes have in common with yours and how that bishop could possibly communicate with you effectively to get things done. So, while you are right, it seems overly idealistic (not stupid at all, because you are correct) to expect that that's what could have realistically happened. IMO.The problem is this: in North America, there already was a patriarchate in charge: Moscow. Well, at the time the office of the patriarch was abolished, but the territory still belonged to Moscow and not Constantinople. First Alaska, then the immigrants and the rest is history.
From what I have studied some groups such as the Greeks, and others, instead of going to the already established Russian bishops in the North American continent, instead went to their own homelands. The bishops in those homelands should have said to the people "No, there is already a bishop over there. You are under his omniphorion", but as history has shown us this is not a perfect world and even bishops are subject to error.
And what I have bolded is what I see as a significant and overarching difference. Certainly there are similarities, but I don't see any meaningful similarities. I have a feeling that this is just a point you and I will have to agree to disagree on. Perhaps I am missing something and could be convinced, but I think you and I a percieving different emphases (is that the plural?)What I saw in the Roman Church was one guy having everything under his thumb with a de-facto iron fist to support it. What I see with the EP is one guy trying to have many things under his thumb even though there was a thumb already there for 200 years!From what I see of what happened to Archbishop Iakovos of blessed memory when he arranged the Lingonier Meeting in 1994, the EP will not hesitate to silence any voice that says "we can't just serve the diaspora".
I agree. If at one time the EP was relevant due to claims to the diaspora, I don't see them applying well today. Even those who aren't of convert families are often more American than Greek in the way they perceive the world and in the language they use (or more aptly put, do not use).What I also see with the EP is somebody blind to the fact that most of the Orthodox Christians in Canada, USA and Mexico are either converts or the 'cradle' children of convert parents. Most of either groups are not a part of the "diaspora". The Exarchate of Mexico within the OCA began when about 10,000 Mexican Old Catholics became Orthodox back in the 1970s or 1980s. I do not see how they are a part of the Greek, Slavic or Arab diaspora!
Back to the important issue at hand.... This is what matters. Again, the rest of what I am writing in this post are just personal opinions that could be TOTALLY erred, uninformed or just preference.I respect Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I both as a bishop and as a human being.
Addressed above.I am sure that there are issues going on that neither you or I are aware of in Turkey, but it strikes me as odd that he either is or appears to be blind to the background of the flock he is trying to be the sole shepherd of. It also strikes me as incredibly odd that A) when before the Bolshevik Revolution few, if any, of the "Old World" patriarchs corrected the people who turned to them and told them "there is/are bishop/s in your new land. Listen to him/them" and B) here we are thirty-nine years after the autocephaly of the OCA and almost twenty after the fall of Communism and there are still overlapping jurisdictions.
I don't deny that this is a canon. What I mean by doctrine is the fundamental doctrines of our faith that, if denied, creates a new heretical religion. Overlapping bishops is a temporal problem but is does not rock the foundations of our very faith. Do you get what I mean. I'm not saying it doesn't matter, but it is not a point to be martyred for either.If I remember correctly, the canon of one bishop in one city came from Nicea in 325. I may have to look it up later as I'm using a college computer and I'm sure I would get more than my fair share of funny looks.
As much as I look forward to any response you might have, I hope not to see one until after Pascha as that is your true desire and I don't want to take you away from your spiritual need with a post athat is 95% unimportant and the other 5% of which is not in dispute among the two of us.Now I'd better stay out of this thread until after Pascha like I said before
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?